Christology of the Old Testament: And a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions Volume I Part 19

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 a.s.syrians, together with the Chaldeans; the second, the Medo-Persians; the third, the Grecian kingdoms; the fourth, the Romans. The a.n.a.logies 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 G.o.d--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 a.s.sent 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 a.s.syrians are taken together with the Chaldeans can be the less strange, because, so early as in the prophecy of Balaam, a.s.shur and Babylon are comprehended under the common name ???, _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 a.s.syrians an independent position here, as Joel has to do mainly with Judah, upon which no judgment of real importance was inflicted by the a.s.syrians.

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: ?????? means, not "to divide among themselves," but "to effect a new division," "to apportion the land anew," as, _e.g._, a.s.shur distributed the territory of the ten tribes among the Aramean Colonists, ??? 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 antic.i.p.ation 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 G.o.d; 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 G.o.d," 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, ???????? ?????, 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 ???? in the signification of "rain," and ????? 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 ????? 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 ?????, 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 ?????, 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. ?????

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 (_Rosenmuller_, _Holzhausen_, _Credner_, _Ruckert_, _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 ????? 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 ??? but ???? 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 pa.s.sage in which, according to _Winer_, ??? signifies "rect.i.tude" in a physical sense, is Ps. xxiii. 3: ????? ??? 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 ????, _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 G.o.d 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 ??? 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 pa.s.sage in Hos. x. 12, where, also, teaching occurs in connection with righteousness: ???? ??? ???, "And the Lord will come and teach you righteousness." This parallel pa.s.sage 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 G.o.d 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 ????, in the first hemistich of the verse, must denote a divine blessing different from the giving of the ???? in the second, is evident for this reason:--that, otherwise, there would arise a somewhat meaningless tautology. They who a.s.signed to ???? 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._, ?????. 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 ??? to the second ???? 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 ???? always occurs with the signification of "teacher" (even in Ps.

lx.x.xiv. 7, where the right translation is: "With blessing also the teacher covereth himself"), and never with that of "rain," or "early rain." This is rather the meaning of ????; and the verb also never occurs in _Hiphil_, as it does in _Kal_, with the signification "to sprinkle," "to water." [Pg 328] By this we are led to the supposition that Joel, in the second hemistich, made use of the uncommon form ????

with the meaning of "early rain," solely on account of the resemblance of the sound to the ???? occurring immediately before, with its usual signification; and that, at the same time, he added ??? for the purpose of avoiding ambiguity. What serves to confirm this supposition, is the circ.u.mstance that Jeremiah, alluding to the pa.s.sage under consideration, has, in chap. v. 24, put ???? in the place of ????; which proves that the second ???? in Joel ii. 23 has originated only from its connection with the first, which is altogether wanting in Jeremiah.

4. A causal connection, similar to that which exists here betwixt the sending of the Teacher of righteousness and the pouring out of the rain, occurs also in that pa.s.sage of the Pentateuch which the prophet seems to have had in view, viz., Deut. xi. 13, 14: "And it shall come to pa.s.s, _if ye shall hearken unto my commandments_ which I command you this day, that ye love the Lord your G.o.d, and serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul, that I will give you the rain of your land in due season, the first rain and the latter rain (???? ??????), and thou shalt gather in thy corn, and thy must, and thine oil." Here, as well as there, the righteousness of the people is the _antecedens_; the divine mercies and blessings are the _consequens_. Since the former does not exist, G.o.d begins the course of His mercies by sending Him who calls it forth. This remark removes, at the same time, the objection, that the mention of the Teacher of righteousness is unsuitable in a connection where the prophet speaks of temporal blessings only, and rises to spiritual blessings only afterwards, in chap. iii. There existed for the Covenant-people no benefits which were purely temporal; these were always, at the same time, signs and pledges of the divine favour, which depended upon the righteousness of the people, and this, in turn, upon the divine mission of a Teacher of righteousness.

