Joel chapter 2

vs 11

Whether this is a real army, or an army of locusts, the message is that it is God's army or locusts.

This has got to bring you down. I mean, if it's God's army, who's going to stand up against it? No-one, that's who.

vs 12

The thing is, here, that although this verse says "Return to me," the book never really makes it clear that Israel has turned away. It never outlines what the people have done wrong. I should point out that the Hebrew word for 'return' can also mean 'turn'. I will admit that a lot of the time it means 'return', but then a lot of the time Israel is being told what they did wrong too.

This makes the (uninspired) headings of the NIV and TNIV interesting as I pointed out before in chapter one - one says there is a call for "Repentance" (NIV), and one says a call for "Lamentation" (TNIV). Lamentations aren't necessarily repentant. You can lament the bad stuff that's happening to you even though you didn't deserve it to happen - Job and Ecclesiastes teach us that these things are possible.

And since we don't know when Joel was written, we can't really say, "Oh, well, Israel was doing this specific bad at that time". Although, as many people point out and I freely admit, Israel sucked mega at doing what God wanted, so inevitably they were cruising for a bruising for something. My point is that if you want people to repent, you generally tell them what they did wrong. Joel does not. Not ever, if you read this as "turn" and not "return".

vs 13

Of course we all know that in times of lamentation and mourning, the Israelite would tear their clothes in half and put ashes on their head and wear sackcloth and all sorts of things. This is not a call for some sort of invasive and obviously fatal cardio surgery. It is in fact using heart (probably bowels) for an idiom regarding the emotions, feelings and such.

What God is looking for in all this is a lamentation of the heart for the bad things that's happening. If the people return (or turn) to God, it is possible that he will even save them from the oncoming calamity that is the Day of the Lord - whether it be another oncoming locust plague, or the most devastating day of judgment at the end of time.

vs 14

Not only could they be saved from bad, but they could even get a blessing - although you notice what that is, only offerings to give to God. I say 'only' because I mean 'nothing but'. After all, this should be the most important thing to them, and the thing over which they mourn and lament.

vs 15

And so this is what they are instructed to do - hold a sacred assembly so that the whole nation can fast and mourn and wail and call out to God for his mercy.

vs 16

Everyone is to come - there is nothing so important that you should complete it before coming to mourn - not even a wedding should get in the way!

vs 17

As is done many times in the Bible, the priests are to mourn not because they are getting punished (or just served by the nastiness of life), but because God's name will not ultimately be glorified by this occurrence. If all God's people perish, then it is of no glory to God, for it would be expected that he would save them, not wipe them out.

It's a hard mindset to get into.

vs 18

This is translated in the past tense. Is it really in the past? Well, let's trust the translators and say it was. So then, does this signal that there was a time of national mourning and lamentation, and that they were saved from a day of the Lord, rather than The Day of the Lord?

vs 19

If this is really in the past, did Israel "never again become an object of scorn for the nations?" Nah, bollocks. Of course they did. Many, many times since Joel was written, no matter how late a date you tkae on it. So I think we might be looking at a less obvious tense here - perhaps like a prophetic perfect, where you read it into the past because you are so sure that this is what God will do? Or perhaps this is God's word to the people who face the real Day of the Lord?

vs 20

That for one gives you an idea of just how big a swarm it is (if it's locusts), or just how far ranging the armies against them were (if it's armies).

vs 21

Again, see how it talks in the past tense about God's actions? Either it's saying that he will do, and it's so sure he will do that he has done - or it's talking about God's past great actions as a guarantee for his future ones. That's also fair.

vs 22

How often does God prophesy to animals? Here he is obviously speaking about the renewal of the land after the locust attacks. But now notice the tense - it's happening, rather than having happened.

vs 23

Rain is just one of those things we know we've got bugger all control over, and so God uses it to illustrate his blessing on the people. Of course, rain is also highly important to an agricultural society whom can starve it there's a long enough drought.

vs 24

All these things are those which were given up in sacrifice. But there won't just be enough for sacrifice, there will be plenty for everyone. When God rains down blessings, he does it in spades.

vs 25

Now here is an interesting reference to time - when it talks about the four locust swarms, it is possible that they were facing now their fifth year of a locust plague (as in the four that had been hadn't been all in the one harvest, but had been spread out over the years). That would totally suck. I can't prove it, but it does say that years plural were taken away by the locusts.

vs 26

Again, a promise about "never again". I don't know what you do with these, but I see them as somewhat problematic. "Never again - until I do it again"? Or are we, as some people would probably want to read it so as to separate themselves from such troubles, reading now a promise of the eternal future? Certainly the "eat and have plenty" sounds much more like it refers to the present time when they are hungry.

vs 27

Now, of course that's a lot easier to read as a last days thing - when God is really in Israel. But the point is that people should know God is in Israel when he saves them from the fifth straight year of locust plague, shouldn't he?

Perhaps this is what is called by some people the dual prophetic perspective - or what I'd call double dipping - where the prophet is talking about two things, the immediate problem, and a final end times thing too.

vs 28

Now, I can pretty much guarantee that this didn't happen to Israel. So this is certainly some future vision going on. It's really a great vision. And we know when it happened too - in Acts 2, I think. At least, Peter recognises it as such, and I think we can all agree with him. The Spirit of God for the masses. It's unheard of in the OT.

vs 29

As was pointed out in an rather good sermon I listened to recently, this Spirit outpouring knows no gender or social fabric. And that was preached by a chick, so that proves it.

vs 30

This doesn't sound quite so happy and fun. But it certainly would focus everyone on the end of days.

vs 31

And it will be a dreadful day, for most people. I for one want box office seats for that spectacle, but I don't know that they're on offer this millenium. Here's hoping.

vs 32

Because, see, even here in the OT God promises that not everyone will be punished on the great day of badness. Thankfully for us, we can read Zion and Jerusalem figuratively, because if we couldn't we'd be boned.