There are a number of problems in this verse, but before considering them, it will be helpful to emphasize two points. The first is that the closing words of the verse (From this day on I will bless you), which are perfectly clear in meaning, form the climax to the whole paragraph 2.14-19. Accordingly, they should be translated in such a way that this is clear to the reader. The second is that the earlier part of the verse, which contains the difficulties, must be interpreted in such a way as to fit with the plain sense of the second part. In studying this verse, it is important for translators to understand something of the climate and agricultural patterns of the Holy Land. This is especially true if the translators live in the southern hemisphere or in areas where the weather and vegetation are totally different from those in that part of the world.

There the summers extend from May to September, and are hot and almost completely dry. During this time the main crops are harvested—wheat in May and June, and grapes in August and September. In October and November, the early rains are expected. These soften the ground and allow it to be ploughed and planted with grain seed for the following year’s crop. During the winter months of December, January and February, the weather grows colder, with rain at intervals, or even snow. The farmers hope for more rain in March or April to help the growing grain crops to mature well. Since the total rainfall over the whole year is not very great, even small decreases could have a severe effect on the crops, and cause real hardship to the people.

Is the seed yet in the barn?: As Revised Standard Version shows, the first part of the verse takes the form of two rhetorical questions, and this is the first of them. If the answer this question expects is “No,” we must still ask what the seed is, and why it is not in the barn, before we can understand the point of the question. At least three different answers are possible:
(1) The seed is that gathered in the relatively poor harvest of the summer of 520, and it is not in the barn because there was so little of it that it has already been eaten. This according to Driver is the understanding behind Revised Version, and is also found in Good News Translation, Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente. It fits the thought of verses 16-17, but does not seem fully convincing, as it does not lead on well to the promise of blessing in the second half of the verse. If even the seed grain had been eaten, how could there be any harvest the following year?
(2) The seed is that yet to be gathered from the harvest expected in the following summer, 519. It is not yet in the barn because there has not yet been time for it to grow since the work on the Temple was restarted. This is the view of Mitchell. He says that Haggai’s argument is as follows: “You have not yet had a harvest since you began to work seriously on the Temple. Do not be discouraged, for now that you have begun, you can be confident that the LORD will give you better harvests.” This fits with the promise of blessing in the second half of the verse, but it is still not convincing because it does not follow well after verses 16 and 17, and it makes the prophet ask the people what appears to be a silly question. Obviously in December the harvest of the following summer could not have been gathered in!
(3) The seed is the seed grain remaining from the harvest of 520, and it is not in the barn because it has already been sown in the ground. This view is held by Cashdan, Baldwin, R. L. Smith, and Merrill. In this case Haggai’s argument would be: “You know what bad harvests you have had in the past (verses 16-17). But now consider the present. Since you started to rebuild the Temple, the LORD has given enough rain to soften the earth and allow you to plant the seed for next year’s harvest. Take this as a sign of encouragement, for the LORD will certainly bless you with better harvests in the future.” This fits both with the previous verses, and with the promise of blessing at the end of verse 19, and seems to be the most probable interpretation.

These then are different ways of interpreting a negative answer. But it is also possible to take the answer to this question as positive: “Yes, the seed still is in the barn.” This is the view of New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, which translates “take note while the seed is still in the granary” (supported also by King James Version, New Living Translation). In this case the seed must be the seed grain, as in answer (3) above, and if it is still “in the granary,” then it has not yet been planted. While this interpretation is grammatically possible, it does not fit well with the date of the prophecy in December, as the sowing of seed for the next year’s harvest was normally done well before then. If it had not been done by then, there could be little hope of a good harvest the following year.

In connection with this first question, it remains to note that New English Bible and Revised English Bible adjust the Hebrew text by adding a word similar to the Hebrew word for barn. They then translate “will the seed still be diminished in the barn?” (similarly Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible). Presumably this is intended to mean “Will you go on having bad harvests in the future?” This rendering would not appear to improve the flow of the paragraph as a whole, and is not recommended to translators.

Do the vine, the fig tree, the pomegranate, and the olive tree still yield nothing?: We may now move to the second of the two rhetorical questions, and must begin by noting three textual points, which we will label (a), (b) and (c). The first (a) is that the interrogative particle which occurs with the first question is not repeated with the second one. Many translations (Moffatt, Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, New English Bible/Revised English Bible) assume that the influence of the particle applies here also, although it is grammatically possible to treat this second question as a negative statement (Revised Version, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, New International Version, Beck, Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). This latter option would seem to require that the first question “Is the seed yet in the barn?” should be given answer (1) above, “No, it has all been eaten.” This fits with verses 16-17, but makes for a very abrupt change to the promise of blessing at the end of verse 19. New International Version senses this, and makes 19b a separate paragraph. On the whole it seems better to regard verse 19a as containing two questions (with Driver, Chary, Petersen, R. L. Smith, Meyers & Meyers, and Verhoef) rather than one question and one statement (with G. A. Smith, Amsler, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, and Merrill).

