This supposition is, however, opposed, first of all, by the verbal parallel pa.s.sage in Isa. xiii. 6: "Howl ye, for the day of the Lord is at hand; it cometh as a destruction from the Almighty,"--where the day of the Lord cannot be any other than that which is described in the preceding context. But this opinion is further opposed by the circ.u.mstance, that, in the subsequent context, there is not the slightest trace of any other judgment than that of the devastation by the locusts; on the contrary, with its termination, the whole period of suffering comes to an end, as regards the Covenant-people, and the time of blessing upon them and of judgment upon their enemies begins. But the necessity for understanding, by "the day of the Lord at hand," the devastation by the locusts, and hence, for viewing the latter as still future, is even more clearly seen from the second pa.s.sage, chap. ii. 1, 2: "Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in My holy mountain; let all the [Pg 304] inhabitants of the land tremble, for the day of the Lord _hath come_, for _nigh at hand_, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and fogs, as the morning-red spread upon the mountains, a people numerous and strong; there hath not been the like from eternity, neither shall there be any more after it, even through the years of all generations." That, by "the day of the Lord,"
which the prophet, from the standing-point of his inward vision, here speaks of as having already come, and as being in reality nigh at hand, we must understand the same day as that which is minutely described in the preceding and subsequent context, viz., the devastation by the locusts, appears, in the first place, from the verbal parallel pa.s.sage, Ezek. x.x.x. 2, which likewise speaks of one day only: "Thou son of man, prophesy and say. Thus saith the Lord, Howl ye, woe for the day! For the day is near, a day to the Lord, a day of clouds, the time of the heathen it shall be." But what places the matter beyond all doubt are the words: "A people numerous and strong." These words, by which, according to what follows, the locusts only can be understood, form an explanatory apposition to "the day of the Lord," "the day of darkness,"
etc. To this we may further add, that, by the last words, this judgment is represented as the most formidable, and the last by which Judea shall be visited; so that we cannot by any means think of a subsequent later day of the Lord. 2. Are the different names of the locusts designations of various species of locusts, or are these, beside the common name of the locusts, only poetical names, which denote the qualities coming into consideration? _Credner_ has attempted to prove the former. He maintains that Joel"s description has to do with two generations of locusts,--the first belonging to the end of one year,--the second, to the beginning of the year following. The latter he thinks to be the offspring of the former. In accordance with this hypothesis, he explains the different names, ??? is, according to him, the migratory locust, which visits Palestine chiefly in autumn; ????, elsewhere the general name of locusts, here the young brood; ???, the young locust in the last stage of its transformation, or between the third and fourth casting of the skin; ????, the perfect locust, proceeding from the last transformation, and, hence, as the brood proceeded from the ???? ,??? would be the same ???.
[Pg 305]
It forms a general argument against this hypothesis, that, according to it, the prophet should enter so deeply and minutely into the natural history of locusts, that a Professor of that science might learn from him. There is nothing a.n.a.logous to this, either in Scripture generally, or in the Prophets particularly. The difficulty, moreover, increases, when we a.s.sume--what has been already proved--that the description refers to the future. The religious impression which the prophet has, after all, solely in view, would not gain, but suffer by such a minute detail in the description of a future natural event,--especially such as a devastation by locusts.
A closer examination proves that the whole explanation of the names of the locusts, upon which the hypothesis is built, is untenable. It appears, then, that the prophet knows of only one kind of locusts, which he divides into four hosts; and that, with the exception of ????, the names are not those of natural history, but poetical, and taken from the qualities of the locusts.
Let us first demonstrate that the interpretation of ???, upon which _Credner_ founds that of the other names, is inadmissible. This interpretation, he maintains (S. 295), is put beyond all doubt by the pa.s.sage, Nah. iii. 16: "The ??? casts its skin and flies away." The merchants, who const.i.tuted the princ.i.p.al part of the population of Nineveh, are, according to him, compared to a ??? which flies away, after having cast his skin for the third or last time. But this pa.s.sage of Nahum, when minutely examined and correctly interpreted, is by itself sufficient to refute that opinion concerning the ???. In ver.
