Joel 2

The rhetorical significance of the prophetic gifts (Joel 3:1; English 2:28)

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.

As evidenced by its inclusio placement, the Spirit’s outpouring serves a central role to the message of vv.1-2. Through the Spirit’s presence, the hope of YHWH’s presence among his people, anticipated in the immediately preceding verse (2:27), will be realized (Allen, 98). These factors indicate that Joel’s primary focus in 3:1-2 is the universal presence of God via the outpoured Spirit. As such, his mention of prophetic gifts has a subordinate function (Hubbard, 75). This leads to the question, what exactly is the significance of Joel’s reference to prophetic gifts in this passage? Through examination of Biblical and scholarly data, this article will conclude that Joel uses prophetic gifts as a rhetorical vehicle to communicate his primary message, which is YHWH’s intimate presence via the poured-out Spirit.

Throughout the OT, an intrinsic connection exists between prophecy and the Spirit (Num 11:25-29; 24:2; Deut 34:9-10; 1 Sam 10:6, 10; 19:20, 23-24; 2 Sam 23:2; 2 Kgs 2:9; 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14; 24:20.). As such, for God to grant individuals prophetic gifts is equivalent to God granting these individuals the Spirit’s presence (Turner, 551; Barton 95; Allen 98; Wolff, 66). Therefore, Joel successfully communicates the realization of YHWH’s presence via the Spirit by attributing prophetic gifts to “all flesh” (Allen, 98) As Stuart observes, “The verbs in the verse (‘prophesy,’ ‘have dreams,’ ‘see visions’)” each “describe revelatory functions associated with the fullness of God’s Spirit . . . .” (260). To be a prophet implies having the “Spirit of prophecy”; therefore, these prophetic gifts manifest the Spirit’s presence. As Crenshaw notes, the waw on וְנִבְּא֖וּ indicates result (165)—the outpoured Spirit results in, and is therefore evidenced by, these prophetic utterances. In summary, by claiming that everyone will prophesy, Joel anticipates an elimination of the previous era’s characteristic of only certain individuals, like prophets, being endowed with the Spirit (e.g., Jdg 3:10; Ex 31:3; Num 11:17; 1 Sam 16:13; Stuart 260-261). “The promise takes up the wistful longing of Moses expressed in Num 11:29 . . . and stamps it as a definite part of Yahweh’s program for the future.” (Allen, 99; cf. Barton, 95; Garrett, 368).

Nonetheless, the significance of Joel’s reference to prophetic gifts is not merely bound up with its function in demonstrating God’s presence among His people; it has a particular rhetorical importance within itself—it speaks to the immediacy in which all will relate to God (Crenshaw, 166). Contrary to Orelli (cited in Crenshaw, 166), who argues for a special significance to the pairing of certain gifts with certain groups of people, the various mediums of revelation in vv.1-2 are mentioned in order to enrich poetic parallelism (Hubbard, 75) and to emphasize the direct relationship all of God’s people will have with him (Wolff, 67). And as Wolff keenly observes, Joel’s focus is likely not prophetic proclamation, since all in view share in the prophetic gifts, but that all are prophets, i.e., have the Spirit of prophecy (66). In contrast to other prophecies about the eschatological Spirit, Joel’s point is not new obedience (Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 11:19-20; 36:26-27) or new creation (cf. Isa 32:25; 44:3; Crenshaw, 164-165); but rather, in continuity with the prophetic hope, Joel picks up on the Old Testament’s anticipation of an intimate relationship with God through the Spirit (Isa 32:15; 44:3; Ezek 11:19-20; 36:26-28; Jer 31:1, 31-34) by way of this “prophetic motif” (Num 12:6; Isa 50:4; Jer 15:16; 20:11; Hubbard, 73-75; Wolff, 66-67; Achtemeier, 149; Garrett, 368; Allen, 99).

