Joel
Andrew Perry2009, Joel
This full-length commentary presents a reading of Joel based in the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah and is part of an approach that redraws a number of prophets in the late eighth and early seventh centuries including, notably, Isaiah 40-66.
Related papers
The Shattered Dream. The Prophecies of Joel: A Bridge between Ezekiel and Haggai?
Translated and published in Hungarian by Xaver Szabo, Collection of studies on prophecy in the biblical world, 2017.
Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, 2011
Joel: A new translation
This is a draft translation of the book of Joel, produced for use in Ernst Wendlund's summer translation class in Jerusalem.
David C. Hymes - Notes on Joel 3:1-5 (pp. 83-103)
Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies and APTS Press, 1998
The pericope, Joel 3:1-5 has attracted the attention of both Biblical Scholars and interested believers. This ability to attract attention, derives from both its Old Testament context and significance along with its New Testament usage’s (Acts 2:17-21; Mark 13:24; Rom 10:13). Yet beyond its intra-testamentality it challenges the way we understand our relationship with God and those special “transformational moments” we experience and call spiritual.
JOEL: THE DAY OF DECISION
THE FRESH WINDS of the Spirit blow through the oracles of Joel, renewing hope that too soon dwindled in ancient Judah. The time for decision had come. Joel calls Israel to it by his numerous imperatives. Perhaps only the Gentile nations were to be gathered in the Valley of Jehoshaphat for the divine verdict (3:1–3), but if Israel was not there to hear his own sentence, it was only because he had responded to the call of the prophets to repent (2:12–13). The thin thread of " perhaps " on which hisfuture hung (2:14) turned out to be the thread of divine grace, the strength of which was dependent, not on the texture of the thread, but on the faithfulness of the Weaver. The Lord's covenantal grace, periodically obstructed by a national agenda for immorality, encountered no wall it could not scale and no foe it could not subdue. Joel's prophecy of the outpouring of the Spirit, when men and women in universal order would join the ranks of the prophets, is a colossal testimony to that truth. Even the ravaging locust plague, harbinger of the Day of the Lord, like the Exile that left Judah reeling in wrathful intoxication, only closed one disappointing chapter and opened up a more hopeful one. JOEL THE MAN Aside from the name of his father, Pethuel, we know nothing personal about Joel. Any information must be inferred from the book itself. He was obviously from Judah, a fact that can be deduced from his numerous references to Zion (2:1, 15, 23; 3:17) and to Judah and Jerusalem (2:32; 3:1, 6, 8, 17–20). His intimate knowledge of and a healthy respect for the priests might also indicate that he lived somewhere in the environs of Jerusalem, or at least in Judah. However, he evidently was not a priest, for he sets himself apart from them (1:13; 2:17). We may also suggest that he was not one of the elders of Israel, inasmuch as he addresses them as a group (1:2) and calls for their assemblage to avert the terrible Day of the Lord (2:16). Whether he was a Temple prophet, as A. S. Kapelrud has proposed, 1 is difficult to say. He recognized the priests as leaders of the community and their role in Israel's destiny as strategic (2:17). Yet he had no biased loyalty to the priesthood that caused him to hide moral misconduct under a camouflage of correct Temple ritual. Although Joel's passion was not the sins of the people, it is safe to assume that the Temple ritual was functioning normally, and the devastation of crops by the locusts that resulted in the discontinuance of the cereal and drink offering was deplorable in his eyes (1:9, 13). Indeed, the resumption of those offerings was numbered among the blessings of the new day he hoped for (2:14). Judging the disposition of the Temple prophets by the political coalition the priests and prophets had formed during Jeremiah's time (Jer. 29:24– 32), then Joel was not a Temple prophet. If more honest, less politicized Temple prophets existed in OT times, then we may entertain the notion that Joel belonged among them. However, the respect and sympathy that he bore toward the Temple and priesthood are more likely the healthy side of the prophets' view of the cult, a side we rarely see in the pre-exilic prophets, but which becomes evident among the post-exilic prophets, especially in Haggai and Zechariah. 2
Understanding the Structure of the Book of Joel in light of Deut 30:1-10
This paper presentation is an update from previous paper presentation "The Expansion of the Historical Schema of Deuteronomists in the Book of Joel." Since the middle of the 20th century, scholars have greatly emphasized the unity of the book of Joel whether it is on the authorial or redactional level (Wolff, Bergler, and Prinsloo). The short book of Joel, however, includes two or three different days of YWHW. Joel 1-2 describes the imminent day of YHWH that is coming upon Jerusalem and Joel 3-4 describes an eschatological day of YHWH that will come upon the nations in the distant future. Moreover, Joel 3 is often regarded as a different day of YHWH from the one in Joel 4 (Rentorff). Why did the redactor of the book of Joel put the three different days of YHWH together? How were these three days of YHWH put together? The comparison between Deuteronomy 28-30, specifically Deuteronomy 30:1-10, and Joel 1-4 sheds light on the understanding of the structure of Joel 1-4. While the similarities between Deuteronomy 28-30 and Joel 1-2 were studied by Bergler, Nogalski, and Stuart, the similarities between Deuteronomy 28-30 and the second half of Joel have not yet been explored. The literary sequence of the series of events in Joel 1-4 follows the Deuteronomic schema of the Israelite history in Deuteronomy 28-30, in particular 30:1-10. By the comparison between Deuteronomy 28-30 and the entire book of Joel, I will argue that the redactor of Joel, anchoring on prophetic traditions and languages, expands the Deuteronomic schema of the Israelite history by connecting it with the day of YHWH traditions and by coloring it with eschatological language.
Joel
Andrew Perry
and they shall spring up as among the grass,
as willows by the watercourse
This book is dedicated to Paul of Australia
2
WILLOW PUBLICATIONS
13 St. Georges terrace
East Boldon
Tyne and Wear
NE36 0LU. U.K.
[email protected]
© Andrew Perry, 2009
ISBN
Printed by www.lulu.com and available from:
www.lulu.com/willowpublications
Also available from Willow:
Christadelphian EJournal of Biblical Interpretation
www.christadelphian-ejbi.org
Fellowship Matters
Beginnings and Endings
Head-Coverings and Creation
Before He Was Born
Demons, Magic and Medicine
Demons and Politics
Job
3
Table of Contents
PREFACE ........................................................................................................................ 10
CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................ 14
Studies and Method ......................................................................................................... 14
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 14
2. History of Study ................................................................................................. 14
2.1 Date and Provenance .................................................................................... 16
2.2 Structure and Unity ....................................................................................... 17
2.3 Position in the Twelve .................................................................................. 19
2.4 Message and Theology .................................................................................. 20
2.4.1 Locusts ..................................................................................................... 21
2.4.2 Day of the Lord ...................................................................................... 22
3. Method................................................................................................................. 23
3.1 Text and Translations.................................................................................... 23
3.2 Historical Method .......................................................................................... 24
3.3 Literary Questions ......................................................................................... 25
3.3.1 Metaphor and Simile .............................................................................. 25
3.3.2 Intertextual Study.................................................................................... 25
3.4 Prophecy and Fulfilment .............................................................................. 27
4. Conclusion........................................................................................................... 28
CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................ 29
Date and Provenance ...................................................................................................... 29
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 29
2. Historical Markers .............................................................................................. 30
3. Canonical Evidence............................................................................................ 32
4. Linguistic Evidence ............................................................................................ 36
4.1 Examples of “Early” and “Late” Biblical Hebrew .................................... 36
4.2 Eighth Century Word Association .............................................................. 38
4.3 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 38
5. Quotations, Allusions and Echoes ................................................................... 38
5.1 Amos ............................................................................................................... 39
5.1.1 The Voice of Yahweh ............................................................................ 40
5.1.2 Day of the Lord ...................................................................................... 41
5.1.3 The Tent of David .................................................................................. 42
5.1.4 Retribution ............................................................................................... 42
5.2 Obadiah........................................................................................................... 42
5.3 Isaiah ............................................................................................................... 47
5.3.1 Isaiah 13-14.............................................................................................. 48
5.3.2 Other Isaiah Texts .................................................................................. 50
5.4 Later Prophets ................................................................................................ 52
5.4.1 Zephaniah ................................................................................................ 52
5.4.2 Jeremiah ................................................................................................... 53
5.5 Other Writings ............................................................................................... 53
6. Judean Provenance: ............................................................................................ 53
4
7. Conclusion........................................................................................................... 53
CHAPTER THREE ....................................................................................................... 54
Pre-Exilic Dating ............................................................................................................. 54
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 54
2. Uzziah .................................................................................................................. 54
3. Joash/Jehoash of Judah ..................................................................................... 55
4. Hezekiah .............................................................................................................. 56
4.1 Ahaz and Hezekiah........................................................................................ 57
5. Zedekiah .............................................................................................................. 58
6. Conclusion........................................................................................................... 60
CHAPTER FOUR .......................................................................................................... 61
The Assyrian Hegemony ................................................................................................ 61
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 61
2. Situating Joel ....................................................................................................... 61
3. Kings and Chronicles ......................................................................................... 62
3.1 Joel 1 and 2 ..................................................................................................... 62
3.1.1 Hezekiah .................................................................................................. 65
3.2 Joel 3................................................................................................................ 68
3.3 Summary ......................................................................................................... 69
4. Isaiah .................................................................................................................... 70
4.1 Isaiah 7 ............................................................................................................ 70
4.2 Isaiah 34 .......................................................................................................... 72
5. Assyrian Records ................................................................................................ 73
5.1 Tiglath-Pileser ................................................................................................ 73
5.2 Shalmaneser and Sargon ............................................................................... 75
5.3 Sennacherib .................................................................................................... 76
5.4 Summary ......................................................................................................... 76
6. Locusts ................................................................................................................. 76
6.1 Locust Army................................................................................................... 77
6.1.1 Joel 1 ......................................................................................................... 78
6.1.2 Joel 2 ......................................................................................................... 78
6.2 Military Identities ........................................................................................... 79
6.2.1 Joel 1 ......................................................................................................... 79
6.2.2 Joel 2 ......................................................................................................... 80
6.2.2.1 The Northerner ................................................................................ 80
6.2.2.2 Army .................................................................................................. 81
6.2.3 Joel 3 ......................................................................................................... 82
6.3 Objections ...................................................................................................... 82
7. Conclusion........................................................................................................... 85
CHAPTER FIVE ............................................................................................................ 86
Post-Exilic Dating ........................................................................................................... 86
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 86
2. Post-Exilic Characteristics ................................................................................. 86
2.1 King and Priests ............................................................................................. 87
5
2.2 The Wall .......................................................................................................... 88
2.3 Captivity .......................................................................................................... 89
2.4 Tyre, Sidon, Greece and the Sabeans .......................................................... 90
2.5 Temple ............................................................................................................ 91
2.6 Apocalyptic Theology ................................................................................... 91
2.7 Nations ............................................................................................................ 91
3. Locust Plague ...................................................................................................... 92
3.1 Joel 1................................................................................................................ 93
3.2 Joel 2................................................................................................................ 94
3.3 Joel 1 and 2 ..................................................................................................... 94
3.4 Joel 3................................................................................................................ 95
3.5 Critique............................................................................................................ 95
4. Eschatology ......................................................................................................... 96
4.1 Critique............................................................................................................ 98
CHAPTER SIX ............................................................................................................... 99
Unity and Authorship ..................................................................................................... 99
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 99
2. Structural Patterns .............................................................................................. 99
2.1 Dividing Joel................................................................................................... 99
2.2 Symmetry ...................................................................................................... 101
2.3 Describing and Identifying Oracle Units .................................................. 106
2.3.1 Joel 1 ....................................................................................................... 106
2.3.2 Joel 2 ....................................................................................................... 107
2.3.2.1 Joel 2:28-32 ..................................................................................... 108
2.3.3 Joel 3 ....................................................................................................... 108
3. Reading Tendencies ......................................................................................... 109
4. Authorship ........................................................................................................ 111
5. Conclusion......................................................................................................... 112
CHAPTER SEVEN ..................................................................................................... 113
Message, Setting and Theology .................................................................................... 113
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 113
2. Theology ............................................................................................................ 113
3. Setting ................................................................................................................ 115
4. Written Design.................................................................................................. 116
5. Conclusion......................................................................................................... 117
CHAPTER EIGHT ...................................................................................................... 118
Lament Oracles .............................................................................................................. 118
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 118
2. Speech and Writing in Joel .............................................................................. 118
3. Superscription ................................................................................................... 119
4. Opening Exhortation ....................................................................................... 120
5. Locust Rhyme ................................................................................................... 123
6. Drunkards.......................................................................................................... 125
7. Nation ................................................................................................................ 126
6
7.1 Identity of the Nation ................................................................................. 128
8. Lamentation ...................................................................................................... 130
8.1 A Virgin Lament .......................................................................................... 130
8.2 Husbandmen and Vinedressers ................................................................. 133
8.3 A Priestly Lament ........................................................................................ 134
9. Conclusion......................................................................................................... 137
CHAPTER NINE......................................................................................................... 139
The Day of the Lord ..................................................................................................... 139
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 139
2. Amos .................................................................................................................. 139
3. Isaiah .................................................................................................................. 141
3.1 Bare Hill ........................................................................................................ 141
3.2 Mighty Ones ................................................................................................. 142
3.3 Noise of a Multitude ................................................................................... 143
3.4 The Day of the Lord ................................................................................... 143
4. Obadiah ............................................................................................................. 145
5. Joel...................................................................................................................... 154
6. Conclusion......................................................................................................... 157
CHAPTER TEN ........................................................................................................... 158
Deliverance and Restoration ........................................................................................ 158
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 158
2. Dividing Oracles ............................................................................................... 158
3. Day of the Lord ................................................................................................ 159
3.1 Blow the Trumpet ....................................................................................... 160
3.2 Day of Darkness .......................................................................................... 161
3.3 A Great people ............................................................................................. 161
3.4 Fire and Flame ............................................................................................. 164
3.5 Horses ........................................................................................................... 164
3.6 Chariots ......................................................................................................... 165
3.7 Faces .............................................................................................................. 165
3.8 Mighty Men upon the Wall......................................................................... 166
3.9 The City ........................................................................................................ 166
4. Heavens and Earth ........................................................................................... 167
5. Sun, Moon and Stars ........................................................................................ 175
5.1 Locusts .......................................................................................................... 176
5.2 Storm Clouds................................................................................................ 176
5.3 Wind-Driven Sandstorms ........................................................................... 177
5.4 Solar and Lunar Eclipses ............................................................................ 177
5.5 Divination ..................................................................................................... 177
6. The Army of the Lord ..................................................................................... 182
7. Repentance ........................................................................................................ 183
8. Calling an Assembly ......................................................................................... 184
9. The Northerner ................................................................................................ 185
9.1 Zephonite ..................................................................................................... 186
7
9.2 The Face and Rear End of the Northerner .............................................. 187
9.3 Far Off in a Wilderness ............................................................................... 188
9.4 Assyrian Records ......................................................................................... 189
9.5 Great Things................................................................................................. 190
9.6 Enemy from the North ............................................................................... 190
10. Restoration ...................................................................................................... 191
10.1 Restoration ................................................................................................. 192
10.2 Teacher of Righteousness ......................................................................... 193
10.3 The Years of the Locust ........................................................................... 196
10.4 I am the Lord ............................................................................................. 197
11. Bestowal of the Spirit..................................................................................... 199
11.1 Prophecy, Dreams and Visions................................................................ 203
11.2 Wonders in the Heavens........................................................................... 205
11.3 Blood, Fire and Pillars of Smoke ............................................................. 206
12. Sun and Moon ................................................................................................ 208
13. Deliverance in Jerusalem ............................................................................... 210
14. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 211
CHAPTER ELEVEN .................................................................................................. 212
Judgments on the Nations ............................................................................................ 212
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 212
2. A Time for Revenge ......................................................................................... 213
3. Pleading for the People.................................................................................... 215
3.1 Captivity ........................................................................................................ 216
3.2 Valley of Jehoshaphat.................................................................................. 218
3.3 Trading Captives .......................................................................................... 219
3.4 Tyre, Sidon and Philistia ............................................................................. 220
3.4.1 Recompense .......................................................................................... 222
3.4.2 Gold and Silver ..................................................................................... 223
3.4.3 Ionians and Sabeans ............................................................................. 223
4. Summons to Battle ........................................................................................... 224
4.1 Historical Situation ...................................................................................... 228
5. Valley of Decision ............................................................................................ 228
6. Sun, Moon and Stars ........................................................................................ 229
7. Zion Inviolate ................................................................................................... 230
7.1. Jerusalem Garrison ..................................................................................... 231
8. The Dwelling of the Lord ............................................................................... 232
8.1 Wine, Milk and Water ................................................................................. 233
8.2 Egypt and Edom.......................................................................................... 233
9. Conclusion......................................................................................................... 235
POSTSCRIPT ................................................................................................................ 236
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................ 237
8
9
PREFACE
A reader might ask: Is there a need for another commentary on Joel? A preface is a
place to answer such a question and my reply is that this study of Joel offers a
reading of the book centred in the eighth century and the political situation of the
reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah. It is a commentary that seeks to bring out the
historical reference of the constituent oracles for their original audience. As such
this study does not duplicate other commentaries; it offers a challenge to the
consensus that Joel is post-exilic.1 It is our view that Joel is just one of several
prophetic books that need to be re-situated in the eighth century.
Where studies of Joel perform well is in the areas of philological analysis and
devotional application; hence, we do not duplicate this kind of material, although
we include a final postscript on the relevance of Joel to Christians living in the “last
days”. We believe that it is relevant today because its oracles present a pattern in
which God deals with his people; such a pattern is taken up in other scriptures as a
template for the “last days”.
Where commentaries and monographs on Joel do not do so well is in historical
reconstruction and in theology. We work with the received Hebrew text and three
translations—the KJV, RSV and NASB; as far as possible we rely on the choices in
these versions. On this basis we seek to reconstruct Joel’s times and understand his
message. We take the view that Joel is part of inspired scripture and here we follow
the common belief of Jesus and the first century church. Thus we respect the
scriptural text and adopt a harmonic approach in interpretation. This approach
represents another difference with more critical church commentaries.
It is well known that Joel lacks unequivocal determinate historical markers, and so
we have given the most weight to the external evidence for its date, and this is its
position in the Hebrew and Greek canons which, on balance, suggest an eighth
century date. We also argue for the view that the book is a literary unity and
therefore we have no reason to overturn the external witness of the
superscription—that it is the work of one author, Joel.
With a distinctive case to argue, the commentary engages the work of other writers
at many points. Occasionally this is explicit in the main text; more often it is by a
1
If only one other commentary is to be recommended, then this has to be J. L. Crenshaw, Joel
(AB 24C; New York: Doubleday, 1995). This has the necessary philological material; it canvasses
the range of interpretations that exist for each verse; and the layout is clear. It follows a typical
post-exilic line of interpretation and has little by way of “making the book relevant to a Christian
living today”. These caveats aside, if one commentary can be recommended, Crenshaw is the
best choice.
10
footnote, but more frequently still, the engagement is not explicit. Where the
reading offered here differs from the interpretation of one of the writers noted in
the bibliography, then that person’s argument is being addressed even if it is not
explicitly cited. As J. L. Crenshaw states in the preface to his commentary on Joel,
the reader is spared much of the tedium of this secondary scholarship; or, as he
once put it in class at Duke, this a writer’s “homework”. Our approach is centred
on the text rather than centred on the scholar and his commentary.
A person who reads commentaries on Joel will soon realize that some large-scale
choices in interpretation have to be made and these either damn or commend the
commentary. If a commentator makes the wrong choice on a significant issue, a
great deal of the ensuing commentary will be mistaken. For instance, the choice of
post-exilic or pre-exilic dating; whether the locust plague is literal or a metaphor
for an invading army; the identity of “the northerner”; and the relationship of Joel
3 to Joel 1 and 2—these are all large scale issues in which choices are made that
will damn or commend any commentary.
My thanks go to the people with whom I have discussed Joel during the process of
writing. I have tried out various lines of exposition on others and subsequently
rejected many; where the mistakes lie in the lines that remain, I cannot as yet say,
but time will no doubt bring them to light. The views expressed in this study are
new and remain to be tested by other Bible students.
11
Abbreviations and Transliteration
Unless otherwise noted below, we utilise The SBL Handbook of Style (ed. P. H.
Alexander, et. al.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999) for abbreviations and the general
purpose style of transliteration.
Commentaries
Ahlström
G. W. Ahlström, Joel and the Temple Cult of Jerusalem (Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1971).
Allen
L. C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah (NICOT; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976).
Barton
J. Barton, Joel and Obadiah (OTL; WJK Press, 2001).
Bergler
S. Bergler, Joel als Schriftinterpret (BEATAJ 16; Frankfurt: P. Lang,
1988).
Coggins
R. J. Coggins, Joel and Amos (NCB; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 2000).
Crenshaw
J. L. Crenshaw Joel (AB 24C; New York: Doubleday, 1995).
Driver
S. R. Driver, Joel and Amos (CBSC; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1898).
Hubbard
D. A. Hubbard, Joel and Amos (Tyndale Old Testament
Commentaries; Leicester: Inter Varsity Press, 1989).
Jones
D. R. Jones, Isaiah 56-66 and Joel (TBC; London: SCM Press, 1964).
Kapelrud
A. S. Kapelrud, Joel Studies (Uppsala: A. B. Lundequistska, 1948).
Mason
R. Mason, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Joel (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994).
Pusey
E. B. Pusey, Joel and Obadiah (Commentary on the Minor prophets; 8
vols; London: James Nisbet & Co., 1906).
Strazicich
J. Strazicich, Joel’s Use of Scripture and the Scripture’s Use of Joel (BIS 82;
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2007).
12
Sweeney
M. A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets (Berit Olam; 2 vols; Collegeville;
Liturgical Press, 200).
Thompson J. A. Thompson, “The Book of Joel, Introduction and Exegesis”, The
Interpreter’s Bible 6 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1956), 729-760.
Whittaker
H. A. Whittaker, Joel (Cannock: Biblia, 1989).
Wolff
H. W. Wolff, Joel and Amos (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1977).
Journals
BT
The Bible Translator
13
CHAPTER ONE
Studies and Method
1. Introduction
In this chapter we will discuss our method of approach to Joel and compare and
contrast our way of reading with other writing on the book. Our approach can be
characterized as post-critical, which means that, using the standard Hebrew text, we
i) take into account the historical hypotheses that have been put forward by
scholars; ii) analyse the text using an intertextual method, comparing scripture with
scripture;1 iii) seek a harmonic reading of the book within the Hebrew canon; and
iv) give the greatest weight to any external evidence offered by Second Temple
Judaism in setting the historical context of the book.
This method is post-critical in the following way: it is unlike pre-critical exegesis in
that we do not seek a Christian reading until the last chapter; we are not looking to
apply Joel to the Christian era or offer a devotional and homiletic reading. We take
as our working dataset the historico-critical proposals of scholars, but we
discriminate amongst the often tendentious and certainly hypothetical
reconstructions of such scholars using criteria informed by a view of the
inspiration of scripture held by Jesus and the early church. The method is postcritical because it brings pre-critical criteria associated with a high view of scripture
to bear upon historico-critical proposals. In effect, this turns the tables: just as the
rise of historical criticism in the eighteenth century overturned pre-critical
interpretation, the hypothetical proposals of historical criticism can now be
evaluated within the framework of a high view of scripture.
Although we do not offer a Christian interpretation, our approach brings Joel back
to the church and away from the academy. The church looks to scripture for
authority, but if it is to see scripture in this way, it cannot rest content with the
tentative so-called “results” of the historico-critical method. This necessarily
produces multiple tendentious and hypothetical theories; the church can only
affirm the inspiration of scripture by using pre-critical criteria to select an historical
reading from among the academy proposals. Our study seeks to present an
historical reading consonant with the inspiration of scripture.
2. History of Study
Joel is a small2 neglected book and it is often treated as part of a larger commentary
on the Minor Prophets.1 Previous studies on Joel are not as plentiful as other
Our use of the term ‘scripture’ is for what is recognised today as Jewish Scripture; for
alternative views, see Strazicich, 22-26.
2
Crenshaw, 12, notes it has 957 words.
1
14
books of the Old Testament. Commentaries offer analyses on the textual, literary,
theological and historical aspects, but they do so in different measures. With
commentaries published in different series, there is a great deal of duplication of
material.
The major ideas about Joel that are around today were laid down in the early days
of German historical criticism. Older English commentaries such as the critical
contribution by J. A. Bewer (1911)2 and the popular introduction by S. R. Driver
(1898)3 cemented among English readers a range of ideas quarried from German
scholarship. The most prestigious commentaries in English4 in recent years
continue to reproduce the same range of ideas and these are by J. Barton,5 J. L.
Crenshaw,6 and H. W. Wolff.7 Barton regards the commentaries by Wolff and
Crenshaw as “the most important commentaries of recent times”,8 with Wolff
taking pole position as the “most important”.9 However, there are other English
commentaries to note including those by L. C. Allen,10 D. A. Hubbard,11 and M. A.
Sweeney,12 as well as “guides” and “introductions” such as that by R. Mason13 in
the popular Sheffield Old testament Guides series. In addition, certain
monographs are key studies for research into Joel (i.e. they are frequently cited),
and these include S. Bergler, Joel als Schriftinterpret;14 G. W. Ahlström, Joel and the
Temple Cult of Jerusalem;15 and A. S. Kapelrud, Joel Studies.16 There are also some key
unpublished doctoral studies such as K. S. Nash, The Palestinian Agricultural Year and
the Book of Joel17 and K. Leung, “An Intertextual Study of the Motif-Complex ‘Yom
1
T. Longman III, Old Testament Commentary Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 115117, offers a survey.
2
J. A. Bewer, et al, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum,
Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1911).
3
S. R. Driver, Joel and Amos (CBSC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1898).
4
It is conventional in Old Testament scholarship to cite German commentaries; however, these
can be regarded as equivalent to their English counterparts in the scope of their content. Readers
can consult Barton, Crenshaw or Wolff for lists.
5
J. Barton, Joel and Obadiah (OTL; WJK Press, 2001).
6
J. L. Crenshaw Joel (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1995).
7
H. W. Wolff, Joel and Amos (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977).
8
Barton, 4.
9
Barton, 7.
10
L. C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah (NICOT; London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1976).
11
D. A. Hubbard, Joel and Amos (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries; Leicester: Inter Varsity
Press, 1989).
12
M. A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets (Berit Olam; 2 vols; Collegeville; Liturgical Press, 2000).
13
R. Mason, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Joel (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994).
14
S. Bergler, Joel als Schriftinterpret (BEATAJ 16; Frankfurt: P. Lang, 1988).
15
G. W. Ahlström, Joel and the Temple Cult of Jerusalem (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971).
16
A. S. Kapelrud, Joel Studies (Uppsala: A. B. Lundequistska, 1948).
17
K. S. Nash, The Palestinian Agricultural Year and the Book of Joel (unpublished Ph. D. Thesis; The
Catholic University of America, 1989).
15
Yahweh’ in the Book of Joel”1 that are important, and a stream of new work that
has as yet to make a mark, such as J. Strazicich, Joel’s Use of Scripture and the Scripture’s
Use of Joel.2
We will review the history of recent study thematically and describe the major
interpretative choices that have been made by scholars under four headings: Date
and Provenance, Structure and Unity, Position in the Twelve, and Message and
Theology. In doing this, we will position our study as a radical alternative to
consensus opinion.
2.1 Date and Provenance
Critical scholars tend to date Joel in early post-exilic times for various reasons.
Barton opts for a date in the 5c. for Joel 1:2-2:27—he gains the impression from
his reading that there is no king, and the community is small and gathered around
Jerusalem and the temple; he regards the material in Joel 2:28-3:21 to be from a
later period.3 Hubbard also opts for around 500 but is willing to place all of Joel to
this time period.4 Allen sees the date sometime between 520-500 and is likewise in
favour of the unity of the book.5 Crenshaw also opts for the late sixth early fifth
century date.6 R. J. Coggins notes that while some older scholars have proposed
pre-exilic dates,7 no recent scholars have defended this view.8
While this is the current consensus, it is nevertheless accepted by scholars that Joel
has no decisive internal indications of date and provenance.9 Thus we will argue that
the position in the canon is external evidence for an eighth century date during the
time of the Assyrian incursions in the West. This is a new proposal in Joel Studies,
and the main result of the approach is a treatment of Joel that is contemporary and
particular to Israel and Judah rather than “eschatological” and “apocalyptic”.10
K. Leung, “An Intertextual Study of the Motif-Complex ‘Yom Yahweh’ in the Book of Joel”
(unpublished Ph. D. Thesis; Fuller Theological Seminary, 1997)
2
J. Strazicich, Joel’s Use of Scripture and the Scripture’s Use of Joel (BIS 82; Leiden: E. J. Brill,
2007).
3
Barton, 14-18.
4
Hubbard, 23-37.
5
Allen, 22-24.
6
Crenshaw, 21-29.
7
Kapelrud argued for a date around the time of Jeremiah, but he is not regarded as recent by
Coggins (1948). Prior to the rise of historical criticism, pre-exilic dates were common in
commentaries, for instance, see Matthew Henry (Sennacherib) or John Wesley (Uzziah).
8
R. J. Coggins, “Joel” Currents in Biblical Research 2.1 (2003): 85-103 (89). Coggins cites only the
recent work of K. Koch in support of a pre-exilic date, (89, 98) citing his The Prophets (2 vols;
London: SCM Press, 1982), 1:160-161.
9
Mason, 116.
10
These terms are, of course, vexed—see G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible
(London: Duckworth, 1980), ch. 14. I. H. Marshall, “Slippery Words: I Eschatology” ExpTim 89
(1977-78): 264-69, has a similar breakdown of definitions to Caird. Within Joel Studies, the term
“eschatology” is taken to denote a view of the “final things” or “last days” of God working out
1
16
Thus, while scholars now tend to focus on the literary issues of the book’s
structure, its unity, and its position in the Twelve, having settled in their own
minds a post-exilic date and provenance, our study continues the historico-critical
tradition of seeking out Joel’s “life and times” by presenting a new eighth century
reading.
The implications of this reading are far-reaching. The issue of date affects the
interpretation of Joel particularly in relation to intertextuality. With a post-exilic
date, scholars are inclined to see Joel as a user of “earlier” prophets such as Ezekiel
or Jeremiah; for example, in relation to the northerner of Joel 2:20. A key study in
this regard is Joel als Schriftinterpret by Bergler who sees Joel as a “writing” prophet
consciously drawing on earlier written traditions.1 Thus, Bergler points to the
dependence of Joel’s locust imagery upon the Exodus plague2 and the northerner
motif upon Jeremiah and the “enemy from the north” (Jeremiah 4-6, cf. Ezekiel
38-39). More recently, J. Strazicich, in Joel’s Use of Scripture and the Scripture’s Use of
Joel, engages the work of Bergler and takes it forward. He regards Joel not so much
“as a scripture interpreter, but as an appropriator and resignifier of Israel’s scribal
traditions”.3
Placing Joel early reverses the direction of quotation and allusion. It is no longer
the case that Joel uses Jeremiah or Ezekiel; the so-called “late elements” in Joel are
now misclassified and just illustrations of earlier thinking. Joel’s “Day of the Lord”
material is now seen as original and the basis for later re-use by Isaiah and
Zephaniah. Furthermore, resituating Joel in the eighth century implicitly makes the
book of Joel more of a record of orally delivered oracles; Joel is not to be seen as a
“writing” prophet in Bergler’s sense or an “appropriator” in Strazicich’s view.
Their studies are useful as quarries of intertextual observation, but we reconfigure
their results so that Joel is the original prophet. In sum, bringing Joel back to the
eighth century changes the picture we can construct of the development of
prophetic thought.
2.2 Structure and Unity
The structure and unity of Joel has been an ongoing issue in studies of Joel, with
older scholarship seeing division and a later hand behind the work.4 Barton1 is the
his purpose with his people; the term “apocalyptic” is taken to denote the cosmic elements of
Joel’s prophecy, such as darkness and happenings to the sun, moon stars. As Coggins observes,
rejecting eschatology and apocalyptic for Joel is quite out of fashion, “Joel”, 89.
1
See also J. Jungmann, “Major Literary Phenomena the Book of Joel as a Key to the Problem of
its Date and Composition” (Unpublished PhD Diss; Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1987).
2
Bergler, 247-294.
3
Strazicich, 28.
4
B. Duhm, „Anmerkungen zu den Zwölf Propheten“ ZAW 31 (1911): 1-43; 81-110; 161-204; E.
Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch (KAT 12; 2 vols; 2nd and 3rd rev. ed.; Leipzig: A. Deichertsche
Verlagsbuchhandlung D. Werner Scholl, 1929-1930), 1:146-147; J. A. Bewer et al, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel (ICC; Edinburgh: T
17
most recent scholar to see a source structural break at Joel 2:27, regarding Joel 1:22:27 as a unity, with Joel 2:28-3:21 as a loose collection of ten eschatological
oracles of relatively little value and from a different date and provenance, and
which he dubs “Deutero-Joel”. They were collected with Joel’s material because
this material was seen to have a wider scope and contain a promise of a new world
order.2 The later material is about the eschaton and God’s final intervention in
history. As a completed work, Barton sees Joel more as a theodicy than a work of
prophecy, because it emphasizes that God is in control of the bad times and will
carry out his purpose with Israel and the nations.3 Barton sustains this point of
view by giving priority to Joel 1:2-2:27 in setting the value of the book, and
regarding Joel 2:28-3:21 as a series of additions.4
The more common view today however is that Joel is an authorial unity while
being structurally complex.5 Wolff points out that “major catchwords and word
groups between chs. 1-2 and 3-4 attest to their common authorship”.6 There are
common motifs that bind the oracles, for example, the “apocalyptic” events in the
sun and the moon (Joel 2:10; 3:15); and the Day of the Lord (Joel 1:15; 2:1; 3:14).
Further, there are overtones of war in Joel 2:1-11 which dovetails with the war
oracles of revenge in Joel 3. The case presented by Wolff is secure, once his
eschatological reading is revised, and we would go further and argue that there is
no firm evidence of later editorial work on Joel. The hypotheses of later
redactional layers and/or interpolations are necessarily speculative and we don’t
see in them anything compelling to overturn the witness of the superscription—
that the book comes from an individual named Joel.7
& T Clark, 1911), 49-146 (49-56); and T. H. Robinson, Die Zwölf kleinen Propheten, Hosea bis Micha,
zweite Auflage (HAT; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1954), 55-56.
1
Barton, 13.
2
Barton, 31.
3
Barton, 38.
4
Barton, 93.
5
Wolff, 6-8; Allen 25-29; Strazicich, 47; Kapelrud, 176-190; for specific analyses see also J. A.
Thompson, “The Use of Repetition in the Prophecy of Joel” in On Language, Culture, and Religion:
In Honor of Eugene A. Nida (eds. M. Black and W. A. Smalley; The Hague and Paris: Mouton,
1974), 101-110, who traces types of repetition in Joel as a form of literary artistry; D. Marcus,
“Nonrecurring Doublets in the Book of Joel” CBQ 56 (1994): 56-67; and G. S. Ogden, “Joel 4
and Prophetic Responses to National Laments” JSOT 26 (1983): 97-106, who argues that the
revenge oracles of Joel 3 respond to typical lament material of Joel 1 and 2, as well as the Psalms
(103); and F. E. Deist, “Parallels and Reinterpretation in the Book of Joel: A Theology of the
Yom Yahweh” in Text and Context (ed. W. Classen; JSOTSup 48; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1988), 63-79, who argues that Joel is a literary theology – an artistically arranged
compilation of different theologies of the Day of the Lord, arranged in such a manner that they
may be read as reinterpretations of each other (75).
6
Wolff, 8.
7
On the issue of redactional layers and editors see J. Van Seters, The Edited Bible (Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 2006).
18
While scholars see Joel in two parts and tell a different story about each part, there
is no need to turn the parts into differently authored sources and/or traditions.
The majority view is for single authorship and fundamental unity across the parts
of Joel. Our argument is that this latter approach is supported by the external
evidence of the superscription.
2.3 Position in the Twelve
In recent years, scholars have concentrated their attention on the position of Joel
in the Book of the Twelve.1 This kind of study takes Joel in its final form and seeks
to show how its themes relate to other books in the Twelve and why it is located
where it is among the Twelve; this can be either a synchronic or diachronic
question. A synchronic reading of the Twelve is not concerned with the
developmental history of the Twelve; for example, M. A. Sweeney in his The Twelve
Prophets, reads the Book of the Twelve as a whole with its own structure and
themes without regard to compositional history.
Diachronic studies of the Twelve as a redactional unit received its modern impetus
from the work of scholars such as P. R. House2 and J. Nogalski.3 House and
Nogalski argue that the Twelve exhibit thematic links and a redactional history.
Thus, Nogalski, in his two-volume study, argued that Joel was a “literary anchor”
for the Book of the Twelve.4 Nogalski’s thesis was that a “Joel-related layer”5 was
added to the existing collections of (1) Hosea, Amos, Micah and Zephaniah; and
(2) Haggai and Zechariah 1-8. Nogalski’s argument is that Joel’s intertextual links
with the other Minor Prophets are evidence of a splicing together of Joel with the
two existing collections. Nogalski’s thesis is typical of these studies in which it is
1
For example, see J. D. Nogalski and M. A. Sweeney, Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve
(SBL Symposium Series 15; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000) and M. A. Sweeny, “The
Place and Function of Joel in the Book of the Twelve” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve
(eds. P. L. Redditt and A. Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003), 133-154. For a
review of recent scholarship on Joel in the Book of the Twelve see R. J. Coggins, “Joel” Currents
in Biblical Research 2.1 (2003): 85-103. Other scholars however are sceptical that the Book of the
Twelve existed as a redactional unity—see Barton, 116-117 and Ben Ehud Zvi, “Twelve
Prophetic Books or “The Twelve”: A Few Preliminary Considerations” in Forming Prophetic
Literature (eds., J. D. W. Watts and P. R. House; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 125156.
2
P. R. House, The Unity of the Twelve (JSOTSup 97; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990).
3
J. Nogalski, Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve (BZAW 217; Berlin: W. De Gruyter,
1993); Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve (BZAW 218; Berlin: W. De Gruyter,
1993). See also B. A. Jones, The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Study in Text and
Canon (SBLDS 149; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995).
4
J. Nogalski, “Joel as ‘Literary Anchor’ for the Book of the Twelve” in Reading and Hearing the
Book of the Twelve (eds. J. D. Nogalski and M. A. Sweeney; SBL Symposium Series 15; Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 91-109 (104).
5
Nogalski, Redactional Processes, 1-57.
19
posited that there is an early collection of books to which others are added in
stages with appropriate redactional changes to the enlarged collection.1
The basis for diachronic proposals has been an acceptance of some post-exilic date
for Joel. Depending on whether Joel is an early or late post-exilic work, its
relationship with other books in the Twelve will be correspondingly affected.
Nogalski, in Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve, has put forward one
scheme, but various other reconstructions of the redactional history of the Book of
the Twelve are possible, as there is insufficient data in the “undated” books to
settle their exact position in history of development.2
Synchronic and diachronic questions can be asked of the Minor Prophets, but they
do not exclude the more traditional interest in each prophet and his life and times.
Further, if the book is from one hand, the kind of “history” for the book that can
be written is restricted. Editorial layers from later times dovetailing the book within
the Book of the Twelve cannot be sustained. The position of Joel in the Book of
the Twelve is just that of an eighth century prophet whose themes are re-used by
later prophets; this is the position we will defend in our study.
2.4 Message and Theology
Historico-critical scholars have discussed the message and theology of the oracles
in Joel in relation to the original audience(s). This discussion can be approached in
a more general or a more particular way.
At the most general level, scholars have debated Joel’s role as a prophet towards
his people. P. L. Redditt sees Joel as a critic of the practices and beliefs of the
mainstream priesthood by a peripheral group.3 Wolff also sees Joel as antiestablishment, part of an eschatological group that is critical of the temple
establishment.4 Kapelrud, with Strazicich, considers Joel to be a cultic prophet of
repentance and not hostile to the priesthood.5 When Joel is dated later in the postexilic period, he is seen as part of a move away from eschatology to apocalyptic
and visionary prophecy. In older scholarship, P. D. Hanson6 and more recently S.
L. Cook have adopted this view, although Cook places Joel more in the
mainstream as a prophet of the temple.7
Sweeny, “The Place and Function of Joel in the Book of the Twelve”, 134.
For a review of issues see A. Schart, “Reconstructing the Redaction History of the Twelve
Prophets” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve (eds. J. D. Nogalski and M. A. Sweeney;
SBL Symposium Series 15; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 34-48.
3
P. L. Redditt, “The Book of Joel and Peripheral Prophecy” CBQ 48 (1986):225-240 (225-226).
4
Wolff, 12-15.
5
Kapelrud, 187; Strazicich, 50-51.
6
P. D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 318; see also
Strazicich, 1-2, 44-47.
7
S. L. Cook, Prophecy and Apocalypticism (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 188, 209.
1
2
20
If Joel is dated in the eighth century, the impetus to derive information about the
development of apocalyptic thinking in the post-exilic period is removed; it
becomes of little significance whether Joel’s language is classified as “apocalyptic”
or “proto-apocalyptic” in the eighth century. Further, with catastrophe facing both
Israel and Judah at this time, there is less motivation to read Joel as a pure
eschatological prophet; the scale of his language matches the scale of events in his
time. Accordingly, this study does not follow this kind of contextualization for
Joel.
At a more particular level, scholars continue to hold divergent views on some of
the themes in Joel, and the two main areas of disagreement are the meaning and
significance of the “locusts” and the “Day of the Lord”.
2.4.1 Locusts
The major exegetical choice made by scholars concerns the locusts and whether
such imagery is literal and natural or metaphorical and figurative. This choice
affects how a scholar configures the Day of the Lord theology in Joel. Barton
values the message in the first half of Joel as denoting a simple theology in which
God brings natural disaster (locusts1) upon the people as punishment; the
necessary response is then repentance after which deliverance and restoration
follows; in contrast, Barton de-values the “Zionism” of the oracles in Joel 3 and
avers that these were attached to Joel because Joel’s Day of the Lord oracles were
seen to have a wider scope;2 they have an apocalyptic flavour which is
unrepresented in Joel 1-2. When scholars interpret the oracles in the latter part of
Joel to be “apocalyptic”, they do so partly because they do not see a contemporary
application in Joel’s day.
Other scholars treat the locusts as metaphorical. Thus, P. R. Andiñach suggests
that the locusts might either symbolize the eschatological army of God or the army
of a then invading people.3 Sweeney complicates matters by reading Joel 1:2-20 as
an oracle about a literal locust plague but Joel 2:2:1-14 as an oracle about an
invasion by a foreign power.4 These choices affect how the book of Joel is read: if
we read the locusts of Joel 1 and 2 in terms of military events in Joel’s day, we will
look for a match with the known history of Israel and Judah. If we consider the
locusts of Joel 2 be an eschatological army, we will be less inclined to see a
contemporary fulfilment. If we consider the locusts to be a natural plague, then
there is less scope for a match with the history of Israel and Judah, since such a
catastrophe has gone unrecorded in Kings and Chronicles.
1
Barton, 13, 44; see also Jones, 144, 153.
Barton, 70, 93.
3
P. B. Andiñach, “The Locusts in the Message of Joel” VT 52 (1992): 433-441, (433-434).
4
Sweeney, 1:154-156.
2
21
Aspects of the message and theology of Joel remain the same regardless of the
decision that is made concerning the identity of the locusts. Thus there are
theological motifs of the “Call to Repentance” (Joel 2:12-14);1 “Repentance by
Lament” (Joel 1:15-20; 2:17); “Divine Mercy” (Joel 2:18-27); the “Retributive
Character of Divine Judgment” (Joel 3:1-8); and “Yahweh’s Zeal for Zion” (Joel
3:16-17). The decision that a scholar makes concerning the locust imagery sets the
context for this theology.
The interpretation of Joel’s locust imagery can influence a scholar’s presentation of
his theology in three ways: i) additional apocalyptic and eschatological themes may
be seen in Joel 1 and 2 if the locusts are taken to be an image of end-time army
brought against God’s people—here Joel 3 will be seen to be more in keeping with
Joel 1 and 2, with its theme of judgment upon the nations and the triumph of
God’s people; ii) if the locusts of Joel 1 and 2 are interpreted in a natural sense, a
less harmonious and unified reading of the book’s theology will suggest itself as the
theological motifs in Joel 3 revolve around the political fears and aspirations of
Judah and Zion in relation to the nations; and iii) if the locust imagery denotes an
invading army contemporary with Joel, a unified and harmonic reading of Joel can
be given in which the political and military oracles of Joel 3 is seen as the natural
complement to the previous oracles in Joel 1 and 2.
2.4.2 Day of the Lord
Two issues characterize the discussion of the Day of the Lord. The first issue is
whether the Day of the Lord is about a military and political scenario or an
enactment in the cultic life of the people.2 Since we take the view that the Day of
the Lord is about a political and military scenario, a second issue arises, which is
whether it has an historical or eschatological reference; is this “day” envisaged as an
immediate danger in the life of the nation, or is it a literary construct in a prophetic
writing about the end-times?
Scholars who view the Day of the Lord in eschatological terms point to the
“cosmic” language of the sun, moon and stars and treat the locusts as symbolic of
a latter day army of the Lord.3 On the other hand, if the Day of the Lord is
imminent to the history of the times, such cosmic language is easily interpreted in
terms of the divination that was practised in order to discern the will of the gods in
political and military matters. A further question is: what texts describe the Day of
the Lord—are texts that use expressions like “in that day”, “those days”, and so on,
to be included in the characterization of the Day of the Lord? Arising out of this
1
The oracles in Joel do not give a complete story: there is no identification of the sin that has
brought the calamities upon the nation; Barton, 78-80; Ogden, “Prophetic Responses”, 105.
2
Ahlström, 62-97.
3
Strazicich, 57.
22
issue there is the question of whether there are different “days” described as the
Day of the Lord in Joel.
An eighth century date makes it easier to read Joel in non-eschatological terms
because there were military and political crises in the days of Ahaz and Hezekiah
that could well have engendered the cosmic language. A post-exilic dating of Joel
has fewer historical crises to align with Joel1 and so scholars in this school of
thought favour eschatological readings.
3. Method
Statements of method are about how an interpreter goes about his business. Here
we comment on our choice of text; our preference for an historical method; and
our understanding of intertextual analysis.
3.1 Text and Translations
This study uses existing English translations of Joel (KJV, RSV, and NASB), rather
than offer a new translation of the Hebrew text. We consider the variation between
these versions to be mostly a matter of style, nuance and emphasis; old English
versus modern English, and spellings. However, now and again there is a
difference of substance and the combination of three versions alerts an English
reader to issues at the level of the Hebrew and the need to consult commentaries.
Of these versions, the KJV is used as a baseline (default) version, (we cite statistics
using the KJV), and we vary it in line with RSV or NASB if the Hebrew is not
adequately represented by the KJV. The choice of the KJV is idiosyncratic, but we
do so because it there are some small advantages in favour of the KJV for a reader
without Hebrew: i) it uses italics to signify the absence of corresponding words in
the Hebrew; ii) its syntax is closer to the Hebrew; iii) it retains a more literal
approach to the Hebrew with regard to pronominal suffixes and prepositions; and
iv) it contains marginal alternatives for the Hebrew which are often better than the
chosen rendering. Nevertheless, the disadvantages of the KJV do need to be noted:
i) it comes with old English spellings; ii) it uses unfamiliar words; iii) some of its
words now have different meanings in modern English; and iv) many of its
translation choices for nouns and verbs would now be regarded as inaccurate by
scholars on philological grounds. We compensate for these deficiencies by using
the RSV and NASB.
The study uses the Masoretic Text as represented in the main BHS edition;
considerations that might lead to emendation of the text lie outside our remit, as
our objective is to make sense of the existing standard Hebrew text. As Crenshaw
observes, the text is “remarkably free of difficulty”,2 and so there is little to be had
H. T. Fowler, “The Chronological Position of Joel among the Prophets” JBL 16 (1897): 146154 (147).
2
Crenshaw, 14.
1
23
in matters of text criticism. Thus we do not discuss the Old Greek versions and
whether they point to a different vorlage in any particular instance. We have found
nothing in the OG to overturn the MT, and the choice of the MT removes from
our study a great deal of discussion that is handled in other commentaries.
3.2 Historical Method
Our interpretation of Joel seeks to place the book in an historical context and this
objective sets our method of approach as historical. We take Joel’s position in the
Minor Prophets to be indicative of date in the eighth century and the
superscription to be evidence for a single author—a prophet, Joel, who lived at
that time and addressed his contemporaries. These two pieces of external data are
the platform upon which we proceed to read the book for history. Our reading is a
comparison of the “story” in Joel with the historical information we have for the
eighth century from other sources such as Kings, Chronicles and the Assyrian
annals and inscriptions. Our historical method therefore is a comparison of textual
data with a view to setting Joel in an historical context. There is no “proof” to be
had in this exercise—we cannot prove one eighth century reading against another;
Joel can be “adapted” via interpretation to several eighth century events. Similarly,
there is no proof to be had with regard to an eighth century date in the first place;
a scholar is free to reject a chronological order in the Minor Prophets and “match”
Joel to any pre-exilic or post-exilic historical context.
The problem with Joel for commentators is that it lacks decisive historical
markers;1 furthermore, there is always the option of affirming that parts of Joel
have no contemporary application in the life and times of the prophet. This
(usually) eschatological option needs careful appraisal because it may be simply be
a mechanism for hiding the lack of fit that Joel has for a commentator’s chosen
historical period. In the first instance, our method seeks a complete fit for Joel in the
eighth century. We regard it is axiomatic that Joel was relevant to the original
audience and its constituent oracles delivered at the right time for the moment at
hand. The problem with eschatological interpretations is that they seldom address
the question: why was this being said there and then rather than later? Our
approach to eschatology is to make a secondary application of Joel to the “last days”
(in our last chapter), and we do this on the basis of the authority of the Christian
prophets of the New Testament.
Our historical method is conservative and harmonic in respect of the Bible; we
read the biblical records for consistency and we accept as factual the element of
divine intervention that pervades the historical accounts and the prophetic books.
Sweeny states that the situation in Joel is “almost entirely anonymous”, however, he is wrong to
say this is “deliberate”; it is purely a function of the historians’ distance from the time of Joel and
his inability to pick up on the contextual cues - see “The Place and Function of Joel in the Book
of the Twelve”, 144
1
24
3.3 Literary Questions
This study is focused on the search for the historical catalyst of Joel’s oracles.
Literary questions relating to our method therefore concern how we determine the
meaning of the text. Meaning is multi-facetted and we are interested in both literal
and metaphoric meaning in Joel. Aspects to do with poetic and prose form lie
outside our scope of interest; similarly, grammatical discussion is only relevant for
us when the meaning of Joel’s sentences is affected by a grammatical point.
3.3.1 Metaphor and Simile
Joel uses metaphor and simile and this is reflected in differences in translation. The
translator is faced with the choice of whether and how to represent the metaphor
or simile in a receptor language.1 This is most critically seen in the interpretation of
the locusts. We will argue that the locusts of Joel 1:4 and 2:25 are a metaphor, but
other commentators take the locusts to be a literal plague; this choice affects
translations. The choice of the KJV, RSV and NASB allow a reader without
Hebrew to discern metaphor and whether one or other translation is eliminating
metaphor in favour of a literal interpretation. For example, one common mistake
in commentaries is to see metaphor in Joel 2:2-9. Here Joel uses visionary
language; the “great people” of Joel 2:2 are compared to types of horse, the noise
of chariots and fire, as well as mighty men, but not explicitly to locusts. Such
language is not metaphor or simile as it conveys what Joel sees in vision. This kind
of language is to be distinguished from the metaphor of locusts that is used in Joel
1:4 and 2:25.
3.3.2 Intertextual Study2
Intertextual Bible study today is carried out with computer tools. The advent of
these tools is changing the face of academic study of the Bible. Intertextual analysis
has always taken place, i.e. the comparing of text with text, but this process is
greatly facilitated by computer tools. This kind of study can contribute towards
establishing i) unity of authorship; ii) where a text quotes or echoes a text; iii)
common topics and contrasting points of view between texts; and iv) the range of
meaning for an expression.
The main issue in intertextual studies of Joel is: who quotes whom? With most
scholars favouring a post-exilic date, Joel is generally taken to quote, allude to or
echo “earlier” prophets such as Ezekiel. However, while scholars may assert
dependence on the part of Joel upon some earlier writing, there is no data internal
to Joel to settle any dispute, since we do not have examples of parody or pun
which would require such a dependency; all internal details can be configured for
either direction of dependency. If, however, we place an evidential value upon a
chronological order to the Minor Prophets, then Joel is early and the source of
1
2
K. F. De Blois, “Metaphor in Common Language Translations of Joel” BT 36 (1985):208-216.
For a technical presentation of intertextual method, see Strazicich, 2-20.
25
later quotation and allusion. This is the basis upon which we proceed, but it
remains an open question as to which oracles of the eighth century prophets are
earlier; for example, we cannot prove which, if any, oracles in Amos are earlier
than those in Joel.1
Joel’s vocabulary may be shared with other texts because there is an allusion or
quotation2 to a corresponding precursor text (or vice-versa). Such a connection
may be part of a contrast with the precursor text or it may be in concert with the
precursor text. This kind of argument requires us to show that Joel has intended a
connection with a precursor text (or vice-versa). Intentional sharing of vocabulary
can be proven if some of the following obtain: i) the precursor text can be shown
to be such; ii) the author knew of the candidate precursor text; iii) the vocabulary is
part of a larger shared design, such as a theme, a motif, or a narrative plot; and iv)
the vocabulary shared by the texts is rare or distinctive in some way.
The claim of sharing a design is as much a claim to an allusion as the claim of
shared lexical material. In terms of method, the claim to a sharing of design is
more impressive, because of its larger scope and the involvement of multiple
elements. If these elements and concomitant design are found in another text
within a shared and known literary environment, then it is more likely that there is
allusion.
However, allusions and quotations are only one reason why vocabulary might be
shared. Some vocabulary may be shared without any intended allusiveness (or
without any intended linkage). In order for a text to be talking about, say, an eighth
century crisis, it is not necessary for the author to allude to or quote any
corresponding prophetic texts. The vocabulary might be shared simply because the
topic is the same. The idea of matching one text to another does not imply there is a
relationship of quotation or allusion between two texts. The idea is merely one that
says that one text can be read in the same way as another text, if you take its shared
vocabulary to have the same intended sense and reference. Whether we should do
this is a matter of whether text one makes more sense in such an interpretative
context; this kind of relationship we call an “echo”.
We take an “echo” to be a link between two texts where there is no intentional
allusion on the part of the author; the link may come about for a variety of reasons.
For example, the use of the same vocabulary may be due to cultural background
knowledge, i.e. the vocabulary may be common for that topic; or again, the use of
It may be asserted that Joel had no access to the Jewish scriptures of his day, but while Joel’s
knowledge of scripture cannot be known, the inspiration of his oracles is the real basis of any
intertextuality that is present.
2
We take a quotation to be a piece of language that has some sort of referential marker. We take
an allusion to be an intentional link between two texts, but one that lacks a referential marker
such as “it is written”.
1
26
the same vocabulary may derive from knowledge on the part of the author of
oral/aural traditions or other (now lost) writings. Yet again, it may be due to a
common source of inspiration in the work of the Spirit. We will take “quotation”
and “allusion” to indicate a literary dependence, and “echo” to indicate a
deliberately unspecified type of linkage.
Bible scholars and readers constantly make intertextual connections. In discussion,
such connections are subject to disagreement. The question arises therefore as to
how a connection can be assessed as valid. R. B. Hays has proposed seven criteria
for assessing the validity of intertextual connections.1 Hays’ criteria have been
widely discussed and applied in Old and New Testament Studies. We do not
explicitly apply Hays’ criteria, but our discussion of links between Joel and other
prophetic books assume his framework of evaluation. For example, Hays discusses
a criterion of lexical volume—an echo exists if there is a sufficient corresponding
lexical and syntactic material. Our study assumes this criterion in its presentation of
intertextual connections but does not specifically invoke it as justification. Or
again, Hays’ seventh, criterion is that an echo has to satisfy the reader in his
reading experience. The “satisfaction” of an echo is a function of the reading
background that a commentator brings to the text. Obviously, our study seeks to
fulfil this criterion, but we cannot guarantee satisfaction.
3.4 Prophecy and Fulfilment
We come to Joel with a view about prophecy and fulfilment. Prophecy is relevant
to the audience to whom it is delivered in the first instance. A commentator is
obliged to explain the catalyst for the prophecy and its relevance to the first
audience. If a prophecy is for fulfilment in an indeterminate and/or distant future,
there is still a reason why the prophecy was delivered in, say, the reign of Ahaz. If
it is difficult to discern why a prophecy might have been uttered in the reigns of
the kings mentioned in a prophetic superscription, scholars will often suggest the
work of editors have incorporated a prophecy at a later time; we avoid this
strategy. Further, some scholars interpret prophecy eschatologically because they
can see no immediate relevance in the times of the prophet; we treat this strategy
with caution.
The default approach to prophecy is to try and find an application and fulfilment
in the prophet’s time. However, the duration of a prophet’s activity may not be
known: it might have been a day or even a lifetime. His oracles may have an origin
that extends over days, months or years. There is a distinction to be drawn
between the circumstances of an oracle’s utterance and the subsequent writing of
the oracle. We should also bear in mind that some oracles may have their first life
in a piece of writing; there are undoubtedly aspects of a prophetic book that are
1
R. B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1989), 29-32. In
the context of Joel Studies, see the discussion of Strazicich, 26-27.
27
purely literary. In addition to paying attention to the question of when an oracle
was uttered, we should also pay attention to the question of when a prophetic
book came together as a written work.
We presume that prognostication and prediction in a prophetic book found or will
find fulfilment. For some texts, predictions can be matched to historical records; in
other texts, there is no plausible match between prediction and historical record. In
either case, we regard prognostication and prediction as primary data for the
description of an historical situation. For example, a prophet might have predicted
retribution upon a nation for their ill-treatment of Judahite slaves. Even though
there is no historical record elsewhere of any retribution, we regard the prophecy
as primary data that such retribution was fulfilled. There is no reason why our
historical records should match everything we read in the Prophets.
Finally, because we are taking a Christian approach to Joel, we allow for the
possibility that his prophetic materials have an application outside of his own era.
This principle is illustrated in the use that is made of Joel in NT times. However,
rather than saying that a prophecy had no relevance in Joel’s day and a fulfilment in
NT times, we take the view that a prophecy had relevance in Joel’s day and a
second fulfilment in NT times. The prophets of the apostolic church re-applied
Joel to their day because the situation of the people was very much like the
situation in Joel’s day; both Joel and the Christian prophets saw their time as the
“last days”. We do not seek to apply Joel today, but this can be done on the same
basis, viz., that we believe we are living in the “last days”. This kind of
consideration lies beyond the scope of our book.
4. Conclusion
In this chapter we have reviewed major fault-lines in the study of Joel and stated
our method of approach. We take the critical proposals of scholars regarding Joel
selecting out those that conflict with a high view of scripture. We give greatest
weight to the place of Joel in the Hebrew Canon in setting its date, and we let the
superscription determine our view of the book’s authorship. We thus develop an
eighth century reading comparing Joel with scripture and contemporary records.
28
CHAPTER TWO
Date and Provenance
1. Introduction
Joel has been dated “anywhere between the ninth and second centuries B.C.E.”,1
and this is because the book lacks determinate historical markers. Older
commentaries from before the emergence of German Higher Criticism in the
nineteenth century were ready to date Joel to a pre-exilic reign, for instance,
Uzziah2 or the several kings contemporary with Isaiah.3 Today, the consensus
favours an early post-exilic date—see Mason, Barton, Hubbard, and Crenshaw;4
although Wolff argues for a later post-exilic date in the first half of the fourth
century;5 while M. Treves argues that there is “no other possible date for Joel” than
the time of Ptolemy Sotar,6 and so on. Within Christadelphian commentary, E.
Whittaker and T. Benson have commented that “probably no book of the Old
Testament has been given so many widely differing datings as the prophecy of
Joel”; they choose the reign of Jehoshaphat.7 I. Fifield and S. Palmer date the book
in the reign of Zedekiah;8 F. Pearce opts for Jehoash/Joash of Judah, which is still
a common proposal amongst conservative commentators;9 and H. A. Whittaker
chooses the Assyrian Crisis of 701.10
Critical scholarship today broadly favours a post-exilic date for Joel, but this has
not received unanimous support.11 Crenshaw offers a full discussion of the
arguments that are used to support an early post-exilic date12 but still concludes,
To some extent such endeavours to establish a historical context for a biblical
book constitute exercises in futility. Much of the argument moves in the realm of
1
Barton, 3. For a discussion of dating, in addition to Barton, 14-18, see Hubbard, 23-25; R.
Mason, 113-116; Crenshaw, 21-29; and Allen, 19-25.
2
T. H. Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures (5
vols; 7th ed.; London: T. Cadell, 1834), 4:185.
3
J. Calvin, The Book of Joel (trans. J. Owen; London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1958), 5.
4
Mason, 113-116; Barton, 14-18; Hubbard, 27; Crenshaw, 18.
5
Wolff, 5.
6
M. Treves, “The Date of Joel”, VT 7 (1957), 149-156 (156).
7
E. Whittaker and T. Benson, “Jehoshaphat in Psalm and Prophecy (1)” Testimony 46 (1976):
335-340; “Jehoshaphat in Psalm and Prophecy (2)” Testimony 46 (1976): 387-392 (387).
8
I. Firfield and S. Palmer, “The Prophecy of Joel” Testimony 46 (1976): 224-227.
9
F. Pearce, From Hosea to Zephaniah (Birmingham: CMPA, 1979), 21. See also E. J. Young, An
Introduction to the Old Testament (Revised Edn.; London: The Tyndale Press, 1960), 271-273.
10
H. A. Whittaker, Joel (Cannock: Biblia, 1989), 1.
11 For a 7c. date see Kapelrud; for an 8c. date, see M. Bič, Das Buch Joel (Berlin : Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 1960).
12
Crenshaw, 21-29.
29
probability, often resting on one hypothesis after another about the development
of the language and religion of the Bible.1
The difficulty is compounded by the complication that some scholars offer a
different date for Joel 1:2-2:27 and Joel 2:28-3:21.2 We will argue for the unity of
Joel in Chapter Six and therefore we reject this authorial division. The oracles in
Joel form a coherent collection, and while historical markers are indeterminate to
modern scholarship, there is a story in these oracles, and it is this story (at least)
that is important for understanding the typological use of Joel in the NT (e.g. in
Acts 2).3
In this chapter, we will outline the historical markers for dating Joel before going
on in Chapters Three, Four and Five to discuss specific historical proposals. We
will also discuss the three other kinds of “evidence” that are brought to bear upon
the question of date:
Is the data in the superscription of Joel or its position in the order of Minor
Prophets indicative of a date?
Is the vocabulary of Joel late or early Hebrew—thereby suggesting a date?
Does Joel use known later biblical books, thereby making it an even later work?
In our review of these three kinds of evidence, we will find that there is nothing to
exclude an eighth century date and attractive reasons to place Joel in the eighth
century.
2. Historical Markers
There is great deal of detail in Joel and an historical picture can be built up once it
is taken that the book is a unified composition from a prophet called Joel. We can
infer that Joel is an eyewitness of the events (Joel 1:16) and writing for his
contemporaries. The detail may not be decisive for dating insofar as it lacks a
named king in the superscription, but there is nevertheless a story in its pages. A
summary of the historical markers and their problems of interpretation are as
follows:
As the prophet speaks, something has happened in the land that is unique (Joel
1:2); there is an exhortation to remembrance because the story is to be told to
future generations (Joel 1:2; 2:2).
1
Crenshaw, 28.
Barton, 92.
3
Hence, a Lukan scholar such as M. Wenk in Community-Forming Power: The Socio-Ethical Role of the
Spirit in Luke-Acts (London: T&T Clark, 2004) 252, admits Joel 2:12-27 as relevant to the
understanding of Luke’s use of Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2.
2
30
A “plague of locusts” is implied in two oracles (Joel 1:5-7; 2:2-9, cf. vv. 10-11,
25) and the phenomenon is either,
o A natural infestation.
o A metaphor for a contemporary army or armies.
o A metaphor for the final judgments of God.
The oracles may describe more than one calamity.
A nation has entered the land (Joel 1:6) and stripped “the vine” and “the fig
tree” that is Judah (Joel 1:7); this presages a Day of the Lord (Joel 1:15).
There are a great people in the land (Joel 2:2).
The situation envisaged in Joel 1:6-7 is compounded by poor rainfall (Joel 2:23).
Later on, as the situation develops, the city is threatened (Joel 2:2-9), making
the Day of the Lord even nearer (Joel 2:11).
Jerusalem and the temple are the rallying point (Joel 1:14; 2:1, 15).
The priests are exhorted to plead with Yahweh so that the nations will not rule
over them (Joel 1:14; 2:17, 19).
There is a “northerner” (Joel 2:20), and this is either,
o A plague of locusts.
o The nation of Joel 1:6 and/or the great people of Joel 2:2.
o An individual from regions immediately to the north of Judah and
secondary to the invasion of Joel 1:6/2:2.
God promises restoration of the land if the people repent (Joel 2:12-14, 19); he
also promises removal of the “northerner” (Joel 2:20).
Sometime later,1 after the crisis has passed, a Day of the Lord is threatened
once again and this time deliverance is promised in Jerusalem (Joel 2:28-32).
Later again,2 when the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem is turned around,
Yahweh “judges” the surrounding nations and city-states on account of their
handling of refugees, indentured slaves and prisoners of war (Joel 3:1-21).
1
2
The passage of time is indicated by “And it shall come to pass afterward” (Joel 2:28).
The passage of time is signalled by “For, behold, in those days, and in that time” (Joel 3:1).
31
There is a showdown between the army of Yahweh and the armies of the
nations in the Valley of Jehoshaphat (Joel 3:9-11).
The nations have their own Day of the Lord in the Valley of Decision (Joel
3:14).
Edom, Egypt, Philistia and Phoenicia have been involved at some point in
events that Joel lived through and are to be punished (Joel 3:4, 19).
The above summary sets out the main historical markers which pick out four
different scenarios: a “nation” in the land and a cry for help (Joel 1); a vision
showing a “great people” overcome a city; a turning to the Lord and the blessing
of restoration (Joel 2:1-27); a further Day of the Lord with deliverance in
Jerusalem (Joel 2:28-32); and finally, the turning around of the captivity of Judah
and Jerusalem (Joel 3). The major point for interpretation is the nature of the
locust plague. Is this a literal or metaphorical plague? If it is a literal plague, then it
has gone unrecorded in Chronicles and Kings; if it is a metaphor for the foreign
army of a nation, then those occasions in Chronicles and Kings where a foreign
army ravages Judah (and/or Northern Israel) are candidate backgrounds for Joel.
3. Canonical Evidence
While the historical markers listed above may appear indeterminate to a scholar
today, this would not have been the case for the original audience and readers
nearer in time to Joel. The story details are specific and would have been readily
intelligible with the background being supplied by the earliest readers. Given the
indeterminate nature of the internal evidence today, the earliest external evidence
should be given greater weight,1 and this is the evidence of the position of Joel in
the Hebrew Scriptures.
Superscriptions imply later scribal activity of classification and the data that is
included implies knowledge on the part of scribes.2 Joel lacks a dateable
superscription, and in particular there is no reference to the reign of a king. The
reason for this can only be a matter of speculation. However, Joel stands second
after Amos in the Hebrew Canon of the Minor Prophets and fourth in the LXX
Canon after Micah. The location of Joel early in the Book of the Twelve3 would
suggest a pre-exilic date subsequent to or contemporaneous with Micah (LXX) or
1
Following Pearce, From Hosea to Zephaniah, 19.
G. M. Tucker, “Prophetic Superscriptions and the Growth of Canon” in Canon and Authority
(eds., G. W. Cook and R. O. Long; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 56-70.
3
For an introduction see R. Fuller, “The Form and Formation of the Book of the Twelve: The
Evidence from the Judean Desert” in Forming Prophetic Literature, (eds., J. W. Watts and P. R.
House; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 86-101.
2
32
Amos (MT), given that prophets later in the sequence of the Twelve are deemed
post-exilic.1
Barton surmises that,
Probably because it is grouped with the pre-exilic prophets Amos, Hosea and
Micah in both the Hebrew and Greek canon, Joel was assumed in ancient times
to be a work from the same period as they.2
J. Trebolle-Barrera, commenting upon the DSS biblical manuscripts,3 makes a
similar point, and compares the approximate chronological ordering of the Book
of the Twelve with the chronological ordering of the books of the Psalter.4 The
DSS evidence supports the MT canon, and F. Watson has argued on this basis that
the LXX order is a late Christian revision.5 However, the LXX order is reflected in
2 Esd 1:39-40, whereas the Ascension of Isaiah 4:22 keeps Joel in the fourth position
and makes Amos the first book out of the four.
The significance of the LXX order variation is therefore uncertain. Wolff6and
Crenshaw suggest7 that Joel begins an LXX undated collection of books comprised
of some or all of Joel, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Jonah. However, this
claim does not explain their location as a group in the middle of the Book of the
Twelve if this is not to carry an implication of date. Further, Malachi is also
undated but placed at the end of the collection, and this suggests that the lack of a
date is not a principle for the LXX order. The LXX canon could just be evidence
of a different early dating for Joel, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Jonah.
Strazicich suggests that the order may suggest a seventh century date.8 However,
such a difference in order may only reflect a chronological difference of opinion of
a few decades if the first four Minor Prophets are all eighth century. Thus, the
LXX order may reflect the view that Joel’s last oracle is given after Micah’s last
oracle, whereas the MT order may reflect a beginning to Joel’s prophesying in the
The grouping of the “Twelve” was known in Second Temple Judaism, see Sirach 49:10 and
Josephus, Contra Apion I. 8.3). Further, dating would appear to be a factor in the arrangement in
the Babylonian Talmud, see B. Bath 14b.
2
Barton, 14.
3
The MT arrangement is reflected in the Murabba’at Minor Prophets scroll, (2)MurXII, as well
as 4QXIIc; the Greek Minor Prophets scroll, 8HebXIIgr also reflects the MT order. Only
4QXIIa evidences a different order in placing Jonah at the end of the scroll. For an itemisation
of the contents of these scrolls see, H. Scanlin, The Dead Sea Scrolls & Modern Translations of the Old
Testament (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1993), 74, 82-83.
4
J. Trebolle-Barrera, “Qumran Evidence for a Biblical Standard Text and for Non-Standard and
Parabiblical Texts” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in their Historical Context, (ed., T. H. Lim; Edinburgh: T
& T Clark, 2000), 89-106 (91).
5
F. Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2004), 80-88.
6
Wolff, 3.
7
Crenshaw, 23.
8
Strazicich, 53.
1
33
730s. Our conclusion therefore is that the ancient and consistent witness of the
order of the MT is chronological; the LXX order is an uncertain minor variation,
and its value as evidence is correspondingly weaker and not as secure a basis for
historical reconstruction of the life and times of Joel.
The alternative supposition would be that Joel’s position in the Book of the
Twelve was purely a function of the themes and motifs that it shares with Amos,
Hosea and Micah.1 Thus, Wolff argues that the shared motifs between Joel 3:16
and Amos 1:2 are the particular reason why Joel is placed in the second position of
the Hebrew Canon.2 Apart from this thin basis for such a decision, there are other
reasons why reliance on the reading requirements of Amos is precarious. A recent
discussion of the sequence of the Book of the Twelve by C. Seitz3 argues for the
legitimacy of reading the collection in its current (MT) order on the grounds that
the themes and motifs of later books are anticipated in earlier books. Clearly
though, there is no argument about a reading sequence that can determine the
question of date.
The LXX order was obviously thought to be an equally valid reading sequence for
the first four books. Shared motifs do not often betray a direction of dependency
and so of themselves do not require a reading sequence. The existence of at least
two other Second Temple reading sequences for Joel (2 Esdras and Ascension of
Isaiah) makes it difficult to argue for or against any date based on its exact position
in the Twelve. However, the presence of shared themes and alternative reading
sequences does not block an inference about date based on Joel’s constant association4
with eighth century prophets in the various orders that we have witnessed in the
LXX, 2 Esdras, and the Ascension of Isaiah. Moreover, shared themes are then
explained as arising out of a comparable historical background. We conclude
therefore that Wolff is wrong to argue that Joel is placed in the second position of
the Hebrew Canon for reasons to do with the reading requirements of Amos.
It assumed by scholars that the prophetic superscriptions that mention kings are
intended as dating superscriptions. However, this is not known; the mention of
kings could be indicative of court responsibilities. Thus it could be that Hosea and
R. E. Wolfe, “The Editing of the Book of the Twelve”, ZAW 53 (1935): 90-129 (125), surmises
that the “order of historic succession” was broken by the addition of Joel, Jonah and Obadiah,
but Crenshaw rightly observes that his theories are “extravagant”, Crenshaw, 22.
2
Wolff, 3. For a critique of this proposal see R. J. Coggins, “Interbiblical Quotations in Joel” in
After the Exile (eds. J. Barton and D. J. Reimer; Macon: Mercer University Press, 1996), 75-84
(76). Coggins point is that any argument for placing Joel before Amos based on intertextual links
is weakened by a lack of links with Hosea explaining why it is placed after Hosea.
3
C. Seitz, “What Lesson Will History Teach? The Book of the Twelve as History” in ‘Behind’ The
Text: History and Biblical Interpretation (eds., C. Bartholomew et al; Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2003), 443-469.
4
Barton, 117; P. R. Ackroyd, “Obadiah” ABD, 5:2-5 (2).
1
34
Amos prophesied to the kings in their superscriptions, whereas Joel prophesied to
no king. Certainly, Hosea lived during the last days of the Northern Kingdom, but
the kings after Jeroboam II (died 750) are not listed in his superscription.
Historians may infer a date from the superscriptions, but this does not mean dating
was their intention. Rather, the point of the superscription is to identify the kings
with whom the prophet had dealings. After all, a common role of prophets in the
Ancient Near East was to advise kings on the divine will.1
Amos’ notation of one king in Judah and Israel (Uzziah and Jeroboam II) would
place him no later than 735 (Uzziah’s 52nd year). Hosea’s addition of Jotham, Ahaz
and Hezekiah extends his prophesying beyond Amos. This raises the question of
why Hosea is first in the MT order of the Book of the Twelve (in Ascension of Isaiah
4:22, Amos is first in order). This question does not detract from Joel’s association
with both eighth century prophets, but it does raise the issue of the organizing
principle of these roughly contemporary prophets.
While Hosea and Amos lie outside our brief, we find no basis for the view that Joel
requires a reader to have read Hosea or Amos before or after Joel. Neither these
books nor Micah offer material that makes any of them the obvious first book in
the Twelve, nor the second, third or fourth. They share themes, but the presence
of the same themes makes any of them an appropriate first read in the Minor
Prophets.2 Each is a book from the latter half of the eighth century and has been
collected at the head of the Minor Prophets for this reason. In an analogous way,
each of the first three gospels is about the years of Jesus, but they can be read in
any order.
Our argument therefore is that the Second Temple arrangement of the Twelve
reflects a chronological order and that Joel should be placed in the latter half of the
eighth century.3
1
For a selection of texts that prove this point, see M. Nissinen, ed., Prophets and Prophecy in the
Ancient Near East (Writings from the Ancient World 12; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,
2003).
2
Contra Wolff, 3 and Crenshaw, 22.
3
The chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah for the second half of the eighth century is
vexed. We primarily follow the chronology of E. R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew
Kings (New Revised Edition; Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1983), ch. 6. We differ from
Thiele in his treatment of the competing monarchies of Pekah and Menahem and the Hoshea
synchronism in 2 Kgs 18:1. J. B. Payne’s comment on Thiele is that “Thiele’s refusal to recognize
any synchronism between the reigns of Hoshea and Hezekiah, or to grant any form of accession
prior to 715 B.C., has undergone widespread criticism”—J. B. Payne, “The Relationship of the
Reign of Ahaz to the Accession of Hezekiah” Bibliotheca Sacra 126 (1969): 40-52 (40). See also
McFall, L., “Has the Chronology of the Hebrew Kings been finally settled?” Themelios 17 (1991):
6-11. For an introduction see R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1970), 188-190.
35
4. Linguistic Evidence
I. Young observes that “language has commonly been used as an argument in
fixing the date of problematic books”.1 Linguistic variations between
Samuel/Kings and Chronicles are used as a basis for establishing early and late
Hebrew. However, there are many variables to take into account when using
language as a basis for dating.
1) Young observes that early and late Hebrew can co-exist in a later chronological
period as “types” of Hebrew,2 so that early Hebrew is not necessarily an indicator
of an early date of composition; a writer can use archaic terms.
2) In the same vein, Crenshaw wryly observes in connection with Joel, “given the
select and limited sampling of surviving Hebrew literature, scholars cannot
adequately track a word’s use”;3 he is sceptical of the cogency of linguistic
arguments dating Joel.
3) In the case of the spellings of words, these may have been updated in the later
copying of texts, thus giving the false impression of a late writing.
4) There is a danger of circular argument. If scholars date a text late on historical
or theological grounds, the language of the text may be taken as the stock of data
for late Hebrew. Mutatis mutandis, the language of the text may be used to date
other texts as late or even reinforce the dating of the original text as late.
5) Biblical Hebrew may illustrate differences in style, sociolinguistic class, dialect
and idiolect, all of which may account for a putative late or early feature. The idea
of a uniform kind of Hebrew in any one period is unsound.4
6) The influence of other near-eastern languages and loanwords may be indicative
of exilic and post-exilic contacts; equally, the influence may be the result of the
work of later copyists of earlier texts, or the result of early contacts and knowledge
of the other language on the part of a writer.
With these qualifications, (1)-(6), we would propose that the language in Joel is a
relatively insecure basis upon which to date the book.
4.1 Examples of “Early” and “Late” Biblical Hebrew
The tentative and hypothetical nature of linguistic arguments for dating can be
illustrated with a selection of examples.
I. Young, “Introduction” in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (ed., I. Young;
London: T & T Clark, 2003), 1-6 (1).
2
Young, “Introduction”, 3.
3
Crenshaw, 29.
4
Young, “Introduction”, 5.
1
36
1) The expression “gracious and merciful” (~wxrw !wnx) is sometimes “merciful and
gracious” (!wnxw ~wxr) in the OT. The former word order is found in later books
(Neh 9:17, 31; 2 Chron 30:9) as well as Joel 2:13; the latter word order is found in
earlier material (Exod 34:6; Psa 86:15; 103:8). Is this evidence of late Hebrew in
Joel or just a matter of style? M. Ehrensvärd comments on this example, “the
otherwise EBH [Early Biblical Hebrew] of Joel make it uncertain that both word
orders were not an option in EBH”.1
2) The word “speedily” (hrhm) does not occur in accepted late Hebrew texts but is
used often in early material (19x) as well as Joel 3:4. Is this evidence of early
Hebrew in Joel, or is it just the case that there was no occasion to use this word in
later biblical material?2
3) Joel refers to God’s “holy mountain” (vdq rh) and this is an expression for Zion
used in later writings (Ezek 20:40; 28:14; Dan 9:16, 20; 11:45; Zeph 3:11; Zech
8:3). However, although critical scholars typically date Isaiah 56-66 as post-exilic, if
these oracles are from Isaiah of Jerusalem, as conservative scholars argue,3 then the
use of “holy mountain” in them (Isa 56:7, 13; 65:11, 13; 66:20) is contemporary
with an eighth century Joel.
4) Wolff asserts that the language pairing of the “meal and drink” offering in Joel
and the Law is post-exilic.4 However, this claim is dependent on the late dating of
texts such as Exod 29:40; Lev 23:13, 18, 37; and 2 Kgs 16:13, 15. In the case of
Pentateuchal texts, the argument is dependent on the documentary hypothesis.
5) Joel refers to the priests as “ministers of the Lord” (hwhy ytrvm), which is a
phrase unique to him. Wolff asserts that the expression points to post-exilic times,5
but the “ministry” of the priests is embedded in the Law (Exod 28:43; 29:30; 30:20;
35:19); the phrase “house of the Lord” is very common in pre-exilic texts (e.g. 2
Kgs 16:8, 14, 18).6
The number of examples of “late” and “early” biblical Hebrew given above, (1)(5), could be expanded; commentators vary the examples that are brought to the
M. Ehrensvärd, “Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts” in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and
Typology (ed., I. Young; London: T & T Clark, 2003), 164-188 (183).
2
I. Young, “Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions” in in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in
Chronology and Typology (ed., I. Young; London: T & T Clark, 2003), 276-311 (287).
3
The most recent conservative academic treatment is J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah
(Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1993).
4
Wolff, 24, 31; Barton, 53.
5
Wolff, 31.
6
Wolff, 31, also regards “house of the Lord” as post-exilic.
1
37
table as evidence. Thus, of S. R. Driver’s list of late Hebrew examples, Ehrensvärd
regards only one word as a “likely candidate” for late Hebrew (@ws, Joel 2:20).1
4.2 Eighth Century Word Association
While we have argued that arguments for dating based on early and late Biblical
Hebrew is insecure, it is nevertheless useful to tabulate examples of uncommon
words that are claimed to be post-exilic. The problem is that such citations often
presuppose consensus dates for OT books after the exile. The table below lists a
word, along with a scholar who claims the word is post-exilic, the post-exilic
evidence, and finally, any potential pre-exilic texts.2
“new wine” (sys[, 5x)
Reference
Joel
1:5; 4:18
“Greeks” (ynwy, 1x) related Wolff, 79.
to “Javan” (!wy,11x)
Pre-Exilic
Amos 9:13;
Isa 49:26.
Gen 10:2, 4;
Isa 66:19.
Post-Exilic
Dan 8:21;
Zech 9:13.
4.3 Conclusion
The linguistic data is of little help. Ahlström’s review of the linguistic arguments
that have been advanced for late post-exilic dating concludes that, “It must be clear
that many of the words and phrases having been used as arguments for a late date
are not late at all”.3 He favours an early post-exilic date, but the value of his
discussion lies in its demonstration that there are no linguistic arguments that prove
a late date. Ehrensvärd regards Joel as early Hebrew, but because he follows
scholars who take Joel to be post-exilic for historical and theological reasons, he
regards Joel as evidence that early Hebrew was also in use in post-exilic times.4
5. Quotations, Allusions and Echoes
Scholars have identified quotations, allusions and echoes in Joel. The issue that
such intertextuality raises is the direction of dependence: who is quoting whom?
The works of Bergler (Joel als Schriftinterpret) and Strazicich (Joel’s Use of Scripture and
the Scripture’s Use of Joel) are the main studies, and commentaries have briefer lists of
correspondences between the two books. Bergler and Strazicich regard Joel as
post-exilic on grounds (largely historical) that are not intertextual and this
Ehrensvärd, “Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts”, 184; this word occurs elsewhere in 2 Chron
20:16; Ecc 3:11; 7:2; 12:13
2
There is a danger of circularity in this area: we list texts as only potentially pre-exilic because
some scholars would argue that they too were post-exilic, for example, the later chapters of
Isaiah. What the table is designed to show is that the claim that a term is “post-exilic” is very
much dependent on a scholar’s view of the date of several biblical passages, only some of which
would be undisputed post-exilic texts.
3
Ahlström, 21.
4
Ehrensvärd, “Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts”, 175; he cites Hurvitz’ 1983 opinion for Joel
that, “With regard to language no decisive proof for its lateness has been adduced”.
1
38
conditions their treatment of Joel’s intertextuality: they propose that Joel is a late
book quoting other books. Strazicich states, “The heavy use of intertextual echoes
becomes the key which grants entry to the thesis that the book of Joel is the
product of the Second Temple period”.1 This claimed direction of dependency is
then seen to confirm the non-intertextual grounds for dating Joel to post-exilic
times.2 In this section, our interest is in any intertextual arguments that might settle
the date of Joel. Our argument will be that there is a perfectly good shared eighth
century context for Joel, Isaiah, Obadiah, and Amos and that therefore there are
no compelling intertextual arguments for a late dating of Joel.
The problem with all intertextual arguments is that it is difficult to prove the
direction of use—is Joel using a prophetic source or being used by a prophet?3 It is
also impossible to exclude the hypothesis that there is a third source underlying
Joel and the related text, for example, a source defined as “ideas and traditions
common to society or to the temple”.4 However, it is justified to assign more
evidential weight to the reconstruction of literary relationships between Joel and other
Prophets; the “third source” hypothesis necessarily has no corroborative evidence
beyond the texts that have come down to us, and of itself does not exclude Joel
quoting one of our texts as the way in which he uses ideas and traditions common
to society or to the temple.
Scholars also use Joel’s intertextual links to argue for particular redactional
schemes for the Book of the Twelve. These schemes invariably place Joel late in
the development of the Twelve and account for Joel’s intertextuality in terms of
editorial layers and interpolations into existing books. Nogalski’s work on what he
calls a “Joel related layer” in the Book of the Twelve is a case in point. This way of
working with the text occupies a different theoretical space to our study: it is no
longer a simple case of “Joel quotes Obadiah” but rather a later editor adding and
changing the text in both cases in such a way that the books are woven into a
whole that has become the Book of the Twelve. Our counter-argument is that we
should give greater weight to the evidence of the superscription and take Joel to be
the work of one prophet—and in such a case, the issue for dating Joel is whether
the book quotes or is quoted by later prophets.
5.1 Amos
Amos opens with a date in the days of Jeroboam II and Uzziah (Amos 1:1) and
more specifically to a time two years before the earthquake. This superscription
indicates the beginning of Amos’ ministry. If we place to one side the issue of co1
Strazicich, 53.
The argument is made by many commentators: Barton, 22-27; Redditt, “Peripheral Prophecy”,
236; G. Buchanan Gray, “The Parallel Passages in ‘Joel’ in their Bearing on the Question of
Date” The Expositor 8 (1893): 208-225.
3
Jones, 136; Barton 22.
4
Coggins, “Interbiblical Quotations in Joel”, 81.
2
39
regencies, Uzziah held a throne in Jerusalem between 787-735 and Jeroboam II in
Samaria between 791-750. This places Amos as a mid-eighth century prophet, well
before the Assyrian crises of the 730s and 720s. There are three main passages that
connect with Joel: Amos 1:2 (“The Lord will roar from Zion”); 5:18-20 (“The Day
of the Lord”); and 9:11-15 (“tent of David”). The two books also share a common
theme of retribution against the nations.
In terms of dating, these links do not present an overwhelming challenge to a late
eighth century date for Joel. The Day of the Lord reference in Amos is commonly
taken to be the oldest occurrence of the motif;1 and the hope for the restoration of
the “tent of David”, although often taken to be a late addition,2 can be situated in
Amos’ life and times in several situations.3 The catchphrase, “The Lord will roar
from Zion”, could be regarded as editorial and not original to Amos, but it is
conjoined with pastoral motifs, and this speaks in favour of Amos as the author
and an eighth century origin for the saying.4 Our argument therefore is that, if
anything, Joel’s intertextual links with Amos lend support to an eighth century
date.
5.1.1 The Voice of Yahweh
The intertextual echo between Amos 1:2 and Joel 3:16 is self-evident, however, it is
not possible5 to settle a direction of dependency such that either prophet quotes
the other, nor is it possible to exclude their use of common prophetic words:
And he said: “The Lord roars from Zion, and utters his voice from Jerusalem;
but the pastures of the shepherds mourn, and the top of Carmel withers.” Amos
1:2 (RSV revised)
And the Lord roars from Zion, and utters his voice from Jerusalem, and the
heavens and the earth shake. And the Lord is a refuge to his people, a stronghold
to the people of Israel. Joel 3:16 (RSV revised)
The contextualization of the “Lord will roar from Zion” is different in each
prophet. Amos conjoins this announcement to words that reflect his pastoral
background: Amos was a Judahite sheepherder and foresees a time of drought and
infertility in Judah and Northern Israel (Carmel). Joel, on the other hand, foresees
the shaking of heaven and earth and Zion as a stronghold; his declaration is solely
one of hope.
In each case, Zion is inviolate with Yahweh present: the “roar” suggests that
Yahweh is pictured as a lion and the utterance is one of strength against Judah’s
1
Sweeney, 1:238; Wolff, 255.
Wolff, 352-353.
3
Sweeney, 1:273 places the oracle in the reign of Uzziah.
4
Sweeney, 1:199; Wolff, 124-125.
5
Barton, 106.
2
40
enemies. Amos’ use of the catchphrase is positioned at the head of his book as a
summation of his collected oracles. This is shown by the fact that Amos narrates
judgment upon the nations as well as Israel, but the restoration of Jerusalem is the
last oracle (Amos 9:11-15). This shows that the summary contains an implied
contrast: the Lord will roar Zion but first the pastures of the shepherds will mourn
and the top of Carmel will wither (cf. Jer 25:30). As such, Amos’ message to
Northern Israel is that there will be deliverance in Jerusalem, for it is from here
that the Lord will utter his voice.1
While it is not possible to prove a direction of dependency of Joel upon Amos, it is
noteworthy that the summation of Amos 1:2 is set against the report of the
earthquake; the effect of the Lord roaring from Zion for Joel is the shaking of
heaven and earth. We would argue therefore that Joel’s image does derive from his
reading or hearing of Amos;2 Joel’s picture is completely that of Zion and Judah
triumphant. Amos is prophesying in the days of Uzziah and Joel is applying Amos’
prophecy to a later situation.
5.1.2 Day of the Lord
The terms of the Day of the Lord prophecy in Joel 1:15 and 2:1-11 suggest an
impending Assyrian threat because Assyrian policy for subjugated peoples was to
distribute the indigenous population.3
Alas for the day! For the day of the Lord is near, and as destruction from the
Almighty it comes. Joel 1:15 (RSV) cf. 2:1, 11
Woe to you who desire the day of the Lord! Why would you have the day of the
Lord? It is darkness, and not light; as if a man fled from a lion, and a bear met
him; or went into the house and leaned with his hand against the wall, and a
serpent bit him. Is not the day of the Lord darkness, and not light, and gloom
with no shining (hgn) about it? Amos 5:18-20 (RSV revised)
Joel’s use of the Day of the Lord motif is consistent with Amos—it is a day of
destruction for the people. Amos’ warning is to the northern tribes, while Joel’s
warning is to Jerusalem and Judah. Again, no direction of use can be proven; there
is nothing in the text that shows Joel can or cannot have been using Amos.
Amos addresses a misconception about the Day of the Lord—that it was a day of
deliverance; Joel warns of an impending day of destruction in his vision of a land
overrun and the sack of a city (Joel 2:2-9). As such, Joel’s warning could be
building on Amos’ prior declaration about such a day being one of darkness. For
Joel the day is “near”; for Amos it is a forthcoming event. With Amos setting the
1
Allen, 120.
Sweeney, 1:183.
3
Sweeney, 1:194.
2
41
interpretative context for Joel, Joel’s use of the Day of the Lord language extends
the Northern Israel application of Amos. The vision of the city being sacked is
deliberately ambiguous, but it is directed towards Jerusalem. Isaiah would pick up
its terms and prophecy the downfall of Samaria.
One lexical link between Amos and Joel in this area is the idea of “shining” ( hgn).
This term is common enough (21x) and largely a prophetic term (15x). In Joel 2:10,
3:15 the “stars withdraw their shining” and in Amos, there is “no shining about
it—the Day of the Lord”. Joel supplies more detail for the interpretation of Amos:
the lack of shining is related to the stars.
5.1.3 The Tent of David
Within an oracle of restoration of Jerusalem (i.e. the “tent of David”—Amos 9:11;
Isa 1:8; 4:6; 58:12; 61:4), Amos refers to the “survivors of Edom” and those
“called by my name” (Amos 9:12). The same motifs are used by Joel in the
description “the remnant whom the Lord shall call” (Joel 2:32). The echo is not
sufficient to determine a direction of dependency, but it allows the suggestion that
the “survivors” that Joel refers to would be Israelites1 even if the political and
military situation is different.
In the days of Jerusalem’s restoration (Amos 9:11), “the mountains shall drop
down new wine” (Amos 9:13; Joel 3:18). While hillside vineyards would produce
new wine in a time of restoration, the figure used is of “dropping down new wine”.
The term for “drop” is @jn, and it is used in figures of prophesying (Ezek 20:46;
21:2; Amos 7:16; Mic 2:6, 11; Isa 45:8)—it is possible therefore that Joel and Amos
refer to the same bestowal of the Spirit in the figure of “mountains dropping new
wine”.
5.1.4 Retribution
An eighth century context for Joel and Amos is also suggested by their similar
pronouncements against the nations. Tyre and Philistia are accused of trading in
slaves (Amos 1:6, 9; Joel 3:4-6); in Amos, Edom is the recipient, whereas in Joel it
is Greek traders. Joel and Amos also accuse Edom of mistreating the children of
Judah. Joel accuses them of “shedding innocent blood” in their land (Joel 3:18);
Amos accuses Edom of “pursuing his brother” (Amos 1:11).
5.2 Obadiah
While Obadiah has no dateable information in the superscription, the consensus of
scholars is that the work is from the cusp of the exile or slightly later and partly a
reflection upon Edom’s complicit involvement in the sack of Jerusalem in 587.2 A
1
Contra Sweeney, 1:273, who says that they are Edomites who have survived.
Barton, 120-123; Allen, 129-130; Bergler, 301-319; see also introductory guide of R. Mason,
Micah, Nahum, Obadiah (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 94.
2
42
full discussion of the dating of Obadiah is beyond the scope of this commentary.
The length of treatment needed would be comparable to the length of our
discussion of the date and provenance of Joel, a length which has been dictated by
the fact that Joel is also an undated prophet.
If Joel is dependent on a late Obadiah, the case for an eighth century Joel
obviously breaks down. However, for each connection that has been proposed by
commentators, a direction of dependency cannot be proven such that Joel is
dependent on Obadiah; nevertheless, there is one text that could be construed as
strong evidence of such a dependency. Joel appears to cite a prior oracle in his
message of deliverance for Jerusalem, and this has been taken to be an allusion to
Obadiah:1
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall
be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the
Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call. Joel 2:32 (KJV)
But upon mount Zion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness; and
the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions. Obad v. 17 (KJV)
The reference to what the Lord has said and the use of common vocabulary (four
words) and topic makes a strong case for quotation let alone allusion. However,
the number of shared words is only four and it might be held that this is
insufficient to establish quotation; Obadiah could be quoting or alluding to Joel
who in turn draws in an unrecorded oracle.
Within Joel the previous occurrence of the verb “to say” is in connection with
what Yahweh says is Joel 2:19, “the Lord will answer and say”—it could be that
Joel is referring to what Yahweh has said through him, but that the oracle has not
been recorded. However, notwithstanding this common caveat, we take the view
that Joel is citing Obadiah2 and that Obadiah is also an eighth century prophet; Joel
may be citing from memory or from a written record of Obadiah. (We do not
think that they both draw in a third source.)
This presumption requires us to state our supportive eighth century reading of
Obadiah, and this is that Obadiah is a prophet who prophecies in the 730s during
the Assyrian and Syro-Ephraimite Crises with regard to Edom’s hostile actions
towards Judah (further elaboration and argument can be found in Chapter Nine).
1
2
Wolff, 68; Strazicich, 28, 49, 53.
Allen, 131.
43
Intertextual links between Joel and Obadiah are of different kinds, and it is
necessary to tabulate the links between Joel and Obadiah in order to set out the
scope of their intertextuality. These links are set out in the following table:1
Obadiah
v. 10 ...violence done to (smxm) your
brother Jacob... (RSV)
v. 11 ...on the day that strangers (~yrz)
carried off his wealth and foreigners
entered his gates... (RSV)
v. 11 ...and cast lots (ddy) for Jerusalem...
(RSV)
v. 12 ...children of Judah... (hdwhy ynb, KJV)
Joel
3:19 ...violence done to (smxm) the people
of Judah... (RSV)
3:17 ...and Jerusalem shall be holy, and
strangers (~yrz) shall never again pass
through it... (RSV)
3:3 ...and have cast lots (ddy) for my
people... (RSV)
3:8, 19 ...children of Judah... (hdwhy ynb,
KJV)
v. 14 ...survivors... (dyrf, RSV)
2:32 ...survivors... (dyrf, RSV)
v. 15 ...for the day of the Lord is near... 3:14 ....a multitude...for the day of the Lord
(hwhy ~wy bwrq yk) ...upon all the nations... is near... (hwhy ~wy bwrq yk, RSV revised)
(RSV)
v. 15 ...your recompense shall return on 3:4 ...I will return your recompense on your
your own head... ($varb bwvy $lmg, RSV head... (~kvarb ~klmg byva, NASB)
revised)
3:7 ...return your recompense on your own
head... (~kvarb ~klmg ytbvh, NASB)
v. 16 ...my holy mountain... (yvdq rh, RSV) 3:17 ...my holy mountain... (yvdq rh, RSV)
v. 17 ...but in Mount Zion (!wyc rhb)... 2:32 ...for in Mount Zion... (!wyc rhb)
there shall be deliverance... (hjylp hyht, ...there shall be deliverance... (hjylp hyht,
RSV revised)
RSV revised)
v. 17 ...there shall be holiness... (vdq, hyh, 3:17...Jerusalem shall be holiness... (vdq,
hyh, RSV revised)
KJV)
v. 18 ...and the house of Jacob shall be a 2:3-5 A fire (va) devoureth before them;
fire (va), and the house of Joseph a flame and behind them a flame (hbhl)
(hbhl), and the house of Esau for stubble burneth…like the noise of a flame of fire
that devoureth the stubble (vq)…
(vq)…
The presence of intertextual echoes between Joel and Obadiah could be without
significance; nothing can be proven in this area. However, we take Joel to be
quoting Obad v. 17 in Joel 2:32, “in Mount Zion there shall be deliverance”,
because of the number of shared lexical items and their syntactical combination; in
addition, the subject-matter of Obadiah supports such a quotation on the part of
Joel. Obadiah’s original prophecy was made in the 730s, and we take Joel’s oracle
in Joel 2:32 to be from the early 720s, offering a message of hope for those who
sought to escape from Assyrian actions in the north.
1
Acknowledgements to T. Gaston for this table. The connections are constructed from
concordance work and can be found partly in Barton, 23; Crenshaw, 27-28; Pusey, 3:292; and
other commentaries.
44
This is not the only quotation that we propose, and there are other intertextual
links (echoes) that exist because the prophets are addressing the same historical
period of Assyrian hegemony in the area. We take Joel to be directly using Obadiah
in the following language:
1) Obadiah and Joel refer to the violence done by Edom to Judah (Obad v. 10; Joel
3:19)—we take this to refer to violence meted out to captives taken by Edom in
the mid-730s—either in their own campaigns or during the campaigns of Philistia,
and Syria. This violence was the reason why the Edomite alliance, noted in Obad v.
7, failed at the border, whereas in Joel, this violence is the justification for the
desolation of Edom which Hezekiah executed in the “year of recompense” (Isa
34:8; 63:4). The two prophecies are linked because the injustice was a war crime for
which retribution had to wait a generation.
2) The Day of the Lord for the nations is near in both Joel and Obadiah (Obad v.
15; Joel 3:14) but this is not the same prediction. We take Joel to be quoting
Obadiah and applying Obadiah’s prophecy to a Day of the Lord upon the nations
he sees in the reign of Hezekiah. This might have been a battle soon after 705, a
date which marks the beginning of Hezekiah’s rebellion from the Assyrian yoke.
Alternatively, it could be a battle that took place in the aftermath of 701. At this
later time Hezekiah wrought revenge upon Edom and the nations for what they
had done to Judah in previous decades, a delay to which Isaiah gives expression
when he records, “For the day of vengeance in my heart, even the year of my
redeemed has come” (Isa 63:4).
3) The prediction of a Day of the Lord for the nations that Obadiah uttered in the
730s was fulfilled during the 730s and 720s by Assyria in her campaigns1 in the
region during which time there was escape in Jerusalem. Joel foresees such a Day
of the Lord at a time when the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem is turned around
(Joel 3:1-3). This prophecy also comes from the 730s and a time when Judah’s
people were being taken captives. The fulfillment of this prediction of a “gathering
of the nations” is signaled by Joel in his later prophecies from Hezekiah’s reign
which is a proclamation of war (Joel 3:9-17).2
1
The difference between Joel 3 and Obadiah is that Judah executes a Day of the Lord for the
nations in Joel whereas in Obadiah it cannot be Judah because Jerusalem is a haven of escape at
this time; rather, it is Assyria who subjugates the region at this time. The scope of the Assyrian
campaigns take in Philistia, Ammon, Moab, Edom, Arabian tribes as well as Syria—B. H.
Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria, (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of
Sciences and Humanities, 1994), 235.
2
As far as the written record goes, Joel is essentially a prophet for the reign of Ahaz (730s, 720s).
Whether he prophesied throughout Hezekiah’s early reign is not known, but the book includes
oracles addressing the time of Hezekiah’s rebellion because they point to the fulfilment of his
earlier prophecies from the days of Ahaz.
45
4) The expression “children of Judah” is sufficiently rare in the Prophets (5x) for
its presence in Obadiah and Joel to indicate a shared vocabulary for referring to
Judah in the eighth century. Its use in each book is a mirror: Obadiah warns Edom
not to rejoice at any destruction of Judah (Obad v. 12), and Joel states that Edom
will be desolate because of how they treated the children of Judah in a war crime
perpetrated in the 730s (Joel 3:19).
5) The expression of hope that there would holiness in Zion/Jerusalem is common
to both Prophets (Obad v. 17; Joel 3:17), and we take Joel to repeating Obadiah’s
hope because he sees its fulfillment in the promise of Hezekiah’s reign.
In addition to (1)-(5), we take Obadiah and Joel to be using similar terms and
phraseology but not about the same historical events in the following cases:
6) The “strangers” in Obad v. 11 that carried off Jerusalem’s wealth are the
Arabians and Philistines (2 Chron 21:16-17); these are different foreigners to those
who will never again pass through Jerusalem (Joel 3:17)—these latter are the
Assyrians who had manned the Assyrian garrison which Ahaz allowed into
Jerusalem. They would have been removed as a first act of rebellion in 705.
Likewise, the Arabians and Philistines cast lots in order to divide their captives
(Obad v. 11; cf. Amos 1:6). Joel refers to a similar but different complex of events
during the ravaging of Judah by enemies in the 730s (Joel 3:4-8).
7) The refrain of a “recompense returning on your own head” is an idiom
common to both prophets (Obad v. 15; Joel 3:4, 7), but the referent in each case is
different. The common motif of recompense anticipates Isaiah’s motif of
recompense in Hezekiah’s Edomite campaign of 700 (Isa 34:8; 64:4).
8) The expression “my holy mountain” is rare (9x) and distinctive to Joel, Obadiah
and Isaiah—we take it as a typical eighth century idiom for Zion.
9) The language of “fire”, “flame” and “stubble” are common figures for the
military actions of one nation against another nation. Obadiah uses the language in
a prediction that was fulfilled in Judah’s campaign of revenge in 700 (Obad v. 18);
Joel uses the language for Assyria’s actions in Judah and Israel (Joel 1:19; 2:3, 5).
10) The survivors of Obad v. 14 are those who sought to escape from the armies
assailing Ahaz in the 730s, whereas in Joel 2:32 (cf. Isa 1:9) the survivors are those
who sought deliverance during the Assyrian assaults in the North.
The correspondences, (1)-(10), dovetail Joel and Obadiah to the same complex
period in Judah’s history—the crises of the late eighth century. In Chapter Four,
we will describe this period in greater detail and integrate Joel with this setting.
Reading Obadiah in the same time-frame allows a commentator to respect the
46
evidence of its location in the Hebrew order of the Minor Prophets amongst the
eighth century Prophets, Hosea, Amos and Micah.
5.3 Isaiah
The main intertextual relationships between Joel and Isaiah are in Isaiah 13-14
which is usually taken to be a late addition set amongst oracles from Isaiah of
Jerusalem from around the time of the Babylonian Exile.1 This view is based on a
reading of Isaiah 13-14 that makes these oracles about the fate of Babylon. If this
reading is correct, it could support the point of view that Joel is a later book from
after the events of the exile; the links are set out in the table on the next page.
There can be little doubt that a relationship of quotation exists between Joel
1:15/2:2 and Isa 13:6. This in turn makes it likely that a relationship of allusion
exists between Isa 13:4 and Joel 2:2, 5, 17 and 19. Similarly, the conjunction of
“sun, moon and stars” (Isa 13:10; Joel 2:10) in close proximity to a second mention
of the Day of the Lord (Isa 13:9; Joel 2:11) establishes another relationship of
allusion even though the associated verbs are different. These relationships are
supported by a common topic; however, this is not of the fate of Babylon per se.
An eighth century reading that relates the oracles of Isaiah 13-14 to Assyria is
entirely possible (see below); therefore there is no argument to be had here for a
late date for Joel.
Isaiah 13 (KJV)
v. 3 …mighty ones… (rwbg)
v. 4 …noise…mountains… (lwq, ~yrh)
v. 4 …great people… (br ~[)
v. 4 …nations… (~ywg)
v. 6 …howl ye… (wlylyh)
v. 6 …for the Day of the Lord is at hand…
(hwhy ~wy bwrq yk)
Joel (KJV)
2:7 … mighty men… (rwbg)
2:5 …the noise of chariots on the tops of
mountains… (lwq, ~yrh)
2:2 …a great people… (br ~[)
2:17, 19 …nations… (~ywg)
1:11, 13 …howl ye… (wlylyh)
1:15 …for the Day of the Lord is at hand…
(hwhy ~wy bwrq yk)
2:2 …for it is at hand… (bwrq yk)
v. 6 …it shall come… (awby)
2:2 …for the Day of the Lord shall come…
(hwhy ~wy ab yk)
v. 6 …as destruction from the Almighty… 1:15 …as destruction from the Almighty…
(ydvm dvk)
(ydvm dvk)
v. 9 …the day of the Lord cometh…
2:11 …or the day of the Lord is great and
very terrible…
v. 10 …stars…shall not give their light… 2:10 …the stars shall withdraw their
(llh)
shining… (hgn)
v. 10 …the sun shall be darkened… ($vx)
2:10 …the sun…be dark… (rdq)
v. 10 …the moon shall not cause her light to 2:10 …the moon shall be dark… (rdq)
shine… (hgn)
1
Barton, 24 n. 51; see also his Isaiah 1-39 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 18.
47
5.3.1 Isaiah 13-14
The oracles in Isaiah 13 and 14 are collected together under the title “Burden of
Babylon”; the collection may include the “burden” that was delivered in the year
Ahaz died (Isa 14:28), but in any event this chronological reference prima facia dates
the burden to the years before the year Ahaz died. The date of Ahaz’ death is 715
and Babylon comes to the foreground of Near East politics in 729 and 728 when
Tiglath-Pileser III “took the hand of Bel” in Babylon, having taken the city in 730.
Tiglath-Pileser was the first Assyrian to assume the title “King of Babylon”, and he
introduced the institution of the “dual monarchy” over Assyria and Babylon. After
taking the city, he based himself in Babylon for two years, participating in the New
Year ceremony in which he took the hand of Bel during the procession of the gods
into Babylon.1 It is this achievement that forms the basis of the anti-Assyrian
rhetoric in Isaiah 13-14. This identification is suggested by Isa 14:25 which uses the
term “the Assyrian” of the king of Babylon.2
The death of Tiglath-Pileser has gone unrecorded in Assyrian records, but he is
thought to have been in Syria and campaigning against Damascus in 728-727
because the Assyrian Eponym List (although broken in the relevant line) places
him at this location.3 He was succeeded by his son Shalmaneser V in the field (or
back home)4 who then reigned until 722, during which time he campaigned in
Northern Israel laying siege to Samaria for three years. At the time of
Shalmaneser’s death in 722, Sargon II completed the subjugation of Samaria, but
with the Assyrian army in the West, Merodach-Baladan, an Aramean tribal lord,
assumed control of Babylon and became its king until Sargon II took Babylon back
in 709 and once more assumed the crown. Merodach-Baladan then accepted
Assyrian rule until the death of Sargon II in 705.
There are no Assyrian records to indicate that Shalmaneser V went to Babylon and
“took the hand of Bel”; rather he was in the field in the West during his reign
1
Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria, 236-237.
Accordingly, some scholars see the mention of Babylon in Isaiah 13-14 as a “Babylonizing” of
earlier Assyrian oracles; see C. T. Begg, “Babylon in the Book of Isaiah” in The Book of Isaiah,
(ed., J. Vermeylen; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989), 121-125. Coggins, “Interbiblical
Quotations in Joel”, 78, asserts that the mixed Assyrian and Babylonian elements of Isaiah 13-14
make the chapters “difficult to date”.
3
J. K. Kuan, Neo-Assyrian Historical Inscriptions and Syria-Palestine (Hong Kong: Alliance Bible
Seminary, 1995), 137; Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria, 236. As a record
of the yearly governors against which the major campaign for that year is noted, the Eponym
List is a valuable baseline for correlating the annals and inscriptions; for a convenient text see
Thiele, Mysterious Numbers, 221-225.
4
The Eponym List has Shalmaneser at home in 726 and then besieging Samaria for three years
(725-722), ARAB, 1198.
2
48
according to the Assyrian Eponym List.1 Further, there is no further information
about Tiglath-Pileser’s last year in the field against Damascus. Nevertheless, the
most likely catalyst for the oracles that make up the “Burden of Babylon” is the
Assyrian propaganda towards Israel and Judah in 727. This propaganda was
grounded in Tiglath-Pileser’s boast that he was “king of Babylon”,2 the religious
centre of the Mesopotamian world, and it was directed against Israel and Judah and
the mountain of Yahweh; the intention was to subdue all of Syro-Palestine.
The flow of the oracles in Isaiah 13-14 is redemptive: there is a crisis after which
the people will be restored. The crisis is described in the Day of the Lord material
of Isa 13:2-16, and the redemptive response is described in the oracle units of Isa
13:17-18, 19-22; 14:1-3, 4-23, 24-27. The first redemptive response is outlined in
Isa 13:17-18 with a declaration that the Medes would be raised up against
“them”—the Assyrians; the Medes were traditional enemies of Assyria.3 The
second response is a taunt about who will possess Babylon: rather than being a
possession of the king of Babylon, Tiglath-Pileser, it would be a possession of wild
animals. These two responses have a purpose which is stated in Isa 14:1-3; the
linking conjunction (yk) makes the purpose of the oracular statements of Isa 13:1718 and 19-22 clear:
For (yk) the Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set
them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they
shall cleave to the house of Jacob. Isa 14:1 (KJV)
Although the Day of the Lord is devastating and catastrophic to the people, the
Lord will “yet choose Israel” and return them to their own land. The two
redemptive responses are long-range promises; they are not affirmations that the
Assyrians will be defeated in battle by the armies of the people at that time; they
imply an exile of the people before a return and restoration (Isa 14:3).
The third response to the catastrophe of the Day of the Lord is the taking up of a
taunt against the king of Babylon (Isa 14:4-23). The catalyst for the taunt is TiglathPileser’s boast to be king of Babylon, but there is no immediate fulfillment in his
death in 727. The taunt declares that the king of Babylon would be “broken” (rbv,
Isa 14:5), and this is explained in the next oracle unit where it is stated that Yahweh
would break (rbv, Isa 14:25) “the Assyrian” upon the mountains of Israel. The
intention is declared in the early 720s, with Shalmaneser besieging Samaria and
1
Contra Whittaker, Isaiah, 205; see ARAB, 830 for the only inscription that describes
Shalmaneser as a “viceroy of Babylon” rather than “king of Babylon”.
2
ARAB, 787, 808, 810.
3
ARAB, 795, 812.
49
encamped in Northern Israel, but it is not fulfilled until 701 when Sennacherib was
vanquished outside Jerusalem in a miraculous deliverance.1
Joel’s vision of a great people upon the mountains and breaking into a city fits this
period in which Assyria is perceived as a threat (735-734); Joel “sees” Assyria
overcoming a capital city. This vision is matched in Isaiah 13, which also records a
vision of a great people upon the mountains and a Day of the Lord that is near (Isa
13:4-6; Joel 2:2). The city is not identified inside the vision of Joel, although it is
directed towards Zion, but Isaiah’s vision picks up its terms and applies them
afresh in respect of Samaria as he links the Day of the Lord with the end of the
Northern Kingdom and its captivity (Isa 13:9; 14:1).2 What Isaiah sees as an
imminent reality, Joel foresees as a warning to Jerusalem that she might suffer this
fate unless the people repented.
Joel’s vision of the mountains of Israel and Judah being overrun and the sack of a
city, and his declaration about the Day of the Lord in which the sun, moon and
stars are turned to darkness—these details are used by Isaiah to foretell the sack of
Samaria. Isaiah delivered the oracles that were to be entitled the “Burden of
Babylon” sometime around 728-727. The vision was directed at Tiglath-Pileser, the
newly crowned king of Babylon who had just brought the Assyrian army over to
Damascus. Isaiah’s invective affirms that his possession of Babylon would be
fleeting and the end of Babylon would be one of desolation; God’s care for the
land of Israel and the return of his people were assured.
Samaria and Jerusalem were only thirty miles apart; Joel’s earlier vision of the
presence of the Assyrian army upon the mountains of Judah is a natural precedent
for Isaiah and his vision of the end of the Northern Kingdom. Joel also delivers a
message at this time and it is one of deliverance in Jerusalem during this renewal of
the Day of the Lord (Joel 2:31-32).
5.3.2 Other Isaiah Texts
Joel’s echoes with other Isaiah texts are not as systematic as those with Isaiah 13;
they are set out below:
1
This means that the Book of Isaiah contains historical records of competing claimants to the
throne of Babylon—the Assyrian kings and Chaldeans like Merodach-Baladan.
2
Contra Barton, 24, 74; Whittaker, 194-203; J. H. Hayes and S. A. Irvine, Isaiah: The Eighth Century
Prophet (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1987), 220-226, correctly locate Isaiah 13 to the Assyrian
Crises in Ahaz’ reign, but fail to see its Northern Israelite focus, preferring instead to align it with
Tiglath-Pileser’s capture of Babylon; we discuss Isaiah 13 further in Chapter Nine.
50
Isaiah (KJV)
Isa 2:4 and they shall beat their swords into
plowshares, and their spears into
pruninghooks…
Joel (KJV)
Joel 3:10 Beat your plowshares into swords,
and your pruninghooks into spears: let the
weak say, I am strong.
Isa 24:7 The new wine (vwryt) mourneth
(lba), the vine languisheth (lma), all the
merryhearted do sigh.
Joel 1:10 The field is wasted, the land
mourneth (lba); for the corn is wasted: the
new wine (vwryt) is dried up, the oil
languisheth (lma).
Isa 45:5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, Joel 2:27 And ye shall know that I am in the
there is no God beside me…
midst of Israel, and that I am the Lord your
God, and none else…
Isa 51:3 …and he will make her wilderness Joel 2:3 … the land is as the garden of Eden
like Eden, and her desert like the garden of before them, and behind them a desolate
the Lord…
wilderness…
There are obviously relationships of quotation in the above examples, but as
Barton avers, the echoes might be “commonplaces, sayings at home in oral
tradition”;1 it is difficult to prove a direction of dependency. The consensus critical
dating for the Isaiah texts is late (exilic and post-exilic), with Isa 2:2-5 generally
being regarded as a late interpolation amongst earlier material.2 Such a consensus is
compatible with an eighth century date for Joel on the supposition that Isaiah is
quoting Joel. However, conservative scholars assign the Isaiah texts to Isaiah of
Jerusalem, in which case the textual relationship is closer in time,3 and this makes
the textual links come alive in the same milieu. Thus we can say that Isa 51:3 takes
up Joel 2:3 and predicts its reversal. The monotheism of Joel 2:27 and Isa 45:5 are
complementary in that they are both grounded in acts of deliverance (the
northerner for Joel; Sennacherib and the Assyrian army for Isaiah).
It is beyond the scope of our study to develop the case for an eighth century
context for Isaiah 13-14, although this has been done in different ways by a
minority of commentators in the past.4 Once the case for an eighth century Isaiah
is accepted, Joel’s links with Isaiah are easily slotted into this framework. The most
common view of the relationship of Joel 3:10 to Isa 2:4 is that it is a “parody” and
that the Joel text is therefore later than Isaiah text.5 This view is a mistake because
the intent in Joel is serious—the text is part of a proclamation of war; it is more
likely that Isaiah is reversing Joel and expressing the hope for an ideal age. The
same rhetorical linkage is also reflected in Isa 51:3—we can now see that Isaiah’s
1
Barton, 24.
Barton, Isaiah 1-39, 14, 17; R. N. Whybray, The Second Isaiah (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1983), 2-4.
3
Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah, 25-27.
4
Hayes and Irvine, Isaiah: The Eighth Century Prophet, 220-238; H. A. Whittaker, Isaiah (Cannock:
Biblia, 1988), 194-213; and W. A. Wordsworth, En-Roeh (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1939), 118131.
5
Coggins, “Interbiblical Quotations in Joel”, 78.
2
51
audience would pick up on Joel’s earlier “desolate garden of Eden” prophecy and
see Isaiah’s picture of restoration as a deliberate contrast. Similarly the desolation
of the “Isaianic Apocalypse” (Isa 24:7) is from the same troubled times as Joel’s
prophecy (Joel 1:10), and the monotheism of Isa 45:5 is not post-exilic but part of
the same eighth century theology which Joel expressed in Joel 2:27—a theology
directed towards the false gods of the nations.
5.4 Later Prophets
Joel has intertextual links with known later prophets (rather than just disputed later
prophetic material), principally, Ezekiel and Zephaniah.
5.4.1 Zephaniah
The announcement of a forthcoming Day of the Lord in Zephaniah is a clear
connection:
Hold thy peace at the presence of the Lord God: for the day of the Lord is at
hand: for the Lord hath prepared a sacrifice, he hath bid his guests. Zeph 1:7
(KJV)
The great day of the Lord is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of
the day of the Lord: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly. That day is a day of
wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of
darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness, Zeph 1:15 (KJV)
The lexical links with earlier Day of the Lord prophecies in Joel, Obadiah and
Isaiah are tabulated below:
Zephaniah
day of the Lord is at hand (bwrq)
great day of the Lord is near
(bwrq)
voice (lWq) of the day of the Lord
day of wrath (hrb[)
day of trouble (hrc)
day of desolation (awv)
day of darkness and gloominess
($vx, hlpa)
day of clouds and thick darkness
(!n[,lpr[)
Joel
Joel 2:11
Isa 13:9, 13
Obad v. 12, 14
Isa 10:3
Joel 2:2
Joel 2:2
voice (lWq), day of the lord
wrath (hrb[)
day of trouble (hrc)
day of desolation (awv)
day of darkness and gloominess ($vx,
hlpa)
day of clouds and thick darkness
(!n[,lpr[)
This table shows that Zephaniah is a pastiche of earlier Day of the Lord language
for the forthcoming end of Judah in 587.1 This in turn shows that Joel, Obadiah
and Isaiah reference the end of the Northern Kingdom or the potential end of
Judah in the Assyrian crises of the 730s and 720s. The motif of the Day of the
1
Kapelrud, 181.
52
Lord is not a general motif of any battle or war undertaken by Yahweh, but that
day that brings about the end of his people in the land.
5.4.2 Jeremiah
Kapelrud observes that there are numerous parallels with Jeremiah and on this
basis he dates Joel to the time of Jeremiah (600) and probably the reign of
Zedekiah.1
5.5 Other Writings
The use of …in Jonah 4:2.
6. Judean Provenance:
There is a clear Judean provenance for Joel and this is shown by i) the motif of
“Judah and Jerusalem” (Joel 3:1, 20); and ii) the existence of the temple on Zion
(Joel 1:13-14; 2:1, 15-16, 32; 3:16-17). The presence of the temple and the
priesthood indicates either a pre-exilic background or a time after the second
temple has been built.
7. Conclusion
Internal factors cannot settle this question, and so we take Joel’s position in the
Book of the Twelve to broadly determine literary dependency. We take HoseaObadiah (MT) to be contemporaneous, and other books to be later, for the
purposes of discussing literary dependency. However, we take the reading order of
the Twelve to require a reader to have read Joel before other Minor Prophets
1
Kapelrud, 179, 189-190.
53
CHAPTER THREE
Pre-Exilic Dating
1. Introduction
A minority of commentators in the 20c. have dated Joel to the pre-exilic period,
and arguments are often the same for the various reigns in which Joel is dated
(Jehoshaphat, Uzziah, Joash/Jehoash, Hezekiah, Zedekiah). Wolff notes that an
early date was the consensus until the commentary of A. Credner in 1831.1 Allen
notes2 that Credner’s case was followed by many conservative nineteenth century
commentators (e.g. Keil, Pusey, and Ewald). In this chapter, we will review preexilic proposals other than a date in the latter half of the eighth century, as we will
develop this proposal in the next chapter; in this way we will attempt to reinstate
the pre-critical consensus.
2. Uzziah
T. H. Horne notes that for his day (1834) “the majority of modern commentators,
are of the opinion (after Arbanel), that he [Joel] delivered his predictions during the
reign of Uzziah [787-735]”.3 This can be argued on the basis of links that Joel has
with Amos as he prophesied “in the days of Uzziah” (Amos 1:1). With Joel located
in the canon before Amos, an allocation to the days of Uzziah is a logical proposal.
This assignment needs to be clarified because Uzziah reigned fifty-two years (787735) and was a co-regent monarch with both Jotham (751-731; 2 Kgs 15:5; 2
Chron 26:21) and Ahaz (743-715; 2 Kgs 15:30, 33; 2 Chron 27:1).4 If we assign Joel
to the reign of Uzziah, it is to the characteristics of Uzziah’s reign that Joel is
linked. If, on the other hand, we date Joel to Jotham or Ahaz, it is the
characteristics of their reigns which are thought to best fit Joel’s message.
The problem with dating Joel to Uzziah’s reign is that, until his sin and subsequent
leprosy, he was a good and strong king, and he expanded the territories over which
Judah was the dominant power (2 Chron 26:7-8); the agricultural economy
prospered (2 Chron 26:10); and he maintained a standing army with a research and
manufacturing weapons industry (2 Chron 26:14-15). These characteristics do not
fit Joel which describes Judah suffering both agricultural shortage and a hostile
invader in its territory. This degree of dissonance prevents the assignment of Joel
1
Wolff, 3—A. Credner, Der Prophet Joel überstezt und erklärt (Halle, Waisenhaus, 1831); see also
Calvin, Joel, 5.
2
Allen, 19.
3
Introduction, 4:185
4
These dates are assigned to Jotham and Ahaz on the basis of synchronisms from the records of
Northern Israel (“the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel”). It is the pattern in these records for
synchronisms to include the years a Judahite king was co-regent or crown prince.
54
to Uzziah’s reign, and for a similar reason, Jotham’s reign should also be excluded,
since he is praised as a strong king (2 Chron 27:6). It is only with Ahaz that the
political situation for Judah becomes desperate (2 Chron 28:19).
3. Joash/Jehoash of Judah
The arguments for Joash (833-795) are as follows:1
There is no mention of a king in the superscription; this would fit the early
reign of Joash when he was a minor.
The role of Jehoiada in protecting Joash and advising Joash (2 Kgs 12:2) is
consistent with the prominence Joel assigns to the priests in his oracles.
There is no mention of Northern Israel and this is consistent with there being
no occasion for Joel to prophesy about them.
Judah’s enemies are not Assyria or Babylon but Edom, Philistia, Phoenicia and
Egypt. This suggests an early pre-exilic date, since Assyria rises to dominate the
West after 742.
The recent history of Judah had seen an invasion by Egypt in the days of
Rehoboam (930-913), and during the reign of Jehoram (853-841), Edom and
Philistia had been at war with Judah (2 Kgs 8:20-22; 2 Chron 21:16-17). Such
actions could be the basis for God’s judgments on these nations in Joel.
In Joash’s day, Syria comes up against Jerusalem (2 Chron 24:23-24), and this
could be the meaning of the Day of the Lord for Judah and Jerusalem.
Of these arguments, the strongest points are the first two—an explanation of the
absence of a king in the superscription and the prominent role of the priests.
Nevertheless, these are not decisive: Joash reigned for forty years, and if Joel
prophesied beyond the time that he was a minor, there is no explanation for the
absence of Joash’s name in the superscription. Further, while Jehoiada is a strong
high priest, Joel’s appeal is to the priests as a group rather than to the high priest.
In Joel, the priests are failing in their role, whereas Jehoiada does not fail
Jerusalem.
Instead, it can be easily shown that Joash’s early reign is not a suitable background
for Joel. The basic problem is that there is no obvious candidate for the locustnation of Joel 1:6 or the great people of Joel 2:2. Syria comes up against Judah at
the end of Joash’s reign as a punishment for his unfaithfulness, but here there is no
1
Pearce, 21-22; Young, Introduction, 271-272; Allen, 19-20. Bič, Das Buch Joel, 106-108.
55
deliverance in the record. In Joel, the crisis confronting the nation ends in
deliverance for survivors in Jerusalem; this is not part of Joash’s history in Kings
and Chronicles.
Furthermore, the story in Joel involves Philistia, Phoenicia, Edom and Egypt in the
same complex history.1 It is inadequate to point to the actions of Philistia in
Jehoram’s day, decades earlier, as the reason for Yahweh’s actions against Philistia
in Joel 3. The judgments of Joel 3 are the eventual outcome of the locust-like
incursions of surrounding nations like Philistia and Edom; this is not described in
Kings and Chronicles for Joash’s reign. Furthermore, the scope of the taking of
captives and temple artefacts, and the selling of slaves, does not find a match in the
record of Syria’s attack at the end of Joash’s reign—these are the crimes of
Phoenicia and Philistia. Finally, such an early date does not explain Joel’s position
in the MT canon after Hosea. A Joash/Jehoash date would have lent itself to a
placement in the pole position in the Book of the Twelve.
4. Hezekiah
H. A. Whittaker argues that the background for Joel is the Assyrian Crisis of 701.
The correspondences that he configures from the book are as follows:2
1) Joel’s theme is invasion, destruction and salvation, a theme which dovetails with
the Assyrian Crisis of 701.
2) Jerusalem is the place of deliverance in 701(Joel 2:32).
3) There is no invective against false religious practises in Joel, and this fits the
reformed era of Hezekiah’s reign (2 Kgs 18:4; 2 Chron 30:31).
In addition to (1)-(3), we can also add that the judgments on the nations in Joel 3
fit post-701 history in that Edom and Egypt are the subject of retribution oracles
in Isaiah 34 and 63. Whittaker’s case is also supported by the language describing
the locust-invader which is Assyrian (Isa 8:7; 13:4; 14:25). Some details in Joel,
however, do not easily fit the crisis of 701,
1) Joel sees the invader breaching the city walls, looting and pillaging (Joel 2:8-9),
but the record through Isaiah is that Yahweh would defend Zion (Isa 37:35). This
objection might be met by observing that Joel 2:2-9 is a vision that is averted by
Yahweh defending Zion.
2) The northerner in Joel 2:20 is a Zephonite, a native of Northern Israel and a
member of the tribe of Gad, rather than a foreign potentate, nation or army from
1
2
Fowler, “The Chronological Position of Joel among the Prophets”, 149.
Whittaker, 2.
56
the north. This objection could be met by the supposition that the Rabshakeh was
a northern Israelite (he spoke Hebrew).
3) Isaiah connects the deliverance of Jerusalem to the prayer of Hezekiah and his
recovery from sickness (Isa 37:21; 38:4-5), but Joel connects salvation and
restoration to the repentance and fasting of the people (Joel 1:14; 2:15). This seems
an insuperable objection.
4) The assurance in Joel is that the northerner would be removed into a barren and
desolate land, and with his armies, he would be destroyed (Joel 2:20). This is not
the account of deliverance in Isaiah’s record of 701 where the Angel of the Lord
decimates the Assyrian army outside the gates of Jerusalem and Sennacherib
returns to Nineveh. This objection also seems insurmountable.
5) The period of history that Joel is concerned with covers “years” that a sequence
of locusts have eaten (Joel 2:25). This does not fit Assyrian history; Sennacherib
was occupied in the West with rebellions until 702, and his army began its
campaign in the Levant in 701. The campaign lasted months and not years. This
objection seems decisive.
These reasons, (1)-(5), are unaddressed by Whittaker and they cast doubt on his
interpretation. However, he does not address the question of whether some of Joel
applies to Hezekiah’s reign, namely, the oracles of Joel 3. Scholars of all
persuasions recognise that Joel 2:28-3:21 is “later” prophecy and it is entirely
possible that the early part of Joel relates to the reign of Ahaz, while other later
oracles relate to the reign of Hezekiah.
4.1 Ahaz and Hezekiah
Our reading interprets Joel 1:2-2:20 in relation to the Assyrian Crisis of the years of
735-734; Joel 2:21-27 relates to the years after this crisis when Judah was rebuilding its economy and infrastructure and needed encouragement to trust in
Yahweh, because the narrative time marker, “And it shall come to pass afterward”
in Joel 2:28 indicates that what follows is about the years after the crisis of the
730s. Similarly, the time marker in Joel 3:1, “For, behold, in those days, and in that
time when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem”, looks forward
beyond the 730s to the time when Yahweh would turn around the captivity of his
people. This began with the rebellion of Hezekiah in 705 and was secured in the
decimation of the Assyrian army in 701.
While scholars conventionally interpret Joel’s reference to the captivity of Judah
and Jerusalem to be the Babylonian Captivity, this is not the only possible
conclusion; during the 730s, the surrounding nations took captives (2 Chron 28:1718), and Hezekiah refers to this state of affairs at the commencement of his reign
in 715 (2 Chron 29:9). It is in his reign therefore that we can look for a turning
57
around of the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem; indeed, it would not be until
Hezekiah’s reign that Judah would shake off the yoke of Assyria.
The conservative harmonization of the chronology of Ahaz and Hezekiah that we
follow in this study accepts that Hezekiah was placed in a position of co-regency
around 729-728 before assuming the throne in 715. Hezekiah rebelled against
Assyrian hegemony in 705 upon the accession of Sennacherib, and it was not until
this time that the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem could be turned around;
Assyrian dominance in the region prevented the kind of battle prophesied in Joel 3,
which was to be a battle of retribution conducted by Judah upon the surrounding
nations. It was only after 705 that Hezekiah could restore Judah, execute
vengeance upon the surrounding nations and repatriate any countrymen.1
However, prior to this war of retribution, there was to be a “great and terrible day
of the Lord” (Joel 2:31). Such a prophecy was to encompass the sack of Samaria by
Assyria (as shown in Isaiah 13). In keeping with a general pattern in God’s dealings
with his people, the promise is given that the spirit of prophecy would be
bestowed upon the people thereby enabling a prophetic mission of warning about
the forthcoming Day of the Lord.
Our proposal, then, is that Joel’s prophetic career spans the reigns of Ahaz and
Hezekiah and has a unifying theme of the Assyrian hegemony (and its end) in
those reigns.
5. Zedekiah
Fifield and Palmer propose a date in the reign of Zedekiah; they affirm, “We
suggest that the only period in Judah's history which fits this picture of the land
lying desolate yet awaiting greater disaster is in the reign of Zedekiah”.2 Their
argument is that Joel 1 paints a picture in the past tense in which the land is
desolated by an invader and only Jerusalem remains as a refuge for the populace;
this fits the situation in the latter days of Zedekiah. Kapelrud offers the same
dating, principally on the ground that Joel shows an intertextual dependency on
Jeremiah.3 They support this by pointing to verbal links with Jeremiah:
1
In our chronology, Hezekiah becomes a co-regent king in 729-728, but does not assume the
sole reign until 715. Certain circumstantial pieces of evidence show that his rebellion and reform
activity did not commence in 729-728: i) Hoshea was on the throne in N. Israel and an Assyrian
appointment; it is less likely that Hezekiah’s mission to N. Israel happened at this time; ii) the
terms of the mission reference N. Israel’s captivity in 722 (2 Chron 30:9); iii) if Hezekiah had
rebelled in 729-728, he would have been a target for Shalmaneser in 725 when he came and laid
siege to Samaria for three years—Samaria was thirty miles north of Jerusalem; and iv) if
Hezekiah was 25 when assuming the reins of power, he was about 12 in 729-728.
2
Fifield and Palmer, “The Prophecy of Joel”, 224.
3
Kapelrud, 191.
58
Jeremiah
Declare ye in Judah, and publish in
Jerusalem; and say, Blow ye the trumpet in
the land: cry, gather together, and say,
Assemble yourselves, and let us go into the
defenced cities. 4:5 (KJV)
Joel
Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an
alarm in my holy mountain: let all the
inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day
of the Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand…
2:1 (KJV)
Sanctify ye a fast, call a solemn assembly,
gather the elders and all the inhabitants of
the land into the house of the Lord your
God, and cry unto the Lord… 1:14 (KJV)
For a nation has come up against my land,
powerful and without number; its teeth are
lions’ teeth, and it has the fangs of a lioness.
1:6 (RSV)
The lion is come up from his thicket, and
the destroyer of the Gentiles is on his way;
he is gone forth from his place to make thy
land desolate; and thy cities shall be laid
waste, without an inhabitant. 4:7 (KJV)
For this gird you with sackcloth, lament and Gird yourselves, and lament, ye priests:
howl: for the fierce anger of the Lord is not howl, ye ministers of the altar: come, lie all
turned back from us. 4:8 (KJV)
night in sackcloth, ye ministers of my
God… 1:13 (KJV)
In addition, there are general historical points to compare:
Nebuchadnezzar had taken the cream of society in the reign of Jehoiachin,
leaving only “old men” and priests for Joel to address (2 Kgs 24:14; Joel 1:2).
Nebuchadnezzar had taken away the vessels of the temple (2 Kgs 24:13), and
this explains the cessation of the daily sacrifice (Joel 1:9).
Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign against Zedekiah plundered the land causing
famine (2 Kgs 25:3) and this matches the failure of supplies to Jerusalem (Joel
1:11, 17-20).
These proposed correspondences do not establish a good case. While the links
with Jeremiah are sound, the direction of the allusions is not proven: Jeremiah
could be using Joel’s language from an earlier time of crisis to describe the
situation in his own day. It cannot be determined from the allusions alone whether
Joel and Jeremiah refer to the same or a different scenario.
The historical fit with the reign of Zedekiah is not strong. The cessation of the
daily sacrifice for Joel is the result of the invader ravaging the land rather than the
removal of the temple vessels. The old men to which Joel appeals are more likely
the elders of the people rather than an indication of an impoverished society. Of
more importance, however, are the oracles of Joel 2 and 3.
Fifield and Palmer regard the oracles of Joel 2 and 3 as unfulfilled in Joel’s day.
However, this strategy does not explain why these oracles were delivered there and
59
then rather than later in time. There are verbal links between Joel 1 and 2 which
suggest that the restoration of Joel 2:21-27 addresses the devastation of Joel 1.
Moreover, the particular geographical detail in Joel 3 suggests that the message was
relevant to an audience who lived in Joel’s day.1
6. Conclusion
Those pre-exilic proposals other than the late eighth century fail to provide a
comprehensive fit to Joel’s detail. In addition they imply a thematic arrangement of
the Minor Prophets rather than a chronological one.
1
We would reach a similar conclusion if Josiah was proposed as the reign for Joel.
60
CHAPTER FOUR
The Assyrian Hegemony
1. Introduction
Scholars have not dated Joel to the geo-political situation in the reigns of Ahaz
(743-715) and Hezekiah (715-687); our study is a new proposal in Joel Studies. Our
thesis is that the locusts of Joel 1 and 2 are a metaphor for the invading army of
Assyria. The superpower rolled down in force into Syro-Palestine for the first time
around 742 “against Israel” (2 Kgs 15:19); this situation was something new for
Judah. She again came south, this time as far as Philistia in 735-734, attacking
Galilee along the way, and this incursion was particularly climatic for Judah as she
was also under attack at this time from various quarters—Syria and Northern Israel
as well as Edom and Philistia.
Assyria was present in the lands of Syria, Israel and Judah during 734-732 in
numbers previously unseen in the area and she caused “distress” to Judah before
turning her into a vassal state. Subsequently, Assyria returned in 728-727 to lay
siege to Damascus, and thereafter from 725-722 she laid siege to Samaria, thirty
miles north of Jerusalem. After the fall of Samaria, however, the Assyrian army left
the region, only to return periodically during the reign of Sargon II. In terms of
crises that could form the backdrop to the Day of the Lord situations of Joel 1 and
2, any one of the crises of 742, 735-734 and 725-722 could be put forward as the
prospect for Joel’s prophesying. In this chapter, we will examine these crises for a
possible fit with the details of Joel’s prophecies.
2. Situating Joel
The length of Joel’s prophetic activity is unknown; if we hypothesized a prophetic
ministry that lasted thirty years, and with only an inspired selection and
arrangement of his oracles from this time, preserved in his book and left to the
historian, there would be a great deal of history in the latter half of the eighth
century to align with the oracles. There again, if we hypothesize a short ministry of
five years or five days, the oracles may align with a single crisis in Judah’s history.
These two arbitrary hypotheses from either extreme of a spectrum that may seem
undecideable, but they translate into the question of how the four “acts”1 of Joel’s
story are related (the four chapters of the current Hebrew and Greek text).
In reading prophetic oracles it is easy to overlook the passage of narrative time,
especially when this is not explicitly noted. In Joel there are some indicators of the
passage of time and change of situation, for instance, the “at hand” of Joel 1:15
and 2:1; the “…yet even now…” of Joel 2:12; the “…it shall come to pass
1
We justify these four “acts” in Chapter Six.
61
afterward…” of Joel 2:28; and the “…in those days and at that time…” of Joel 3:1;
these are indicators of changes in narrative time. However, the passage of time is
more often an inference to be drawn from the change of topics from oracle to
oracle. Any analysis of Joel’s oracles will need to respect the possibility that the
circumstances addressed have changed.
The political crises of Ahaz’ regency and reign are many: i) the Assyrian incursion
towards Samaria in 742; ii) the attacks by local nations during the years 738-734; iii)
the Syro-Ephraimite siege of 734; iv) the distress of Judah by Assyria during 735734; v) the Assyrian siege of Samaria between 725-722; and vi) the continued
subjugation of Judah under Sargon during the years 720-716. Assyrian hegemony
continued during Hezekiah’s reign until his rebellion in or after 705, at which time
Sennacherib became king and simultaneous rebellions broke out in Babylon and
Anatolia. The major crisis in Hezekiah’s reign is the Assyrian invasion of 701. After
the miraculous deliverance of Jerusalem, Hezekiah waged a campaign of vengeance
against the surrounding nations. Joel’s oracles may be situated to any or all of these
crises and we require a synopsis of events in order to make a determination.
3. Kings and Chronicles
There are two parts to a synopsis of the historical background for Joel: i) the
history that corresponds to Joel 1 and 2; and ii) the history that matches Joel 3.1
3.1 Joel 1 and 2
Our chronology of the kings of Israel and Judah has Ahaz assume a co-regent
position in 743; this date coincides2 with Tiglath-Pileser’s first campaign to the
West, as from 743-739 he was in Northern Syria campaigning against Arpad and
Urartu according to the Eponym List3 and corresponding inscriptions.4 At some
point during this time his army came “against Israel” and as far south as Samaria
whereupon Menahem offered him tribute (2 Kgs 15:19). The proximity of Samaria
to Jerusalem (thirty miles) makes this incursion a crisis for Judah and the first
possible catalyst for Joel’s first oracle about a “nation come up upon my land”
(Joel 1:6). However, in 739 the Assyrian king withdrew from the Levant to attend
to wars in other areas; some local states gradually reasserted themselves and
adopted an anti-Assyrian stance.
1
For general histories see J. Bright, A History of Israel (OTL; Revised Edition; London: SCM
Press, 1972) and J. Maxwell Miller and J. H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (London:
SCM Press, 1986).
2
A significant threat to Judah like that in 742 would be a catalyst for securing the succession in
the event that Jotham was killed.
3
Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria, 232-237, offers a table with his
correlation of Tiglath-Pileser’s Calah Annals and various inscriptions to the Eponym dates.
4
ARAB 1:271-276.
62
In the period 738-734, Judah was assailed by her neighbours, chief of which were
Syria and Northern Israel. This began in the days of Jotham, and continued into
the reign of Ahaz,
In those days the Lord began to send Rezin the king of Syria and Pekah the son
of Remaliah against Judah. 2 Kgs 15:37 (RSV)1
This comment sets the scene for this period of time as one of repeated
campaigning against Judah. Given the relative dominance of Judah in the days of
Uzziah and the early reign of Jotham (2 Chron 26:8; 27:5), this signals a change of
circumstances co-incident with the appointment of Ahaz to a shared throne.
There were two rival kingdoms in Northern Israel at this time: Pekah (751-731)
and Menahem (748-738) were rival kings from 748 when Menahem assumed the
throne in Samaria. Hosea records the existence of the two rival domains in the
north in his dual nomenclature of “Ephraim” and “Israel” for the area (Hos 5:1, 5;
11:12).2 Pekah’s power base was most likely Gilead and parts of Galilee. In his
usurpation of power Menahem had assassinated Shallum who was from JabeshGilead (2 Kgs 15:13-14), and in his turn Pekah’s own coup against Pekahiah would
be supported by Gileadites (2 Kgs 15:25). Menahem’s power base was most likely
just the tribal area of Samaria and Ephraim.
In 736, Pekah seized the throne in Samaria from Menahem’s successor, Pekahiah
(738-737), who had been allied with Assyria (2 Kgs 15:19-20), and the diplomatic
stance of Israel changed as a consequence. Local states would change allegiances
from Egypt to Assyria and back again according to their self-interests (cf. Hos
7:11; 12:1). Any change in allegiance would lead to Assyria attacking the towns of
Galilee in 735-734 on the way to Philistia. In the meantime, Pekah’s usurpation of
power led to an alliance with Rezin of Syria. Rezin was the senior partner in the
alliance, as shown by his being named first when the alliance with Pekah is
mentioned (2 Kgs 15:37; 16:5; Isa 7:1, 4, 5, 8).
This period in Ahaz’ reign (736-734) has been termed by scholars—the “SyroEphraimite Crisis”. The crisis can be seen solely in terms of Rezin and Pekah and
their combined assault on Judah (2 Kgs 15:37), but the record in Chronicles allows
for their actions against Judah to have initially been separate (2 Chron 28:5), before
joining forces in an alliance that led to a siege of Jerusalem. Furthermore, the
Chronicles’ account records that Edom and the Philistines were also active at this
time invading the south of Judah (2 Chron 28:17-18); the crisis involved the taking
captives and embraced nations on all sides.
B. Oded has argued for the historical reliability of this comment in “The Historical Background
of the Syro-Ephraimite War Reconsidered” CBQ 34/2 (1972): 153-165 (154-155).
2
Thiele, Mysterious Numbers, 129-130.
1
63
The intention of Rezin and Pekah in 736 was to place the “son of Tabeal” on the
throne in Jerusalem (Isa 7:6). As B. Oded observes, it is reasonable to assume that
this individual was a member of a branch of the royal family with a power base to
the north and east of Judah across Jordan.1 Isaiah’s record shows a concern for the
“house of David” and the threat that the “son of Tabeal” represented to the
Davidic throne (Isa 7:2, 6). Against this backdrop, Isaiah predicts that,
The Lord will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father's
house such days as have not come since the day2 that Ephraim departed from
Judah - the king of Assyria. Isa 7:17 (RSV)
Isaiah’s prediction is prescient because soon thereafter, in 735-734, Tiglath-Pileser
returned in strength to the Levant and waged a campaign down the eastern
seaboard, taking in Galilee, and ending up in Philistia. This second Assyrian
campaign south directly affected Judah who was “distressed” by the superpower (2
Chron 28:20). This occasion is the second possible catalyst for Joel’s “a nation
has come up upon my land” oracle (Joel 1:6) and it could also have prompted the
vision of the “great people” overrunning a city (Joel 2:2-9).
The record in Kings states that Ahaz sought the help of Assyria when Rezin and
Pekah were laying siege to Jerusalem; the Chronicler states that he sought help in
relation to Edom and Philistia and their incursions to southern Judah (2 Kgs 16:7;
2 Chron 28:16). These two requests for help should be distinguished as they
elicited different responses. Tiglath-Pileser responds in Kings by going against
Damascus (2 Kgs 16:9); in Chronicles his response is not to strengthen Ahaz nor
help him, but on the contrary to constrain and afflict (“distress”) him (2 Chron
28:20-21). The Chronicler’s explanation for this lack of support is the wrongful
sequestration of assets from the temple by Ahaz for a tribute payment to TiglathPileser (2 Chron 28:21).
Ahaz’ reaction to Tiglath-Pileser’s negative response was to turn to the gods of
Damascus because they were helping the Syrians:
And in the time of his distress did he trespass yet more against the Lord: this is
that king Ahaz. For he sacrificed unto the gods of Damascus, which smote him:
and he said, Because the gods of the kings of Syria help them, therefore will I
sacrifice to them, that they may help me. But they were the ruin of him, and of all
Israel. 2 Chron 28:23 (KJV)
This failure on the part of Ahaz should be seen against the background of Isaiah’s
reassurance that the king of Assyria would deliver the house of David from the
Oded, “The Historical Background of the Syro-Ephraimite War Reconsidered”, 161.
This refrain “…such days as have not come since…” echoes Joel’s remark, “…their like has
never been from of old…” (Joel 2:2; cf. 1:2).
1
2
64
Syro-Ephraimite coalition (Isa 7:7-9, 17). Ahaz evidently did not believe this and he
turned instead to the gods of Syria for help against Assyria. In this faithless act, we
have a third possible catalyst for Joel to directly appeal to the priests to call a fast
and turn to the Lord (Joel 1:15; 2:15-16) in order to avert the threatened Day of
the Lord.
Ahaz first sought the gods of Damascus (2 Chron 28:23) for help against Assyria,
but subsequently he sought to buy off Tiglath-Pileser with a second tribute
payment which succeeded (2 Kgs 16:7). The Syro-Ephraimite attack on Jerusalem
did not succeed, because Tiglath-Pileser went on to sack Damascus and remove
Rezin (2 Kgs 16:9), as well as annexe most of Northern Israel (2 Kgs 15:29),
validating Hoshea on the throne as a vassal king.1 After securing his western
interests, Tiglath-Pileser returned to Mesopotamia. In effect, this payment (twice)
of tribute to Tiglath-Pileser also made Judah into a vassal state.
We therefore propose that Joel sees the Day of the Lord in the context of the
Syro-Ephraimite/Assyrian Crisis; he recognizes Assyria’s actions distressing the
land as a warning to Judah and Jerusalem. Using this he urges his countrymen to
repent and turn to the Lord. The promise to them should they repent was that
Yahweh would restore the harvest years (735-734) eaten by the locust-army (Joel
2:25) and, in addition, he would remove the northerner from the land (Joel 2:20).
Such a twofold response met the situation in hand: the locust-army that had
ravaged the land was the Assyrian superpower distressing Judah, and the
northerner was the “son of Tabeal” that Damascus and Samaria sought to place on
the throne in Jerusalem (Isa 7:1).2
3.1.1 Hezekiah
The later oracles of Joel presuppose changing and changed circumstances. While
scholars often divide the book at Joel 2:28, a change of situation is reflected in Joel
2:21-27. The land is told not to be afraid because the Lord had magnified himself
in removing the northerner (Joel 2:21, RSV), a wondrous act that demonstrated
that Yahweh was the one true God (Joel 2:26-27).
Judah might still well be afraid as the Assyrian army was in the region until at least
732 and the fall of Damascus. The land was once again cultivated and producing
pasture and crops, and the Lord had given them a “teacher of righteousness” (Joel
2:23, KJV mg; cf. Isa 30:20). We discuss this figure in Chapter Ten and our
proposal will be that the figure is a personification for the bestowal of the Spirit.
However, the bestowal upon the newly anointed crown prince—Hezekiah—is
1
This is confirmed in the Assyrian texts—Kuan, Neo-Assyrian Historical Inscriptions and SyriaPalestine, 177.
2
This identification is necessary because the end of the northerner does not match the known
ends of Rezin, Pekah, Tiglath-Pileser, Shalmaneser V, nor later Assyrian monarchs such as
Sennacherib (nor, it might also be said, any Babylonian army in 587).
65
particularly resonant (c. 729-728; 2 Kgs 18:1).1 His anticipated rule of faithfulness
and righteousness would ensure that God would provide the rains for the crops
(Joel 2:24; Deut 28:12). The Lord would also restore the “years” that the Assyrian
army had “eaten” (c. 735-732; Joel 2:11, 25), thereby rectifying the distress that
Assyria had inflicted on Judah (the diverting of food and drink from the populace
to the Assyrian army, and the depletion of the storehouses). Accordingly, with Joel
2:21-27, the reader is taken beyond the Assyrian Crisis of the 730s to the hope of
restoration that the prophet saw in the advent of Hezekiah as the crown prince;
this is the fourth catalyst for Joel’s prophesying.
The oracle units in Joel 2:28-3:3 anticipate a period in which there will be a spirit
inspired prophetic mission of warning. Another oracle that Joel utters upon the
anointing of Hezekiah is “I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh” (Joel 2:28-29).
This new situation is indicated by the clause “And it shall come to pass afterward”,
a clause that is part of the written design of the book. With this indication, the
reader is moved on from the crisis of the 730s to the promise implied in the figure
of Hezekiah. God promises to show wonders in the heavens and a “sacrifice”
among the nations—“blood, fire and pillars of smoke” (Joel 2:30). This warviewed-as-sacrifice was set for the time when Yahweh would turn around the
captivity of Judah and Jerusalem (Joel 3:1), but such a time of vengeance would be
preceded by the great and terrible Day of the Lord from which the people should
seek their escape in Jerusalem.
The fifth catalyst for Joel’s prophecies is indicated by Isaiah in his application of
the language of Joel 2 to the sack of Samaria (Isaiah 13). This Day of the Lord was
presaged2 by a prophetic mission of deliverance in Jerusalem; those in the north
were exhorted to go south. Those who responded to this mission and migrated
south were promised that God would gather once again the heritage of Israel when
he turned around the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem (Joel 3:1-3).
This period in the history of Judah is characterized by a bestowal of the Spirit.
Indications of the bestowal of the Spirit from the 720s onwards include,
The mission of prophets such as Isaiah, Hosea, Joel and Obadiah.
Hezekiah’s call to repentance sent to all the tribes exhorting them to come to
Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover (2 Chron 30:6, 9).
Hezekiah would be about 12 when he “became king” (2 Kgs 18:1); the record states that he was
25 when “he began to reign”, which would have been in 715. Joel sees in the young Hezekiah a
“teacher of righteousness”. We might discern a typological basis for Jesus’ visit to the temple at
the age of 12.
2
It would also be presaged by eclipses of the sun and the moon; see Chapter Ten.
1
66
The “sudden” happening of enthusiasm for the Great Passover and the
proclamation throughout the land (2 Chron 29:36).1
The wonders (tpwm, Joel 2:30) in Isaiah’s ministry (tpwm, Isa 8:18 (c. 736); 20:3
(c. 713)), and the wonder given to Hezekiah (2 Chron 32:24, 31 (c. 701)).
The role of the “hand of God” giving the people “one heart” to obey the king
(2 Chron 29:25; 30:12) when Hezekiah instituted his programme of religious
reform after 715.
The “healing” of those people who responded to the call of Hezekiah (2 Chron
30:20).
The writing of new psalms2 and the inspiration of praise in the Temple (2
Chron 29:25, 28-30).
The organisation of the proverbs of Solomon (Prov 25:1).
Of these indications of the bestowal of the Spirit, Hezekiah’s call to repentance
resonates with Joel in having a “you turn...the Lord will return” structure:
So the posts went with the letters from the king and his princes throughout all
Israel and Judah, and according to the commandment of the king, saying, Ye
children of Israel, turn again unto the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel,
and he will return to the remnant of you, that are escaped out of the hand of the
kings of Assyria. 2 Chron 30:6 (KJV)
For if ye turn again unto the Lord, your brethren and your children shall find
compassion before them that lead them captive, so that they shall come again
into this land: for the Lord your God is gracious and merciful, and will not turn
away his face from you, if ye return unto him. 2 Chron 30:9 (KJV)
Therefore also now, saith the Lord, turn ye even to me with all your heart, and
with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning: And rend your heart, and not
your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God: for he is gracious and merciful,
slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil. Who
knoweth if he will return and repent, and leave a blessing behind him; even a meat
offering and a drink offering unto the Lord your God? Joel 2:12-14 (KJV)
Joel’s appeal for repentance was made in the face of the Assyrian arrival in 735734, but it was linked with a bestowal of the spirit. Hezekiah’s appeal was made
1
This aspect may be picked up in Mal 3:1 and Acts 2:2; for a discussion see D. Daube The Sudden
in the Scriptures (Leiden: E J Brill, 1964), 22.
2
The assignment of certain psalms to Hezekiah is discussed in G. Booker, Psalms Studies (2 vols;
Austin: Published by the Author, 1989-1990).
67
after 715 but it was set against an unchanged situation: the “fierce wrath” of the
Lord was still afflicting Judah (2 Chron 29:8, 10). The most recent Assyrian
campaigns in the region (c. 720-716) had led Sargon to record that he was still the
“subduer of Judah”,1 and furthermore, there were captives of Judah and Jerusalem
still abroad (2 Chron 29:9). Hezekiah’s actions addressing the situation were to
initiate religious reform and centralize worship in Jerusalem. He appealed to both
north and south to give their allegiance to Jerusalem (2 Kgs 18:4; 2 Chron 30:1-11).
In this policy he was enacting the counsel of Joel (and Obadiah) that there would
be deliverance in Jerusalem and preparing the kingdom for rebellion.2
Judah’s situation with regard to Assyria was that she was a vassal state, but it is
evident that Hezekiah prepared his kingdom for an eventual rebellion which took
place after the death of Sargon in 705 (2 Kgs 18:7-8).3 It was this rebellion that led
to Sennacherib’s invasion and subsequent miraculous defeat, and it was after this
vindication of Yahweh that Hezekiah sought revenge upon the surrounding
nations.
3.2 Joel 3
The oracle units of Joel 3:9-17 have an obvious point of utterance in a declaration
of war; they are very much of the opening moment in a political and military
confrontation. Similarly, the closing oracle of Joel 3:18-21 is evidently about the
aftermath of such a battle closing with a message of security and prosperity for
Judah and desolation for her enemies. These last oracles of Joel expand upon the
announcement of “blood, fire and pillars of smoke” in Joel 2:30.
Joel’s final oracles are indexed to the restoration of the “captivity” of Judah and
Jerusalem (Joel 3:1). They envisage a time beyond the Day of the Lord of Joel 1
and 2, predicting a Day of the Lord for the surrounding nations (Joel 3:14). Their
application lies beyond the then Assyrian hegemony over the region. Such
hegemony remained intact until Sennacherib assumed the throne in 705,
whereupon there were rebellions in several places of the empire (Babylon,
Anatolia), including the West and Judah (2 Kgs 18:7-8; 1 Chron 4:39-43).
Judah asserted itself in the region as part of its rebellion; this would have been
necessary in order to secure her defences; hence, 2 Kgs 18:7-8 records a campaign
against Philistia. Hezekiah’s rebellion would have also taken in action against
Assyrian garrisons including the one in Jerusalem.
1
ANET, 287.
It is worth noting that the general bestowal of the Spirit in NT times began some 35 years
before 70 C.E., and our hypothesis is that there was a similar period of bestowal in the latter part
of the eighth century.
3
For an overview of the history of Judah during the reign of Sargon, see Millar and Hayes, A
History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 351-353.
2
68
Joel’s cry to battle could come from this time of rebellion. Considerations in
favour of this conclusion are,
1) Joel calls upon the “mighty ones” to “come down” and engage in battle.1 These
mighty ones could be those who are named in 1 Chron 4:35-43—such were
princes “mentioned by name” and “written by name” in the days of Hezekiah.
They had fought skirmishes against Gedor and Amalek and in Edom in order to
secure lands and pastures.2 Such princes would have been known as “mighty men”
just like the famous men who were the heads of Manasseh in the days of Jotham (1
Chron 5:24). While a certain Joel is one such man, we cannot identify this
individual with the prophet Joel.
2) The bravado of Joel’s proclamation of war and call to arms includes the boast
that “strangers shall not pass through Jerusalem any more” (Joel 3:17). This
utterance finds an obvious catalyst in the removal of the Assyrian garrison in
Jerusalem, and action that would signal the beginning of rebellion.
The battle cry of Joel 3:9-12 and the description of the assembled armies in the
Valley of Decision (Joel 3:14) finds a possible sixth catalyst in Hezekiah’s
campaign against Philistia. However, the bravado of the claim that “no strangers
shall pass through Jerusalem any more” anticipates the deliverance of Jerusalem
from the inevitable Assyrian attempt to put down the rebellion which occurred in
701 (Joel 3:16-17), and the battle could relate to the year of recompense—700. The
prediction about the desolation of Edom saw a fulfilment in Hezekiah’s campaign
against Edom in the “year of recompense for Zion” (700, Isa 34:8); and the
desolation of Egypt would also see fulfilment in the actions of Assyria and
Esarhaddon against the Nile Delta in 670. It is in this new environment that the
last oracle of Joel 3 finds its fulfilment.
3.3 Summary
The above synopsis aligns with Joel in offering i) a single nation that “lays waste
God’s vine” and “barks his fig tree” (Joel 1:7); ii) surrounding nations acting
together against Judah taking captives; iii) a “northerner” and associated armies; iv)
deliverance in Jerusalem during the downfall of the Northern Kingdom; and v)
eventual defeat for surrounding nations.
1
A call to mighty ones to come down has suggested to commentators a call to the heavenly host,
but it is just as possible that it is a call to the army of Judah to go down to the coastal plain.
2
This action is likely to be from Hezekiah’s early reign rather than part of any concerted
campaign of rebellion after 705; we can deduce this from the record’s note that the skirmishes
resulted in a settlement of the captured areas.
69
4. Isaiah
We have already discussed intertextual connections between Joel and the Prophets
in Chapter Two; here we need to further examine Isaiah 7 and 34.1
4.1 Isaiah 7
Isaiah 7 offers descriptive material relating to the Assyrian Crisis of 735-734.2 The
note in Isa 7:1 summarizes the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis and its outcome; it is a way
of introducing an encounter between Isaiah and Ahaz at the beginning of the
crisis:3
And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah,
king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king
of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail
against it. Isa 7:1 (KJV)
The opening verses note a prolonged campaign against Jerusalem, one in which
they were not able to continue fighting against the city (hyl[ ~xlhl lky, Isa 7:1).
Ahaz’ lineage is given as Jotham and Uzziah, thereby indicating that Uzziah was
still alive (d. 735),4 which places the time index of the Ahaz’ encounter with Isaiah
to at least 736.
In terms of chronological indicators, Isaiah’s account sees Ahaz offered the sign of
a child born who would not be weaned off soft food (curds and honey) before the
land would be rid of the Syro-Ephraimite threat. This implies an expectation that
the siege would last some months and more than likely up to two years before any
relief. A second chronological indicator of the length of the Syro-Ephraimite
campaign is the expectation that Assyria would be an instrument of deliverance:
The Lord shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father’s
house,5 days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from
Judah; even the king of Assyria. Isa 7:17 (KJV) cf. Isa 8:7
This announcement carries a certain ambiguity, but it is set against the threat
presented by Syria and Ephraim. Assyria is not yet present in the land but it
anticipates the arrival of Assyria in the Levant in 735-734.
1
We will also have cause to discuss Isaiah 13 in detail in Chapter Nine.
See Hayes and Irvine, Isaiah: The Eighth Century Prophet, 113-136, for their treatment of Isaiah 7
and the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis; this is a summary of material in S. A. Irvine, Isaiah, Ahaz, and the
Syro-Ephraimite Crisis (SBLDS 123; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990).
3
Irvine, Syro-Ephraimite Crisis, 137.
4
The point here is that it is unusual to mention two kings in the lineage rather than just the
father.
5
The reference to “your father’s house” is a further indication of the co-regent situation
prevailing in Judah. Jotham and Uzziah were alive and the titular head of the house of David;
Ahaz was the effective king in place.
2
70
In this encounter, Isaiah is instructed to meet Ahaz with his son Shearjashub; the
name is symbolic and means “a remnant will return”. At this point in Judah’s
history, the land has been denuded of its population with Edom, Philistia and Syria
having recently taken captives (2 Chron 28:5, 17-18). The presence of Isaiah’s son
at the meeting is a statement of reassurance that a remnant of such captives would
return home, despite the threat posed by Syria and Ephraim.1
Isaiah’s assurance is however double-edged because he says the king of Assyria will
come “upon” or “against” Ahaz ($yl[, Isa 7:5; 10:14). This happened in 735-734
despite Ahaz sending tribute to Tiglath-Pileser to secure his help against Edom and
Philistia. The comment of the Chronicler is that Tiglath-Pileser did not help or
strengthen Ahaz but distressed (rwc) him (2 Chron 28:16-20). It was not until Ahaz
sent a second tribute payment to secure Assyrian help against the combined forces
of Rezin and Pekah (2 Kgs 16:7-9) that Assyria turned on Damascus.
The outcome of the crisis was that Judah became a vassal state. Ahaz introduced
new religious practices to Jerusalem—an Assyrian altar design2 and a new altar for
the temple; the re-positioning of the old brass altar; the nomination of the new
altar as the people’s altar; changes to the laver; allocation of part of the temple
buildings for the Assyrian king; a garrison for Assyrian troops; destruction of the
vessels of the temple; and the shutting of the doors to the temple (2 Kgs 16:10-18;
2 Chron 28:22-24).
Joel is then a complimentary prophet to Isaiah in his proclamations about Assyria.
For example, both prophets are making the same point about the uniqueness of
the Assyrian arrival:
The Lord shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's
house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah;
even the king of Assyria. Isa 7:17 (KJV)
Hear this, ye old men, and give ear, all ye inhabitants of the land. Hath this been
in your days, or even in the days of your fathers? Joel 1:2 (KJV)
The desolation that Assyria would inflict on the land is also documented by both
prophets in terms of the effect on viticulture (Isa 7:23; Joel 1:10, 12).3
1
Irvine, Syro-Ephraimite Crisis, 144, discusses other interpretations.
P. R. Ackroyd in “The Biblical Interpretation of the Reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah”, In the
Shelter of Elyon (eds. W. Boyd Barrick and J. R. Spencer; JSOTSup 31; Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1984), 247-259 (252), insightfully notes that the stress on design “suggests an ironic use of a
formula frequently to be found in the descriptions of the tabernacle...e.g., Exod 39.32”.
3
See also Isaiah’s “Song of the Vineyard” (Isaiah 5) and the prediction of the Assyrian arrival in
the land in vv. 26-30.
2
71
Furthermore, in broad terms, Isaiah includes the same appeal to “Sanctify the
Lord” (Isa 8:13; Joel 1:14; 2:15, 16).
4.2 Isaiah 34
The first person utterances of Joel 2:30 and 3:1-2 should be connected:
And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and
pillars of smoke… For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring
again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem, I will also gather all nations, and will
bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there
for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the
nations, and parted my land. Joel 2:30-3:1-2 (KJV)
The connection here is one of explanation; the yk (“For”) explains the how of
“blood, fire and pillars of smoke” in the earth. We can see this because the
gathering of the nations in the Valley of Jehoshaphat is evidently not an
explanation for the deliverance in Jerusalem (Joel 2:32); rather, Joel 3:9-14 anticipates
deliverance out in the country (“earth”). Furthermore, the explanation of Joel 3:1-2
does not connect with the darkening of the sun, or the turning of the moon to
blood; these signs presage the great and terrible Day of the Lord which has been
described earlier as one that leads to the sack of a city (Joel 2:9, 11, 31).
Instead, the explanation of Joel 3:1 picks up on the first person utterance of Joel
2:30 and elaborates on the idiom of “blood, fire and pillars of smoke”. This is a
figure of “war-as-sacrifice”1 and Isaiah 34 contains a similar image from the eighth
century. The topic of war is explicit in Joel 3:1-3 and this explains in turn the
presence of the declaration of war in Joel 3:9-14; Isaiah 34 is the only comparable
eighth century prophecy.
Isaiah 34 records (in prophecy) Hezekiah’s campaign against Edom in 700. Isaiah’s
language of war has several points of contact with Joel:
Isaiah 34
come near, v. 1
nations, v. 1
all nations, v. 1
sacrifice in Bozrah, v. 6
blood, v. 7
burning pitch, v. 9
smoke, v. 10
desolate, v. 10
1
Joel 2 and 3
draw near, 3:9
nations, 3:9
all nations, 3:2
blood, fire, and pillars of smoke, 2:30
blood, 2:30
fire, 2:30
smoke, 2:30
desolate wilderness, 3:19
We discuss this reading further in Chapter Ten.
72
Isaiah and Joel do not record the same war, but Isaiah does show quite clearly the
figure of “war-as-sacrifice” in details such as the bulls, bullocks and fat, as well as
blood and fire. It is this figure that Joel uses in the idiom of “blood, fire and pillars
of smoke”.1 (We might imagine Joel giving his prophecy in the temple beside the
altar.)
5. Assyrian Records
There are three or four Assyrian kings whose records contribute to the background
for Joel: Tiglath-Pileser, Shalmaneser, Sargon and Sennacherib.
5.1 Tiglath-Pileser
The annals and building inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser are fragmentary and
scholars disagree on how to correlate the accounts to Tiglath-Pileser’s campaign
years as delineated in the Eponym List. Nevertheless, they are important for what
they can contribute to an understanding of the end of the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis
for Judah.
1) The Calah/Nimrud Annals reference both Menahem and Pekah. H. J. Cook
aptly observes that the records refer to a “Menahem of Samaria” and to Pekah as
the king of Israel;2 this likely indicates the extent of their respective domains during
the period in which they were rival kings—747-738.
2) The annals record Menahem as having paid tribute to Tiglath-Pileser,3 which is
consistent with 2 Kgs 15:19 and its mention of a payment by Menahem to buy-off
Tiglath-Pileser when he attacked4 the land (cf. Hos 5:13). This attack could have
occurred in 742 in Tiglath-Pileser’s first series of campaigns against the West or
even as late as 738.5 With Tiglath-Pileser having engaged in some action against
Menahem’s territory, it is plausible to see in a weakened Menahem an opportunity
for Pekah to seize the throne in Samaria from Menahem’s son Pekahiah in 736-735
(2 Kgs 15:25).
1
The figure translates immediately into a literal depiction of holy war.
H. J. Cook, “Pekah” VT 14 (1964): 121-135 (127); see ANET, 283-284.
3
ANET, 283.
4
Kuan, Neo-Assyrian Historical Inscriptions and Syria-Palestine, 143-144, argues that an attack is not
indicated by the Hebrew but just an entry into the land; however, l[ is more likely to indicate
hostilities. What we can say is that 2 Kgs 15:19 does not show that Tiglath-Pileser attacked
Menahem; if Pekah is in control of Galilee and Gilead, he could have been the target of
operations.
5
Thiele, Mysterious Numbers, ch. 7, and Cook, “Pekah”, 122, argue for 743 as the date. Other
scholars have argued that the tribute payment in the annals is one made in 740: W. H. Shea,
“Menahem and Tiglath-Pileser III” JNES 37 (1978):43-49. However, the consensus is 738, D. J.
Wiseman, “Two Historical Inscriptions from Nimrud” Iraq 13 (1951): 21-26; L. D. Levine,
“Menahem and Tiglath-Pileser: A New Synchronism” BASOR 206 (1972): 40-42; Kuan, NeoAssyrian Historical Inscriptions and Syria-Palestine, 156; and Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III
King of Assyria, 265-268.
2
73
3) Tiglath-Pileser’s campaigns against the West began in 743 and were centred in
the Syrian state of Arpad until 740. During this time he received tribute from Rezin
and surrounding rulers, including Uzziah (Azriau from Iuda1), although a campaign
in Syria by Uzziah is not recorded in Kings or Chronicles. Uzziah did, however,
keep a large standing army; was active in military engagements; and did achieve a
widespread reputation as a strong leader (2 Chron 26:11-15). Jotham, his son, was
likewise “mighty”, and it may have been his leadership in the field on behalf of
Uzziah that is noted in Tiglath-Pileser’s record.
4) The return of Tiglath-Pileser to the West in 735-7342 addressed very different
circumstances in which many local states were in revolt but principally Syria. The
Assyrian campaign started along the Phoenician coast, as Tyre was in alliance with
Rezin,3 and this action affected the region adjacent to the borders of Northern
Israel (cf. 2 Kgs 15:29), and then moved down the coast to Gaza.4 It is not clear
how much of Northern Israel suffered, although some plundering of border towns
can be safely surmised. Tiglath-Pileser does refer to his “former campaigns” in
Israel when describing his campaign of 733-732 against Syria; these may have
included actions between 743-739 (probably 742) as well as 735-734.
We can infer from 2 Chron 28:16-18 that it would have been before Tiglath-Pileser
had moved south to Philistia that Ahaz sent tribute for help against the armies of
Edom and Philistia who had been (and were) assailing him from every direction.5
But this course of action would have been part of Tiglath-Pileser’s strategy in the
first place; it cannot be supposed that Tiglath-Pileser marched against Philistia in
order to abate Ahaz’ dilemma. In focusing first on Philistia, Tiglath-Pileser is
1
The identification with Uzziah of Judah is disputed, but nothing is known of another state,
Iuda, or a king, Azriau, which would support an alternative. See D. W. Thomas, Documents from
Old Testament Times (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1961), 56, and Tadmor, The Inscriptions of
Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria, 273-274. Thiele’s chronology allows the identification of Uzziah,
and we would date Uzziah’s death to 736-735, which allows for any action against Assyria. Bright
observes that Uzziah may have initiated a defensive campaign in Northern Syria as a way of
meeting the Assyrian danger at the first opportunity, A History of Israel, 268.
2
Tadmor sets out the correlations between the biblical record and Tiglath-Pileser’s records in
The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria, 279-282.
3
This is noted in fragments ND 4301+4305 and published in D. J. Wiseman, “A Fragmentary
Inscription of Tiglath-Pileser from Nimrud” Iraq 18 (1956): 117-129 (123); Tadmor notes it in a
summary inscription from Calah—Summ. 9r.5-8; see The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of
Assyria, 279.
4
ANET, 283; the Eponym list has the summary “against Philistia” for 734, which shows TiglathPileser’s main focus; see Thiele, Mysterious Numbers, 224.
5
J. Gray, “The Period and Office of the Prophet Isaiah in the Light of a New Assyrian Tablet”
ExpTim 63 (1952): 263-265—Gray raises the issue (263) of at what point in Tiglath-Pileser’s
march south Ahaz would have sent tribute, and suggests Judah also suffered some border
trouble from Tiglath-Pileser, as intimated by 2 Chron 28:20.
74
following the safest route to securing the southern supply lines and cutting of
Egypt as a source of assistance.1
According to 2 Kgs 16:8, Ahaz’ second tribute payment induced Tiglath-Pileser to
come up from the south and from the coastal plain into Judah and confront Rezin
and Pekah. But again, this may well have been his strategy from the beginning. In
735-734, he is essentially completing the control of the West that he had achieved
in his earlier campaigns of 743-739, which he had lost while he had been occupied
in the north and east in the intervening years.
In 733 and 732, Tiglath-Pileser turned “against the land of Damascus” according
to the Eponym List, a detail which confirms the primacy of Rezin in the SyroEphraimite coalition. Nevertheless, the full extent of Israel is ravaged and its
inhabitants are deported, although no specific battles are described. Samaria
escaped the destruction presumably because Hoshea assassinated Pekah and
submitted to Assyria in 731. Tiglath-Pileser states that the Israelites deposed Pekah
while he chose Hoshea as a vassal king. No campaigning is described against other
states such as Moab, Edom, Ammon, although it is stated that they paid tribute
along with Ahaz.2
The above outline, (1)-(4), of Tiglath-Pileser’s campaigning in Syria-Palestine aligns
with Joel in two respects: there is a single nation that has come up upon the land,
strong and without number, and the surrounding nations are actively hostile to
Judah.
5.2 Shalmaneser and Sargon
There are virtually no records for Shalmaneser but, from the fact that his army
occupied Northern Israel from 725-722 and besieged Samaria, we can infer that
the policies pursued by Judah were subservient and compliant. Hence, we can
conclude that the chronology of Ahaz and Hezekiah for this period should be
interpreted as a co-regency with Hezekiah as crown prince. Hezekiah’s religious
reforms and overtures towards the north are unlikely in the 720s and therefore, we
should date Ahaz’ death to 715 rather than 729-728.
The movement of refugees from a war zone is a well-established phenomenon.
The appeal of Joel to seek deliverance in Jerusalem is a message that fits the
subjugation of the north by Shalmaneser (Joel 2:32), and it is confirmed by the
archaeological record which shows expansion of Jerusalem during the latter half of
the eighth century.3
Wiseman, “Two Historical Inscriptions from Nimrud”, 21-22.
ANET, 282; The full name of Ahaz is given as “Jehoahaz” on which see the discussion of
Thomas, Documents from Old Testament Times, 57.
3
Maxwell Millar and Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 358.
1
2
75
Sargon maintained Assyrian hegemony over the west but only through a series of
campaigns. A campaign in 720 to subdue uprisings in areas such as Damascus and
Samaria does not mention Judah/Jerusalem.1 A campaign against Egypt in 716
involved resettlement of Arabs in Samaria, but while the Assyrian army must have
travelled down the coast, there is no mention of any involvement by Judah or
other local states.2 A Sargonic inscription refers to Sargon as “subduer of the
country of Judah”,3 but its date is uncertain, and without any campaign records of
military action against Judah, it can only mean that Judah was a subservient vassal
state. Sargon’s last campaign in the west in 713 was against Ashdod, who had
appealed to local states for support, which included Judah, Edom and Moab.4
Sargon’s records detail no action against Judah, which is consistent with the advice
of Isaiah at the time that Judah should not get involved (Isa 20:1-6; Isaiah
performs one of the wonders predicted by Joel 2:30 at this time.
This active maintenance of the western part of the empire by Sargon is consistent
with Hezekiah’s lament upon assuming the throne in 715 that Judah was enduring
the wrath of God and that the people were still in captivity (2 Chron 29:8-9). After
Sargon’s campaign in 713, the Assyrian army does not return to the west. Assyrian
governors and garrisons maintained order throughout the Levant, but during this
time, with the main Assyrian army occupied elsewhere in the empire, Hezekiah
built up Judah’s military in readiness for rebellion (2 Chron 32:5-6, 28-30).
5.3 Sennacherib
With Sennacherib’s accession to the throne in 705, Hezekiah rebelled having
carefully prepared the land and the people (2 Kgs 18:7). He subdued the southern
Philistine states (2 Kgs 18:8; 1 Chron 4:39-43). A simultaneous revolt in southern
Babylonia kept Sennacherib away until 701. Upon his arrival in the west,
Sennacherib was successful in subduing the cities and towns of Judah and Philistia,
but his army was decimated by the Angel of the Lord outside Jerusalem and he
returned home (2 Kgs 19:35-36).
5.4 Summary
The above overview of Assyrian history during the latter part of the eighth century
offers a structural correspondence with Joel.
6. Locusts
Hubbard observes that the locust invasion is the “centre-piece” of the book,5 and
Barton notes that,
1
ARAB, 5.
ARAB, 8.
3
ANET, 287.
4
ARAB, 30, 62; ANET, 287.
5
Hubbard, 23, but Redditt, “Peripheral Prophecy”, 240, aptly notes that there are only two
verses that mention locusts (1:4; 2:25).
2
76
...the description of locusts in 1:1-7 and 2:2-11 raises difficult questions of
interpretation. In both cases it is possible to argue either that the locusts are
intended literally or that they symbolize a human army.1
Andiñach adds to these two interpretations a distinction in the kind of army
envisaged in Joel. He suggests that the locusts might either symbolize the
eschatological army of God or the army of a then invading people.2 In making this
distinction, he reflects a common interpretative issue for OT scholars in deciding
whether an oracle has contemporary application and/or an eschatological intent.
Andiñach argues for a contemporary application without identifying a particular
historical situation.3 Sweeney and Wolff complicate matters by reading Joel 1:2-20
as an oracle about a literal locust plague, but interpreting Joel 2:2:1-11 as an oracle
about an invasion by a foreign power (Sweeney4) or the action of God’s latter-day
army (Wolff5). Barton notes that some scholars go further than Sweeney or Wolff
and see the locusts just as a general figure for the judgments of God in the last
days rather than as a metaphor for a latter-day army.6
Scholarly discussion raises acutely the question of how an interpreter identifies the
actors on Joel’s stage, and there are more possibilities to canvass. Is the army of
Joel 2:11, 25 a third army—an army of deliverance? Are there distinctions between
the nation of Joel 1:6, the great people of Joel 2:2, and the army of Joel 2:11, 25?
6.1 Locust Army
For the purposes of our analysis we can separate the question of whether the
locusts are metaphorical from the issue of any military identification; only if they
are a metaphor does the question of military identity arise. The proposal that Joel
uses a metaphor of locusts for an army is to be distinguished from the suggestion
that there is an allegory about Israel/Judah in the mention of four types of locust.7
The terms used for the “four” types of locust8 in the MT are difficult to identify,
1
Barton, 42.
Andiñach, “Locusts”, 433-434.
3
Andiñach concludes that the locusts are “a metaphor which clarifies and enforces the
characteristics of a human army in its action against the people and the land”, locusts, 441.
4
Sweeney, 1:154-156, 161-164.
5
Wolff, 44-48.
6
Barton, 45; he notes that the Targum (Joel 2:25) interpreted the locusts allegorically as “peoples,
tongues, governments and kingdoms” as did Origen in the Hexapla (Quinta), “Egyptians,
Babylonians, Assyrians and Greeks”.
7
J. Lössl, in “When is a Locust Just a Locust” JTS 55 (2004): 575-599, discusses the reception
history of Joel 1:4 (the first locust text) amongst early church fathers. This interpretation
included allegorical treatment of the four types of locust in terms of successive conquests of
Israel, as well as more literal interpretation of the locusts as a natural plague. Such allegorical
sequencing rests upon an initial metaphorical construal of the locusts.
8
In the Targum of the Minor Prophets (eds., R. P. Gordon and K. J. Cathcart; Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1987), 65 n. 3, Cathcart and Gordon observe that a precise translation is “no easier” for
2
77
but for our purposes it is sufficient to take a generic approach to the locusts.1 A
sequential allegorical approach based on distinguishing the four types of locust can
be ruled out because the order in the mention of the locusts differs between Joel
1:4 and 2:25.2
Several arguments have been put forward in support of a metaphoric construal of
locusts as an army or armies. Some arguments are observations about the
immediate contexts of Joel 1:4 and Joel 2:25, while other arguments assume that
Joel 1 and 2 arise from the same catalyst and can be treated as a whole. We will
treat Joel 1-3 as a whole in order to reach a point of view on this question.
6.1.1 Joel 1
The first mention of locusts follows the opening exhortation of vv. 2-3. As far as
this introduction goes, the locusts could be metaphoric or literal. Echoes of the
plague of locusts in Egypt might suggest a literal construal. The extraordinary
character of the event however would not fit the natural and common
phenomenon of a locust plague unless, if this is a literal plague, it is an
exceptionally bad one.
It is only if we take the oracle units of Joel 1 together that a metaphoric construal of
locusts is suggested. The actions of laying vines waste, barking trees, and wasting
fields are the typical effects of a literal locust infestation. However, these effects are
attributed to a nation with the teeth of lions (v. 6), and it is this conjunction of
detail that suggests the locusts of v. 4 are a metaphor for a nation ravaging the
land.
6.1.2 Joel 2
The mention of locusts in v. 25 is part of a unit, vv. 21-27, which is about the
restoration of the land. Within this unit a metaphorical reading of locusts is
suggested by the description in v. 25 “my great army which I sent among you”;
locusts are a common metaphor for armies in other near-eastern texts.3 A
metaphor is also indicated by the detail that the locusts have eaten “years”, for
the Aramaic equivalents. J. Lössl, “When is a Locust Just a Locust”, 585, observes that English
translations are “on the same level with the ‘seventy’, the Rabbis, and Jerome” in not being
certain of the MT. For our purposes, it is sufficient to think of all four words in terms of just
locusts.
1
For a discussion of field translation issues for these terms, see G. A. Mikre-Selassie, “Repetition
and Synonyms in the Translation of Joel-With Special Reference to the Amharic Language” BT
36 (1985): 230-237 (233-234).
2
Contra Pearce, From Hosea to Zephaniah, 28-29, and following Whittaker, 5.
3
ANET, 144, 649; CAD 4:256-258; Judg 6:3-5; Jer 46:23, 51:27-33; Nah 3:15-16—Andiñach,
locusts, 438-439; see also J. A. Thompson, “Joel’s Locusts in the Light of Near Eastern Parallels”
JNES 14 (1955): 52-55.
78
whereas locusts are a regular occurrence during the spring,1 in Joel a state of
calamity has extended over years.
If we take the oracle units of Joel 2 together, a metaphorical construal of locusts is
reinforced by the mention of God’s “camp” and “his army” in v. 11. If the
descriptive detail in vv. 2-9 applies to this army, then the metaphor is reinforced:
the detail in Joel 2 is of actions performed by an army (slash and burn, v. 3;
climbing walls, v. 7; use of arrows, v. 8; plundering, v. 9); these are actions
unrelated to literal locusts.2 There is a preponderance of military language in Joel 2
(army, vv. 11, 25; horses, v. 4; chariots, v. 5) and scholars are wrong to postulate
that any calamity facing the nation was not military.
6.2 Military Identities
The above points are a standard reading of Joel in which the locusts symbolize an
army or armies ravaging the land. Commentators following a metaphorical
approach often read Joel 1 and 2 together describing the army of one leading
nation that is augmented with the armies of conquered city-states and nations. It is
also usually said that the locusts are symbolic of a northern power (Joel 2:20).3
However, in an eighth century context, an invasion by a northern army could be
the Syro-Ephraimite coalition or the Assyrians; the underlying issue here is how
the oracle units are read together. Moreover, as we shall see below, an equation
between “the northerner” and a locust invader is not the only possible reading.
6.2.1 Joel 1
An introductory rhyme and metaphor about locusts eating (v. 4) suggests
successive military incursions by different foreign armies over a period of time.4
Following this introduction, vv. 5-8 would then be applicable to one of these
armies; it would thus be a mistake to read the four types of locust as a metaphor
for the single nation of v. 6;5 rather, vv. 6-8 would be a typical description of the
effects of a particular invading army which had come upon the land.
The use of the same four terms for locusts in Joel 2:25 but in a different order and
the catch-all reference to the locusts as “my great army” suggests that the armies of
separate foreign armies have by that time come together in a confederacy; this is
indicated by the reference to God’s army encamped on the mountains of Judah
(Joel 2:11). That some invading nation in v. 6 is then thought of as a type of locust
is clearly shown in v. 7 in the language of wasting vines and barking trees.
However, additionally, the invading nation has the “teeth of a lion”. There is thus a
Y. Palmoni, “Locust” IDB 3:144-8. Palmoni adopts a metaphorical reading of Joel (145).
Andiñach, locusts, 434.
3
Wolff, 62-63; Allen, 88-90; Strazicich, 171-180; Hubbard, 62-64; Crenshaw, 88-94; see also
Whittaker, 1-7.
4
Alternatively, the repetition could be just rhetorical flourish.
5
Barton, 44.
1
2
79
mixing of metaphor since the leading characteristic of locusts is that of devouring
vegetation rather than meat; this mixing of metaphor is not untypical in the
Prophets.
The background for the devastation that the locust-nation brings to the land,
which is noted particularly in v. 17, is one of a poor harvest because of inadequate
rainfall. The total result is a harvest that has perished and an agricultural
infrastructure that has been destroyed, thereby cutting off any supplies to
Jerusalem for the temple.
6.2.2 Joel 2
Several details show that the crisis facing Judah was one of a “superpower”:
The expression “great people” is used of the Assyrians in their action against
the Northern Kingdom (Joel 2:2; Isa 13:4).
The priests appeal to God that the nations do not bear rule over them (Joel 2:17,
19)—it was the practise of Assyria to co-opt military detachments from
conquered city-states and nations.
An allusion to the “Valley of Blessing” in Jehoshaphat’s day is struck in the
hope for a “blessing” in the face of the enemy (2 Chron 20:26; Joel 2:14)—this
implies that Assyria had co-opted Judah’s traditional enemies.
The picture is one of an army from one nation with co-opted forces rather than
one of multiple nations acting from different points of the compass and at
different times. Echoing Joel 1:2, this great people is said to be unprecedented and
it is described in literal, visionary, and metaphorical language (Joel 2:2-9). This
people are like locusts in that they devastate the land, leaving stubble; they also leap
and run to and fro; but they are also like horses and like the noise of chariots (Joel 2: 45); as an invading army they slash and burn (Joel 2:3). The images are mixed, but
the intention is clear.
6.2.2.1 The Northerner
The consensus among commentators is that the northerner (ynwpCh, Joel 2:20) is a
term for the locust-invasion.1 However, locusts typically come from the south, and
this casts doubt on any association of the northerner with the great people and the
nation that has been pictured as locusts.2 While the great people of Joel 2:2 are not
described as “coming” from any direction—they are just there upon the mountains;
Barton, 88-89; Wolff, 62; Jones, 166-167; Thompson, “The Use of Repetition in the Prophecy
of Joel”, 105.
2
See Andiñach, locusts, 433, 435; B. S. Childs, “The Enemy from the North and the Chaos
Tradition” JBL 78 (1959): 187-198, (197), has the fuller discussion of the choices.
1
80
Joel 1:6 does describe the nation as “coming up” and, given that they are locusts,
this suggests that they come up from the south upon the land.
More significantly, an equation of the northerner with the nation of Joel 1:6 and
the great people of Joel 2:2 is ruled out because the expression the northerner
refers to an individual from the north (cf. Num 26:15, ynwpch1; see also our
discussion below), rather than a northern army or nation. A “northerner” is
someone indigenous to a country that uses expressions like “southerner” and
“northerner” to refer to its people.
The response of the priests to the presence of the great people is an appeal to
Yahweh to deliver his people from the reproach of the nations (Joel 2:17). The
answer God gives is twofold:
Behold, I am sending you corn, and wine, and oil, and ye shall be satisfied
therewith: and I will no more make you a reproach among the heathen: And (w) I
will remove far off from you the northerner, and will drive him into a land barren
and desolate, with his face toward the east sea, and his hinder part toward the
utmost sea, and his stink shall come up, and his ill savour shall come up, because
he hath done great things. Joel 2:19-20 (KJV revised)
It is an assumption in reading that the northerner is the great people or nation.
However, there are two responses in this text to note: the devastation wrought by
locust-nation will be restored and, in addition, the northerner and his forces are to
be destroyed. If the reading assumption is discarded, the promise no longer
concerns the destruction of the Assyrian army in the wilderness areas south of
Jerusalem, an event that never happened. Rather, the northerner and his forces are
removed by the army of the Lord—a promise that can be correlated to the
removal of the son of Tabeal (Isa 7:1).
6.2.2.2 Army
The people are “great” and this description is picked up when the prophet
describes God’s army as “great” (Joel 2:11, 25). The description “my great army
which I sent among you” in Joel 2:25 resonates with Amos 4:10, “I have sent
among you the pestilence after the manner of Egypt”, and the Exodus echo shows
that for God to send something among the people is for that to be an act of
affliction. In the case of the effects of the army, this affliction is the ravaging of the
land. The application of a locusts’ metaphor is appropriate; the nation that came up
In Num 26:15, the term is transliterated as “Zephonites”. This is the correct choice for the
term in Joel 2:20. Since the term is related to the word for “north” (!wpc), translators translate the
term as “northerner” but this is because they do not like the particularity implied by
“Zephonite”. In the KJV, the suffix in ynwpC is typically translated as “ites” or “ite” as in
Gershonites, Perrizites, and so on.
1
81
upon the land, along with its local allies, are like types of locust acting in concert
against the land.
6.2.3 Joel 3
While some scholars1 divide Joel at Joel 2:28 and regard Joel 2:28-3:21 as later
oracles, there are well documented connections between the two parts of the book:
1) Joel 2:28 has an “afterward” (!k yrxa, “after these things”) which at least
connects Joel 2:28-32 to the previous narrative.
2) Common motifs connect the two parts of Joel. Thus there is the image of the
“Day of the Lord” (Joel 2:1; 3:14); there are similar effects in the sun, moon and
stars (Joel 2:10; 3:15); and there is an emphasis upon Zion (Joel 2:1, 15; 3:16).
3) A common story-line binds the book. The people are gathered together to Zion
(Joel 2:16), and deliverance is offered in Zion (Joel 2:32). There are the combined
forces of nations in the land (Joel 2:17), and it is the surrounding nations that are
called to account in the Valley of decision (Joel 3:14).
4) Finally, the book closes with a promise of new wine, plentiful water in the rivers
and a renewed temple (Joel 3:18). This reverses the conditions in the opening part
of the prophecy: a wasted vine (Joel 1:7); destruction and disruption of water
supplies (Joel 1:11-12, 20); and a moribund temple (Joel 1:9, 14).
For these reasons, (1)-(4), we read Joel 2:28-3:21 alongside Joel 1:2-2:27 as oracles
from the same times—the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah. On this reading, some of
the locust nations of Joel 1:4 become the subject of judgments in Joel 3.
6.2.4 Deliverance and Destruction
The oracles in Joel come from the same times, but they are each born in their own
circumstances. As events and circumstances developed, the prophet delivered his
oracles in response. As a whole, their collection tells the story of a crisis in Judah.
These events and circumstances were unique and to be remembered and told to
succeeding generations (Joel 1:3). This is the typical exhortation for God’s acts of
deliverance (Exod 13:3; Judg 6:13; Ps 44:1; 78:3), and the prophecy of Joel tells a
story of deliverance from the destructive ravaging of an invading superpower.
6.3 Objections
While we have argued a case for the dating of Joel to the period of Assyrian
hegemony in the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah, there are historical objections to
discuss.2
1
2
Barton, 92.
Other objections have been discussed in Chapters Two, and see also the next chapter.
82
1) Joel does not mention any king; the addressees are the priests and the elders of
the people (Joel 2:16). Furthermore, the temple is the active centre of national
life—the people are called to the temple. Offerings were regularly offered even if
there was presently a cessation because of the lack of supplies. This picture does
not fit with the reign of Ahaz at the time of the Assyrian and Syro-Ephraimite
Crisis. Ahaz was an idolater and subsequent to the crisis he replaced the altar in the
temple.
2) Assyria is not named and she was the superpower of the period. If Joel is preexilic it would be better to date it earlier or later than the mid-eighth century.
Similarly, Syria and Northern Israel are not named, and these were the principal
parties in the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis. If Joel is pre-exilic, it would be better to date
it later or earlier than the years of this crisis.
3) The “Day of the Lord” in Joel is averted by the people coming together in
lament before God (Joel 1:14; 2:15-17). This does not cohere with Kings (2 Kgs
16:8-9), which explains the ending of the Assyrian and Syro-Ephraimite Crisis as a
consequence of Ahaz submitting to Assyria.
These objections, (1)-(3), are not decisive.
Joel does not name the king, and it is not clear that any oracle is addressed to
the king. This is an argument from silence. Joel is addressing different sections
of the people including farmers and vinedressers, as well as the priests, the
elders. His focus is the temple and its offerings and the consequences of the
crisis facing the nation is characterized by him in terms of the daily offerings; he
has no political agenda.
Ahaz was an idolater and Joel would not necessarily have addressed him with
the command to gather the elders and the people and sanctify a fast; Joel could
well have given up on the king. These injunctions were instead directed to those
priests in Jerusalem who would still listen;1 they were persecuted by Ahaz, and
Joel saw the need to stir them into action. Further, it is clear that Isaiah was the
prophet of the Lord to Ahaz’ court at this time (Isaiah 7) and Joel may be
respecting this division of labour.
There is another consideration to take into account. While a historian today
sees in the superscriptions that name kings evidence for dating the relevant
prophet, this may not be the intention behind the superscription. It is possible
that the superscription specifies the kings to whom the prophet delivered oracles.
Thus, with prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, and Micah, the
1
The High Priest, Jehoiada, was subservient to Ahaz in the building of the Assyrian altar.
83
implication of the superscription is that the prophets were associated with the
court. With prophets such as Nahum, Habakkuk, Joel and Obadiah, the
implication of there being no named king in the superscription is that they
prophesied out in the country and in the city, but not directly in court.
Assyria and Babylon are not named but then Joel uses metaphor heavily. The
image of the “lion” is an image used elsewhere of Assyria (Nah 2:11-12), and
therefore the mixed metaphor for the nation of Joel 1:6 (a locust with lion
teeth) could well be intended to pick out Assyria. Syria and Northern Israel are
likewise not named, but Joel does refer to a northerner who has two
detachments of forces that are to be driven towards the eastern and western
seas (Joel 2:20). This expression indicates an enemy from the north, and we
have proposed the identity of the “son of Tabeal”. Regardless of these
considerations, any inference based on the lack of the mention of Assyria, Syria
and Northern Israel is an argument from silence: Joel’s oracles are centred on
the temple and in the land rather than in the politics of state.
Joel’s oracles are about the impending “Day of the Lord”; they are not about
the Syro-Ephraimite incursions into Judah. Assyria represented a warning to the
people and their ravaging of the land was the basis upon which Joel saw the
sack of a capital city. The sin of the people is not detailed,1 nor is there any
description of an act of contrition and lament; Joel exhorts the people to repent
and turn to the Lord in order to receive his blessing. Furthermore, Joel does
not detail how the northerner would be removed. We can assume that the
people did turn to the Lord and that the northerner was removed despite the
idolatry of Ahaz. This is the approach to Ahaz demonstrated by Isaiah:
although Ahaz refused a sign, one was given to him in the form of Immanuel,
and the king of Assyria was declared to be the means through whom the land
would be left alone by the two kings, Pekah and Rezin (Isa 7:16-20, RSV).
Accordingly, we can say that there are two explanations in Kings and
Joel/Isaiah—one gives Ahaz’ political response to the crisis; the other gives the
religious reason for the deliverance of the people.
Ahaz submitted to the Assyrian yoke and set aside part of the temple for an
Assyrian king and governor (2 Kgs 16:18). Judah was not an independent state
until Hezekiah’s rebellion in 705 (2 Kgs 18:7; 2 Chron 29:3-9). The length of
Joel’s life and ministry is unknown. There is no reason to restrict his oracles just
to the reign of Ahaz. The revenge oracles of Joel 3 date from Hezekiah’s reign,
when God turned around the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem.
Hubbard, 29, insightfully observes that a specific sin is not mentioned because Joel’s oracles are
from deep within the crisis; Joel was not a prophet inveighing against the sin of the people at a
time when judgment was some way off and coming unless the people repented.
1
84
For the above reasons we do not consider the historical objections, (1)-(3), to be
persuasive.
7. Conclusion
The period of Assyrian hegemony and its end have not been defended by scholars
as the pre-exilic setting for Joel, even though this would fit Joel’s position in the
Hebrew Canon and supply a reading that might have been used in the first century
church (i.e. as a type of the “last days” of Judah’s commonwealth). Given the
indeterminate nature of the historical markers in the book, it could reasonably be
expected that this would have been one of historical situations chosen by scholars
who favour a pre-exilic Joel; it is surprising that this has not been the case. In this
chapter, we have set out an interpretation that locates the catalyst for Joel’s oracles
in this period.
85
CHAPTER FIVE
Post-Exilic Dating
1. Introduction
The scholarly consensus is that Joel is a post-exilic book, although Kapelrud has
claimed “the average arguments which are generally used to prove that Joel
belongs to the postexilic period are not worth a great deal”.1 Nevertheless, it is
valuable to discuss the historical2 reasoning for a post-exilic date, even if we are
arguing for a pre-exilic date. The specific historical arguments that lead to a postexilic date are supported by a reading of the book as one which sees a devastating
locust plague (Joel 1) that functions as a portent of eschatological events (Joel 2
and 3). While this is the consensus, scholars supporting this position nevertheless
admit that a post-exilic date cannot be proven.3 We will first discuss the historical
details that are inferred from the text before turning our attention to the
eschatological treatment of the book.
2. Post-Exilic Characteristics
Various characteristics of the book have been used to lend support to a post-exilic
dating including,4
No mention of a king in the superscription.
Priestly governance.
No reference to Northern Israel.
No explicit reference to Assyria and Babylon, the enemies of pre-exilic times.
Mention of local nations, the traditional enemies of Judah (Joel 3:4, 19).
Reference to the daily meal offering and drink offering of post-exilic times (Joel
1:9, 13).
A small population that can be gathered to Zion (Joel 1:14; 2:16).
Emphasis upon the wall of a city (Joel 2:7).
1
Kapelrud, 191.
Non-historical arguments were examined in Chapter Two.
3
Crenshaw, 28.
4
This list is constructed from “Old Testament Introductions” and the commentaries by Barton,
Wolff, Crenshaw, and Allen.
2
86
Use of the term “Israel” to refer to Judah (Joel 2:27; 3:2, 16).
Apocalyptic theology of the Day of the Lord descriptions (Joel 2:10; 3:15).
Scope of the scattering of the people among the nations (Joel 3:6).
A “captivity” of the people (Joel 3:1).
Reference to the Greeks as slave-traders (Joel 3:6)
Each of the above characteristics requires discussion and in each case it will be
seen that there are plausible and preferable eighth century contexts for such
aspects in Joel.
2.1 King and Priests
Wolff argues that the absence of a king in the superscription and the appeal to
priests indicates a post-exilic theocracy in which priests rule Judah and Jerusalem.1
However, the argument is one from silence; Joel is a prophet sent to proclaim the
need for repentance and this is properly addressed to the priests. Thus there is no
reason in his oracles for us to infer that had there been a king, he should have
mentioned him.2
Jones adds that the absence of any denunciation of the priesthood only fits a postexilic time following Haggai and Zechariah and before Malachi;3 pre-exilic
prophets typically denounced the priesthood. This argument directly affects our
date in the reign of Ahaz, since the high priest at this time acquiesced to Ahaz’
introduction of an Assyrian altar to the temple. We can presume that he was not
the only priest who was unfaithful and so the priesthood would be a fitting target
for any denunciation by Joel. Notwithstanding this observation though, the
argument is still one from silence. A lack of faithfulness and any syncretism on the
part of priests does not imply that some priests did not conduct the traditional
sacrifices—and this is Joel’s focus.
Could we have expected a pre-exilic Joel to condemn the priesthood? Kapelrud
observes that Isaiah and Amos are not much concerned with priests, whereas
Micah and Hosea do condemn priests. Joel mentions priests but he does not
condemn them directly; they hold their official position and Joel’s critique is an
implied one—they had not led the people in a national lament. Joel is a “prophet
1
Wolff, 5; see also Jones, 135; Strazicich, 53.
Kapelrud, 188, notes that the king is not mentioned in Isa 3:1-3 or Mic 3:9-12 when leading
groups in society are named, and this bears comparison with Joel’s naming of various groups
without mentioning the king.
3
Jones, 135; see also Strazicich, 53.
2
87
of repentance” rather than judgment, and so we should not expect a typical preexilic denunciation of the priesthood.1
It is significant for our eighth century dating of Joel that Ahaz is the one king
noted in Kings and Chronicles for changing the ritual of the daily offering. He
introduced an Assyrian altar to the temple and instructed the daily offerings to be
performed on that altar (2 Kgs 16:10-17). Accordingly, we have evidence that the
priesthood was conducting traditional sacrifices in the period we have assigned to
Joel. Hence, the reference to the meat offering and drink offering need not be a
reference to the post-exilic ritual of the daily offering;2 the Levitical law was
practiced (and criticized) before the exile (Isa 1:13; 57:6; Amos 5:22, 26).
2.2 The Wall
Wolff argues for a later post-exilic date on the basis of the casual mention of the
wall of Jerusalem in Joel 2:7-9. With the wall finished in 445, he places Joel in the
first half of the fourth century.3 The argument depends on the prior case for a
post-exilic date having been proven, and it is an argument that affects scholars
such as Crenshaw or Ahlström who would date Joel to the earlier post-exilic
period. Crenshaw and Ahlström affirm that the wall may have been partly standing
and in a state of disrepair; such scholars say that there is no need to presume a date
after Nehemiah’s building of the wall.4
Wolff’s observation about the casual mention of the wall does require explanation
for a pre-exilic reading. The scholarly presumption is that it is the wall of
Jerusalem, but Joel’s vision is non-specific in this respect—it is a vision of the sack
of an unidentified city.5 Joel is addressing the people of Jerusalem and so his vision
is a warning to them about their city and its wall, but the non-specific nature of the
vision allows it to be re-applied by Isaiah to Samaria (Isaiah 13).
The wall is a feature of the restoration of Jerusalem under Nehemiah, but it is also
prominent in Isaiah’s prophecies of 701 (Isa 22:10; 30:13; 36:11-12; cf. 2 Chron
32:5). Joel prophesies that the locust army will “climb the wall” (v. 7) and “run
upon the wall” (v. 8). This prediction illustrates a perspective within a city looking
out to an army encamped and laying siege. Recent archaeological research (1999)
has uncovered the wall that was added to Jerusalem in the late eighth century.6 This
is a major wall that ran close to the floor of the Kidron valley and its purpose was
1
Kapelrud, 182-185 (185).
Kapelrud, 181.
3
Wolff, 4-5.
4
Crenshaw, 24; Ahlström, 115; Jones, 157; Strazicich, 53, 55.
5
Redditt, “Peripheral Prophecy”, 234.
6
H. Shanks, “Everything You Ever Knew About Jerusalem is Wrong” BAR 25/6 (1999): 20-29;
“2,700-Year-Old Tower Found?” BAR 26/5 (2000): 39-41; see also R. Reich and E Shukron,
“Light at the End of the Tunnel” BAR 25/1 (1999): 22-33.
2
88
to enclose the Gihon Spring and protect the houses on the valley sides that had
been built as Jerusalem expanded.1 Which king or kings initiated and oversaw the
building of the wall is not known. There is no reason to exclude Hezekiah, Ahaz or
Jotham from funding this building and for it to have taken place in stages over
years. During Ahaz’ and Hezekiah’s reigns, the population grew and the city
expanded outside its old walls; a new wall was built to encompass the new size of
the city. Joel’s vision of the sack of a city could therefore easily have been applied
to Jerusalem in the eighth century with its new wall. The vision offers a prediction
that the outer wall will be breached and the houses in the lower Kidron Valley will
be ransacked.
2.3 Captivity
Wolff affirms that Joel 3:1-3 “assumes the catastrophic fate” of 587 and the exile
of the people is further described in Joel 3:4-8 in terms of the treatment of Judah
by surrounding nations after 587.2 Israel is still largely scattered (vv. 1-2); the
temple has been pillaged (v. 5); and children of Judah and Jerusalem have been
sold into slavery (v. 6); all of which could be details reminiscent of the years after
587. Redditt adds the reference to “strangers will not pass through her anymore” in
Joel 3:17 to this evidence, taking this text to refer to the Babylonian sack of
Jerusalem.3 These characteristics have been seen as decisive critical considerations
in favour of assigning Joel to a post-exilic date.
However, the “Babylonian Captivity” reading does not fit the language of Joel for
several reasons: i) there is no mention of Babylon4 by name and this would be
unusual for a post-exilic prophet; ii) the surrounding nations are held responsible
for the scattering of Israel, whereas Babylon was responsible for the Exile; iii) the
nations are accused of parting the land, whereas Babylon retained the integrity of
the land as a province; and iv) the nations are charged with taking plunder from the
temple and selling Judean slaves to Grecian merchants, but we have no
documented evidence that this happened at the time of the Babylonian Exile.
These objections have some weight because the oracle unit of Joel 3:1-3 looks
forward to the turning around of the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem “in those days
and at that time”; contrary to Wolff it does not assume the Babylonian Exile as
“ancient history”5—the captivity has yet to be turned around. Wolff paints a
picture of an abandoned Judah during the exile, one left to the mercy of the
surrounding nations, but recent research by H. M. Barstad has shown that this is a
Shanks, “Everything You Ever Knew About Jerusalem is Wrong”, 22.
Wolff, 4; see also Jones, 135; Strazicich, 53, calls this the “foremost” argument for a post-exilic
date and “a very good indicator”.
3
Redditt, “Peripheral Prophecy”, 234.
4
Arguments from silence cut both ways.
5
Wolff, 4.
1
2
89
myth.1 Furthermore, with the captivity yet to be turned around for Judah and
Jerusalem, Wolff’s reason for the non-mention of Babylon does not stand up to
scrutiny, viz. that the Persians have already superseded the Babylonians.2 Instead, it
can be seen that this oracle fits the decade of crisis for Judah (730s). At this time
there were widespread invasions of Judah, slave-taking on the part of several local
nations (2 Chron 28:5, 8, 17; 29:9) and pillaging of the temple (2 Kgs 16:8; 2 Chron
28:21).
2.4 Tyre, Sidon, Greece and the Sabeans
Tyre and Sidon are linked with the Philistine coastal cities. According to Joel, their
role has been one of slave-trading, and this implies that the captives taken in the
ravaging of Judah had been traded with the sea merchants of the coastal cities, and
these were then bought by the Grecians. This westward movement of human traffic
does not fit the Assyrian and/or Babylonian practice of moving their captives east
to resettle parts of their empire. Furthermore, this information does not exactly
mirror the war news implied in the oracles of Joel 1 and 2. There has been a nation
in the land; a great people; and a northerner—but there has been no statement
about captives taken by such armies—this can only be inferred as another factor
from Joel’s life and times.
The situation implied in Joel 3:4-8 could have been realized during any war
situation. The sale of captives and plunder through the coastal cities is a logical
outcome of war. The association of the Philistines and the Phoenician cities with
Greek islands throughout the Assyrian and Babylonian era is well documented,3
though as Wolff notes this trading arrangement pre-dates the rise of the Greek
Empire under Alexander and thus places a terminus ante quem of the mid-fourth
century on the date of Joel.4
M. E. Aubet notes5 that with Tiglath-Pileser, Assyrian policy changed towards
Phoenicia. He pursued a policy of allowing an independent and autonomous Tyre
and Sidon, which acted as a trading partner for Assyria to the West. In addition to
the captives taken by Syria, Philistia and Edom (2 Chronicles 28), Tiglath-Pileser’s
campaign down the coastal cities into Philistia during 735-734 brought these cities
under Assyrian control but they were allowed the status of vassal city-states rather
than becoming an Assyrian province. The “distress” of Judah at this time by
1
H. M. Barstad, The Myth of the Empty Land (Symbolae Osloenses Fasc. Suppl. 28; Oslo:
Scandinavian Press, 1996).
2
Wolff, 4.
3
For a review of the Aegean background of the Philistines see T. Dothan, “Philistines” ABD
5:326-333; for a review of Phoenicia’s trading history with Greece, see B. Peckham, “History of
Phoenicia” ABD 5:349-357.
4
Wolff, 4.
5
M. E. Aubet, The Phoenicians and the West (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2001), 92-93; for an account of Greek-Phoenician trade see 127-132.
90
Tiglath-Pileser could imply that any captives from southern Judean towns were
sold on through the coastal ports including Tyre.
Consequently, there is no impetus in the mention of the slave-trading of Tyre,
Sidon and Philistia towards a post-exilic date. It is not necessary to suppose that
the coastal cities were in an alliance and date Joel to the late fourth century. 1
Similarly, there is no reason to suppose a mid-exilic date for the slave-trading,
when Judahites would have been unable to defend themselves against raids.2
The revenge that Yahweh will execute upon the coastal cities is to sell their sons
and daughters to the Sabeans. The Sabeans were known slave traders from the tip
of Arabia in the east and the natural competitor for the Greeks in the west. Their
power declined after the mid-fifth century, which casts doubt on Wolff’s date of
the late fifth century for Joel.3 Hence, scholars favour an early fifth century date
during or just after the building of the temple.
2.5 Temple
The temple is functioning (Joel 1:14; 2:17) and this places Joel beyond the
restoration of the Second Temple in 515 on a post-exilic reading. Ahlström dates
the book to between 515 and 500 on this basis;4 Redditt extends the range of dates
to between 515 and 445 in “the turmoil around the temple after the return of the
exiles”.5 According to Redditt, Joel’s complaint against the priesthood is a failure
of leadership;6 such failure would be consonant with failure to build the temple in
the first place.
Daily offering…
2.6 Apocalyptic Theology
The apocalyptic aspects of Joel’s descriptions of the Day of the Lord have been
cited as evidence for a post-exilic date.7
2.7 Nations
Joel does not mention Assyria, Babylon or Northern Israel and on this basis it is
argued that the book is post-exilic. (We might add that he does not mention Persia,
its governors or provinces.) The argument is one from silence and we have argued
that Assyria is mentioned in metaphor. We might also add that Joel is a brief
1
Wolff, 77-78.
J. M. Myers, “Some Considerations Bearing on the Date of Joel” ZAW 74 (1962): 177-195
(181-190).
3
Redditt, “Peripheral Prophecy”, 235.
4
Ahlström, 129; see also Strazicich, 53.
5
Redditt, “Peripheral Prophecy”, 235.
6
Redditt, “Peripheral Prophecy”, 236.
7
Strazicich, 53; Coggins, 17-18.
2
91
focused book and there is insufficient material to draw any significance from the
lack of any mention of Northern Israel. In any event, we have argued that there is
an implicit mention in the reference to the northerner.
It is argued that Joel mentions Judah’s local enemies and these provide a terminus ad
quem for the book. Strazicich notes that since Malachi envisions the imminent end
of Edom which is in a desolate state (Mal 1:2-5), Joel must pre-date Malachi as it
carries a long range prediction of the desolation of Edom (Joel 3:19). The end of
Edom cannot be later than the fourth century and might be as early as the late fifth
century. If Malachi is placed in the late fifth century, Joel can be placed anywhere
after the temple is rebuilt but before the late fifth century.1
3. Locust Plague
The possibility that Joel 1:2-2:27 is a Second Temple work is implausible if these
oracles describe an actual and unprecedented military invasion and its resolution;
there is no corresponding history to correlate—one in which deliverance is only
found in Jerusalem. Barton recognizes the problem of identifying a historical
catalyst in post-exilic times when the locusts are taken to be a metaphor for a
single nation or a confederation of invading armies;2 however, he sees this as less
of a problem if the locusts are a literal plague—a post-exilic date is easier to
maintain. We need therefore to discuss whether the locusts of Joel 1 and 2 can be a
literal plague.
Commentators have proposed that the locusts are just that—a natural disaster.
Barton adopts this position for Joel 1 and 2 as do Hubbard and Allen.3 If Joel
describes a literal plague of locusts, a correspondence with an invasion by a foreign
nation is ruled out, although as several commentators have aptly observed a literal
plague in Joel 1 might have been a warning to the people of an imminent invasion
by an enemy and this is described in Joel 2.4 This division of opinion on how much
of Joel 1 and 2 to assign to a literal plague is a prominent fault-line amongst
scholars. Thus, Wolff5 takes the northerner to be an eschatological enemy from the
north and a unique term of reference for the great people of Joel 2. Along with
Sweeney,6 he only reads the locusts of Joel 1 as a natural plague. Some of the
arguments of the scholars are observations about the immediate contexts of Joel
1:4 and Joel 2:25, while other arguments assume that Joel 1 and 2 are about the
same event and can be treated as a whole.
1
Strazicich, 54.
Barton, 44.
3
Barton, 42-48; Allen, 48-50, 67-76, 86-90, 94-96; Hubbard, 42, 54-55, 66-67; see also Kapelrud,
178..
4
Whittaker, 2; Kapelrud, 178; Redditt, “Peripheral Prophecy, 239.
5
Wolff, 62-63; see also Sweeney 1:154-156.
6
Sweeney, 1:161-164.
2
92
3.1 Joel 1
A literal reading of the locusts takes “nation” (v. 6) to be a metaphor for the
swarm. The following details are configured to support this reading:
1) The nation strips trees, a leading characteristic of locusts.1 The locusts are
therefore being thought of as a nation.
2) The exhortations to lament are focused on the failure of crops and the supplies
necessary for the temple (vv. 9, 13); there is no detail about the wider effects of an
invasion upon people and property. The “nation” of v. 6 is therefore a metaphor
for locusts.
In addition to (1) and (2), V. A. Hurowitz has noted a contemporary lament about
the affect of locusts upon temple supplies. A partially preserved hymn to the
goddess Nanaya concluding with a prayer on behalf of Sargon II, king of Assyria
(721-705) is as follows:
The evil locust which destroys the crop/grain, the wicked dwarf-locust which
dries up the orchards, which cuts off the regular offerings of the gods and
goddesses- (Verily) Ellil listens to you, and Tutu is before you—may by your
command it be turned into nothing.2
This hymn echoes Joel’s lament for the Jerusalem temple offerings. Hurowitz
notes the following connections: i) the hymn mentions two types of locust; Joel 1
mentions four types (v. 4); ii) in the hymn, the first locust “destroys” the grain; in
Joel 1 the harvest of the field is “destroyed” (v. 11); iii) the second locust in the
hymn dries up orchards (trees); in Joel 1, all the trees are dried up (v. 12); iv) the
effects of the locusts in the hymn is to “cut off” the temple offerings; in Joel 1 the
offerings are “cut off” from the house of the Lord (v. 9); and v) the hymn has a
request to rid the land of locusts; Joel 2 has a promise to restore the land (vv. 2127). Hurowitz regards these parallels as striking and a major argument in favour of
a literal reading of Joel 1 and its locusts. The converse argument is made by E. G.
Medd, who argues that while locusts are a metaphor for the numerical strength of
armies in the field, they are not used as a symbol for an army in contemporary
records.3
1
Driver, 82-91 supplies a list of observer statements about the devastation of locust plagues.
V. A. Hurowitz, “Joel’s Locust Plague in Light of Sargon II’s Hymn to Nanya” JBL 112/4
(1993): 597-603 (598). Barton, 44, cites the parallel but regards it as distant in time from Joel as
he adopts a post-exilic date for Joel. Our eighth century date for Joel makes the parallel apposite
and it could be that Joel is drawing a comparison with Assyrian theology.
3
E. G. Medd, “A Historical and Exegetical Study of the ‘Day of the Lord’ in the Old Testament
with Special Reference to the Book of Joel” (unpublished Master’s Thesis, St. Andrews
University, 1968-69), 36-39.
2
93
3.2 Joel 2
A literal reading of locusts in Joel 2:25 takes the expression “my great army” to be
a metaphor for a swarm or swarms. The reference to the “years” that the locusts
have eaten is a reflection of successive annual infestations that have destroyed
crops. Hurowitz notes that such extended attacks are not unknown, and cites a
Mari text which states, “…for three years because of the affliction of the locust,
the district has not produced crops”.1 This reading is then applied to Joel 2:11
which also refers to the Lord’s army and then to Joel 2:2-9—the “great people”.
Barton is of the opinion that Joel 2 “is a superb literary description of a locust
plague” involving some hyperbole.2
3.3 Joel 1 and 2
Further arguments are designed to show that Joel 1 and 2 describe the same event
in the same way. Barton offers a two-step reductio ad absurdum: if we suppose that
the locusts of Joel 1 are a metaphor for an army, then we can hardly maintain that
the locusts are literal in Joel 2—he says,
One can hardly describe an army as being like a plague of locusts while saying
that the locusts in question are like an army, unless one is very incompetent in
using metaphors, which the Old Testament prophets certainly were
not…provided we think that the locusts have the same meaning in chapters 1
and 2, the description in chapter 2 seems to me difficult to reconcile with the idea
that they stand for an army.3
M. E. Biddle agrees with Barton and expresses the argument in this way:4
He [Barton] finds no reason to seek a historical reference to a military invasion
behind the metaphor. Such an effort calls for a circular understanding of the
metaphor: a real army compared to locusts compared to a real army…
Barton’s argument can take the opposite assumption: if instead we suppose that
the locusts of Joel 1 are literal and pictured as a nation, we can hardly maintain that
a great people in Joel 2 are pictured as locusts—this would be a similar
incompetent use of metaphors. On this basis, the mixed position of Wolff and
Sweeny might be rejected—the position where Joel 1 is about a literal locust plague
and Joel 2 is about an invading army.
Barton’s argument is flawed because it presumes the value judgment that a mixed
interpretation would be tantamount to an incompetent use of metaphor if Joel 1 and
2 were about the same event. Notwithstanding this point, however, a mixed view
Hurowitz, “Joel’s Locust Plague”, 603; see also Thompson, “Joel’s Locusts”, 54.
Barton, 47.
3
Barton, 44.
4
M. E. Biddle, “Review of Joel and Obadiah: A Commentary, by John Barton” Review and
Expositor 99 (2002): 279-280 (280); see also Jones, 144.
1
2
94
does not assume that Joel 1 and 2 describe the “same” event. Wolff and Sweeney
see an apocalyptic and eschatological army in Joel 2, but their case is that the vision
develops locust imagery from Joel 1.
3.4 Joel 3
Whereas we have argued that Joel 3 naturally supports a metaphorical reading of
the locusts of Joel 1 and 2, on a literal reading of these locusts, Joel 3 has to be
regarded as having different concerns—military and political concerns.
3.5 Critique
We have argued for a metaphorical reading of locusts (Chapter Four); here it
remains to offer further objections to the literal reading.
1) Against Wolff and Sweeney, our interpretation is that Joel 1 and 2 describe the
same “event” and we have defined this to be the Assyrian Crises in the reign of
Ahaz; we have defined the extent of this crisis to embrace the latter half of the
730s. Joel’s use of the locust metaphor is consistent because the “great people” of
Joel 2:2 and the “nation” of Joel 1:6 are both implicitly compared to locusts.
2) Barton usefully notes that while there is no other example of “army” being used
as a metaphor for a locust plague, there are examples of locusts-as-a-metaphor for
invading armies.1
Numerous like locusts
They came striding...2
Like the locusts that dwell of the steppe,
Like grasshoppers on the border of the desert...
Now do they attack the villages,
Harass the towns.3
...my warriors swarmed like locusts out of the ships (and) onto the banks and
brought about this defeat.4
This observation casts doubt on a literal reading of Joel 1 and 2.
3) Barton also inadvertently points out that the consistency of the oracles in Joel 1
can be questioned on a literal reading. The implication of a background drought
implies that there would be insufficient vegetation for an “once-in-a-lifetime”
locust plague to be sustained across years.5 F. E. Deist also observes that drought
1
Barton, 43-44.
Cited in Crenshaw, 96.
3
Cited in Andiñach, “Locusts”, 438-439.
4
Cited in Andiñach, “Locusts”, 439.
5
Barton, 45.
2
95
and locust swarms do not occur together; locust plagues normally occur after good
rains.1
4) The language of Joel 1 beyond vv. 4, 6-7, does not fit a locust plague. The
harvest has perished which is not the same calamity as being eaten; the new wine
has “dried up” as have rivers of waters, and such an image does not suggest
locusts; the farming infrastructure has been destroyed; and there has been fire and
flame.2
5) The language of Joel 2 is less amenable to a literal interpretation of locusts.
There is again fire and flame and an interest in the city, its windows and walls. The
great people are said to climb and to march, and both movements do not reflect
locust swarms.
6) Finally, Deist observes that if Joel 1 were about a literal locust plague, as such
were common, it is difficult to see why this should be remembered forever.
G. S. Ogden has argued that the mention of the effects of drought and fire (Joel
1:19) is difficult to reconcile with a literal interpretation of the locust plague. His
solution is to propose that all three details are stylised features of a national lament
ritual to which the oracles in the latter half of Joel are the prophetic response.3 He
avers that the account in Joel 1 is not factual, but the situation that occasions the
lament is attack from foreign powers. Deist’s thesis is not too dissimilar, arguing
that Joel is creating in his work a stylised literary world of calamities which includes
drought, fire, as well as locusts.4
For these reasons, (1)-(6), we reject a literal reading of the locusts in Joel 1 and 2,
and this in turn casts doubt on post-exilic dates that rely on the supposition of a
natural plague.
4. Eschatology
Scholars support a post-exilic date for Joel with eschatological interpretation.
Certain details in Joel’s oracles are given a “last days” cast and in doing this the
need to find an historical catalyst involving conflict is removed. There are two
broad strategies to be observed:
Deist, “Parallels and Reinterpretation in the Book of Joel: A Theology of the Yom Yahweh”,
64.
2
Childs, “The Enemy from the North and the Chaos Tradition”, 197.
3
Ogden, “Prophetic Responses”, 104-105.
4
Deist, “Parallels and Reinterpretation in the Book of Joel: A Theology of the Yom Yahweh”,
64.
1
96
The army of Joel 2:1-11 is regarded as eschatological and the situation depicted
is taken to be part of the judgments of God upon Israel and the nations, with
the judgments of the nations being detailed in Joel 3; the locusts of Joel 1 are a
foretaste of the destructive power of God in the end-times. This strategy starts
the eschatological reading at Joel 2:1 and the principal recent advocate is
Wolff.1
The natural disaster of a locust plague is described in Joel 1:2-2:11 using the
metaphor of a nation and its army. This crisis was resolved in the repentance of
the people and the land was restored (Joel 2:12-27). This event became a
catalyst for reflection upon the destiny of the nation and the nations in the last
days. This strategy starts the eschatological reading at Joel 2:28 and the main
recent supporting voice is Barton.2
Arguing for a “last days” application is a matter of asserting that details cannot
have local contemporary application and/or that such details are found in clearer
prophetic texts that describe the resolution of God’s purpose with his people.
1) Childs argues3 that the cosmic details of Joel 2:10 (heaven and earth shaking;
sun, moon and stars dark) are elements of a prophetic tradition about a latter day
“enemy from the north” found in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The gathering of the
nations in Joel 3:9-12 and the subsequent shaking of the heavens and earth in Joel
3:16 can be matched to details of Gogian invasion of Ezekiel 38.
1
Wolff, 41-43.
Barton, 46-47.
3
Childs, “The Enemy from the North and the Chaos Tradition”, 197.
2
97
4.1 Critique
The nations and city-states mentioned (Tyre, Zidon, Philistia, Edom and Egypt)
are Judah’s typical enemies in pre-exilic times. There is no post-exilic history in
which nations mentioned were gathered together and judged; nor are there
circumstances where captives were brought back from indentured servitude with
Judah taking captives from the local nations as recompense. In order to get round
these problems, commentators such as Barton interpret Joel’s later oracles (Joel
2:28-3:21) eschatologically. On this approach, there is no need to fit the material to
any post-exilic situation.
Treves has argued for a later post-exilic date around the time of Ptolemy Soter, but
this has not persuaded scholars.1 Apart from the lack of determinate historical
markers,
1
M. Treves, “The Date of Joel”, VT 7 (1957): 149-156
98
CHAPTER SIX
Unity and Authorship
1. Introduction
Some scholars have regarded the unity of Joel to be problematic, although as
Crenshaw notes “contemporary scholars generally accept the unity of the book”.1
In this chapter, we will argue for the unity of the book and its single authorship,
but many of the arguments for our structural analysis lie in the later commentary
chapters; here we merely describe our structure.
2. Structural Patterns
Commentators group together and distinguish parts in Joel and thereby produce a
structure. We are sceptical of there being any structure other than “a flat set of
interrelated oracles” grouped into several “acts”. Nevertheless, thinking about the
structure of Joel is valuable as a way of learning how to read the book and mistakes
in exegesis start with structure.
2.1 Dividing Joel
The largest pattern offered by scholars is a division of the book into two parts, and
this pattern is often associated with the view that were at least two authors behind
the book from different times. Sweeny notes that this division stems from German
scholarship which observed a difference between the judgement of the early
oracles of Joel and the restoration and vindication of later oracles.2
Thus, today, Barton considers Joel 2:28-3:21 to be a “collection of miscellaneous
oracles…later than the prophet Joel…virtually impossible to date”.3 This division
by Barton depends on his reading of the locust plague as literal. This, along with
the consequences of poor rainfall, gives an alleged agricultural and economic focus
to Joel 1:2-2:27. The emphases on the people and the surrounding nations in Joel
2:28-3:21 is evidently different and suggests a two-part division of the book. This is
supported on the part of Barton by seeing “apocalyptic” and “eschatological”
features in the later oracles in Joel. While Barton sees this pattern as evidence of
more than one author (seeing a notional second author—“Deutero-Joel” as the
Judean Community), this is not a necessary conclusion; older scholarship saw one
later writer4 and the Joel himself may be the author of the supposed two parts of
the book.
1
Crenshaw, 30; Kapelrud, 176-190, offers the fullest case for unity.
Sweeney, “The Place and Function of Joel in the Book of the Twelve”, 136-137.
3
Barton, 92; see also Kapelrud, 176.
4
Duhm, „Anmerkungen zu den Zwölf Propheten“, 184-188.
2
99
S. R. Driver divides the book into two parts at Joel 2:18, because it is at this point
that the book describes God’s response to the devastation wrought upon the
nation in Joel 1:2-2:17.1 Sweeny divides the book at Joel 2:15 because he sees vv.
15-17 as introductory to the material that follows and as a call to the people to hear
Yahweh’s answer to their earlier laments.2 Wolff sees the “decisive turning point”
in Joel 2:19 because this is where the “answer” of the Lord begins.3 Wolff’s
analysis is possibly better but it still overlooks the connection between v. 19 and v.
12:
Yet even now, saith the Lord, turn ye even to me...Who knoweth if he will return
and repent…Yea, the Lord has answered… Joel 2:12-18 (KJV revised)
The structure here is “question and answer”: the people repented and God did
answer. This connection means that we cannot divide the book of Joel at v. 19;
instead, we should recognise that the pivot upon which the book turns is the call to
repentance in vv. 12-14. However, this pivot does not divide Joel into two
dissimilar halves; rather, the oracle unit of vv. 12-14 leads into the units that
comprise vv. 15-20, 21-27 and 28-32. These units reflect the catalyst of the Day of
the Lord for Judah as much as Joel 1:2-2:11 presages this Day. In contrast, the
oracles of Joel 3 revolve around a Day of the Lord for the nations.
Recognition of this structure means that we cannot divide Joel into two halves;
rather there are at least three parts to the book. The pivot of Joel 2:12-14 divides
the oracles of Joel 1 and 2, but Joel 3 represents oracles from different
circumstances. Such a division is recognised in the chapter division in English
bibles (originating from the Vulgate edition of 1205 C.E.), but an older (1524-25
C.E.) rabbinical division of four chapters recognised a dividing point at Joel 2:284
and, as we shall see, a better fourfold division would start Part 3 at Joel 2:21.
There is merit in the division of Joel into four acts or chapters. The passing of
narrative time in Joel 2:28, “And it shall come to pass afterward” separates the
oracles in Joel 2:28-32 from the preceding oracles, but the association between Joel
2:21-27 and Joel 2:28-32 is strong and this means we should think of these blocks
of material as one “act”. Certainly, a stress in Joel 2:28-32 is “deliverance in
Jerusalem” and this contrasts strongly with the vision of the sack of a city
described in Joel 2:2-9. Different circumstances are implied in Joel 2:28-32—later
than the events of Joel 1:2-2:20. This structure makes the anticipated Day of the
1
S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (9th ed.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1913), 307. Other scholars to divide Joel at 2:18 include Allen, 42-43, and Strazicich, 43, but for a
classic statement see Duhm, „Anmerkungen zu den Zwölf Propheten“, 184-188. Sweeney, “The
Place and Function of Joel in the Book of the Twelve”, 137-138, offers a critique.
2
Sweeney, “The Place and Function of Joel in the Book of the Twelve”, 140-141.
3
Wolff, 24.
4
Barton, 5.
100
Lord in Joel 2:31 a different warning to that which is delivered in Joel 1:15 and 2:1,
11. We shall follow this structural division of Joel, but it is one that does not offer
evidence of there being different authors of the various parts of the book. There is
a fundamental unity in Joel because the oracles relate to the same historical time
period—Joel prophesied in a climactic time in which there were repeated “Day of
the Lord” crises for Israel and Judah. In taking this line, we agree with the current
majority opinion which sees Joel as a unity.
A metaphorical reading of the locusts does not push a reader into seeing a twofold
division of the book at Joel 2:28, because on this reading the locusts are a
description of an invading power. Instead, because the oracles in Joel are mostly
about the people and the nations from start to finish, there is no division in the
collection of oracles. This in turn is supported by reading Joel’s later oracles in a
non-eschatological way: the oracles are a description of another “Day of the Lord”
as it was experienced by Joel’s contemporaries. This approach to Joel is supported
by the common motifs across Joel’s various oracles.
2.2 Symmetry
Dividing the book of Joel at some point in Joel 2 is not uncommon in
commentaries. One basis for making this choice is a perception that Joel 1 and 2
have an embedded symmetrical structure. Symmetry and artistry in Joel would
show an integrating hand,1 but the problem with large-scale patterns is that they
are dependent on how the book is being read by the scholar. The process seems
irredeemably subjective. Their plausibility depends on seeing the repetition of
themes or the placement of contrasting themes in mirrored relationships.
For example, D. A. Garrett offers this pattern:2
A (1:4-20), Punishment: the locust plague
B (2:1-11), Punishment: the apocalyptic army
C (2:12-19), Transition: repentance and Yahweh’s response
B` (2:20), Forgiveness: the apocalyptic army destroyed
A` (2:21-27), Forgiveness: the locust damage restored
The problem with this proposal is that Garrett collects under his headings distinct
oracle units with disparate material. Even if we follow Garrett’s literal reading of
the locusts, the locust plague does not extend across the units in Joel 1:4-20;
moreover, the corresponding unit of Joel 2:21-27 is not just about restoring locust
damage—there is also reversal of the effects of poor rainfall. Further, Joel 2:1-11
does not describe an “apocalyptic” army—it is just a vision of a combined force in
1
Hubbard, 32; Allen, 42; Barton, 8.
D. A. Garrett, “The Structure of Joel” JETS 28 (1985): 289-297. J. Bourke, “Le Jour de Yahvé
dans Joël” RB 66 (1959): 5-31, 191-212 (11-15) offers another example, which is discussed and
rejected by Allen, 39-40.
2
101
the field causing great alarm to Joel’s hearers. Moreover, the structural counterpart
to the description of this army is just the single verse—Joel 2:20, which is not a
balanced pattern in the material. Against Garrett, we would argue that all that we
have in Joel 1:2-2:27 is a related set of oracles that progressively develop a story.
Garrett correctly sees the progression in the story from calamity to repentance and
then restoration (A-B-C), but this is not the chiastic pattern he diagrams and it is
not controversial.
Against scholars such as Driver, Wolff and Garrett, Allen believes the book divides
at Joel 2:17 and he offers a symmetrical structure that parallels Joel 1 and 2 in the
following way:1
1:2-20
2-12
2-4
5-7
8-10
11-12
Introducing the crisis
Locust’s destructiveness
Call to Zion
Call to farmers
13-14
15-18
19-20
Call to priests
National lament
Prayer
1-2
3-5
6-9
10-11
Introducing the crisis
Locust’s destructiveness
Concerned with Jerusalem
Day of the Lord
12-14
15-16
17
Call to repentance
National lament
Prayer
13-20
2:1-17
1-11
12-17
Allen describes the units in a general way to bring out the proposed
correspondences. The problem with the proposal is that it is an invention that
depends too much on the scholar’s description of oracle units. Typically, a scholar will
give a sufficiently generalized description of an oracle unit so that it can be
matched with a supposed parallel. Allen’s structure is weak in its comparison of
Joel 1:11-12 with 2:10-11 and Joel 1:19-20 with 2:17. The progression of thought in
the oracles of Joel 1 and 2 bears comparison, but only with regard to each oracle.
Thus, for example, Joel 1:19-20 has a motif of “crying” to the Lord and Joel 2:17
has a motif of “weeping” to the Lord, but this similarity is not part of a
corresponding symmetric structure between two chapters – Joel 2:17 is an
exhortation to prayer while Joel 1:19-20 is an actual prayer.
1
Allen, 40-43.
102
Barton, likewise, structures Joel 1-2 on a large-scale that places to one side the
differences in the oracle units. He affirms that there is a symmetrical three
component structure:
i) a detailed description of the disaster (1:2-4; 2:1-11).
ii) a call to lament (1:5-14; 2:12-17a).
iii) the corresponding lament (1:15-20; 2:17bc).
Barton’s analysis is sufficiently broad and general so that it appears to work, but
again, the structure breaks down because, while Joel 1:15-18 is a lament, Joel
2:17bc can hardly be considered as a “matching” lament; rather Joel 2:17 as a
whole is a call to lament with suggested words. W. S. Prinsloo1 offers a better
approach when he recognises that oracles develop and expand on earlier material
in a stepwise fashion. So, for example, he believes that the second account of the
locust attack builds on the first account.
1:2-14
2:1-11
1:15-20
A stepwise approach is legitimate, and it is how we view the structure of oracle
units in Joel, but this particular result is questionable. The locust attack implied in
Joel 1:5-7 does not extend to the other oracles in Joel 1. Further, the locust attack
in Joel 2:2-9 ultimately relates to a city rather than the land and should be
contextualized to a later situation. It is only in this sense that the detail of Joel 2:2-9
builds on and expands the detail of Joel 1:5-7.
We have seen that scholars divide Joel into two halves while disagreeing on the
point of division; popular choices are vv. 17, 18 and 28. Different starting points
for the second half of Joel produces a lack of agreement about symmetrical
structure, and proposals for the latter half of Joel are less cogent than for the first
half of the book. When evaluating proposals it can seem as if the perception of
symmetrical structure in the first half of Joel forces a scholar to see similar
structure in the second half of Joel. Allen offers the following analysis:2
2:18-32
3:1-21
1
2
Oracles about the Nation
18-27 Immediate material promises
28-32 Distant blessings for the people
Oracles about the Nations
1-12 Charges and summonses to judgment
13-21 The nations’ fate and Judah’s fortune
W. S. Prinsloo, The Theology of the Book of Joel (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1985), 123.
Allen, 41.
103
There are several problems with this analysis:
1) Verses 18-27 are not a unit; v. 21 begins a unit of proclamation to the land,
whereas vv. 18-20, has been shown by D. R. Jones (and others) to be a report of
what God has said to the people. 1 Jones notes the significance of the change in
tense in vv. 18-19,
And the Lord was jealous for his land, and he did pity his people. Yea, the Lord
did answer and say unto his people, Behold, I am sending you corn, and wine,
and oil, and ye shall be satisfied therewith: and I will no more make you a
reproach among the heathen: and (w) I will remove far off from you the
northerner, and will drive him into a land barren and desolate, with his face
toward the east sea, and his hinder part toward the utmost sea, and his stink shall
come up, and his ill savour shall come up, because he hath done great things. Joel
2:18-20 (KJV revised)
This change in tense separates vv. 18-19 from vv. 15-17 as it presupposes God’s
response to the people’s lament: they heeded the call of the prophet (recorded in
vv. 15-17) and cried to Yahweh for mercy and God responded. The tense also
separates vv. 18-20 from vv. 21-27 as a statement of what God has said to his
people.
2) Commentators treat Joel 2:28-32 with Joel 3;2 Allen regards Joel 2:28-32 as a
prediction of co-incident happenings with the summons to the nations. He avers,
The people, weaklings and all, were summoned to Jerusalem to avert Yahweh’s
wrath by repentance; the other nations are now summoned in total mobilization
to the environs of the city to face Yahweh’s wrath in judgment.3
In structural terms, this does not work: Joel 2:28-32 is about deliverance and it
implies there is a dominating invader from whom deliverance is needed. The
populace is instructed to seek safety in Jerusalem; the land is too dangerous a place.
There is therefore no basis for seeing Joel 3 as a co-incident situation; here the
people are Yahweh’s instrument through whom he subdues the surrounding
nations; the army is able to go out into the land and engage enemy forces.
The situation of Joel 2:32 is therefore one where the people are not in a position to
execute his wrath. Instead, Joel 3:1 makes it clear that the oracle units of Joel 3 are
for a time when Yahweh turns around the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem.
Because Joel 2:32 is about deliverance and Joel 3:1 is about the reversal of
captivity, a different situation separates the two oracles. Allen attempts to unify the
oracles by affirming that “the prophet is at pains to stress the security of God’s
1
Jones, 131, 134, 165; see also Barton, 47
Allen, 107-108; Hubbard, 73-74.
3
Allen, 108.
2
104
people amid terrors and alarms destined for others”,1 but this does not account for
the “aggressor” element.
3) The restoration of Joel 2:21-27 precedes the events of Joel 2:28-32 and this
indicates that there is a renewed crisis after such a restoration. Accordingly, the Day
of the Lord of Joel 2:31 is a different prospect to that of Joel 1:15, 2:1 and 11.
Furthermore, the Day of the Lord of Joel 2:31 is not that of Joel 3:14—Joel 3 is
about judgment on the nations whereas Joel 2:30-32 is about the deliverance of the
people from their enemy.
4) Allen treats Joel 3:1-12 as an oracle unit because of the inclusio of the “Valley of
Jehoshaphat” in vv. 2 and 12 and because these verses are a speech by Yahweh. He
affirms that it is the counterpart to Joel 2:1-11 which likewise has an inclusio of the
“Day of the Lord” (vv. 1, 11); he also states that its poetic structure matches a
threefold pattern in Joel 2:18-27.2 However, the proclamation imperative of Joel
3:9 is too strong to allow Allen’s analysis; there are instead two oracles which
reference the Valley of Jehoshaphat. Further, Joel 3:14 references a Day of the
Lord and this makes Joel 3:9-17 a better counterpart to Joel 2:1-11—one is a Day
of the Lord for the nations and the other is for Judah. Finally, the speech of
Yahweh ends at v. 8, as shown by the third person reference to Yahweh’s “mighty
ones” in v. 11.
5) Allen’s treatment of Joel 3:13-21 recognizes two parts (vv. 13-17, 18-21). The
note, “it shall come to pass” in v. 18 separates vv. 18-21 as a separate unit. We can
agree vv. 13-17 is a separate summons to battle if we do not want to associate
these verses with vv. 9-12 which are also a proclamation of war. Allen does not
match vv. 13-21 to Joel 2:28-32 as a counterpart unit, and this illustrates the point
that there is no symmetry in Joel’s arrangement of his oracles. His oracles are just
collected in the reading order that we have in the text; there are obvious
intratextual connections,3 but they do not comprise an elaborate pattern.
In view of the problems listed above, (1)-(5), we reject Allen’s symmetrical analysis
of the second half of Joel. However, we do not think the exercise can be repaired
such that there is another structure that will work.4 Our structure can be nothing
more than an affirmation that Joel 3 is a flat series of oracle units.5
1
Allen, 41.
Allen, 42, 107.
3
See Deist, “Parallels and Reinterpretation in the Book of Joel: A Theology of the Yom
Yahweh”, 64-65, 70-74.
4
Symmetrical analysis is reminiscent of older scholarly attempts to reconstruct the original text
of Joel according to some theory of Hebrew metrics, on which, see the review in Kapelrud, 121124.
5
Mason, 99-100.
2
105
2.3 Describing and Identifying Oracle Units
Our argument is that large symmetrical patterns are the invention of the scholar
rather than inherent in the text. Unless they are proven by formal features of the
text, they are a function of the scholar’s description of the content of oracle units.
The content of an oracle can be described in such a general way that it can be
made to appear part of a symmetrical pattern—but this is our invention. Our
contrary case is that Joel’s structure is flat.
Although there are no chapters in the original Hebrew, it is convenient to think of
the oracle units in Joel in terms of the common chapters as these mark boundaries
of focus. Although we are following the English chapter division, the rabbinical
division into four chapters is better, i.e. the units in Joel 1 have a shared focus
different to those in Joel 2, and Joel 3 (English: Joel 2:28-32) has a different focus
to Joel 4, and so on.1
The different oracle units will have a different focus and/or topic. We do not see
in their topics evidence of a complex composition from different hands (glosses,
insertions, interpolations, etc.).2 Scholars may assert this and see editorial work on
an original set of oracles from Joel, but there is no knowledge to be had in this
exercise which can successfully compete against the ancient evidence of the
inscription. Apart from the four acts, there is no further significant compositional
point to be made about Joel. The oracle units in each of the acts may have
different foci, but within each act, they hang together as having arisen out of the
same situation; this is shown in our commentary.
2.3.1 Joel 1
Jones affirms that Joel 1 “contains a call to national penitence”,3 and he identifies
vv. 2-12 and vv. 13-18 as two types of call, with vv. 19-20 being a closing prayer.
The problem with the proposal is that Joel 1 is more complex: vv. 2-3 and v. 4 are
units which are decidedly not a call to penitence. Further, there are several “calls” to
lament (not one) although, as a matter of historical analysis, these could be said to
make up a “national call”.
After a superscription, the first chapter of Joel divides into distinct units—vv. 2-3,
v. 4, vv. 5-8, vv. 8-10, vv. 11-12, v. 13, v. 14, vv. 15-18, and vv. 19-20. This is
indicated by (among things) the successive imperative addresses (old men, vv. 2-3;
drunkards, vv. 5-7; priests, vv. 8-10; husbandmen, vv. 11-12; priests, v. 13), each
of which introduces an oracle unit.
1
However, we would have made Joel 3 embrace what is currently in English Joel 2:21-32.
Barton, 8-9.
3
Jones, 133.
2
106
2.3.2 Joel 2
The oracle units in Joel 2 are fairly clear. Most commentators associate vv. 1-11 as
a unit, however, this is not sufficiently nuanced. There is a shift in narrative
vantage point between v. 9 and v. 10. The language of appearance in vv. 2-9
indicates a vision of the sack of a city; in v. 11 the vantage point changes—the
army is not in the city but beyond the walls and encamped. In v. 10 the army has
affected the land very much as they are said to affect the land in v. 2. Accordingly,
we distinguish vv. 10-11 as a separate unit from vv. 2-9; v. 1 is a clarion call which
acts as a preface to the vision of vv. 2-9.
Commentators take the city to be Jerusalem1 because of the mention of Zion; the
threat is to Zion. However, this view is not sufficiently subtle: the city is
unidentified and the role of the vision is to warn the people that it could be
Jerusalem. This warning was delivered in 735-734. The people repent and the
vision is not fulfilled in respect of Zion, but Isaiah uses the language of the vision
to describe the end of the Northern Kingdom (Isaiah 13), and this retrospectively
identifies Joel’s vision to have been a vision of Samaria.
The turning point in the book of Joel is the call to repentance of vv. 12-14, which
is reinforced by a call to lament in vv. 15-17. We have noted above that vv. 18-20
are a separate unit because there is a sharp change of tense between v. 17 and v.
18. In v. 18, we have the prophet’s report that the Lord did answer the appeals of
the people: “And the Lord was jealous for his land, and he did pity his people. Yea,
the Lord did answer and say unto his people”.2
Commentators take the northerner (v. 20, RSV) to be the great people of v. 2 (or
the nation of Joel 1:6), whether this be a metaphor for a literal plague of locusts or
an invading people.3 However, this approach fails to respect the individual
reference of the term translated “northerner” ( ynwpc). Our structure respects this
difference and reads the conjunction of v. 20 (w) with vv. 18-19 as an “also” or “in
addition”: i.e. “I will send you corn, wine and oil...also I will remove the northerner
far off from you”.
The restoration of corn, wine and oil (v. 19) reverses the problems of Joel 1:10, 17
rather than the crisis facing the city in the vision of Joel 2. This crisis is reversed in
the assurance that Zion would no more be a reproach for the nations (vv. 2, 17, 27;
cf. Isa 13:4). The third and additional assurance is that a northerner and his armies
would also be removed far off from Zion (v. 20).
1
Mason, 99.
Jones, 131, 134, 165.
3
Barton, 6.
2
107
2.3.2.1 Joel 2:28-32
Commentators agree that vv. 21-27 is an oracle unit of restoration addressed to
Judah and Jerusalem; the structural status of vv. 28-32 is however problematic. It is
possible to read “And it shall come to pass afterward...” in v. 28 as sequentially
following on from v. 27. This is a common approach and it lends support to a
reading of vv. 28-29 as a reference to the bestowal of the spirit in a new and
restored age for Judah.1 The problem with this reading is the repetition of the
motif of the Day of the Lord in v. 31 and the reference to there being deliverance
in Jerusalem (v. 32). This suggests a renewal of crisis but with an assurance of
deliverance. A renewal of crisis limits the restoration implied in vv. 21-27; we can
hardly see then a prediction of a new age.
The bestowal of the Spirit takes place “after” the repentance of the people (vv. 1214) rather than after the restoration of the land (vv. 21-27). This is indicated by the
fact that vv. 12 and 28 are the only two temporal adverbs in these oracles, “Yet
even now, if you will turn...and it shall come to pass afterward that I will pour out my
spirit”. This bestowal of the Spirit is given to facilitate a message that deliverance
can only be found in Jerusalem; the Lord would call survivors to Jerusalem. These
details fit the situation that would assail the Northern Kingdom during 725-722
leading up to the sack of Samaria; survivors found deliverance in Jerusalem.
There are three oracular announcements in vv. 28-32—vv. 28-29, v. 30 and vv. 3132. An inclusio binds vv.29-29 together, so that v. 30 has to be read as a
complementary first person utterance. There is no flow of thought from v. 30 to v.
31, because “wonders” in the heavens are not the eclipses of the heavenly
bodies—the sun and the moon. It is a common mistake to make this equation and
treat vv. 28-32 as unified oracle. Nevertheless, the bestowal of the Spirit, the
wonders in the heavens, the happenings on earth (or in the land), and the celestial
eclipses, these are all events that happen after the repentance of the people, and
this means that the prediction of a Day of the Lord in Joel 2:31 is for a time
beyond the crisis of 735-734.
In this way we agree with scholars who see some “distance” between Joel 2:28-32
and Joel 1:2-2:20, but reject the common eschatological reading which puts too
much distance between the content of these parts of Joel;2 there is a perfectly
credible development in the history of the nation to account for the movement of
thought in Joel 1 and 2 as a whole.
2.3.3 Joel 3
The last “act” of Joel covers what happens when the captivity of Judah and
Jerusalem is turned around (Joel 3:1). That narrative time has moved on is signaled
1
2
Hubbard, 68, but contrast Kapelrud, 126-127.
Strazicich, 37, is wrong to see a “distant future” in Joel 2:28-3:21.
108
by “in those days and at that time”. With most commentators, we divide Joel 3 into
the units, vv. 1-3, vv. 4-8, vv. 9-17, and vv. 18-21. The events predicted can be
matched to the resurgence of Judah under Hezekiah (c. 715, 705), which saw him
wage campaigns against Philistia and address the issue of indentured captive
Judahites in other lands.
This contextualization allows vv. 4-8 to originate from the same catalyst as vv. 1-3:1
with Judahites carried off captive and sold through the coastal ports as a result of
campaigns by Edom, Philistia and Syria in the 730s, the promise of revenge in both
units obviously dovetails, and the common commentary proposal that vv. 4-8 is a
later interpolation can be discarded.
3. Reading Tendencies
Reading takes place in a hermeneutical circle. The structural analyses of Joel that
are offered by scholars reflect their reading and certain tendencies can be
identified:
Some scholars see complex composition in Joel spanning a period of time and
involving several hands—an original author and subsequent editors. The most
common dividing point for multiple authors is Joel 2:28; the most common
characterization of the later material is “eschatological and/or apocalyptic”.
This tendency to assert multiple hands is countered by scholars who see the
same complex composition but attribute the complexity to one post-exilic
author—Joel. In contrast, we see no particular complexity, no particular
eschatological or apocalyptic emphasis, and attribute the book to a pre-exilic
prophet.
If the book is divided into two halves scholars select different break points (Joel
2:17, 18, 19, 28). We divide the book into four acts because the difference of
situation in Joel 2:28-32 is just as great with what follows as with what has
preceded; we therefore follow the rabbinical reading and divide Joel into four
“chapters”.
Joel 1 and 2 have been read in parallel as describing the same scenario—a
second account of a locust attack. This is supported by symmetrical analysis of
Joel 1 and 2; none of the analyses work. Instead, we read Joel 1:2-2:20 in a
stepwise fashion—there is a development in the situation covered by Joel 1:220 and Joel 2:1-27 rather than parallel description.
Scholars take the description of the invasion of Joel 2:2-9 to include metaphor.
If they think the invasion is a locust infestation, the metaphors are those of a
1
Contra most commentaries which take vv. 4-8 as an interpolation, see Barton, 12; Wolff, 77.
Strazicich, 37, observes the connection between vv. 4-8 and vv. 1-3.
109
“great people” and its army. If they think the invasion is literal, the metaphor is
that of a locust plague. We take the language to be visionary rather than
metaphorical.
Scholars generally identify the northerner as the locust plague, whether
conceived of naturally or metaphorically; we take the northerner to be an
individual associated with the Syro-Ephraimite coalition.
Some scholars see a natural locust plague in Joel 1 and 2; others see a locust
plague in Joel 1 which functions as a sign of either a contemporary invading
army or an eschatological army in Joel 2; we see a contemporary invader in Joel
1 and 2.
Scholars differ in how they apportion material to the Day of the Lord. Some
see the locust plague of Joel 1 and 2 as a sign of the Day of the Lord that is
then fully described in Joel 2:28-3:21. Others see the plague of Joel 1 and 2 as
integral to the Day of the Lord. We identify instead three Days of the Lord: a
day that is averted through repentance (Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11); a day for the
Northern Kingdom from which there is escape in Jerusalem (Joel 2:31); and a
day of revenge upon the nations executed by Hezekiah (Joel 3:14).
In not making a contemporary application for the oracles of Joel 2:28-3:21,
scholars read the material in an eschatological way and some also extend the
eschatological application to include Joel 2:1-11. In contrast, we read Joel 2:213:21 in terms of events that follow the invasion of Joel 1 and 2.
Scholars read Joel 2:28-32 as a prophecy about the deliverance of Jerusalem as
well as the promise of a new age of the Spirit. In keeping with this reading, they
interpret the turning around of the captivity in Joel 3:1 to be the return of the
Exiles. We take the “captivity” to be about those taken during the wars of the
730s.
Scholars commonly treat Joel 3:4-8 as a late interpolation; we treat it as an
integral expansion that identifies those responsible for the captivity noted in
Joel 3:1-3.
Scholars assert that Joel 3 paints a different scenario to Joel 1:2-2:27, but this
does not require hypotheses of later authors and editors; the oracles can be
accounted for on the supposition that Joel is prophesying in and about the
aftermath of the crisis of the earlier chapters.
110
4. Authorship
Nothing is known of the son of Pethuel or Bethuel (LXX). Scholars hypothesize
about editorial work on the collection of Joel’s prophecies, but proposals are
speculative. Source materials and editors disappear to the extent that a text appears
consistent and coherent.1 Two examples of the sort of redactional hypotheses that
have been proposed from each end of a spectrum are,
Duhm ascribed Joel 1:1-2:17 to an early post-exilic Joel except for the “Day of
the Lord” texts; the rest of Joel was ascribed to a Maccabean preacher
preoccupied with the Day of the Lord and eschatology.2 While few would
accept Duhm’s Maccabean hypothesis today, some sort of division of
authorship was common, and often made at Joel 2:28;3 the later material being
regarded as eschatological.
Redditt argues for five levels of redaction ascribing only Joel 1:5-2:11 and
possibly 2:12-17 to Joel; other editorial work was carried out by a group of
Joel’s disciples.4
Hypotheses of multiple authors are based on perceived differences in the book’s
material. However, it is always possible to present a configuration of the material
that supports the hypothesis of a single author. The “internal evidence” cannot
settle the issue, and so as a matter of method, greater weight should be given to the
ancient witness of the superscription in deciding this question. In thus arguing for
Joel as an “author”, we regard him more than an “originator of the sayings”5 but as
the inspired author of the finished work.
A redactional analysis will note the breaks in the text signalled by fragments such
as “Yet even now” (Joel 2:12), “Then has the Lord been jealous” (Joel 2:18); “And
it shall come to pass” (Joel 2:28), and “For behold” (Joel 3:1),6 and on this basis, if
the associated oracle units detail something radically different (message, theology,
situation), it will be hypothesised that a different and later hand is responsible. The
method, however, lacks evidential rigour, since not enough is known about the
relevant centuries that scholars place the writing to exclude a single author writing
at different times in his life.
1
J. Barton, Reading the Old Testament (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1984), 56-58.
Duhm, „Anmerkungen zu den Zwölf Propheten“, 184-188; R. P. Carroll, When prophecy Failed
(London: SCM Press, 1979), 181-182, also hypothesizes that the Day of the Lord texts might be
a later gloss; see the comments in Barton, 8-9.
3
See the older standard “Introduction”, O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. P.
Ackroyd; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966), 392-393, and even more recently, J. Blenkinsopp, A
History of Prophecy in Israel (2nd ed.; Louisville: WJK Press, 1996), 229-230.
4
Redditt, “Peripheral Prophecy”, 227-231.
5
Kapelrud, 176.
6
Redditt, “Peripheral Prophecy”, 228-229.
2
111
The majority view1 is that Joel is the work of a single author, but the arguments
made do not rest on the superscription. They rely on repetitions throughout the
book,2 the lament material of Joel 1 and 2 being answered by the prophetic
response in Joel 3.3 In the table below, we have listed some of the common motifs
that straddle the four acts of Joel and thereby display its unity.
Four locusts
Grain, wine and oil
Calling on the Lord
Day of the Lord
Earth quakes, heavens tremble
Sun, Moon and stars
Darkness
Voice of the Lord
Army of the Lord
I am the Lord your God
1:4; 2:25
1:10; 2:19, 24
1:19; 2:32
1:15; 2:1, 11, 31; 3:14
2:10; 3:16
2:10, 31; 3:15
2:2, 30; 3:15
2:11; 3:16
2:11, 25
2:27; 3:17
There is no proof to be had for single authorship or that the book of Joel is a
unified composition from internal evidence.
5. Conclusion
The view of this chapter is conservative: that the book of Joel is the work of one
prophet. This historical hypothesis is supported by the superscription which we
have argued is a piece of external evidence and therefore should be given the
greatest weight. Consequently, the proposals of critical scholars for multiple
authors and editors can be rejected.
1
Allen, Kapelrud, Ahlström, Thompson and Wolff.
Thompson, “The Use of Repetition in the Prophecy of Joel”.
3
Ogden, “Prophetic Responses”.
2
112
CHAPTER SEVEN
Message, Setting and Theology
1. Introduction
An analysis of the message, setting and theology of Joel is common in
commentaries. The book certainly presupposes a theology; it is less certain whether
it is meant to express a theology.
The setting of the book is disputed. Bergler and Strazicich think of Joel as a
“writing prophet”1 and Ogden sees Joel as a stylised prophetic response to a
national lament—a writing that reflects a formal liturgical setting.2 Kapelrud sees
Joel as a “cult prophet” attached to the temple,3 whereas Ahlström and Wolff think
Joel was critical of the priesthood.4 Redditt sees Joel as peripheral to the temple,
less critical, and more sectarian, with much of the book coming from his disciples.5
Where scholars see multiple hands in the writing of Joel, the setting of the book
will change. To these proposals we should add our view that we know nothing of Joel
except that he was a prophet of God and proclaimed his messages in diverse
settings such as the temple courtyard, the market-place, ambassador courts, and
out in the field of battle.
Joel undoubtedly had messages to deliver to the people, but is there a message as a
whole? If Joel is a record of a prophet’s counsel to the crises of the moment, is
there any thought for an overall message? In the writing down of the prophet’s
utterances, was there any intention to craft a theme for the book? Joel undoubtedly
said more than has been recorded;6 is there a pattern to what has been written
down? These are the sort of questions for this chapter.
2. Theology
A reader today brings to the book of Joel wider scriptural knowledge and he
constructs a theology from the comfort of an armchair. Joel was living at a time of
crisis and he saw in the presence of a hostile nation in the land a sign of the
impending Day of the Lord (Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11).7 From this description we can infer
that Joel saw God as the architect of events. However, there is no theodicy in the
Bergler, Joel als Schriftinterpret; Strazicich, Joel’s Use of Scripture and Scripture’s Use of Joel.
This position is presented in Ogden, “Prophetic Responses”.
3
Kapelrud, 177.
4
Ahlström, 25-26; Wolff, 5, 13.
5
Redditt, “Peripheral Prophecy”, 233, 235-236.
6
Jones, 152.
7
Contra Jones, 138.
1
2
113
oracles of Joel 1 and 2: Joel does not relate the crisis to any particular sin of the
people; he offers no explanation for the crisis.1
There is incompleteness in Joel; his oracles are of the moment—there is no
rounded theological theme in the book such as “The Day of the Lord”.2 We can
however discern his beliefs: he believes in—
The efficacy of prayer, fasting and lament.
The covenant relationship that a people have with their God is mediated
through the temple and its sacrifices.
The power of repentance and turning to God for help.
The superiority of Yahweh to the nations and his power to deliver the people.3
The bestowal of the Spirit in a time of crisis upon those who repent.
The power of God to restore the land.
The justice of God and his determination to judge the nations.
The ultimate security of Judah and Jerusalem as the dwelling place of Yahweh.
This theology is self-evident but it is hazardous to then go on and construct an
eschatological scheme from Joel. The methodological difficulty in this exercise is
that the oracles originate from different situations and are “of the moment”. We
cannot simply read Joel 2:28-32 along with Joel 3:1-21 as depicting the same “last
days” scenario; they address different circumstances (deliverance, Joel 2:32;
captivity, Joel 3:1).4 Furthermore, while Joel has hopes for the future of his people,
these are not about the world as a whole, but the local politics of his country.5
It is also dangerous to argue a developmental case—place Joel early or late in a
presumed scheme of the development of Israelite (Judahite) religion. Typically,
scholars will see “apocalyptic” elements in Joel’s “sun, moon and stars—heavens
and earth shaking” language and relate Joel to later apocalyptic thought as an early
precursor. The theory is of little value—there just are not enough written
documents from the era (several hundred years) to argue “development” in a living
culture.
Scholars may postulate late and early elements in Joel and hypothesize about later
editorial activity, but it needs to be remembered that there is no argument to be
had in this exercise. The scholar is engaged in a form of art—bringing redactors to
This does not mean that he regards the people as innocent sufferers, contra Ogden, “Prophetic
Responses”, 105.
2
L. C. Allen, “Joel: Theology of” NIDOTT 4:796-798 (797).
3
It is worth noting that there is no “messiah” figure or any idea of the nations accepting the rule
of Jerusalem.
4
Contra Barton, 92, who regards them as miscellaneous.
5
Contra Redditt, “Peripheral Prophecy”, 237.
1
114
the text to structure his observations on patterns of (in)consistency and
(in)coherence in the text. The redactor is an explanatory deus ex machina for whom
there is no independent evidence. Furthermore, there is no justification of the
method: can we require consistency in an author over a lifetime, and can we prove
inconsistency in the first place? Our harmonic reading does not see inconsistency
and therefore we do not postulate editorial activity, because we give greater
evidential weight to the superscription.
3. Setting
How we see Joel is an exercise of the imagination: do we read his words picturing
him in the market-place, in the temple, or at the royal court? Is he at a table writing
or dictating to an amanuensis? Are his oracles delivered at different times in his
life?
There are aspects of Joel which appear to be part of a written design, however, the
oral quality of the constituent oracles comes through in features such as,
The locust rhyme for children (1:4)
The pointed addressees (drunkards, 1:5; husbandmen, 1:11; priests, 1:13)
The public calls (1:14; 2:15)
The laments (1:15-18, 19-20; 2:17)
The command to blow the trumpet and sound the alarm (2:1, 15)
The question and answer dialogue (2:12-14, 19)
The promises that require announcement (2:20, 21-27)
The exhortation to display emotion and feeling (2:23)
The command to “look and see” (2:19; 3:1)
The envoy’s message to foreign powers (3:4-8)
The proclamation of war (3:9)
The variety of speech acts evidenced in this list prevents our concluding that the
book has a single point of origin in the temple and the cult, perhaps in a liturgical
setting.1 The recorded speech acts of lament comprise Joel 1:15-20 and part of Joel
2:17; otherwise there are commands to lament (Joel 1:8, 13) to which there is
attached the substance of a lament. The prophet exhorts groups to lament and
explains why they should do so—such explanation is not itself a lament, but it may
give the substance of what should be included in any lament.
We can also exclude the hypothesis of a liturgical setting for Joel 1 and 2 because
there are calls to assembly, castigation of drunkards, husbandmen and vinedressers, as well as a prophetic vision and reported assurances from Yahweh. This
Contra Ogden, “Prophetic Responses”, 97, 102-105; Kapelrud, 179, and see Sweeney, “The
Place and Function of Joel in the Book of the Twelve”, 138.
1
115
variety is too great to construct a plausible liturgical setting.1 There is implied
lament in Joel’s record, but the text as it stands is a collection of different speech
acts.
There is no one oral setting for Joel’s oracles, be this the market-place, the royal
court, the temple, the field of battle, or the village in the country. Oracle-units may
not suggest a setting, but where one might be proposed, there are a variety to take
on board. A temple setting for Joel’s appeal to the priests is a plausible scenario
(Joel 1:13-14); similarly, the lament and prayer of Joel 1:15-20 could be set in the
temple. The castigation of the drunkards, husbandmen and vine-dressers could
have had a setting in the market-place or in a building where such groups met in
association. The command to blow the trumpet (Joel 2:1) might have been
delivered at the wall of the city, perhaps to those who kept watch; the following
vision (Joel 2:2-9) might have been declared in a market-place, and so on.
Suggestions of setting can be made but there is no proof to be had in this process.
The dialogue of Joel 2:12-14 could reflect an encounter in the “council of elders”; a
temple setting is a natural proposal for Joel 2:15-17, but the mood and aspect of
the verbs change to the past tense in Joel 2:18-20, and this may indicate a reflective
writing situation in which Joel records what the Lord did in response to the
people’s laments. There again, the hopeful addresses to the land, the beasts of the
field, and the children of Zion (Joel 2:21-27) seem to require the open marketplace, and so on.
Joel 1:2-2:27 is a collection of spoken and written material from one crisis in the
nation’s history, but narrative time passes in Joel 2:28 and 3:1, and the oracles of
the latter half of Joel have potentially different settings. The addressees of Joel
2:28-29, 32 are the people who are urged to call upon the name of the Lord, and
who are reassured in the words of Joel 3:1-3. The setting of Joel 3:4-8 is
presumably the ambassador’s residence of the foreign nations, while the setting for
the proclamations of war (to friend and foe) might be the towns and villages
through which a mobilisation call is sent (Joel 3:9-13), and Joel 3:14-17 suggests a
setting of the battle-field. Lastly, narrative time passes again in Joel 3:18 and the
book of prophecy ends with a picture of hope for the future, which could have had
a spoken or written setting.
4. Written Design
We have indirectly considered the topic of the design of the book in Chapter Six,
“Unity and Authorship”. Joel may be a collection of spoken oracles from situations
and settings in the prophet’s life as he addressed crises facing the nation, but the
collection has an overall design that has been applied in the process of writing.
Wolff, 9; Ahlström, 130-131, 136. Ahlström’s argument is that Joel is not a liturgical document
because the priests are instructed to call for repentance using laments (136).
1
116
Reading through the book brings this design to light, and we might observe the
following aspects:
(1) While the superscription is an obvious element of the written design of the
book, Joel 1:2-4 is also a written aspect. These verses function as an introduction
to the book.
(2) Certain features of the book betray a written design, for example, repetitions
(e.g. “recompense on your own head”, Joel 3:4, 7); inclusios (e.g. “I will pour out my
spirit”, Joel 2:28-29); narrative time indicators (e.g. “afterward”, “in those days”,
Joel 2:28; 3:1); parallelism (e.g. “sanctify a feast” Joel 1:14; 2:15); and doublets (e.g.
“my people shall never be ashamed” Joel 2:26-27).1 However, such features do not
preclude treatment of Joel as a record of oral prophecy.2
(5) The restoration of the land described in Joel 2:21-27 closes the account of the
crisis that has been described in Joel 1:2-11. This can be seen in the restoration of
the grain, wine and oil, which were destroyed, as well as the abundant rainfall
which replenishes the watercourses. Nevertheless, the book also ends with an eye
on its beginning.3 The abundance of new wine and flowing waters (Joel 3:18)
reverses the cutting off of the new wine (Joel 1:5) and the drying up of the
watercourses (Joel 1:20).
While Kapelrud is happy to assert that “Joel has never written anything”,4 the
evidence of the superscription and the design of the book suggests intentional
arrangement.
5. Conclusion
Commentators usually place the book of Joel in a temple setting or postulate a
relationship with the temple. We do not follow this reading; we find the oracles in
Joel to be too varied in their audience and setting. The book is just a collected
record of Joel’s oracles in a period of crisis in the 730s and 720s.
Marcus, “Non-Recurring Doublets in the Book of Joel”; Thompson, “The Use of Repetition in
the Prophecy of Joel”; Ogden, “Joel 4 and Prophetic Responses to National Laments”.
2
Contra Strazicich, 49.
3
Contra Redditt, “Peripheral Prophecy”, 239, who incorrectly asserts that “the last two chapters
know nothing of the crises heralded in 1:1-2:17”.
4
Kapelrud, 180.
1
117
CHAPTER EIGHT
Lament Oracles
1. Introduction
After a superscription, the first chapter of Joel divides into distinct units—vv. 2-3,
v. 4, vv. 5-8, vv. 8-10, vv. 11-12, v. 13, v. 14, vv. 15-18, and vv. 19-20. This is
indicated by (among things) the successive imperative addresses (old men, vv. 2-3;
drunkards, vv. 5-7; priests, vv. 8-10;1 husbandmen, vv. 11-12; priests, v. 13), each
of which introduces an oracle unit. In this chapter we will consider each unit in
turn, but as a whole we can say that they have a unifying theme of destruction.
2. Speech and Writing in Joel
Up until this point in our study, we have used the term “oracle” in an intuitive
sense. In dividing Joel 1 into oracle units, some comment about how we
understand the term “oracle” is required. We take the book of Joel to be a record
of speech acts delivered by Joel and it is what is spoken in such acts that we take to
be an “oracle”. Joel may speak on behalf of the Deity directly, in his own voice, or
with the people; his speech acts may be classified as proclamations,
announcements, commands, exhortations, pleadings, and so on. The speech that has
been recorded in Joel arises from his life and circumstances and needs to be
indexed to the events in which he was a participant or observer, whether these
were at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of his ministry.
While we take the Book of Joel to be fundamentally a record of speech (from
temple or market-place), it is a written (sic) work and some text may be part of its
written design. At each point in the writing there may be text that has not come
from Joel’s speaking ministry. The task of the exegete is to be sensitive to what is
spoken and what is written and to recognize the changing historical circumstances
that fit Joel’s oracles. It is possible to read Joel as a story without reference to a
historical context, but even in this approach the story has four acts (caught by the
rabbinical division of the book into four chapters) and these acts are not about the
same situation—they are oracles from four different situations. In our reading, we
correlate the four acts to a sequence of situations in the latter half of the eighth
century.
This unit is commonly identified in commentaries but E. D. Mallon, “A Stylistic Analysis of
Joel 1:10-12” CBQ 45 (1983): 537-548 argues principally on poetic ground s that vv. 10-12 is a
unit. He asserts that v. 9 and vv. 13 mention priests and the state of cultic offerings, whereas vv.
10-12 concerns the agricultural state of the land (539). He supports this observation with details
of symmetry between the lines of the “poem” of vv. 10-12 (545-546), however, he fails to justify
the position that the details are a symmetry within such a poem rather than shared across units.
While Mallon’s analysis of the lines can be accepted, he has not shown that v. 10 is not itself a
standalone poem attached to v. 8-9 as an explanation of the cessation of cultic offerings.
1
118
3. Superscription
The superscription lacks any dateable information. The absence of any mention of
a king can only be the subject of speculation. It has been taken to indicate a postexilic provenance for the book when there was no king; equally, however, Haggai
and Zechariah are dated with reference to Persian kings, so a post-exilic date for
Joel still leaves unanswered the question of why there is no reference to a foreign
king in the superscription. Other minor prophets have no reference to a king
(Malachi, Nahum, Habakkuk, Jonah and Obadiah), and so it is a hypothesis of
silence to assert on this basis that such prophets are post-exilic.
Those who have argued for a pre-exilic date have asserted that the absence of a
king indicates a time when the Judean monarchy was in abeyance at the time of
Athaliah or in the minority of Joash/Jehoash; some chronologies of Israel and
Judah have interregnums which offer spaces for Joel. However, the same point
applies: this is an argument from silence. With six out of twelve Minor Prophets
lacking a king in the superscription, and with Major Prophets such as Daniel and
Ezekiel lacking a conventional superscription, the evidence is that the prophetic
books have a mixed pedigree regarding dateable superscriptions. Wolff argues that,
In preexilic times it would be difficult to understand the failure to mention the
king and the court, either here, where the concern is emphatically for the whole
nation, or elsewhere in the book of Joel.1
However, this is not difficult—it is relatively easy to think of a pre-exilic context
during the reign of Ahaz: this is simply that Isaiah was the prophet of the court to
the king, whereas Joel was a prophet that addressed the priests and elders. Our
counter-proposal to Wolff is that the lack of named kings in prophetic
superscriptions indicates that the prophet concerned was not a prophet to the king.
In the case of the book of Joel, this superscription has been added by Joel himself
or by an amanuensis as part of the process of bringing Joel’s spoken oracles into
written form.2
As regards Joel’s name, it uniquely combines an abbreviation for “YHWH” and
“El” and would mean “Yahweh is God”. As such the name captures the spirit of
the book with the theme that Yahweh dwells in Zion. Joel’s father is Pethuel
(lawtp), and the meaning of his name is disputed. It could be “simple (ytp) of El”
in which case Ps 116:6 informs the significance of this name: “The Lord preserves
the simple (ytp); when I was brought low, he saved me” (RSV). This name again
anticipates the theme of the book in that deliverance was secured for the people in
1
Wolff, 25.
As Wolff, 24, usefully observes, “It is easier to understand the absence of the usual
chronological information in the title if its writer is identified with the author of what follows...”;
and Allen, 45, notes that the absence of a date may be due to Joel being written down close to
the events it records.
2
119
Jerusalem.1 As far as the name of Joel is concerned, we can surmise Joel is from a
humble background, and this may explain the lack of any mention of a king in the
superscription if Joel prophesied as an outsider in relation to Jerusalem and its
court.
In respect of Joel’s background, the best suggestion is that he was a Levite from
one of the cities of Judah who came to Jerusalem when he had an oracle to deliver,
but not one of the Jerusalem priests “about whom and to whom he speaks from a
certain distance”.2
4. Opening Exhortation
The opening exhortation of the book of Joel is given in vv. 2-3, and it should be
treated as an introduction to the rhyme about locusts that follows in v. 4.
Hear this, you aged men, give ear, all inhabitants of the land! Has such a thing
happened in your days, or in the days of your fathers? Tell your children of it,
and let your children tell their children, and their children another generation.
Joel 1:2-3 (RSV)
The scope of “hear this” is the rhyme about the locusts. This is shown by the
allusions embedded in the rhetorical questions of vv. 2-3. The disaster that Joel
1:5-12 recounts is unique in its proportions and its significance and it must be told
to future generations. The echoes are with the plague of locusts upon Egypt, as can
be seen in the following table:3
Exodus
Joel
you may tell in the hearing of your son and tell your children of it, and let your children
of your son’s son (10:2)
tell their children, and their children another
generation. (1:3)
as neither your fathers nor your has such a thing happened in your days, or
grandfathers have seen, from the day they in the days of your fathers? (1:2)
came on earth to this day (10:6)
The first detail here is the motif of “telling the children”, as this indicates how the
reader is to understand the story; the same motif precedes the locust plague
account in Exodus. Strazicich notes4 the lexical links with Exod 10:2 comprise the
use of the same verb of “telling” and the repeated use of “son/children” (!b). He
doesn’t observe that Joel has three generations whereas Exodus has two, a facet
The LXX has “Bathuel” which may confirm the MT in that the LXX translator thought
“simple of El” unsuitable for a patronym (using the principle of lectio difficilior).
2
Wolff, 25; contra Jones, 131. See M. Lang, „Das Exodusgeschehen in der Joelschrift“ in Führe
Mein Volk Heraus (eds. S. Paganini, C. Paganini and D. Markl; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2004), 6177 (63-64).
3
Wolff, 26; for a full treatment of Exodus allusions in Joel see Bergler, 247-294; Strazicich, 6266, 71-75; others to note links include Allen, 68-69; Hubbard, 42; and Sweeny, 1:154.
4
Strazicich, 64.
1
120
that is derived from Exod 34:6-7 “third and fourth generation”. The second detail
is the motif of remembrance and the days through which the fathers have lived;
the lexical links are “fathers” and “days”. This parallelism between Joel and
Exodus indentifies what it is in Joel that the fathers are to tell the children: they are
to tell them of plagues of locusts of unparalleled destruction; the rhyme in v. 4
summarizes this destruction.
In vv. 2-3 we have a preface to the locust rhyme of v. 4—an exhortation from the
market-place, but the two units, vv. 2-3 and v. 4 together act as a preface to the
lament material. The rhyme is included along with the other exhortations,
commands, and calls to lament in Joel 1 and 2,1 but it should not be read as the
same kind of speech act.
The locust rhyme is in the past tense and this has led some commentators to see
Joel 1 and 2 as a record of what is a past event.2 However, the tense of Joel’s later
oracles is prospective—he warns of the coming Day of the Lord. While older
source critical scholars3 saw evidence of a later editor introducing the theme of a
coming Day of the Lord into Joel’s original material, it is not difficult to see why
Joel himself would refer to plagues of locusts as a past event.
The opening oracle is not the first proclamation of Joel’s ministry; rather its
placement is part of the written design of the book. It is an exhortation to
remembrance from the occasion of the solemn assembly (Joel 1:15). At this time the
“elders” and the “all the inhabitants of the land” were gathered together, and these
are the very groups that Joel addresses in the exhortation of vv. 2-3.4 The elders
could be leaders of the nation, but it is more likely that they are addressed because
Joel is making a point about what has happened in the past—they are the old men
in the crowd rather than the ruling elders.5 The children are to remember what has
happened which has been detailed in Joel 1 and 2. The rhyme is placed at the head
of the book as a direction to the reader and a summation of the people’s
experience in the first part of the book.6
The extraordinary character of the times that Joel records requires a pre-exilic
setting in the eighth century because this is the first time that the end of both
Judah and Israel is threatened: this possibility had not previously occurred in the
history of the nation. It is the arrival of Assyria in the West and their march down
1
Wolff, 24.
Jones, 132.
3
Duhm, „Anmerkungen zu den Zwölf Propheten“, 184-188.
4
Strazicich, 60, regards the mention of “elders” in vv. 2, 14 as an inclusio, but v. 14 clearly leads
into v. 15 and it doesn’t seem as if v. 14 “rounds off” a unit comprised of vv. 2-24.
5
Barton, 41; contra Wolff, 25.
6
Contra Barton, 42.
2
121
the Phoenician and Philistine coast that constitutes the threat to both kingdoms
and an impending “Day of the Lord”.1
The “tell your children” motif requires further discussion. S. R. Driver insightfully
observes that “usually it is the memory of Jehovah’s deliverances, which is thus to
be handed on from father to son…here it is the memory of unprecedented
disaster”.2 Driver cites texts such as Judg 6:13, Ps 44:1 and 78:3 in support and he
usefully raises the question: why require your children to remember disaster and
not deliverance? Joel’s command is specific for three generations: “let your
children tell their children and their children another generation” (v. 3), but this
does not mean that the Day of the Lord crisis would lose its relevance after three
generations; the command does offer a reason as to why Joel’s prophecies were
recorded.
The book of Joel as a whole presupposes a background where there have been
multiple threats to Judah and matters had now reached a climax.3 This can be seen
in the promise of Yahweh to restore the years that the locusts have eaten.4 There is
a promise of restoration, deliverance and judgment on the nations round, and so
the book is fundamentally hopeful; but it is not an “exodus” style deliverance story,
and so there is no explanation of the “tell it to the children” motif along these
lines.
What Driver does not consider is the role of irony: the beginning of the people
was secured in part by a plague of locusts, and the end of the people is threatened
by plagues of locusts. As the people were to remember their beginning in the
exodus deliverance, so too they were to teach their children that God could bring
about their end in the same way or deliver them from such an end. The opening
oracles of Joel are therefore a warning that the people could be destroyed in their
land. Judah repented in the days of Joel and God judged the nations round about,
but the fact that the plagues of locusts were brought upon them in the first place is
a warning for future generations.
Given the relatively common occurrence of literal locust plagues, the
unprecedented nature of the event suggests that the plagues of locusts are a
metaphor for invading armies (Joel 1:6; 2:1-2, 20, 31-32). Joel’s warnings would
Wolff, 26, usefully observes that Lam 1:12 describes 587 as a “day of Yahweh’s burning anger”,
which directs a reader to see in Joel’s “Day of the Lord” an impending end to Israel in the land;
Wolff, however, does not see the earlier application in the eighth century.
2
Driver, 36.
3
Contra Sweeny, “The Place and Function of Joel in the Book of the Twelve”, 142, who does not
sufficiently nuance the multiple threats.
4
It is possible to interpret the reference as one harvest if the “years” are regarded as a Jubilee
double harvest.
1
122
have a role to play not only in 735-734, but in 728, 725-722 and 701, and this is
why he commands that the disastrous times be told for three generations.
5. Locust Rhyme
The common approach1 to the beginning of Joel sees the “telling it to the
children” in terms of the locusts of v. 4; this causes commentators to group vv. 2-4
as an oracle unit and miss the independent quality of the rhyme of v.4 and
overlook the role that vv. 2-3 has a preface to the rhyme.2 Nevertheless, vv. 2-4
can be thought of as a preface to the opening oracles of Joel.
The relationship of v. 4 to that which follows the verse is also misunderstood. The
cadence of the verse has a rhyming quality with its repetitions (synonymous
parallelism3), and this gives the verse an independent quality as a rhyme that sets
the scene for first part of Joel.
What the cutting locust left, the swarming locust has eaten. What the swarming
locust left, the hopping locust has eaten, and what the hopping locust left, the
destroying locust has eaten. Joel 1:4 (RSV)
Even in the English the rhyming quality of this saying can be discerned. The four
words for “locust” have been discussed by commentators4 but their translation is
largely hypothetical. Commentators assert that the four words for “locust” either
denote types of locust5 or stages in the growth of a locust (perhaps, “young
locust”, “mature locust”, “newly-hatched locust”, and “growing locust”).6 The
decisive argument in favour of types of locust is the varied word-order in the
parallel of Joel 2:25:
Joel 1:4 (RSV)
cutting locust
swarming locust
hopping locust
destroying locust
Joel 2:25 (RSV)
swarming locust
hopper
destroyer
cutter
This difference between Joel 1:4 and Joel 2:25 is structurally important to the
reading of the book. While the rhyme indicates a successive aspect, Joel 2:25 places
the cutting locust at the end of the list.
1
Hubbard, 41; Barton, 40.
It should be remembered that vv. 2-3 can also be read as a preface to the book as a whole.
3
Wolff, 20.
4
Hubbard, 43; Allen, 49; Barton, 42; Wolff, 27-28. For a discussion of the translation issues
involved with these terms see M. Taam-Ambey, “Translating the Locust Invasion in the Book of
Joel into Kituba” BT 36 (1985): 216-220.
5
Hubbard, 43.
6
Wolff, 27; Thompson, “Joel’s Locusts”, 52-55; Kapelrud, 17.
2
123
I will restore to you the years which the swarming locust has eaten, the hopper,
the destroyer, and the cutter, my great army, which I sent among you. Joel 2:25
(RSV)
The differing word order means that “my great army” embraces the last type of
locust—the cutting locusts. That which is placed first in Joel 1:4 reflects an order
of significance: the cutting locust was the most significant locust invader. In Joel
2:25, the order is chronological: the cutting locust was a great army that Yahweh
sent last of all. The successive aspect of Joel 1:4 therefore is best taken as indicative
of separate waves of attack by different armies. In making this distinction, we
impose a requirement upon the search for the historical background for Joel. We
are looking for successive incursions by the armies of nations. Had the successive
stages of the growth of locusts been the meaning, word order would have been
important. As it is, the mention of the various types of locust is for emphasis,1 and
the whole point of the rhyme is the successive “eating” of the land.2
In addition to this point, Hubbard marshals several other arguments against the
“stages of development” interpretation:3
Four words for “locust” are used, but only three stages in the development of
locusts are discernible to the observer.
The general word for a locust (hbra) occurs second in the list and would have
to denote a “stage” as opposed to the adult.
Swarms of locust move from place to place with the result that successive
stages do not develop in the same place.
The use of the four terms for ‘locust’ suggests that Joel’s background is “in the
country” and from an agricultural setting.
1) The word for “cutting locust” (~zg, RSV) is a rare word, occurring 3x elsewhere
in Joel 2:25 and Amos 4:9. The link with Amos is significant as one of the links
that binds Joel and Amos as eighth century prophets. Amos’ reference is to a literal
plague of locusts like that in Egypt (Amos 4:10).
2) The expression for “swarming locust” (hbra, RSV) is the more common word
(21x) and it is used in literal and metaphoric senses. Comparing the “multitude” of
1
Barton, 42.
There is another allusion to the Exodus plague of locusts in the “left over” motif of the rhyme:
the Exodus locusts ate what was left over from the plague of hail (Exod 10:5).
3
Hubbard, 42-43.
2
124
an invading army to a “multitude” of locusts is a common figure (Judg 6:5; 7:12;
Jer 46:23; Nah 3:15). Here in Joel the swarming locust is an eater and there is no
“multitude” comparison.
3) The term for “hopping locust” (qly, RSV) occurs 7x both literally and
metaphorically. Again the metaphorical use is one of “multitude” rather than
destructive power (Jer 51:14, 27; Nah 3:15-16).
4) The word for “destroying locust” (lysx, RSV) occurs 6x and one metaphorical
use plays on the locusts as “rushing and leaping” (Isa 33:4).
Thus, we propose that the successive element (eating) in the description of Joel 1:4
takes places over the years mentioned in Joel 2:25, and this suggests invading
armies ravaging Judah (and Israel) for at least two years.1
As far as Joel 1:4 is concerned, nothing suggests a metaphor is at work. It is only
when this verse is taken with Joel 2:25 that metaphor is suggested. Two initial
points can be made:
In Joel 2:11, Yahweh utters his voice before his army in the field—before their
camp; it is difficult to see how literal locusts could have a “camp”.
In Joel 2:25, the four types of locusts are armies that have eaten “years”; literal
locusts do not stick around for “years”.
The rhyme closes the opening written oracle and v. 5 clearly begins a new oracle
that issues a call for action.
6. Drunkards
Whereas the elders and inhabitants of the land were the addressees of the first
oracle unit, in v. 5 the tone is that of invective and a group are called “drunkards”.
In keeping with the national focus of Joel’s oracles, the term “drunkard” should be
seen as a reference to the ruling class in Jerusalem, and in a similar manner to
Isaiah’s invective in Isa 28:1, 3 (cf. Amos 6:6).2 We can discern this from Joel’s
imperative, “Awake!”, which suggests a literal drunken stupor rather than
metaphorical ignorance and ineptitude.3 It is possible that there was drunken
celebration in the expectation that tribute and diplomatic overtures to Tiglath1
Wolff, 28, observes that Ephraem the Syrian (c. 350 C.E.) regarded the four types of locust as
respectively Tiglath-Pileser, Shalmaneser V, Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar, seeing a sequence
of kings that invaded the land. This shows a substantially eighth century perspective, but it is too
allegorical for Joel’s immediate audience. Ephraem the Syrian is one example of a Christian
tradition of interpretation that approaches the four locusts in the same manner as the reading of
Nebuchadnezzar’s image.
2
Contra Barton, 50.
3
Contra Crenshaw, 94.
125
Pileser would succeed. Such hopes were now proved vain and Joel is the prophet
relaying a message of distress in the land.
The “new wine” has been cut off and this refers to the supplies for Jerusalem of
new wine expected from the harvest. While we do not know with which area(s) of
Judah and/or Israel supply contracts for the new wine existed, we can infer that
the devastation was local to such vineyards. As such this is one of a range of
actions that an invading army would undertake in foreign lands; the supply of wine
to an army in the field was necessary to the prosecution of long campaigns.
This oracle unit is perhaps the first effect of the arrival of the nation in the land;
supplies of new wine were cut off first. The oracle units that follow have their
catalyst in what more the nation goes on to do in the land.
7. Nation
Many commentators1 regard the “nation” of Joel 1:6 to be a metaphor for the
locusts of Joel 1:4.
Awake, you drunkards, and weep; and wail, all you drinkers of wine, because of
the sweet wine, for it is cut off from your mouth. For (yk) a nation has come up
upon my land, powerful and without number; its teeth are lions’ (hyra) teeth, and
it has the fangs of a lioness (aybl). Joel 1:5-6 (RSV revised)
We cannot simply assume that the nation is a literal plague of locusts because we
have two oracle units in Joel 1:2-4 and 1:6-8. The exclamation of Joel 1:5
introduces a new oracle in the text. Joel calls upon the drunkards to “Awake!”
because (yk) a nation has come up upon the land. Is this a nation of locusts or the
army of a nation?
A comparison between the vast numbers of a locust swarm and an army in the
field is made in the Canaanite legend of Keret:
A multitude was gathered and [went forth]; [a mighty] army was gathered…They
settled like locusts on the field, like hoppers on the cringe of the wilderness…
Keret 14 iv 176, 1922
However, it is worth noting that this natural metaphor is for an army rather than a
nation, and the comparison is centred on the numerical aspect of locusts and
armies. In Joel there is no comparative particle (k) comparing a locust plague to a
nation or comparing a nation to locusts. A comparison is implicit but the direction
1
Allen, 51; Hubbard, 44; Barton, 51; Wolff, 29.
The text is taken from J. C. L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends (Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1978), 87.
2
126
of the comparison is not specified. Several arguments can be made for the
interpretation that the army of a nation is being compared to locusts:
1) In other historical and prophetic texts the comparison is between a major term
representing a nation or people and the minor term for locusts. Thus the
Midianites came up against the land as locusts and destroyed its sustenance (Judg
6:4-5); Midianites and Amalekites are compared to locusts for number (Judg 7:12);
and the Babylonians are compared to locusts for number (Jer 46:23). There is no
other comparison is which the major term is for locusts.1 This suggests that it is a
nation being compared to locusts in Joel 1:6-8.
2) The nation is “strong and without number”, a description that compares the
numerical strength of the nation to locusts. The expression “without number”
(rPsm !ya) is used of the Midianites and the Amalekites (Judg 6:5; 7:12) in a similar
locust comparison, suggesting a literal nation is in view in Joel. When the phrase is
used of literal locusts, there is no comparison: locusts are literally innumerable (Ps
105:34).
3) The nation is “strong” (~wc[) which is a term used for nations and armies (Deut
26:5; Isa 60:22; Mic 4:7). In Joel the term is used in clearer texts referring to a
“great people” (Joel 2:2), a “people” (Joel 2:5), and an army “camp” (Joel 2:11).
4) The simile of “teeth” is not unique. David lamented that his soul was among
lions, which he identified as the “sons of men” with teeth like spears and arrows
(Ps 57:4, cf. 3:7; 58:6), and the men who once rose up against Israel were said to
have teeth for the prey (Ps 124:6). These texts suggest that the comparison in Joel
would be about a hostile people rather than a literal plague of locusts.
5) The nation is compared with a characteristic of lions (their teeth). Elsewhere
“lions” are a symbol for nations that were at times hostile to Israel and Judah
(Egypt, Isa 30:6; Assyria, Nah 2:11). For a nation to have lion’s teeth, and strip the
vine and bark the fig tree, would mix metaphors for an invading army rather than
describe a literal plague of locusts.
6) The nation is said to have both lion’s teeth and the jaw-teeth (Job 29:17; Prov
30:14) or fangs (RSV, NASB) of a lioness. While a reference to the teeth of locusts
is understandable, it is less clear why two different types of teeth and both genders
of lion would be a suitable simile for locust’s teeth. It is more likely that a hostile
people are in the land and pictured in this way.
1
Wolff, 29, suggests Prov 30:27, but here the locusts have no king—they are not compared to a
people or nation.
127
7) The expressions “my fig tree and “my vine” suggest Israel and/or Judah as a
whole are being symbolized rather than the orchards of vines and fig trees.1 Amos
describes a locust devastation of the orchards of Northern Israel (Amos 4:9); here
the perspective is personal: Yahweh sees a nation come up upon his land.
8) The imagery of the locust is used in Ugaritic texts for armies in the field but not
vica versa.2
For the above reasons, (1)-(8), we propose that a nation is referred to in Joel 1:6,
but this does not mean that this nation is comprised of the four types of locust
mentioned in Joel 1:4.
7.1 Identity of the Nation
We can determine that the nation mentioned in v. 6 is foreign to Judah because of
the contrast with nation and “my land”; we can therefore exclude the hypothesis
that the nation is Northern Israel as these were Judah’s brethren. The identity of
nation is however hidden in metaphor.
The nation “comes up against” (l[ hl[) the land and the Hebrew verb is a
common one for “ascend, go up, climb”.3 The use of the verb with l[ (against) is
found in contexts of invasion (1 Kgs 14:25; 15:17; 20:1, 22; 2 Kgs 6:24; 12:18; 17:3;
18:9; 13, 25; 23:29) and this might be the only intent behind the expression.4
However, the expression may have an overtone of the direction the invading force
takes from low lying plains up into a hill-country. Thus, Sennacherib “came up
against” (l[ hl[) Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:13), which is consistent with Lachish being
lower in elevation than Jerusalem and indicative of Sennacherib’s envoys “going
up” (hl[) to Jerusalem (2 Kgs 18:17).
In other texts the implied geography for hl[ is that the south is “down” and the
“north” is “up”. Hence, Israel “come up” out of Egypt and “go down” to Egypt
(Judg 11:13, 16; 19:30; 1 Sam 15:2, 6; Isa 11:6; Hos 2:15). In the same vein, Necho
“came up” to fight against Carchemish (2 Chron 35:20), and Shishak “came up”
against Jerusalem (2 Chron 12:9). If the nation in Joel 1:6 “comes up against” the
land, then this could well imply a nation either to the south or the army of a nation
currently engaged in military action on the coastal plains.
If this is correct, we cannot simply equate the nation in Joel 1:6 with Joel 2:20
and the northerner.
1
As Barton (51) notes, against Wolff (29), this language is proverbial for the land.
Contra Deist, “Parallels and Reinterpretation in the Book of Joel: A Theology of the Yom
Yahweh”, 67.
3
BDB, 748.
4
Kuan, Neo-Assyrian Historical Inscriptions and Syria-Palestine, 143.
2
128
The KJV has “come up upon” the land rather than “come up against” (RSV) the
land. However, this nuance is chosen by the KJV translators because of the
underlying locust metaphor; the use of hl[ (“go up/come up”) with l[
(“against/upon”) implies an adversarial nuance. Other verb and preposition
combinations used for foreign armies entering a land illustrate this point:
Pul “came against” (awb, l[) the land of Israel (2 Kgs 15:19).
Tiglath-Pileser “came” (awb) to the land and took its cities (2 Kgs 15:29).
Sennacherib “came and entered” (awb) the land (2 Chron 32:1).
If a nation has come up from the south or the coastal plain, this would rule out
nations to the north such as Syria or Tyre and Sidon (Phoenicia). If we follow hints
in the book of Joel, this expression “come up” could denote the Philistines or
Egypt (Joel 3:19).
The metaphor for this nation is that of “teeth” and that of the male and female
lion (yra, aybl); the nation is not identified as a lion or lioness. Is there a symbology
in these terms? Two possibilities suggest themselves:
1) Egypt: In Isa 30:6, Egypt is identified as a lioness and a lion, although a
different term for “lion” is used:
The burden of the beasts of the south: into the land of trouble and anguish, from
whence come the lioness (aybl) and the old lion (vyl)… Isa 30:6 (KJV revised)
This supports the proposal that the nation in Joel that has “come up” from the
south is Egypt. This suggestion is supported by the mention of Egypt in Joel 3:19,
as that nation that would be made desolate because of their actions against Judah.
It suffers from the objection that only one term for a lion is common with Joel.
2) Assyria: In Nah 2:11, the lion (hyra) and the lioness (aybl) represent Assyria,
and these two terms are shared with Joel:
Where is the dwelling of the lions (twyra), and the feeding place of the young
lions (rypk), where the lion (hyra), even the lioness (aybl), walked, and the lion’s
(hyra) whelp, and none made them afraid? Nah 2:11 (KJV revised)
Here, Nineveh (Nah 2:8) is spoken of as having been1 a dwelling for lions (nations
at the Assyrian king’s court), and where the lion, the lioness and the lion’s cubs
walked. This supports the proposal that the nation in Joel is Assyria and that its
army approached Judah from the coastal plain of the south.
1
The oracle describes a rout (v. 8), plunder (v. 9), and then poses the exulting rhetorical
questions about the dwelling of the lions.
129
In order to decide between these two possibilities, (1) and (2), we need to consider
the expression “strong and without number”. The nation is “without number” and
this is the point of the locust metaphor (Ps 105:35); the expression is so used of
Shishak’s Egyptian army in 2 Chron 12:3. The nation is also “strong” (~wc[) and
this term is used of Assyria in Isa 8:7, “strong and many”; elsewhere in the
Prophets the term is fairly uncommon (13x in total, including 4x in Joel) and the
only other relevant use outside Joel is in the expression “strong nations” in Mic
4:3. Within the Prophets, the expression “strong and many” in Isa 8:7 is the closest
echo to “strong and without number” of Joel 1:6 and this would suggest that the
nation in Joel is Assyria.
There are three lexical links and one thematic connection between Joel and Isaiah:
“bring up”/”come up” (hl[)
“upon”/”against” (l[)
“strong” (~wc[)
“many”/”without number” (br, rpsm !ya)
On this basis we conclude that Joel echoes Isa 8:7 and refers to Assyria as “the
nation”; the action of the nation is to lay the vine waste (cf. Isa 13:9; Hos 5:9). Our
proposal is that Assyria are one of the locust nations to ravage Judah at this time.
8. Lamentation
In vv. 8-18 there is public lament material including exhortations to lament (vv. 8,
13), actual lament speech acts (vv. 15-18), and description of the state of affairs in
the land giving rise to the need for lamentation (vv. 9-10, 12, 17). We can divide
the lament material into the following units: vv. 8-10, 11-12, and 13-18.
8.1 A Virgin Lament
The first lament of the book is circumscribed in vv. 8-10 and it is followed by
other closely linked lament material (although the word “lament” may not be
used). Commentators see a drought and a dry summer in the first lament,1 but the
problem is actually an invading presence in the land. This can be seen because the
drunkards have their new wine “cut off” by a nation in the land (vv. 5-6), and the
new wine is said to be “dried up” in the lament (v. 10); it is also indicated by the
use of a verb of violent destruction (“wasted”, v. 10).
The command to “Lament!” is feminine and singular in form and this implies a
corresponding (but absent) feminine noun; this is confirmed by the comparison of
the addressee to a “virgin” which is a feminine noun. The “husband of her youth”
Crenshaw, 14; Wolff, 32; Barton, 45; Thompson, “Repetition in the Prophecy of Joel”, 103;
Ogden, “Prophetic Responses”, 104.
1
130
refers to a betrothed husband before marriage (Num 30:3, 16), and death at this
time would occasion a severe lament.1 The most natural suggestion is that Joel is
addressing Jerusalem2 in the marketplace and directing them to see what has
befallen the temple and its priests (Jer 2:2). In the laments that follow specific
groups in Jerusalem are addressed.
The command to Jerusalem is to wear sackcloth as a mourner and this resonates
with the offerings having been “cut off”, which is a common verb often used to
convey a sense of “killed”; the appropriate lament is therefore one of mourning.
The words of the lament are not given but vv. 9-10 give the substance, and there is
a parallel structure to note:
The meat offering and the drink offering is cut off, and the ministers mourn
(lba).
The field is wasted and the land mourns (lba).3
This structure prevents the categorization of vv. 8-10 as a speech act of lament;
rather these verses record a command to lament and the substance of the lament.
Joel supports his exhortation to Jerusalem with references to the fact that the
priests and the land were already mourning:
Lament like a virgin...the priests, the Lord’s ministers are mourning...the land is
mourning... Joel 1:9-10 (KJV revised)
The field and the corn are “wasted” (v. 10) and the verb signifies destruction
through violence (ddv).4 As a consequence, the “ground mourns” for its loss of
crops. This personification of the ground5 as a mourning mother for her sons is
the counterpoint to the exhortation to Jerusalem to lament for a husband lost in
battle. This detail does not suggest a drought because there has been a crop; rather,
the crop has been destroyed through violence.
The “new wine is dried up” (v. 10) and the verb is vby. The language is
metaphorical since it is typically watercourses, rivers, wadis, brooks, streams that
are dried up as a result of a lack of rainfall (e.g. Joel 1:20; Amos 4:7). The oil
“languisheth” and this is a personification of the state of affairs in the land since
the verb is typically used of people and their circumstances (e.g. Isa 16:8; 19:8;
24:4, 7; 33:9; Jer 14:12; Hos 4:3). Joel’s language is not just about crops and
1
Barton, 52; Wolff, 30.
Jones, 145.
3
D. J. A. Clines, “Was There an ’bl II ‘be dry’ in Classical Hebrew?” VT 42 (1992): 1-10.
4
Of the many examples, see Isa 15:1-2; 23:1, 14; Jer 48:15, 20; 49:10; Zech 11:3.
5
Thompson, “Repetition in the Prophecy of Joel”, 103.
2
131
supplies; it is also about those who have seen their livelihoods destroyed by an
invading presence.
Barton and Crenshaw argue that “dried up” in v. 10 indicates a drought on the
basis of the reference to “the rivers of waters are dried up” in v. 20.1 However,
while there may have been poor rainfall, Joel’s cause and effect language is not that
of the lack of rainfall and the consequences—-it is that of an invading presence
and “drying up” the orchards (vv. 10, 12, cf. Hos 2:10-12). The damming of water
channels (watercourses), the blocking of wells, and the disruption of irrigation by a
hostile army, could equally explain the language of “drying up”.
The meat offering required flour and oil, and the drink offering required wine
(Exod 29:40); accordingly, the lament centres on the field and the vine. The daily
offering was integral to the arrangements of the Law, and it is presumed in
historical records (2 Kgs 16:10-16) and pre-exilic prophecies (Isa 1:13; 57:6; Amos
5:22, 26). The meat offering and the drink offering were a perpetual daily offering
for the morning and evening sacrifice (Exod 29:42). Joel refers to the priests as
“ministers of the Lord”, which is a phrase unique to him.
Joel regards the priests as “servants” of the house of the Lord, and the term (trv)
emphasizes their role in providing the sacrificial offerings upon the altar. The
morning and evening sacrifices were to be offered at the “door” upon the altar
(Exod 29:42), a position that Joel invokes when he exhorts the priests to “weep
between the porch and the altar” (Joel 2:17). This concern for the daily sacrifices
and the altar is distinctive to Joel and a contextualization is offered in Kings.
The only record in Kings and Chronicles in which a king changes the daily offering
is that of Ahaz and his introduction of the Assyrian altar to the temple (2 Kgs
16:10-16).
And king Ahaz commanded Urijah the priest, saying, Upon the great altar burn
the morning burnt offering, and the evening meat offering, and the king's burnt
sacrifice, and his meat offering, with the burnt offering of all the people of the
land, and their meat offering, and their drink offerings; and sprinkle upon it all
the blood of the burnt offering, and all the blood of the sacrifice: and the brasen
altar shall be for me to enquire by. 2 Kgs 16:15 (KJV)
The replacement of the brasen altar by a great Assyrian altar and its removal to
another part of the temple court is a significant act on the part of Ahaz towards
the temple and its rituals. This action provides a watershed for the interpretation of
Joel, because Joel places the brasen altar at the centre of the priestly lament (Joel
1:13; 2:17). Accordingly we can infer that the lament Joel urges dates from before
Ahaz’ replacement of the altar (c. 732), and is from the period in which Assyria
1
Crenshaw, 100; Barton, 5, 54.
132
“distress” Judah (c. 735-734). Moreover, in the politics of the time we can
speculate that Ahaz’ action in respect of the altar is a response by him to the fast
that the loyal followers of Yahweh had initiated.
8.2 Husbandmen and Vinedressers
The reign of Uzziah (Ahaz’ grandfather) is characterized by husbandry and vinedressing (2 Chron 26:10) and this is the only other text where both of these terms
occur together;1 the reign of Ahaz has now seen this economic prosperity
dramatically ended.
Joel states that the “harvest of the field has perished” which implies that there was
a potential harvest but one which has perished in the field. As we have already
claimed, this could have happened due to a lack of water—wells could have been
blocked, irrigation channels destroyed; or it could have happened because of a lack
of workers to carry out the harvest—they could have been displaced in hostile
raids and fled to the safety of cities such as Jerusalem. The situation might also
have been exacerbated by poor rainfall and drought.
Joel states that orchards had become “dried up” (vine, fig, palm, apple, v. 12) and
that this was shown by the fact that “joy is put to shame” (v. 12, !wff vybh yk).
This mention of “shame” (vwb) forms an inclusio with the beginning of the
exhortation to lament:
Be ye ashamed (vwb) …for (yk2) joy is put to shame (vwb)... Joel 1:11-12 (KJV
revised)
The KJV (“joy is withered”), NASB (“rejoicing dries up”) and RSV (“gladness
fails”) misrepresent the ordinary sense of shame for vwb (Joel 2:26-27).3 The verb is
a Hiphil and is best rendered here as a transitive “joy is put to shame”.4 The KJV
has “joy is withered from the sons of men”, but if we translate the verb as “put to
shame” the !m cannot be “from”; other occurrences in the MT of !m+ynb carry the
sense “…of the sons of…”, and so here “among” would be better:5
…for joy is put to shame among (!m) the sons of men… Joel 1:12 (KJV revised)
Wolff, 32. The word for “husbandmen” is not common (7x) and the only occurrence outside
the Prophets is the Uzziah reference—an undesigned eighth century link for Joel.
2
The sense of yk is normally causal—because joy has been put to shame among the sons of men,
husbandmen and vinedressers are to be ashamed; see T. Frankfort, “Le yk de Joël I 12” VT 10
(1960): 445-449.
3
There is a pun in the Hebrew between the forms for “dried up” (hobishah) and “put to shame”
(hobish).
4
R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967), 150.
5
Wolff, 19.
1
133
The “joy” is naturally interpreted as harvest joy,1 and the failure of the harvest has
come about because of what the nation has done in the land. The nation has
displaced the workers who would otherwise have brought in the harvest.
Campaigning on the part of Assyria in the late summer of 735 would account for
this state of affairs in the land.
8.3 A Priestly Lament
Two commands to priests are recorded in vv. 13-14, and a lament is specified in
vv. 15-18:
Gird yourselves, and lament, ye priests: howl, ye ministers of the altar: come, lie
all night in sackcloth, ye ministers of my God: for the meat offering and the drink
offering is withholden from the house of your God. Sanctify ye a fast, call a
solemn assembly, gather the elders and all the inhabitants of the land into the
house of the Lord your God, and cry unto the Lord,
Alas for the day! for the day of the Lord is at hand, and as a
destruction from the Almighty shall it come. Is not the meat cut
off before our eyes, yea, joy and gladness from the house of our
God? The seed is rotten under their clods, the garners are laid
desolate, the barns are broken down; for the corn is withered.
How do the beasts groan! the herds of cattle are perplexed,
because they have no pasture; yea, the flocks of sheep are made
desolate.
Joel 1:13-18 (KJV)
It is clear from v. 13 that Joel is prophesying in Jerusalem: he invites the priests to
“come” and lie all night in sackcloth.2 This impression is reinforced by v. 14, in
which the priests are urged to call the inhabitants to Jerusalem; hence, the giving of
this appeal only makes sense in Jerusalem. Joel’s later oracles (Joel 2:1, 15) will also
be delivered in Zion. The fact that Zion is the centre of action does not imply that
Joel was a resident of Jerusalem or a priest; he could have come to the city with the
burden of his message or been given his word while in Jerusalem. Some initial
distance between Joel and the priesthood3 is indicated by his varying forms of
address,
…ye ministers of my God…the house of your God…the house of the Lord your
God…the house of our God… Joel 1:13-16 (KJV)
There is a progression here: Joel’s initial call recorded in v. 13 sees Joel speak of
“my God” and “your God”; in vv. 15-16, Joel speaks of “our God”, which
suggests a “coming together” of Joel and the priests. We can picture Joel arriving
1
Jones, 146.
Pusey, 3:1.
3
Contra Jones, 131.
2
134
in Jerusalem and announcing his first call to the priests and this is recorded in v.
13; a short time later, he makes another proclamation and this is recorded in v. 1418—by this time the priests are responding to his message and Joel is one with
them in lamenting the approaching Day of the Lord.1
Joel addresses the priests rather than the king and this has been the subject of
comment by scholars. A king or the elders of a city might call a fast (1 Kgs 21:8; 2
Chron 20:3); here it is the priests who have this role. Ahaz’ character and religious
apostasy would explain why Joel does not appeal to the king to initiate a national
lament. Joel’s command to the priests implies that he is not himself a priest but
someone acting with prophetic authority.
The priests are exhorted to “lie all night” in penitence and offer lament. This was
to be done before any call to the people, and this fact shows that v. 14 is not part
of the same oracle unit—v. 13 is a self-standing exhortation. The command to
sanctify a fast2 and call an assembly (v. 15) is an exhortation for the day-time. All
the inhabitants of the land were to be gathered along with the elders into the
temple courtyard and they were to cry a specific lament, the text of which is given
in vv. 15-18.3
The Day of the Lord was at hand; such a cry proves that Joel has not been
recounting a devastating locust plague, but rather a devastating invading presence,
one which still had an imminent denouement. It might be argued against this
reading that Joel has instead detailed a prior literal locust plague in vv. 4-12 and
now points to this as only a sign of a the Day of the Lord.4 However, while the
lament gives details of the effects of an invading army in v. 17, the concluding
prayer resumes the topic of “drying up” (v. 20) which has been a feature of
previous lament material (vv. 10, 12), and so we can reject the counter-argument.
The most difficult Hebrew in the book of Joel is v. 17, and this is because of the
number of unique words. One interpretation retains the agricultural theme of
earlier lament material in the following descriptions,
grain (hdrp) is rotten (vb[) under their clods (hprgm)
desolate storehouses (rcwa)
broken-down storage structures (hrwgmm)
1
Barton, 65; contra Wolff.
There is a certain irony in this call for a fast as the actions of the Assyrian army has led to the
perishing of food.
3
Barton, 56, also includes vv. 19-20 as part of the people’s lament.
4
Jones, 153, 156.
2
135
These statements are not the only possible renderings of the Hebrew, but they are
common proposals.
1) The Hebrew for “grain” (hdrP) is a hapax legomena and translations offer
“seed(s)” (KJV, NASB, RSV) while BDB suggests “grain”, following Syriac and
Aramaic cognates.1 The word for “clods” (hprgm) is also a hapax legomena, and while
translations opt for “clods”, BDB also suggests “shovels” based on post-biblical
Hebrew.2 The verb for “is rotten” is also a hapax legomena, and the NASB and RSV
suggest “shrivel” following BDB and an Arabic cognate.3 The Hebrew for the
whole phrase is therefore uncertain and, to complicate matters further, the LXX
and Targum have a text that may be unrelated to what has come down to us in the
MT: “The heifers have started at their mangers” (LXX) and “The bottles of wine
are decaying under their seals” (Targum).
The uncertainty of the phrase can be mitigated by the final clause, “for the corn is
withered”. This sets the context of cereal cropping for the phrase and a sense of
rotting unharvested grain is therefore a plausible interpretation.
2) The “storehouses” are said to be desolate and the sense is of harvest not
gathered into the storehouses for reasons to do with the armed conflict in the land.
The word for “storehouses” (rcwa) is the common word for “treasure” and
“treasury”, and so the choice of “storehouses” is not certain. An agricultural theme
is guiding translators, but equally the point could be that the “market-treasuries”
are desolate because there has been no harvest.
3) The Hebrew for “storage structures” (hrwgmm) is another hapax legomena and
translations offer, for example, “barns” (KJV, NASB) and “granaries” (RSV). It is
however clear that the lament concerns destruction of some kind of property; the
Hebrew for “broken down” (srh) is commonly used in this way (e.g. Lam 2:2;
Ezek 30:4; Mic 5:11; Mal 1:4). This description confirms our approach in seeing
the actions of an invading army behind the terms of this lament—they are
destroying a farming infrastructure.
The lament moves onto the lack of animal husbandry in v. 18:
the beasts groan and the cattle are perplexed because they have no pasture
the flocks of sheep are desolate (~va4)
1
BDB, 825; Barton, 58.
BDB, 175; Jones, 149; Barton, 58.
3
BDB, 721; Barton, 58.
4
This verb ordinarily means “to bear guilt” and so here there is a personification “even the
flocks of sheep bear guilt”—“desolate” is a description of their state of mind in this
personification.
2
136
The reason for these conditions is supplied in the prayer of vv. 19-20—the
invading army has practised slash and burn and put pastures to the flame:
O Lord, to thee will I cry: for the fire hath devoured the pastures of the
wilderness, and the flame hath burned all the trees of the field. The beasts of the
field cry also unto thee: for the rivers of waters are dried up, and the fire hath
devoured the pastures of the wilderness. Joel 1:19-20 (KJV)
We can also surmise that the husbandmen are not moving sheep and cattle onto
new pasture because they have fled the countryside. The “rivers of waters” have
also dried up and while this may indicate a background drought it could also reflect
the damming of irrigation channels. The expression “rivers of waters” is rare (3x,
Ps 42:1, Song 5:12) and the Hebrew (qypa) is better rendered here as “channels” or
“watercourses”; the common word for a river (rhn) is not used (cf. Isa 8:7)—the
point is that the channels of water are dry.1
The Day of the Lord is at hand and it will be described in the vision of Joel 2:2-9;
the day is a day of “destruction” and commentators observe the word-play in the
text: “destruction from the Devastator” (Crenshaw2) “Might from the Mighty
One” (Wolff3). What is more distinctive is the occurrence of the title Shaddai
(“Almighty”, KJV); this is common in Genesis (cf. Exod 6:3) as well as Job, but
relatively rare elsewhere (9x).
The identity of Yahweh, whether he is God, is critical to the eighth century
Assyrian crises; hence, Joel reproduces the emphasis on God’s identity that is
found in Exod 6:3—Yahweh is “the Almighty” who appeared unto Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob. The title is virtually absent from the Prophets4; it is significant
therefore that it occurs in Isa 13:6 and Joel 1:15, which are texts about the “day of
the Lord” coming from the Almighty. In the eighth century, the prophets were
proclaiming that Yahweh was the Almighty God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and
this God was bringing judgment upon the nation.
9. Conclusion
The first chapter of Joel presents a consistent story. Joel is in Jerusalem at a time
when the nation is experiencing an invasion. His oracles are “of the moment” and
relate the effects of a destroyed harvest and a ruined agricultural infrastructure.
Joel’s oracles are not about the “last days”; the Day of the Lord was an imminent
1
Commentators who see drought as the principal problem of vv. 19-20 interpret the Hebrew as
a reference to streams, Barton, 63.
2
Crenshaw, 106.
3
Wolff, 19.
4
The only other place in the Prophets where the title occurs is Ezekiel (1:24, 10:5). These are
texts that relate to the end of Judah in 587.
137
reality in his day. His main exhortation to the priests is that they should lament the
cutting off of supplies for the daily sacrifices; he is not critical of the priesthood.
Joel does not inveigh about any sin of the people; he does attribute the crises
facing the nation to the hand of the Lord. He takes it for granted that the priests
ought to offer a lament to God because God may be merciful and remove the
invader from the land.
138
CHAPTER NINE
The Day of the Lord
1. Introduction
The concept of the Day of the Lord1 first appears in Joel 1:15, and elsewhere in
Joel 2:1, 11, 31; 3:14. The expression also appears in other Prophets,2 and of these,
Isaiah 13, Amos 5 and Obadiah, are important sister-texts as they are, with Joel,
eighth century prophets. With Zephaniah having a Day of the Lord text in the 7c.,
the concept evidently does not just denote a day in the 8c.;3 it may therefore be
that Joel, Isaiah, Amos and Obadiah refer to different days in their own century.
It is not our purpose in this chapter to discuss the treatment of this concept by
scholars;4 nor to discuss its breadth of application in OT prophecy—our texts are
limited to Joel, Isaiah, Amos and Obadiah. It is clear that in these texts, as von Rad
has shown, that the Day of the Lord is a political and military crisis.5 Consequently,
it is beyond the scope of our study to discuss the role of the idea in the Judahite
autumn festival.6 Our concern in this chapter is to show the historical basis for this
concept in the eighth century. Israel and Judah were threatened at various times in
the 730s and 720s, and Judah was again threatened in 701, and the prophets, north
and south, may have warned about a forthcoming Day of the Lord in respect of
each crisis. The exegetical challenge is to determine which crisis is the catalyst for
each Day of the Lord prophecy.
2. Amos
Amos’ text on the Day of the Lord has often been taken as the foundation text
because of the date of the book as a whole.7 However, it evidently assumes
knowledge of the concept on the part of the audience:
1
For introductions to this topic see G. von Rad, The Message of the Prophets (London: SCM Press,
1968), ch. 8; “The Origin of the Concept of the Day of Yahweh” JSS 4 (1959): 97-108; K.
Cathcart “Day of Yahweh” ABD 2:84-85.
2
See Isa 13:6, 9; Amos 5:18, 20; Obad v. 15; Zeph 1:7; 14; Mal 3:23.
3
This would also be shown by a study of related expressions such as “the day of the Lord’s
vengeance” (Isa 34:8; 61:2; 63:4).
4
For a discussion of the issues in identifying Day of the Lord texts, see J. D. Nogalski, “The
Day(s) of YHWH in the Book of the Twelve” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (eds. P.
L. Redditt and A. Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin: W. De Gruyter, 2003), 192-213 (193-196). Our
treatment ignores texts other than those that use the expression “Day of the Lord”.
5
Von Rad, “The Origin of the Concept of the Day of Yahweh”, 99, 103.
6
Cathcart, “Day of Yahweh”, 85; for an application in Joel Studies, see Ahlström, 73; Kapelrud,
133; Jones, 153.
7
Sweeney, 1:238; Barton, 59; Cathcart, “Day of Yahweh”, 85; but contrast Von Rad “The Origin
of the Concept of the Day of Yahweh”, 98.
139
Woe unto you that desire the day of the Lord! to what end is it for you? the day
of the Lord is darkness, and not light. As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear
met him; or went into the house, and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent
bit him. Shall not the day of the Lord be darkness, and not light? even very dark,
and no brightness in it? Amos 5:18-20 (KJV)
The people desired the Day of the Lord, thinking that it would be “light”.1 Amos’
message was that cities would fall and the land would be forsaken (Amos 5:2-3).
Amos’ Day of the Lord is evidently the Assyrian subjugation of Northern Israel
and sacking of Samaria.
While Amos follows Joel in the MT canon, the LXX order is the reverse, and this
may reflect an understanding that Amos is the earlier eighth century prophet. In
both canons the framework for Joel is set by Amos (and Hosea) and this priority
excludes a literal interpretation of the locusts in Joel. Amos’ Day of the Lord is
destruction associated with war (Amos 5:3, 27) and likewise in Joel. Nogalski offers
this comment,2
When reading Hosea, Joel and Amos sequentially, an interesting phenomenon
occurs. Hosea ends with an open call to repentance to the Northern Kingdom,
and Joel begins with a call to repentance for Judah and Jerusalem before the
arrival of the day of YHWH. The Day of YHWH in Amos 5:18-20 is again
directed towards the Northern Kingdom, but it presumes the day of judgment
will result from Israel’s refusal to return to YHWH. By contrast, Zion receives a
temporary reprieve (cf. Mic 7:18-20) before the Day of YHWH pronouncement
in Zeph 1:14-15 shows that Jerusalem will suffer the same fate on the day of
YHWH just as Joel had warned.
Once the direction of this intertextual relationship is seen, other echoes in Joel to
Amos can be perceived: “virgin” (Amos 5:2, Joel 1:8); “wine, vineyards” (Amos
5:11, 17; Joel 1:10-12); “lamentation” (Amos 5:1; Joel 1:8, 13); “husbandmen”
(Amos 5:16; Joel 1:11); “fire, eating” (Amos 5:6; Joel 1:19); and “mourning” (Amos
5:16; Joel 1:9-10).
The topic of the Day of the Lord is the end of the nation in the land. With Amos’
prophecy in circulation, the interpretation of Joel’s words is set for his audience.
Jerusalem and Samaria were thirty miles apart; a warning about the coming Day of
the Lord for Northern Israel would equally be a warning for Judah. Joel’s
preaching galvanized the Jerusalemites to repent and turn to God and the Day of
the Lord was averted; it nevertheless descended upon Northern Israel in 722.3
1
J. A. Soggin, The Prophet Amos (London: SCM Press, 1987), 95.
Nogalski, “The Day(s) of YHWH in the Book of the Twelve”, 205. It is ironic that Nogalski
can offer this comment which clearly locates Joel in the eight century and yet reject this date.
3
In this connection, Hosea’s description of the “new wine, oil, and grain” that will be destroyed
(Hos 2:8) as well as the ruination of the “vines” and “fig trees” (Hos 2:12) in a “day of Jezreel”
for Northern Israel, are significant details that link with Joel and establish the eighth century
2
140
3. Isaiah
As with Amos, Isaiah’s reference to the Day of the Lord (Isa 13:6, 9) anticipates
the end of the Northern Kingdom at the hands of Assyria.1 The reference is set in
a “Burden of Babylon” (Isa 13:1), which most scholars have taken to be an
indication that the prophecy is about the end of the exile and the end of Babylon.2
This is mistaken as the details of the prophecy clearly require a mountainous
setting appropriate to Judah and Israel. Further, the oracle requires the destruction
of Babylon, which did not happen at Cyrus’ hand. It is beyond the scope of our
study to offer a negative critique of the consensus view; our focus is the
relationship of Joel and Isaiah, and so here we will only stipulate our reading of
Isaiah.
3.1 Bare Hill
The first statement in the oracle units of Isaiah 13-14 concerns the “bare hill”:
Lift up a standard on the bare hill (rh), Raise your voice to them, Wave the hand
that they may enter the gates of the princes. Isa 13:2 (NASB revised)
The KJV has “high mountain” but “high” (hpv) is wrong as shown by the NASB
and RSV. The Hebrew is a Niphal participle and the related noun (ypv, BDB 1046)
denotes a place “bare, swept” (Num 23:3; Isa 41:18; 49:9).3
The Hebrew for “bare hill” is unique to the MT, but a reference to Zion seems
plausible because the people on the bare hill are to “wave the hand” to “them” and
raise their voice. The “them” is unidentified in vv. 1-2 but the text echoes Isa
10:32, which establishes the “them” to be the Assyrians:
Yet today he will halt at Nob; He is waving his hand at the mountain (rh) of the
daughter of Zion, the hill of Jerusalem. Isa 10:32 (NASB)
Here the Assyrians come from the north and camp at Nob (Isa 10:28-31) and wave
their hands at Zion; those in Zion are invited by the prophet to wave back and
invite the Assyrians into the “gates of the princes”; the Hebrew is “wave the hand
and they will go into the gates of the princes”.
The “gates” of a city are places of judgment and diplomacy (Josh 20:4; 1 Kgs
22:10; Jer 1:15; 26:10), but given that the princes of Judah do not receive good
notice in Isaiah’s oracles (Isa 32:5, 8), the invitation is sarcastic. The command to
setting for Joel 1 and 2 – see Nogalski, “The Day(s) of YHWH in the Book of the Twelve”, 197198.
1
This discussion of Isaiah 13 adds to the earlier one on Chapter Two.
2
Here we will be developing a reading contrary to the consensus of OT scholars and in the style
of H. A. Whittaker, J. H. Hayes and S. A. Irvine.
3
Contra Whittaker, 196, who suggests “levelled place”.
141
“lift the banner” echoes Isa 5:26 and “[Yahweh] will lift up a banner to the nations
from far”—the Assyrians of Isa 13:5 come from a far country.
3.2 Mighty Ones
While commentators take the “sanctified ones” to be the “mighty ones” in Isa
13:3, this is not a necessary equation. Whittaker1 observes that while any foreign
army may be “set apart” by God to fulfil his purpose (Isa 8:7), such armies hardly
rejoiced in his highness.
I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones for
mine anger, even them that rejoice in my highness. Isa 13:3 (KJV)
Commentators have overlooked a parenthesis in the assertion:
I have commanded my sanctified ones (I have also called my mighty ones for
mine anger), even them that rejoice in my highness. Isa 13:3 (KJV)
This parenthesis connects the “sanctified ones” with those who rejoice in
Yahweh’s highness, and these faithful form a contrast with the nobles who look to
make an agreement with the Assyrians in v. 2. The point in the parenthesis is to
reiterate that God has also called the Assyrians to fulfil his purpose.
There are rhetorical contrasts to note in this assertion:
1) The “terrible one” is Assyria (Isa 13:11; 29:5, 20) and he is “haughty” or “high”
(hwag, Isa 13:11); this is the contrasting attitude to the “highness” (hwag, Isa 13:3) of
Yahweh in which his sanctified ones rejoice.2
2) The “mighty ones” are called for “mine anger” (Isa 13:3); this description
reflects the earlier refrain, “his anger is not turned away” (Isa 9:12, 17, 21; 10:5),
which culminates with the declaration that the Assyrians are the rod of “mine
anger” (Isa 10:5).
The expression “mighty ones” is one of a number of links with Joel:
They shall run like mighty ones; they shall climb the wall like men of war; and
they shall march every one on his ways, and they shall not break their ranks. Joel
2:7 (KJV revised)
The “mighty ones” of Joel 2:7 are the great people that both Joel and Isaiah
describe (Isa 13:4; Joel 2:2). As the “rod” of God’s anger, the Assyrians are the
nation from afar (Isa 13:5).
1
2
Isaiah, 197.
Hence, Whittaker, Isaiah, 197, is incorrect to affirm that the “sanctified ones” must be angels.
142
The sanctified ones (vdq) have been given a command (Isa 13:3), but Isaiah does
not describe the instruction. In view of the connections with Joel, an echo with
Joel supplies an answer:
Sanctify (vdq) ye a fast, call a solemn assembly, gather the elders and all the
inhabitants of the land into the house of the Lord your God, and cry unto the
Lord… Joel 1:15 (KJV) cf. 2:15-16
The sanctified ones have been given the command to sanctify a fast, although this
is not the same fast and crisis as Joel.
3.3 Noise of a Multitude
The next description of the “mighty ones” is a separate unit, vv. 4-5; this is
distinguished from v. 3 by the change from the first person utterance of Yahweh
to the third person perspective of the prophet:
The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a tumultuous
noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the Lord of hosts mustereth
the host of the battle. They come from a far country, from the end of heaven,
even the Lord, and the weapons1 of his indignation, to destroy the whole land. Isa
13:4-5 (KJV)
There are several links with Joel in this text including, “noise” upon “mountains”
(Joel 2:5); a “great people”2 (Joel 2:2); and “nations” (Joel 2:17, 19). The Day of the
Lord that Joel describes is very similar if not identical to that of Isaiah.
…as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong…Like
the noise of chariots on the tops of mountains… Joel 2:2, 5 (KJV)
…O Lord, and give not thine heritage to reproach, that the nations should rule
over them…Yea, the Lord will answer and say unto his people…I will no more
make you a reproach among the nations… Joel 2:17, 19 (KJV revised)
The identity of this host is that of the Assyrians, although they may have co-opted
other nations into their armed forces. This is shown by the reference to their origin
in a “far country” (cf. Isa 10:3; 46:11) and their role as weapons of Yahweh’s
“indignation” (cf. Isa 10:5, 15; cf. Deut 20:1). They came from this country to
Northern Israel and Judah and the Day of the Lord fell upon Northern Israel in
722.
3.4 The Day of the Lord
The announcement of the Day of the Lord in v. 6 corresponds to Joel 1:15,
There may be a pun on the fondness Tiglath-Pileser has for the phrase “weapon of Assur”,
ARAB, 763, 765, 775.
2
The expression (br ~[) is not uncommon (14x), but only occurs in the Prophets in Joel 2 and
Isaiah 13.
1
143
Howl ye; for the day of the Lord is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from
the Almighty. Isa 13:6 (KJV)
Alas for the day! for the day of the Lord is at hand, and as a destruction from the
Almighty shall it come. Joel 1:15 (KJV)
The relationship of the two verses is clearly one of quotation although no direction
of dependency can be proved. Isaiah opens with a “Howl ye” which corresponds
to Joel 1:11, 13, and this may indicate that Isaiah is using Joel and making a
composite quotation.
The difference between Joel and Isaiah is that there is no connection in Isaiah
between the nearness of the Day of the Lord and the need for repentance.
Furthermore, Isaiah’s oracle has no tied description of the restoration of the land.
Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to
lay the land desolate (hmvl): and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. Isa
13:9 (KJV)
The terms of this description are sufficiently generic to be applicable to the end of
both Judah in 587 and Northern Israel in 722. The term “desolate/desolation” is a
case in point:
Ephraim shall be desolate (hmvl) in the day of rebuke… Hos 5:9 (KJV)
For the statutes of Omri…I should make thee a desolation (hmvl)… Mic 6:16
(KJV)
And be not like your fathers, and like your brethren, which trespassed against the
Lord God of their fathers, who therefore gave them up to desolation (hmvl), as
ye see 2 Chron 30:7 (KJV)
The mention of “sinners” by Isaiah shows that the subjects of this condemnation
are those in covenant relationship with God, and there are many prophecies that
relate the end of both Judah and Israel to their sin. For example, the destruction of
Northern Israel is announced by Amos and Hosea:
The high places also of Aven, the sin of Israel, shall be destroyed: the thorn and
the thistle shall come up on their altars; and they shall say to the mountains,
Cover us; and to the hills, Fall on us. Hos 10:8 (KJV)
Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy
it from off the face of the earth; saving that I will not utterly destroy the house of
Jacob, saith the Lord. Amos 9:8 (KJV)
Isaiah thus continues Amos’ prophecy about the Day of the Lord for the Northern
Kingdom.
144
4. Obadiah
Commentators give the Day of the Lord in Obadiah a sixth century catalyst in the
sack of Jerusalem in 587. This day is a day of retribution upon the local nations for
their participation in the demise of Judah. This Day of the Lord is like that in Joel
3:14, which likewise concerns the nations. Here we will delineate our eighth
century reading and contrast it with the consensus “Babylonian” reading. The main
verses that are taken to support a sixth century reading of Obadiah are vv. 10-14,
and our contention is that they have been badly misunderstood by commentators
for the following reasons:
1) Edom has done violence to Judah (v. 10) for which they will be destroyed. The
word for “violence” is common (smx) but the expression “because of the violence”
(smxm) is rare (3x) and is shared between Joel and Obadiah (Joel 3:19). In addition,
Obadiah goes on to use the expression “children of Judah” (v. 12, hdwhy ynb) which
is rare in the Prophets (5x) and occurs twice in Joel (Joel 3:8, 19). This verbal
linkage allows the suggestion that Joel is talking about the same crime committed
by Edom: the violence was done in Edom and it was not the violence of war, but
the violence of shedding innocent blood—the blood of civilian victims (e.g. Ps
106:38; Prov 6:17; Jer 7:6).
Everyone in Edom was to be “cut off by slaughter” (KJV, RSV1) and the reason
given is “for violence against Jacob” (v. 10):
...to the end that every one of the mount of Esau may be cut off by slaughter.
For violence against thy brother Jacob...thou shalt be cut off for ever. Obad vv.
9-10 (KJV revised)
The repetition of “cut off” (trk) in vv. 9-10, as an inclusio, ties these two verses
together and marks out v. 11 as a separate unit. There are certainly occasions in the
eighth century when Edom might have committed this crime of shedding innocent
blood, chief of which would be their attacks in the 730s when they took captives
from Judah (2 Chron 28:17), or when they received captives from the Philistines
(Amos 1:6, 9).
2) The text of v. 11 is marked off from vv. 9-10 because of the change of topic.
Whereas vv. 9-10 centre on Edom’s violence, v. 11 is about Edom standing aloof
from the plunder of Jerusalem.2 Similarly, v. 11 is separated from vv. 12-14 by a
1
Commentators disagree on the Hebrew syntax of v. 10; we follow the KJV and RSV and the
MT verse division. Barton, 143, offers a discussion of the disagreement and supports the MT
and RSV.
2
Mason, Micah, Nahum, Obadiah, 99, sees the change of topic between v. 10 and v. 11 as an
“apparent inconsistency” which he attempts to resolve. However, there is no inconsistency on
the reading that v. 10 closes vv. 8-10 and v. 11 opens the warnings of vv. 12-14.
145
sharp change in mood. This change is masked in the KJV and RSV but brought
out by the NASB:
On the day that you stood aloof, on the day that strangers carried off his wealth,
and foreigners entered his gate and cast lots for Jerusalem—you too were as one
of them. Obad v. 11 (NASB)
Do not gloat over your brother's day, the day of his misfortune. And do not
rejoice over the sons of Judah in the day of their destruction; Yes, do not boast in
the day of their distress. Do not enter the gate of my people in the day of their
disaster. Yes, you, do not gloat over their calamity in the day of their disaster.
And do not loot their wealth in the day of their disaster. Do not stand at the fork
of the road to cut down their fugitives; and do not imprison their survivors in the
day of their distress. Obad v. 12-14 (NASB)
This change of mood is marked from v. 11 to vv. 12-14, and it has caused
commentators to change the normal rendering of the verbs in vv. 12-14 to a past
indicative tense and mood consistent with v. 11. Barton observes of the verbal
forms in vv. 12-14 that “the obvious way to take them is as imperative
imperfects”,1 which is how the NASB renders the verses. This is consistent with
the use of the particle adverb la and the imperfect verb everywhere else in
Hebrew to convey the jussive.2 This is not an uncommon syntactical combination
and there are dozens of examples where translations render the form as an
imperative. Barton’s advocacy of the past indicative tense and mood is based on
nothing more than the “odd effect”3 of the prophecy referring to what the
Edomites have done in vv. 1-11 and then switching to an imperative. On this basis,
the RSV has,
But you should not have gloated over the day of your brother in the day of his
misfortune; you should not have rejoiced over the people of Judah in the day of
their ruin; you should not have boasted in the day of distress. You should not
have entered the gate of my people in the day of his calamity; you should not
have gloated over his disaster in the day of his calamity; you should not have
looted his goods in the day of his calamity. You should not have stood at the
parting of the ways to cut off his fugitives; you should not have delivered up his
survivors in the day of distress. Obad vv. 12-14 (RSV)
It is a mistake to overturn a common syntactical pattern4 because of a lack of
understanding in how the thought of a text flows from point to point. We
conclude therefore that the NASB is correct to maintain the Hebrew syntax as
1
Barton, 148; see also Allen, 129; Sweeney, 1:293; Mason, Micah, Nahum, Obadiah, 100.
GKC, sections 46, 109, 110; Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 184, 402.
3
Barton, 148.
4
The LXX translates as aorist subjunctives which show that the RSV and KJV at least maintain
an ancient translation of the Hebrew.
2
146
imperatives. The consequence of this is that the subject-matter of v. 11 is different
to that of vv. 12-14, so that both cannot refer to the Babylonian sack of Jerusalem.
The NASB would allow a date for Obadiah before 587, in which case vv. 12-14
become a warning in general terms to Edom not to take advantage of Judah’s
punishment and v. 11 references an earlier injustice on the part of Edom. The RSV
(incorrectly) harmonizes the verbal mood and tense across vv. 11-14 and thereby
avoids this implication. However, commentators who follow this way of rendering
the Hebrew have Obadiah writing after the sack of Jerusalem, and in this case, it is
surprising that the prophet makes no reference to the destruction of the city or
temple or to the deportation of the people to Babylon, and this casts doubt on the
Babylonian interpretation. In an eighth century reading (following the NASB), it is
not difficult to identify an occasion when Obadiah might have warned Edom (not
to stand by and watch Judah’s downfall since this was threatened by Assyria in the
730s, 720s and in 701.
3) Obadiah v. 11 references a prior historical act of hostility, but vv. 1-10
anticipates (and concludes) a forthcoming war with Edom. This is clear from v. 1
which states that a “report” (h[wmv) has been heard, a term that is indicative of
military movement (e.g. Isa 28:19; 37:7; Jer 10:22; Ezek 7:26).
Thus says the Lord God concerning Edom: We have heard a report from the
Lord, namely, (w) a messenger has been sent among the nations: “Rise up! Let us
rise against her for battle!” Obad v. 1 (RSV revised)
Contrary to Barton,1 who reflects a common view that v. 1 is about nations
gathering against Edom, this herald is Edom’s messenger gathering the nations
round about to battle against Zion.2 Against this opening declaration, the oracle of
vv. 2-4 can be rendered as in the KJV with its perfect verbs expressing a fact:
Behold, I have made thee small among the heathen: thou art greatly despised.
The pride of thine heart hath deceived thee, thou that dwellest in the clefts of the
rock, whose habitation is high; that saith in his heart, Who shall bring me down
to the ground? Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy
nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord. Obad vv. 2-4
(KJV)
Edom had designs on Zion, but God had made her a small people and of no
account; if they magnified themselves and sought to take Jerusalem, they would be
Barton, 135; Allen, 145; Sweeny, 1:288; Ogden, “Prophetic Responses”, 101; Bergler, 313-315.
Bergler claims that Joel alludes to Obadiah in Joel 3:9, 11, but if so, the allusion is not verbal.
The “let them come up” of Joel 3:9 addressed to Judahites is the mirror response to the Edomite
messenger of Obad v. 1 saying to the nations “let us rise up”.
2
The feminine suffix in “against her” is common and one usage is naturally for cities—Isa 7:1;
66:10; Jon 1:2; Zeph 2:15. One indication that Zion is meant is the use of the masculine
elsewhere in Obadiah for Edom—see Allen, 144 n. 3.
1
147
brought down to the ground. The anticipation of a war at this point, prosecuted by
Edom, is incompatible with a Babylonian reading.
3) The attempt at forging an alliance and then attacking Jerusalem comes to an end
at the border when treachery within the alliance brings Edom’s designs to an end
(v. 7). The “wisdom” and the “political understanding” of the Edomite counsellors
is shown to be disastrous. The so-called allies had turned against Edom and left
nothing—they were “cut off” to such an extent that their state was as if robbers
had left nothing behind in a house (v. 5). The reason for all this was their
“violence” against their brother Jacob (v. 10).1 The forthcoming war of vv. 1-4 is
averted by the repetition of Jehoshaphat’s “victory” over a similar Edomite alliance
that also fell to internecine strife (vv. 5-10, cf. 2 Chronicles 20).
4) Obadiah vv. 10-14 is usually taken to be the sack of Jerusalem in 587.2 An older
commentary view is that this is a reference to Shishak’s subjugation of Jerusalem in
the days of Rehoboam (1 Kgs 14:25-28).3 It has also been related to the Philistine
and Arabian attack on Jerusalem in the reign of Jehoram (2 Chron 21:16-17),4 and
the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis.5 On any interpretation, Edom is assigned an unhelpful
largely passive role in which she takes delight in Judah’s downfall (cf. Ps 137:7;
Lam 5:9). However, there are a number of objections to the Babylonian
interpretation:
i) First, the interpretation does not respect the divisions between Obadiah’s oracle
units—vv. 5-10, v. 11 and vv. 12-14.
ii) Secondly, there is extensive quotation of Obad vv. 1-8 in Jeremiah 49,6 but
crucially, vv. 10-14 is not quoted. This is surprising if these verses are about the
capture of Jerusalem in 587 and Jeremiah has Obadiah available for his use. One
would have expected these verses to have been used by Jeremiah in his oracles
The refrain of “cut off” (vv. 5, 9, 10) ties vv. 5-10 together as description and explanation of
what befell the Edomites. The units are v. 5, vv. 6-7 and vv. 8-10.
2
Barton, 120-123; Allen, 129-130; see also H. W. Wolff, Obadiah and Jonah (Hermeneia;
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1986).
3
Pusey, 3:274.
4
Pearce, From Hosea to Zephaniah, 42. E. J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Re. Edn.;
London: The Tyndale Press, 1960), 277.
5
Mason, Micah, Nahum, Obadiah, 93, notes this option but does not espouse it; he favours a
Babylonian interpretation. His argument is that no capture of Jerusalem is recorded for the
troubled reign of Ahaz (94).
6
The direction of dependency is certain as Jeremiah mixes his use of Obadiah with his own
material, whereas Obadiah’s opening oracles (vv. 1-4; 5-9) are coherent and compact units;
furthermore, this intermixing of Obadiah is comparable to how Jeremiah uses Isaiah. Were the
direction of dependency to be the other way, one would have expected some characteristic
idioms of Jeremiah to come across into Obadiah, but the common material has no such
idioms—Pusey, 3:278-294.
1
148
about 587. This lack of mention has led scholars to propose that Obadiah is a
composite work that includes an earlier prophet’s words (vv. 1-9, 17-18), to which
Jeremiah had access, along with the work of an exilic or post-exilic prophet which
post-dates Jeremiah.1
iii) Third, if Obadiah is taken to be a unified record2 from one prophet, certain
statements do not easily fit the Babylonian Captivity and its aftermath. First, there
is the positive assurance of deliverance (not capture) in Zion (v. 17; Joel 2:32);
secondly, there was to be “holiness” in Zion, a hope indicative of the continuing
presence of the temple and/or the Spirit (v. 17; Joel 2:28-29; 3:17); thirdly, there is
an expectation of vengeance meted out by Judah upon Edom (v. 18; cf. Joel 3:19);
and fourthly, there is confidence in the enlargement of Judah and Benjamin, and a
return of captives from the West (not East, vv. 19-20). This difficulty has led
commentators to read vv. 17-21 in long-distance terms, as an expression of what
will happen in the “last days”.3 The problem with this ad hoc suggestion is that it is
difficult to see how such a reading would have been relevant or of value to
Obadiah’s audience and it looks like an attempt to avoid evidence that goes against
the Babylonian reading. Furthermore, the details of geography are very specific as
if to require an immediate relevance to Judah (Zarephath; Sepharad) rather than an
application in the “last days”.
iv) Fourthly, the return of captives is from the West rather than the East as in the
case of the Babylonian Captivity (2 Chron 36:20; Ezra 2:1). Allen remarks, “One
might have expected a reference to Babylon as the domicile of Jewish exiles, but
instead a mysterious Sepharad is named”.4 Allen advocates Sardis as the identity of
Sepharad principally on the grounds of an Aramaic bilingual inscription which has
the Aramaic sprd as the name of Sardis. If this is correct, Sardis is to the north and
east in Asia Minor. Pusey observes that such a location would be consistent with
slave-trading.5 Such a detail harmonizes with Joel’s record of the Ionians’
involvement in slave-trading with the Phoenician and Philistine coastal cities (Joel
3:4, 6); the location of Sardis near to the centre of Ionian trade is an undesigned
coincidence between Joel and Obadiah. It is noteworthy that these specifics in the
prophecy tell against an “eschatological” or “apocalyptic” interpretation of the later
verses. Moreover, the focus then shifts to Judah and Benjamin possessing land to
1
Pusey, 3:299—vv. 1-9, 17-18 for the early prophet; Barton, 120, vv. 1-4, 15b for the early
prophet.
2
We cannot argue for this viewpoint here; Allen, 133-136, offers a discussion and favours the
case for a unified Obadiah. Our argument would be that the disunity arguments depend on the
Babylonian misreading and once this is removed, the unity of the book comes into plain sight.
Exactly where Obadiah divides up into its constituent oracles is also beyond our scope; Allen,
140-143, has a good overview.
3
Barton, 118; Allen, 133.
4
Allen, 171.
5
Pusey, 3:303.
149
the north and the south rather than any last days’ return that would encompass all
the tribes of Israel.
v) The direct involvement of Edom in the sack of Jerusalem is a hypothesis. The
evidence of Ps 137:7 and Lam 5:9 is that they “watched” the attack and operated in
the desert harrying refugees. In the record of Kings and Chronicles, Chaldeans,
Arameans, Moabites and Ammonites joined in the attack on Jerusalem (2 Kgs 24:2;
Jer 35:11); Edom is not mentioned, which one would have expected in a list of
Judah’s local enemies, if Obadiah was about the prior sack of Jerusalem.
For these reasons, (i)-(v), we reject the Babylonian interpretation. This does not
settle a date for Obadiah and the historical reference of v. 11 remains uncertain.
Suggestions based on Shishak’s entry into Jerusalem (1 Kgs 14:25-26) or that of the
Arabians and Philistines (2 Chron 21:16-17) are possible1 but they beg the question
of how long after these events Obadiah prophesied. If Obadiah was a near
contemporary to either event (925, 840), the question can be raised as to why the
book is not first in any order of the Minor Prophets.
5) The scope of v. 11 does not obviously suggest the sack of a city: there is no
description of the ruination of the city, walls buildings and temple; there is no
language of deportation. The Edomites are not accused of taking delight in these
common aspects of conquest. In contrast, they are accused of this attitude by the
Psalmist in response to the events of 587,
Remember, O Lord, against the sons of Edom The day of Jerusalem, Who said,
“Raze it, raze it to its very foundation.” Ps 137:7 (NASB) cf. Lam 5:9
The descriptions in v. 11 also fit a situation where Jerusalem surrendered to a foreign
army leaving the apparatus of the state and the infrastructure of the city intact.
This was evidently the case in the reign of Rehoboam (Shishak) and Jehoram
(Arabians, Philistines). On these occasions, the wealth of the city is taken by the
hostile force, but the monarchy and the state continue to function.
Ezekiel notes another attitude on the part of Edom:
The word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, set your face against Mount
Seir, and prophesy against it, and say to it, Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I am
against you, Mount Seir, and I will stretch out my hand against you, and I will
make you a desolation and a waste. I will lay your cities waste, and you shall
become a desolation; and you shall know that I am the Lord. Because you
cherished perpetual enmity, and gave over the people of Israel to the power of
the sword at the time of their calamity, at the time of their final punishment…”
Ezek 35:1-5 (RSV)
Of these two events, the attack in Jehoram’s reign is the more likely as Jehoram and Edom had
been war (2 Kgs 8:20-22; 2 Chron 21:8-10).
1
150
Here, the invective is that the cities of Mount Seir would be laid waste because they
had “cherished perpetual enmity” and handed Israel over to the Babylonians
during the final days of the monarchy. This accusation against Edom is not the
same as that expressed in Obadiah, and this suggests that Obadiah reflects a
different occasion to that of Ezekiel.1 Moreover, Ezekiel notes Edom’s long
memory and determination to wreak revenge for past treatment at the hand of
Judah. This long memory could be reflected in an equal long memory on the part
of Judah about Edom’s reciprocal treatment (Amos 1:9). In this case, Obadiah
might well be remembering the behaviour of Edom during the reign of Jehoram
and cite this in his own generation.2
6) Edom’s role is one of non-involvement according to Obad v. 11. They “stand
aloof” (v. 11, RSV, NASB) while “strangers” carry away the wealth (v. 11, lyx,
RSV, NASB) of the city. They are not part of the forces of the foreign army that
has assailed Jerusalem (“strangers”, Hos 8:7; Isa 1:7). Furthermore, the main
complaint is the taking of wealth rather than any destruction of Jerusalem. This fits
the leading characteristic that Kings and Chronicles record for the Arabian and
Philistine incursion:
And the Lord stirred up against Jehoram the anger of the Philistines and of the
Arabs who are near the Ethiopians; and they came up against Judah, and invaded
it, and carried away all the possessions they found that belonged to the king's
house, and also his sons and his wives, so that no son was left to him except
Jehoahaz, his youngest son. 2 Chron 21:16-17 (RSV)
This event presupposes some sort of surrender3 on the part of the king, with its
consequent tribute, as the Jerusalemites were able to anoint Ahaziah in place of
Jehoram. The alliance against Judah would have “cast lots” for the disposal of
slaves taken in the raid. If this is Obadiah’s historical reminiscence, the accusation
against Edom is that they were “like” one of them—the raiders, but not “actually”
one of them. The “casting of lots” that Obadiah mentions makes sense in the case
of such an alliance, but not in the case of Babylon who are presented as the only
enemy taking treasure and captives from Jerusalem to Babylon (2 Chron 36:7, 10,
18).
1
Contra Barton, 120-121.
Sweeney, 1:280, notes that Edom broke its long-standing alliance with Judah (2 Sam 8:13-14; 2
Kgs 3:4-27) during Jehoram’s reign (2 Kgs 8:20-22) and this betrayal would stand long in the
memory of Judah.
3
Hence, Mason, Micah, Nahum, Obadiah, 94, is wrong to argue that Ahaz’ reign is an unsuitable
period for Obadiah—if at this time Obadiah includes an historical reference to the surrender of
Jerusalem to the Arabian and Philistine alliance.
2
151
7) The warnings of vv. 12-14 are prefaced by the historical statement of v. 11: the
purpose of v. 11 is to justify the warnings—Edom had a history of standing by and
watching with satisfaction any downfall of Judah. In order for the warnings to have
force, there must be a prospect of destruction (dba), distress (hrc), and calamity
(dya) coming upon Judah. These terms are sufficiently common for any invasion or
war that the prospect Obadiah foresees cannot be identified. For instance, distress
is a feature of crises in Judah’s history in the 730s (Isa 8:22), as well as in 701/700
(Isa 33:2; 37:3; 63:9), and also in Josiah’s day (Zeph 1:15); the term “calamity” is
used of the Babylonian Captivity (Jer 18:17; Ezek 35:5). If Obadiah’s warnings
were delivered in the eighth century, they could certainly be re-used in the sixth
century, but this consideration does not settle their date and provenance.
Obadiah’s warnings in vv. 12-14 are linked to the Day of the Lord,
For (yk) the Day of the Lord is near upon all the nations. As you have done, it
shall be done to you, your deeds shall return on your own head. Obad v. 15
(RSV)
The effect of the “for” (yk) is to supply the backing for the warnings: Obadiah’s
rhetoric is “Do not do this…for the Day of the Lord is near upon all nations”.
Edom would be “rewarded” on that Day according to whether they had heeded
Obadiah’s warnings. This logic excludes a date and provenance for Obadiah
around 587, because at this time there was no prospect of there being a Day of the
Lord for Edom and the nations. We can say that 587 was a Day of the Lord for
Judah (cf. Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11), but Obadiah is about a Day of the Lord for all nations
or as Joel puts it—the multitudes (Joel 3:14). Obadiah goes on in v. 16 to draw the
comparison that as Edom had in the past drunk on God’s holy mountain, so too
all nations would drink and “be as though they had not been” (KJV).
This prophetic rhetoric fits the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis and the arrival of Assyria
into Syro-Palestine in 735-734. At this time they distressed Judah (2 Chron 28:20)
and threatened the status quo in the entire Syro-Palestine land bridge. Edom was a
confident aggressor at this time towards Judah and had “smitten them and carried
away captives” (2 Chron 28:17) at some time in the years leading up to 734. It is a
plausible hypothesis that Edom saw further opportunity for self-aggrandisement at
the expense of Judah with the arrival of Assyria in the area or with the antiAssyrian coalition of Syria and Northern Israel. Obadiah warns Edom against this
course of behaviour and threatens a Day of the Lord for all nations—a prospect
which he sees lying beyond the Assyrian occupation of the land.
8) Obadiah along with Joel affirms deliverance upon Mount Zion (v. 17, Joel 2:32).
In the same oracle unit it is asserted that the “house of Joseph” and the “house of
Jacob” would be a fire to the stubble of Esau (v. 18). As a result, the south (the
152
Negeb) would possess Esau, the plain (the Shephelah) would possess the
Philistines, and Benjamin would possess Gilead:
Those of the Negeb shall possess Mount Esau, and those of the Shephelah the
land of the Philistines; they shall possess the land of Ephraim and the land of
Samaria and Benjamin shall possess Gilead. Obad v. 19 (RSV)
These details fit an eighth century setting, but are difficult to fit around the events
of 587. For this reason, commentators date vv. 17-21 (or some combination1 of vv.
15a, vv. 16-21) to a later writer than Obadiah.2
With Assyria’s assault on Northern Israel in the 730s during the Syro-Ephraimite
Crisis, and then in the 720s with the siege of Samaria and occupation of Northern
Israel, many in the north migrated to the south for the safety of Judah. At this time
the “house of Joseph” (Northern Israel, Amos 5:6) and the “house of Jacob”
(Judah, Mic 2:7; 3:9) were “together” and could have wrought revenge upon Edom
in Hezekiah’s rebellion of 705 or in the year of recompense of 700 (Isa 34:8). This
saw him remove the Assyrian garrison set up under Ahaz and campaign against the
Philistines and address the “captivity” of Judah and Jerusalem (2 Kgs 18:7-8; 2
Chron 29:9). The south and the plain had been lost to the Philistines in the 730s (2
Chron 28:18); Obadiah prophesies their return in v. 19. It is not implausible to see
Hezekiah’s campaigns extend to Edom at the same time or, if not, the prophecy
was certainly fulfilled in 700.
The mention of Gilead is also explicable in the politics of the later eighth century.
Gad along with Reuben occupied the eastern bank of the Jordan (Gilead) in the
original tribal division of land (Num 32:1-5). During the period, 748-732,
Menahem and Pekah were rival kings in Northern Israel. Assyrian records refer to
Menahem as “of Samaria”3 which indicates his sphere of influence as Ephraim.
Pekah’s sphere of influence would naturally fall on the east side of the Jordan, and
his power base was most likely Gilead. In his usurpation of power, Menahem had
assassinated Shallum who was from Jabesh-Gilead (2 Kgs 15:13-14), and in his
turn, Pekah’s own coup against Menahem would be supported by Gileadites (2
Kgs 15:25). Pekah’s close association with Rezin king of Syria is explained by the
proximity of Gilead to Syria and Rezin’s dominance of this region (Amos 1:3-5)
along with Ammon (Amos 1:9). It would be a natural assurance in this political
climate for Obadiah to declare specifically that Benjamin would possess Gilead.
1
Barton, 151; Allen, 133-136, sets out the options in full.
Sweeney, 1:285, suggests that vv. 8-18 may have been delivered in the ninth century, which
allows the suggestion that v. 11 is a remembrance of Edom’s revolt against Judah and the
subsequent surrender of Jerusalem to the Arabian/Philistine alliance (2 Kgs 8:20; 2 Chron 21:810, 16-17); he attributes vv. 1-7, and vv. 19-21 to a prophet writing after 587.
3
Kuan, Neo-Assyrian Historical Inscriptions and Syria-Palestine, 152.
2
153
For the above reasons, (1)-(8), we take Obadiah to be an eighth century prophet
contemporary with Joel and prophesying during the Assyrian crises of the 730s and
720s. We take vv. 11-21 to be the earlier oracles of Obadiah that explain the
downfall of Edom which he delineates in the oracles of vv. 1-10. This downfall
took place at the border as an Edomite alliance turned in on itself in much the
same way as had happened in the days of Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 20).
5. Joel
The Day of the Lord is near (bwrq); the same point is made in Joel 1:15 and 2:1.
The whole point is that the day is coming; it is not that that the day has happened.
Contrary to Wolff’s interpretation,1 a natural locust plague of Joel 1 is not a
precursor to an invading eschatological army in Joel 2, the relationship of these
two predictions to surrounding material is the same. Similarly, Crenshaw is wrong
to see natural locusts in Joel 1 as a precursor to a greater destruction perpetrated by
a foreign enemy, narrated in Joel 2.2
Barton is correct to argue that Joel 1:2-20 and 2:1-27 encompass the same situation,
but he is wrong to assert that this event is a natural locust invasion.3 The event is
an invading army in Joel 1 and 2, not an eschatological army, but the Assyrians.
The Day of the Lord is defined in visionary terms in Joel 2:2-9, and the crescendo
is the sack of a city (v. 9). However, because the description includes “the
mountains”, we cannot restrict the Day of the Lord just to the sack of a capital
city. Nevertheless, it is in this vision that Joel describes the Day of the Lord: it is a
day affecting a city and as the capital and seat of government, the vision describes
the end of the existing order of things.
There is one Day of the Lord in Joel 1:15, 2:1 and 2:11; the concept is audiencespecific—it is a Day of the Lord that culminates in a city. Joel is not describing two
locust invasions because the vision of Joel 2:2-9 is the impetus behind the
repentance of the people (Joel 2:12-14), and this subsequent turning to God leads
to the restoration of the land which has been devastated according to Joel 1;4 we
can see then that Joel is delivering the oracles of Joel 1:2-2:27 from within the same
crisis.5
1
Wolff, 41-43; cf. Barton, 60; Jones, 152-153.
Crenshaw, 106, 128-130.
3
Barton, 44, 69.
4
Thompson, “The Use of Repetition in the Prophecy of Joel”, 105, notes that the order of the
terms, “grain, wine and oil” is the same in Joel 1:10; 2:19, 24—this forcibly makes the point that
Joel’s restoration oracles of Joel 2 address the catastrophe oracles of Joel 1. The same point is
forcibly made by Redditt, “Peripheral Prophecy”, 228, with a list of reversed elements. It is
implausible to suggest therefore that these two oracle groups bookend an eschatological
middle—all oracles come from the same crisis.
5
Barton, 47, 62.
2
154
Likewise, the Day of the Lord is not presaged by the events of Joel 1:2-2:27 and
then described in Joel 2:28-3:21. This is a common proposal and one which reads
the latter half of Joel in eschatological terms. The thought is that either Joel1 or a
later writer (editors)2 transformed the earlier material through association3 and/or
interpolation4 to have a still future fulfilment. Our counter-proposal is that the Day
of the Lord is defined in terms of the army of the Lord encamped outside the
capital city (Joel 2:11); the Day of the Lord of Joel 2:31 is a renewal of crisis, and
Joel 3:14 has an altogether different focus on the nations.
J. Everson argues that there is no single “day of YHWH” concept in the Prophets;5
there are both prophetic and historical uses of the concept. We would add that
most of the oracles in which the notion is embedded have local colour and are
directly relevant to the audience. It is generally a mistake to regard the idea as
eschatological rather than specific to the prophet’s generation. Thus, in Joel’s case,
he is declaring to his audience that the Day of the Lord is near to them: a distant
eschaton is not in view. As Everson states,
…it is clear that the Day of Yahweh concept is used by the prophetic writers
primarily in connection with war—the memories of war or the anticipation of
new occasions of war.6
The Day of the Lord is a singular event—an end for Israel and Judah, but those
“days” in history that might have been the Day of the Lord happened in succession;
we should not assume that Joel’s references are to the same historical scenarios.
For example, prophets use the concept in relation to 701 (Isa 22:5); 605 (Jer 46:10);
587 (Lam 1:12; 2:1); as well as 722 (Amos 5:18-20; Isa 13:6). Thus, we can easily
see that the Day of the Lord in Joel 1:15 and 2:1, 11 is different to that in Joel 3:14,
because whereas the former is focused on the threat to Judah and Israel, the latter
involves Judah’s revenge on the nations. It is less straightforward to see that the
Day of the Lord in Joel 2:31 is a different anticipation to those in Joel 1:15, 2:1 and
2:11. This is because God’s people (rather than the nations) are under threat in all
these texts. However, there are textual features to note that strongly suggests this
conclusion:
In addition to commentators such as Allen and Wolff, see H. P. Müller, „Prophetie und
Apokalyptik bei Joel“ Theologia Viatorum 10 (1966): 231-252.
2
Barton, 18, is the most recent scholar who would attribute the second half of Joel to the
“Judean Community”, revising and resurrecting Duhm’s suggestion of a later writer.
3
Thompson, “Repetition in the Prophecy of Joel”, 104, 106, argues that the elements of the
locust plague are repeated in the description of the final future judgment.
4
R. P. Carroll, “Eschatological Delay in the Prophetic Tradition” ZAW 94 (1982): 47-58 (53-55).
5
J. Everson, “The Days of Yahweh” JBL 93 (1974): 329-37.
6
Everson, “The Days of Yahweh”, 336.
1
155
1) The written arrangement of Joel’s oracles places Joel 2:31 after the information
about the restoration of the land (Joel 2:21-27), and this suggests that the “day” of
Joel 2:31 is a renewed crisis in the life of the nation.
2) The narrative time index is set by “And it shall come to pass afterward” (Joel
2:28), which relates to the earlier index of “Yet even now” (Joel 2:12, RSV). The
people were exhorted to “turn to the Lord” and it is “after” this that the gift of the
Spirit is promised (Joel 2:28-29) along with a prediction about a coming Day of the
Lord.
3) The vision of the sack of a city defines the Day of the Lord (Joel 2:2-9), but the
coming Day of the Lord of Joel 2:31 is associated with deliverance in Jerusalem
rather than its sacking; hence, Isaiah applies vision of the city being sacked to
Samaria.
4) The gift of the spirit engenders prophesying and visions; this suggests an
extended mission to the people of the land to call on the name of the Lord and be
delivered in Jerusalem. This missiological emphasis is different to the urgent calls
of Joel for a fast and assembly to avert the Day of the Lord in Joel 1:15 and 2:1,
and so we have a different Day of the Lord in Joel 2:31.
5) The repentance of the people (Joel 2:12-14, 18) is not said to bring about a
cancellation of the Day of the Lord; rather, Joel 2:31 implies that it was delayed
and that it was not to encompass Jerusalem.
For these reasons, (1)-(5), we take Joel 2:31 to refer to a different Day of the Lord
to that of Joel 1:15, 2:1 and 2:11. Barton sees the same difference, but he interprets
Joel 2:28-32 in eschatological terms.1 However, there is no need to interpret this
passage in eschatological terms; it is integrated with Joel 1:2-2:27 by “And it shall
come to pass afterward”—i.e. after something that has been previously mentioned,
and in which the audience has a direct interest. Once the Northern Israelite focus
of the Day of the Lord is taken into account, a plausible context of interpretation
is supplied by the events of the 730s and 720s. It is a failure to locate Joel in his
historical time-period that leads scholars to interpret his material eschatologically—
they cannot find plausible post-exilic events to match with the latter part of Joel.
The Day of the Lord is different again in Joel 3:14; whereas the Day of the Lord
concerns Israel and Judah in Joel 1 and 2, in Joel 3 it concerns the nations, and it is
a day of vengeance upon the nations. Hence, whereas a singular nation comes up
in Joel 1:6; we have the nations who come up in Joel 3:9.2 A different day is also
signaled by the narrative time index of Joel 3:1, “in those days and at that time”,
1
2
Barton, 62.
Contra Thompson, “The Use of Repetition in the Prophecy of Joel”, 104.
156
which moves the reader on in the history of the times to a different situation in
which vengeance on the part of Judah is possible. The opening backdrop to the
Day of the Lord in Joel 3 is the “turning around” of the captivity of Judah and
Jerusalem, and this is a different scene to one where deliverance in Jerusalem has
been an assurance (Joel 2:31).
6. Conclusion
In this chapter we have argued that the Day of the Lord is a crisis for Israel and
Judah. It is a concept that relates to the end of God’s people, north and south, in
the land. It is a “day” that reverses the six days of the creation that was Israel. In
this sense there are not two “days”, but the one day in which there is a return to
the darkness of the primeval chaos.
Amos relates the Day to the end of the Northern Kingdom and the fall of Samaria.
With the Assyrians in the land, Joel also sees the Day of the Lord in these terms
and as an urgent warning to Jerusalem. Hence, the oracles of Joel 1 reflect the
ravaging of Judah by Assyria; Joel’s vision of the sack of a city in Joel 2 is a
warning to Jerusalem that they should repent if they are to avoid this fate. The
fulfillment of this is averted by the people’s repentance, but the Day of the Lord
was still coming and it would still descend upon the Northern Kingdom (Joel
2:31). However, there was the possibility of deliverance in Jerusalem (not Samaria)
for all those who call upon the name of the Lord. Isaiah takes up Amos and Joel
and repeats the warning that the Day of the Lord was near for Northern Israel.
There is another Day of the Lord, but this is a “day” for the nations, a day of
recompense and vengeance wrought by Judah upon the surrounding peoples who
had waged war against her—this day is spoken of by both Joel (3:14) and Obadiah
(v. 17). This day is rhetorically characterized as an extension of the Day of the
Lord concept to apply to be “upon all nations”. This day follows upon the
deliverance of a remnant of God’s people from their Day of the Lord.
157
CHAPTER TEN
Deliverance and Restoration
1. Introduction
In terms of the flow of the oracles in the book, the oracles in Joel 2 centre on Zion
(vv. 1, 15, 32). As such they contrast with the oracles in Joel 1 which focus on
destruction in the land. The oracle units in Joel 2 are – vv. 1-9, vv. 10-11, vv. 1214, vv. 15-20, vv. 21-27, vv. 28-29, v. 30, and vv. 31-32.
The oracles in Joel 2 can be divided into two acts—vv. 1-27 and vv. 28-32. The
first act moves the situation on from that in Joel 1 because the threat of the Day of
the Lord is now close to the city. However, while the situation has naturally
developed in the land, the locust metaphor embraces more than one nation;
Assyria has co-opted local nations to their armed forces. This can be determined
from the facts: i) the people’s lament concerns the nations (Joel 2:17); ii) Yahweh’s
response is about “His land” (Joel 1:6; 2:18); and iii) the terms of the restoration
(Joel 2:21-27) reverse the conditions in the land detailed in Joel 1.1
The second “act” in Joel 2 was recognised in the rabbinical division of the book
insofar as Joel 2:28-32 was denominated as Joel 3 with the following material
denominated as Joel 4. The third act reflects a new situation after the immediate
crisis of vv. 1-11 has been met in the repentance of the people and the restoration
of the land. The act details another Day of the Lord in which there will be
deliverance in Jerusalem.
2. Dividing Oracles
The repetition of “Blow the trumpet” (vv. 1, 15) clearly demarcates two oracles.
There is a sharp change of tense (lost in the KJV) between v. 9 and v. 10 which
establishes vv. 10-11 to be a separate unit. In vv. 1-9 and vv. 10-11 there are two
descriptions associated with the Day of the Lord. These two oracles set the context
for the turning point that is the “Call to Repentance” in vv. 12-14. The expression
in v. 12 (“Yet even now”) indicates a new oracle unit that depends on the
information in the previous verses, and this reasoning extends to v. 14.
Exhortations to the priests in vv. 15-17 are justified in vv. 18-20 in a “repentanceblessing” structure that forms another oracle unit in vv. 15-20. Further assurances
are detailed in vv. 21-27 and vv. 28-29 that are also consequent upon the people
repenting. The addressee of vv. 21-27 is “the land” and this is an oracle of
restoration. The people are the addressees of vv. 28-29, a unit which is demarcated
as a unit by its inclusio of “pour out my spirit” and the textual break “and it shall
come to pass afterward”. This break distances the material in vv. 28-32 from the
1
Barton, 46.
158
restoration that has been promised. The restoration has not removed the threat of
a Day of the Lord (v. 31), but this time there is a prospect of deliverance in
Jerusalem.
3. Day of the Lord
The oracle units in Joel 2:1-11 concern a Day of the Lord which is at first coming
(v. 1) and is then happening (vv. 2-9); the first oracle announces the Day (v. 1) and
the second then describes it in visionary terms (vv. 2-9). The second oracle (vv. 1011) is from the cusp of the Day: the land has trembled (v. 10) and now the army of
the invader is encamped outside the city (v. 11). These two oracles set the scene for
the next oracle (vv. 12-14) which will be a call to repentance.
The two oracle units of vv. 1-9 and vv. 10-11 are joined in v. 1 and v. 11 by an
inclusio which mentions the Day of the Lord; however, it is important to note
significant changes in tempo and perspective between the two oracles which we
have described:
The first oracle moves from a perspective of the Day coming to the land (v. 1)
to a close up description of the action against a city (vv. 7-9). The action in the
city is described with a series of verbs in the imperfect tense and a vivid picture
is painted of happening action.
In vv. 10-11, the verbs change to the perfect tense,1 and there is an army that
has made the land tremble but who is now encamped outside the city.
There are three mentions of the Day of the Lord (vv. 1, 11, 31) and there is a
sequence to be observed in their respective oracle units. The Day of the Lord is
“near” in v.1, and the picture from v. 2 onwards is of a great people spread upon
the mountains.
Blow the trumpet in Zion; sound the alarm on my holy mountain! Let all the
inhabitants of the land tremble, for the day of the Lord is coming, it is near, a day
of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness! Like blackness there
is spread upon the mountains a great and powerful people; their like has never
been from of old, nor will be again after them through the years of all
generations. Joel 2:1-2 (RSV)
In vv. 2-9 the land is overrun and a city is breached; vv. 10-11 puts the reader in
the situation after the land has been overrun but before the breach of the city.
The earth has quaked before him; the heavens have trembled: the sun and the
moon have been darkened, and the stars have withdrawn their shining: And the
Lord has uttered his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is
1
Barton, 75.
159
strong that executeth his word: for the day of the Lord is great and very terrible;
and who can abide it? Joel 2:10-11 (KJV revised)
The perspective in v. 1 and vv. 10-11 is not the same: in v. 1, from the point of
view of Zion, the invader is not in the immediate environs of Jerusalem; in vv. 1011 the invader is “out there” upon the mountains of Judah and encamped. This
arrangement dramatizes the vision of the prophet in vv. 2-9 of the land being
overrun and a city being sacked by the invader, but it is important to note that v. 1
and vv. 10-11 are set at different times in the progress of the invasion:1 in v.1 the
invader has had some effect in the borders of the land, but there are still
inhabitants of the land who fear his coming to them; vv. 2-9 describe the Day of
the Lord in the land and in the city; and vv. 10-11 pictures the invader encamped
outside the city.
The people of Zion repented and the Day of the Lord was forestalled for
Jerusalem. The vision of the city being sacked is ambiguous as to its identity and it
could have been Jerusalem. As events turned out, it was not to be a vision of
Jerusalem; it was to be Samaria. Joel subsequently offers a picture of deliverance in
Jerusalem rather than the sack of that city:
The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great
and the terrible day of the Lord come. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever
shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in
Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, even with the survivors
whom the Lord shall call. Joel 2:31 (KJV revised)
The use of Joel 2 in Isaiah 13 shows that the Day of the Lord was still to come
upon the Northern Kingdom (Isa 13:6, 9-10; cf. Amos 5:18-20), and this fact is restated in v. 31. Zion was warned in Joel’s vision about an overrun land and the
sacking of a city, but Jerusalem turned to the Lord. However, the Day of the Lord
was not averted for the northern tribes. There would be deliverance in Jerusalem
for those survivors whom the Lord would call from the northern tribes. Joel’s
mention of “survivors” and “deliverance” shows that a Day of the Lord was
coming, but it would now not encompass Jerusalem.
3.1 Blow the Trumpet
The trumpet is to be blown in Jerusalem, and it is reasonable to picture Joel in the
market-place or temple court declaring this word of the Lord. He speaks in the
first person for Yahweh, who describes Zion as “my holy mountain”. A similar
declaration would be made to the northern tribes (Hos 5:8, “cry aloud”, “blow the
trumpet”). The cry has a note of urgency; Zion is under threat (Amos 3:6), and the
inhabitants of the land should tremble. The note that the inhabitants of the land
should tremble betrays the timing of the command to blow the trumpet. The
1
Barton, 75.
160
invader is not in the immediate environs of Jerusalem but he is about to come
near: the day is coming when he will overrun the land.
3.2 Day of Darkness
Joel describes the Day of the Lord as a “day of darkness and gloom, a day of
clouds and thick darkness” (RSV) and this introduces a theophanic aspect to the
Day. The term for “thick darkness” (lpr[) is used for Yahweh’s theophanic
presence (Exod 20:21; Deut 4:11; 5:22; 2 Sam 22:10; 1 Kgs 8:10; 2 Chron 6:1; Job
22:13; Ps 18:10). The RSV has “a day of clouds and thick darkness” but the
Hebrew is singular, “cloud”, and could be “a day of a cloud and thick darkness”.
This would be consistent with the theophanic overtone as Yahweh is often said to
be present in a cloud (e.g. Exod 13:21; 16:10; Num 9:15; Deut 5:22).
The parallelism, “a day of darkness and gloom, a day of a cloud and thick
darkness”, might suggest equivalence between “darkness and gloom” and “cloud
and thick darkness”. However, the term for “gloom” has a strong overtone of lack
of direction: the metaphor is “walking in gloom”:
Therefore is judgment far from us, neither doth justice overtake us: we wait for
light, but behold obscurity; for brightness, but we walk in darkness. Isa 59:9
(KJV)
The term occurs 10x and the following texts carry the overtone of directionless
action—Deut 28:29; Prov 4:19; Isa 8:22; Isa 58:10; Jer 23:12. Accordingly, we can
say that the Day of the Lord is not only a day in which God will manifest his
presence; it is day in which men will not know which way to turn. Joel’s language
may be meteorological, but the import is metaphorical: the Day of the Lord might
literally be a day of storm but it is more a day of decisive action by Yahweh.
3.3 A Great people
The NASB best renders the Hebrew of v. 2b as the beginning of a separate
sentence, insofar as it marks the beginning of the visionary description with a
preposition of appearance—“as” (k),
As the dawn is spread over the mountains, So there is a great and mighty people;
There has never been anything like it, Nor will there be again after it To the years
of many generations. Joel 2:2bc (NASB)
The language of vision is the language of appearance rather than metaphor; a
comparison with Ezekiel’s famous vision will highlight this point.1 Thus, while
scholars talk of a locust metaphor in vv. 2-9, this is strictly inaccurate: Joel sees an
event in rapidly changing guises: locusts, horsemen, horses, as well as people.
1
Sweeney, 163.
161
Joel 2
like (k, vv. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9)
as the appearance (harmk, v. 4)
likeness (twmd, Isa 13:4)
Ezekiel 1
like (k, vv. 4, 7, 13, 16, 24)
as the appearance (harmk, vv. 14, 26, 27)
likeness (twmd v. 4)
We can treat the whole of vv. 2b-9 as visionary description because Joel is
describing what he is seeing, even when he describes what the great people will do
to a city and the land (vv. 5-9).
The KJV and NASB have “morning/dawn” for the Hebrew rxv, whereas the RSV
re-points the Hebrew to give “blackness”. The Hebrew is not difficult; the
difference among the translations arises because it is easier for commentators to fit
“blackness” with darkness and gloom rather than “dawn” in a description of the
Day of the Lord. However, juxtaposition of contrary images, the “darkness” and
the “dawn”, is the received text and one that is supported by the ancient versions
(LXX, Targum). An echo with Isaiah confirms this reading,
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut
down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Isa 14:12 (KJV)
This is a description of the king of Babylon (Isa 14:4), who was Tiglath-Pileser at
the time of the oracle, and recently crowned king of Babylon. The figure is
consistent with Joel’s picture of the Assyrian confederacy spread as the morning
across the mountains of Israel/Judah.
There is also an echo, this time ironic, with Deut 7:1 and the “seven nations greater
and stronger” than Israel whom they were to drive out from the land. The echo in
Joel is ironic because a “great and strong” people were poised to drive Israel and
Judah out of the land.1
With v. 1 having declared that the Day of the Lord is near, v. 2b onwards more
precisely describes that day as a day in which a great people is spread upon the
mountains. This location of “the mountains” needs to be distinguished from Joel
3:14 where it is stated that “the Day of the Lord is near in the Valley of Decision”.
This is another Day of the Lord, one for the nations and it is centred in a valley;
here the Day of the Lord announced in v. 1 is near for Judah and presented in
vision in v. 2b-9.
The Day of the Lord is said to be unique—“their like has never been from of old,
nor will be again after them through the years of many generations” (v. 2, RSV
revised). In the history of Israel and Judah, such a claim to uniqueness is a natural
1
Jones, 155.
162
response to any time in the 730s and 720s. These decades saw, for the first time,
the arrival of the Assyrians in the West. Under the aggressive empire building
policies of Tiglath-Pileser, Assyria rolled down into the Syro-Palestinian landbridge with a devastating war machine made up of its conquered peoples, and with
a policy of conquest and re-settlement of indigenous peoples. The size of the army,
its resources, and its ruthlessness are well documented in the Assyrian propaganda
of Tiglath-Pileser’s annals.
This phenomenon is of a different scale to the wars that Israel and Judah had
fought with its neighbours and different again to the incursions of Egypt in
previous centuries. In terms of the purpose of God, the Assyrians were the
instrument by which God would remove the northern tribes (and possibly Judah)
from the land. An oracle would aptly describe this threat as a coming Day of the
Lord, but the question remains as to at what point in the history of the times such
an oracle might have been delivered.
The difference between Isaiah 13 and Joel 2 is that Isaiah’s Day of the Lord is set
within a “Burden of Babylon” and it leads to an exile of the people; there is no
restoration of the land. Here in Joel 2, the prospect of the Day of the Lord is
averted by repentance and there ensues a restoration of the land. What is avoided
in Joel is fulfilled in the terms of Isaiah’s “Burden of Babylon”. This difference
establishes that Isaiah is quoting Joel and applying the language of Joel’s vision of the
Day of the Lord to the successful Assyrian conquest of Northern Israel.
Assyria came into the Syro-Palestinian area as early as 742, but its armies did not
roll south down the coast until 735-734. At this time Israel and Judah were
affected, but Judah were preserved from a change of monarchy, while TiglathPileser placed Hoshea on the throne in Samaria in 732. In 728-727 Tiglath-Pileser
returned to Damascus and threatened Israel and Judah; he died in the field and was
succeeded by Shalmaneser V, who began a siege of Samaria that lasted three years
until its capture. The years 725-722 saw the Assyrian army in the north but not, as
yet, in Judah. With Shalmaneser’s demise in 722, the capture of Samaria was
completed by Sargon II who afterwards returned to attend matters of state in the
East. It is this decade (720s) that saw Isaiah take up Joel’s words and prophesy the
destruction of the Northern Kingdom using the terms of Joel’s vision. With the
exile of the northern tribes, the terms of Joel’s vision were literally fulfilled—“to
the years of many generations” (Joel 2:2).1
The terms of Joel’s vision cannot relate to any actual assault on Jerusalem in the eighth century;
the vision could only have an application to Jerusalem if it depicted the sack of Jerusalem in 587.
1
163
3.4 Fire and Flame
Sweeney observes that fire and flame are figures for the destruction wrought by an
invader (cf. Isa 5:24),1 and this seems by far a better interpretation than one that
attributes such effects to literal locusts:
A fire devoureth before them; and behind them a flame burneth: the land is as
the garden of Eden before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness; yea, and
nothing shall escape them. Joel 2:3 (KJV)
The same two figures are used in Joel 1:19,
O Lord, to thee will I cry: for the fire hath devoured the pastures of the
wilderness, and the flame hath burned all the trees of the field. Joel 1:19 (KJV)
We have already noted that this text could denote “slash and burn” by armies in
the field. It is significant that “fire and flame” is the description of Judah’s revenge
on Assyria (Isa 10:17) and Edom (Obad v. 18).
Jones observes2 that v. 3 continues the theophanic overtone of v. 2, and he cites
Psalm 97:
Clouds and thick darkness surround Him; Righteousness and justice are the
foundation of His throne. Fire goes before Him And burns up His adversaries
round about. Ps 97:2-3 (NASB)
This psalm can be dated to the eighth century3 and the deliverance of Jerusalem
and Judah in 701, and as such it echoes and reverses Joel’s earlier theophanic
description of the Assyrian confederacy.
3.5 Horses
It is in v. 4 that it is most apparent that Joel is recording a vision:
Their appearance is like the appearance of horses, and like war horses they run.
Joel 2:4 (RSV)
This statement would not make sense if Joel was literally describing an army:
cavalry is comprised of horses (sic) and not something “like” horses. This
observation is the basis of Barton’s contention that Joel 2:2-9 describes a literal
locust plague as an army rather than a literal army.4 However, v. 2 does not
mention locusts—just a great people, and v. 4 is the language of vision rather than
1
Sweeney, 1:163.
Jones, 156.
3
Booker, Psalms Studies, 2:570-573.
4
Barton, 44; see also Thompson, “Joel’s Locusts”, 52-55.
2
164
metaphor. It is not a locust that is being thought of as a horse, but a people being
seen in vision as horses.
3.6 Chariots
Joel’s visionary language mixes seemingly opposing images: chariots are the
machine of warfare for the valley and the plain rather than the mountain or hill;
further it is not the chariots that are said to “leap” but the noise:
Like the noise of chariots on the tops of mountains shall they leap, like the noise
of a flame of fire that devoureth the stubble, as a strong people set in battle array.
Joel 2:5 (KJV)
Joel picks up the noun and adjective combination “strong (~wc[) people” from v. 2
along with the comparative descriptor “as/like”: the Day of the Lord is like a
strong people set in battle array. Jeremiah may well allude to Joel’s description,
Thus saith the Lord, Behold, a people cometh from the north country, and a
great nation shall be raised from the sides of the earth. They shall lay hold on
bow and spear; they are cruel, and have no mercy; their voice roareth like the sea;
and they ride upon horses, set in array as men for war against thee, O daughter of
Zion. Jer 6:22-23 (KJV)
The lexical links with Jeremiah are “people”, “voice/noise”, “horses”, “array”,
“battle/war” and the comparative descriptor “as/like”—and so we have “as men
arrayed for battle”.1 Jeremiah’s allusion is apposite because what happened for
Samaria and what was threatened for Jerusalem in Joel’s day came to fruition in
Jeremiah’s time.2
3.7 Faces
The people will be in “anguish/pain” (lyx, Joel 2:6, NASB, RSV), and the word is
used typically for situations of battle as well as childbirth (Mic 4:10). Isaiah uses it
of the description of the demise of the Northern Kingdom (Isa 13:8). Joel’s
bicolon is set around a pun of “faces” which is preserved in the KJV,
Before their face the people shall be much pained: all faces shall gather blackness.
Joel 2:6 (KJV)
The note of faces gathering blackness is picked up and quoted in Nah 2:11,
She [Nineveh, v. 8] is empty, and void, and waste: and the heart melteth, and the
knees smite together, and much pain is in all loins, and the faces of them all
gather blackness. Nah 2:11 (KJV)
Jeremiah varies “as a strong people” in Joel to “as men”.
For reasons that will be detailed when we discuss Joel 2:20, “the northerner”, we do not include
“from the north country” as part of Jeremiah’s allusion to Joel.
1
2
165
This direction of quotation is certain because what happens to Assyria is what
happened to Samaria.
Joel’s assertion is literally “Before him/it peoples will be in anguish” and the “it” is
a pronominal reference to the strong people set in battle array (v. 5). Allen
insightfully notes1 that the Hebrew construction, “before him/it…fear/be in
anguish” is derived from Psa 96:9,
O worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness: fear before him, all the earth. Ps
96:9 (KJV)
The connection is strengthened by the tonal equivalence between “all the earth”
and “peoples”. While the primary reference of “him/it” is the people in battle
array, there is a secondary reference to the presence of Yahweh in this army, before
which the peoples of the earth will be in fear. This was an army that Yahweh
“sent” (Joel 2:11, 25) and in which there was manifest the theophanic tokens of
clouds and thick darkness (Joel 2:2). The peoples that will be in anguish are those
that will suffer the fate outlined in the vision: not only Jerusalem and Samaria, but
any city of the Levant.2
3.8 Mighty Men upon the Wall
The Jerusalemites in the older part of the city would look down from their higher
wall and see the raids.
They run like mighty men, They climb the wall like soldiers; And they each march
in line, Nor do they deviate3 from their paths. Joel 2:7 (NASB)
The seemingly ad hoc reference to “the wall” is explained in an eighth century
context because an outer wall was constructed during this period.
3.9 The City
In v. 9 a city comes into view,
They shall rush (qqv) at the city; they shall run upon the wall, they shall climb up
upon the houses; they shall enter in at the windows like a thief. Joel 2:9 (KJV
revised)
The city is not explicitly identified, but the context requires that it could be
Jerusalem (v. 1). Joel is in Zion and proclaiming his vision in its market-places.
1
Allen, 72.
Contra Jones, 157, who attributes the anguish of the nations to their seeing the salvation of
Zion.
3
C. F. Whitley, “‛bt in Joel 2:7” Biblica 65 (1984): 101-102.
2
166
This is why the city is unidentified; the hearers know that he is potentially talking
about the city in which he and they stand.
The KJV has “run to and from in the city” but “at the city” is just as possible for
the Hebrew preposition (b). The verb “run to and fro” is not common (6x, qqv)
and it is significant that it occurs in Isaiah in oracles that stem from the Assyrian
invasion of 701:
As when a hungry man dreams he is eating and awakes with his hunger not
satisfied, or as when a thirsty man dreams he is drinking and awakes faint, with
his thirst not rushing (qqv), so shall the multitude of all the nations be that fight
against Mount Zion. Isa 29:8 (RSV revised)
Your spoil is gathered as the caterpillar gathers; As locusts rushing about men
rush about on it. Isa 33:4 (NASB)1
The two comparisons here are, first, that after the decimation of the Assyrians,
their sudden passing will make their presence seem like only the dream of a rushing
(raging) thirst—the echo with Joel is apposite: the Assyrian confederacy of 701
“rushed” through Judah to Jerusalem; and secondly, when the Jerusalemites gather
the spoil of the Assyrian camp, they will be like rushing locusts—an intentional
ironic reversal of Joel’s Assyrian locusts.2
4. Heavens and Earth
In Joel 2:10, a statement is made about the sun, moon and stars alongside a
statement about the “the shaking and trembling of the heavens and earth”.3 While
this language could be literal and denote coincident earth tremors and heavenly
thunder,4 it is more probable that Joel speaks in metaphorical terms of “the
heavens and earth”.
The metaphorical sense of “the earth” is plain: the earth or land shakes/trembles
(zgr) but “land” here is a metonymy for the “inhabitants of the land” and their
1
Other uses of the verb are Ps 107:9; Prov 28:15; Nah 2:5.
The focus upon a city in Joel 2:1-11 is one reason why the locust imagery is of an invader rather
than a literal plague of locusts: locusts do not do their worst damage in cities. The mention of
houses is another allusion to the Exodus account of the plague of locusts which also affected the
houses (Exod 10:6).
3
See T. Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976), 15-17, 121124, 232, and J. Black and A. Green, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Mesopotamia (London: British
Museum Press, 1992), 135, 184.
4
The “shaking of heaven” motif is found in the Erra Epic: Marduk states, “When I left my
dwelling, the regulation of heaven and earth disintegrated; the shaking of heaven meant the
positions of the heavenly bodies changed, nor did I restore them”—cited in F. Rochberg, The
Heavenly Writing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 200.
2
167
trembling (zgr, Joel 2:1).1 Joel is using a political figure of speech for the fear and
chaos in a land facing an invading army. It is less apparent how “the heavens” is a
metaphor, but one clue is the associated verb: the heavens tremble/shake (30x,
v[r) and such trembling is often predicated of peoples and nations (Isa 14:16; Jer
8:16; 10:10; Ezek 26:15; 31:16; Hag 2:7, 21). A natural suggestion is that “peoples
and nations” is the sense of the metaphor, but if the “land” comprises the
inhabitants of the land, a better proposal is that “the heavens” represent Jerusalem.
The sense of the metaphor is one of spiritual/political rulership and direction;2 it is
a metaphor of the place from where the people in the land (the earth) are
governed. Isaiah offers several examples of the metaphor:
1) The darkening of the sun, moon and stars is consonant with the blackening of
the heavens:
...and the light is darkened in the heavens thereof... Isa 5:30 (KJV)
I clothe the heavens with blackness... Isa 50:3 (KJV)
...no knowledge...no light...the heavens above be black... Jer 4:23, 28 (KJV)
These texts refer to the darkening of Judah’s court and temple prophets, those that
advised the king on matters of state. The darkening of the heavens is figurative for
the failure of prophecy:
Therefore you shall have night without vision, and you shall have darkness without divination; the sun shall go down on the prophets, and the day shall be dark
for them... Mic 3:6 (KJV)3
The idea of darkness takes us back to the primeval chaos of the earth when it was
without form and void. The lights of heaven are withdrawn and the earth is
plunged back into darkness: “darkness was upon the face of the deep”.
If the lights of heaven are withdrawn, then this chaos is what we would expect —
the seas (nations) would be covered with darkness. But in addition to this, if
darkness is upon the face of the deep, the earth is likely to be also covered by the
deep. The waters have overflowed the earth and it is no longer distinguishable
from the waters. The waters of the earth are often used as figures of destruction.
This is the state of affairs when Israel are scattered. This happened at the time of
The word “tremble” is often used for the trembling of the people in the face of an enemy—e.g.
Isa 14:16; 64:2; Jer 50:34; Amos 8:8; Mic 7:17 (RSV); Hab 3:7, 16. More or less all texts (cf. Ps
77:18) that use the word do so in relation to the behaviour of people.
2
In a theocracy, politics and religion are bound.
3
See Isa 29:10.
1
168
Assyrian and Babylonian captivities and it also happened at the time of Roman
destruction of the land in 70 C.E.
2) A number of passages make Jerusalem the place of God’s throne, and we can
extend the simile of God sitting upon a throne so that the land becomes God’s
footstool (Isa 66:1). For example, the mention of heaven in the following passage
embraces Zion:
How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger, [and]
cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel, and remembered not
his footstool in the day of his anger! Lam 2:1 (KJV)
Jerusalem is the “beauty of Israel” (cf. Lam 2:15), and she is cast down from
heaven to the earth, and the footstool of God is also forgotten. The language
evokes the Serpent being cast down to the earth after the fall (Lam 2:2). And this
parallelism places the city in a garden-heaven. The tragedy is that the nation which
should have been a kingdom of priests over the kings (beasts) of the earth is
forgotten, and the city which should have been the place of God’s dwelling is itself
cast out from heaven and made subject to the beasts of the earth and the fowls of
the heaven. Nevertheless, Isaiah describes a time when “the place” of God’s
sanctuary will be “beautified” (i.e. become the beauty of Israel - a woman), and ‘the
place’ of God’s feet (the land) will be glorious (Isa 60:13).
The language of “casting down” is used for those who aspired to be “in heaven” or
possess “heaven and earth”. The Assyrian king of Babylon is described in this
language:
...Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground...For thou
hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven,1 I will exalt my throne above
the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides
of the north... Isa 14:12-13 (KJV) cf. Isa 14:25; Ps 48:2
The desire to ascend to “heaven” is equivalent to the desire to sit at Jerusalem and
be upon the mount of the congregation. This is where God was recognised to
dwell:
A glorious high throne from the beginning [is] the place of our sanctuary. Jer
17:12 (KJV)
When God executes his judgments, he will “call to the heavens from above and to
the earth” (Ps 50:4; cf. Deut 32:1). God’s position is above these heavens and the
earth, and this shows that these are the typical heavens and earth that comprise
1
The tower of Babel connects here: the tower was for the chief prince to reach unto heaven
(Gen 11:4).
169
Jerusalem and the land. At this time He gathers his saints to Zion (Ps 50:5) and in
consequence ‘the heavens’ now declare the righteousness of God (Ps 50:6) to ‘the
earth’ (Israel) who are invited to repent (Ps 50:15).
3) In the wilderness the people were organised in a hierarchy. There were elders of
the tribes and officers (Num 11:12). These were gathered from time to time to
listen to Moses. One such occasion was Moses’ delivery of his last address
(Deuteronomy 32).
Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak
these words in their ears...And Moses spake in the ears of all the congregation of
Israel the words of this song, until they were ended. Give ear, O ye heavens, and
I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. Deut 31:28-32:1 (KJV)
Here we have two groups “elders and officers” and “tribes” who constitute the
nation. Moses speaks in their ears and addresses them as “heavens” and “earth”.
Here Israel is addressed as “heavens” and “earth” and the song goes on to
celebrate Israel’s creation. The same refrain is found in Isaiah’s opening chapter in
an echo of Moses’ song,
Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the Lord hath spoken...Hear the
words of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom; give unto the law of our God, ye people
of Gomorrah. Isa 1:2, 101
What is interesting in this formulation is the juxtaposition of heaven and earth with
Sodom and Gomorrah. Here the correlation is between rulers and heavens, and people
and earth.
Again, Ezra, in his prayer of repentance, recognizes that the failure of the people to
remain separate from surrounding nations extended to the Priests and Levites, and
consequently it was a trespass which had reached into the (typical) heavens (Ezra
9:6)—the leaders in Jerusalem.
Zophar’s “hypocrite”—a leader in Jerusalem—sought to reach the “heavens” and
the “clouds” (Job 20:6). This vaulting ambition resounds with the boast of
Shalmaneser V, “For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven …I
will ascend above the heights of the clouds” (Isa 14:13-14). In this prophecy, Isaiah
predicts the fall of the Assyrian king upon the mountains of Judah (Isa 14:25), and
he does this at a time when the then proud Assyrian “king of Babylon”, was
destroying the Northern Kingdom.
1
This form of address to groups and classes is found in a number of places, e.g.
Jud 5:3; Ps 78:1.
170
When the spiritual leaders of Jerusalem are the “heavens” and the “earth” (or
“land”) is the people, there is a third group—the world or nations. This is because
the people are functioning as a typical “earth” representing the proper response to
God and, by example, showing the nations how they should respond:
Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice: and let men say among the
nations, The Lord reigneth. 1 Chron 16:31 (KJV)
Here the “heavens” are glad and the earth rejoices, and by their example, the
nations accurately observe that “The Lord reigneth”.
It is difficult to know when the metaphorical heavens are meant, so for example,
the Psalmist exhorts, “Let the heavens declare the glory of God” (Ps 19:1) which is
equally applicable to the Temple as to the natural order. Or again, Ps 89:5 states,
“And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O Lord: thy faithfulness also in the
congregation of the saints”. The parallelism suggests “the heavens” is “the
congregation of the saints”.
As a final example, we may note that Job concludes his reply to Bildad with an
assertion about Leviathan:
By his Spirit the heavens will be made fair; his hand has pierced the fleeing
serpent. Job 26:13 (RSV revised)
In that day the Lord with his hard and great and strong sword will punish
Leviathan the fleeing1 serpent… Isa 27:1 (RSV)
The echo here is to God’s piercing of Rahab (Isa 51:9) and an expectation that
God will pierce Leviathan, spoken as if it had already happened. At the same time,
the “heavens” (the Temple priests) will be made “fair” through a bestowal of the
Spirit.
4) The Day of the Lord is linked with the shaking of the heavens:
Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in
the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger. Isa 13:13 (KJV)
cf. Isa 13:6
The use of the verb “shaking” is a clear indication of a metaphor at work and that
‘the heavens’ in this text are not the literal heavens. The metaphor is one of
political turmoil and war in the Day of the Lord. Elsewhere the word is translated
as ‘trembling’:
1
Only Isaiah and Job use this word.
171
...[saying, Is] this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms... Isa 14:16 (KJV)
He has stretched His hand out over the sea, He has made the kingdoms tremble;
The Lord has given a command concerning Canaan to demolish its strongholds.
Isa 23:11 (NASB)
The political and military sense of “trembling” or “shaking” is clear in these texts,
but the reference is sometimes “kingdoms”, sometimes “earth”, as well as “the
heavens”.1
In Isa 13:6, the earth is removed out of its place, and the image denotes the
captivity of the Northern Kingdom (Isa 13:9, 14; 14:1). The heavens tremble but
are not removed, and this reflects the fear in Judah and in Jerusalem at the time of
the Assyrian siege of Samaria (725-722). Isaiah 13 quotes Joel 2 extensively and the
topic is the same—the Day of the Lord—but an earlier Day of the Lord in the
history of Israel and Judah. Joel describes the threat that Assyria posed to Israel
and Judah in the days of Tiglath-Pileser (735-734). The earth (or the land) quaked
before him and the heavens (Jerusalem and the ruling class) trembled.
In a further prophecy of the destruction of the land of Israel in the times of
Hezekiah, it is stated:
...though the earth be removed...the city of God shall not be moved...the
kingdoms were moved...the earth melted...what desolations he hath made in the
earth. Ps 46:2-6 (KJV)
...the mountains are carried into the midst of the sea...the waters thereof roar and
[are] troubled... the mountains shake... Ps 46:2-3 (KJV)
Here the prophecy is one where the earth is removed, and one which states that
the surrounding mountains (nations) are carried away into the midst of the sea, but
Jerusalem is a haven of safety. The heavens are not mentioned, but they are
implied; they are secure even though they are shaken and they tremble, but God is
in the midst of Jerusalem.
5) Prophecies also describe the “removal” of the heavens. For example, in the
aftermath of the siege of Jerusalem in 701, Judah wrought a campaign against the
surrounding nations that had joined Assyria and in particular Edom.
The distinction between Israel and the nations is captured in this way in Isaiah 34:
Come near ye nations; and hearken, ye people; let the earth hear, and all that is
therein; the world, and all things that come forth of it. Isa 34:1 (KJV)
1
Hell also—Isa 14:9.
172
This opening to a declaration of war is uttered in the year of recompense for the
controversy of Zion (Isa 34:8), which is the year after the siege of 701. During this
year, certain things would occur because God was angry with the nations round
about Judah (Isa 34:2). Their slain are also going to be cast out, just as the slain of
Judah were cast out by the Assyrian confederacy during 701 (Isa 34:3).
However, while there is this declaration against the nations, Isaiah uses the
metaphor of “the heavens” to castigate those in Jerusalem that had not sought the
Lord in the days of crisis, but had instead consulted the seers and the diviners:
And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled
together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from
the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree. Isa 34:4 (KJV)
The clue to the meaning of this utterance lies in the unusual figure, “the heavens
shall be rolled together as a scroll”. These are not the literal heavens but the
Judahite diviners and seers associated with the temple in Jerusalem, those who
consulted the heavens, referencing the scrolls that listed the political and military
predictions that ought to be given on the basis of what happened to the sun, moon
and stars and the clouds.
The expression “all host of heaven” is an ironic metaphor for the diviners and
seers, one that alludes to the only other occurrence of the phrase in Deut 4:19,
And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and
the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to
worship them, and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath divided unto all
nations under the whole heaven. Deut 4:19 (KJV)
The prophetic invective in Isaiah’s use of the phrase substitutes the diviners as one
‘host’ for the actual ‘host’ that they served and the pronouncement is that they will
be dissolved. The further description of these diviners and seers as falling leaves
echoes the condemnation in Isa 1:27-30 which addresses the sinners and
transgressors in Jerusalem.1
The Hebrew word which the KJV translates as ‘dissolved’ is better rendered
‘wear/rot away’ (NASB) and the sense of this word is supplied in an echo with Lev
26:39:
So those of you who may be left will rot away because of their iniquity in the
lands of your enemies; and also because of the iniquities of their forefathers they
will rot away with them. Lev 26:39 (NASB) cf. Ezek 4:17; 33:10
1
See also Ps 1:3; Prov 11:28; Isa 64:6; Jer 8:13.
173
The diviners would rot away in exile. The idea of the rotting away of those who
opposed Hezekiah is given a different expression in Isa 50:9,
Behold, the Lord God will help me; who is he that shall condemn me? lo, they all
shall wax old as a garment; the moth shall eat them up. Isa 50:3 (KJV)
And the Hezekiah Psalm 102 makes the same point:
Mine enemies reproach me all the day; and they that are mad against me are
sworn against me…They1 shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them
shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall
be changed… Ps 102:8, 26 (KJV)
The same point is again being made, but expressed differently in Isa 51:6,
Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the
heavens shall vanish away like smoke2… Isa 51:63 (KJV)
Alongside the removal of “the heavens” in Hezekiah’s day, there was to be a
campaign against Edom:
For my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens; behold, it descends for judgment
upon Edom, upon the people I have doomed. Isa 34:5 (RSV)
The sword of the Lord was God’s weapon of vengeance (Deut 32:42), and it had
drunk its fill around Zion (the heavens) in the decimation of the Assyrian army; it
would now take vengeance upon Edom.
6) With the removal of “the heavens”, Isaiah also prophesies a “new heavens”:
And I have put my words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow
of mine hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth,
and say unto Zion, Thou art my people. Isa 51:16 (KJV)
Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness:
let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring
up together; I the Lord have created it. Isa 45:8 (KJV)
For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be
remembered, nor come into mind. Isa 65:17 (KJV)
This pronoun connects with the other group in the psalm – Hezekiah’s enemies and not the
heavens and earth that the Lord has established (v. 25). For a full analysis, see A. Perry Before He
Was Born (2nd ed.; Sunderland: Willow Publications, 2007), 126-142.
2 The target here might be the use of smoke in divination.
3 These men are also likened to the earth that waxes old.
1
174
I will take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the Lord. For as the new
heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the
Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain... Isa 66:21-22 (KJV)
Isaiah 66 juxtaposes the re-institution of priests and Levites with the introduction
of the new heavens and the new earth. At this time there will be a ‘house’ of the
Lord (Isa 66:20) in which worship will be offered by the nation. In Isaiah 65 we
read of a lifting of the sorrow of childbirth, an enjoyment of the work of the
hands, the curse remaining upon sinners, the days of life as long as the days of a
tree, and the Serpent eating dust (cf. Mic 7:17).
The above examples, (1)-(6), illustrate a metaphorical use of “the heavens” to refer
to Jerusalem, Zion and those who ruled over the land, both spiritual and political.1
5. Sun, Moon and Stars
The first mention of “cosmic” or “celestial” happenings associated with the Day of
the Lord is in Joel 2:10 and related material is found in Joel 2:31/3:15. Rather than
split our discussion of the “Sun, Moon and Stars”, we will carry out our main
analysis here and only summarize our conclusions when we look at Joel 2:31 and
3:15, noting any further points in those places that arise out of their context. The
three texts are,
The earth has quaked before him; the heavens have trembled: the sun and the
moon have been darkened, and the stars have gathered their shining… Joel 2:10
(KJV revised)
The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great
and the terrible day of the Lord come. Joel 2:31 (KJV)
The sun and the moon have been darkened, and the stars have gathered their
shining. Joel 3:15 (KJV revised)
It is useful to register a change in the tempo at this point in Joel 2. The Day of the
Lord has been described in detail in vv. 2-9, with the action progressively nearer to
and then in the city. Then in v. 10 there is a change to the perspective: the great
people have been out there shaking the earth/land and making the heavens
tremble. This sums up the situation that has resulted from the fulfillment of the
first part of Joel’s vision (vv. 2-6). Having described in visionary terms what the
Day of the Lord will be for the land and the city in vv. 2-9, vv. 10-11 state the
crisis for the city— the invading army is encamped in the immediate environs of
the city. This change of perspective means that the sun, moon and stars are
elements that have been about the Day of the Lord.2
Another eighth century example is Hos 2:23-24, a text which speaks “the heavens” responding
to the Lord when he restores the land and the people.
2
Mason, 99, notes that the signs in the sun, moon and stars accompany the Day of the Lord, but
equally they may presage the Day of the Lord.
1
175
The question arises as to what this celestial language means. Crenshaw1 canvases
the various suggestions that have been made: the darkening of the sky is due to the
great number of locusts, a literal earthquake, a cosmic shaking of the heavenly
realm, or a solar eclipse; and he accounts for the moon being turned to blood with
such ideas as the raging fires of burning cities, dust rising to the sky, or
sandstorms. Barton takes a similar approach, adding the idea of a lunar eclipse to
the mix.2 The main explanatory proposals for the darkening here are: i) dense
locust swarms; ii) storm clouds; iii) wind-driven sandstorms; and iv) lunar and solar
eclipses. How stars withdraw their shining is a neglected question in commentaries.
5.1 Locusts
Commentators who believe that Joel 1 and 2 is about a natural locust plague
interpret the “cosmic” happenings in phenomenological terms. Allen, following his
locusts reading, affirms that “the earthquake is probably based on the visual effect
of the locusts covering the ground” and the “idea of preternatural light is suggested
by their flight”;3 Allen does not discuss the text further. The suggestion is that
great swarms of locusts will look like the earth moving when on the ground and as
swarm-clouds they will block out the light and make the heavens shimmer.
However, there are objections to this interpretation. Barton usefully observes that
the text states that the earth quakes before him or it, raising the question of why a
singular form is used if it is locusts that cause the earth to quake,4 although he also
tends towards the “locust-cloud” reading.5 Crenshaw also notes this indeterminate
pronoun in the text and doubts whether the natural effects of a locust swarm
would give rise to the kind of cosmic language we have in v. 10.6 These are decisive
objections to the locust interpretation.
5.2 Storm Clouds
Barton suggests that the v. 10 denotes “meteorological changes that attend
YHWH’s visitation of the earth”.7 Crenshaw takes a similar line, seeing v. 10 as a
theophanic description.8 He compares Joel to Isaiah,
Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in
the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger. Isa 13:13 (KJV)
1
Crenshaw, 15-16, 168.
Barton, 97-98.
3
Allen, 74; Hubbard, 56-57; Crenshaw, 15; Driver, 48-49; Thompson, 746.
4
Barton, 74.
5
Barton, 46.
6
Crenshaw, 126.
7
Barton, 74.
8
Crenshaw, 126-127.
2
176
The theophanic argument is that the Day of the Lord is all about Yahweh’s
visitation to the earth (cf. Nah 1:5). However, while theophanic manifestation is
naturally associated with “clouds and thick darkness” (Joel 2:2; cf. Exod 20:21; 2
Sam 22:10; Zeph 1:15), this proposal does not explain why Joel does not have the
“clouds and thick darkness” motif in v. 10, and instead has a “sun, moon and
stars” element. The proposal assumes a causal link between clouds and thick
darkness and the darkness of the sun, moon and stars, but “cause and effect” is
not the explanatory requirement of the text: v. 10 needs to have its verbs “to grow
dark” and “withdraw/gather shining” explained. The theophanic argument is
masquerading as an explanation; climatic conditions are not the reference in Joel’s
language.
5.3 Wind-Driven Sandstorms
Sweeny promotes the wind-driven sandstorm reading. He avers, “a strong dry
desert wind…that blows in from the desert at times of seasonal transition in
Israel…These winds can be very destructive as they reach high velocities, and they
frequently blow a great deal of dust and debris that blocks out the sun, thus
darkening the land and causing the moon to appear as a deep red”.1 This
meteorological proposal suffers from the same weaknesses as the storm-cloud
explanation.
5.4 Solar and Lunar Eclipses
Solar and lunar eclipses are also commonly proposed for the darkening of the sun
and the moon. F. R. Stephenson documents the characteristics of solar and lunar
eclipses and argues that Joel denotes total eclipses and is thus writing in the fourth
century B.C.E.2 As Stephenson notes,3 a total eclipse of the sun is appropriately
described as “the sun shall be turned to darkness”, although it is also not
unreasonable to take this as a description of a partial eclipse of the sun.4 A total
eclipse of the moon is appropriately described as the moon being “turned to
blood” (Joel 2:31), because when the moon enters the earth’s shadow, light is
refracted through the earth’s atmosphere and this illuminates the moon giving it a
reddish colour. This explanation of the description of the sun and moon is
promising, but it offers nothing for the description of the stars.
5.5 Divination
In sum, there are difficulties with the first three of the above proposals, and the
fourth requires supplementing with an account of the practise of celestial
divination. The difficulties are,
Sweeny, “The Place and Function of Joel in the Book of the Twelve”, 145.
F. R. Stephenson, “The Date of the Book of Joel”, VT 19 (1969): 226-229.
3
Stephenson, “The Date of the Book of Joel”, 226.
4
Only two total eclipses were visible in Israel and Judah from Jerusalem between 1130-310
B.C.E. (357, and 336). The lack of total eclipses of the sun in Judah casts doubt on Stephenson’s
interpretation.
1
2
177
1) Dense locust swarms turn the sky dark and obscure the light; when
a person is in the thick of a day-time swarm, it is not possible to see
the sun. Such swarms at night would obscure the moon and the stars.
However, swarms are fast moving and the sun, moon or stars would
appear once more as the swarm moved.
2) The meteorological conditions implied by Joel 2:2 would certainly
obscure the sun, moon and stars, but this is not the point of Joel
2:10: if storm-clouds or sandstorms obscure, they do not turn the sun
and the moon dark, and nor do stars withdraw or gather their shining.
In view of the above difficulties, (1)-(2), our conclusion is that Joel refers to
eclipses of the sun and moon. The eclipses would not have happened at the same
time, but they could each have occurred in the months before the Day of the Lord.
While a solar and lunar eclipse would turn the sun and the moon dark to some
extent, such eclipses do not address the question of what happens to the stars.
Here our proposal is that the withdrawal of shining by the stars is the language of
appearance for those atmospheric conditions in which stars and constellations are
not seen in the night sky, or for the obscuring of stars that lie in the elliptical path
of the moon. All these aspects were part of the celestial divination of Joel’s day.
While eclipses and atmospheric conditions are a natural way to read the language
of Joel, we should also note an implied context of divination associated with the
sun, moon and stars: various celestial happenings were regularly seen as portents of
coming events and many variables in their appearance affected the interpretation
offered by seers and diviners. Joel offers the sun, moon and stars as signs
associated with the Day of the Lord (Joel 2:10, 31; 3:15).
Joel does not offer a statement of divination in v. 10 like those preserved in
Mesopotamian texts, but he does express a prediction that would have been the
basis of divination in the Mesopotamian science of the day. The diviners and seers
that made their prognostications on the basis of celestial happenings are criticized
by the eighth century prophets:
Then the moon shall be confounded (rpx), and the sun ashamed (vwb), when the
Lord of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his
ancients gloriously. Isa 24:23 (KJV)
Then shall the seers be ashamed (vwb), and the diviners confounded (rpx): yea,
they shall all cover their lips; for there is no answer of God. Mic 3:7 (KJV)
Here the sun and moon are pictured as opposing the word of prophecy from
Yahweh, but then ashamed and confounded as Yahweh manifests his reign in
178
Zion. Micah translates the figure in terms of the seers and diviners associated with
temples devoted to the sun and the moon.
Micah’s criticism is ironic. Diviners and seers observed the darkness of the sun and
the moon, its time of occurrence, extent and duration, and based their
prognostications upon its darkness in a positive manner. Micah turns this
around—night and day would be dark and devoid of knowledge:
Thus saith the Lord concerning the prophets that make my people
err…Therefore night shall be unto you, that ye shall not have a vision; and it shall
be dark ($vx) unto you, that ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down over
the prophets, and the day shall be dark (rdq) over them. Mic 3:5-6 (KJV)
Joel and Micah use rdq (“darken”) for what happens in respect of the sun and the
false prophets, but whereas Micah uses the term in an ironic metaphorical way, Joel
is also about the fact of lunar and solar eclipses. Another example of an eighth
century prophet criticizing divination is found in Amos’ warnings to Northern
Israel prior to the end of Samaria:
Seek him that maketh the seven stars (hmyk) and Orion (lsyk),1 and turneth the
shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night: that
calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the
earth: The Lord is his name… Amos 5:8 (KJV)
The rhetorical emphasis here is to seek the one who made the stars, rather than
those who claim to “divine” the future by the stars.
F. Rochberg affirms that,
The conception of a divinely created order underlies the various forms of
Mesopotamian divination, which functioned as a system of divine
communication with human beings by means of perceptible patterns of
phenomena.2
These beliefs justified the appeal to the gods to direct events and mitigate bad
portents. Celestial divination discerned weather phenomena, especially cloud
formations, as well as lunar, stellar, solar and planetary phenomena. The kinds of
details that are noted in texts are tabulated below:3
Date and duration of lunar visibility
Halos around the moon
The appearance of the horns of the lunar
crescent.
Lunar Eclipses, time of night, duration.
1
Zodiac constellations, Astrolabe stars such as Pegasus, Pleiades and Orion, as well as elliptical
stars feature in Mesopotamian celestial divination, Rochberg, Heavenly Writing, 108.
2
Rochberg, Heavenly Writing, 45.
3
Rochberg, Heavenly Writing, 67-68.
179
Position of stars within the horns of the Darkness of moon relative to constellations
crescent moon
Conjunctions with planets and certain stars Moon’s position in the sky with respect to
the sun
Solar eclipses
Solar coronas
Position of planets
Time of first and last appearance in the sky
Planetary colour and appearance
Position and visibility of stars
Rainbows
Lightening, thunder and winds
Earthquakes
Cloud formations
These details are given significance in terms of such things as the prosperity of the
king, the fate of the army, the security of the country, floods, crop failure, and
pestilence.1 For example,2
The moon rose darkly and cleared: Omen of the destruction of Elam and
Gutium.3
If the sun is red like a torch when it becomes visible on the first of Nisannu, and a
white cloud moves about in front of it…4
If Libra is dark: for three years locusts will attack and devour the harvest of the
land. [Variant: locusts will devour the land; the land will have to eat a reduced
harvest]; three years…5
If the moon is dark in the region of the stars to the west of Cancer, the decision
(is for) the Tigris: The Tigris will diminish its flood waters.6
[If] the moon rid[es] a chariot in the month Sililti: the dominion of the king of
Akkad will prosper, and he w[ill capture] his enemies…If the moon is
surrounded by a halo and the Old Man Star stands in it: a reign of long duration.7
The Libra example is interesting because it hypothesizes about the constellation of
Libra being dark, and this illustrates “the stars withdraw their shining” of Joel
2:10/3:15. Another explanation of this phrase could be the obscuring effect of the
moon upon the stars in its path, perhaps in times of eclipse.8
Rochberg notes9 that anthropomorphic metaphors were used in Mesopotamian
literature to describe eclipses of the moon, for instance, “the moon god
1
Rochberg, Heavenly Writing, 67.
Texts cited are Old Babylonian or Neo-Assyrian.
3
BM 22696 obv. 1-12 cited in Rochberg, Heavenly Writing, 69.
4
Cited in Rochberg, Heavenly Writing, 72.
5
H. Hunger, Astrological Reports to Assyrian Kings (State Archives of Assyria 8; Helsinki: Helsinki
University Press, 1992) no. 502:15-16.
6
Cited in Rochberg, Heavenly Writing, 109.
7
Cited in Rochberg, Heavenly Writing, 169.
8
Rochberg, Heavenly Writing, 108 n. 43, states that the standard Assyrian Celestial Omen List
identified 18 stars in the path of the moon.
9
Rochberg, Heavenly Writing, 72, 167, 172-173.
2
180
mourns/cries” is used for eclipses of the moon. This characteristic arises because
of the association between the moon and a god. Thus the moon can be referred to
as “in distress” when referring to an eclipse. In Mesopotamian astrological texts,
adāru primarily means “to be worried or distressed” but can also mean “to be
darkened”.1 Such a detail has been carried over into Joel insofar as the verb for
“darken” (qdr, rdq) in “the sun and the moon shall be dark” has within its
semantic field the sense of mourning (e.g. Jer 4:28; 8:21; 14:2; Ezek 31:15).
Solar and lunar eclipses do not occur together (sic); accordingly, Joel should be seen
as referencing different calendar dates before the Day of the Lord for the two
types of eclipse. Do the eclipses of the times support this reading? This question
depends on when Joel delivered his oracles. Total lunar eclipses visible from
Jerusalem are not uncommon,2 and for the years of the Assyrian Crisis, the
following are the dates:
Lunar (Total)
742-May 20
742-Nov 14
738-Sep 1
735-Jul 1
735-Dec 25
734-Jun 20
731-Apr 19
During the same period, the following partial eclipses of the sun were visible from
Jerusalem:3
Solar (Partial)
736-Jul 26
732-May 15
Joel’s statement, “the sun and the moon have been darkened, and the stars have
gathered their shining” (Joel 2:10) states what has happened in respect of the Day of
the Lord. The partial eclipse of the sun in 736 and the two total eclipses of the
moon in 735 and again the one in 734 are the likely reference: these had been
portents of the Day of the Lord.
A different range of dates offers a fulfilment for Joel’s announcement that “the sun
shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and terrible
day of the Lord comes” (Joel 2:31, RSV). Here, Joel’s statement is future
Imperfect, and given that Isaiah applies the language of Joel to the sack of Samaria
1
Rochberg, Heavenly Writing, 167; other metaphors noted for the moon in various states include
the moon setting “with unwashed feet”, “wear a crown” at first visibility, or “ride a chariot”.
2
The dates are supplied by http://eclipses.gsfc.nasa.gov [Cited 6.10.2008]. Rochberg, Heavenly
Writing, 77, argues that prediction of lunar eclipses was not achieved until the 7c. B.C.E.
3
Only two total eclipses were visible in Israel and Judah from Jerusalem between 1130-310
B.C.E. (357, and 336); hence, Stephenson’s choice of date for Joel in the fourth century.
181
(Isa 13:10), in relation to this event (722), there are lunar and solar eclipses that
could have been taken as the portents of Joel:
Solar (Partial)
723-May 6
722-Apr 25
Lunar (Total)
724-May 30
724-Nov 24
A modern interpreter might view lunar and solar eclipses as purely astronomical
events and find them impressive. An ancient would find such events to be religious
and portentous. The eclipses of the sun and the moon and their position in the sky,
as well as their approach to one another were all matters that affected the political
decisions of the day amongst the Mesopotamian powers.1 Any one type of eclipse
would, in the divination of the times, be taken as indicative of forthcoming events
on earth. Joel is likely using the language and thinking of his day to warn about the
forthcoming Day of the Lord.2
Joel’s predictions about the sun, moon and stars could be misconstrued. They are
not an affirmation of the validity of celestial divination but rather an ironic use of
such divination directed towards those who believed in such signs. The statements
are a matter of a prophet using the language and thinking of the day to forewarn
about the Day of the Lord. On another level, since the eighth century prophets
believed in Yahweh’s control over nature, such signs would be natural
manifestations of his intentions regarding the nations.
6. The Army of the Lord
The Lord utters his voice before “his army”, and this is a battle cry in the field
because the army is ready.
And the Lord shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for
he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the Lord is great and very
terrible; and who can abide it? Joel 2:11 (KJV)
The readiness of the “army” is signaled by the explanation “for his camp is very
great”, and “very great” resonates both with the earlier description of the great
people (Joel 2:2) and the later description “my great army” (Joel 2:25). The flow of
the rhetoric from v. 10 to v. 11 is one from the land (#ra) quaking before them
(the great people) but then the Lord uttering the battle cry before his camp because
it is ready for the final battle (cf. 2 Chron 14:12). The forces of the nations have
come together and now form the camp of the Lord as the climax of the Day of the
1
For example, see J. Bottéro, Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning and the Gods, (Chicago: Chicago
University Press, 1995), ch. 9.
2
It is not possible to know the exact meteorological or celestial conditions that caused the stars
to withdraw their shining.
182
Lord approaches. The appeal for repentance (v. 12) is addressed to any who want
to survive the Day of the Lord.
7. Repentance
Joel 2:12-14 constitutes an oracle that calls the people to repentance. Barton is
correct to point out that Joel does not describe the sin(s) of which the people are
to repent,1 but this does not mean that Joel is not proclaiming the need for
repentance. Barton argues that Joel’s use of “turn” (bwv, Joel 2:12) means “simply
that the people should turn in appeal to YHWH, asking God to save them from
the threatened disaster”.2 This is a nuanced qualification and one that can be
accepted, provided it is realized that disaster was brought upon the people on
account of their sins.
Therefore also now (ht[ ~g), saith the Lord, turn ye even to me with all your
heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning… Joel 2:12 (KJV)
Yet even now (ht[ ~g), declares the Lord, Return to Me with all your heart, And
with fasting, weeping and mourning… Joel 2:12 (NASB)
The conjunctive phrase ht[ ~g is rendered “Yet even now” in the NASB and
“Therefore also now” in the KJV; the NASB is to be preferred as ~g is not a logical
connective, but rather usually a conjunction of addition, emphasis—also, even,
moreover, or again.3 The conjunctive phrase is rhetorical in its effect—there is a
sense that “even now” with the Day of the Lord at hand, the people could be
saved if they turned to the Lord. This implies that oracles of Joel 2:1-11 are from
some time into the development of events, whereas the oracle of Joel 1:15-18 is
from the beginning of such events. During 734 Ahaz was assailed from all
directions and appealed to Tiglath-Pileser for help; he did not help and instead
distressed Judah. At such a late hour as this, Joel could have made this appeal to
the people to turn to the Lord. The question (v. 14) “Who knows if God will
return and repent?” is characteristic of calling upon God (Amos 5:15).
Joel couches his appeal for repentance in covenantal terms:
And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God:
for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and
repenteth him of the evil. Joel 2:13 (KJV)
The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in
goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and
transgression and sin Exod 34:6-7 (KJV)
Barton, 78-80. Nogalski, “The Day(s) of YHWH in the Book of the Twelve”, 200, insightfully
points out that in the reading of the Book of the Twelve, the sin has been detailed by Hosea.
2
Barton, 78.
3
Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 378, 379.
1
183
The quotation of Exod 34:6-7 places the covenantal relationship at the heart of
Joel’s appeal, and it is an implicit comparison between the moral state of the
people in his day and those who worshipped the golden calf.
8. Calling an Assembly
A new oracle unit is contained in vv. 15-17; it is a public call to those in positions
of leadership in Jerusalem and it mirrors the public call of Joel 1:14. Whereas the
blowing of the trumpet in Joel 2:1 warns of the impending Day of the Lord, here
there is no mention of the Day of the Lord. This does not mean the two verses do
not record an exhortation that was made at the same time. Those being addressed
are probably the priests as they were the addressees in the call of Joel 1.
Blow the trumpet in Zion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly: Gather the
people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children, and
those that suck the breasts: let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the
bride out of her closet. Let the priests, the ministers of the Lord, weep between
the porch and the altar, and let them say, Spare thy people, O Lord, and give not
thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them: wherefore
should they say among the people, Where is their God? Joel 2:15-17 (KJV)
The basis of Joel’s counsel here is the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the
temple:1
When thy people Israel be smitten down before the enemy, because they have
sinned against thee, and shall turn again to thee, and confess thy name, and pray,
and make supplication unto thee in this house: Then hear thou in heaven, and
forgive the sin of thy people Israel, and return them again unto the ground
(hmda) which thou gavest unto their fathers. 1 Kgs 8:33-34 (KJV revised)
Joel instructs the people to pray to God in the house of the Lord and turn again to
him. If they were to do this the hope is that they would leave Jerusalem and return
to the ground (the fields) and work the soil once again. This movement of thought
is reflected in Joel’s movement from the necessary expression of repentance (vv.
12-14) to the restoration of the land (vv. 19, 21-27).
Solomon’s prayer of dedication has provided Joel with guidance in the sequencing
of his oracles. The prayer advises that a call to repentance be made in certain
circumstances including enemy attack (1 Kg 8:33; Joel 1:6; 2:2); conditions of siege
(1 Kgs 8:37; Joel 2:9, 11); drought (1 Kgs 8:35; Joel 1:12); and locust infestation (1
Kgs 8:37; Joel 1:4; 2:25). In such a case, the people were to come to the temple (1
Kgs 8:29; Joel 2:17), turn and cry unto the Lord (1 Kgs 8:33; Joel 2:12), and then
the Lord would restore the land (which was his inheritance) through rain (1 Kgs
8:36; Joel 1:6; 2:18, 23). The end result would be,
1
Mason, 121-122; Strazicich, 57, 79; Ahlström, 108.
184
That all the people of the earth may know that the Lord is God, and that there is
none else. 1 Kgs 8:60 (KJV)
This is Joel’s closing refrain in Joel 2:27
And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the Lord your
God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed. Joel 2:27 (KJV) cf.
Joel 3:17
Joel’s allusions to Solomon’s prayer show that, while he does not state Judah’s sin,
there is nevertheless a background of sin on the part of the people.1 Joel’s refrain
should be seen against the backdrop of Ahaz’ actions during the Syro-Ephraimite
Crisis which was to turn to the Syrian gods for help (2 Chron 28:23).
There is a sharp change in tense in v. 18 which is reflected in the LXX but not in
the KJV, RSV and NASB. We should translate this verse so that it states that God
did intervene on behalf of his people:2
And the Lord was jealous for his land, and he did pity his people. Joel 2:18 (KJV
revised)
But the Lord was jealous of his land, and spared his people. Joel 2:18 (LXX)
As Sweeny notes,3 v. 18 begins with a Waw consecutive and is thus syntactically
linked with v. 17, and this is reflected in the LXX.
9. The Northerner
The term for the northerner (ynwpc) presents a problem of interpretation that has
been noted in commentaries, and this problem is whether it would have been used
for locusts or a nation/confederacy to the north and/or east of the land.
I will remove the northerner far from you, and drive him into a parched and
desolate land, his front into the eastern sea, and his rear into the western sea; the
stench and foul smell of him will rise, for he has done great things. Joel 2:20
(RSV)
Commentators note that locusts come from the south in Palestine and consequently
they sense a problem in any literal-locusts treatment of v. 20. Further, the locust
swarm view requires a reader to believe the locusts are driven away by winds that
simultaneously blow in an east and west direction. Moreover, it is a swarm that has
done “great things” and “magnified” itself—it is difficult to see how this applies to
1
Strazicich, 80.
Jones, 131, 134, 165.
3
Sweeney, “The Place and Function of Joel in the Book of the Twelve”, 141.
2
185
a swarm of locusts. It is far more plausible that the locusts are metaphorical for
armies. The armies of the northerner are like locusts that will be driven by winds 1
away from Jerusalem; they being numbered among the successive locust-armies
that have ravaged the land (Joel 1:4).
Problems can be posed for commentators who take the northerner to be a
“nation” or an “army”. Whittaker proposes that the northerner is Assyria and
Sennacherib in keeping with his 701 reading.2 However, an enemy from “the
North” (!wpc) is not necessarily a “northerner” in colloquial speech. The only other
use of the Hebrew term (ynwpc) is transliterated as “Zephonites” (Num 26:15), and
it denotes a family which were of the tribe of Gad, the northernmost tribe. In
terms of the narrative perspective, the northerner implies the point of view of a
southerner and this outlook is one that is internal to Israel and Judah as a whole,
north and south. Furthermore, what happens to the army of the northerner—it is
driven into a barren and desolate land and destroyed—did not happen to
Sennacherib’s army in Isaiah’s account. This casts doubt on Whittaker’s proposal
that the northerner is Assyria and Sennacherib in 701.
The same argument casts doubt on any proposal that the northerner is an Assyrian
king with armies in the field, whether this is Tiglath-Pileser III, Shalmaneser V, or
Sargon II, and it casts doubt on any proposal that the northerner is Rezin or
Pekah: Rezin was killed by Tiglath-Pileser at Damascus and Hoshea assassinated
Pekah in Samaria. Accordingly, commentators are inclined to be non-specific as to
the identity of the northerner. Barton does not think there is a geographical sense
to the term and thinks it means nothing more than “the great enemy”.3 Crenshaw
sees the description as a reflection of the prophetic pattern of an “enemy from the
North”;4 Hubbard sees the expression as just a dramatic way of labelling the
enemy.5 These strategies are all expediencies required by a failure to read Joel in an
eighth century context.
9.1 Zephonite
The term translated “the northerner” requires analysis and the RSV and NASB
make different choices:
But I will remove the northern army far from you, And I will drive it into a
parched and desolate land, And its vanguard into the eastern sea, And its rear
guard into the western sea. And its stench will arise and its foul smell will come
up, For it has done great things. Joel 2:20 (NASB)
1
The echo is with the driving away of the locusts by the wind in Exod 10:19.
Whittaker, 4; see also Pusey, 3:161.
3
Barton, 47-48.
4
Crenshaw, 150-151.
5
Hubbard, 63.
2
186
I will remove the northerner far from you, and drive him into a parched and
desolate land, his front into the eastern sea, and his rear into the western sea; the
stench and foul smell of him will rise, for he has done great things. Joel 2:20
(RSV)
The NASB treats the Hebrew ynwpc as an adjective and inserts “army” as does the
KJV. The RSV treats the word as a noun, and this makes the use of the term here
consistent with Num 26:15; the term could have been transliterated as
“Zephonite” (rather than translated as “the northerner”) thereby indicating a
Gadite. While ynwpc is a rare word (2x), the form of the word is very common and
it is part of a family of words like Ammonite(s), Haggite(s), Shunite(s), Moabite(s),
Edomite(s), and so on.1 This data points to “Zephonite” being the correct rendering
in Joel 2:20; were it not for a perceived incongruity on the part of scholars in such
a particular detail being present in Joel’s oracles, translators would have chosen
“Zephonite”.
Gad along with Reuben occupied the eastern bank of the Jordan (Gilead) in the
original tribal division of land (Num 32:1-5). Gilead was the border area close to
Syria and subject to dominance by Damascus (Amos 1:3-5). The area came under
Assyrian control during the Assyrian subjugation of Syria and Northern Israel by
Tiglath-Pileser.
In the eighth century Judah was attacked by Rezin, king of Syria, then by Pekah,
king over Northern Israel, and then by both kings in an alliance (2 Kgs 15:37; 16:5;
2 Chron 28:5-6). The series of attacks implied by the record eventually led to a
siege of Jerusalem (Isa 7:1), and the response by Joel was to declare that the
northerner was to be “driven into a parched and desolate land”. At the time of the
combined attack upon Jerusalem, Pekah and Rezin proposed to set up “the son of
Tabeal” upon the throne of Judah (Isa 7:6). W. F. Albright2 has noted that Tabeal
is mentioned in letters from the latter part of the reign of Tiglath-Pileser (732-722).
In the letters a messenger is sent from Ayanûr the Tabelite to the Assyrian official
complaining of incursions into the land of Moab by men of the land of Geder,
(Josh 12:13). He observes that the name “Tabeal” points to a location north of
Ammon and Gilead as “Ayanûr” is a typical name of this region. Our proposal is
that this “son of Tabeal” is the northerner. As someone “of Israel” he was
particularly resented; hence, Joel’s invective signals him out for removal.
9.2 The Face and Rear End of the Northerner
A motif of the oracles in Joel 2 is “face” although this is hidden in English
versions.3 This comes out in the following verses,
Crenshaw, 151, states, “…its form, a noun with gentilic ending, is perfectly acceptable”.
W. F. Albright, “The Son of Tabeel (Isaiah 7:6)” BASOR 140 (1955): 34-35. For a recent
discussion, see Kuan, Neo-Assyrian Historical Inscriptions and Syria-Palestine, 160.
3
Crenshaw, 120.
1
2
187
A fire devoureth before their face them…the land is as the Garden of Eden
before their face… v. 3
Before their face the people shall be much pained… v. 6
The earth shall quake before their face… v. 10
And the Lord shall utter his voice before the face of his army… v. 11
Accordingly, when Joel 2:20 states, “with his face toward the east sea, and his
hinder part toward the utmost sea” (KJV), the NASB correctly interprets this as a
military statement. However, as we have noted, the NASB treats ynwpc as an
adjective and supplies “army” as a complement, which in turn allows its translation
of “face” and “hinder part” to be the “vanguard” and “rearguard” of an army. This
approach removes the anthropomorphic metaphors of “his face” and “his rear
end” which we should keep as it is part of the insulting invective.
The term for “hinder part” is a relatively rare word (@ws, 5x) mostly translated as
“end/conclusion” (2 Chron 20:16; Ecc 3:11; 7:2; 12:13); there is no other instance
of the word as a body-part which is the choice of the KJV. The RSV ambiguously
renders the statement as “his front into the eastern sea, and his rear into the
western sea”, but if we wish to retain the body metaphors we should translate the
Hebrew as “his face into the eastern sea and his rear-end into the western sea”.
The focus is on the northerner and his two armies. This detail matches the
situation in 734 with the armies of Rezin and Pekah in support of the “son of
Tabeal”. The promise in Joel 2:20 is that these armies would be decimated to the
south of Judah, one toward the west and one toward the east. A battle in Judah is
a plausible inference from Joel 2:20 in which the Syro-Ephraimite forces are
scattered to the winds and hunted down and destroyed. The Assyrian records
however show that both Pekah and Rezin fled back to their respective capital cities
in the rout.
9.3 Far Off in a Wilderness
The fate of the northerner was to be removed “far off”; the same form of the verb
occurs once elsewhere in Ps 55:7, where it used in conjunction with a reference to
the local wilderness south of Jerusalem; it does not have to imply great distance.
While the KJV, RSV and NASB have “I will remove far (off) from you”, this does
not reflect the Hebrew underlying “from you” (~kyl[m); a better translation would
be “from against you”, thereby indicating that the northerner was an individual
associated with a siege against Jerusalem. An example of this sense is,
188
And Zedekiah king of Judah and his princes will I give into the hand of their
enemies, and into the hand of them that seek their life, and into the hand of the
king of Babylon’s army, which are gone up from you. Jer 34:21 (KJV), cf. Deut
29:5; Josh 6:5; Ezek 18:31; Jonah 1:12
The text states that the northerner is driven into a “parched and desolate land
(hmmvw hyc)”,1 and this could be a disguised reference to Northern Israel (Hos 2:3,
RSV); in this case, the “son of Tabeal” escapes with Pekah. However, it is just as
possible that he is driven to the Judean wilderness and killed in the rout.
There is a further issue to note: the verb for “driven” is common (xdn, 54x), and it
is used mostly of the driving out of the inhabitants of Judah and Northern Israel
into captivity (e.g. Mic 4:6; Zeph 3:19; Dan 9:7).2 Hence, Isaiah uses the Niphal
participle form of the verb to refer to the “outcasts of Israel” (Isa 11:12; 16:3, 4;
27:13; 56:8), and in Isaiah 8 the verb is used in the statement,
And they shall look unto the earth; and behold trouble and darkness, dimness of
anguish; and they shall be driven to darkness. Isa 8:22 (KJV)
This oracle is relevant to the interpretation of Joel 2:20 because it comes from the
time of Ahaz and the incursions of Samaria and Damascus into Judah. The “they”
of this prediction are those of Northern Israel who would be “driven” to darkness
in Tiglath-Pileser’s campaign. Accordingly, we suggest that there is more to the
declaration of Joel 2:20 than the removal of the northerner to a wilderness—it
anticipates the scattering of Northern Israel.
9.4 Assyrian Records
In 735-734, Isaiah declared that Yahweh would bring the king of Assyria upon
Rezin and Pekah (Isa 8:7), and he would overflow and fill the breadth of Judah and
pass through the land (Isa 8:8). This happened insofar as Tiglath-Pileser turned
from his campaign against Philistia to both distress Judah and deal with the antiAssyrian coalition of Rezin and Pekah (2 Kgs 16:9, 2 Chron 28:18).
The chronology of events at this time in the Assyrian Annals is the subject of
scholarly debate,3 but a harmony of Tiglath-Pileser’s records with the OT indicates
an Assyrian Philistine campaign in 734, followed by military activity in Syria against
Rezin and Syria’s borders with Northern Israel during 734-732. At this time,
For a discussion of the motif of the “dry land” see O. Lund, Way Metaphors and Way Topics in
Isaiah 40-55 (FAT 2/28; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 75-76.
2
Within Jeremiah the pattern is clear for most uses of the verb “to drive”: 8:3; 16:15; 23:2, 3, 8;
24:9; 27:10, 15; 29:14, 18; 30:17; 32:37; 40:12; 43:5; 46:28; 50:17; but Ammon is also driven out—
49:5, 36. Ezekiel uses “to drive” of Judah and Israel: 4:13; 34:4, 16.
3
Oded, “The Historical Background of the Syro-Ephraimite War Reconsidered”, 153-165; R.
Tomes “The Reason for the Syro-Ephraimite War” JSOT 59 (1993): 55-71; Kuan, Neo-Assyrian
Historical Inscriptions and Syria-Palestine, 186-192.
1
189
Hoshea was installed as king in place of Pekah by Tiglath-Pileser.1 The Assyrian
records do not describe an engagement by Tiglath-Pileser of the combined armies
of Pekah and Rezin; his campaign records describe his war against these kings in
their respective lands. Tiglath-Pileser ’s campaign record notes that he took tribute
from Moab and Edom as well as Philistia, and the Chronicles account notes the
hostility of Edom and Philistia towards Judah at this time (2 Chron 28:17-18).
There could well have been therefore engagement between Rezin’s and Pekah’s
forces and the Assyrian armies (with their local allies) which led to a rout that
drove the vanguard and rearguard of the coalition’s armies in different directions
and led Pekah and Rezin to flee.
Isaiah’s oracle ends with a description of the Assyrian’s stretched out wings
embracing the land of Judah (Isa 8:8), which is an appropriate image to describe
the covering effect of Assyria’s protection, a protection which constrained the
territory and self-determination of Judah (2 Chron 28:20).
9.5 Great Things
The reason for the removal of the northerner is that he has “done great things”
(KJV, RSV). The underlying Hebrew verbs (twf[l lydgh) convey the idea of
someone magnifying themselves by their actions/doings. Elsewhere lydgh is used
of those who “magnify” themselves against Yahweh:
For it was not an enemy that reproached me; then I could have borne it: neither
was it he that hated me that did magnify himself against me; then I would have hid
myself from him… Ps 55:12 (KJV)
Make ye him drunken: for he magnified himself against the Lord: Moab also shall
wallow in his vomit, and he also shall be in derision. Jer 48:26 (KJV), cf. v. 42
O Lord, behold my affliction: for the enemy hath magnified himself. Lam 1:9
(KJV)
Pekah and Rezin sought to place the “the son of Tabeal” upon the throne of
Judah; this intention is significant within the purpose of God—they intended to
remove the Davidic house and thereby the Davidic promises. This kind of selfexaltation is a characteristic of both Joel’s “northerner” and “the son of Tabeal”.
9.6 Enemy from the North
Commentators take “the northerner” of Joel 2:20 to be a common motif of the
enemy from the north.2 Further, they identify this northerner as the great people
that are upon the mountains of Judah in v. 2 (and/or the nation of Joel 1:6). Since
Joel is taken to be a post-exilic work, scholars see v. 20 as reflecting earlier
1
ANET, 274, 283-284. For a harmonic description see Bright, A History of Israel, 271-273.
Childs details the prophetic pattern of an enemy from the north in his article, “The Enemy
from the North and the Chaos Tradition”.
2
190
prophecies of an enemy from the north in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Our argument
against this consensus approach is,
The term for “northerner” is not generic but particular; it is not “the North”
nor is it “the northerner”—rather it is “Zephonite”.
Joel is pre-exilic and stands at the head of a tradition about a northerner
attacking the nation; it is not using “enemy from the north” traditions.
Joel 2:20 is not about a nation but an individual; it is not about an “enemy” but
about an individual with two supporting armies.
Our approach is a different way of reading the flow of the oracles in Joel 2—a
different balance of the rhetoric. The common reading takes “the problem” to be
the invader upon the mountains of Judah and breaking into the city. This
“problem” is then resolved in the action of the Lord to remove the invader once
the people have repented, after which the land is restored. This is a “problemresolution” reading pattern that identifies only one problem.1 Our contrary
proposal is that the “problem-resolution” pattern consists in the ravaging of the
land by the great people followed by the restoration of the land; it is within this
pattern that Joel also sets the removal of a northerner.
Yea, the Lord will answer and say unto his people, Behold, I will send you corn,
and wine, and oil, and ye shall be satisfied therewith: and I will no more make
you a reproach among the heathen: also I will remove far off from you the
northern army, and will drive him into a land barren and desolate, with his face
toward the east sea, and his hinder part toward the utmost sea, and his stink shall
come up, and his ill savour shall come up, because he hath done great things. Joel
2:19-20 (KJV revised)
This reading pattern does not require an identification of the northerner with the
great people upon the mountains of Israel.
10. Restoration
The material in Joel 2:21-27 is closely linked2 to the oracles of Joel 1:2-2:20; they
function as a closure to the story of the devastation of the land. For this reason,
their point of utterance is from the same crisis as that which has been depicted in
the early part of Joel. These next oracular statements are about restoration.
1
The problem with the pattern is that it is difficult to match any recorded history to Joel 2:20 on
such a reading.
2
See Deist, “Parallels and Reinterpretation in the Book of Joel: A Theology of the Yom
Yahweh”, 64.
191
10.1 Restoration
Joel 2:21 personifies “the land” which is told not to fear,
Fear not, O land; be glad and rejoice: for the Lord has done great things. Joel
2:21 (KJV revised)
The Hebrew for “land” is adamah rather than eretz, which shows that the focus of
the figure of speech is not the land thought of as the country of Judah, but the land
thought of as the ground upon which the people depend for their lives (agriculture,
viticulture, animal husbandry).1 This use of adamah contrasts with Joel 1:6 where “a
nation has come up upon my eretz” thereby signifying the land of Judah, but it
compares with the use of adamah in Joel 1:10.
The oracle is linked with v. 20 in its use of “great things”:
…because he hath done great things (twf[l lydgh). Joel 2:20 (KJV)
…the Lord has done great things (twf[l lydgh). Joel 2:21 (RSV)
While both the KJV and RSV have chosen “done great things”, as we have noted
above, the sense of the Hebrew is “become magnified in doings”: the Lord had
been magnified in his doings, and the immediate “doing” would have been the
removal of the northerner.2
In announcing that the ground was not to be afraid, Joel has moved beyond the
crisis of the 730s; the northerner has been removed. Nevertheless, there was still
fear in the land; the situation was unstable and full of threats.3 The main Assyrian
army did not leave the region until 732 at the earliest and after their capture of
Damascus. No doubt the surrounding nations were still hostile to Judah, and it is
generally held that Damascus rebelled against Assyria again in 728. Hence, Joel has
to assure “the ground” that Yahweh did remove the northerner.
The terms of the restoration pick up on Joel’s earlier oracles: “locusts”, “beasts of
the field”, “land”, “corn, wine and oil”, “fig tree”, “vine”, joy and gladness”, and
“pastures of the wilderness” are used in Joel 1:4, 6, 10, 12, 16, 20.4 The restoration
of the land is underway:
De Blois, “Metaphor in Common Language Translations of Joel”, 209.
The expression “had done great things” may also embrace what God had done in the giving of
the former and latter rain and the rejuvenation of the agriculture and viticulture (Joel 2:22-24). A
future promise does not occur until “I will restore to you the years that the locust has eaten”
(Joel 2:25).
3
“Fear not” is typical in times of war, for instance, see Isa 41:14; 51:17; 54:4.
4
Deist, “Parallels and Reinterpretation in the Book of Joel: A Theology of the Yom Yahweh”,
64.
1
2
192
Fear not, you beasts of the field, for the pastures of the wilderness are green1; the
tree bears its fruit, the fig tree and vine give their full yield. Joel 2:22 (RSV)
And the floors shall be full of wheat, and the fats shall overflow with wine and
oil. Joel 2:24 (KJV) cf. Hos 2:16-19
On this basis the children of Zion are exhorted to be “be glad” and this attitude
stands in contrast to the “solemn” assembly required at the height of the crisis
(Joel 1:14; 2:15).
10.2 Teacher of Righteousness
The reason for the gladness is that the Lord has given them a “teacher of
righteousness” (KJV mg.).
Be glad then, ye children of Zion,2 and rejoice in the Lord your God: for he hath
given you a teacher of righteousness (hqdcl hrwmh), and he has caused to come
down for you the rain, the former rain (hrwm), and the latter rain in the first month.
Joel 2:23 (KJV revised)
The Hebrew, which we have translated “teacher of righteousness”, is translated as
“the former rain for your vindication” in the RSV, NASB and “the former rain
moderately” in the KJV. The arguments in favour of “teacher of righteousness”
are as follows:
1) In addition to the second occurrence in Joel 2:23, the Hebrew hrwm is translated
once elsewhere as “early rain” (Ps 84:6) and as “teacher(s)” three times (Job 36:22;
Prov 5:13; Isa 30:20). The only other prophetic usage is Isaiah,
And though the Lord give you the bread of adversity and the water of affliction,
yet your Teacher will not hide himself any more, but your eyes shall see your
Teacher. Isa 30:20 (RSV)
Isaiah uttered this during the crisis of 701, but “the Teacher” is not identified; the
reference could be to a single individual or to a group of individuals who were
teachers. The KJV has “teachers” as the Hebrew noun is plural in form; however,
the associated verb “hide” is ostensibly a hapax Niphal singular, and hence the RSV
(and NASB) opt for “Teacher”. We give precedence to the plural form of the noun
as the verb is hapax and we cannot be sure whether the singular form for this verb
did not also function as a plural. The significance of this Isaiah text for Joel is the
common stress upon teaching from another eighth century prophet.
This rare term only occurs elsewhere in Gen 1:11 in the phrase “let the earth shoot shoots”; it
should be seen as an invocation of a “new creation” theology, a preliminary to the establishment
of a new Garden of Eden (Joel 2:3).
2
The expression only occurs elsewhere in Ps 149:2 in a psalm of vengeance.
1
193
2) The Hebrew hqdcl hrwmh has the definite object marker (ta), which would
suggest a determinate substantive1 for the reference (as in “the corn”, “the
northerner”, “the years”, “the name”, etc. Joel 2:19, 20, 25, 26); hrwm in Ps 84:6
and in the second occurrence in Joel 2:23 lacks the definite object marker.
3) A comparable phrase, “teacher of lies” (rqv hrwm) occurs in Isa 9:15, although
there is no definite article or definite object marker. Its significance for Joel is again
the timing of the oracle—Isaiah inveighs against such a “teacher of lies” during the
Syro-Ephraimite and Assyrian crises of Ahaz’ reign (730s).
4) Joel can be read in contrast to Isaiah—the people had been given a “teacher of
righteousness” or rather a “teacher for righteousness”. The sign accompanying the
advent of the teacher was the bringing down of the former and the latter rain in
the first month;2 normally, only the “latter” spring rain would fall in March.
5) One connection between rain and a teacher of righteousness is supplied in the
blessing of Deuteronomy:
And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the
Lord thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command
thee this day…The Lord shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to
give the rain unto thy land in his season… Deut 28:1, 11 (KJV) cf. Deut 11:13-14
A teacher of righteousness who leads the people back to the Lord would be the
instrumental cause of the Lord blessing the people with rain (Deut 11:14), and so
the giving of the former and latter rain in the first month of spring would be a sign
that such a teacher had been given to the people.
6) Another connection is the use of “rain” as a simile for teaching in such
statements as “My doctrine shall drop as the rain” (Deut 32:2). In the same vein
Isaiah declares,
Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness:
let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring
up together; I the Lord have created it. Isa 45:8 (KJV)
And the verb “drop” (@jn) is used of prophetic speech:
Now therefore hear thou the word of the Lord: Thou sayest, Prophesy not
against Israel, and drop not thy word against the house of Isaac. Amos 7:16 (KJV)
1
Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 475.
The RSV and NASB have “as before” whereas the KJV has “in the first month” with the italics
signalling the absence of the word “month” in the Hebrew. The KJV is correct here as the
pattern elsewhere is for “month” to be elided (Gen 8:13; Num 9:5; Ezek 29:17; 30:20; 45:18, 21).
2
194
Son of man, set thy face toward the south, and drop thy word toward the south,
and prophesy against the forest of the south field… Ezek 20:46 (KJV) cf. Ezek
21:2
The language of Joel is double-edged: not only had there been a recent gift of the
early and latter rains in the same month, but there was a promise of righteousness
raining upon the people. Hosea expresses a similar simile when he states,
Let us know, let us press on to know the Lord; his going forth is sure as the
dawn; he will come to us as the showers, as the spring rains that water the earth.
Hos 6:3 (RSV) cf. Prov 16:15
The people would experience the presence of the Lord through the bestowal of the
Spirit.
7) The expression hqdcl is literally “for righteousness” and it is used of Phineas’
act which was counted to him for righteousness (Ps 106:31); it is used of the Lord
looking for righteousness in his vineyard (Isa 5:7); and it is used in Hosea in
apposition to the rain:
Sow to yourselves for righteousness, reap in mercy; break up your fallow ground:
for it is time to seek the Lord, till he come and rain righteousness upon you. Hos
10:12 (KJV revised) cf. Ps 72:6
Here Hosea anticipates a coming of the Lord to the people and a rain of
righteousness. While the RSV and NASB have “for…vindication” in Joel as the
translation of hqdcl, the database of usage for hqdc illustrates a spectrum that
moves from the acts to a state—the acts of righteousness lead to a state of
righteousness.1 The notion of “vindication” seems foreign to Joel and an
idiosyncratic suggestion for inclusion in the database of hqdc.
8) Early Jewish interpretation supports the rendering “teacher of righteousness”. C.
Roth notes that the text may be the source of the Qumran doctrine that their
leader was the “Teacher of Righteousness”.2 Unfortunately, the Minor Prophets
scrolls from Qumran lack a rendering of the relevant verse in Joel. Nevertheless,
Qumran expectation was that the people would walk in an age of wickedness “until
he comes who shall teach righteousness at the end of days”,3 which looks like a
conscious allusion to Hosea. Further, the Jewish Targum has “For he has given
you back your teacher in righteousness” or possible “your teacher of
righteousness” and this was followed by the Vulgate.
The KJV has the bizarre “moderately” turning the word into an adverb.
C. Roth, “The Teacher of Righteousness and the Prophecy of Joel” VT 13 (1963): 91-95.
3
CD VI, 11.
1
2
195
On the basis of the above observations, (1)-(8), we conclude that Joel refers to the
giving of the “teacher of righteousness”; this could be an individual,1 a priest or a
prophet, but it is just as possible that there is here a personification of the bestowal
of the Spirit. Such a reading is indicated by the personification of the Spirit in
John:
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he
will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to
you. John 14:26 (RSV)
Joel presents a story in which the land is devastated, the people repent and turn to
the Lord, and the land is restored. This isn’t a story of vindication as if the people
were to be vindicated before their enemies, but one of deliverance. Subsequent to
their repentance there was to be a bestowal of the Spirit, the teacher of
righteousness. This was also prophesied by Hosea as a “coming of the Lord” in
showers of rain.
10.3 The Years of the Locust
The restoration of an infrastructure and economy follows any war, and after the
crises of the 730s, Judah was no doubt rebuilt, and this is shown incidentally by
Hezekiah’s provisions in the Great Passover:
I will restore to you the years which the swarming locust has eaten, the hopper,
the destroyer, and the cutter, my great army, which I sent among you. Joel 2:25
(RSV)
The “years” to which Joel refers are the years of the Assyrian presence in and
around Judah which started in 735-734. Typically, the main Assyrian army would
engage in major campaigns, subjugate the local people and move on; a system of
governors and garrisons would be left behind to impose and administer the taking
of taxes and tribute. Joel’s promise relates to the “army” that was sent among
them, and the Assyrian army departed from the Levant sometime after 732 when
Damascus was captured; the restoration of these lost years is then the subject of
Joel’s words.
As we have noted in Chapter Eight, the order in the types of locust is different to
that in Joel 1:4; moreover, the successive “eating” is absent here in Joel 2:25.
Instead, the four types of locust are brought together as constituents of the “great
army”. Such a reference in turn picks up on the description of Lord’s camp in Joel
2:11 which was “very great”. This change from the rhyme indicates that the
1
Hezekiah could be identified as such an individual on the basis of Job 29:23. He would be
about 12 at the time of the prophecy—the same age as Jesus in the temple.
196
separate armies that had assailed Judah in the mid-730s had submitted to the
Assyrian yoke and had contributed contingents to the Assyrian army.
10.4 I am the Lord
Even if the Assyrian army left the region and was no longer a drain on resources,
as a matter of record, the Assyrian hegemony over Judah was not formally
removed until Hezekiah’s rebellion sometime around 705, and then in 701, when
the Assyrian army was broken upon the hills of Judah (Isa 14:25). This history
suggests that Joel’s prophecy in vv. 21-27 ends with an anticipation of a greater
demonstration of Yahweh’s power:
And ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the name of the Lord your
God, that hath dealt wondrously (aylphl) with you: and my people shall never
be ashamed. And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the
Lord your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed. Joel 2:2627 (KJV) cf. Hos 2:20-25
The people would praise God for a deliverance from the hands of the SyroEphraimite alliance (the removal of the northerner), for the abundance of rain, and
the bestowal of the Spirit, but the final words of the oracle do not have their
fulfilment in these happenings.1 The fulfillment of these words lies in the
deliverance of 701. The people would in the future praise God who had dealt
wondrously with them in a great deliverance. Isaiah picks up the prophecy and
applies it to 701. The underlying Hebrew for “wondrously” (aylphl) occurs once
elsewhere in Isa 29:14,
Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work (aylphl) among this
people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men
shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. Isa 29:14
(KJV)
Here, Isaiah refers to the work of deliverance that God would carry out at
Jerusalem; we suggest Isaiah is picking up on Joel’s prophecy and applying it to his
situation. This is confirmed by the closing statement (v. 27) that there was no other
God but the Lord—this is the theology of Isaiah 45.
I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee,
though thou hast not known me… Isa 45:5 (KJV) cf. Isa 45:6, 14, 18, 21, 22; 46:9
Isaiah makes declaration to those who would seek guidance from divination and
idols. On the basis of Yahweh’s recent deliverance of Jerusalem in 701, Isaiah
affirms that there is no God other than Yahweh. Whereas there are other
1
The people may have heard Joel and taken their deliverance from the northerner as a great and
wondrous deliverance; moreover, the crescendo of the oracle is the declaration that Yahweh is
the only God, which is very apposite as a contrast with Ahaz’ idolatry.
197
recognition assertions (“I am the Lord”) in the Old Testament, Isaiah is distinctive
in having the emphasis, “there is none else”, and this makes the link with Joel
significant.
A recognition assertion would typically have the elements “you know” “the Lord”
“I am” and a logical connection “for”, giving something like “for you will know
that I am the Lord”. In addition there will be a reference to what has been “done”
to merit the recognition of Yahweh as God. The locust plague on Egypt has such a
formula and shares these lexical elements with Joel 2:26-27:
And that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son’s son, what things
I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I have done among them; that ye
may know how that I am the Lord. Exod 10:2 (KJV)
Egypt would know that the Lord was God because of the wonders that he
performed in their land:
And I will stretch out my hand, and smite Egypt with all my wonders which I will
do in the midst thereof: and afterward he will let you go. Exod 3:20 (KJV
revised)
There is no recognition formula in this text, but it shares four lexical items with
Joel: the verb “to do”, the noun “wonders”, the prepositional phrase “in the midst
of”, and the adverbial phrase “afterward” (Joel 2:26-28). With the recognition
assertion of Joel 2:26-27, Joel is completing his ironic allusion to the Exodus
plague of locusts. What was a wonder in Egypt (the locust plague) had now been
brought upon Israel and Judah, and what was once a plague for Israel’s deliverance
was now a “plague” for their destruction in the land. The people were in a
covenant relationship with God and responsible to the terms of the covenant. This
covenant was grounded in the purchase of Israel from Egypt. Joel’s allusive use of
the account in Exodus of the plague of locusts is a natural irony suggested by the
common figure of locusts for armies.1
It is important to note that Joel does not refer to the locust-nation (Joel 1:6) or the
locust-people (Joel 2:2) as a “wonder” in the land; his use of “wondrously” in Joel
2:26 refers to what the Lord has done on behalf of his people—the motif of
“wonders” is beneficial for the people and refers to what God has done to deliver
the people and restore the land (Joel 2:19-20, 21-26). Joel has alluded to the locust
plague of the exodus in irony but not to validate the locust-nation and locustpeople as a wonder. Accordingly, we cannot say that Joel is alluding to Exod 10:2
and its recognition formula; rather, Isaiah’s use of Joel shows that we should think
of “wonders” in terms that include deliverance.2
1
2
Strazicich, 72.
Contra Strazicich, 72.
198
A better echo with the exodus plagues is the recognition formula of Exod 8:18,
But on that day I will set apart the land of Goshen, where my people dwell, so
that no swarms of flies shall be there; that you may know that I am the Lord in
the midst of the land. Exod 8:18 (RSV revised)
The insulation of Goshen from the plague of flies was a wonder that protected
Israel, and a demonstration that God was in the midst of Israel—there are the
common lexical items, “know”, “I am”, “in the midst of” and “Lord” (Joel 2:27).
The equivalent “wonder” was to be the deliverance in 701.
11. Bestowal of the Spirit
Many commentators1 sense a structural divide at Joel 2:28.2 The divide is not as
sharp as some would make out: Barton is wrong to assert that Joel 2:28 begins a
“collection of miscellaneous oracles concerning the judgment of the nations and
the future salvation of Israel”.3 We have argued in Chapter Six for the unity of the
book of Joel, and one of the reasons for not making a sharp division at Joel 2:28 is
the use of “afterward” in the text:
And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh;
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream
dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon
the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. Joel 2:28-29 (KJV)
The first critical point of interpretation for this verse is the “afterward” (!k yrxa).
While the oracle units of vv. 28-32 might have originated independently of earlier
oracles, its location in the book requires a commentator to relate the “afterward”
to what has gone before in some sense. Barton identifies Joel 2:28-32 as a separate
oracle with no particular connection to previous oracles.4 However, if we adopt the
reading presumptions of NT writers, it would be anachronistic to offer historicalcritical reasons for divorcing Joel 2:28-32 from its position in the book. The
exegetical task is to identify clues in the text that interpret “afterward”. A number
of possibilities present themselves:
After the invasion by the great people (Joel 2:2-9).
After the blowing of the trumpet and the calling of the people to petition God
(Joel 2:1, 15-17).
After the people repent and seek God (Joel 2:12-14).
Barton, 14, 92; Redditt, “Peripheral Prophecy”, 226.
The versification in the MT and LXX differs from English versions at this point with the result
that the English Joel 2:28-32 becomes Joel 3:1-5; we follow English versification.
3
Barton, 92—see Kapelrud, 127 for a non-eschatological reading.
4
See Barton, 97, who says of Joel 2:30-32, “we simply have another fragmentary prophecy of the
end-time, which cannot be arranged with others into a chronological sequence”.
1
2
199
After the removal of the northerner and the forces associated with him (Joel
2:20).
After the restoration is initiated (Joel 2:21-27).
On these possibilities, we can offer the following comments:
1) A sequential and consecutive reading would place the bestowal of the spirit after
the restoration of the land. Thus, it can be argued that the pattern of first-person
announcements of Joel 2:19-27 (vv. 19-20, 25-27) is continued in Joel 2:28 with
Yahweh’s assertion that he will pour out his spirit upon all flesh. Yahweh invites
the people to “look”1 at what he is about to do—restore their honour, remove the
northerner, and restore the land; as a result, they will know that Yahweh is among
them (Joel 2:27). These actions are God’s response to the calamity that forms the
catalyst for Joel 2:19-27, viz. the northerner and the forces associated with him in
the land. God states he will restore the land and the bestowal of the Spirit follows
this happening. Hubbard takes this approach and argues that the “afterward”
signals a second stage of blessing, which inaugurates a new era in God’s dealings
with his people.2
2) This sequential reading cannot be adopted without an analysis of the content of
Joel 2:28-32 and a consideration of the possibility that the units in these verses are
a parallel description of God’s response to invasion of the land rather than the
restoration of the land.3 In this case, the first person address of Joel 2:28-29 would
connect to earlier assertions of God recorded in Joel 2 rather than the immediately
preceding assertions of Joel 2:25-27. Textually, the indications supporting a parallel
reading are the following:
i) The flow of the text is interrupted by “And it shall come to pass” (hyhw) in Joel
2:28. This device has the effect of introducing a pause in reading, which separates
off the quick-fire sequence of actions that follow the “Behold!” of Joel 2:19.
Elsewhere within Joel, this expression is used to introduce new information rather
than continue a sequential pattern of happenings with the immediately preceding
verses. Thus in Joel 2:32, the phrase introduces the prospect of deliverance in
Jerusalem, which is “out of sequence” with the earlier oracle unit about the
1
The importance of hnh in biblical narrative has been noted by narrative critics; see A. Berlin, The
Poetics of Biblical Narrative (BLS 9; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983), 61-62. This is the first
occurrence in Joel and shifts the perspective of the reader from what has been described as
already upon the land to what can be expected in response.
2
Hubbard, 68.
3
Many scholars see the placement of Joel 2:28-32 immediately after an oracle of restoration and
propose that the bestowal of the Spirit is part of the work of restoration. See Van Gemeren,
“Spirit of Restoration”, 87, 126; Crenshaw, 163-164; L. R. McQueen, Joel and the Spirit: The Cry of
a Prophetic Hermeneutic (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 39-43; and Prinsloo, Theology
of the Book of Joel, 80.
200
restoration of the land (Joel 2:25-27); Joel 2:32 constitutes a parallel
pronouncement applying to the time when there would be a need for deliverance
and the Day of the Lord was again a real prospect; and again, in Joel 3:18, the
expression introduces a new oracle unit rather than add to the actions of Joel 3:1617. Accordingly, our proposal is that Joel 2:28-32 introduces parallel oracle
material.
ii) The previous (and only) temporal phrase in the speech of Yahweh is in Joel
2:12, “Yet even now (ht[ ~gw)…return to me” (RSV). This hooks up with Joel 2:28,
Yet even now…turn ye even unto me…And it shall come to pass afterward, that
I will pour out my spirit… Joel 2:12, 28 (KJV revised)
This relates the bestowal of the Spirit to the repentance of the people: if they
repent then God will pour out his spirit. This reading is supported by Luke in
Peter’s speech in Acts 2, where Joel 2:28-32 is quoted and the explicit connection
made, “Repent…and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).
3) We can be certain therefore that of the five possibilities presented above, the
event after which the Spirit is bestowed is the repentance of the people. This
supplies the necessary logical connection. The rhetorical flow of the collected
oracles is not therefore any of the following,
Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain...and
afterward I will pour out my spirit… Joel 2:1, 28 (KJV revised)
…there is a great people upon the mountains…but afterward I will pour out my
spirit… Joel 2:2, 28 (KJV revised)
Also I will remove far off from you the northerner...and afterward I will pour out
my spirit Joel 2:20, 28 (KJV revised)
I will restore to you the years that the locust hath eaten…and afterward I will
pour out my spirit Joel 2:25, 28 (KJV revised)
Rather, the expression “And it shall come to pass afterward” reconnects with the
earlier temporal expression, “Yet even now…return to me” (Joel 2:12, RSV).
The above points, (1)-(3), establish that Joel 2:28-32 should be read in parallel with
the preceding oracles that describe God’s response to the people’s repentance.
Barton is therefore wrong to argue that “afterward” means “after all this” and as
such introduces an addition to the already complete book of Joel.1 Rather, the
1
Barton, 93.
201
Hebrew phrase, !k yrxa,1 is a narrative device that ties happenings in a sequence,2
for instance,
And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the
beginning: afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful
city. Isa 1:26 (KJV)
Now when all the princes, and all the people, which had entered into the
covenant, heard that every one should let his manservant, and every one his
maidservant, go free, that none should serve themselves of them any more, then
they obeyed, and let them go. But afterward they turned, and caused the servants
and the handmaids, whom they had let go free, to return, and brought them into
subjection for servants and for handmaids. Jer 34:10-11 (KJV)
Barton’s mistake is to erect a false comparison with phrases such as “in days to
come”, “on that day”, “at that time”, “days are coming” and “in those days”,
where a tight sequencing is not implied, and which have a vaguer scope.3 The
bestowal of the Spirit begins with the repentance of the people and continues
throughout the restoration of Judah as deliverance in Jerusalem is preached to
those in the Northern Kingdom.
The bestowal of the Spirit was to take place “in those days” (hmhh ~ymyb, Joel
2:29), and this implies an ongoing widespread bestowal extending over those years
in which there would be deliverance in Jerusalem for those in the Northern
Kingdom.4 However, the timing of the utterance of the oracle lies within the crisis
facing Judah that is envisioned in Joel 2:1-11, and this can be inferred from the
prospective nature of the promise for a time “in those days”.
The expression “in those days” occurs again in Joel 3:1, but it is important to note
that the situation is different. Whereas Joel 2:28-32 offers deliverance in Jerusalem,
Joel 3:1 presupposes the captivity of Jerusalem and Judah and its reversal. This
envisages a time after the Day of the Lord for the Northern Kingdom and the
policies that Hezekiah would pursue in his reign. However, even though the
situation is different there is a connection to observe and one preserved by the
explanatory “For” (yk) of Joel 3:1.
1
The phrase occurs 22x and mostly in the history books where narrative sequencing is
important. In all cases the phrase indicates contiguity in the narrative: something happens and
afterwards something happens, e.g. Gen 41:31, Exod 11:1, 1 Chron 19:1.
2
For a discussion, see W. A. Van Gemeren, “The Spirit of Restoration”, WTJ (1988): 81-202
(84-86).
3
Barton, 94.
4
Kapelrud, 127, usefully observes that the similar phrase “And it shall come to pass in that day”
is elsewhere associated with what lies in the immediate future rather than a distant eschatological
time (Isa 7:18, 21; 11:11; Hos 2:18, 23).
202
For (yk), behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall turn around the
captivity of Judah and Jerusalem… Joel 3:1 (KJV revised)
The explanation given here relates to the “blood, fire and pillars of smoke” – all
surrounding nations would be gathered for the great assize and the ensuing battle
would be a “sacrifice” of the Lord.
11.1 Prophecy, Dreams and Visions
The Spirit of prophecy that is bestowed on all the people (Joel 2:28-29) echoes
Num 11:29 and Moses’ hope that all Yahweh’s people would become prophets; the
prediction is not universal but restricted to Judahites (cf. Jer 12:12).1 The
implication of “prophecies, dreams and visions” is of a prophetic mission to the
people to bring them back to God, and this is confirmed in Joel 2:32 with the
statement that God will call survivors to Jerusalem where there will be deliverance.
The verb “I will pour out” ($pv) echoes Hos 5:10—the pouring out of God’s
wrath—and it forms an assuring contrast; after the pouring out of God’s wrath
there is the pouring out of God’s spirit. More significantly, Ezekiel and Zechariah
allude to Joel in their use of the verb:
Neither will I hide my face any more from them: for I have poured out my spirit
upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord God. Ezek 39:29 (KJV)
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
the spirit of grace and of supplications… Zech 12:10 (KJV)
The context of Zechariah is that of a siege of Jerusalem; God promises to defend
Jerusalem and its inhabitants (Zech 12:2, 8, 9). The context of Joel is likewise one
in which there is deliverance in Jerusalem but not elsewhere, although Joel does
not elaborate upon the wider situation. Zechariah is concerned with both Judah
and Jerusalem, and Judah is to be saved before Jerusalem. Joel is concerned with
“survivors” and only Jerusalem. Both situations are that of military conflict, but the
mention of survivors in Joel implies an enemy has been victorious; Zechariah
paints a picture of the triumph of Judah and Jerusalem. The principal difference
between the two promises lies in the nature of the Spirit: Joel is concerned with
prophecy, dreams and visions; Zechariah is concerned with a disposition of grace
and supplication.
The context of Ezekiel is that of a great battle after a return from an exile (Ezek
39:17-22); however, the concluding remark about the Spirit is of what has
happened during Israel’s exile. The explanatory “for” explains how and why it is
that God no longer hides his face from his people, something that he had done
while they were in exile (Ezek 39:24). The reference is to prophecies in Ezek 36:241
Kapelrud, 131, who usefully notes the restrictions of Ezek 39:29 and Zech 12:10.
203
28 and 37:14. These prophecies make the sequence clear: Israel is “dead” in exile
and given new life – but the new life is a life of walking in righteousness by the
Spirit; when this happens the people are then placed in the land (Ezek 36:28;
37:14).1 The difference of situation compared with Joel is clear, but the point of
similarity is a bestowal of the Spirit that brings about a return to Jerusalem of
survivors.
The bestowal of the Spirit in Joel, Ezekiel and Zechariah happens in different
situations—military conflict in the land or in an exile; each bestowal brings typical
gifts: prophetic gifts of revelation (Joel), gifts of prayer (Zechariah),2 and gifts of
ethical renewal (Ezekiel). None of the situations are of a restored people and a new
age; in Ezekiel, the people are in an exile, while in Zechariah, there is war in the
land; in Joel, while there has been restoration of the land of Judah (Joel 2:21-27),
the vassal status of Northern Israel is still a reality and Samaria has yet to fall—it is
in this context that Joel promises a mission to the north.
Kapelrud observes,
From ancient times dreams meant oracles and warnings which in part had to be
interpreted and interpreted correctly, and which in part were self-explanatory.
They threw light on the future, the events of everyday life, and on happenings of
importance.3
In this observation there is an argument against the eschatological reading of Joel
2:28-32, viz. that the dreams and visions were going to be given to ordinary people
and were meant for their life and times.
The terms of Joel’s prophecy do not suggest a static and positional bestowal of the
Spirit, as if this is a grace falling upon the cultic centre in Jerusalem for the benefit
of the priesthood, the court, or the general populace. The bestowal is set against an
urgent and present threat, and the need to call survivors to Jerusalem. There is
therefore nothing in these terms to suppose that the bestowal is permanent or for
the function of maintaining the quality of spiritual life in a restored nation. The
bestowal appears to be part of the pattern in the oral traditions of the nation,
whereby the Spirit is bestowed upon an individual when the nation needs to be
delivered, except that in this instance the bestowal is widespread.
1
J. Allfree, Ezekiel 1-39 (Stoke: Published by the Author, Undated), 207, 211, 231-232.
Contra Kapelrud, 129, 133, who sees an implication of ecstasy—prayer is a rational gift and, in
respect of Joel 2:28, the Niphal of abn is used elsewhere for intelligible prophetic utterances (e.g.
Amos 7:16; Jer 5:31; 20:6; 25:13; Ezek 4:7; 37:7; Zech 13:3). Marks of intelligibility here are
“lies”, “falsehood” “command-execution” scenarios and “speaking against something”.
3
Kapelrud, 136, who cites appropriate biblical evidence.
2
204
11.2 Wonders in the Heavens
The pronouncement of Joel 2:28-29 is clearly demarcated by the inclusio of “pour
out my spirit” at the beginning and end of the unit.
… I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh...in those days will I pour out my spirit.
Joel 2:28-29 (KJV)
The first person address continues in v. 30 but this does not mean that this verse is
part a single oracle unit recorded in Joel 2:28-30; the inclusio prevents this inference.
We should see the utterance of v. 30 as continuing the first person address of vv.
28-29 and as another part of the “answer” of the Lord (Joel 2:19) which has also
been given in the first person utterances of Joel 2:19-27.1
And I will shew wonders (tpwm) in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire,
and pillars of smoke. Joel 2:30 (KJV)
It might be thought that the declaration that God will show wonders in the
heavens is given a counterpoint in v. 31 where happenings to the sun and moon
(i.e. the principal heavenly bodies) are described. However, first person utterances
of Yahweh stop at vv. 31-32 and so we cannot regard these verses as
straightforwardly part of an oracle unit comprised of Joel 2:28-32. Rather, these
verses are further predictions about what will come to pass some time after the
repentance of the people (Joel 2:12-14). While commentators often treat Joel 2:2832 as a single unit,2 it is better to see the material as consisting of related units.
The wonders in the heavens cannot be comprised of the darkening of the sun and
the moon turning to blood. The Hebrew term for “wonders” (tpwm) occurs 35x
and of these 18x relate to the wonders performed in Egypt by the hand of Moses.
A second important usage of the term is in relation to the wonders performed by
prophets (11x, e.g. Deut 13:2, 3; 1 Kgs 13:3, 5; Ezek 12:6, 11). This database of
usage precludes the interpretation that the wonders of Joel are celestial
phenomena—signs to do with the sun and the moon. Of these two types of usage,
it is the second that applies to Joel. The use of the term in relation to Isaiah in the
eighth century (Isa 8:18; 20:3)3 illustrate Joel’s prophetic use of the term, a use that
coheres and amplifies the bestowal of the spirit of prophecy in Joel 2:28-29.
This reading interprets “the heavens” as a metaphor for Jerusalem and the temple,
the places from which the land (earth) was governed. The wonders are signs and
1
Accordingly, we treat v. 30 as a separate and bridging oracle unit; contra Barton, 97.
Hubbard, 31-33, 68; Mason, 99, 104; Allen, 96-97.
3
Kapelrud, 137; see also Deut 13:2.
2
205
miracles performed by prophets in Jerusalem as a witness and in support of the
message to seek deliverance in Jerusalem. 1
11.3 Blood, Fire and Pillars of Smoke
The exegesis of the phrase, “blood, fire and pillars of smoke” is difficult. Since
“fire” is mentioned with “blood”, the most common interpretative suggestion is
that Joel predicts the warlike conditions associated with the Day of the Lord.
Along with “pillars of smoke”, these terms are said to refer to the normal compass
of warfare.
But when the flame began to arise up out of the city with a pillar of smoke, the
Benjamites looked behind them, and, behold, the flame of the city ascended up
to heaven. Jud 20:40 (KJV)
While the Hebrew for “pillar of smoke” in Jud 20:40 is not the same as Joel 2:30
(!v[ twrmyt), the reference does allow the suggestion that “pillars of smoke” in
Joel is shorthand for the burning of cities. This proposal gives due weight to all
three terms in the phrase and each has a place in the figure.2 In Sol 3:6, there is the
only other occurrence of the exact phrase, “Who is this that cometh out of the
wilderness like pillars of smoke”—and the scene is one of dust clouds generated by
fast moving horses and chariots. Such a picture is also suitable for a description of
war in Joel, “blood, fire and pillars of smoke” if the reference is to the use of
chariots rather than the burning of cities. Crenshaw observes that “these three
things appear to conjure up terrifying images of warfare”.3
It is not necessary to decide between these two suggestions, (1)-(2); they are not
controversial. The action is that of Yahweh—he will show blood, fire and pillars of
smoke in the earth. Consequently, the warfare is not that of an aggressor but rather
that initiated by Judah.4 Such action is consistent with Yahweh conducting war in
the land. The promise of v. 30 is therefore a different situation to that of the Day
of the Lord and the need for deliverance in vv. 31-32. Crenshaw collapses Joel
2:30-31 together, and fails to distinguish a figure of aggression by Judah a situation
where the people seek deliverance in Jerusalem.5
1
Barton, 97, asserts that the wonders of Joel 2:30 are not meant to follow the outpouring of the
Spirit in Joel 2:28-29. This is not first century interpretation which contextually relates the
bestowal of the Spirit to wonders. The display of tongues at Pentecost is an illustration of Joel
(Acts 2:19); and the apostles and believers do wonders by the Spirit (Acts 2:42; 4:30; 5:12; 6:8;
14:3; 15:12). In addition, there is evidence of “wonders” in Isaiah’s ministry.
2
Hence, the suggestion that the phrase connotes geo-physical activity—earthquakes and volcanic
eruptions (Isa 34:9-10; Ezek 38:22)—can be rejected because there is no obvious place for
blood.
3
Crenshaw, 167.
4
Prophetic texts about war could be i) a war of vengeance; ii) a war of defence for deliverance
from an enemy; and iii) a pre-emptive war of aggression for conquest.
5
Barton, 97-98, makes the same mistake.
206
The counter-argument to our approach lies in the reading which sees the motif of
wonders as an allusion to Exodus traditions of deliverance (e.g. Exod 4:21; 7:3;
11:9, 10);1 such deliverance is all about what takes place in the Day of the Lord.
This agrees with Joel 2:32 and its offer of deliverance to survivors who come to
Jerusalem. Such wonders include the blood, fire and pillars of smoke in exodus
deliverance traditions. There are several ways to support this line of interpretation.
1) Intertextual connections between Joel and Isa 4:1-6 might support this exodus
deliverance typology. Thus, Isaiah states that the Lord will create a cloud and
smoke “by day”, and create a flaming fire “by night” (~mwy, hlyl/h`me,raj, nukto,j—
Exod 13:21; Isa 4:5; Joel 2:30). This will take place in Mount Zion (!wyc rh/tou/
o;rouj Siwn—Isa 4:5; Joel 2:32) and Jerusalem (Isa 4:3; Joel 2:32), and “upon all”
(lk l[/pa,sh|—Isa 4:5; Joel 2:28) there would be glory, and these will constitute a
remnant (raX—Isa 4:4; dyrX—Joel 2:32).2 Joel’s point could be therefore that just as
the pillar of cloud protected Israel at the Red Sea by day, and the pillar of fire by
night —these will now protect Jerusalem against the invading horde.
2) The mention of “blood” in an Exodus deliverance context could evoke
recollection of the river being turned into blood (Exod 7:17), or more likely
(because closer to the actual day of deliverance), the smiting of the firstborn; the
blood of the Passover Lamb was designed to save the Israelites in their houses
(Exod 12:13). The mention of fire could allude to the fire that accompanied the
plague of hail (Exod 9:23-24) and no doubt there was smoke along with the fire.
On the basis of (1) and/or (2), it could be argued that the “blood”, the “cloud”
and “fire” were three significant details of the exodus and might easily be applied
in any oracle of deliverance in which an invading army was slain.
The counter-argument fails for several reasons. Firstly, a typology based on Sinai,
or on the journey through the wilderness is not the same as a typology centred in
the plagues. The fact that the three typologies are gathered from the one book of
Exodus does not entitle an interpreter to collate them and call them an “exodus”
typology. Secondly, the three details of fire, blood and pillars of smoke, do not find
a place in one story from the book of Exodus. While there is a plague involving
blood, the plague of hail only mentions fire as a consequence and there is no
mention of smoke let alone pillars of smoke. While there is a pillar of smoke and a
pillar of fire, there is no associated phenomenon matching the detail of blood.
Prinsloo, Theology of the Book of Joel, 84; Sweeny, “The Place and Function of Joel in the Book of
the Twelve”, 146; Bergler, 247-294.
2
This oracle also affirms that “in that day” (awhh ~wyb—Isa 4:1; Joel 4:18), the Lord will “purge”
(xwd—Isa 4:4) or “cleanse” (hqn—Joel 4:21) the blood of the sacrifices through a spirit of
judgment and a spirit of burning (Isa 4:4).
1
207
Thirdly, we cannot assume that the term “wonders” in Joel 2:30 covers the terms
“blood, fire and pillars of smoke” rather than just “the heavens”.
Several commentators1 notice the sacrificial imagery of war in the idiom of Joel
2:30. Such a reading explains all three terms, “fire”, “blood” and “pillars of
smoke”. Such an image changes the nature of the war that is envisaged from one
of deliverance to one of aggression (possibly revenge) by Judah. This reading
would then cohere with the substance of the oracles in Joel 3. We can therefore
avoid the misdirection of the exodus “wonders” reading and restrict the wonders
of Joel 2:30 to just “the heavens”.
12. Sun and Moon
The “great” and “terrible” Day of the Lord is mentioned in Joel 2:11, 31. The
celestial phenomena associated with the two “days” are both similar and different:
The earth has quaked before them; the heavens has trembled: the sun and the
moon has been dark, and the stars have withdrawn their shining: And the Lord
shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong
that executeth his word: for the day of the Lord is great and very terrible; and
who can abide it? Yet even now, saith the Lord, turn ye even to me with all your
heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning… Joel 2:10-12
(KJV revised)
The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great
and the terrible day of the Lord come. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever
shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in
Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom
the Lord shall call. Joel 2:31-32 (KJV)
The differences to note between these two texts are,
Joel 2:10
Joel 2:31
As the army is encamped outside the city,
the earth has already quaked…
…the heavens have trembled…
…the sun and the moon have been dark… The sun shall be turned into darkness, and
the moon into blood…
…the stars have withdrawn their shining.
…before the great and the terrible day of
the Lord come.
There is no sequence to be observed in these two statements: Joel 2:31 is about
celestial happenings before the Day of the Lord, whereas Joel 2:10 looks back at
celestial events that have happened. Furthermore, the event relating to the moon
1
Kapelrud, 138; Sweeny, “The Place and Function of Joel in the Book of the Twelve”, 145.
208
is different: the eclipse conditions that lead to a blood-red moon are not those that
lead to it being dark.
There are other differences to note between these two Day of the Lord
announcements:
In Joel 2:2-9, the walls of the city are breached; in Joel 2:32, there is deliverance
in Jerusalem.
The rhetorical question posed in Joel 2:11 is, “Who can abide the Day of the
Lord?” whereas in Joel 2:32 there is deliverance for those who call on the name
of the Lord.
Joel’s vision of a city under siege (Joel 2:2-9) was delivered as the warning the
Judah and Jerusalem and an impetus to their repentance. As a consequence of that
repentance, the spirit was bestowed, but a Day of the Lord was still coming—those
who had the Spirit would show wonders in “the heavens” and those who
responded to their preaching would call on the name of the Lord and seek their
escape in Jerusalem. This sequence dovetails with the history of Ahaz’ reign: in the
face of the arrival of Assyria in the area in 735-734, Joel’s vision warns the people
of the need for repentance. Against the backdrop of the recent ravaging of the land
by her neighbours, Judah and Jerusalem do repent, and Assyria removes the
northerner from the land. The Spirit is bestowed generally upon those who repent,
old and young; son and daughter; servant and handmaid, and these prophets
preach a message to Northern Israel that there is deliverance in Jerusalem from the
coming Day of the Lord in the years following 734. Using Joel’s vision, Isaiah
reiterates the coming day of the Lord for the Northern Kingdom in 728 painting a
picture of its inevitable end.
There is a repetition of the celestial signs that presage the Day of the Lord. The
Hebrew verb for “dark” in Joel 2:10/3:15 is rdq, while in Joel 2:31 the Hebrew
phrase is $vxl $phy—“turned to darkness”. The turning of the moon to darkness
is an aspect of partial and total lunar eclipses; an illuminated blood-red colour is a
characteristic1 of a total eclipse of the moon.2 The two features in Joel 2:10
(darkness) and Joel 2:31 (redness) do not indicate the same celestial event. The
eclipses that would be relevant to the sack of Samaria are,
Solar (Partial)
723-May 6
Lunar (Total)
724-May 30
1
Rochberg, Heavenly Writing, 71, notes that Mesopotamian divination registered the reddish
colour of the moon in lists of omens.
2
Contra Kapelrud, 141.
209
722-Apr 25
724-Nov 24
While the immediate Assyrian intention was removed after the people’s
repentance, a Day of the Lord was still to come upon the Northern Kingdom, and
it is from here that people would escape to Judah and Jerusalem.
The Day of the Lord is “great and terrible”, a rare phrase (6x) which is used of
God himself (3x) when exercising his covenant mercy:
And said, I beseech thee, O Lord God of heaven, the great and terrible God, that
keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his
commandments… Neh 1:5 (KJV)
And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the
rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great
and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your
wives, and your houses. Neh 4:8 (KJV)
I prayed to the Lord my God and made confession, saying, “O Lord, the great
and terrible God, who keepest covenant and steadfast love with those who love
him and keep his commandments… Dan 9:4 (RSV)
The use of the phrase with the Day of the Lord therefore has an association of
mercy: God is great and terrible but he will exercise mercy for those who observe
his commandments. This assurance is implicit in Joel’s warning and it reinforces
the mission to the north that Joel 2:28-30 documents.
13. Deliverance in Jerusalem
There is repetition of “…and it shall come to pass…” in Joel 2:28 and 2:32,
And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit…And it shall
come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be
delivered… Joel 2:28, 32 (KJV)
This link of phrases is a pickup device in the text akin to a footnote in modern
writing. This device makes the “calling on the name of the Lord” (Joel 2:32) a coincident event with the bestowal of the Spirit, so that whoever repents and calls
upon the Lord will receive the Spirit. This pouring out of the spirit is part of a
deliverance centred on Zion and Jerusalem but one extending to all the people, north
and south.
The KJV refers to those who are delivered and a “remnant” whom the Lord calls;
the NASB refers to those who escape and survivors. The idea is not theological; it
is not about “calling and election”. Rather, the idea is about refugees, escapees and
survivors in military conflict; this is clear from the typical texts in which the
relevant words occur.
210
Joel quotes Obadiah in his pronouncement,1
…for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath
said… Joel 2:32 (KJV)
But upon mount Zion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness; and the
house of Jacob shall possess their possessions. Obad v. 17 (KJV)
Within the parameters set by Joel, the bestowal of the Spirit is for those in Judah
and Jerusalem; it is not a universal promise.
The prophet repeats what God has said through Obadiah, and it appears that
Obadiah expresses the principle for the times, that there will be deliverance in
Zion, and Joel makes an application.
14. Conclusion
Joel 2 is a complex collection of oracles; they tell a sequential story, but it is easy to
miss the history if the basic contrast between the sack of the city in v. 9 and
deliverance in the city in v. 31 is not upheld. Further, if the principle of making the
oracles relevant to an audience and their life and times is not respected, the
background history can remain hidden in a purely “last days” reading. Finally, it is
important to break the common reading pattern that equates the northerner with
the great people; if we retain this pattern, the background history will again appear
obscure, as there is no obvious history to correlate with such an equation.
1
Contra Wolff who links the citation to Joel 2:19; Allen, 41, follows Wolff.
211
CHAPTER ELEVEN
Judgments on the Nations
1. Introduction
The oracle units in Joel 3 are reasonable clear: vv. 1-3, vv. 4-8, vv. 9-13, vv. 14-15,
vv. 16-17, and vv. 18-21.1 These units can be distinguished by differences of topic
and tone and by a sharp imperative in v. 9, a visual scene in vv. 14-15, and an
affirmation of “what will come to pass” in v. 18.
In the reading of the book, the oracles of Joel 3 depict a time after the Assyrian
crises of Joel 1 and 2. Such a situation is set in the opening assertion,
For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall turn around the
captivity of Judah and Jerusalem… Joel 3:1 (KJV revised)
The “captivity” of Judah and Jerusalem is “turned around” and in those days the
nations are gathered together in the Valley of Jehoshaphat (v. 2).2 The gathering is
announced in the first oracle unit (vv. 1-3), but it relates to a time after the crisis
predicted in Joel 2:31-32.
In vv. 4-8, we have fragments of statements from the Assyrian and SyroEphraimite crises of the 730s, a time in which captives were taken and sold. The
role of the oracle unit is to explain and expand upon the statement that God will
turn around the captivity of his people. The tone of the statements is immediate
and directed at the slave-trading coastal cities.3 Taken as a whole vv. 1-8 declares
what will happen after the crises of Ahaz’ reign.
The oracle units of vv. 1-8 set the scene for the third oracle (vv. 9-13) which is
belligerent and a challenge to war. The proclamation of war on the part of Judah
comes from the time in which the predictions of vv. 1-8 are to be fulfilled. The
encounter is another Day of the Lord (this time for the nations), and it is successful
for Judah (vv. 13, 16, 19). The book of Joel closes on a note of safety and
prosperity with the Lord dwelling Zion (vv. 18-21).
1
Contra Allen, 105-107; and following Sweeney, 1:176; Barton, 103.
Contra Nogalski, “The Day(s) of YHWH in the Book of the Twelve”, 202, the allusion to Joel
3:1 in Zeph 3:19-20 does not indicate that Joel’s prophecy was not fulfilled in his day; rather, the
prophecy was renewed in Zephaniah’s day. Nogalski supposes that the people do not repent in
Joel’s day, but this view is refuted by the change of tense in Joel 2:18.
3
Accordingly, we disagree with the common view that vv. 4-8 are an interpolation from a later
editor; on which see Nash, Palestinian Agricultural Year, 167; Wolff, 74;
2
212
2. A Time for Revenge
The relationship of the oracles in Joel 3 to those in Joel 1 and 2 requires
discussion. Commentators are inclined to interpret the logical connective “for” in
Joel 3:1 with either the portents of Joel 2:30, the deliverance of Jerusalem in Joel
2:32, or the bestowal of the Spirit in Joel 2:28-29. In addition, there is a tendency
to read the oracles in an eschatological fashion.
Hubbard asserts that Joel 2:30-32 is an “overall picture” which Joel then paints in
close-up in Joel 3.1 He avers that the future period mentioned in Joel 2:28-29 is the
time in which Yahweh will rescue Judah and Jerusalem and restore her fortunes;
such a time will involve judgment upon the nations and these are detailed in Joel 3.
Hubbard combines deliverance, judgment and restoration into one “period”. His
analysis is eschatological, whereas an historical application would be necessarily
different. Barton’s analysis is also eschatological but he sees little sense in asking
how the oracle fits with the outpouring of the Spirit or the portents of Joel 2:3032—“it is simply another eschatological theme only loosely connected to anything
else”.2
There is a parallel to note between Joel 2:29 and Joel 3:1,
…in those days (hmhh ~ymyb) will I pour out my spirit. Joel 2:29 (KJV)
For, behold, in those days, (hmhh ~ymyb) and in that time,3 when I shall turn
around the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem… Joel 3:1 (KJV)
However, this does not imply that these are the “same” days—one relates to the
bestowal of the Spirit and the other relates to the turning around of the captivity of
Judah and Jerusalem. This is shown by the incongruence of “deliverance” (Joel
2:32) and “captivity” (Joel 3:1); deliverance in Jerusalem would normally imply the
avoidance of the captivity of Jerusalem. Accordingly, Hubbard is mistaken to relate
the oracles of Joel 3 and Joel 2:28-32 to the same time period.4 A broader historical
situation that includes captivity and deliverance is implied and this limits the
options available to the commentator in reconstructing the life and times of Joel.
Deliverance is logically prior to judgment and restoration and each can equally be
assigned their own “time” in God’s dealings with his people.
There is a similar parallel to note between Joel 3:1 and Joel 2:19,
1
Hubbard, 73.
Barton, 99.
3
Similar double phraseology is found in Jer 33:15, which tells of the rule of the Branch of David
in the land, and Jer 50:20, which refers to the return of Israel after the Babylonian Captivity. The
exact phraseology is found only in Jer 50:4 where the context speaks of the return of the people
to Zion.
4
Hubbard, 74.
2
213
Behold, I will send you corn, and wine, and oil, and ye shall be satisfied
therewith: and I will no more make you a reproach among the heathen… Joel
2:19 (KJV)
For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall turn around the
captivity of Judah and Jerusalem… Joel 3:1 (KJV)
The two uses of “Behold!” direct attention to these two distinct actions of
Yahweh, but again there is no implication that they happen at the same time. It
might be surmised that the turning around of captivity would precede the
restoration of the land, but this would presuppose a certain kind of captivity in
which all the people had been taken from the land. If on the other hand some have
been taken captive and some have remained in the land, then restoration of the
land and the return of captives are distinct happenings and repatriation might well
happen after the people left behind have reasserted themselves and are able to
demand the return of their countrymen. The order of Joel’s oracles suggests this
latter kind of fulfilment.
The logical connective, “for”, should not be eliminated in translation; it does make
the “gathering of the nations” a reason for something stated earlier in Joel.
However, this is not the happenings of Joel 2:28-32. We propose that the oracle is
another promise like that in Joel 2:19, one which will likewise be fulfilled if the
people repent and turn to the Lord. The two uses of “Behold!” direct a reader to
think of the first person assertions of Joel 2:19-20 alongside those of Joel 3:1-2. If
the people repent, God will fully re-establish Judah in the land. The assurance of a
“turning around” of the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem is therefore a logical
subject to include at this point.1
Accordingly, Wolff and Crenshaw are wrong to connect the “for” to Joel 3:5 as the
reason for delivering Jerusalem.2 Had this been the case, there would have been no
need for “in those days and at that time”, which introduces indeterminacy as to
exactly when the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem will be reversed. The “captivity”
of Judah and Jerusalem is “turned around” (bwv) and in the days when this
happens, the nations round about Judah will be gathered and judged. The initial
delivery of the oracle is from within the ongoing crisis—but the oracle looks forward
in prospect to the days when Yahweh will turn around the captivity of Judah and
Jerusalem.
1
Hence, Crenshaw, 19, is wrong to assert that the event being described is for an unspecified
“remote future” and Barton, 99, is wrong to say it is only “loosely connected” to what has
already been detailed.
2
Wolff, 73; Crenshaw, 173.
214
Wolff makes a similar mistake when he asserts that the formula of “in those days
and at that time” of Joel 3:1 refers back to the rubric of “afterward it shall come to
pass” used in Joel 2:28.1 The “days” of Joel 3:1 are defined to be when Yahweh
turns around a captivity; the bestowal of the Spirit occurs in days when the people
repent. Although Wolff mistakenly connects the “for” of Joel 3:1 to the
deliverance of Jerusalem in Joel 2:32 and the bestowal of the Spirit in Joel 2:28-29,
he understands the structure of the oracles at this point in the book as ones
responding to the “the turning commanded” in Joel 2:12-17.2 The key to the
structure are the first person assurances of Yahweh made from within the crisis;
these are interspersed with third-person commentary offering supplementary
explanation but they are still an identifiable thread responding to the repentance of
the people.
In sum, commentators seek to connect Joel 3:1 to some aspect of Joel 2:28-32, and
our proposal is that the connection is with “blood, fire and pillars of smoke” of v.
30. The structure of the oracles in the latter half of Joel 2 is one responding to the
“the turning commanded” in Joel 2:12-17. The key to the structure are the first
person assurances of Yahweh made from within the crisis; these are interspersed
with third-person commentary offering supplementary explanation but they are
still an identifiable thread responding to the repentance of the people. One of
these first person assurances is Joel 2:30 and another is Joel 3:1.
The responses are parallel assurances given from within the crisis that engendered
the oracles and visions of Joel 1:2-2:11, but they each detail one action without
regard to timing. What commentators do not discuss is the absence of any captivity
thread in Joel 1 and 2; Joel has not previously lamented the taking of any captives.
His story up to Joel 3 is one of crisis-repentance with assurances of deliverance and
restoration should the people repent; captivity lies in the background of the crisis,
and the turning around of such captivity is a further reason for repentance.
The above points establish a context for the delivery of the declaration that God
will call the nations round about to account. The subsequent verses, vv. 4-8, are his
dialogue with coastal city-states who have traded with the “nations”, and with vv.
1-3 the reader is moved to the time beyond Judah’s crisis.
3. Pleading for the People
The opening oracle unit of Joel 3:1-8 is threatening in its tone. It is a composite
oracle in two parts: vv. 1-3 is a declaration to the people about the nations, and vv.
1
2
Wolff, 74.
Wolff, 73-74.
215
4-8 are fragments of speech addressed to the complicit city-states,1 directly
accusing them of crimes against Judah.
3.1 Captivity
The opening verse has a reference to the “captivity” of Judah and Jerusalem, which
is usually taken to be a clear indication of the post-exilic nature of the oracle; the
captivity is taken to be the Babylonian Captivity.2 Wolff asserts that the oracle
“assumes” 587,3 however, the form of the verb is imperfect (“I will turn around”),
which gives the oracle a future cast.
The noun for “captivity” (twbv) is commonly used of the Babylonian Captivity
(e.g. Jer 29:14) and the verb “to turn” (bwv) is often used with the noun (e.g. Jer
33:26). On this basis it is not implausible to see a reference to the Babylonian
Captivity in Joel 3:1. However, this common approach is not unequivocal; Allen
notes a general example of “captivity” in Ezek 16:53, while Hos 6:11 could
reference any of several captivities in the eighth century. There is also a parabolic
use of the word in Job 42:10,4 and there are “captivities” of other nations such as
Moab and Ammon (Jer 48:47; 49:6).
We cannot simply assume that the captivity of 587 as the intended reference of
Joel 3:1; we should also consider eighth century captivities.
The expression “the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem” is not a metaphor,5 because
in Joel 3:1-8 the concern is for the people who have been traded as slaves and
scattered abroad. It is this state of affairs which Joel 3:1 references, and as such it is
a state that has arisen as a result of war. The future perspective in Joel 3:1-3 is a
post-war situation. This is very different from a situation in which there is a need
Contrary to the suggestion of some commentators, e.g. Sweeney, 179, we take “the nations” of
v. 2 to be an overlapping group with the city-states of v. 4.
2
Crenshaw, 175; Wolff, 4; Allen, 110; Sweeney, 1:177.
3
Wolff, 4.
4
Hubbard, 74, does not see the parabolic sense of Job 42:10 and, going against common usage
of twbv in the OT, incorrectly asserts that it would be better rendered as “fortunes”. Wolff, 71,
notes however that the LXX supports “captivity” (aivcmalwsi,a) as does the Qere reading in the
MT, and this is confirmed by the context of selling the human spoils of war in Joel 3:3, 8.
Sweeney, 1:177, follows the “captivity” reading. Accordingly, commentators are wrong to
generalize the phraseology to something like “restore the fortunes” (RSV, NASB) or “reverse the
calamity” as a way of avoiding the particular detail of “captivity” (e.g. Crenshaw, 172, 174; Allen,
106, 108 n. 12; Barton, 98; Wolff, 71).
5
A metaphor of captivity is used by Tiglath-Pileser to describe the siege of Damascus that
brought about the end of Rezin sometime between 734-732— “like a bird in a cage I shut him
in”, Layard 72b+73a; see Kuan, Neo-Assyrian Historical Inscriptions and Syria-Palestine, 172. The
same metaphor is used by Sennacherib of his siege of Jerusalem, “Himself I made a prisoner in
Jerusalem, his royal residence, like a bird in a cage”, ANET, 288. Another variation of the
metaphorical reading would be to see the Assyrian garrison that was installed by Ahaz in
Jerusalem (2 Kgs 16:18) as a kind of captivity “of the city”.
1
216
for deliverance—this would instead be one where the nation is still on a war
footing.
There are several references to captivities in the days of Ahaz:
Wherefore the Lord his God delivered him into the hand of the king of Syria;
and they smote him, and carried away a great multitude of them captives, and
brought them to Damascus. 2 Chron 28:5 (KJV)
And the children of Israel carried away captive of their brethren two hundred
thousand, women, sons, and daughters, and took also away much spoil from
them, and brought the spoil to Samaria. 2 Chron 28:8 (KJV)
For again the Edomites had come and smitten Judah, and carried away captives.
2 Chron 28:17 (KJV)
For the Lord brought Judah low because of Ahaz king of Israel; for he made
Judah naked, and transgressed sore against the Lord. 2 Chron 28:19 (KJV)
Wherefore the wrath of the Lord was upon Judah and Jerusalem, and he hath
delivered them to trouble, to astonishment, and to hissing, as ye see with your
eyes. For, lo, our fathers have fallen by the sword, and our sons and our
daughters and our wives are in captivity for this. Now it is in mine heart to make a
covenant with the Lord God of Israel, that his fierce wrath may turn away from
us. 2 Chron 29:8-10 (KJV)
These texts detail a situation that fits Joel. We have noted incongruence between
“deliverance” and “captivity” in the juxtaposition of Joel 2:32 and Joel 3:1. The
record in Kings and Chronicles provides a solution to this dissonance insofar as it
tells the story of successive enslavement1 of Judah’s population during the coregent beginning of Ahaz’ reign by Syria, Edom, Northern Israel and the
Philistines, followed by a deliverance from such enemies through the hand of
Assyria (736-734).
Hezekiah’s perspective on the reign of his father is telling: there are three points of
contact with Joel 3:1,
...upon Judah and Jerusalem…in captivity (ybv)…his fierce wrath may turn away
(bwv) from us. 2 Chron 29:8-10 (KJV)
For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall turn around (bwv) the
captivity (twbv) of Judah and Jerusalem… Joel 3:1 (KJV)
We propose therefore that the primary fulfillment of Joel 3:1-3 took place after
Hezekiah’s rebellion (705). It is noted that he conducted a campaign against the
The metaphor of “making Judah naked” could well evoke the sight of captives being led naked
to the trading ports of the Mediterranean.
1
217
Philistines (2 Kgs 18:8) and this illustrates the renewed power of Judah. Hezekiah’s
enunciates a policy towards the captives of Judah and Jerusalem (2 Chron 29:8-10),
and a campaign against the Philistines’ coastal cities would be a logical step towards
bringing captives back to Judah (2 Kgs 18:7-8). The more general time reference of
“in those days and in that time when…” is a prophetic expectation that some time
will pass before the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem was to be turned around by
Hezekiah.
3.2 Valley of Jehoshaphat
The second clause of this opening oracle declares how God will turn around the
captivity of Judah and Jerusalem. He will “gather” all the nations and plead for his
people Israel. The idea of “gathering the nations” is used as a prelude to judgment
(e.g. Mic 4:12; Zeph 3:8), and as part of the process of bringing them to Zion (e.g.
Isa 66:18). Here, the gathering is for “pleading” and this purpose should not be
confused with these other reasons for gathering the nations. Yahweh is to plead
for his heritage Israel (as with Pharaoh), and the use of the term “Israel” might also
embrace captives taken from the northern tribes during the siege of Samaria.1
The conversational implicature of the oracle is that the “all nations” are those the
audience understands, and we should include some of the city-states mentioned in
v. 4 among their number.2 The nations are to come to the Valley of Jehoshaphat, a
valley where the Moabites, Ammonites and Edomites had been defeated in an
historical battle by Yahweh (2 Chron 20:10, 23). Exactly where the valley was
located is unknown; a narrow valley in the Judean hills around Jerusalem can be
discounted (e.g. Kidron is the ancient suggestion), as it had held a great multitude
ready for battle. There is nothing in the text that suggests that the description
“Valley of Jehoshaphat” is symbolic;3 a commemorative name for a place would be
a natural consequence of a past great deliverance by Yahweh.
The language of the declaration in v. 2 has a legal overtone (cf. Jer 25:31). The
verbal form for “plead” (Niphal) is used in legal metaphors: 2 Chron 22:8; Psa
37:33; 109:7; Ezek 17:20. The “complaint” continues the tone—Yahweh is
1
Sweeney, 1:177.
Sweeney, 1:175, is wrong to generalize “all nations” because vv. 4-8 is very specific in the
mention of local city-states.
3
Contra Crenshaw, 175, 185; Hubbard, 74; Allen 109. The arguments used to establish a symbolic
place of judgment are deployed to support an eschatological reading of the oracle rather than an
historical one. There is a pun in “Jehoshaphat” which means “Yahweh will judge” and the
context of judging the nations, but this does not imply there was no valley so-named. Further,
the reference to this valley as the “Valley of Decision” does not require “Valley of Jehoshaphat”
to be a symbolic; there is no either/or between symbol and toponym—a topographical term can
have symbolic meaning. This valley was the “Valley of Blessing” in which Jehoshaphat and the
people received the blessing of the spoils of Yahweh’s deliverance and in return blessed Yahweh
(2 Chron 20:20-28). Joel echoes the story in the promise of “blessing” in Joel 2:14, an echo
which secures the topographical reference in Joel 3:2.
2
218
concerned with possessions—his people and his land. The people were Yahweh’s
inheritance and the nations had scattered them. The verb for scattering (rzp) is
used twice of the Assyrian and Babylonian impacts on the people; otherwise the
verb is not common.
Israel is a scattered (rzp) flock, the lions have driven them away. The first one who
devoured him was the king of Assyria, and this last one who has broken his bones
is Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. Jer 50:17 (NASB), cf. Esth 3:8
The use of rzp in Joel could be construed as a reference to just the Babylonian
Captivity or more generally to a history of captivity for the people that began with
the Assyrians.1 However, captivity and division of territory are the de rigueur of war
(Amos 7:17), and we have noted captivities in the days of Ahaz that can equally
supply the backdrop to Joel’s oracle. Allen acknowledges that the Babylonians did
not deport new people into Judah and that the seizure of land must refer to
neighbouring states.2 His point is equally supportive of an eighth century
background to Joel’s oracle where we have a record of such actions by
neighbouring states.
3.3 Trading Captives
An historical background other than the Babylon Captivity is to be preferred
because the trading ports of the Mediterranean are mentioned in v. 4. The
Babylonians moved the inhabitants of the land to the east rather than through the
western ports. The same point applies to the 722 Assyrian enforced migration of
Northern Israel which was also to the east. Joel does not name Assyria and
Babylon, and the sense of the oracle is of local injustice. The complaint is very
specific to the marketplace:
They have also cast lots for my people, traded a boy for a harlot and sold a girl
for wine that they may drink. Joel 3:3 (NASB)
The detail of this complaint is not about the wholesale shipment of captives, nor
does it reflect the resettlement policy of the Assyrians and the Babylonians; it is
about satisfying the immediate needs of an army in the field—it has taken captives
and it uses these as the price in the local ports for drink and for women.
There are two accusations: there is the casting of lots for the people, and then
there is the trading of the acquired human property for drink and for women. The
two actions relate to the immediate disposal of the spoils of war: armies composed
of different national units in the field would cast lots for the division of spoil, and
then transport and dispose of such spoil in trading cities.
1
2
Crenshaw, 175-176.
Allen, 110.
219
A comparable1 complaint is recorded by Obadiah:
In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the day that the strangers
carried away captive his forces, and foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots
upon Jerusalem, even thou wast as one of them. Obad v. 11 (KJV), cf. Nah 3:10
This shows that the casting of lots is an immediate action consequent upon victory,
and Joel is recording a declaration from the time when the spoils of Judah and
Jerusalem were divided. The nations involved are unidentified, but the mention of
the Valley of Jehoshaphat maybe an ironic clue: the nations were Edom, Moab and
Ammon—for one of which there is corroborating evidence that they were active
against Judah in the days of Ahaz (Edom, 2 Chron 28:17).
Our conclusion is that the first oracle unit (Joel 3:1-3) was delivered against the
backdrop of the inhumane treatment of Judahites by Edom and other surrounding
nations (possibly including Egypt, Joel 3:19) during the early co-regent reign of
Ahaz. Yahweh declares his intention to eventually gather such nations to judgment
for their trading of his people with the coastal ports. The earliest opportunity for
the fulfillment of this oracle would have been at the beginning of Hezekiah’s sole
reign.2
3.4 Tyre, Sidon and Philistia
Commentators regard vv. 4-8 as a later addition by an editor,3 but the arguments
that are put forward are not the kind of consideration that can identify the
presence of a late addition to the text by an editor. The postulation of a later editor
is just a deus ex machina for literary features in the text that are capable of alternative
description.4
Wolff asserts that vv. 9-14 have catchphrases that are repeated from vv. 1-3 (“all
the nations”, “to gather” and “Valley of Jehoshaphat”) and that they show “these
verses are a continuation of the announcement of punishment”.5 Such an
observation cannot begin to show the hand of a later “editor”, since it is not
possible to limit an author’s handling of his own material during his lifetime.
Furthermore, vv. 1-3 is not an announcement of punishment, but a declaration of
the intent that Yahweh will “judge” the nations; the tone of vv. 1-3 is different to
the proclamation of war in v. 9. Wolff does not consider the possibility that vv. 4-8
1
We cannot discuss the historical provenance of Obad v. 11, and commentators see a post-exilic
allusion (e.g. Sweeney, 1:178). It could well be that Obadiah is re-using the language of Joel for a
later situation.
2
This does not exclude a secondary application of the prophecy: the terms of the oracle are
specific to local nations, but this does not obscure the principle that in eschatological terms the
oracle predicts a day of reckoning for all nations (Isa 66:18; Zeph 3:8; Ezek 38:15-17).
3
Wolff, 74-75; Barton, 100.
4
For a general statement of this argument see Van Seters, The Edited Bible, x.
5
Wolff, 74. Crenshaw, 184, adds “Behold” and “children”.
220
are a different form of speech, a record of speech with accusation and threats. The
“scattering” and “selling” of God’s people in vv. 1-3 is taken up in the charges of
vv. 4-8, which makes these verses an integral part of the flow of thought in Joel
3:1-8; accordingly, we should not split the passage into two parts.
The connection between vv. 4-8 and vv. 1-3 is secured by the use of the stronger
conjunction, ~g+w (“moreover”). This combination is found in Joel where there is a
development of thought,
A fire devoureth before them; and behind them a flame burneth: the land is as
the garden of Eden before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness; yea
(~g+w), and nothing shall escape them. Joel 2:3 (KJV)
Therefore also (~g+w) now, saith the Lord, turn ye even to me with all your heart,
and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning… Joel 2:12 (KJV)
And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh;
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams,
and your young men shall see visions. Even (~g+w) upon the menservants and
maidservants in those days, I will pour out my spirit. Joel 2:28-29 (RSV)
Yea (~g+w), and what have ye to do with me, O Tyre, and Zidon, and all the
coasts of Palestine? Joel 3:4 (KJV)
The translation of the stronger conjunction can vary, but the development of
thought is clear in each case. The presence of this conjunction and the closing
formula in v. 8, “for the Lord has spoken”, marks off vv. 4- 8 as a distinct unit that
is deliberately placed to expand upon the content of v. 3.1
The style of vv. 4-8 is different to vv. 1-3 and elsewhere in Joel. Wolff observes
that sentences are longer and use more subordinate clauses; the style is prosaic, and
there are some unique phrases.2 This difference of style cannot establish a later
editor rather than an author recording a word of prophecy used in a different
context. Contrary to Wolff, who states that “The notion of retribution…is
conceptually and in substance quite foreign to the context”,3 it is clear that the
content of vv. 4-8 expands upon the declaration of intent in vv. 1-3, and the
evidence of the superscription (Joel 1:1) is that there is one author behind the
book.
Accordingly, we regard vv. 4-8 as original to Joel and part of the development of
thought in the book. The specific detail of these verses is the record of dialogue
1
Sweeney, 1:179; Crenshaw, 179;
Wolff, 75. See also Crenshaw, 185, who notes differences in content such as the change from
the general (vv. 1-3) to the particular (vv. 4-8).
3
Wolff, 75.
2
221
directed at the complicit coastal cities from within the same crisis that precipitated
the declaration of intent in vv. 1-3. The two units record a supply and demand: the
nations are supplying captives to the ports who are then shipping them out to
other lands, but the Phoenician and Philistine ports are not necessarily the military
aggressors against Judah; this was the role of the unspecified nations of v. 2.1
3.4.1 Recompense
The noun “recompense” and the verb “recompense” are a refrain of this oracle
unit (vv. 4, 7). The allegation directed at the coastal cities is that they were
“rendering a recompense” for past ill treatment by Judah (v. 4).
What are you to me, O Tyre and Sidon, and all the regions of Philistia? Are you
paying me back for something? If you are paying me back, I will requite your
deed upon your own head swiftly and speedily. Joel 3:4 (RSV), cf. Obad v. 15
The charge is that if they are “paying” back old scores, Yahweh will exact the same
payment of them.2 This kind of rhetoric is “of the moment” and from within a
crisis in which the coastal cities are trading Judahites. The counter threat is that
Yahweh will “swiftly and speedily” pay them back. The promise of swift revenge
with a lightening attack (Isa 5:26) contrasts with the more measured and vaguer “in
those days and in that time” of Joel 3:1.
This “of the moment” quality of v. 4 is reinforced by the conditional statement, “if
you yourselves are paying me back”. The coastal cities are trading Judahites but the
questions in v. 4 express a doubt about their motivation. Are they doing it
deliberately as revenge3 or are they unwilling participants, trading because the
military commanders of the nations are requiring them to launder their gains?
In vv. 5-8, we have a change in the speech to a cause and consequence statement:
because the coastal ports have traded Judahites and received gold and silver from
the Jerusalem temple, Yahweh will exact revenge upon them. This second
fragment of speech moves the reader on from v. 4, and is a similar declaration of
intent to v. 2, but again it is from within a crisis for Judah. The tone is one of
“because you have now done this, I will pay you back for what you have done”.
This tone is “of the moment” and again not as measured and distant as the
declaration of v. 1, “in those days and in that time”.
1
Contra Barton, 101.
Contra Wolff, 72, who renders the Hebrew as “Or do you want to do something to me?”.
Wolff’s argument goes against normal Hebrew usage for the conditional particle, averring only
that the deeds have already been done and so the particle cannot mean “if”—Wolff fails to see
the fragmentary record of prophetic utterances. The deeds were not done when the prophet
announced the questions of v.4.
3
Revenge is a possible motivation since Uzziah had been a strong and dominant king in the
region.
2
222
Accordingly, our proposal is that, contrary to other suggestions, vv. 4-8 are not a
later addition to Joel, but fragments of the prophet’s declarations from within the
crisis, but ones directed at the coastal cities rather than the nations. These
fragments are included at this point because they give the background for
Yahweh’s declaration and in particular the “buying and selling” outrage of v. 3.
3.4.2 Gold and Silver
Plunder is an obvious trading commodity arising out of war. The coastal cities
themselves have not plundered; they have taken Yahweh’s gold and silver.
Because ye have taken (xql)1 my silver and my gold, and have carried into your
temples my goodly pleasant things… Joel 3:5 (KJV), cf. Isa 64:11
This text could mean that silver and gold treasure has been taken by force in the
sacking of Jerusalem and its temple. However, this would mean that Joel 3:5
presupposes the Babylonian Captivity of 587;2 but the temple treasures at that time
went east to Babylon (2 Kgs 25:13-17; Dan 5:2-4) and not west to the coastal ports.
Alternatively, the gold and silver could have been tribute payment made to buy off
an aggressor. Such an action is twice recorded in Kings:
And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord, and
in the treasures of the king’s house, and sent it for a present to the king of Assyria.
2 Kgs 16:8 (KJV)
And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord, and
in the treasures of the king's house. 2 Kgs 18:15 (KJV), cf. Isa 64:10
The action of Ahaz supplies a context for the charge in Joel 3:5. Assyria’s role in
the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis was firstly to distress Judah and, after receiving tribute,
to then remove the Syro-Ephraimite coalition threat from Jerusalem. TiglathPileser’s use of the silver and gold treasures from the temple in the coastal ports to
secure military supplies is a plausible background for Joel 3:5.3
3.4.3 Ionians and Sabeans
The accusation against the Mediterranean coastal ports is one of trading “the
children of Judah and Jerusalem”4 (v. 6) overseas; there is no mention of the
This is the common word for “to take” and as such it carries no implication about “stealing” or
participating in the act of conquering that leads to the taking of plunder, contra Crenshaw, 181.
2
Allen, 111; Crenshaw, 181.
3
The nations were ravaging Judah in the years immediately before 734; during 734 TiglathPileser turned his attention to Judah and received Ahaz’ tribute payment. Joel’s prophetic
utterances directed at the coastal ports look to be from 734 and refer to all their recent actions
“against” Judah.
4
Crenshaw, 182, usefully notes that the text does not say “my people”.
1
223
northern tribes and this casts doubt on the proposal by some commentators that
the text is post-exilic and embraces Assyrian and Babylonian captivities.1 The
Ionians (“Greeks”, ynwy,2 Joel 3:6 (KJV)) are the major trading partner and their
trading presence is noted in Assyrian records from the eighth century.3 Amos,
contemporary with Joel, levels similar accusations against Tyre and Philistia slavetrading with Edom (Amos 1:6-10).
Yahweh declares that Tyre/Sidon and Philistia would be treated in the same way as
they had dealt with Judah. The military instrument of God’s dealings with each of
them does not have to be Judah.4 The fulfilment of the prophecy could have taken
place in respect of the Philistines at the beginning of the reign of Hezekiah (715);
in 726-722, Shalmaneser V was able to assert Assyrian hegemony over the
mainland of Tyre and over Sidon while laying siege to Samaria.5 Judahite traders
might well have bought and sold Phoenician slaves at this time given Ahaz’ vassal
status and good relations with Assyria. In either case Judahite traders could well
have assumed the role of receiving slaves to sell to the Sabeans, who were known
traders and competitors to the Ionians.6
4. Summons to Battle
The text of Joel 3:9-13 is a declaration of “holy war”;7 we distinguish these verses
as a unit because they are all about mobilisation for war. Barton states:
With these verses, [vv. 9ff] we are in an extraordinarily bloodthirsty world, in
which there is no mercy for foreigners: a million miles away from the hint in 2:28
that YHWH might pour out the spirit on ‘all flesh.’ I cannot see how that oracle
and this can come from the same hand.8
1
Sweeney, 1:177.
The Hebrew is unique but related to !wy (Javan, Gen 10:2, 4); it is the common “ite” type of
word and could have been transliterated as “Javanites”.
3
J. Waldbaum, “Early Greek Contacts with the Southern Levant, ca. 1000-600 B.C.: The Eastern
Perspective” BASOR 293 (1994): 53-66. Waldbaum notes substantial quantities of Greek pottery
at Tyre from the later tenth century B.C.E. onwards (54), a detail consistent with trade between
Greece and Phoenicia in the eighth century B.C.E., but she also notes an insufficient quantity of
pottery from inland Israel and Judah to postulate direct trade with Greece as opposed to casual
contact with coastal ports like Tyre (61).
4
Contra Wolff, 79, who claims that Judah is the instrument of vengeance; see also Crenshaw, 183.
5
Josephus, Ant. IX.284-287; see also H. J. Katzenstein and D. R. Edwards, “Tyre” ABD 6:686692 (689).
6
G. A. Herion, “Sabeans” ABD 5:861, who notes N. Arabian and Ethiopian “Sabeans” as well.
W. M. Müller, “Seba” ABD 1:1064, explains the relationship between the S. Arabian and
Ethiopian Sabeans in terms of colonization. Sweeney, 1:178, notes that slave trading with the S.
Arabian Sabeans is not attested after the fifth century B.C.E.
7
The command is to “Sanctify war!” and this is a pun on the earlier “Sanctify a fast!”.
8
Barton, 105.
2
224
However, this looks like the comment of a modern upon an ancient; furthermore,
as we have argued, the promise of the Spirit is restricted to Israel and Judah in the
face of the need for deliverance, and not a universal promise for all following the
restoration of the land.
As Wolff observes, vv. 9-131 are an unexceptional summons to war, but contrary
to his reading, this declaration is not a continuation2 of the announcement of
punishment in vv. 1-3; the earlier announcement is not about “punishment” but
about “pleading”—Joel 3:1-3 is an earlier prophecy of Joel from sometime in the
late 730s or early 720s looking forward to the day when Yahweh would turn
around the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem. Wolff fails to see that a summons to
war would not have been sent out while Judah was under attack; the “pleading”
that Joel prophesies is a metaphor for a future gathering of the nations to battle;
the summons to battle is contained in Joel 3:9-13.
Proclaim ye this among the Gentiles; Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let
all the men of war draw near; let them come up… Joel 3:9 (KJV)
The summons to war is sent to the nations (v. 9) which implies the work of
ambassadors or messengers.3 They are summoned to “come up” to Judah which
implies nations to the south and from the lowlands of the coastal plain. They are
summoned to the Day of the Lord in the Valley of Decision (v. 14) and this makes
the oracle units of Joel 3:9-17 the counterpart of Joel 2:1-11 and an earlier Day of
the Lord upon the mountains of Judah.4 Hubbard asserts5 that the nations are
those that have been named in Joel 3, but we cannot tell if they are all embraced in
the declaration of war. Hubbard does not take into account the passage of time
between the oracles of Joel 3:1-3, 4-8 and that of Joel 3:9-13.
Edom and Egypt might be two of the nations challenged to battle because of their
mention in Joel 3:19, but equally the last oracle of Joel (vv. 18-21) might have a
different background; they may not actually be a target for challenge. Likewise,
while Tyre and Sidon and the Philistines are historically culpable for their slave
trading and receipt of temple treasure (Joel 3:4-5), we do not know if they were
challenged to war. As we shall see, the only nation (city-state) we can identify from
the actual terms of the proclamation is Gath, and this is only because of a possible
pun (Philistia, Joel 3:13).6 This might fit with Hezekiah’s campaign against Philistia
1
Wolff, 74; Wolff takes the unit to be vv. 9-14, but we follow Barton, 103.
Wolff, 74; Allen, 114; Barton 103.
3
Contra Allen, 114, who hypothesizes that the messengers are angelic; see also Crenshaw, 187;
Barton, 103.
4
Wolff, 79-80.
5
Hubbard, 77.
6
The term for winepress (v. 13) is a homonym with the name of the Philistine city of Gath, and
this pun indicates that the Philistines are one of the nations called to account.
2
225
in 705, and we do not know what detachments Philistia may have received from
Edom, Moab, Ammon or Egypt. We might argue that the allusion implicit in the
reference to the “Valley of Jehoshaphat” (Joel 3:2) implies that Edom, Moab and
Ammon were challenged to battle but we cannot be certain.
The oracle addresses both sides of the imminent conflict. Having challenged the
nations, Joel switches his address to the “weak”.
Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the
weak say, I am strong. Joel 3:10 (KJV)
The proverb is a mobilisation call to Judah’s agricultural workforce, because it is
they who are “weak”, but who are to say “I am strong”. The use of agricultural
implements - their reforging – does not necessarily indicate a depleted standing
army and inadequate equipment; the waging of battle would normally depend on a
militia being mustered.
This proverb is reversed in Isa 2:4 and Mic 4:3, where it is addressed to the
nations:
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they
shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks:
nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any
more. Isa 2:4 (KJV), cf. Mic 4:3
Commentators1 take Joel to be quoting Isaiah and Micah because they regard Joel
to be a post-exilic book. However, the direction of quotation cannot be proven
either way. Since we take Joel to be an eighth century prophet, our presumption is
that Joel is the original and Isaiah and Micah are reversing Joel. We presume that
both Isaiah and Micah are depicting a volte face that lies beyond the Assyrian Crises
of the late eighth century and therefore that Joel is originator of the proverb. Isaiah
and Micah in effect turn around what had been Judah’s weakness – no army, no
weapons – and require this of the enemies who had been strong.
The text continues in v. 11 and changes the address to the nations,
Hasten (vw[2)and come, all you nations round about, gather yourselves there.
Bring down (txnh) thy warriors (rwbg), O Lord. Joel 3:11 (RSV)
The nations are to come “there”—into the Valley of Jehoshaphat;1 Yahweh is to
send his warriors to meet them. The spoken quality of the verse is to be seen in the
1
Wolff, 80; Allen, 114.
The Hebrew is unique and a rendering with some implication of haste seems the best
conjecture on cognate grounds, Barton, 102-103.
2
226
sudden change of addressee from the nations to Yahweh: the prophet responds to
Yahweh’s address to the nations by urging his army to come to the battle.
Whittaker suggests on the basis of the “come down” language that the “mighty
ones” (“warriors”, RSV) are angelic.2 Wolff regards the text as corrupt principally
on the basis of the Targum paraphrase; he says the clause should read “there
Yahweh will break the power of their warriors” claiming the Targum points to a
different original.3
However, the verb in the MT is not rare (9x), and the form is that of a Hiphil
masculine imperative (txnh). It is not certain that its sense is that of “come down”
as only Jer 21:13 offers another text where this might be the sense. Elsewhere,
“come down” would normally be dry (e.g. Exod 3:8; Ps 114:5; Isa 31:4) and
especially so in a theophanic context. The verb probably has a military connotation
in respect of some intensive form of action such as “cause to penetrate/press
down upon/fix fast” (BDB, 639; e.g. Ps 38:2). In this case, the request by the
prophet is for the Judahite standing army to “stand fast”.
Hasten (vw[)and come, all you nations round about, gather yourselves there.
Stand fast (txnh) thy warriors (rwbg), O Lord. Joel 3:11 (RSV)
The next part of the oracle switches addressee and speaker. The prophet had asked
Yahweh to make his warriors stand fast, a very necessary act for a militia; Yahweh
responds to the prophet as follows:
Let the nations bestir themselves, and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat; for
there I will sit to judge all the nations round about. Joel 3:12 (RSV)
The note of “judgment” here connects with the initial prophecy of v. 2 and its legal
metaphor of “pleading” with the nations. The means of Yahweh’s judgment is a
holy (sanctified) war and he changes his addressee to the Judahite army in v. 11,
using an agricultural metaphor in keeping with the militia that has been gathered:
Put in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe. Go in, tread, for the wine press is full.
The vats overflow, for their wickedness is great. Joel 3:13 (RSV), cf. Isa 63:1-6
Yahweh instructs the warriors to “go in” in response to the prophet’s request,
“Bring down thy warriors, O Lord”. The instruction urges the army to go down to
The particle adverb “there” (hmv) in “gather yourselves there” has no antecedent and we must
assume that the Valley of Jehoshaphat is meant. However, the lack of an antecedent shows the
fragmentary nature of the speech acts that we have in Joel 3:9-13—utterances from this time of
gathering for battle.
2
Whittaker, 3, 29; see also, Barton, 104; Driver, Introduction, 308.
3
Wolff, 73, 80; he also points to the Vulgate as evidence of a different original and the quality of
the text as “broken”; see also Barton, 103.
1
227
the Valley of Jehoshaphat. The metaphor here is of a “harvest of wickedness” and
its use is a designed counterpoint to the destruction of the harvest in Joel 1:10-11
and the restoration of the land in Joel 2:21-27. This is another detail that unifies
the book as a single composition. In particular, there is a pun between the vats
overflowing in Judah and the vats overflowing with blood of the nations (Joel 2:24;
3:13).
4.1 Historical Situation
The records of Kings and Chronicles contain no account comparable to the
material in Joel 3:9-13. Since these statements in Joel contain speech acts from the
moment of conflict, this comparative result is not surprising. Nevertheless, the
speech of the moment will often carry implications about the historical situation. It
is therefore possible to narrow down the range of possible circumstances.
Furthermore, the setting of the speech in the book of Joel as a whole can further
narrow down the possible historical situation.
The Day of the Lord is for the nations rather than a single nation; we can
exclude conflicts that involved a superpower such as Assyria. The proclamation
of war is not delivered to Assyria in 735-734 or 701.
The nations are “round about” and they are challenged to “come up”; we
should look for a situation where Judah can challenge its neighbours and
particularly those of the south and the plain.
Judah is in a parlous state; it requires a militia to prosecute the conflict and it
needs to fashion agricultural equipment into weapons.
Just as the surrounding nations had devastated Judah’s harvest, now these
nations were to be themselves a harvest of vengeance.
If we marry these details with the known history of the reigns of Ahaz and
Hezekiah, then it is only in Hezekiah’s reign that we can situate this battle. Within
his reign, it was not until 705 that he threw off the yoke of Assyria and rebelled.
The year 700 was to be known in his reign as the “year of recompense” (Isa 34:8;
63:4). We can either align the battle with 704 or 700.
5. Valley of Decision
There is a clear break in v. 14 where the text records what the prophet sees in the
Valley of Decision—a multitude1 ready for battle; in vv. 9-13, the text was about
mobilising for war.
1
Hubbard, 79, notes the repetition “multitudes, multitudes” indicating large numbers.
228
Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the Lord is near in
the valley of decision. Joel 3:14 (KJV)
The Day of the Lord is “near” or “at hand” and this identifies the meaning of this
phrase to be the day of battle; the armies are assembled and the battle is about to
begin. This shift in narrative perspective to visual description is the reason why vv.
14-15 represents oracle statements distinct from vv. 9-13.1 A subtle connection is
made with the harvest metaphor of v. 13 in that the noun translated “decision”
(#wrx) is a homonym2 with the noun for “threshing instrument” (e.g. Isa 41:15;
Amos 1:3).
6. Sun, Moon and Stars
The mention of the “sun, moon and stars” in v.15 uses the same phraseology as
Joel 2:10 and the tense/aspect of the verb is Perfect so we interpret the sense as
past:
The sun and the moon have been darkened, and the stars have withdrawn their
shining. Joel 3:15 (RSV revised)
The repetition of Joel 2:10 at this point is significant in the sense that celestial signs
foreshadowing the Day of the Lord for Judah and Jerusalem were now directed by
Joel towards forewarning a Day of the Lord for the nations. These celestial
occurrences do not accompany the Day of the Lord as the battle rages but are
rather portends of that day.
If we align the Day of the Lord for the nations with Hezekiah’s rebellion in 705
and his action against the Philistines, or if we align this Day with the year of
recompense for Judah in 700, the relevant eclipses are:
Partial Solar Eclipses
701-Mar-05
703-Oct-19
704-May-05
708-Jul-17
Lunar Eclipses
1
Total/Partial/
Penumbral
Contra Wolff, 74, who demarcates the unit to be vv. 9-14.
The LXX translates as “Valley of Judgment” and Targum Jonathan as “Valley of Judicial
Decision”; hence, the likelihood that we have here a homonym. The Targum translates the MT
“Valley of Jehoshaphat” in v. 2 in the same way.
2
229
706-Jun-11
T
706-Dec-06
705-May-31
704-Apr-21
703-Apr-10
703-Oct-03
702-Mar-31
701-Mar-20
701-Sep-13
700-Mar-08
700-Sep-01
T
T
N
P
P
T
P
P
N
N
From these tables, we can hypothesize which solar and lunar eclipses were
fulfilments of Joel, for example, the solar and lunar eclipses in April and May of
704.
7. Zion Inviolate
The unit, vv. 16-17, presents an image of an inviolate Zion,
And the Lord roars from Zion, and utters his voice from Jerusalem, and the
heavens and the earth shake. But the Lord is a refuge to his people, a stronghold
to the people of Israel. Joel 3:16 (RSV)
That the Lord is now on the side of Judah is shown by the repetition of the “voice
of the Lord” (v. 16)—this now roars from Zion rather than being sounded from
before the camp of an army he has brought against Judah (Joel 2:25). The
“roaring” here is to be distinguished from the “uttering” of Joel 2:11 (cf. Amos
1:2). Here, the Lord roars from Zion, and this gives the people hope in the
forthcoming battle in the Valley of Decision. These differences show that we have
a different Day of the Lord in Joel 3. The “roaring” conveys the figure of a lion
roaring (e.g. Amos 3:4, 8; Zeph 3:3) and it has typical military connotations. This
emphasis at the end of the book contrasts with the figure of the locusts with the
teeth of the lions from the beginning of the book (Joel 1:6-7). Yahweh utters his
voice from Zion and this signals the beginning of a campaign of vengeance for his
people—the natural interpretation of the figure is that of a declaration of war.
This is not an action to deliver the people from an overwhelming enemy but a preemptive move for recompense. The shaking1 of “the heavens” and “the earth”
embraces Jerusalem and the land.
1
For a discussion of the motif of “shaking” see Childs, “The Enemy from the North”, 187-190.
230
7.1. Jerusalem Garrison
The timing of the battle in the Valley of Jehoshaphat is indicated in v. 17,
So shall ye know that I am the Lord your God dwelling in Zion, my holy
mountain: then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through
her any more. Joel 3:17 (KJV)
The battle is coincident with the new development that strangers shall no longer
pass through Jerusalem. Allowing for conditional nature of prophecy (God will
perform his word towards the people if they remain faithful), the remark suggest
the removal of free and guaranteed access to Jerusalem that would have been
facilitated by the presence of an enemy garrison.
The presence of an Assyrian garrison in Jerusalem is implied by two texts:1
1) As part of the settlement with Tiglath-Pileser, Ahaz turned over a “covered
area” of the temple and a separate “king’s entrance” to the Assyrians.
And the covert for the Sabbath that they had built in the house, and the king's
entry without, turned he from the house of the Lord for the king of Assyria. 2
Kgs 16:18 (KJV), cf. Isa 63:18
The covered area would have been a courtyard for temple services on the Sabbath,
and it was now for the Assyrian king. A separate entrance, previously used by the
king implies a secure area with buildings was set off but adjoining the temple
mount. Whether this is the place of the garrison is not known; it may have been
better for it to be housed in the ‘House of the Forest if Lebanon’ which had been
used for military purposes (1 Kgs 10:17).
2) The promise in Joel is that “strangers” would no longer pass through the city
(Joel 3:17; cf. Job 15:19); the term for “strangers” ranges over foreign armies in
texts such as Ps 54:3; Isa 1:7; 25:2; 29:5; Obad v. 17. Isaiah refers to this time in his
prophecy that “they shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain” (Isa 11:9).2
In addition to the above points, (1)-(2), it is notable that Tiglath-Pileser’s policy
was to post governors in conquered city-states including those where there was a
resident monarch.3 We also have biblical evidence of him supplying military aid to
Menahem of Samaria:
1
On the evidence for this garrison see H. A. Whittaker, Hezekiah the Great (Birmingham: CMPA,
1985), 7; Whittaker locates it on the temple mount.
2
See also Isa 64:11 which refers to the actions of mercenaries against the temple.
3
There are several examples in the Assyrian annals—see ARAB 778, which records a governor
being appointed over Samsi queen of Arabia.
231
And Pul the king of Assyria came into (ab, l[) the land: and Menahem gave Pul a
thousand talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to confirm the
kingdom in his hand. And Menahem brought out (acy) the money in front of
Israel, for all the mighty men of valour (lyxh yrwbg lk), of each man fifty shekels
of silver, to give to the king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria turned back, and
stayed not there in the land. 2 Kgs 15:19-20 (KJV revised)
Tiglath-Pileser came down into Northern Israel sometime during 743-740 while he
was campaigning in northern Syria. This may have been with potential hostile
intent, but the outcome is that Menahem sought his aid in securing the kingdom.
The Hiphil of acy means “to bring out” (e.g. Josh 24:5; 2 Chron 7:22), and implies
that Menahem handed over tribute in a ceremony of submission in front of Israel.
The phrase is used in Kings for soldiers (2 Kgs 24:14, cf. Josh 1:14; 1 Kgs 11:28; 2
Kgs 5:1), and this meaning is to be preferred instead of “wealthy men” which is a
usage found in other books.1
If we date this removal of the garrison to 705-704, Joel’s oracle could describe a
battle in 704; alternatively, the sentiment could be from 700, the year of vengeance.
8. The Dwelling of the Lord
The last oracle of Joel is vv. 18-21 and questions can be raised with regard to its
time of utterance and the reference of the crime attributed to Edom and Egypt;
these questions concern the date of the oracle and its audience. The specific charge
against these two nations is contrasted with a picture of a secure and fruitful future
for Judah and Jerusalem, and again we can ask about the time and circumstances of
this message of hope.
The mention of Egypt and Edom in the oracle that closes the book raises a literary
puzzle: why are they mentioned together at the close of the book rather than any
other nations?2 The puzzle concerns the likely audience for the oracle and its
relationship to immediately preceding oracles and their audiences.
The preceding oracle has been a proclamation of war and a call to arms and such
an oracle must have its catalyst in the moment of war. The exclamation that
multitudes were gathered in the valley of decision also derives from the field of
battle. The assurance given in the face of the enemy is that the Lord will be the
strength of his people. This kind of oracular material has a quick and immediate
urgency in its tone. The closing oracle of Joel is by contract more measured and
distant in its prediction.
1
Kuan, Neo-Assyrian Historical Inscriptions and Syria-Palestine, 145.
On this question, see A. C. Welch, “Joel IV 17-21” JTS 22 (1921): 266-267. Welch views Joel as
post-exilic and regards Joel’s text as dependent on Ezek 47:1-12—however, the direction of
dependency could equally be the other way.
2
232
The oracle begins, “It shall come to pass in that day” which should be seen
alongside other occurrences of the phrase in Joel:
And it shall come to pass afterward… Joel 2:28 (KJV)
And it shall come to pass… Joel 2:32 (KJV)
These occurrences of the phrase introduce forward looking prediction; likewise,
Joel 3:18 is a forward looking prediction for “that day”. Elsewhere in the Prophets,
“in that day” is used for looking forward (e.g. Hos 1:5; Amos 8:3; Obad v. 8; Mic
2:4)—this point is not controversial. However, a forward looking oracle to the “day”
when there is security and fruitfulness in Judah is clearly an oracle whose point of
utterance lies well before those oracles that have arisen out of the immediacy of
the Day of the Lord. Hence, the location of this oracle at the close of Joel is part
of its written design—its origin lies with the earlier oracles of Joel. In particular, “in
that day” resonates with the “in that time” of Joel 3:1, indicating the oracle was
delivered along with the prediction of what would happen when the Lord turned
around the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem. The oracle is placed at the end of Joel
because it describes the aftermath of the Day of the Lord which has been detailed
in Joel 3:9-17.
8.1 Wine, Milk and Water
The picture in Joel 3:18 is not difficult:
And it shall come to pass in that day, that the mountains shall drop down new
wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and all the rivers of Judah shall flow with
waters, and a fountain shall come forth of the house of the Lord, and shall water
the valley of Shittim. Joel 3:18 (KJV)
The echoes of Joel 1 are clear in the restoration of “new wine” (Joel 1:5; cf. Amos
9:13) and the rivers (irrigation channels) flowing with water (Joel 1:20). It is also
possible that the mention of the now fertile mountains is a deliberate contrast with
the presence of the great people upon the mountains (Joel 2:2). The reference to
the “spring” of water from the temple resonates with other eighth century
prophecies like Isa 12:3 and 41:18.
8.2 Egypt and Edom
The crime listed against Egypt and Edom is the shedding of innocent blood in
their land.
Egypt shall be a desolation, and Edom shall be a desolate wilderness, for the
violence against the children of Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in
their land. Joel 3:19 (KJV)
233
The charge is specific and it can fit any situation of conflict where captives are
taken and then slaughtered in the receiving country.1 The crime does not denote a
systematic ethnic cleansing inside Judah in those parts that bordered Egypt and
Edom because the event is said to have taken place in Egypt and Edom; the crime
presupposes successful military action by Edom and Egypt and the taking of
captives. The memory of such a war-crime would no doubt be retained by
Judahites, although the event and its scale cannot be dated. The mention of Egypt
and Edom together might suggest joint action in the Negev and the taking of
captives from that region.
In terms of known history and the geo-political relationships of the latter part of
the eighth century, Egypt sought to control the Southern Levant and was at times
sought as an ally by Judah. Ahaz was a puppet of Assyria until his death in 715,
whereupon Hezekiah clearly pursued policies of independence even if he was not
able to rebel until 705. During his reign, there were those at court who favoured an
alliance with Egypt. An injustice wrought upon innocent Judahites in Egypt is
more likely to have been an event in the early part of Ahaz’ reign, which Yahweh
has remembered. Moreover, it is entirely possible that Edom’s military action
against Judah in the 730s was aided by Egypt and was of such a nature that it was
remembered.
Egypt was to be a “desolation”.2 It could be argued that the allusion to this
prediction in Ezek 29:9 indicates that it was not regarded as fulfilled:
And the land of Egypt shall be desolate and waste; and they shall know that I am
the Lord: because he hath said, The river is mine, and I have made it. Ezek 29:9
(KJV)
However, Joel does not predict a final and total desolation; the prediction could be
of a desolation from which Egypt would recover. Thus the prediction could
anticipate the subjugation of Egypt by Esarhaddon in c. 671 (cf. Isa 43:3);3
Ezekiel’s prophecy may then see a further desolation of Egypt by the Persians.4
Similarly, Edom was to be a “desolate wilderness” and this could be a prediction of
Hezekiah’s Edomite campaign in 700 (Isaiah 34, 63).
A literal translation of Joel; 3:21 would be,
I will hold innocent their blood, which I have not held innocent… Joel 3:21
1
Contra Nogalski, who states that the mention of Egypt is due to the use of Exodus traditions by
Joel - “The Place and Function of Joel in the Book of Twelve”, 147.
2
The term denotes desolation of land, and its use here forms a contrast with Joel 2:3 and the
desolation wrought by Assyria upon Israel and Judah.
3
A. Spalinger, “Egypt, History of (Dyn. 21-26)” ABD 2:353-364 (360).
4
Spalinger, “Egypt, History of (Dyn. 21-26)”, 362.
234
For I will cleanse their blood that I have not cleansed… Joel 3:21 (KJV)
And I will avenge their blood which I have not avenged… Joel 3:21 (NASB)
I will avenge their blood, and I will not clear the guilty… Joel 3:21 (RSV)
The problem of interpretation lies with the object of the verb—“their blood”.
Whose blood is held innocent, and has this blood been shed and by whom? The
difficulty of these questions leads the RSV to follow the interpretation of the LXX
which varies the same verb in the MT (hqn) for two verbs, “avenge” and “clear the
guilty”. The NASB is more consistent interprets the verb in the MT in both
occurrences as a metaphor signifying vengeance. It is difficult to see how either
reading is correct.
The statement clearly has a relationship to Joel 3:19 and the “shed innocent blood”
in Edom and Egypt as this uses the related adjective for “innocent” (yqn). The
expression “innocent blood” denotes blood that has been shed—in this case,
civilians, prisoners of war—Judahites that have been killed in captivity. How is
their blood now to be held innocent? It is in answering this question that
translators insert the idea of “vengeance”.
9. Conclusion
It may seem as if Joel finishes in mid-sentence, and this is not the only example of
a book of scripture to finish in such a manner. However, in a sense, the closing
thought, “for the Lord dwelleth in Zion” sums up the book and the history.
During Ahaz’ reign Jerusalem had been besieged by Damascus and Samaria;
Assyria had distressed the land and installed a garrison in Jerusalem. Joel finishes
with oracles that relate to the time when the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem is
turned around. We have related this to the rebellion of Hezekiah which began in
705 but which was secured with the defeat of Assyria upon the mountains of
Judah. Joel either describes a battle from the beginning of this rebellion—an
encounter involving the Philistines—or a battle in the year of vengeance (700).
235
POSTSCRIPT
As a postscript, it is appropriate to consider a Christian interpretation of Joel
within the Christian canon of Scripture. An historical reading of the book is only a
first step in the application of the Word. A Christian looks to Joel for relevance in
his life in the Lord (2 Tim 3:16). Essential to this desire for relevance is an
acceptance of Joel as part of Scripture and the Word that cannot be broken (John
10:35); such an attitude was displayed by the Lord Jesus. The application of Joel to
the situation of the early church at Pentecost (Acts 2), gives apostolic authority to
the Christian seeking to apply Joel today.
The application of Joel 2 to the events of Pentecost is set within the framework of
the “last days” (Acts 2:17). Peter makes this application introducing the phrase
“last days” into his quotation of Joel in place of an “afterward” in the text. Peter
sees his own days as the “last days” and Joel’s prophecy of the bestowal of the
Spirit as a last days’ phenomenon. This interpretation is justified because Joel is a
prophet prophesying during the last days of the Northern Kingdom, a period we
can define as the 730s and 720s; it was at this time that the Assyrian superpower
rolled down into the Levant and threatened the existence of both Judah and Israel.
As events turned out, the Northern Kingdom came to an end in 722.
The correspondence between apostolic times and the times of the Assyrian Crises
of the 730s and 720s lies in the presence of Rome in the land and Jesus’ prophecies
of a forthcoming destruction of Jerusalem. The apostles were called upon to
preach in the years and months prior to the end of the Jewish Commonwealth.
The bestowal of the Spirit was for the purpose of mission in the days of the
apostles and likewise in Joel’s day. Likewise, the bestowal of the Spirit in Joel’s day
was for the purpose of mission.
236
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Primary Texts
1.1 Classical Texts
Josephus (trans., H. St. J. Thackeray et al; 10 vols; Loeb Classical Library;
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926-1965).
1.2 Pseudepigrapha
The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed., J. H. Charlesworth; 2 vols; New York:
Doubleday, 1983, 1985).
1.3 Rabbinical Texts
Babylonian Talmud (ed., I. Epstein et al.; London: Soncino Press, 1948).
1.4 Scriptural Texts
Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia (eds., K. Elliger and W. Rudolph; 4th Ed.; Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 1990).
Septuaginta (ed., A. Rahlfs; 2 vols; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979).
1.5 Ancient Near East Texts
Luckenbill, D. D., The Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylon (Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1926).
Pritchard, J. B., Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1969).
Tadmor, B. H., The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser King of Assyria (Jerusalem: The Israel
Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994).
Thomas, D. W., Documents from Old Testament Times (New York: Harper
Torchbooks, 1961).
1.6 Targums
The Targum of the Minor Prophets (eds., R. P. Gordon and K. J. Cathcart; Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1987).
237
2. Encyclopaedias, Grammars and Dictionaries
Brown, F., S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1907).
Buttrick, G. A., ed., Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (4 vols; Nashville: Abingdon,
1962).
Freedman, D. N., ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols; New York: Doubleday, 1992).
Gelb, I. J., et. al., Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (21 vols; Chicago: University of
Chicago, 1956-).
Gesenius, W., Hebrew Grammar (eds. E. Kautzsch and A. E. Cowley; 2nd Edn.;
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910).
Kittel, G. and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
(trans. G. W. Bromiley; 10 vols; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-1976).
VanGemeren, W. A. ed., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and
Exegesis (5 vols; Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1997).
Williams, R. J., Hebrew Syntax: An Outline (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1967).
3. Secondary Literature
Ackroyd, P. R., “Obadiah” ABD 5:2-4.
— “The Biblical Interpretation of the Reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah” in In the
Shelter of Elyon (eds. W. Boyd Barrick and J. R. Spencer; JSOTSup 31; Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1984), 247-259.
Ahlström, G. W., Joel and the Temple Cult of Jerusalem (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971).
Albright, W. F., “The Son of Tabeel (Isaiah 7:6)” BASOR 140 (1955): 34-35.
Allen, L. C., The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah (NICOT; London: Hodder
and Stoughton, 1976).
“Joel: Theology of” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and
Exegesis (ed. W. A. VanGemeren; 5 vols; Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1997), 4:796798.
238
Allfree, J., Ezekiel 1-39 (Stoke: Published by the Author, Undated).
Andiñach, P. B., “The Locusts in the Message of Joel” VT 52 (1992): 433-441.
Aubet, M. E., The Phoenicians and the West (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2001).
Auld, A. G., Amos (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986).
Barrick W. Boyd, and J. R. Spencer, eds., In the Shelter of Elyon (JSOTSup 31;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984).
Bartholomew, C., et al, eds., ‘Behind’ The Text: History and Biblical Interpretation (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2003).
Barstad, H. M., The Myth of the Empty Land (Symbolae Osloenses Fasc. Suppl. 28;
Oslo: Scandinavian Press, 1996).
Barton, J., Reading the Old Testament (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1984).
— Isaiah 1-39 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995).
— Joel and Obadiah (OTL; WJK Press, 2001).
Begg, C. T., “Babylon in the Book of Isaiah” in The Book of Isaiah (ed., J.
Vermeylen; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989), 121-125.
Bergler, S., Joel als Schriftinterpret (BEATAJ 16; Frankfurt: P. Lang, 1988).
Berlin, A., The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (BLS 9; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983).
Bewer, J. A. et al, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum,
Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1911).
Bič, M., Das Buch Joel (Berlin : Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1960).
Biddle, M. E., “Review of Joel and Obadiah: A Commentary, by John Barton”
Review and Expositor 99 (2002): 279-280.
Blenkinsopp, J., A History of Prophecy in Israel (2nd ed.; Louisville: WJK Press, 1996).
Booker, G., Psalms Studies (2 vols; Austin: Published by the Author, 1989-1990).
Bottéro, J., Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning and the Gods (Chicago: Chicago University
Press, 1995).
239
Bourke, J., “Le Jour de Yahvé dans Joël” RB 66 (1959): 5-31, 191-212.
Bright, J., A History of Israel (OTL; Revised Edition; London: SCM Press, 1972).
Cathcart, K. J., “Day of Yahweh” ABD 2:84-85.
Caird, G. B., The Language and Imagery of the Bible (London: Duckworth, 1980).
Calvin, J., The Book of Joel (trans. J. Owen; London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1958).
Carroll, R. P., When Prophecy Failed (London: SCM Press, 1979).
— “Eschatological Delay in the Prophetic Tradition” ZAW 94 (1982): 47-58.
Childs, B. S., “The Enemy from the North and the Chaos Tradition” JBL 78
(1959): 187-198.
Clines D. J. A., “Was There an ’bl II ‘be dry’ in Classical Hebrew?” VT 42 (1992):
1-10.
Cogan, M., “Sennacherib’s Siege of Jerusalem” BAR 27/1 (2001): 40-45.
Coggins, R. J., “Joel” Currents in Biblical Research 2.1 (2003): 85-103.
“Interbiblical Quotations in Joel” in After the Exile (eds. J. Barton and D. J. Reimer;
Macon: Mercer University Press, 1996).
Cook, G. W., and R. O. Long, eds., Canon and Authority (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1977).
Cook, H. J., “Pekah” VT 14 (1964): 121-135.
Cook, S. L., Prophecy and Apocalypticism (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995).
Credner, A., Der Prophet Joel überstezt und erklärt (Halle, Waisenhaus, 1831).
Crenshaw, J. L., Joel (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1995).
Daube, D., The Sudden in the Scriptures (Leiden: E J Brill, 1964).
Day, J., ed., In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel (JSOTS 406; London: T & T Clark, 2004).
De Blois, K. F., “Metaphor in Common Language Translations of Joel” BT 36
(1985): 208-216.
240
Deist, F. E., “Parallels and Reinterpretation in the Book of Joel: A Theology of the
Yom Yahweh” in Text and Context (ed. W. Classen; JSOTSup 48; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1988), 63-79.
Driver, S. R., An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (9th ed.; Edinburgh:
T & T Clark, 1913).
Duhm, B., „Anmerkungen zu den Zwölf Propheten“ ZAW 31 (1911): 1-43; 81110; 161-204.
Ehrensvärd, M., “Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts” in in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in
Chronology and Typology (ed., I. Young; London: T & T Clark, 2003), 164-188.
Eissfeldt, O., The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. P. Ackroyd; Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1966).
Everson, J., “The Days of Yahweh” JBL 93 (1974): 329-37.
Firfield, I., and S. Palmer, “The Prophecy of Joel” Testimony 46 (1976): 224-227.
Fowler, H. T., “The Chronological Position of Joel among the Prophets” JBL 16
(1897): 146-154.
Frankfort, T., “Le yk de Joël I 12” VT 10 (1960): 445-449.
Fuller, R., “The Form and Formation of the Book of the Twelve: The Evidence
from the Judean Desert” in Forming Prophetic Literature (eds., J. W. Watts and P. R.
House; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 86-101.
Garrett, D. A., “The Structure of Joel” JETS 28 (1985): 289-297.
Gibson, J. C. L., Canaanite Myths and Legends (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1978).
Graham W. C., “Isaiah’s Part in the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis” AJSLL 50/4 (1934):
201-216).
Gray, J., “The Period and Office of the Prophet Isaiah in the Light of a New
Assyrian Tablet” ExpTim 63 (1952): 263-265.
Gray, G. Buchanan, “The Parallel Passages in ‘Joel’ in their Bearing on the
Question of Date” The Expositor 8 (1893): 208-225.
Halpern, B., “Yaua, Son of Omri, Yet Again” BASOR 265 (1987): 81-85.
241
Hanson, P. D., The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979).
Harrison, R. K., Introduction to the Old Testament (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press,
1970).
Hayes, J. H., and S. A. Irvine, Isaiah: The Eighth Century Prophet (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1987).
Hays, R. B., in Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1989).
Herion, G. A., “Sabeans” ABD 5:861.
Horne, T. H., An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures (5
vols; 7th ed.; London: T. Cadell, 1834).
House, P. R., The Unity of the Twelve (JSOTSup 97; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990).
Hubbard, D. A., Joel and Amos (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries; Leicester:
Inter Varsity Press, 1989).
Hunger, H., Astrological Reports to Assyrian Kings (State Archives of Assyria 8;
Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1992) no. 502:15-16.
Hurowitz, V. A., “Joel’s Locust Plague in Light of Sargon II’s Hymn to Nanya”
JBL 112/4 (1993): 597-603.
Irvine, S. A., Isaiah, Ahaz, and the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis (SBLDS 123; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1990).
Jones, B. A., The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Study in Text and Canon
(SBLDS 149; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995).
Jones, D. R., Isaiah 56-66 and Joel (TBC; London: SCM Press, 1964).
Jungmann, J., “Major Literary Phenomena in the Book of Joel as a Key to the
Problem of its Date and Composition” (Unpublished PhD Diss; Jerusalem:
Hebrew University, 1987).
Kanyoro, R., “Translation Problems in Joel with Special Reference to Some East
African Languages: Part 1” BT 36 (1985): 221-226.
Kapelrud, A. S., Joel Studies (Uppsala: A. B. Lundequistska, 1948).
242
Katzenstein, H. J., and D. R. Edwards, “Tyre” ABD 6:686-692.
Koch, K., The Prophets (2 vols; London: SCM Press, 1982).
Kuan, J. K., Neo-Assyrian Historical Inscriptions and Syria-Palestine (Hong Kong:
Alliance Bible Seminary, 1995).
Lambert, W. G., “Mesopotamian Sources and Pre-Exilic Israel” in In Search of PreExilic Israel (ed., J. Day; JSOTS 406; London: T & T Clark, 2004), 352-365.
Lang, M., „Das Exodusgeschehen in der Joelschrift“ in Führe Mein Volk Heraus
(eds. S. Paganini, C. Paganini and D. Markl; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2004), 61-77.
Levine, L. D., “Menahem and Tiglath-Pileser: A New Synchronism” BASOR 206
(1972): 40-42.
Lim, T. H., ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls in their Historical Context (Edinburgh: T & T
Clark, 2000).
Longman III, T., Old Testament Commentary Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2003).
Lössl, J., “When is a Locust Just a Locust” JTS 55 (2004): 575-599.
Lund, O., Way Metaphors and Way Topics in Isaiah 40-55 (FAT 2/28; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2007).
Mallon, E. D., “A Stylistic Analysis of Joel 1:10-12” CBQ 45 (1983): 537-548.
Marshall, I. H., “Slippery Words: I Eschatology” ExpTim 89 (1977-78): 264-69.
Mason, R., Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Joel (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994).
— Micah, Nahum, Obadiah ((Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991).
— Maxwell Miller J. and J. H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (London:
SCM Press, 1986).
McCarter, P. K., “Yaw, Son of Omri: A Philological Note on Israelite Chronology”
BASOR 216 (1974)5-7.
McFall, L., “Has the Chronology of the Hebrew Kings been finally settled?”
Themelios 17 (1991): 6-11.
243
McHugh, J., “The Date of Hezekiah’s Birth” VT 14 (1964): 446-454
McQueen, L. R., Joel and the Spirit: The Cry of a Prophetic Hermeneutic (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1995).
Medd, E. G., “A Historical and Exegetical Study of the ‘Day of the Lord’ in the
Old Testament with Special Reference to the Book of Joel” (unpublished Master’s
Thesis, St. Andrews University, 1968-69).
Mikre-Selassie, G. A., “Repetition and Synonyms in the Translation of Joel-With
Special Reference to the Amharic Language” BT 36 (1985): 230-237.
Mojola, A. O., “Translation Problems in Joel with Special Reference to Some East
African Languages: Part 2” BT 36 (1985): 226-229.
Motyer, J. A., The Prophecy of Isaiah (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1993).
Müller, H. P., „Prophetie und Apokalyptik bei Joel“ Theologia Viatorum 10 (1966):
231-252.
Müller, W. M., “Seba” ABD 1:1064.
Myers, J. M., “Some Considerations Bearing on the Date of Joel” ZAW 74 (1962):
177-195.
Nash, K. S., The Palestinian Agricultural Year and the Book of Joel (unpublished Ph. D.
Thesis; The Catholic University of America, 1989).
Nissinen, M., ed., Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (Writings from the
Ancient World 12; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003).
Nogalski, J., Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve (BZAW 217; Berlin: W. De
Gruyter, 1993).
— Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve (BZAW 218; Berlin: W. De Gruyter,
1993).
— “Joel as ‘Literary Anchor’ for the Book of the Twelve” in Reading and Hearing the
Book of the Twelve (eds. J. D. Nogalski and M. A. Sweeney; SBL Symposium Series
15; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 91-109.
— “The Day(s) of YHWH in the Book of the Twelve” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the
Twelve (eds. P. L. Redditt and A. Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin: W. De Gruyter, 2003), 192-213.
244
Nogalski, J. D., and M. A. Sweeney, eds., Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve
(SBL Symposium Series 15; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000).
Oded, B., “The Historical Background of the Syro-Ephraimite War Reconsidered”
CBQ 34/2 (1972): 153-165.
Ogden, G. S., “Joel 4 and Prophetic Responses to National Laments” JSOT 26
(1983): 97-106.
Paganini, S, C. Paganini and D. Markl, eds., Führe Mein Volk Heraus (Frankfurt:
Peter Lang, 2004).
Palmoni, Y., “Locust” IDB 3:144-8.
Payne, J. B., “The Relationship of the Reign of Ahaz to the Accession of
Hezekiah” Bibliotheca Sacra 126 (1969): 40-52.
Pearce, F., From Hosea to Zephaniah (Birmingham: CMPA, 1979).
Prinsloo, W. S., The Theology of the Book of Joel (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1985).
Pusey, E. B., Joel and Obadiah (Commentary on the Minor Prophets; 8 vols;
London: James Nisbet & Co., 1906).
Redditt, P. L., “The Book of Joel and Peripheral Prophecy” CBQ 48 (1986):225240.
Redditt, P. L. and A. Schart, eds., Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (BZAW
325; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003).
Reich, R. and E. Shukron, “Light at the End of the Tunnel” BAR 25/1 (1999): 2233.
Robinson, T. H., Die Zwölf kleinen Propheten, Hosea bis Micha, zweite Auflage (HAT;
Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1954).
— Prophecy and the Prophets in Ancient Israel (2nd ed.; London: Duckworth, 1953).
Rochberg, F., The Heavenly Writing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
Roth, C., “The Teacher of Righteousness and the Prophecy of Joel” VT 13 (1963):
91-95.
245
Seitz, C., “What Lesson Will History Teach? The Book of the Twelve as History”
in ‘Behind’ The Text: History and Biblical Interpretation (eds., C. Bartholomew et al;
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 443-469.
Scanlin, H., The Dead Sea Scrolls & Modern Translations of the Old Testament (Wheaton:
Tyndale House Publishers, 1993).
Schart, A., “Reconstructing the Redaction History of the Twelve Prophets” in
Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve (eds. J. D. Nogalski and M. A. Sweeney;
SBL Symposium Series 15; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 34-48.
Sellin, E., Das Zwölfprophetenbuch (KAT 12; 2 vols; 2nd and 3rd Rev. Edn.; Leipzig:
A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung D. Werner Scholl, 1929-1930).
Shanks, H., “Everything You Ever Knew About Jerusalem is Wrong” BAR 25
(1999): 20-29.
— “2,700-Year-Old Tower Found?” BAR 26/5 (2000): 39-41.
Shea, W. H., “Menahem and Tiglath-Pileser” JNES 37 (1978):43-49.
Smith, G., The Prophets as Preachers (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994).
Snyman, S. D., “Cohesion in the Book of Obadiah” ZAW 101 (1989): 59-71.
Soggin, J. A., The Prophet Amos (London: SCM Press, 1987).
Spalinger, A., “Egypt, History of (Dyn. 21-26)” ABD 2:353-364.
Strazicich, J., Joel’s Use of Scripture and the Scripture’s Use of Joel (BIS 82; Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 2007).
Sweeney, M. A., The Twelve Prophets (Berit Olam; 2 vols; Collegeville; Liturgical
Press, 2000).
— “The Place and Function of Joel in the Book of the Twelve” in Thematic Threads
in the Book of the Twelve (eds. P. L. Redditt and A. Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin: Walter
de Gruyter, 2003), 133-154.
Taam-Ambey, M., “Translating the Locust Invasion in the Book of Joel into
Kituba” BT 36 (1985): 216-220.
Tadmor, B. H., “Azriyau of Yaudi” Scripta Hierosolymitana 8 (1961): 252-258.
246
— The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy
of Sciences and Humanities, 1994).
Thiele E. R., The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (New Revised Edition;
Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1983).
Thompson, J. A., “Joel’s Locusts in the Light of Near Eastern Parallels” JNES 14
(1955): 52-55.
— “The Book of Joel, Introduction and Exegesis”, The Interpreter’s Bible 6
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1956), 729-760.
— “The Use of Repetition in the Prophecy of Joel” in On Language, Culture, and
Religion: In Honor of Eugene A. Nida (eds. M. Black and W. A. Smalley; The Hague
and Paris: Mouton, 1974), 101-110.
Tomes, R., “The Reason for the Syro-Ephraimite War” JSOT 59 (1993): 55-71.
Trebolle-Barrera, J., “Qumran Evidence for a Biblical Standard Text and for NonStandard and Parabiblical Texts” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in their Historical Context (ed.,
T. H. Lim; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000), 89-106.
Tucker, G. M., “Prophetic Superscriptions and the Growth of Canon” in Canon and
Authority (eds., G. W. Cook and R. O. Long; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977),
56-70.
VanGemeren, W. A., “The Spirit of Restoration”, WTJ (1988): 81-202.
— “Joel” in Theological Interpretation of the Old Testament (ed., K. J. VanHoozer;
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 251-256.
VanHoozer, K. J., ed., Theological Interpretation of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2008).
Van Seters, J., The Edited Bible (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006).
Vermeylen, J., The Book of Isaiah (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989).
Von Rad, G., “The Origin of the Concept of the Day of Yahweh” JSS 4 (1959):
97-107.
— The Message of the Prophets (London: SCM Press, 1968).
247
Waldbaum, J., “Early Greek Contacts with the Southern Levant, ca. 1000-600 B.C.:
The Eastern Perspective” BASOR 293 (1994): 53-66.
Watson, F., Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2004).
Watts, J. D. W., and P. R. House, eds., Forming Prophetic Literature (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).
Weingreen, J., “The Title Moreh Sedek” JSS 6 (1961): 162-174.
Welch, A. C. “Joel IV 17-21” JTS 22 (1921): 266-267.
Wenk, M., Community-Forming Power: The Socio-Ethical Role of the Spirit in Luke-Acts
(London: T&T Clark, 2004).
Whittaker, E., and T. Benson, “Jehoshaphat in Psalm and Prophecy (1)”
Testimony 46 (1976): 335-340; “Jehoshaphat in Psalm and Prophecy (2)” Testimony
46 (1976): 387-392.
Whittaker, H. A., Hezekiah the Great (Birmingham: CMPA, 1985).
— Isaiah (Cannock: Biblia, 1988).
— Joel (Cannock: Biblia, 1989).
Whitley, C. F., “‛bt in Joel 2:7” Biblica 65 (1984): 101-102.
Whybray, R. N., The Second Isaiah (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1983).
Wiseman, D. J., “Two Historical Inscriptions from Nimrud” Iraq 13 (1951): 21-26.
— “A Fragmentary Inscription of Tiglath-Pileser from Nimrud” Iraq 18 (1956):
117-129.
Wolfe, R. E., “The Editing of the Book of the Twelve” ZAW 53 (1935): 90-129.
Wolff, H. W., Joel and Amos (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977).
— Obadiah and Jonah (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1986).
Wordsworth, W. A., En-Roeh (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1939).
Young, E. J., An Introduction to the Old Testament (Rev. Edn.; London: The Tyndale
Press, 1960).
248
Young, I., ed., Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (London: T & T
Clark, 2003).
— “Introduction” in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (ed., I. Young;
London: T & T Clark, 2003), 1-6.
— “Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions” in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in
Chronology and Typology (ed., I. Young; London: T & T Clark, 2003), 276-311.
Zvi, Ben Ehud, “Twelve Prophetic Books or “The Twelve”: A Few Preliminary
Considerations” in Forming Prophetic Literature (eds., J. D. W. Watts and P. R. House;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 125-156.
249
Related papers
Structuring senses-The impact of design on human mind
International Journal of Advance Research Ideas and Innovations in Technology
Quantifying Tip60 (Kat5) stratifies breast cancer
Scientific Reports, 2019
How to Accurately and Privately Identify Anomalies
Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2019
Aspectos Sazoniais sobre a fisiologia reprodutiva em Lobos-Guarás (Chrysocyon brachyurus, Illiger 1811) em cativeiro: Revisão de literatura
Nucleus Animalium, 2014
504 Single Center Outcome Comparisons of Skin Disorders Versus Burns: Time to Reconsider the Automatic Transfer?
Journal of Burn Care & Research, 2023
The Ethical Assessment of Technology: Theoretical Issues and Methodological Difficulties
Proceedings of the ... International Management Conference, 2022