5. The ?????? is also in favour of our explanation. It stands in close relation to ??????? in chap. iii. 1, ii. 28. The sending of the Teacher of righteousness has two consequences;--_first_, the pouring out of the temporal rain--an individualizing designation of every kind of outward blessings, and chosen with a reference to the pa.s.sage of the Pentateuch which we have just [Pg 329] cited, but with special reference to the description of the calamity, under the figure of a devastation by locusts;--and, _secondly_, the outpouring of the spiritual rain--the sending of the Holy Ghost. It needs only the pointing out of this reference, which has been overlooked by interpreters,[2] to set aside the manifold and different explanations of ?????? which are, all of them, unphilological, or give an unsuitable sense.[3]

But if any doubt should still remain, it would be removed by a parallel pa.s.sage in Isaiah, which depends upon the text under review, in a manner not to be mistaken, and which, therefore, must be regarded as the oldest commentary upon it. Isaiah is describing the condition of the people subsequent to their having obtained mercy, after a long time of deep misery, in chap. x.x.x 20: "And the Lord gives you the bread of adversity, and the water of affliction; and then thy _teacher_ (?????

is _singular_) shall no longer hide himself, and thine eyes shall see thy teacher; Ver. 21: And thine ears hear a word behind thee, This is the way, walk ye in it; do not turn to the right hand, nor to the left." Accordingly, after they have put away what was evil, ver. 22: "The Lord giveth the rain of thy seed, with which thou sowest thy land," etc., ver. 23. The teacher is not a human teacher, but G.o.d.

_Human_ teachers had not concealed themselves; but that the Lord had concealed Himself, is affirmed in the preceding verses. The words, "Behind thee" (ver. 21), suggest the idea of a teacher of such a glory that they could not look in his face (compare Rev. i. 10); and the words, "Thine eyes see thy teacher," ver. 20, imply the idea of the high majesty of the teacher, and suggest the idea of a revelation of the glory of the Lord; compare Is. xl. 5, lii. 8. The Lord must first manifest Himself as a Teacher, before He appears as a Saviour. In Isaiah, the Lord Himself appears as the Teacher; as also in Hos. x. 12: "It is time to seek the Lord, till He [Pg 330] come and teach you righteousness;" while in Joel, on the contrary, it is the Lord who giveth the Teacher. Both may be reconciled by the consideration, that in the Teacher whom the Lord gives, the glory of the Lord becomes manifest.

It now only remains to inquire who is to be understood by the Teacher of righteousness. (Teacher of righteousness is equivalent to: "Teaching them how they should fear the Lord," 2 Kings xvii. 28.) It is referred to the Messiah, not only by almost all those Christian interpreters who follow this explanation, with the exception of _Grotius_, who conjectures that Isaiah or some other prophet is to be thereby understood; but also, after the example of _Jonathan_, by several Jewish commentators; _e.g._, _Abarbanel_, who says: "This teacher of righteousness, however, is the King Messiah, who will show the way in which we must walk, and the works which we must do." Even on account of the article, it is not possible to refer it to a single human teacher; and this argument may, at the same time, be added to those which oppose the explanation of ???? by "an early rain." There can be only the choice betwixt the Messiah as the long promised Teacher ?at? ??????, and the _ideal_ teacher,--the collective body of all divine teachers.

But the latter view requires to be somewhat raised, before it can be allowed to enter into the compet.i.tion. That we have not here before us an ordinary collective body, is shown by the parallel pa.s.sage in Isaiah, according to which the glory of the Lord is to be manifested in the Teacher. And this is as little applicable to a plurality of human teachers, as to a single individual. It is _further_ proved by the fundamental pa.s.sage in Deut. xviii. 18, 19, where, indeed, the prophetic order is comprehended in an _ideal_ person. This, however, has its reason only in the circ.u.mstance, that the idea of prophetism was, at some future time, to find its realization in a _real_ person.

It is _further_ seen from the state of the Messianic hopes at the time of Joel, and from the exceeding greatness of what is here connected with the appearance of the Teacher of righteousness. In addition to the allusion in Gen. xlix. 10 and Deut. xviii., the Messiah appears as a Teacher in the Song of Solomon also, chap. viii. 2; and in Is. lv. 4: "Behold, I give Him for a witness to the people, for a prince and a lawgiver to the people;" as also in those pa.s.sages of the second part of Isaiah, in which He is declared to be the Prophet ?at? ??????. [Pg 331] When thus understood, the explanation of the _ideal_ teacher may be preferable to the reference to Christ exclusively. In favour of such a reference, there is the comprehensive character and the _ideal_ import which are, in general, peculiar to the prophecies of Joel. Such a reference is, moreover, favoured by the expression itself, which points out only that which Christ has in common with the former servants of G.o.d, viz., the teaching of righteousness, and especially by a comparison with the fundamental pa.s.sages, Deut. xviii.

Footnote 1: The English version has "a teacher of righteousness," as a marginal reading.--Tr.

Footnote 2: Since the appearance of the first edition of this work, it has been acknowledged also by _Ewald_, _Meier_, and _Umbreit_.

Footnote 3: _Hitzig_ explains it: "In the first month." But altogether apart from the consideration that it is only in a chronological connection that "in the first" can stand for "in the first _month_,"

this explanation is objectionable on the ground that the early rain and the latter rain cannot, by any means, belong to the same month. There is the less difficulty in explaining it by "first," as ???????

undeniably occurs, several times, in this signification; compare, _e.g._, Zech. xii. 7.

EXPOSITION OF CHAP. III. (II. 28-32.)

Ver. 1. "_And it shall come to pa.s.s, afterwards, I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy; your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions._"

The communication of the Spirit of G.o.d was the constant prerogative of the Covenant-people. Indeed, the very idea of such a people necessarily requires it. For the Spirit of G.o.d is the only inward bond betwixt Him and that which is created; a Covenant-people, therefore, without such an inward connection, is an impossibility. As a constant possession of the Covenant-people, the Spirit of G.o.d appears in Isaiah lxiii. 11, where the people, in the condition of the deepest abandonment, say, in the remembrance of the divine mercies, "Where is He that put His Holy Spirit within him?" But it was peculiar to the nature of the Old Testament dispensation, that the effusion of the Spirit of G.o.d was less rich. His effects less powerful, and a partic.i.p.ation in them less general. It was only after G.o.d's relation to the world had been changed by the death of Christ that the Spirit of _Christ_ could be bestowed,--a higher power of the Spirit of G.o.d, standing to Him in the same relation as the Angel of the Lord to the incarnate Word. The conditions of the bestowal of the Holy Spirit were, under the Old Testament, far more difficult to obtain. The view of Christ in His historical personality, in His life, suffering, and death, was wanting.

G.o.d, although infinitely nearer to the Jews than to the Gentiles, yet ever remained a G.o.d relatively [Pg 332] distant. Since the procuring cause of the mercy of G.o.d--the merit of Christ--was not yet so clearly seen, it was far more difficult to lay hold of it, and the by-path of legalism was far nearer. It was thus only upon a few--especially upon the prophets--that the direct possession of the Spirit of G.o.d was concentrated; while the greater number, even among those of a better disposition, enjoyed a spiritual life derived only from a union with them, and hence it was less strong. It arose from the nature of the case that, at some future time, there must take place a richer and more powerful effusion of the Spirit of G.o.d; and it was just for this reason that it was the desire of Moses, that such might take place, and that the whole people might prophesy. Num. xi. 29, besides expressing such a desire, is, at the same time, a prophecy. He wished nothing else than that the people of G.o.d might attain to such a degree as to realize the idea of a people of G.o.d; and this must come to pa.s.s at some future time, because the omnipotent and faithful G.o.d could not leave His work unfinished. But Moses himself immediately subjoins the prophecy to the wish, as a clear proof, that behind the wish the prophecy is concealed: "Would G.o.d that all the Lord's people were prophets! for the Lord will give His Spirit upon them," etc.; which is equivalent to: "At some future time, the whole people of the Lord shall be prophets, not against, but agreeably to, my wish; for," etc. It is this promise of Moses which is here resumed by Joel, with whom, subsequently. Is. in chap. x.x.xii. 15, "Until the Spirit be poured upon us from on high;"

chap. xi. 9, liv. 13; Jer. x.x.xi. 33, 34; Ezek. x.x.xvi. 26 ff., and Zech.