In summary, Joel uses prophetic gifts rhetorically to communicate his primary message concerning the hope of intimate communion with God via the poured-out Spirit, universal to all God’s people in the “last days.” Joel’s point may not be that all of God’s people will literally prophesy, but that all of God’s people will have the Spirit. All will be prophets in a non-technical sense, i.e., having the Spirit of prophecy; but not all will be “prophets proper.” This understanding accords with the NT: Even after the redemptive-historical fulfillment of Joel 3:1-2 at Pentecost (Acts 2:16-21), not all have the gift of prophecy (1 Cor 12:10, 29); yet all do have the illuminating presence of the Spirit of prophecy (1 John 2:20, 27; cf. Jer 31:34).

The identity of the Spirit’s scope in Joel 3:1-2 (English 2:28-29)

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.

In Joel 3:1-2, Joel describes the scope of the Spirit’s outpouring. Almost all commentators would understand the identity of this scope as referring to all the inhabitants of Judah. However, some, namely Barton, push back against this consensus by suggesting that aspects of the text do not fit neatly within a “merely Judah” perspective, but actually indicate a more universal extent. The significance of this exegetical issue is demonstrated by Barton’s observation that his interpretation would “make this prophecy one of the most ‘universalistic’ in the Old Testament . . . almost unparalleled in the Old Testament” (96).

The scope of the Spirit’s outpouring is identified asכָּל־בָּשָׂ֔ר. The high majority of commentators understand this as referring to all the inhabitants of Judah for the following reasons. (1) The 2nd person pronouns littered throughout this text indicate that this promise is limited to Judah, the addressee (Garrett, 369; Achtemeier, 148; Hubbard, 73; Wolff, 67). (2) Context: (a) As Wolff succinctly states, “According to the introduction in 2:19 this oracle . . . pertains to Yahweh’s people, and immediately preceding it the manifestation of Yahweh ‘in the midst of Israel’ has been announced (2:27)” (emphasis added, Wolff, 67; cf. Allen, 98). (b) Rather than addressing the nations in 3:1-5, Joel’s message to the nations awaits the final chapter (Crenshaw, 165; Wolff, 67). (3) Joel is most likely building upon, interpreting, or expanding the hope anticipated in texts such as Ezek 39:29 and Zech 12:10 which were intended for the “house of Israel” (Ezek 39:29) and restrict “the outpouring of a compassionate spirit to David’s descendants and residents of Jerusalem” (Zech 12:10; Crenshaw, 165; see also Garrett 369; Allen 98; Wolff, 67). (4) Crenshaw notes a (doubtful) suggestion made by Cheyne, that Joel intended כל־בשׂר to function as a poetic abbreviation for בישׂרל כל due to their phonological similarity (165). (5) The early church’s interpretation. As Allen keenly notes, “It was obviously in this sense [as referring strictly to Judah] that Peter understood it [Joel 3] in his exposition of the passage in Acts 2, especially in light of the amazement expressed at the ‘Gentile Pentecost’ in Acts 10:45” (Allen, 98).

On the other hand, Barton believes the message Joel 3:1-5 is ‘universalistic,’ extending beyond Judah’s borders. He provides the following arguments: (1) Although the previous commentators recognize that כָּל־בָּשָׂ֔ר can mean “everyone,” “the whole of humanity” (Wolff, 67; Allen, 98l Crenshaw, 165; cf. Gen 6:12-13; Isa 40:5; 49:26; Sir 8:19), nonetheless, they think the context restrains the meaning of “all” to “all Israel.” Barton, however, argues that this view conflicts with all other OT uses of כָּל־בָּשָׂ֔ר, which either means strictly “all humans” or “all creatures,” but none clearly meaning “all Israelites” (96). (2) The reference to male and female slaves quite likely includes non-Judeans (Barton, 96; cf. Crenshaw, 166). (3) The immediate context includes a promise of salvation for everyone who calls on YHWH (v.5) (Barton, 96). (4) The earlier church applied the message of this text to gentile converts, which, if nothing else, “took up a hint that is clearly present in the text” (Barton, 96).

One would be mistaken to assume that the interpreter faces these two perspectives in terms of “either/or.” Certainly, the majority of interpreters are correct to assert that the immediate context intends Judahites as the immediate recipients of this hope. However, the level of ambiguity, well pointed out by Barton, alludes to what becomes explicit in the New Testament—the eventual inclusion of Gentiles in this promise of the Spirit (Acts 10:45, Gal 3:14, 26-29). Ultimately, Joel uses vastly inclusive language primarily as a rhetorical device—defining “all flesh” as widely as possible in order to convey, “the major characteristic of the outpouring of the Spirit is its universality” (Garret, 369).