15, it is said concerning Nineveh: "There shall the fire devour thee, the sword shall cut thee off, it shall eat thee up, as the _licker_ (????): make thyself many as the _lickers_, make thyself many as the locusts. Ver. 16: Thou hast multiplied thy merchants like the stars of heaven; _lickers broke through and flew away_. Ver. 17: Thy princes are like locusts, and thy captains are as a host of gra.s.shoppers, which camp on the hedges in the day of cold. The sun has risen, and they flee away, and their place is not known where they are." This pa.s.sage just proves that ??? must be _winged_ locusts. The inhabitants of Nineveh are numerous like the locusts; numerous are her rich merchants; but suddenly there cometh upon them a numberless host of locusts, who rob [Pg 306] them of everything, and fly away. They who rob and fly away, in ver. 16, are not the merchants, but the enemies. This becomes quite evident from the comparison of ver. 15, where quite the same ant.i.thesis is found between--"The sword shall eat thee up as the lickers"
(Nominat.), and "Make thyself many as the lickers." The verb ???, in its common signification, _irruit_, _invasit ad praedam agendam_, is here, in reference to the merchants, very significant. But what is decisive against the explanation of _Credner_ is this:--that the signification "to cast the skin" cannot be established at all, and that the whole sense is utterly unsuitable. For the discourse is not here, by any means, of mercenaries or foreign traders, but of the native merchants of Nineveh, just as, in the subsequent verses, the discourse is about her own n.o.bles. How then could that image be suitable, which must certainly denote a safe transition from one state into a better?--_Credner_ moreover refers to Jer. li. 27, where to ??? the quality ???, _horridus_, is ascribed. This, according to him, is to be referred to the rough, horn-like coverings of the wings of the young locusts. But, according to the context, and to the a.n.a.logy of the parallel pa.s.sage, li. 14, we should rather expect that "horrid" is here a designation of the mult.i.tude. (Compare the ?? ????d?? p????? of the LXX.) But it is still more natural to give to ??? the signification of "awful," "terrible." (Compare Ps. cxix. 120, where the verb occurs with the meaning "to shudder.")--That by ???, not the young brood, but the winged locusts are to be understood, appears also from a comparison of Ps. cv. 34 with Exod. x. 12 ff. In Exod. a single army of _flying_ locusts overspread Egypt; the Psalmist, in recalling this event to memory, says: "He spake, and the locusts came, and ??? without number."
From this pa.s.sage, especially when compared with Ps. lxxvii. 46, where, instead of ???? ,??? is interchanged with ????, which alone is found in Exod., it is very clearly seen that ???, the _licker_, is nothing else than a poetical epithet of the locusts. It never occurs, indeed, in prose; and this can be the less accidental, as ???, the _gnawer_, is also never found in prose writings, and ???? only once, in the prayer of Solomon, 1 Kings viii. 37--as that which it is in reality, as a mere attribute to ????. That ??? has its name from the eating, is shown by Nah. iii. 15: "The sword shall eat thee up as the ???." And, in addition to this, we may [Pg 307] further urge, that the exposition of ???? is altogether fict.i.tious, and contradicted by all the pa.s.sages;--that the prophet in ii. 25 inverts the order, and puts the ??? last, from which it is certainly to be safely inferred that the arrangement in i. 4 is not a chronological one;--that _Credner_ himself, by his being obliged to grant that ??? and ???? do not signify a particular kind of locusts, raises suspicions against his interpreting the two other names of particular kinds;--and that if this interpretation were to be considered as correct, ??? and ???? must denote the locusts as fully grown. But that is by no means the case.
The origin of the name ??? is, moreover, clearly shown by Amos iv. 9: "Your vineyards, your fig-trees, and your olive-trees,--???? devours them." As regards the corn, other divine means of destruction had been mentioned immediately before; the trees alone then remained for the locusts, and they received a name corresponding to this special destination, viz., ????, the _gnawer_.--The verb ??? is, in Deut.
xxviii. 38, used of the devouring of the locusts, and ???? never occurs excepting where the locusts are viewed in this capacity. (Besides the pa.s.sages already quoted, compare Is. x.x.xiii. 4.)
The following also may be considered. The description of the ravages of the second brood is, according to _Credner_, to begin in chap. ii. 4.
But the suffix in ver. 4 refers directly to the winged locusts spoken of in vers. 1-3; and in the verb ?????? they are the subject.
And now, every one may judge what value is to be attached to a hypothesis which has everything against it, and nothing in its favour, and the essential suppositions of which--such as the departure of the swarms, their leaving their eggs behind, their death in the Red Sea--are, as the author of the hypothesis himself confesses, pa.s.sed over in silence by the prophet.
We may now proceed to the solution of our proper problem. There are no general reasons, either against the figurative, or against the literal interpretation; neither of them has any unfavourable prejudice which can be urged against it. A devastation by real locusts is threatened, in the Pentateuch, against the transgressors of the law, Deut. xxviii.
38, 39; against the Egyptians, the Lord actually made use of this, among other methods of punishment; and a devastation in Israel by locusts is, in Amos iv. 9, represented as an effect of divine anger.--[Pg 308]On the other hand, figurative representations of that kind are of very common occurrence. In Isaiah, _e.g._, the invading a.s.syrians and Egyptians appear, in a continuous description, as swarms of flies and bees. The comparison of hostile armies with locusts is very common, not only on account of their mult.i.tude (from which circ.u.mstance the locusts received their name in Hebrew), but also on account of the sudden surprise, and the devastation: compare Judges vi.
5; Jer. xlvi. 23, li. 27; Judith ii. 11. Several times a hostile invasion also is represented under the _image_ and _symbol_ of the plague of the locusts. In Nah. iii. 15-17, the a.s.syrians appear in the form of locusts,--and that this is not only on account of their numbers, but also on account of the devastations which they make, is shown by the comparison with the ??? in ver. 15;--and just in the same manner are the enemies described who accomplish their overthrow.