xii. 10, connect themselves. The ultimate reference of the promise is to the Messianic time; but the reference to the preparatory steps must not, for this reason, be by any means excluded. The announcement of the pouring out of the Spirit rests upon the insight into the nature of G.o.d's relation to His kingdom. G.o.d's judgments, in which He draws near to His people, in which the abstract G.o.d becomes a concrete G.o.d, excite in the people a longing for a union with Him. Teachers sent by G.o.d give a right direction to this longing, and then an outpouring of the Spirit takes place. This proceeding does, and must continually, repeat itself in the history of the Covenant-people. The perfect fulfilment at the time of Christ could [Pg 333] not at all have taken place, unless the imperfect fulfilment had already pervaded their whole earlier history; and that there is, in the prophecy under consideration, no reference at all to such imperfect fulfilments, could be maintained only, if there existed in the text any hint that the prophet intended to speak of only the last realization of the idea. But as the exclusion of all the preliminary stages is entirely arbitrary, it is just as arbitrary to separate, from the events which make up the main fulfilment in the Messianic time, one particular event, viz., that which took place on the first day of Pentecost. It is only to a certain extent that we can affirm that the prophecy found its final fulfilment in this event, viz., in as far as it formed the pledge of it,--in as far as the whole succeeding development and progress were already contained in it,--in as far as Joel's prophecy in words was then changed into an infinitely more powerful prophecy in deeds. It is from overlooking the relation of the prophecy to the thought which animates it, and from the error arising from this, viz., that the fulfilment must necessarily fall within a particular, limited period, that the various opposite interpretations had their rise (compare the copious enumeration and representation of these in _Dresde_, _Comparatio Joelis de Effusione Spir. S. vatic. c. Petrina interpret._ _Wittemb._ 1782, _Spec._ 2), all of which are partially true, and are false only by their one-sidedness and exclusiveness. 1. Several interpreters think of an event at the time of Joel. Thus Rabbi _Moses Hakkohen_, according to _Abenezra_, _Teller_ on _Turrettine de interpret._ p. 59, _Cramer_ on the _Scythische Denkmaler_, p. 221.--2. Others insist on an exclusive reference to the first Pentecost. Thus do almost all the Fathers of the Church--among whom, however, _Jerome_ (on Joel iii. 1) felt the great difficulties in the way of this view, arising from the context--and most of the later Christian interpreters.--3. Others would refer it at the same time to the events in Joel's time, and to those at the first Pentecost. Of this opinion are _Ephraem Syr._, _Grotius_, and _Turrettine_.--4. Others place the fulfilment altogether in the future.

Thus did the Jews as early as in the time of _Jerome_, and afterwards Jarchi, Kimchi, and Abarbanel.--5. Others, finally, find in the first Pentecost the beginning only of the fulfilment, and regard it as pervading the whole Christian time. Thus, _e.g._, _Calovius_ (_Bibl.

ill.u.s.tr. ad. h. l._) says: "Although [Pg 334] that prophecy began to be fulfilled in a remarkable manner on that feast of the Pentecost, yet its reference is not to that solemn event only, but to the whole state of these last, or New Testament times, _just after the manner of other general promises_." These last words show that _Calovius_ was very near the truth. But if the promise be a general one, by what are we ent.i.tled to place the beginning of its fulfilment only at the times of the New Testament, and to exclude all of that same gift which G.o.d bestowed in Old Testament times? The insufficiency of the foundation for such a limitation in the text itself is proved by the following confession of _Dresde_ (l. c. p. 8), who even believes himself obliged to defend such a limitation from the authority of the Apostle Peter, and to whom it did not at all occur, that any other reference than to some particular event was even possible: "It appears, therefore," he says, "that the prophecy, considered in itself, is so expressed, that no one, except the first author of the prophecy, will be able convincingly to define the exact event to which it really refers." We shall afterwards see that the testimony of the New Testament to which _Dresde_ here alludes, does not by any means demand such a limitation. We have seen that Joel points to a fourfold oppression of Israel by the world's power. The _main_ fulfilment we must then expect at the time of the fourth; but this can scarcely be the first fulfilment; for we cannot imagine that the former calamities should have pa.s.sed over the people altogether without effect; and the divine gift of the Spirit goes always hand in hand with the susceptibility of the people. By proving that fourfold oppression, we have also furnished the proof that the prophecy of the outpouring of the Spirit has a comprehensive character.--From the already established reference of the ??????? to the ?????? in chap. ii.

23, it is obvious that it is not so much a determination of the succession of time, as of a succession in point of importance, which is thereby given. Among the two effects of the mission of the Teacher of righteousness, first, the lower, and then, the higher, presents itself to the view of the prophet. The determination of time is not the essential point; that serves only to ill.u.s.trate the internal relation of these two events, the gradation of these divine blessings; although we are able to demonstrate that, even as regards time, the prophecy was fulfilled in this order. For after the destruction by the [Pg 335]

Chaldeans, the temporal blessings were restored to the people, before the main fulfilment of the promise of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit took place; compare Ps. cvii. 33-42 with Joel ii. 25-27.--The words, "I shall pour out," refer to the rain in ver. 23. The idea of copiousness, opposed to the former scantiness, is indeed implied in it. Yet it must not be exclusively considered; the qualities of the rain alluded to in ver. 24 ff.--viz., the quickening of what was previously dead, the fructifying power--must not be overlooked.--The words, "Upon all flesh," are, by most of the Jewish interpreters (_e.g._, _Kimchi_, _Abenezra_; compare _Lightfoot_ and _Schottgen_ on Acts ii. 16, 17), referred to the members of the Covenant-people only; but by the Christian interpreters, whom even Abarbanel joins, to all men. So, still, does _Steudel_ in the _Tubinger Pfingst-Programm_, 1820, p. 11.