The Meaning of “I Will Pour Out My Spirit” (Joel 3:1; English 2:28)

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.

As Joel paints a unique portrait of Israel’s eschatological restoration in 3:1-5, he begins with the anticipation that YHWH will pour out his Spirit. The repetition of this phrase אֶשְׁפּוֹךְ אֶת־רוּחִי (forming an inclusio) identifies this concept as particularly important in vv.1 and 2. As such, a proper understanding of אֶשְׁפּוֹךְ אֶת־רוּחִי is vital for an accurate comprehension of these verses.

The prophetic utterances that result from the Spirit’s outpouring (3:1-2) specifically identify רוּחַ as the Spirit of prophecy (cf. Num 11:25-29; 1 Sam 10:10), that is, the divine, personal Spirit of God.

The most basic meaning of שָׁפַךְ is “to pour out” (BDB, 381). It is often used to refer to the “sudden, massive spillage” of blood (e.g., Lev 17:4, 13; Deut 12:16, 24; 15:23, etc.) or the pouring out of other objects such as water (e.g., Ex 4:9; Amos 5:8), broth (Jdg 6:20); entrails (2 Sam 20:10); tears (Job 16:20), etc. (HALOT, 1629-1630). However, as is clearly the case here with רוּחַ, שָׁפַךְ often has a metaphorical meaning, for example, referring to the symbolic outpouring of one’s “heart” (לֶב, Ps 62:9 [8]; Lam 2:19) or “soul” (נֶפֶשׁ, 1 Sam 1:15; Ps 42:5 [4]) (Wolff, 66).

Among scholars, much consensus halts at this point in the discussion. Regarding the significance and background of אֶשְׁפּוֹךְ אֶת־רוּחִי, interpreters differ. Chavalas provides one of the most detailed hypotheses:

“The concept of having God’s Spirit ‘poured out’ on an individual signified election by the deity. This was done in Mesopotamia with the monarch, who was endowed with melammu, a word denoting the glory of the deity. In fact, monarchs have their own melammu, which often in context meant ‘royal terror.’ Assyrian monarchs such as Shalmaneser III and Shamshi-Adad V described themselves in this way in their annals, especially in regard to the enemy, ‘I poured my melammu over them.’ Demons and even inanimate objects such as palaces and royal weapons could also be endowed with this divine material.”

However interesting or valid such ideas may have been in the ANE, Chavalas’ melammu explanation is entirely foreign to the concerns and emphases of Joel in 3:1-5 (cf. the following two articles).

Building on the frequent use שָׁפַךְ with objects of water (e.g., rainfall), Garrett postulates that Joel used rainfall as an analogy—“The pouring out of the Spirit is distinct from but analogous to the pouring out of rain on the land. Both are saving works of the day of the Lord” (367). However, although Garrett’s observation finds validity in such parallel texts as Isa 32:15 (ערה) and 44:3 (יָצַק), where the pouring out of the Spirit is poetically compared to rainfall that nourishes the ground, this analogy does not transcend these texts as a paradigmatic framework for every instance of this sort of language (cf. Ezek 39:29; Zech 12:10). In other words, despite what it may connote in one instance, אֶשְׁפּוֹךְ אֶת־רוּחִי is flexible imagery. Case and point—the nourishing work of rain is an alien analogy to Joel 3:1-5.

Rejecting the water/rainfall metaphor, Reymond claims that the unction of oil explains the אֶשְׁפּוֹךְ אֶת־רוּחִי language (cited in Allen, 98). But again, however real such oil connotations may have been, this explanation misses Joel’s purpose in employing this language.

The lavish nature of God’s granting his prophetic Spirit best explains the significance of the אֶשְׁפּוֹךְ אֶת־רוּחִי language in Joel 3:1-5. Pouring out or spilling “suggests that God is not being niggardly” (Hubbard, 72-73). The content and structure confirm this proposal—the mention of all types of people receiving the Spirit (content) within the inclusio of אֶשְׁפּוֹךְ אֶת־רוּחִי (structure). Joel uses אֶשְׁפּוֹךְ אֶת־רוּחִי to express the liberal manner in which YHWH will distribute his Spirit.

