Volume I Part 19 (1/2)

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_,”