But in this latter explanation, one thing has been overlooked--as, among the older interpreters, has been well shown by _Calvin_,[1] and among the more recent, by _Tychsen_ (_progr. ad h. l._ p. 5)--viz., that the subsequent words, "Your sons, your daughters, your old men, your young men, the servants, the handmaids," contain a specification of the ???; so that the _all_, by which it is qualified, does not do away with the limitation to a particular people, but only with the limits of s.e.x, age, and rank, among the people themselves. The partic.i.p.ation of the Gentiles in the outpouring of the Holy Ghost did not, in the first instance, come into consideration in this place, inasmuch as the threatening of punishment, with which the proclamation of salvation is connected, had respect to the Covenant-people only.

_Credner_ has been led into a strange error, by pressing the words ??????? without any regard to the connection. He imputes to the prophet the monstrous idea, that the Spirit of G.o.d, the fountain of all which is good and great, well pleasing to G.o.d, and divine, is to be poured out upon all animals also, even upon the locusts.--The foundation for the promise of the Holy Spirit is formed by Gen. ii. 7, compared with i. 26. It supposes that the spirit of man, as distinguished from all other living things [Pg 336] on earth, is a breath from G.o.d.--There is here, moreover, the same contrast betwixt ??? and ??? as in Gen. vi. 3 and Is. x.x.xi. 3: "The Egyptians are men, and not G.o.d; their horses are flesh, and not spirit." (Compare other pa.s.sages in _Gesenius'_ _Thesaurus_, _s. v._ p. 249.) _Flesh_, in this contrast, signifies human nature with respect to its weakness and helplessness; the _spirit_ is the principle of life and strength. As "your sons," etc., is a specification of all flesh, so, the words, "They prophesy, they dream dreams, they see visions," are a specification of: "I pour out My Spirit." From this, it is evident that the particular gifts do not here come into consideration according to their individual nature, but according to that essential character which is common to them as effects of the Spirit of G.o.d. Hence it is obvious also, that we are not at liberty to ask why it is just to the sons and daughters that the prophesying is ascribed, etc. The prophet, whose object it is only to individualize and expand the fundamental thought, _i.e._, the universality of the effects of the Spirit, chooses for this purpose the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit,[2] because these are more obvious than the ordinary ones; and from among the extraordinary ones, again, those which were common under the Old Testament; without thereby excluding the others, or, as regards the real import, adding anything to the declaration, "I will pour out My Spirit." This appears also from ver. 2, where, in reference to the servants and handmaids, the expression returns to the former generality. In distributing the gifts of the Spirit among the particular cla.s.ses, the prophet has been as little guided by any internal considerations, as, _e.g._, Zechariah, when in chap. ix. 17 he uses the words, "Corn maketh the young men grow up, and must, the maids." The remark made by _Credner_ and _Hitzig_, after the example of _Tychsen_, that visions are ascribed to vigorous youth, but dreams to feebler age, appears at once, from an examination of the historical [Pg 337] instances, and from the comparison of Num.

xii. 6, to be unfounded. "Your sons and your daughters prophesy," etc., is equivalent to: "Your sons and your daughters, your old men and your young men, prophesy, have _divine_ dreams (a limitation to such is implied in their being the effects of the outpouring of the Spirit), and see visions;" and this again is equivalent to: "They will enjoy the Spirit of G.o.d, with all His gifts and blessings." In this, and in no other way, has the pa.s.sage been constantly understood among the Jews.

If it had been otherwise, how could Peter have so confidently declared the events on the feast of Pentecost, where there occurred neither dreams nor visions, to be a fulfilment of the prophecy of Joel? It is implied, however, in the nature of the case, that, in the princ.i.p.al fulfilments of the prophecy of Joel, the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit should be accompanied by the ordinary ones; for the former are the witnesses and means of the latter, although, at the same time, the basis also on which they rest; so that times like those which are described in 1 Sam. iii. 1, where the Word of G.o.d is precious in the country, and there is no prophecy spread abroad, must necessarily be poor in the ordinary gifts of grace also. It is not in the essence, but only in the form of manifestation, that the extraordinary gifts differ from the ordinary ones,--just as Christ's outward miracles differ from His inward ones.

