Joel chapter 1

vs 1

So, this is what we know about Joel. It isn't much. Who is he? Who's his dad? No idea. When did he write? Who was king? No idea. I would say that because his father is mentioned that he could be a somebody (perhaps from Jerusalem). Also, the temple is mentioned a fair bit, so that's relevant. But as for dating, no idea.

Thankfully, it doesn't really matter, because what he says is so general as to be not in need of a date. The only thing a date would help, I reckon, would be working out the stuff about the armies.

vs 2

I suppose it hasn't? It's easy for us to look back and say nothing like this happens anymore. Of course, that's bollocks. Since 2001 (WTC and 9/11), we've had New Orleans, Tsunami, a neverending drought in Australia, and a global financial crisis. Not to mention war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Sudan, and Zimbabwe. Bad stuff still happens in this world. Yes, we in the west with a job and some financial security are okay. But even in Australia and the USA there are people who are now bankrupt with no homes and no job thanks to recent events.

The point is, I suppose, that this book recalls a great tragedy, and that people are to remember the severity of the bad thing being described.

vs 3

The severity can also be measured by the fact that it is something you'd pass on to your kids. Sort of a once in a generation type event. Like a world war or 9/11, I guess.

vs 4

To an agricultural society, four plagues of locusts in one season is the equivalent of nuclear winter. Nothing survives that. Of course, we don't know what the descriptions of the locusts really mean, but sufficed to say that they were described four different ways. For all we know, Joel was the David Attenborough of the Hebrew world, and he was using their proper scientific names.

vs 5

New wine is sweet, fruity, delightful. It replaces the old wine, too, because the old wine has generally been drunk. Without it, there is no wine, and that means nothing for drinkers to drink. It simply wouldn't happen in a globalised society. But imagine if Saudi Arabia invaded the world (hehe, what a stupid turn of phrase) and banned alcohol. That's kinda the most likely situation. The fact is that even the lowest drunk bum is effected by this - no beer and no tv makes Homer something something.

vs 6

It's described as an army, but to me it's obviously locusts. I mean, it's not as if Israel was invaded by four armies during some period of history that we've conveniently forgotten about. I think if Israel had been invaded, and Joel was talking about it, for one he'd have more to talk about than "no wine", and for two we'd be able to date him better.

vs 7

That's what locusts do. It's a pretty correct description, far better than a description of what an army does to your vines. The whiteness of the branches indicates total stripping - that plant will die. There will be nothing left, and farming will have to start over from nothing.

vs 8


I think it's still the drunks being called to mourn here. It might be a general call, I guess, but it would be sitting pretty lonely in between 7 and 9. The other option is that it is starting off the mourning of priests in vs 9. It's hard to tell, both with Greek and Hebrew, when ideas start and end. I would personally go for this verse capping the drunk.

vs 9

This is the next stage, then, of the impact study. The religious life of the temple has been halted, because all agricultural stock is gone. There is nothing to offer at the temple. Now, this is very important, because offerings are part of the covenant (read Leviticus, or just take my word for it).

But it raises an important theological implication too. God could have stopped the locusts. God could have sent the locusts, or they could have just come in the normal, quite unlucky, scheme of things. But the fact is that God demands that the sacrifices continue, but has allowed the method by which they are to continue to be taken away. That makes following his orders somewhat problematic. How does God divorce himself from this responsibility? Does he divorce himself from it at all? He is, after all, using this incident as a demonstration of a truth about himself and the coming judgment. If you think about the inevitability, the inescapability, and the downright nastiness of this situation, then you get a fair feeling of what judgment's going to be like.

vs 10

Without fields, there is no agriculture. This I think is still focused on sacrifice offerings (grain, wine, oil). But the first two things are more earthy - without fields, without fertile ground, there is not life, to society, no civilization. There is no LAND! The promised land of God is dry and barren, so much so that it doesn't even provide enough to give sacrifices to God and let Israel starve! What does that say about the situation Joel is speaking into!

No land, and hence no people. If the land is a waste, what is the point of being God's people?