The second textual point (b) is that most modern translations follow the Septuagint in taking the first word of the second question as still (Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, Bible de Jérusalem, Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible/Revised English Bible; compare New American Bible, Good News Translation, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). This does not involve changing the consonants of the traditional Hebrew text, but simply supplying a different vowel.

The third textual point (c) is that several modern translations also follow the Septuagint in taking the word translated yield in Revised Standard Version as a present participle rather than as a perfect tense. Again, no change in the Hebrew consonants is involved. The effect of this is to give it a future rather than a past reference (Moffatt, Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible/Revised English Bible). These small adjustments help to keep the two questions parallel with each other, and translators are recommended to accept them.

The second question is then to be translated as Do the vine, the fig tree, the pomegranate, and the olive tree still yield nothing? If the answer expected is “No, they are yielding fruit now,” then Haggai is saying in effect “The vines and fruit trees are looking in better condition now than they have looked for years at this time of year, December. You should therefore take hope for better yields in the future.” This agrees with answer (3) to the first question, and helps to form an adequate link between verses 16-17 and the promise of blessing in verse 19b.

However, it is possible to take the expected answer to the second question as “Yes, the fruit trees still yield nothing.” This would also seem to require either negative answers (1) or (2) or else a positive answer to the first question. If the negative answers (1) or (2) are assumed, then the resulting interpretation as a whole is open to the same objections as those answers. It also seems improbable that the two questions would have opposite answers. If a positive answer is to be given to both questions (as in New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, New Living Translation), then Haggai’s argument would run “take note now, even before the seed for the harvest of 519 has been sown, and before the fruit trees have started their spring growth, that the LORD has already promised to give you better harvests in the future.” This interpretation forms an adequate link between verses 16-17 and the promise of future blessing, but as pointed out before, it does not fit with the stage of the agricultural cycle that would be expected in December.

We have examined the various possible ways of interpreting the first part of this verse. However, even if we accept that both of the opening clauses are in fact questions, they may nevertheless not be translated as questions, or at least not as direct questions. Bible de Jérusalem and Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible for instance, link them closely with the command to think carefully in verse 18, and translate them as indirect questions: “Reflect carefully … if grain is still short in the barn, and if vine and fig tree, pomegranate and olive, still bear no fruit” (Jerusalem Bible). The sense is that in the future there will be no lack of grain or fruit because the LORD intends to give better harvests.

New American Bible and Good News Translation translate the two rhetorical questions as negative statements and Good News Translation joins them into one sentence with the final promise of blessing: “Although there is no grain left, and the grapevines, fig trees, pomegranates, and olive trees have not yet produced, yet from now on I will bless you.” This translation assumes negative answer (1) to the first question, but Good News Translation has avoided the abrupt transition from present hardship to future blessing by its restructuring, both here and in the previous verse.

In view of the bewildering variety of possible interpretations and combinations of interpretations, how is the translator to approach this verse? For the reasons given in the above discussion, the recommendations are:
—to interpret both clauses as questions;
—to supply negative answer (3) to the first question;
—to supply a negative answer to the second question;
—to translate the questions as statements and thus make clear what the expected answers are.

A possible translation model would be:

• The seed grain is no longer in the barn [or, your barns] but has already been sown. The grapevines, fig trees, pomegranates and olive trees will not continue to give poor crops. From now on I will certainly bless you with good harvests.

With regard to translation matters, we may first note that the vine and the olive tree are central features of the culture of the Holy Land. They and their fruit are frequently mentioned in Scripture (for instance 1.11; 2.12) and so even in areas where these trees and their fruit are not known, translators must find some way of speaking about them even if loan words have to be used. However, the fig tree and the pomegranate are less important, and in this verse could be translated with a general expression such as “fruit trees” or “other fruit trees.”

Secondly, since the word bless in this verse refers primarily to agricultural success, it would be good in many languages to make this clear, as in the translation model suggested above. Compare the similar treatment of other phrases related to agriculture in 1.11; 2.14, 17. Bless in this context means to “bring good upon.” So in certain languages I will bless you may be expressed as “I will cause you to have good harvests [or, crops].”

Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. & Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Haggai. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2002. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .