Ver. 5. "_Afterwards shall the children of Israel return and seek the Lord their G.o.d, and David their king, and shall tremble to the Lord and to His goodness in the end of the days._"
???????? must not by any means be regarded as modifying ????, so that both the verbs would const.i.tute only one verbal idea. This must be objected to, not only from the arguments already stated in the remarks on chap.
ii. 11, but, most decidedly, on account of the parallel pa.s.sage, chap.
ii. 9, "I will go and return to my first husband." Compare chap. vi. 1: "Come and let us return unto the Lord;" v. 15, where the Lord says, "I will go and return to My place until they become guilty and seek My face; in their affliction they will seek Me;" Jer. l. 4: "In those days, and in that time, saith the Lord, the children of Israel shall _come_, they and the children of Judah together, weeping will they come, and seek the Lord their G.o.d,"--a pa.s.sage which, like Jer. x.x.x. 9, points to the one before us in a manner not to be mistaken; Is. x. 21: "The remnant shall _return_, the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty G.o.d." The text, and the parallel pa.s.sages, most clearly indicate what is to be considered as the object of their return, namely, the Lord their G.o.d, and David their king, from whom they had so shamefully apostatized; so that those interpreters who here think of a return to Canaan do not deserve a refutation. The words, "Jehovah their G.o.d," at the same time lay open the delusion of the Israelites (who imagined that they could still possess the true G.o.d, in the idol which they called Jehovah), and rebuke their ingrat.i.tude. _Calvin_ says, "G.o.d had offered Himself to them, yea. He had had familiar intercourse with them,--He had, as it were, brought them up on His bosom just as a father does his sons. The prophet, therefore, indirectly rebukes, in these words, their stupendous wickedness." The G.o.d of the Israelites, as well as the G.o.d of the Jews after they had rejected Christ, stood to the G.o.d of Israel in the same relation as does the G.o.d of the Deists and Rationalists to the G.o.d of the Christians. The question here arises. Who is to be understood here by "David their king?" Some interpreters refer it, after the example of _Theodoret_ (t. ii. p. 2, p. 1326), to [Pg 288]Zerubbabel: but by far the greater number of them, following the Chaldee ("And they shall obey the Messiah, the son of David their king"), understand, thereby, the Messiah. It is true that the latter exposition is quite correct as to its substance, but not as to the form in which it is commonly expressed. From the words, "They shall return and seek," it is evident that the Messiah is here not called David as an individual, as is done in other pa.s.sages, _e.g._, Jer. x.x.x. 9. For the return presupposes their having been there formerly, and their having departed; just as the seeking implies neglecting. The expression, "their king," also requires special attention. In contrast to the "king" in ver. 4 (compare viii. 4, "They have made a king, and not by Me, a prince, and I knew it not"), it shows that the subject of discourse is not by any means a new king to be elected, but such an one as the Israelites ought to obey, even now, as the king ordained for them by G.o.d. The sound view is this: By the "king David" the whole Davidic house is to be understood, which is here to be considered as an unity, in the same manner as is done in 2 Sam.
vii., and in a whole series of Psalms which celebrate the mercies shown, and to be shown, to David and his house.[4] These mercies are most fully concentrated in Christ, in whose appearance and everlasting dominion the promises given to David were first to be fully realized.
The prophet mentions the whole--the Davidic family--because it was only thus that the contrast between the apostasy and the return could be fully brought out; but that, in so doing, he has Christ especially in view--that he expected a return of the children of Israel to David in Christ, is shown by the term ?????? ?????, which, in the prophets, never occurs in any other sense than the times of the Messiah.
(Compare, regarding this expression, the remarks on Amos ix. 1.) This reason is alone sufficient to refute the reference to Zerubbabel; although so much must indeed be conceded, that the circ.u.mstance of part of the citizens of the kingdom of the ten tribes adhering to him, the descendant of the house of David, may be considered as a prelude of that general return. The close connection betwixt the seeking of Jehovah their G.o.d and David their king, likewise claims our attention.
David and his family had been elected by G.o.d to be the mediator between Him and the [Pg 289] people--the channel through which all His blessings flowed clown upon the people--the visible image of the invisible King, who, at the end of the days, was, in Christ, most perfectly to reflect His glory. The Israelites, in turning away from David their king, turned away, at the same time, from Jehovah their G.o.d,--as was but too soon manifested by the other signs of apostasy from Him, by the introduction of the worship of calves, etc. He who refuses to acknowledge G.o.d in that which He has Himself declared to be His visible image (from Christ down to every relation which represents Him in any respect, _e.g._, that of the father to the son, of the king to the subject), will soon cease to acknowledge Himself. But as, first, the ten tribes, and afterwards, the entire people, apostatized from G.o.d, by apostatizing from David, so, by their apostasy from him, they excluded themselves from all partic.i.p.ation in the privileges of the people of G.o.d, which could flow to them only through him. It is only when they return to David by returning to Christ, that, from their self-made G.o.d, they come to the true G.o.d, and within the sphere of His blessings. That the same thing is repeated among ourselves in the case of those who have forsaken Christ their King, and yet imagine still to possess G.o.d, and that it is only by their returning to the brightness of His glory that they can attain to a true union with the Lord their G.o.d, and to a partic.i.p.ation in the blessings which He bestows,--all this is so obvious as to require nothing beyond a simple suggestion. A perfectly sound interpretation of this pa.s.sage is to be found in _Calvin_, who remarks: "David was, as it were, a messenger of the Lord, and, hence, that defection of the ten tribes was tantamount to a rejection of the living G.o.d. The Lord had, on a former occasion, said to Samuel (1 Sam. viii. 7), "They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me." But how much more was this applicable in the case of David, whom Samuel had anointed at the command of G.o.d, and whom the Lord had adorned with so many glorious attributes, that they could not reject his rule without, at the same time, publicly rejecting, to a certain extent, the Lord Himself! It is true, indeed, that David was then dead; but Hosea here represents, in his person, his everlasting dominion, which the Jews knew would last as long as the sun and moon."
The expression, [Pg 290] "They tremble to the Lord," graphically describes the disposition of heart in him, who, trembling with terror and anxiety on account of the surrounding danger and distress, flees to Him who can alone afford help and deliverance. That we must thus explain it,--that we cannot entertain the idea of any trembling which proceeds from the inconceivable greatness of the blessing--a disposition of heart so graphically described by _Claudian_ in the words,
"Horret adhuc animus, manifestaque gaudia differt Dum stupet et tanto cunctatur credere voto,"--
and that we can as little think of a fearing or trembling which is the consequence of the knowledge of deep sinfulness and unworthiness, is shown by the parallel pa.s.sage in chap. xi. 11: "They tremble as a bird out of Egypt, and as a dove out of the land of a.s.syria." The bird and the dove are here an emblem of helplessness. Substantially parallel is also chap. v. 15: "In their affliction they will seek Me." Their trembling is not voluntary; it is forced upon them by the Lord. But that they tremble _to the Lord_--that, through fear, they suffer themselves to be led to the Lord--is their free act, although possible only by the a.s.sistance of grace. The manner in which the words, "and to His goodness," are to be understood, is most plainly shown by the words, "I will return to my first husband, for it was _better_ with me then than now," chap. ii. 9. Along with the Lord, they have lost His goodness also, and the gifts flowing from it. But distress again drives them to seek the Lord, and His goodness, which is inseparable from Himself. This explanation is confirmed by other parallel pa.s.sages also; _e.g._, Jer. x.x.xi. 12: "And they come and exult on the height of Zion, and flow together to the goodness of the Lord (??? ????), to corn, and must, and oil, and lambs, and cattle;" ver. 14: "My people shall be satisfied with My goodness." Compare also Ps. xxvii. 13, x.x.xi. 20; Zech. ix. 17. We would therefore object to the opinion of several interpreters, who would explain ??? ???? as being equivalent to ????
????, to His manifestation in the Angel of the Lord, the ?????, by whom His glory and goodness are made known.
Footnote 1: It is quite impossible to refer ???? to the adulterers, and for this reason:--that it is always Israel"s love to the idols that is spoken of, but never the love of the idols to Israel. In the explanation given in the words immediately following, it is not the idols that take the initiative; it is Israel who turns to other G.o.ds.
Footnote 2: _J. D. Michaelis_ remarks: "In the present captivity they do not, indeed, worship idols, but nevertheless they do not know, nor worship, the true G.o.d, since they reject the Son, without whom the Father will not be worshipped, John xvii. 3; 1 John ii. 23; 2 John 9."
Footnote 3: The "priest" here corresponds with the "Ephod" in Hosea.
Footnote 4: In 1 Kings xii. 16, also, David stands for the Davidic dynasty.
[Pg 291]
THE PROPHET JOEL.
PRELIMINARY REMARKS.
The position which has been a.s.signed to Joel in the collection of the Minor Prophets, furnishes an external argument for the determination of the time at which Joel wrote. There cannot be any doubt that the Collectors were guided by a consideration of the chronology. The circ.u.mstance, that they placed the prophecies of Joel just between the two prophets who, according to the inscriptions and contents of their prophecies, belonged to the time of Jeroboam and Uzziah, is thus equivalent to an express testimony that he also lived, and exercised his ministry, during that time.
By this testimony we have, in the meanwhile, obtained a firm standing-point; and it must remain firm, as long as it is not overthrown by other unquestionable facts, and the Collectors are not convicted of an historical error. But, as regards the latter point, there is the greater room for caution, because all the other statements which they have made are, upon a careful examination, found to stand the test; for none of the other Minor Prophets is found to occupy a place to which he is not ent.i.tled. But no such facts are to be found; on the contrary, everything serves to confirm their testimony.
It will not be possible to a.s.sign the prophecies of Joel to a later period; for Amos places at the head of one of his prophecies one of the utterances of Joel (compare Amos i. 2 with Joel iv. 16 [iii. 16]), as the text, as it were, on which he is to comment. That we are not thereby precluded from considering the two prophets as contemporaneous, is shown by the altogether similar case of Isaiah, in his relation to Micah. Isaiah, too, borrows, in chap. xiii. 6, a sentence from Joel i.
15, the peculiarity of which proves that the coincidence is not accidental. Such verbal repet.i.tions must not be, by any means, considered as unintentional reminiscences. They served to exhibit that the prophets acknowledged one another as the organs of the Holy Spirit,--to testify the ????? d?ad????, the want of which in the times after Ezra and Nehemiah is mentioned by Josephus as one of the reasons why none of the writings of [Pg 292]that period could be acknowledged as sacred. (See the Author"s _Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel_, p. 199.) _Further_,--The description of the threatening judgment in chap. i. and ii. is, in Joel, kept just in that very same generality in which we find it in the oldest prophecies that have been preserved to us, viz., in Amos, in the first chapters of Isaiah and of Hosea; whilst in later times, the threatening is, throughout, particularized by the express mention of the instruments who were, in the first instance, to serve for its fulfilment, viz., the a.s.syrians and Babylonians. That which Judah had to suffer from the former was so severe, that Joel, in chap. iv. 4 ff.--where he mentions, although, as it were, only in the way of example, nations with which Judah had hitherto already come into hostile contact--would scarcely have pa.s.sed them over in silence, in order to mention only the far lesser calamity inflicted by other nations.
But just as little can we think of an earlier period. It is certainly not accidental, that among all the prophets whose writings have been preserved to us, no one appeared at an earlier period; any more than it is accidental, that no prophecies are extant of the distinguished men of G.o.d in earlier times, of whom the historical books make mention, especially Elijah and Elisha. It was only when the great divine judgments were being prepared, and were approaching, that it was time, through their announcement, to waken from the slumber of security those who had forgotten G.o.d, and to open the treasures of hope and consolation to the faithful. Formerly, the living, oral word of the prophets was the princ.i.p.al thing; but now that G.o.d opened up to them a wider view,--that their calling had regard not only to the present, but also to the future time, the written word was raised to an equal dignity. Nothing, then, but the most cogent reasons could induce us to make, in the case of Joel only, an exception to so established a rule.
But we cannot acknowledge as such, what _Credner_ (in his _Comment. on Joel_, p. 41 sqq.) has brought forward to prove that Joel committed to writing his prophecies as early as under the reign of Joash, _i.e._, about 870-65 B.C., or from seventy to eighty years earlier than any of the other prophecies which have come down to us. If we do not allow ourselves to be carried away by the mult.i.tude of his words, we shall find that the only remaining plausible argument is--that the Syrians of Damascus [Pg 293]are not mentioned among the enemies of the Covenant-people, as they are in Amos. From this, _Credner_ infers that Joel must have prophesied before the first inroad of the Syrians on Judea, which, according to 2 Kings xii. 18 ff.; 2 Chron. xxiv. 23 ff., took place under Jehoash. But we need only look at that pa.s.sage, in order to be convinced that the mention of that event could not be expected in Joel. The expedition of the Syrians was not directed against Judea, but against the Philistines. It was only a single detached corps which, according to Chronicles, incidentally, and on their return, made an inroad on Judah; but Jerusalem itself was not taken. This single act of hostility could not but be soon forgotten in the course of time. It was of quite a different character from that of the Phnicians and Philistines mentioned by Joel, which were only particular outbreaks of the hatred and envy which they continually cherished against the Covenant-people, and which, as such, were preeminently the object of punitive divine justice. But on what ground does the supposition rest, that Joel must necessarily mention all those nations, with which the Covenant-people came, at any time, into hostile contact? The context certainly does not favour such an idea. The mention of former hostile attacks in chap. iv. (iii.) 4-8 is altogether incidental, as _Vitringa_, in his _Typ. Doctr. Proph._ p. 189 sqq., has admitted: "The prophet," says he, "was describing the heavy judgments with which G.o.d would, after the effusion of the Spirit, successively, and especially in the latter days, visit the enemies of the Church, and overthrow them, on account of the injuries which they had inflicted upon it. And while he was doing so, those injuries presented themselves to his mind, which in his own time, and in the immediate past, were inflicted upon the Jewish people--a portion of the universal Church--by the neighbouring nations, the Tyrians, Sidonians, and Philistines. To them he addresses his discourse _in pa.s.sing_ (_in transitu_), and announces to them, in the name of G.o.d, that they themselves also would not remain unpunished." The correctness of _Vitringa_, with his "_in transitu_," is proved by the ???, as well as by the circ.u.mstance, that vers. 9 ff. are closely connected with ver. 3; so that vers. 4 ff. form a real parenthesis. How entirely out of place would here have been any mention of the Syrians! There was necessarily something required which was very striking, and [Pg 294]which, having but recently occurred, was still vividly remembered. But the matter was altogether different in the case of Amos. Joel has to do with the enemies of Judah only; Amos, with those of the kingdom of Israel also, among whom the Syrians were the most dangerous. Hence, he begins with them at once. The crime with which he charges them in chap. i. 3, that they had threshed the inhabitants of Gilead with threshing instruments of iron, concerns the kingdom of Israel only. The same applies to the Ammonites and Moabites also, who, in like manner, are mentioned by Amos, and not by Joel. The Ammonites are charged in Amos i. 13 with ripping up the women with child of Gilead, that they might enlarge their border; and the crime of the Moabites, rebuked in chap. ii. 1, occurred, very probably, during the time of, or after, the expedition against them, mentioned in 2 Kings iii.--the real instigator of which was the king of Israel.
We must indeed be astonished that _Hitzig_, _Ewald_, _Meier_, _Baur_, and others, after the example of _Credner_, have likewise declared in favour of the view that the prophecies of Joel were composed under Joash. None of the arguments, however, by which they attempt to support their view, can stand examination.
"There is nowhere, as yet, the slightest allusion to the a.s.syrians,"
says _Ewald_. But neither is any such found in Amos, nor in the first part of Hosea. An irruption, however, such as former times had not known,--an overflowing, as it were, by the heathen, such as could by no means proceed from the small neighbouring nations, but from extensive kingdoms only, is here also brought into view. Joel is, in this respect, in strict agreement with Amos, who embodies his prophecy concerning this event, in chap. vi. 14, in these words: "For, behold, I raise up against you, O house of Israel, Gentile people, saith the Lord, the G.o.d of hosts, and they shall afflict you from Hamath unto the river of the wilderness."
"There breathes here still the unbroken warlike spirit of the times of Deborah and David," _Ewald_ further remarks. But is there in the fourth (third) chapter any trace of self-help on the part of the people?
Judgment upon the Gentiles is executed without any human instrumentality, by G.o.d,--not by His earthly, but by His heavenly "heroes," who are sent down [Pg 295]from heaven to earth, and who make short work with these fancied earthly heroes. Compare chap. iv. (iii.) 11-13, where the address is directed to the heavenly ministers of G.o.d, at the head of whom the Angel of the Covenant must be supposed to be: Ps. ciii. 20; Rev. xix. 14. _Such_ a victory of the kingdom of G.o.d, all the prophets announce,--not only Isaiah and Micah, but also Ezekiel, _e.g._, in chap. x.x.xviii. and x.x.xix.
"We perceive here the prophetic order in Jerusalem, still in the same ancient greatness as when Nathan and Gad may have exercised their office at the time of David. A whole people, without contradicting or murmuring, still depend upon the prophet. He desires the observance of a grievous ordinance, and willingly it is performed; his word is still like a higher command which all cheerfully obey. Nor is any discord to be seen in the nation, nor any wicked idolatry or superst.i.tion; the ancient simple faith still lives in them, unbroken and undivided." So _Ewald_ still further remarks. But this argument rests upon a false supposition; a conversion of the people at the time of the prophet is not at all spoken of. The pretended repentance is to take place _in future_,--which, according to chap. i. 4, we must conceive of as being still afar off, namely, in the time after the divine judgments have broken in. And as to a progress in the apostasy of the people, it can scarcely be proved that such took place in the time betwixt Joash and Uzziah. Between these two, we do not find any new stage of corruption.
The idolatry of Solomon, and the abominations of Athaliah, had exercised their influence, even as early as under Joash. How deep the rent was which, even then, went through the nation, is shown by the fact, that, according to 2 Chron. xxiv. 17, 18, after the death of Jehoiada, Joash gave way to the _urgent demands of the prince"s of Judah_, and allowed free scope to idolatry. Moreover, the threatening announcement of a judgment, which is to extend even to the destruction of the temple, proves how deep the apostasy was at the time of Joel.
Where a judgment is thus threatened, which, in its terrors, far surpa.s.ses all former judgments, the "ancient faith" certainly cannot have been very vigorous.
"The Messianic idea appears here in its generality and indefiniteness, without being as yet concentrated in the person of an ideal king,"
_Hitzig_ remarks. But if this argument were at all [Pg 296] valid, we should have to go back even beyond the time of Joash. Solomon, David, and Jacob already knew the personal Messiah. The prophets, however, do not everywhere proclaim everything which they know. Even in Isaiah, there occur long Messianic descriptions, in which the Messiah Himself is not to be found. In Joel, moreover, everything is collected around the person of the "Teacher of righteousness."
"Joel," it is further remarked, "must have prophesied at a time when the Philistine and other nations, who had become so haughty under Jehoram, had but lately ventured upon destructive plundering expeditions as far as Jerusalem, 2 Chron. xxi. 10 ff." This argument would be plausible, if the injuries inflicted by the Philistines and the inhabitants of Tyrus had not appeared in equally lively colours before the mind of Amos (chap. i. 6-10), who, at all events, prophesied between seventy and eighty years after these events. It is just this fact which should teach caution in the application of such arguments.
The recollection of such facts could not be lost, as long as the disposition continued from which they originated. It was as if they had happened in the present; for, under similar circ.u.mstances, similar events would have again immediately taken place. The pa.s.sage chap. iv.
19, "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 the land," shows also how lively was the recollection of injuries sustained long ago. Egypt and Edom in that pa.s.sage are mentioned individually, in order to designate the enemies of the people of G.o.d in general, and yet with an allusion to deeds perpetrated by the Egyptians and Edomites properly so called. As the suffix in ???? must be referred to the sons of Judah--for we have no historical account of a b.l.o.o.d.y deed perpetrated against Judah by the Edomites in their own land, and it was the land of Judah which was invaded and devastated by the host of locusts--we can think, in the case of the Egyptians, only of the invasion under Rehoboam (1 Kings xiv.), and in the case of the Edomites, only of the great carnage which they made in Judah, during the time at which David carried on war with Aram in Arabia and on the Euphrates,--probably at a time when he had sustained heavy losses in that warfare; compare my Comment. on Ps.
xliv. and lx. Of any [Pg 297] similar later occurrence there is no account extant. It is only by a fanciful exposition that "the innocent blood" can be found in 2 Kings viii. 20-22. The Edomites at that time kept only a defensive position, and did not come into the land of Judah. "The innocent blood" implies a war of conquest, and a hostile inroad.
"In chap. iv. (iii.) 4-7, Joel promises a return to the citizens of Judah, who had been carried away by the Philistines under Jehoram; and, hence, an age cannot have elapsed since that event." Thus _Meier_ argues. But the words, "Behold, I raise them out of the place whither ye have sold them," contain no special prediction, but only the application of the general truth, that G.o.d gathers together the dispersed of Judah, and brings back again the exiled of Israel; and it is only requisite to compare concerning them. Gen. xv. 16, "In the fourth generation they shall come hither again," and l. 24, "G.o.d will visit you, and bring you out of this land."
We thus arrive at the conclusion that Joel occupies the right place in the Canon.
The a.s.sertion that Joel belonged to the priestly order, is as baseless as the similar one regarding Habakkuk, and as the supposition that the author of the Chronicles was a musician.
The book contains a connected description. It begins with a graphic account of the ruin which G.o.d will bring upon His apostate Congregation, by means of foreign enemies. These latter represent themselves to the prophet in his spiritual vision as an all-destroying swarm of locusts. The fundamental thought is this:--"Wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together,"--wherever corruption manifests itself in the Congregation of the Lord, punishment will be inflicted. Because G.o.d has sanctified Himself _in_ the Congregation, and has graciously imparted to her His holiness. He must therefore sanctify Himself upon her,--must manifest His holiness in her punishment, if she has become like the profane world. He cannot allow that, after the Spirit has departed, the dead body should still continue to appear as His kingdom, but strips off the mask of hypocrisy from His degenerate Church, by representing her outwardly as that which, by her guilt, she has become inwardly. This thought commonly appears in a special [Pg 298] application, by the mention of the name of the particular people whom the Lord is, in the immediate future, to employ for the realization of it. In the case before us, however, He is satisfied with pointing to the dignity and power inherent in Him. The enemies are designated only as _people from the North_. But it was from the North--from Syria--that all the princ.i.p.al invasions of Palestine proceeded. Hence there is no reason either to think of one of them exclusively, or to exclude one. On the contrary, the comprehensive character of the description distinctly appears in i. 4. It is there, at the very threshold, intimated, that the heathenish invasion will be a fourfold one,--that Israel shall become the prey of four successive extensive empires. Joel"s mission fell at the commencement of the written prophecy; and in harmony with this, he gives only an outline of that which it was reserved for the later prophets to fill up, and to carry out in its details, by the mention of the name of each single empire, as the times moved on. It was enough that Joel prophesied the destruction by these great empires, even before any one of them had appeared on the stage of history, and that he was enabled to point even to the fourfold number of them.
The threat of punishment, joined with exhortations to repentance, to which the people willingly listened, and humbled themselves before the Lord, continues down to chap. ii. 17. With this is connected the proclamation of salvation--which extends down to chap. iii. 2 (ii. 29).
The showing of mercy begins with the fact, that G.o.d sends the _Teacher of righteousness_. He directs the attention of the people to the design of their sufferings, and invites the weary and heavy laden to come to the Lord, that He may refresh them. His voice is heard by those who are of a broken heart; and there then follows rich divine blessing, with its consummation--the outpouring of the Spirit. Both--the sending of the Teacher of righteousness, and the outpouring of the Spirit--had their preliminary fulfilments; the first of which took place soon after the commencement of the devastation by the locusts, in the time of the a.s.syrians,--a second, after the destruction by the Babylonians had come upon the people,--a third, after the visitation by the Greek tyranny under the Maccabees. But the chief reference of the prophecy is, throughout, to Christ, and to the vouchsafement [Pg 299] of the blessing, and to the outpouring of the Spirit, originating in His mediation.
The announcement of salvation for the Covenant-people is, in the third and last part, followed by the opposite of it, viz., the announcement of judgments upon the enemies of the Congregation of G.o.d. Their hatred of it, proceeding from hatred to G.o.d, is employed by Him, indeed, as a means of chastising and purifying His Church; but it does not, for that reason, cease to be an object of His punitive justice. The fundamental idea of this part of the book is expressed in 1 Pet. iv. 17 by the words: "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of G.o.d. And if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the Gospel of G.o.d? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the unG.o.dly and the sinner appear?" The description bears here also, as in the second and first parts, a comprehensive character.
That which, in the course of history, is realized in a long series of single acts of divine interposition against the enemies of the Church, is here brought together in a single scene. The overthrow of a.s.syria, Babylon, the Persian and Grecian monarchies, is comprehended in this prophecy. But its final fulfilment must be sought for only in the Messianic time. This is sufficiently evident from the relation of this part, to the second. Having given ear to the Teacher of righteousness, and the Spirit having been poured out upon her, the Congregation has become an object of the loving providence of G.o.d. From this flows the judgment upon her enemies. If, then, the promise of the Teacher of righteousness and of the outpouring of the Spirit be, in substance, Messianic, so, the judgment too must, in substance, bear a Messianic character. The same appears from iv. (iii.) 18, according to which pa.s.sage, simultaneously with the judgments, there cometh forth, from the house of the Lord, a fountain which watereth the valley of s.h.i.ttim--the waters of salvation which water the dry land of human need. (Compare the remarks on Ezek. xlvii,; Zech. xiv. 8; and my _Comment. on Revel._ xxii. 1.) This feature, however, clearly points to the Messianic time.
We must here, however, avoid confounding the substance with the form,--the idea with the temporary clothing which the prophet puts upon it, in accordance with the nature of prophetic [Pg 300] vision, in which, necessarily, all that is spiritual must be represented in outward sketches and forms. This form is as follows:--In the place nearest to the temple, and which was able to contain a great mult.i.tude of people, in the valley of Jehoshaphat, all nations are gathered. (The valley very probably received its name from the appellation which, in the pa.s.sage under consideration, the prophet gives to it, in order to mark its destination; for Jehoshaphat means, "the Lord judges," or "Valley of Judgment."[1]) The Lord, enthroned in the temple, exercises judgment upon them. In this manner--in outward forms of perception--the idea is brought out, that the judgment upon the Gentiles is an effect of the kingdom of G.o.d; that they are not punished on account of their violation of the natural law, but because of the hostile position which they had occupied against the teachers of G.o.d"s revealed truth,--against the Lord Himself who is in His Church. Every violation of the natural law may be pardoned to those who have not stood in any other relation to G.o.d, even although they should have [Pg 301]
proceeded to the most fearful extent in depravity. They who were once disobedient, when the long-suffering of G.o.d waited in the days of Noah, were not as yet given over to complete condemnation, but were kept in prison until Christ came and preached to them. "This was the iniquity of Sodom: fulness of bread, and abundance of peace, were in her and her daughters; yet the hand of the poor and needy they did not a.s.sist; but they were haughty and committed abomination before the Lord: therefore He took them away as He saw good." But, nevertheless, the Lord will, at some future time, turn the captivity (the misery) of this Sodom and her daughters, and they shall be restored as they were before,--not corporeally, for their seed is utterly rooted out from the earth, and even their place is destroyed, but spiritually; compare Ezek. xvi. 49 ff. But, on the other hand, far more severe punishments are inflicted upon those who have rejected, not the abstract, but the concrete G.o.d,--not the G.o.d who is shut up in the heavens, but the G.o.d who powerfully manifests Himself on earth, in His Church. It is true, that as long as this revelation is still an imperfect one--as it was under the Old Testament dispensation--and hence the guilt of rejecting Him less, mercy may still be shown. External destruction does not involve spiritual ruin. Moab, indeed, is destroyed, so that it is no longer a people, because it has exalted itself against the Lord; yet, "in the latter days I will turn the captivity of Moab, saith the Lord," Jer.
xlviii. 47. But when the revelation of the grace of G.o.d has become perfect, His justice also will be perfectly revealed against all who reject it, and rise in hostility against those who are the bearers of it: "Their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh," Is. lxvi. 24. These remarks contain the key to all which the Lord declares as to the future judgment which, in its completion, belongs only to the future world. It is not the world as such, but that world to which the Gospel has been declared, and in the midst of which the Church has been founded, which forms the object of it; compare Matt. xxiv. 14.
Footnote 1: _Hofmann_ (_Weissag. u. Erful._ i. S. 203) has revived the explanation, according to which the valley of Jehoshaphat is to be understood as the valley in which, under Jehoshaphat, judgment was executed upon several Gentile nations. But this locality, the desert of Thekoa, which was about three hours distance from Jerusalem (compare my _Comment. on the Psalms_, in the _Introduction to Ps._ xlvi. xlviii.
lx.x.xiii.), is at too great a distance from the temple, where, according to vers. 16 and 17, the Lord holds His judgment upon the nations.
Tradition has rightly perceived that the valley of Jehoshaphat can be sought for only in the immediate vicinity of the temple. In favour of the valley of Jehoshaphat now so called, "at the high east brink of Moriah, the temple-hill" (_Ritter_, _Erdk._ xv. 1, S. 559; xvi. 1, S.
329), is also Zech. vi. 1-8 (compare the remarks on that pa.s.sage). From the circ.u.mstance that there is, first, the mention of the name, and, then, the statement of its signification, "And I gather all nations, and bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and _plead_ with them there," _Hofmann_ infers that the name must have already existed as a proper name. There is, however, an a.n.a.logy in Num. xx. 1: "And the people encamped at Kadesh;"--but the place received the name Kadesh only because of the event to be subsequently related: previous to that, its name was Barnea. (Compare _Dissert. on Gen. of the Pent._ vol. ii.
p. 310 ff.) The two theological names of the place, which arose only from the event recorded in Num. xx., occur even as early as Gen. xiv.
7. The natural name of the valley of Jehoshaphat is, moreover, in all likelihood, _King"s Dale_; compare Gen. xiv. 17; 2 Sam. xviii. 18; and _Thenius_ on this pa.s.sage.
[Pg 302]
JOEL I.-II. 17.
We shall not dwell here for any length of time upon the history of the expositions of this pa.s.sage. It has been given with sufficient minuteness by _Poc.o.c.ke_ and _Marckius_ among older writers, and by _Credner_ among the more modern. We content ourselves with remarking that the figurative exposition is the more ancient, having been adopted by the Chaldee Paraphrast, and by the Jews mentioned by _Jerome_, and that we cannot by any means, as _Credner_ does, derive it from doctrinal considerations only; for many, with whom such considerations weighed, as _Bochart_, _Poc.o.c.ke_, and _J. D. Michaelis_, do not approve of it; whilst, on the other hand, there are among its defenders not a few who were guided by just the opposite motives, such as _Grotius_, _Eckermann_, _Berthold_ (Einl. S. 1607 ff.), and _Theiner_. Two preliminary questions, however, require to be answered, before we can proceed to the main investigation.
1. Does Joel here describe a present, or a future calamity? The former has been a.s.serted, in former times, by _Luther_ and _Calvin_ (compare, especially, his commentary on chap. i. 4), and in more recent times, with special confidence, by _Credner_. But there is nothing to favour this view. The frequent use of the Preterites would prove something in support of it, provided only we were not standing on prophetical ground. They are, moreover, found quite in the same manner in chap.
iv.--in that portion which, by all interpreters unanimously, is referred to the future. And yet, if this view were to be acknowledged as sound, it ought to commend itself by stringent considerations, inasmuch as the prophetic a.n.a.logy is, _a priori_, against it. There is not found anywhere in the prophets so long and so detailed a description of the present or the past. But, moreover, if we once give up the reference to the future, we could think of the past only; for in chap; ii. 18, 19, the description of the salvation following upon the misery, is connected with the preceding context by the Future with _vav conversivum_. If, then, the scene of inward vision be forsaken, and everything referred to external reality, the calamity described in the preceding context must likewise be viewed as one already entirely past, and the salvation as already actually existing. It can be proved, however, [Pg 303] from the contents, by incontrovertible special reasons, that the reference to the future is alone the correct one. The day of the Lord is several times spoken of as being at hand, which may be explained from the circ.u.mstance, that G.o.d"s judgment upon His Church is a necessary effect of His justice, which never rests, but always shows itself as active. When, therefore, its object--the sinful apostasy of the people--is already in existence, its manifestation must also of necessity be expected; and although not the last and highest manifestation, yet such an one as serves for a prelude to it. The day of the Lord is, therefore, continually coming, is never absolutely distant; and its being spoken of as _at hand_ is a necessary consequence of the saying, "Whereseover the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together,"--a declaration founded upon the divine nature, and therefore ever true. (Compare my _Commentary on the Apocalypse_ i. 1.) This designation is first found in i. 15: "Alas! for the day, for the day of the Lord is _at hand_, and as a destruction from the Almighty does it come." Here, two expedients for evasion have been tried. _Justi_ maintained that "the day is at hand" was equivalent to "the day is there,"--an opinion which does not deserve any further refutation. _Holzhausen_, _Credner_, and _Hitzig_ suppose that, by "the day of the Lord," we are not to understand the devastation by the locusts, but some severe judgment, to which that served as a prelude.