Biblical Studies

The literary origin and rhetorical significance of Joel’s agricultural-weaponry language

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Hebrew Exegesis course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Be aware: I use the Hebrew Bible’s chapter and verse references in the following, which can be different than what one will find in English translations of Joel.

Chavalas summarizes the situation of Joel 4:10a-b quite nicely:

“Farmers are called up for military service and must bring their agricultural implements, from which the blacksmith will refashion the seven-inch metal tip of the ploughshare (or possibly a heavy hoes) into swords, and pruning hooks (small knives used to remove leaves from grapevines) into spearheads” (50).

At first glance, such a depiction may appear rather straightforward and somewhat unimportant. However, in light of the obvious literary relationship between Joel 4:10a-b, Isaiah 2:4, and Micah 4:3, Joel’s weapon-imagery potentially takes on some substantial rhetorical significance that requires further examination.

The above texts demonstrate a clear literary relationship. Note the lexical similarity—how each uses the following words: כּתת, חֶרֶב, אֵת, and מַזְמֵרָה (oddly, Joel uses a different word for “spear” [רֹמַח instead of חֲנִית])—and how they correspond in context—each involves forging one item into another.

However, debate exists over which prophet possesses the original expression, Joel or Isaiah/Micah. Some argue that Joel represents the original and Isaiah and Micah represent a reversal of Joel’s language. Bach describes Joel’s language as “a proverbial expression . . . used in its original sense” (cited in Allen, 115). And Garrett rightly notes regarding the content of the imagery,

“On the surface it would seem more likely that Joel has the original form of what may have been a proverbial expression. . . . It is more difficult to conceive that a call to disarm would have had much usage” (385).           

But on the other hand, regarding this content, one could equally argue that Joel’s peculiar manner of calling individuals to war (i.e., make agricultural tools into weapons?) argues against its literary novelty, that it more likely draws from an already existent imagery. As Crenshaw notes, Joel’s use of the verb כּתת “seems to be parody rather than an original constituent of a summons to battle. . . .” (188). Likewise, Wolff and Allen respond by pointing out that characteristic of Joel is his frequent, deliberate engagement with prophetic traditions, even at times communicating them with a divergent nuance (Wolff, 80; Allen, 115). Finally, the probable postexilic date of Joel tips the scales toward understanding Joel as literarily dependent on Isaiah and Micah. So, as the majority of commentators (Wolff, 80; Hubbard, 82; Achtemeier, 156) recognize, Joel 4:10a-b is a deliberate reversal, contrast, and reformulation of the utopian picture painted in Isaiah 2:4 and Micah 4:3.

This observation has significant rhetorical implications. In one sense, the language of Joel 4:10 communicates significant ideas in its own right—it speaks of the magnitude of this war force needed to combat such an enemy as YHWH himself. Every possible weapon must be mustered (Allen, 115). Every man, even those normally exempt (cf. Deut 20:5-9; note the radical inclusion the weak among those who ironically call themselves mighty men), must be recruited (Garrett, 386; Achtemeier, 156; Stuart, 269; Hubbard, 82; Allen, 115)! However, contrary to Stuart who calls this “a standard challenge to prepare for war” (268), Joel’s purposeful reversal of Isaiah and Micah’s imagery, his going against the “prophetic grain” so to say, has immense rhetorical effect. With the words of Isaiah and Micah ringing in his audience’s ears, Joel’s words create a solemn irony, a moving parody (Crenshaw, 188; Wolff, 80; Allen, 115), which emphasizes the Day of YHWH as the “day of wrath” for all who oppose him.

The identity of “Valley of Jehoshaphat” in Joel 4:2, 12 (English 3:2, 12)

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Hebrew Exegesis course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Be aware: I use the Hebrew Bible’s chapter and verse references in the following, which can be different than what one will find in English translations of Joel.

The phrase עֵ֖מֶק יְהֽוֹשָׁפָ֑ט (“valley of Jehoshaphat”) is used twice in Joel 4, vv.2, 12. An interesting interpretive predicament revolves around this phrase since the precise identity of this valley is unknown to geographers, both ancient and modern (Barton, 99), and this “valley of Jehoshaphat” is referred to nowhere else in the entire Old Testament (Wolff, 76). So, the responsible interpreter asks, what is the identity of this “valley of Jehoshaphat”?