And,--what is completely a.n.a.logous,--in Amos vii. 1-3, the prophet beholds the approaching divine judgment under the image of a swarm of locusts, just as, in ver. 4, under that of a fire, and in ver. 7, under that of a plumb-line. All these three images are in substance identical; their meaning is expressed in ver. 9 by the words: "The high places of Isaac shall be desolate, and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be destroyed." The locusts denote destroying hostile armies; the fire denotes war; and the plumb-line, the destruction to be accomplished by the enemies. It was so much the more natural to represent the divine judgment under the image of a devastation by locusts--as is done also in Rev. ix. 3 ff.--because, formerly, it had actually manifested itself in this way in Egypt. The figurative representation had therefore a significant substratum in the history of the past. But it is, throughout, the custom of the prophets to describe the future under the image of the a.n.a.logous past, which, as it were, is revived in it.--It ought to be still further remarked, that we must, _a priori_, be the less indisposed to admit a detailed symbolical representation in Joel, as the two prophets, betwixt whom he is placed, have likewise such symbolical portions.
The decision depends, therefore, upon the internal character of the description itself. An allegory must betray itself as such, by significant hints; where these are wanting, it is arbitrary to a.s.sume its existence. Following the order of the [Pg 309] text, we shall bring together everything of this kind which we find in it.
The words, even, of the introduction,--"Hath any such thing happened in your days, and in the days of your fathers? Of it you shall tell your sons, and your sons to their sons, and their sons to the succeeding generation,"--scarcely permit us to think of a devastation by locusts in the literal sense. It could only be by means of the grossest exaggeration--which, if it were far from any prophet, was certainly so from the simple and mild Joel--that he could represent, as the greatest disaster which ever befell, or should ever befall the nation, a devastation by locusts which was, after all, only a transitory evil.
For it is the greatness of the disaster which is implied in the call to relate it to the latest posterity; no later suffering should be so great as to cause this one to be forgotten.
We must not overlook the expression in ver. 6: "_For a nation_ (???) has come up over my land." "Nation," according to most interpreters, is thought to signify the mere mult.i.tude; but in that case, ?? would certainly have been used, as is done in Prov. x.x.x. 25, 26, concerning the ants. In ??? there is implied not only the idea of what is hostile--this _Credner_ too acknowledges--but also of what is profane.
This, indeed, is the princ.i.p.al idea; and, on this account, even the degenerate Covenant-people several times receive the name ???. That this princ.i.p.al idea is here likewise applicable, is evident from the ant.i.thesis: "Over my land." It is true, that the suffix cannot be referred to Jehovah, as is done by _J. H. Michaelis_ and others, although the ant.i.thesis would thus most strikingly appear; but as little can we refer it, as is done by modern interpreters, to the prophet as an individual; for, in this case the ant.i.thesis would be lost altogether. The comparison of vers. 7 and 19 clearly shows that, according to a common practice (compare the Introduction to Micah, and the whole prophecy of Habakkuk), the prophet speaks in the name of the people of G.o.d. A strange, unheard-of event! A heathen host has invaded the land of the people of G.o.d! The ant.i.thesis is in ii. 18: "Then the Lord was jealous for His land, and spared His people." We do not think that the prophet loses sight of his image. He designates the locust as the heathen host; but he would not have chosen this designation, which, when literally [Pg 310] understood, is very strange, unless the matter had induced him to do so. If it be understood figuratively, Amos vi. 14 entirely harmonizes with it.--In the same verse (Joel i. 6) it is said: "His teeth, the teeth of a lion, cheek teeth of a lion to him;" on which Rev. ix. 8 is to be compared. This comparison is quite suitable to figurative locusts, to furious enemies (compare Is. v. 29; Nah. ii.
12, 13; Jer. ii. 15, iv. 7, xlix. 19; Ezek. x.x.xii. 2; Dan. vii. 4), but not to natural locusts; for the lion cannot possibly be the symbol of mere voracity.
It is remarkable, that in the description of the locusts in this verse, and throughout, their flying is not mentioned at all. It is only in chap. ii. 2, "Day of darkness and gloominess, day of clouds and thick darkness," that _Credner_ supposes such an allusion to exist. The darkness is, according to him, in consequence of the swarm of locusts coming up in the skies. But the incorrectness of such a supposition is immediately perceived, upon a comparison of chap. ii. 10. Before the host, and before it arrives, the earth quakes, the heavens tremble, sun and moon cover themselves with darkness, and the stars withdraw their shining. It is only after all this has happened, that the Lord approaches at the head of His host. It is not from this host, therefore, that the darkness can proceed. On the contrary, the darkening of the heavens, as is quite conclusively shown by the numerous almost literally agreeing parallel pa.s.sages (compare the remarks on Zech. xiv. 6), is the symbol of the anger of G.o.d, the sign that He approaches as a Judge, and an Avenger. But in what way could the omission of every reference to the flying of the locusts, in a description so minute, be accounted for other than this: that the reality presented nothing corresponding to this feature?
It is only the heaviest and most continuous suffering, and not a transitory plague by locusts, which can justify the call in i. 8: "Howl like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth." This verse forms the transition to ver. 9, where the sacrifice in the house of Jehovah appears as cut off, and connects Joel with Hosea, in whom the image, of which the outlines only are given here, appears finished.
Zion has also lost the friend of her youth--the Lord; compare Prov. ii.
17: "Who forsaketh the friend of her youth, and forgot the covenant of her G.o.d;" Is. liv. 6; Jer. ii. 2, iii. 4.--Of great [Pg 311] importance for the question under consideration are ver. 9: "The meat-offering and drink-offering are cut off from the house of the Lord;" and ver. 13: "Gird yourselves and lament, ye priests, howl ye ministers of the altar, come, spend all night in sackcloth, ye ministers of my G.o.d; for the meat-offering and drink-offering are withholden from the house of your G.o.d." It is quite inconceivable that the want of provisions, resulting from a natural devastation by real locusts, could have been the reason that the meat-offering and drink-offering, which, in a material point of view, were of so little value, should have been withheld from the Lord; inasmuch as the cessation of it appears in these pa.s.sages as the consummation of the national calamity. During the siege of Jerusalem by Pompey, the legal sacrifices existed, according to _Josephus_ (_Arch._ xiv. 4, -- 3), even amidst the greatest dangers to life, during the irruption of the enemies into the city, and in the midst of the carnage. It is true that, during the last siege by the Romans, when matters had come to an extremity, _Johannes_ ordered the sacrifices to be discontinued. But this was done, not from want of materials, but because there were none to offer them--from ??d???
?p????, as _Josephus_ says (_Bell. Jud._ vi. 2, -- 1; compare _Reland_ in _Havercamp_ on this pa.s.sage)--and to the great dissatisfaction of the people in the city, ? d??s de???? ???e?. The national view is expressed in what _Josephus_ says on this occasion to Johannes, to whom he had been sent by t.i.tus on account of this event: "If any man should rob thee of thy daily food, thou, most wicked man, wouldst certainly consider him as thine enemy. Dost thou then think that thou wilt have for thine a.s.sociate in this war, G.o.d, whom thou hast robbed of His eternal worship?" But the sound explanation readily suggests itself, as soon as it is admitted that behind the locusts the Gentiles are concealed. In that case, Dan. ix. 27, where the destroyer makes sacrifice and oblation to cease, is parallel. The destruction of the temple is also announced by the contemporary Amos in chap. ix.; compare ii. 5: "And I send fire upon Judah, and it devours the palaces of Jerusalem." Of a similar purport, in the time after Joel, is the pa.s.sage in Micah, chap. iii. 12.
The words in ver. 15--"Woe, for the day, for the day of the Lord is at hand, and as destruction from the Almighty does it come,"--point to something infinitely higher than a mere [Pg 312] desolation by locusts in the literal sense. This appears from a comparison of Is. xiii. 6, where they are taken, almost verbatim, from Joel, and used with a reference to the judgment of the Lord upon the whole earth. This is granted even by _Credner_ himself, when he makes the vain attempt (compare S. 345) to refer them to a judgment different from the devastation by the locust. The same is the case with _Maurer_ and _Hitzig_. How, indeed, is it at all conceivable that a national calamity, so small and transient as a devastation by real locusts would have been, should have been considered by the prophet as the day of the Lord of the people in the city, ?at? ??????, as the conclusion and completion of all the judgments upon the Covenant-people? A conception like this would imply such low notions of G.o.d"s justice, and such a total misapprehension of the greatness of human guilt, as we find in none of the Old Testament prophets, and, generally, in none of the writers of Holy Scripture. That which the men of G.o.d under the Old Testament, from the first--Moses--to the last, announce, is the total expulsion of the people from the country which they defiled by their sins.
The image suddenly changes in vers. 19 and 20: "To thee, O Lord, do I cry. For fire devoureth the pastures of the wilderness, and flame burneth all the trees of the field. Even the beasts of the field desire for Thee; for the fountains of waters are dried up, and fire devoureth the pastures of the wilderness." The divine punishment appears under the image of an all-devouring fire. Now, since we cannot here think of a literal fire, it is certain that, in the preceding verses also, a figurative representation prevails. _Holzhausen_ and _Credner_ (S.
163), and others, attempt to evade this troublesome inference, by a.s.serting that fire and flame are here used instead of the heat of the sun, scorching everything. But this a.s.sertion is, at all events, expressed in a distorted and awkward manner. Fire and flame are never used of the heat of the sun. According to this view, it ought rather to be said that the prophet represents the consuming heat, under the image of fire poured down from heaven. But even this cannot be entertained.
For the parallel pa.s.sage chap. ii. 3, "Before him fire devoureth, and after him flame burneth," shows that the fire, being immediately connected with the locusts, cannot be a cause of destruction independent of, and co-ordinate with, them. That the locusts are the sole cause of [Pg 313] the devastation, and that there is not another cause besides them, viz., the heat, is evident also from the words: "As the garden of Eden is the land before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness, and nothing is left by them." The burning anger of G.o.d is represented under the image of a consuming and destroying fire, with a reference to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, in which the divine wrath really manifested itself in that way. Under the image of fire, _war_ also, one of the princ.i.p.al punishments of G.o.d, is often represented. Thus, fire means the fire of war in Num. xxi. 28: Amos i.
4, 7, 10, etc.; Jer. xlix. 27; Rev. viii. 8, 10. On the latter of these pa.s.sages, my Commentary may be compared. If, then, the fire spoken of in this pa.s.sage mean likewise the fire of war, and the locusts, the heathen enemies, the difficulty presented by the connection of these two things is solved. The comparison of Amos vii. here serves as a key.
In vers. 1-3, the divine punishment is represented by the prophet under the image of a great army of locusts laying waste the country, which is just beginning to recover under Jeroboam II. after the former calamities inflicted by the Syrians; and then in ver. 4, under the image of a great fire devouring the sea (_i.e._, the world), and eating up the holy land. This a.n.a.logy is so much the more important, the more impossible it is to overlook, in other pa.s.sages also, the points of agreement betwixt Joel and Amos. But the symbolical representation goes still further; it extends even to the details. The beasts of the field are the barbarous, heathen nations. In ver. 19, the desolations are described which the fire of war accomplishes among Israel; in ver. 20, those which it effects among the Gentiles: compare the ant.i.thesis between the beasts of the field and the sons of Zion in ii. 22. In Is.
lvi. 9, the beasts of the field likewise occur as a figurative designation of the heathen. In Jer. xiv.--a prophecy which has been distorted by expositors through a too literal interpretation--the image is, in vers. 5, 6, individualized by the mention of particular wild beasts--the hind and the wild a.s.s. Joel himself indicates that the beasts in this description must, in general, be understood figuratively, by using in ver. 18 the word ?????, which can be explained only by "become guilty," "suffer punishment." (Compare Is.
xxiv. 6: "Therefore curse devoureth the land, and they that dwell in it become guilty;" and [Pg 314] Hos. xiv. 1.) The word ?????, which is never used of beasts, likewise leads us to think of men. "How do the beasts groan," is explained by "All the merry-hearted do groan," in Is.
xxiv. 7. The words ???? ????, in which there is an evident allusion to Ps. xlii. 2, must likewise appear strange, if the description be understood literally. But what is decisive in favour of the figurative interpretation is ii. 22: "Be not afraid, ye beasts of the field, for the pastures of the wilderness are green with gra.s.s, for the tree beareth her fruit, the fig-tree and vine do yield their strength." The object of joy is here described, first, figuratively, and then, literally. The pastures of the wilderness are green with gra.s.s, _i.e._, the tree, etc. It is only thus that the ?? can be accounted for; it states the reason, only when the pastures of the wilderness are not understood literally. _The fruits of the trees are mentioned here as the ordinary food of the beasts of the field._ _Hitzig_, it is true, remarks on this: "That many beasts of the field feed upon fruits of trees which they gather up, and that, _e.g._, foxes eat grapes also."
But the point at issue here is the ordinary food; and Gen. i. 29, 30, where the trees are given to man, and the gra.s.s to the beasts, is decisive as to the literal or figurative interpretation. Under the image of unclean beasts--especially wild beasts--the Gentiles appear also in Acts xi. 6.--Nor can "the rivers of water" (ver. 20) be understood literally. The water of rivers, brooks, and fountains, is, in Scripture, the ordinary figure for the sources of sustenance, of thriving, wealth, and prosperity; compare remarks on Rev. viii. 10.
Chap. ii. 2 is to be considered as indicating the reason which induced Joel to choose this figurative representation. The words, "There hath not been anything the like from eternity, neither may there be any more after it, even to the years of all generations," are borrowed, almost verbally, from Exod. x. 14. The prophet thereby indicates that he transfers the past, in its individual definiteness, to the future, which bears a substantial resemblance to it. What was then said of the plague of locusts especially, is here applied to the calamity thereby prefigured. From among all the judgments upon the Covenant-people (for these alone are spoken of), this judgment is the highest and the last; and such the prophet could say, only if the whole sum of divine judgments, up to their consummation, represented [Pg 315] itself to his inner vision under the image of the devastation by locusts. The absurdities into which men are led by the hypothesis of a later origin of the Pentateuch, are here seen in a remarkable instance--viz., in the a.s.sertion of _Credner_, that the pa.s.sage in Exodus is an imitation of that of Joel. The verse immediately following, "As the garden of Eden (_i.e._, Paradise) the land is before him," has an obvious reference to Genesis, not only to Gen. ii. 8, but also to xiii. 10, where the vale of Siddim, before the divine judgment, is compared to the garden of Jehovah--to Paradise.
In chap. ii. 6 it is said, "Before him nations tremble." That the mention of the _nations_ here is but ill adapted to the literal interpretation, appears from the circ.u.mstance, that while _Credner_ understands by the ????, Judah and Benjamin, _Hitzig_ attempts to explain it by people. But if, by the locusts, the heathen conquerors are designated, the ???? is quite in its place. When the powerful heathen empires overflowed the land, Israel always formed only a part of a large whole of nations; compare i. 19, ii. 22. Amos describes how the fire of war and of the desire of conquest raged, not only in Israel, but among all the nations round about, and consumed them. In addition to Amos chap. i. compare especially Amos vii. 4, 5, where, as objects of hostile visitation, are pointed out, first, the sea, _i.e._, the world, and then, the heritage of the Lord. According to Is. x. 6, the mission of a.s.shur was a very comprehensive one. In Habakkuk and Jer. chap. xxv. the judgments which the Chaldeans inflicted upon Judah, appear only as a part of a universal judgment upon all nations.
According to chap. ii. 7-9, the locusts take the city by storm. They cannot be warded off by force of arms. They climb the wall. They fill the streets, and enter by force into the houses. Peal locusts are not dangerous to towns, but only to the fields.
In chap. ii. 11, every feature is against the literal explanation. "And the Lord giveth His voice before His army; for His camp is very numerous, for he is strong that executeth His word; for the day of the Lord is great and very terrible, who can comprehend it?" There is not the remotest a.n.a.logy in favour of the supposition which would represent an army of locusts as the host and camp of G.o.d, at the head of which He [Pg 316] Himself marches as a general, and before which He causes His thunders to resound like trumpets. It is true that, in some Arabic writer, this is mentioned as a Mosaic command: "You shall not kill locusts, for they are the host of G.o.d, the Most High;" see _Bochart_ ii. p. 482, ed. _Rosenmuller_ iii. p. 318. But who does not see that this sentence owes its origin to the pa.s.sage under consideration? Is.
xiii. 2-5, where the Lord marches at the head of a great army to destroy the whole earth, may here be compared; and on Joel ii. 10, "Before him the earth quaketh, the heavens tremble, the sun and the moon mourn, and the stars withdraw their shining," Is xiii. 10 and Jer.
iv. 28 may be compared, where, in the view of threatening hostile inundation, the earth laments, and the heavens above mourn.
In ii. 17, "Give not Thine heritage to reproach, _that the heathen should rule over them_" (??????? ????), the prophet drops the figure altogether, and allows the reality--the devastation of the country by heathen enemies--to appear in all its nakedness. (It is worthy of notice that by the term ???? in this verse, our remarks on ??? in ii. 6 receive a confirmation.) The defenders of the literal explanation have tried a twofold mode of escaping from this difficulty. _Michaelis_ explains thus: "Spare Thy people, and deliver them from that plague of locusts. For if they should continue to swarm any longer, the greatest famine would arise, and Thy people, in order to satisfy the cravings of hunger, would be compelled to flee into the territories of heathen nations to serve them for bread, and to submit not only to their sway, but to ignominy." But every one must at once see how far-fetched this explanation is. In all history we do not find any instance in which a devastation by locusts--which affects the produce of one year only, and even this never completely and throughout the whole country--has reduced a people to the necessity of placing themselves under the dominion of foreign nations. Modern interpreters--and especially _Credner_--take refuge in another explanation: "Give not up Thine heritage to the mockery of heathens over them." They a.s.sert that the signification "to mock" is required by the parallelism. But we cannot see how, and why. The ignominy of Israel consisted just in this, that they, the heritage of the Lord, were brought under the dominion of the Gentiles, It is Just by the parallelism that the signification "to rule" is required. For it is the heritage [Pg 317] of the Lord, and the dominion of the Gentiles, which form a striking contrast, and not their mockery. The very same contrast is implied in ver. 18, in the words: "Then the Lord was jealous for His land." In these, the prophet reports the manner in which the Lord put away that glaring contradiction. They are not natural locusts, but only the heathen enemies, who can be the objects of the jealousy of the Lord; _His_ land. _His_ people, He cannot give up as a prey to heathen nations. But _further_--and this alone is sufficient to settle the question--the explanation is altogether unphilological. The verb ??? never has the signification "to mock;" the phrase ?????? ??????, "to form a proverb," is altogether peculiar to Ezekiel, in whose prophecies it several times occurs. In the other books, nothing occurs which would be, even in the smallest degree, to the purpose, except that in the ancient language of the Pentateuch ????? occurs once, in Num. xxi. 27, in the signification "poets."
The verb ??? with ? means always, and without exception, "to rule over"--properly, "to rule by entering into any one." Thus it occurs especially in that pa.s.sage which the prophet had in view, Deut.
xv. 5, 6: "If thou wait hearken unto the voice of Jehovah thy G.o.d ...
thou shalt rule over many nations, and they shall not rule over thee," ?? ????? ????? ????? ???? ???. Compare also the very similar pa.s.sages, Ps. cvi. 41: "And He gave them into the hand of the heathen, and they that hated them ruled over them," ?????? ??; and Lament, v. 8: "Servants rule over us,"??? ????. That it is from prejudice alone that the selection of the signification "to mock" can be accounted for, appears also from the circ.u.mstance that all the old Translators (the LXX., _Jonath._, _Syr._, _Vulg._) render it by "to rule."
More than one proof is offered by ver. 20: "And I will remove from you the Northman, and will drive him into the land dry and desolate; his van into the fore sea, and his rear into the hinder sea; and his stench shall come up, and his ill-savour shall arise, for he has magnified to do."
1. If we understand this literally, and refer it to real locusts, then the designation by ??????, _i.e._, "one from the North," "a Northman,"
is inexplicable. It is true that there is no foundation for the common a.s.sertion, that locusts move only from the South to the North (compare _Credner_, S. 284); but in all history there is not one instance known of locusts having come [Pg 318] to Palestine from the North--from Syria. But even although occasionally single swarms, after having come to Syria from their native country, the hot and dry South, may have strayed thence to Palestine, such is not conceivable of so enormous a swarm as is here described, which, with youthful strength, devastated the whole of Palestine from one end to the other. Is it, moreover, probable that the prophet, who, as we have already seen, prophesies things future, would mention a circ.u.mstance so accidental as the transient abode of a swarm of locusts in Syria? Such a residence, _besides_, would not justify the a.s.sertion. The termination ???? added to common names, indicates origin and descent. An inhabitant of a town, for example, who should reside for a short time in a village, could not for that reason be called a ????.--_Finally_--The native country of the real locusts is plainly enough indicated by the words: "And I will drive him into the land dry and desolate." Who does not see that, by these words, the hot and dry southern countries are marked out, and that the prophet expresses the thought, "The enemies will be driven back to the place whence they came," by mentioning the country from which the real locusts used to come? Our opponents are here greatly embarra.s.sed. Some explain: "The locusts marching northward,"--_Hezel_ and _Justi_, without the slightest countenance from the _usus loquendi_: "The dark and fearful host." This opinion was approved of by _Gesenius_ in the _Thesaurus_; but in opposition to it _Hitzig_ may be compared, who himself gives the explanation, "The Typhonic." _V. Coln_ (_de Joelis aetate_, Marb. 1811, p. 10). _Ewald_ and _Meier_ propose a change in the text. With the reasons preventing us from referring the expression to the locusts In a literal sense, we may combine the fact that the North is constantly mentioned as the native land of the most dangerous enemies of Israel, viz., the a.s.syrians and Chaldeans. And although this designation be. In a geographical point of view.