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.

The Origin and Significance of the Addition of “He Relents over Disaster” (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.

In 2:13d-f Joel provides the basis (note the causal כִּי) for his previous exhortation of repentance (vv.12-13) by citing the well-known confessional formula of Ex 34:6-7. Rather than finding hope in their present circumstances (disastrous and fickle), he sources confidence that YHWH may relent from this impending disaster in YHWH’s unchanging character (Crenshaw, 136). However, in citing Ex 34:6-7, Joel adds an additional participial phrase—וְנִחָ֖ם עַל־הָרָעָֽה, relenting from disaster (cf. רָעָה with this sense of calamity in Jer 1:14; Am 3:6) not found in the original formula.

Many redaction-critical scholars are agnostic towards the originality of this formula used 8 times in the OT (Ex 34:6-7; Num 14:18; Neh 9:17; Psalm 86:15; 103:8; 145:8; Joel 2:13; Jon 4:2) and alluded to once in Nah 1:3. For example, Dentan believes none of its occurrences are preexilic (36). Barton claims “that [it] is not original to any of the passages where it now occurs,” and that therefore, “there is no way of telling which of the other uses of the passage Joel is quoting. . . .” (25). However, this redaction-critical view can be discarded given the central role of the formula in the Ex 34 narrative (unlikely a later addition) and its reference as early as Num 14:18. Surely a Jewish scribe would have not been so presumptuous as to put words in the very mouth of YHWH (Ex 34:6-7)! Therefore, since Ex 34:6-7 is the original use of this formula, Joel’s וְנִחָ֖ם עַל־הָרָעָֽה is in fact an expansion, about which the significance needs investigation.

Out of the 7 citations and 1 allusion to Ex 34:6-7 in the OT, only Jon 4:2 contains the additional וְנִחָ֖ם עַל־הָרָעָֽה. This has led to theories of literary dependency. As Wolff states,

“That this agreement is not a matter of chance is shown by the further concurrence of v 14a with Jonah 3:9a (cf. Jon 3:10b), but especially by the relationship of thematic contexts: the announcement of the catastrophe awakens repentance in the hearer, and this repentance leads to God’s revoking what he had threatened. . . . The inescapable relationship in vocabulary and themes goes back to a common root” (49).

Crenshaw claims, “it is not clear who borrowed from whom” (137); and Garrett suggests, “there is no unambiguous evidence about the direction of the borrowing, and we should hesitate about drawing conclusions from these parallels” (347). However, as Joel characteristically references outside sources, the (most likely) postexilic Joel is probably dependent on the preexilic Jonah at this point.

Therefore, the significance of the additional וְנִחָ֖ם עַל־הָרָעָֽה, just as in Jonah 4:2 (cf. the literary dependency) is as follows: Joel contextualizes the theological richness of the ancient formula for his contemporary context—if they repent, YHWH himself may repent (note the human-divine שׁוב connection in vv.12, 13 and 14). The addition ofוְנִחָ֖ם עַל־הָרָעָֽה builds upon the confessional formula. Certainly a God of mercy, grace, hesed, and patience may forgive Joel’s contemporary audience by relenting of this disaster. Further, Joel’s expanded edition of this formula is grounded in YHWH’s previous actions which demonstrate this character (contrary to Barton [81], Allen [80] and Dentan [36] who understand this formula as a expression of YHWH’s attributes in a mere abstract sense). For example, in Ex 34, YHWH proclaims Himself as a God of second chances directly after giving Israel a second chance. And as Moses intercedes on behalf of the people in Num 14, he cites Ex 34:6-7 claiming, “as you have promised” and “just as you have forgiven this people, from Egypt until now”; he establishes his petition in the previous action of God. In a similar way, Joel adds Jonah’s interpretive וְנִחָ֖ם עַל־הָרָעָֽה to historic confession in order to apply the formula afresh in his contemporary exhortation of repentance.