Many answers to this question have been suggested. Beginning in the 4th century, following the lead of Eusebius, many began to identify this valley with the Kidron Valley (Wolff, 76; Crenshaw, 175; Barton, 99). However, עֵמֶק refers to a large plain (HALOT, 847); and as many scholars have noted, the Wadi Kidron is far too narrow to be considered a plain (Wolff, 76) and for the multitude of nations to assemble in it for judgment (Barton, 99; Crenshaw, 175).

Given its name, “valley of Jehoshaphat,” understandably some have entertained the possibility that this valley (at least in Joel’s mind, if not in actual history) possesses some sort of relationship to the historical King Jehoshaphat. Interestingly, 2 Chronicles 20 tells of King Jehoshaphat’s victory at the “Valley of Beraka” (v.26). The memory of this battle could have influenced his use of the expression עֵ֖מֶק יְהֽוֹשָׁפָ֑ט (Wolff, 76). But this suggestion is merely speculative; and as will be demonstrated, a more satisfactory explanation exists.

Finally, Stuart suggests a possible text-critical solution: Since Jehoshaphat precedes a niphal form of שָׁפַט, Stuart suggests that יְהֽוֹשָׁפָ֑ט may “represent a corruption of the niphal infinitive absolute” שָׁפַט, in which case “a more metrically balanced line would result” (267). However, the likelihood of this suggested textual error is doubtful sinceעֵ֖מֶק יְהֽוֹשָׁפָ֑ט occurs twice in this passage, requiring the text-critical error to occur twice.

Along with the majority of commentators, this author suggests that עֵ֖מֶק יְהֽוֹשָׁפָ֑ט  refers to a symbolic, non-literal, non-historical valley in which God will decisively judge. HALOT provides an excellent definition for the collocation עֵ֖מֶק יְהֽוֹשָׁפָ֑ט: “The place of final judgment, but not in one particular geographical location. . . .” (848; see also Barton who calls it a “quasi-mythical valley,” 104). The following reasons can be given in support of this interpretation: (1) The clear cipher (“play-on-words,” or pun) created by Joel. The significance of the name יְהוֹשָׁפָט is found in its similar phonology and etymology to שָׁפַט יהוה (YHWH judges). As Hubbard succinctly states, “Valley of Jehoshaphat is best understood . . . in terms of its etymology, ‘Yahweh has judged.’” (79; cf. Crenshaw, 173, 175; Wolff, 76). (2) The use of such ciphers was popular in the emerging apocalyptic writing of Joel’s time (Wolff, 76). (3) The context of both v.2 and v.12 yields itself to this play-on-words. (a) Each text mentions YHWH’s judgment immediately after the phrase עֵ֖מֶק יְהֽוֹשָׁפָ֑ט. But further, (b) even the preceding verb קָבַץ in v.2 often connotes a gathering for the purpose of judgment (Zeph 3:8; Ezek 22:19-20; Hos 8:10; 9:6; Wolff, 76). (4) The mention of two other non-geographical valleys, most clearly בְּעֵ֖מֶק הֶֽחָר֑וּץ (“in the valley of decision”) but even possibly נַ֥חַל הַשִּׁטִּֽים (“the wadi of Shittim,” quite likely a non-historical valley as well; cf. Crenshaw, 200; Wolff, 84; Barton, 109), in Joel 4 support understanding עֵ֖מֶק יְהֽוֹשָׁפָ֑ט as non-geographical (Crenshaw, 173, 192; Hubbard, 79; Wolf, 81). (5) The otherwise geographically contradicting יָרַד (“cause to descend,” v.2) and עָלָה (“go up,” v.12) most likely indicates the symbolic nature of this valley. And finally, (6) the ancient translations of Theodotian and the Vulgate as well as the Targum express  יְהֽוֹשָׁפָ֑טas “YHWH judges” (Achtemeier, 155; Barton, 99; Crenshaw, 175), indicating they understood this expression as a cipher. In sum, עֵ֖מֶק יְהֽוֹשָׁפָ֑ט is properly understood as a symbolic, non-geographical place of God’s judgment.