Inaccurate, this is outweighed by the circ.u.mstance, that enemies always Invaded Palestine from Syria, after having previously made that land a part of their dominions. Compare Zeph. ii. 13: "And the Lord stretches out His hand over the _North_, and destroys a.s.syria, and makes Nineveh a desolation--a dry wilderness;" Jer. i. 14: "And the Lord said unto me, Out of the _North_ the evil shall break forth upon all the inhabitants of the land;" Jer. iii. 18, where [Pg 319] the land of the North is mentioned as the land of the captivity of Judah and Israel; Jer. iv. 6, vi. 1, 22, x. 22, xlvi. 24, where the people of the North form the ant.i.thesis to Egypt, the African power; and Zech. ii. 10.
_Jerome_ long ago remarked: "The prophet mentions the North, that we might not think of real locusts, which are wont to come from the South, but might, by the locusts, understand the a.s.syrians and Chaldeans."
2. That we have here to do with a poetical description, and not with one of natural history, appears from a designation of the places to which the locusts are to be driven. Among these, the dry and hot southern country--the Arabian desert--is first mentioned; then, the anterior sea, _i.e._, the Dead Sea, situated eastward of Jerusalem; and lastly, the hinder, or Mediterranean Sea. That, according to the view of the prophet, the dispersion in these different directions was to take place in a moment, appears from the circ.u.mstance that, according to his description, the van of the same army is driven into one sea, and the rear, into the other sea. Now, every one very easily sees that this is a physical impossibility, inasmuch as opposite winds cannot blow at the same time. _Credner"s_ explanation, according to which the ???? of the locusts is intended to be the swarm of those who first invaded Palestine, while ???? is their brood, deserves mention in so far only as it affords a proof of the greatness of the absurdities into which one may be deluded, after he has once adopted a groundless hypothesis.
3. The words, "For he has magnified to do," state the reason of the destruction of the locusts. They are _punished_ in this manner, because they have _committed sin_ by their proud haughtiness. Because they have magnified to do, the Lord now magnifies Himself to do against them, ver. 21; He glorifies Himself in their destruction, since, at the time of their power, they glorified themselves, and trampled G.o.d under foot.
But sin and punishment necessarily imply responsibility; and it would be indeed difficult to prove that, in the way of a poetical figure, any prophet would ascribe such to irrational creatures; while, as regards the heathen enemies of Israel, the thought here expressed is of constant occurrence.
In chap. ii. 25, "And I restore to you the years (?????) which the locusts have eaten," etc., _several_ years of calamity are spoken of.
But we cannot agree with _Ewald_ in thinking that [Pg 320] the land was, for several years, laid waste by locusts: we are prevented from doing so by the single word ??? in chap. i. 4. _Bochart_ rightly remarks: "The produce of the new year cannot be called the residue of the former year. That word is much more applicable to the fruits of some fields, which are pa.s.sed by, or to the residue left in a field, which should be eaten up in the same year." As little can we suppose, with _Ewald_, that the plural is here used with reference to the effects produced, by the devastation of one year, upon the ensuing years; for it is not a possible loss which is here spoken of, but one which has actually taken place. The prophet then pa.s.ses, here also, from the image to the thing itself,--to the hostile invasions extending over longer periods, which he describes under the image of a devastation by locusts which, at one time, took place.
Very strong arguments in favour of the figurative explanation are furnished, in addition, by chap. iv. (iii.). The whole announcement of punishment and judgment upon the heathen nations has sense and meaning, only when, in the preceding context, there has been mention made of the crime which they committed against the Lord and His people. In that case, we have before us the three main subjects of prophecy,--G.o.d"s judgments upon His people by heathen enemies, their obtaining mercy, and the punishment of the enemies. At the very beginning of chap. iv.
(iii.) the sufferings of Israel, described in chap. i. and ii., and the judgment upon the heathen, are brought into the closest connection.