Ver. 2. "_And upon the servants also, and upon the handmaids, I will pour out My Spirit in those days._"

_Credner_ refers this to the Hebrew prisoners of war, living as servants and handmaids among heathen nations, far away from the Holy Land. But if the prophet had this in view, he must necessarily have expressed himself with greater distinctness. Moreover, the relation to the preceding verse requires that, as the difference of s.e.x and age was there done away with, so no allowance should here be made for the difference of rank. The ?? shows that the extension of the gifts of the Spirit even to servants and handmaids, who, to the carnal eye, appeared to be unworthy of such distinction, is to be considered as something unexpected and extraordinary. That there is very little correctness in the a.s.sertion of _Credner_, that "there could have been scarcely any doubt as regards the partic.i.p.ation of the Hebrew [Pg 338] slaves," is sufficiently shown by the fact, that Jewish interpreters have attempted, in various ways, to lessen the blessing here promised to the servants and handmaids. Even the translation of the LXX. by, ?p? t??s d?????s ?? ?a? ?p? t?s d???as ??, may be considered as such an attempt. In the place of the servants of men, who appeared to them unworthy of such honour, they put the servants of G.o.d. _Abarbanel_ a.s.serts that the Spirit of G.o.d here means something inferior to the gift of prophecy, which is bestowed only upon the free people. Instead of regarding the Spirit of G.o.d as the root and fountain of the particular gifts mentioned in the preceding verse, he sees in Him only an isolated gift,--that of an indefinite knowledge of G.o.d. But such a view is opposed even by the relation of the words, "I will pour out My Spirit," in ver. 2, to the same words in ver. 1; and also by Is. xi. 2, where "Spirit of G.o.d" is likewise used in a general sense, and comprehends within itself all that follows. It is not without design that the fact is so prominently brought out in the New Testament, that the Gospel is preached to the poor, and that G.o.d chooses that which is mean and despised in the eye of the world. The natural man is always inclined to suppose that that which is esteemed by the world must be so by G.o.d also. This is sufficiently evident from the deep contempt of the Pharisees for the ?????; compare, _e.g._, John vii. 49.

Ver. 3. "_And I give wonders in the heavens, and on earth; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke._"

The mercy bestowed upon the Congregation of G.o.d is accompanied by the judgment upon her enemies. Since the Congregation has again become the object of His favour, especially in consequence of the Holy Spirit being poured out upon her, it cannot be but that He will protect her against the persecution of the world, and avenge her upon it. In vers.

3 and 4, the _precursors_ of the judgment (_before_ cometh, ver. 4) are described, and in chap. iv. throughout, the judgment itself. There is here an allusion to an event of former times, and which is now to be repeated on a larger scale, viz., the plagues inflicted upon Egypt in consequence of the same law. The prophet had specially in view the pa.s.sage, Deut. vi. 22: "And the Lord gave signs and wonders, great and sore, upon Egypt, upon Pharaoh, and upon all his household before our eyes."--The wonders are divided [Pg 339] into those which are in heaven, and those which are on earth; then those which are on earth are in this verse designated individually; and afterwards, in ver. 4, those which are in heaven. With regard to the former, many interpreters (the last of whom is _Credner_) understand by the "blood," b.l.o.o.d.y defeats of the enemies of Israel; by "fire and smoke," their towns and habitations consumed by fire. But this interpretation cannot be entertained. The very designation by ?????? indicates that we have here to think of extraordinary phenomena of nature, the symbolical language of which is interpreted by the evil conscience, which recognises in them the precursors of coming judgment. This is confirmed also by the more particular statement of the signs in heaven, in ver. 4; for the signs on earth must certainly be of the same cla.s.s as these. It is confirmed likewise by a comparison with the type of former times, which we have pointed out; for it is from this, that the blood is directly taken. The first plague is thus announced in Exod. vii. 17: "Behold, I smite with the rod in mine hand upon the waters in the river, and they are turned into blood." _Jalkut Simeoni_ (in _Schottgen_, p. 210) remarks: "The Lord brought blood upon the enemies in Egypt: thus also shall it be in future times; for it is written, I will give wonders, blood and fire."

The same is the case as respects the fire. Exod. ix. 24: "And there came hail, and _fire mingled_ with the hail." It is more natural to suppose that the prophet borrowed these features, as, in the former description of the judgment upon Israel, the plague of the locusts lies at the foundation, and as the contents of the following verse have likewise their prototype in those events. Compare Exod. x. 21: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand toward the heaven, and let there be darkness over the land of Egypt." That it is not real blood which is here meant, but that only which, by its blood-red colour, reminds of blood (comp. _e.g._, "Waters red as blood," 2 Kings iii.