A Study of “Lacks Sense” (Lit. “Lacks Heart”) in Proverbs 9

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Hebrew Exegesis course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

The phrase חֲסַר־לֵב occurs twice in Proverbs 9; and therefore, a proper understanding of this collocation will aid in the exegesis of this text. Although a consensus exists among scholars concerning the general meaning of חֲסַר־לֵב, the phrase itself, literally ‘lack of heart,’ carries a level of ambiguity for the uninformed interpreter, an ambiguity that requests an investigation of the phrase.

חָסֵר is a substantive adjective that means lack or need (BDB, 341), or as a substantive, one in want (HALOT, 338).חֲסַר־לֵב are in construct and express and objective genitive relationship, i.e., one who lacks heart, based on the implicit verbal idea in חָסֵר (חֹ֫סֶר, to lack).

A correct understanding of חֲסַר־לֵב largely depends on the meaning of לֵב. לֵב is one of the most semantically expansive and profound anthropological terms in Biblical Hebrew. The following sampling of glosses from HALOT demonstrates this: heart, seat of vital force, one’s inner self, inclination, disposition, determination, courage, will intention, attention, consideration, reason, mind in general and as a whole, conscience, etc. (513-515). As is evident from this brief survey, no equivalent to this word exists in English. The heart is related to one’s emotions (Prov 12:25; 14:10, 30; 15:15). It plans (Prov 6:14, 18; 16:9) and determines one’s decisions and actions (Exod 14:5; 35:21; Num 32:9; 1 Kgs 12:27; 18:37). It can be described as perverse, crooked, and foolish (Prov 12:23; 17:20). But on the other hand, and most importantly for this study, the heart can be characterized as wise, pursuing wisdom, having insight, etc. (Prov 14:33; 15:14; 20:9; 15:28). The list of uses goes on. In sum, לֵב may refer to one’s emotions, psyche, cognition, will, behavior, and spiritual condition. Longman describes לֵב as “one’s whole inner self” or “core personality” (131). Waltke refers to it as “the center of all of a person’s emotional-intellectual-religious-moral activity. . . .” (91-92). In sum, לֵב represents one’s innermost being, their fundamental disposition, and source for all thought, emotion, will, and behavior.

Concerning the phrase חֲסַר־לֵב, one must ask what specific aspect of לֵב is considered to be lacking. An investigation of the immediate contexts in which חֲסַר־לֵב occurs, as well as its parallel phrases in these contexts, indicates that חֲסַר־לֵב refers to individuals who find joy in folly (Prov 15:21), make foolish sinful choices (6:32; 7:6-9), do not maintain upkeep of their vineyards (24:30), and follow worthless pursuits (12:11). חֲסַר־לֵב is contrasted with the characteristic of understanding (10:13; 11:12); and this sort of person is paralleled with one who is “simple” (i.e., lacking wisdom, gullible) (7:7; 9:4, 16). Hence the following translations have been suggested: “anyone lacking wisdom” (Clifford, 101-102), “him that is void of understanding” (ASV; cf. KJV) or “lacks understanding” (NASB; cf. NET), “him who lacks sense” (ESV; cf. RSV, HCSB, NIV), “those who lack good judgment” (NLT), a “mindless, empty-headed person” (Fox, 39), and “brainless” individuals (Waltke, 437). As Fox notes, in this phrase, לֵב “refers to faculties we would consider specifically cognitive, namely, the ability (or willingness) to make a prudent, sensible decision” (39). לֵב probably carries the same notion as it does in the following Egyptian proverb: “It is the heart [לֵב] that allows a man to become a hearer or one who does not hear….” (quoted in Waltke, 92). In sum, חֲסַר־לֵב is a way of describing one who is foolish, but from a negating perspective, i.e., one who lacks wisdom, insight, judgment, understanding, and the capacity to make good decisions.