According to chap. iv. 1, 2, the gathering of the Gentiles is to take place at a time when the Lord will return to the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem, _i.e._, according to the constant _usus loquendi_ (compare my Commentary on Ps. xiv. 7), when He will grant them, mercy, and deliver them from their misery.[1] But that this misery can be none other than that described in chap. i. and ii. appears simply from the fact, that this has been declared to be the close of all the judgments of G.o.d.--We must, _further_, not overlook the article [Pg 321] in ??????????? in chap. iv. 2, and, accordingly, must not translate, "I will gather all nations," but "all _the_ nations." And how could this be explained in any other way than--all the nations which are spoken of in the preceding chapters under the image of locusts? But of special importance is the second part of the verse: "And I plead there with them concerning My people, and My heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and distributed My land."[2] It is quite impossible that there should here be the mention of anything which happened before the time of Joel. Whatever period we may a.s.sign to him, he belongs, at all events, to a time in which a scattering of Israel among the Gentiles, and a distribution of their land, had not as yet taken place. _Credner_, indeed, believes that the calamities under Jehoram are sufficient to account for these expressions. "At that time," he says, "the Edomites revolted from Judah; Libnah, which belonged to Judah In the stricter sense, rebelled; the Arabs and Philistines invaded the kingdom and plundered its capital; those inroads did then not terminate without a diminution of the territory of Judah." But all this is irrelevant; the discourse concerns the distribution of the land of the _Lord_. The rebellion of a heathen tributary people does not, therefore, here come under consideration.
Just as little can we see what Libnah has to do here. It belonged, it is true, to the kingdom of Judah; but the heathen nations had nothing to do with its rebellion;--for this, according to 2 Kings viii. 22, and 2 Chron. xxi. 10, proceeded from the inhabitants, who were dissatisfied with the bad government of the king, and was speedily brought to a close. It cannot then be proved, that even some small portion of the territory was lost at that time; far less, that the whole country was apportioned anew. It is quite the same as regards the dispersion among the Gentiles. The invasion of the Philistines cannot [Pg 322] here come into consideration, because, in ver. 4, these enemies are expressly distinguished from those who had effected the dispersion of the people, and the distribution of the land: "And ye also, what have ye to do with Me, O Tyre and Sidon, and all the borders of Palestine?" The prophet can thus not be speaking of something which had taken place at his time; but as little can he speak of something still future, which had not been touched upon by him when he threatened punishment upon the Covenant-people; for the devastation by the locusts appears as the highest and last calamity of the future. Nothing, therefore, remains but to suppose, that under the image of the devastation by locusts, the devastation of the country by heathen enemies, and the dispersion of its inhabitants, are described,--a supposition which is confirmed by the great resemblance of the pa.s.sage under consideration to chap. ii.
17-19. _Vatke_ (_Theol. des A. Th._ i. S. 462) founded upon the fact that the general exile is here predicted, the a.s.sertion that Joel had prophesied only after the captivity. No one, of course, has been willing to agree with him in this; but as long as the devastation by the locusts is understood literally, it will not be possible to undermine the grounds upon which he supports his views. It is altogether in vain that people spend their labour in disputing the fact, so obvious and evident, that the discourse here concerns the total occupation of the land by the heathen, the total carrying away of its inhabitants.
It may be further remarked, that this pa.s.sage at the same time considerably strengthens the proof already adduced, that Joel foretells future things in chap. i. and ii. A devastation by the locusts is described in these chapters; but the substance of this figure does not refer to the time of Joel.
_Finally_--We must still direct attention to the words in iv. 17:--"And Jerusalem shall be a sanctuary, and there shall no strangers pa.s.s through her any more." This promise stands in evident contrast to the former threatening, and becomes intelligible only by it. In it, therefore, the _strangers_ must be represented under the figure of the locusts.
And now, after all these single proofs have been enumerated--proofs which, if necessary, might easily have been strengthened and increased--let us look back to this survey of the contents of the book, and we shall see how, according to our view, [Pg 323] and according to it alone, the prophecy of Joel forms an harmonious, complete, and well finished whole, and that the prophet adheres closely to the outlines already given by Moses, with the filling up and finishing of which all other prophets also are employed. And let us, finally, add, that exegetical tradition also bears a favourable testimony to the figurative interpretation.
We need not spend much time in considering the arguments advanced against the figurative interpretation by _Credner_ (S. 27 ff.), _Hitzig_, and others. They all rest upon an almost incomprehensible ignoring of the nature of poetry, of the metaphor, and of the allegory.
Thus, _e.g._, _Credner_ says, "What man of sound sense will ever be able to say of horses, hors.e.m.e.n and warriors, that they resemble horses and hors.e.m.e.n? Who has ever seen horses and hors.e.m.e.n climbing over walls? What shall we say concerning chap. ii. 20? Do land armies ever perish in the sea, and, moreover, in two different seas? What is the use of foretelling, in chap. ii. 22, 23, the ceasing of the drought, if the prophet here thought of real enemies?" But in opposition to all these and similar objections, let us simply keep in mind, that the prophet does not by any means view the enemies as such, and only incidentally compares them with locusts; but that in his inward vision they represented themselves to him as locusts. It is just the characteristic feature of the allegory, that the image becomes in it substantial, and has the thing represented, not _beside_ it, but _in_, _with_, and _under_ it. But it is just for this reason that many a feature must be introduced which does not belong to the _real_ subject, _i.e._, the figure, but to the _ideal_ only, _i.e._, the thing represented thereby. It is for this very reason also, that the metaphor, raised to the _ideal_ subject, may again be compared with the _real_ subject. After all this we may well judge what right _Ewald_ has to call the figurative explanation "an error, which, in consideration of our present knowledge, becomes from day to day less pardonable."