22), is shown by the fundamental pa.s.sage, Exod. vii. 17, where the water which had become red is called simply blood; compare my work on _Egypt and the Books of Moses_, p. 106. Blood brings into view the shedding of blood; the fiery phenomena announce that the fire of the anger of G.o.d, and the fire of war, will be enkindled; compare remarks on i. 19, 20.--The word ?????? requires a renewed investigation.

Interpreters [Pg 340] uniformly explain it by "pillars,"--a signification which is altogether dest.i.tute of any foundation; for the Chaldee ????, to which they refer, is not found with the signification "pillar." Such a meaning is quite inappropriate in the single pa.s.sage quoted by _Buxtorf_; the signification "smoke," or "cloud of smoke," is necessarily required in that place. As little are we at liberty to appeal to ???, "palm," with which ????? has nothing at all to do. The ?, which would be without any a.n.a.logy if derived from ??? (compare _Ewald_ on _Song of Sol._ iii. 6), requires the derivation from ???.

The word ????? is a noun formed from the 3d pers. _fem. Fut._ of this verb with ? affixed (compare, on these nouns, the remarks on Hos. ii.

14, and my work on _Balaam_, p. 434), and, as to its form, it corresponds exactly with ?????, derived from the 3d _fem. Fut._ of the verb ???. There cannot now be any doubt regarding the signification of ???. Is. lxi. 6, and Jer. ii. 11, where ???? and ????? occur in the same verse, show that it corresponds entirely with ???. Hence _Ewald_ (l. c.) is wrong in identifying it with ???, the alleged meaning of which is "to be high." Now in Hebrew, ??? and ??? occur only in the derived signification of "to transform," "to change," "to exchange;"

but the primary signification is furnished by the Arabic, where it means: _huc illuc latus, agitatus fuit,--fluctuavit._ (Compare the thorough demonstration by _Scheid_, _ad cant. Hisk._ p. 159 sqq.) ?????? can accordingly signify only "clouds" or "_vortices_." (In Arabic, ??? means "dust agitated by the wind.") The connection of this signification with that of "_palpehrae_," "eye-lids," in which it occurs in the Talmudic and Rabbinical languages, is very obvious. They were so called from their continual motion hither and thither. Such a connection, however, we must the more easily be able to prove, because that Talmudic and Rabbinical use of the word cannot be derived from any other root than an ancient Hebrew one. The ?t?? of the LXX. likewise leads to our interpretation, rather than to the prevailing one. The former is, in the only pa.s.sage in which ?????? occurs, besides the one under consideration, and where it likewise occurs in the connection with ???, viz., in Song of Sol. iii. 6, at least as suitable as the latter. We have to think here of such phenomena as those which are described in Exod. xix. 18: "And Mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord had descended upon [Pg 341] it in fire, and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace." Here, as well as there, the fire, and the accompanying smoke, represent, in a visible manner, the truth that G.o.d is p?? ?ata?a??s???, Heb. xii. 29. The clouds of smoke are the sad forerunners of the clouds of smoke of the divine judgments upon the enemies, and of the fire of war, in the form of which the former commonly appear. Compare Is. ix. 18, 19: "And they mount up like the lifting up of smoke.... And the people became as the fuel of fire; no man spareth his brother." The belief--which pervades all antiquity--that the angry Deity announced the breaking in of judgments through the symbolical language of nature, is very remarkable. This belief cannot be a mere delusion, but must have a deep root in the heart. Nature is the echo and the reflection of the disposition of man. If there prevail within him a fearful expectation of things to come, because he feels his own sin, and that of his people, all things external harmonize with that expectation; and, most of all, that which is the natural image and symbol of divine punitive justice, which would not, however, be acknowledged as such, were it not for the interpreting voice within. Having regard to this relation of the mind to nature, G.o.d, previous to great catastrophes, often causes those precursors of them to appear more frequently and vividly, than in the ordinary course of nature. In a manner especially remarkable, this took place previous to the destruction of Jerusalem. Compare _Josephus_, _d. Bell. Jud._ iv. 4, 5. "For during the night, a fearful storm arose,--there arose boisterous winds with the most violent showers, continual lightnings and awful thunders, and tremendous noises, while the earth was shaken. It was, however, quite evident that the condition of the universe was put into such disorder for the destruction of men, and almost every one conjectured that these were the signs of impending calamity." A great number of other signs and precursors are mentioned by him in _B. J._ vi. 5, -- 3. These will never be altogether absent, as certainly as punishment never comes without sin, and sin never exists without the consciousness, without the expectation, of deserved judgment. But the chief point in this mode of viewing things, is not the sign itself, but the disposition of mind which interprets it,--the consciousness of guilt, which fills the soul with the thought of an avenging G.o.d,--the [Pg 342] _condition of filings which brings into view the infliction of the judgment._ It is by this that we can account for the circ.u.mstance that; in the Old Testament, the darkening of the sun and moon, and other things, frequently appear as _direct images_ of sad and heavy times.

