Chapter 29

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_" (למשל־בם גוים), 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 גוים in this verse, our remarks on גיו 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 assert 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 משל never has the signification "to mock;" the phrase מָשַׁל מָשָׁל, "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 משלים occurs once, in Num. xxi. 27, in the signification "poets." The verb משל with ב means always, and without exception, "to rule over"--properly, "to rule by entering into any one." Thus it occurs especially in that passage which the prophet had in view, Deut. xv. 5, 6: "If thou wait hearken unto the voice of Jehovah thy God ... thou shalt rule over many nations, and they shall not rule over thee," לא ימשלו ומשלת בגוים רבים ובך. Compare also the very similar passages, Ps. cvi. 41: "And He gave them into the hand of the heathen, and they that hated them ruled over them," וימשלו בם; and Lament, v. 8: "Servants rule over us,"בנו משלו. That it is from prejudice alone that the selection of the signification "to mock" can be accounted for, appears also from the circumstance 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 הצפוני, _i.e._, "one from the North," "a Northman," is inexplicable. It is true that there is no foundation for the common assertion, 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 circumstance so accidental as the transient abode of a swarm of locusts in Syria? Such a residence, _besides_, would not justify the assertion. The termination ־ִ־י 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 פרזי.--_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 embarrassed. 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. Cöln_ (_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 Assyrians and Chaldeans. And although this designation be. In a geographical point of view. Inaccurate, this is outweighed by the circumstance, 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 Assyria, 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 antithesis 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 Assyrians 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 circumstance 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 פנים of the locusts is intended to be the swarm of those who first invaded Palestine, while סופו 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 God 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 (השנים) 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 יתר 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 passed 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 passes, 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,--God'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 God.--We must, _further_, not overlook the article [Pg 321] in את־כל־הגוים 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 assign 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 passage 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 assertion 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 passage 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 pass 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, horsemen and warriors, that they resemble horses and horsemen? Who has ever seen horses and horsemen 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."

We remark further, that, in chap. i. 4, it is distinctly indicated that Israel's visitation by the world's power will not be a simple one, but will present various aspects: "That which the _gnawer_ has left, the _locust_ devoureth; and that which the _locust_ hath left, the _licker_ devoureth; and that which the _licker_ hath left, the _eater_ devoureth." The opinion has been entertained, that "the prophet does not say, one cloud of locusts after [Pg 324] another, or swarms of locusts of every description have come up; but, on the contrary, that they are all contemporary, and that all of them devour the same things." But a succession is quite obvious. The four parties do not devour at the same time; but the second devours what the first has left. It is true that the succession appears as very rapid; but that is a peculiarity belonging only to the vision. If there be _at all_ a succession of those extensive empires representing the world's power, there must in reality be considerable intervals between them. The question then arises, however, whether the number _four_ is to be considered as a round number, so that the thought would only be this, that several nations are to visit the people of the Lord, or whether, on the contrary, importance is to be attached to the number _four_ as such. According to _Jerome_, the Jews followed the latter view. In accordance with their view, the first swarm denotes the Assyrians, together with the Chaldeans; the second, the Medo-Persians; the third, the Grecian kingdoms; the fourth, the Romans. The analogies of the four horns in Zech. ii. 1-4 (i. 18-21), the four beasts in Daniel, the seven heads of the beast in Revelation--denoting the seven phases of the world's power opposed to God--are decisive in favour of the latter view; compare my _Commentary on Rev._ xii. 18, xiii. 1. Now, if we follow this view at all, we must, in determining the four swarms, certainly assent to the opinion of the Jews, as given in _Jerome_; and this so much the more, as the four swarms are, in that case, exactly parallel to the four beasts in Daniel, which denote the Chaldean, Medo-Persian, Grecian, and Roman monarchies. The fact that the Assyrians are taken together with the Chaldeans can be the less strange, because, so early as in the prophecy of Balaam, Asshur and Babylon are comprehended under the common name עבר, _i.e._, "that which is on the other side,"--the power on the other side of the Euphrates; and are contrasted with the new empire which pressed on from the West--from Europe. (Compare my _Dissertation on Balaam_, p. 593 ff.)[3] It was the less possible to ascribe to the Assyrians an independent position here, as Joel has to do mainly with Judah, upon which no judgment of real importance was inflicted by the Assyrians.

Footnote 1: The well ascertained _usus loquendi_ must be here the less given up, as, in the preceding context, to which this verse carries us back, we are, it is true, told that the Lord will return and bestow mercy; but the bringing back of the people is as little spoken of as the carrying of them away, inasmuch as the express mention of which did not suit the image of the devastation by locusts.

Footnote 2: חִלֵּק means, not "to divide among themselves," but "to effect a new division," "to apportion the land anew," as, _e.g._, Asshur distributed the territory of the ten tribes among the Aramean Colonists, חלק is used of the distribution of the land by Joshua, in Josh. xiii. 7, xix. 51. In Mic. ii. 4, when the captivity was impending, the people, in anticipation of it, utter their lamentation in the words, "He distributes our fields;" compare Ps. lx. 8.

Footnote 3: In the volume containing the "_Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel_, etc.," published by T. and T. Clark.

[Pg 325]

ON CHAPTER II. 23.

"_And, ye sons of Zion, exult and rejoice in Jehovah your God; for He giveth you the Teacher of righteousness, and then He poureth down upon you rain, the former rain and the latter rain, for the first time._"

The words, "In Jehovah your God," are an addition peculiar to the sons of Zion. In reference to the _earth_, which the locusts had devastated, it was in ver. 21 said only, "Fear not, exult and rejoice." In reference to the beasts, _i.e._, to the heathen world, which was kept in subjection by the conquerors of the world, but which is delivered by the great deeds of the Lord, it is in ver. 22 said only: "Fear not." They are only the sons of Zion who know and love the Author of Salvation, and who receive from Him special gifts, besides the general ones.

There is considerable difference in the interpretations of this verse. The words, את־המורה לצדקה, are, by the greater number of interpreters, translated, "The Teacher of righteousness." Thus, _Jonathan_, the _Vulgate_, _Jarchi_, _Abarbanel_, _Grotius_, and almost all the interpreters of the early Lutheran Church translate them. Others take מורה in the signification of "rain," and לצדקה as qualifying its nature more accurately. Even in ancient times, this explanation was not at all uncommon. Among the Rabbinical interpreters, it was held by _Kimchi_, _Abenezra_, _S. B. Melech_, who explain it of a _timely_ rain. _Calvin_, who rendered the לצדקה by _justa mensura_, defends it with great decision, and declares the other explanations to be forced, and unsuitable to the connection. It is translated by "rain" in the English[1] and Genevan versions, and by many Calvinistic interpreters, who differ, however, in the translation of לצדקה, and render it either: "In right time," or "in right measure," or "in the right place," or "for His righteousness," or "according to your righteousness." _Marckius_ is of opinion that "rain" is necessarily required by the context; but that, on account of לצדקה, this rain must be understood spiritually of the Messiah with His saving doctrine, and His Spirit. Among the interpreters of the Lutheran Church, _Seb. Schmid_ thinks of "a rain in due season." [Pg 326] Among modern interpreters, the explanation by "rain" has become altogether so prevalent, that it is considered scarcely of any importance even to mention the other. לצדקה is explained by _Eckermann_: "In proof of His good pleasure;" by _Ewald_, _Meier_, and _Umbreit_: "For justification;" by _Justi_: "For fruitfulness;" and by the others (_Rosenmüller_, _Holzhausen_, _Credner_, _Rückert_, _Maurer_, and _Hitzig_) by: "In right measure." We consider this explanation to be decidedly erroneous, and the other to be the sound one; and this for the following reasons:--1. The great difference, on the part of the defenders of the current opinion, as regards the explanation of לצדקה certainly indicates, with sufficient clearness, that, by this addition, a considerable obstruction is put in its way. The most current explanation, by "_justa mensura_," "in right measure," "sufficiently," is certainly quite untenable. Even the fact, that it is not צדק but צדקה which is used here, must excite suspicion. (On the difference betwixt these two words, compare _Ewald_ in the first edition of his Grammar, S. 312-13.) But what is quite decisive is the fact that these two words, which occur with such extraordinary frequency, are never found in a physical, but always in a moral sense only. The only passage in which, according to _Winer_, צדק signifies "rectitude" in a physical sense, is Ps. xxiii. 3: מעגלי צדק which, according to him, means: "Straight, right ways." But that verse runs thus: "He restoreth my soul, He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for His name's sake." The path is a spiritual one; it is righteousness itself, which consists in the actual declaration of being just, and in justification, which are implied in the gift of salvation. With regard to צדקה, _Holzhausen_ (S. 120) maintains that it is used of a measure which has its due size in Lev. xix. 35, 36. The words are these: "Ye shall not do _unrighteousness_ in judgment, in measure, in division. Balances of righteousness, weights of righteousness, ephas of righteousness, shall ye have: I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt." Even the contrast--so evident--with the _unrighteousness_, shows distinctly that balances, measures, and weights of righteousness are here such as belong to righteousness--are in harmony with it. Even the root צדק never occurs in a physical sense, but always, only in a moral sense. To this it must be added, that the explanation, "Teacher of righteousness," [Pg 327] is recommended by the parallel passage in Hos. x. 12, where, also, teaching occurs in connection with righteousness: וירה צדק לכם, "And the Lord will come and teach you righteousness." This parallel passage is also opposed to _Ewald's_ explanation, "for justification,"--the only explanation among those mentioned to which, it must be admitted, no philological objection can be raised. But the thought, "The early rain an actual justification of Israel," would be rather strange, and so much the more so, because the wrath of God had not manifested itself in a drought and want of water, but rather in the sending of the army of locusts.

2. That the giving of the מורה, in the first hemistich of the verse, must denote a divine blessing different from the giving of the מורה in the second, is evident for this reason:--that, otherwise, there would arise a somewhat meaningless tautology. They who assigned to מורה in the first hemistich, the signification of "rain in general," have felt how very unsuitable is the twofold mention of the early rain. To this must be added the use of the _Fut._ with _Vav convers._, ויורד. By this form, an action is denoted which _follows_ from the preceding one; but according to the current explanation, one and the same action would here be expressed, only in different words. It cannot be denied, indeed, that the form occurs by no means rarely in a weakened sense, and is used only to express a connection; and that for this reason, this argument is not, _per se_, conclusive. Yet the original signification so generally holds, that we can abandon it only for distinct and forcible reasons. In addition to this, it must be considered that the addition of גשם to the second מורה distinctly marks out the latter as being different in its meaning from the former. It must also be kept in mind that it is one of the peculiarities of Joel to use the same words and phrases, after brief intervals, in a different sense; compare _Credner's_ remarks on ii. 20, iii. 5.

3. The explanation by "Teacher" is far more obvious for the reason that מורה always occurs with the signification of "teacher" (even in Ps.