A Study of “The Day of the LORD”

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Hebrew Exegesis course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

The theme Day of YHWH (יהוה יוֹם) is significant to the message of the entire Bible, as it shapes the message of the OT prophets and anticipates the work of Christ. In particular, the concept of the Day of YHWH pervades and in many senses encapsulates the entire message of Joel’s prophecy. Five out of fifteen Biblical occurrences of יהוה יוֹם appear in Joel (1:15; 2:1, 11; 3:4; 4:14) and involve each of Joel’s four main sections by way of their disbursement. As Stuart says, “This concept is so prominent in Joel that it may be likened to an engine driving the prophecy” (230).

Although the theme Day of YHWH is not limited to the exact phrase יהוה יוֹם, this phrase becomes somewhat of a technical expression signifying the concept. While יוֹם frequently refers to daylight hours or a 24-hour day (Holladay, 130), in יהוה יוֹם and like phrases it carries an eschatological sense (HALOT, 400); instead of denoting a specific set of time, יוֹם refers to a future, general time anticipated in history. As Verhoef notes, when used with a genitive (as it is here), יוֹם denotes a time of an event (e.g., judgment, battle, etc.; 420). Unlike אֱלֹהִים, a general term for god(s) used even by pagan nations, יהוה is God’s self-revelatory name (Ex 3:14-15), the name by which he relates to His covenant people (Ex 6:2-8; Stone, 16-17). And as will be seen, the genitive relationship between יהוה יוֹם expresses something like, “The Day in which YHWH will act/intervene,” or maybe even, “The Day in which YHWH will decisively demonstrate His YHWH-ness.”

Scholars theorize as to the precise origin of the concept (see a well-written summary of views in J. D. Barker’s article “Day of the LORD” in DOTP); but at the very least, the reference to those who long for יהוה יוֹם in Amos 5:18 (one of the earliest dated references to יהוה יוֹם) reveals that an understanding of the concept already developed by this point in Israel’s history. Whatever its background, its origin allowed for the Day of YHWH to become a somewhat inclusive/expansive concept, which the prophets employed with rhetorical flexibility as they addressed various situations: The prophets refer to יהוה יוֹם as the “day of wrath” at which point God will bring recompense to the nations (Isa 2:10, 19, 21; 13:6, 9; 34:2-10; 61:2; Ezek 7:19; 30:3; Jer 46:10; Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11, 31; Am 5:18; Ob 1:15; Zeph 1:14, 18; 2:2-3; Mal 4:5). Unless Israel repents, neither will she find herself exempt from YHWH’s judgment (Zeph 2:1-3). YHWH will destroy idolatry (Isa 2:6-22). He is the warrior whose army cannot be challenged (Ezek 13:5; Joel 2:11; Zeph 1:14-16). Even creation itself reacts and responds to His retributive intervention (Ezek 30:3; Joel 2:31). But despite this primary theme of wrath, יהוה יוֹם serves as the object of hope for deliverance—the salvation of God’s people through the judgment God’s enemies (Isa 34:8). Consequently, the prophets compel their audiences to repent (Joel 1:13-14; 2:12-17); all who call upon YHWH will be delivered (Joel 2:32; cf. Acts 2:21). It is in these “last days,” accompanying the Day of YHWH, that the New Covenant hope of the Spirit will be realized (Joel 2:28-29).

The prophets understood the past, historical demonstrations of יהוה יוֹם as typologically anticipating the ultimate eschatological יהוה יוֹם (Jer 46:2, 10; Lam 1:12; Joel 1:15). Consequently, יהוה יוֹם is seen as having occurred, and yet also as imminent (Isa 13:6, 9; Ezek 30:3; Joel 1:5; 2:1; 3:14; Ob 1:15; Zeph 1:7, 14). Ultimately, the יוֹם יהוה finds its realization in Christ as the Day of the יהוה (LORD) is revealed as the Day of our κύριος(Lord) Jesus Christ (Lk 4:18-19; Acts 2:17-21; 1 Cor 5:5; 1 The 4:13-18; 2 Pet 3:8-13).