Ver. 4. "_The sun is turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before there cometh the great and terrible day of the Lord._"

Among all interpreters, _Calvin_ has given the most admirable interpretation of this verse: "When the prophet says that the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, these are metaphorical expressions, by which he indicates that the Lord will show signs of His wrath to all the ends of the earth, as if a whole revolution of nature were to take place, in order that men may be stirred up by terror. For, as sun and moon are witnesses of G.o.d's fatherly kindness towards us, as long as, in their changes, they provide the earth with light, so will they, on the other hand, says the prophet, be the messengers of the angry and offended G.o.d.--By the darkness of the sun, by the b.l.o.o.d.y appearance of the moon, by the black cloud of smoke, the prophet intended to express the idea, that wheresoever men should turn their eyes, upwards or downwards, many things would appear to fill them with terror. Hence the language of the prophet amounts to this:--that never had the state of things in the world been so miserable,--that never had there appeared so many and so terrible signs of the anger of G.o.d."--We have already seen that the prophet has before his eye the Egyptian type. The darkness upon the whole land of Egypt, while there was light in the dwellings of the Israelites, represented, in a deeply impressive manner, the anger of G.o.d in contrast with His grace, of which the symbol is the s.h.i.+ning of His heavenly lights. The extinction of these is, in Scripture, frequently the forerunner of coming divine judgments, or an image of those which have been already inflicted; compare the remarks on Zech.

xiv. 6. Thus it has already occurred in the Book of Joel itself, in the description of the former judgment; compare ii. 2: "Day of darkness and gloominess, day of clouds and mist;" ii. 10: "Before Him quaketh the earth, and trembleth the heaven; the sun and the moon mourn, and the stars withdraw their s.h.i.+ning." Thus it returns in iv. [Pg 343] 14, 15: "The day of the Lord is near in the valley of judgment. The sun and the moon mourn, and the stars withdraw their s.h.i.+ning." The pa.s.sages in which, as in the one before us, the extinction has not a _figurative_, but a _typical_ character, must not be limited to a single phenomenon.

Everything by which the brightness of the heavenly luminaries is clouded or darkened, eclipses of the sun or moon, earthquakes, thunderstorms, etc., fill with fear those in whose hearts the sun of grace has set.

Ver. 5. "_And it comes to pa.s.s, every one who calls on the name of the Lord is saved; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be such as have escaped, as the Lord hath said, and amongst those who are spared is whomsoever the Lord calleth._"

We must first determine the signification of ?????. The greater number of interpreters explain it by "deliverance;" but it means rather "that which has escaped." This appears, 1. from the form. It is the fem. of the Adj. ????, the ????? of which has arisen from ???? by means of lengthening; hence it is that ???????? is thrice formed without ?????. It is, then, an adjective of intransitive signification. Now it is true that, by means of the feminine termination, adjectives are changed into abstract nouns, but never into such as indicate an action; but always into such only for which, in Latin and Greek, the neuter of the adjective might be used. This, however, is here inadmissible. 2. To this must be added the constant use; as in Is. x.x.xvii. 31, 32: "And _that which has escaped_ (?????) of the house of Judah, the _remnant_, taketh root downward, and beareth fruit upward. For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a _remnant_ (?????), and _that which has escaped_ out of Mount Zion,"--a pa.s.sage exactly parallel to the one under consideration (compare also the following words in Is. x.x.xvii. 32: "For the zeal of the Lord will do this," with "As the Lord hath said," here). Is. iv. 2: "To that which has escaped," with which, "That which is left in Zion, and that which remaineth in Jerusalem," in the following verse, is identical; Is. x. 20: "The remnant (???) of Israel, and that which has escaped of the house of Jacob;" Obad. ver. 17: "And upon Mount Zion shall be that which has escaped,"--which forms an ant.i.thesis to ver. 9: "And man shall be cut off from the Mount of Esau;" and _finally_--Gen.