In sum, amidst the diversity in regards to situations, motifs, and YHWH’s activity, the common denominator of the יהוה יוֹם theme is the confident expectation, based on God’s character, that he will intervene in history. יהוה יוֹם refers to that eschatological time, with various historical harbingers and installments, in which YHWH will decisively act on behalf of his people and his glory—salvation through judgment. Again, this theme is of particular importance for Joel as it serves as the basis for his call to repentance and hope of God’s rescue.

The Meaning of “Rend Your Hearts” (Joel 2:13)

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Hebrew Exegesis course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Directly after describing the imminently impending Day of YHWH, Joel calls for the people to repent (שׁוב) in order that YHWH might relent his vengeance against them (Joel 2:12-14). Joel creates an inclusio—וְקִרְע֤וּ לְבַבְכֶם placed directly between two שׁוב imperatives (vv.13-14; notice also the alliteration with these three parallel verbs in 12c, 13a, and 13c). As such, an understanding of וְקִרְע֤וּ לְבַבְכֶם is vital to the interpretation of this text as it essentially defines the nature of this וְשׁ֖וּבוּ אֶל־יְהוָ֣ה that may result in salvation from God’s wrath (v.14). One might even callוְקִרְע֤וּ לְבַבְכֶם the central exhortation in the entire book of Joel!

The practice of renting or tearing one’s outer garments was a common feature of Israel’s cultic sphere, which is seen in texts such as Isa 32:11; 2 Kings 18:37-19:1; 2 and King 22:11(Allen, 79). As a customary rite in lamentation, individuals tore their clothes as an outward manifestation of their inward turmoil. This custom typically commenced with its accompanying aspect of clothing oneself in sackcloth (Crenshaw, 135; Wolff, 49).

Interestingly, however, rather than exhorting his audience to rend their garments, Joel deliberately and purposes diverts from this common tradition by calling them to rend their very hearts. Joel’s change in the object to be rent has the immensely powerful rhetorical effect of providing a visual illustration of the inward repentance for which YHWH longed—a whole-hearted return (שֻׁ֥בוּ עָדַ֖י בְּכָל־לְבַבְכֶ֑ם; 2:12c, Crenshaw, 135). Unlike the typical contemporary, symbolic notion of “heart” as the center for feelings and emotions, לֵבָב in Hebrew refers to the center of one’s being, involving thoughts, reflection, volition, disposition, etc. In other words, Joel’s “intention is not so much that people should [merely] feel bad (they already do) as that they should subject their minds to YHWH in obedience and faith” (Barton, 80; cf. Crenshaw, 135).

The significance of וְקִרְע֤וּ לְבַבְכֶם֙ is greatly informed by Joel’s next words— וְאַל־בִּגְדֵיכֶ֔ם. Joel commands his audience literally to “not rend your garments.” As Barton notes, most scholars generally agree that Joel’s aim is not to provide an anti-ritual polemic (80; cf. Joel’s commands in v.12). One might translate v.13 as, “Rend your heart and not merely your garments.” Nonetheless, the negation וְאַל־בִּגְדֵיכֶ֔ם enlightens what Joel intended by וְקִרְע֤וּ לְבַבְכֶם֙—“Ritual repentance, however fervently carried out, is of no use if the heart is unchanged” (Garrett, 346). Joel was reacting against the dangers of vain ritualism—providing a false sense of security to the spiritually dulled worshipper—seen throughout the Old Testament as a besetting problem for Israel (Isa 1:11-15; 29:13; 58:1-9; Jer 4:4; Am 5:21-24; a rebuke picked up by Christ as well Mt 23; Mk 7:6-7). Although “Yahweh’s appeal had been for penitence within the cultic sphere, neither conscience nor cultic” are “sufficient without the other” (Allen, 79; cf. Ps 51:17)

In closing, Joel’s exhortation is predicated on (note the causal כִּי) the nature of YHWH as one who is merciful, gracious, and slow to anger (v.13; cf. Ex 34:6). Joel’s instruction is not deceitful, not a mere psychological remedy. Joel offers his audience the genuine solution to their position of wrath before YHWH—sincere repentance from the heart, a repentance symbolically presented in terms of the lamenting custom of tearing one’s garments.