12“Even now,” declares the LORD,
“return to me with all your heart,
with fasting and weeping and mourning.”
13Rend your heart
and not your garments.
Return to the LORD your God,
for he is gracious and compassionate,
slow to anger and abounding in love,
and he relents from sending calamity.
14Who knows? He may turn and have pity
and leave behind a blessing—
grain offerings and drink offerings
for the LORD your God.
15Blow the trumpet in Zion,
declare a holy fast,
call a sacred assembly.
16Gather the people,
consecrate the assembly;
bring together the elders,
gather the children,
those nursing at the breast.
Let the bridegroom leave his room
and the bride her chamber.
17Let the priests, who minister before the LORD,
weep between the temple porch and the altar.
Let them say, “Spare your people, O LORD.
Do not make your inheritance an object of scorn,
a byword among the nations.
Why should they say among the peoples,
‘Where is their God?’”
Original Meaning
WHEN YAHWEH NEXT speaks, it is not in warnings of judgment but in tones of grace. Destruction is not inevitable if the people show repentance. God himself and his character (vv. 12–14) are now the center of attention, not the people and their wrongs, which are not mentioned. Only then are specific ritual instructions given to the people (vv. 15–17); after it is established to whom the people are to return and that Yahweh might be willing to receive their repentance (the “who” and the “why”), the people are given the “how.”
This last section returns to the chapter beginning, reiterating the warning cry of alarm (vv. 1, 15). But this time there is more offered than helpless trembling (v. 1). All of the people, described in detail in verse 16, in contrast to the general description of verse 1, can act by assembling for sanctification. The people, through their representatives the priests, can pray, not directly for their own salvation but rather for the honor of God himself (v. 17).
The appropriate response to the devastation brought by God is repentance (v. 12). Triple transition indicators mark it. “Even” (cf. 2:3, 29) and “now” (Gen. 50:21; Ps. 2:10) indicate a new, sequential element to what precedes. It allows a brief window of opportunity to respond in the face of the rapidly approaching Day of Yahweh. The direct discourse indicator (“declares the LORD”) identifies the exhortation to repent as originating from Yahweh himself (e.g., Gen. 22:16; Hos. 2:15; Obad. 8).1 Yahweh does not wait for the people to turn to him; he initiates the discussion.
The new word directed to the audience is an imperative, “return/repent” (šûb; cf. Jer. 5:3; Hos. 3:5), which forms a small inclusio with repetition of šûb in Joel 2:13b. Joel follows this up with the manner of repentance: It must be total (Deut. 4:29; 6:5; Jer. 29:13), accompanied not only by the traditional outward signs of grief (“fasting,” Joel 1:14; 2:15; “weeping,” Gen. 45:2; 2 Kings 13:36; “mourning, wailing,” Gen. 50:10; Amos 5:16–17), but also with a true, inner reflection of sorrow (“with all your heart”).
Verse 13 indicates the latter by contrasting what is customary but unwanted, tearing one’s clothes (Gen. 37:29; 2 Sam. 3:31), with a desired response, the metaphorical tearing of the heart. The clause only occurs here, but its meaning is clear from the context. The verb “return” is applied also in the case of the second, desired action (cf. Joel 1:2). The target toward which one is to turn is indicated first as Yahweh as speaker (“to me,” 2:12) and then in the third person as “the LORD your God” (2:13). This shows that while the people have committed wrong, Yahweh still allows them to use his covenant, personal name; he still maintains a personal relationship with them. The prophet is taking up the call to repentance initiated by God in verse 12.2
The reason for the command to repent follows in a litany of descriptors of God. Repentance is to be based on who God is, not on anything of the one who repents. These descriptors consist of four adjectives (“gracious, compassionate, slow to anger, abounding in love”) and a participle (“relents”), which has an adjectival function. The whole section expresses characteristics of God, not simply actions that he performs sporadically. The adjectives seem to form a fixed unit, since they often occur together, with some variation (Ex. 34:6; Ps. 86:15; 103:8; 145:8; Neh. 9:17). The entire unit is repeated verbatim in Jonah 4:2, with an ironic reversal. Here it is given as a reason for hope, but there it is the reason why Jonah does not want to offer repentance to Nineveh.
Joel most likely is borrowing from Jonah, since the next three verbs in verse 14 also occur in the same context in Jonah (Jon. 3:9).3 From the multiple uses of this saying, it appears to be a common understanding that God is not only a judge but also someone who wishes to temper his judgment, if the correct response is forthcoming. It is theologically vital to note the hesitancy, however, “Who knows?” (cf. Jer. 17:9; Eccl. 2:19; 6:12). While God has shown his graciousness in the past and one expects him to be consistent in his actions and show graciousness again, one must not become either complacent or presumptuous. God is by no means obligated to show compassion and forgiveness. Each time it must be seen from the perspective of human sinners as an unexpected grace, one that is by no means deserved (cf. Lam. 3:29; Amos 5:15; Jon. 1:6; Zeph. 2:3).
God’s pity is here expounded by describing an actual blessing, a gift of grace (Gen. 33:11; Mal. 3:10), that God “may turn and have pity.”4 This translation hides the fact that the first verb is in fact “return” (šûb), the verb already encountered twice in the two preceding verses. If Judah returns to God, he returns to them. “Leave behind” is probably a reference to what the locusts left behind (though the verb itself is not used in that context): devastation and destruction. They had deprived people and priest of the means to bring grain and drink offerings (Joel 1:9, 13), but these God restores. These in turn are to be directed back to him in worship.
After establishing that there is reason to hope for God’s gracious restoration, the prophet instructs the people to respond further, using another string of seven imperatives and three imperative-like verbal forms (2:16–17). The imperatives in these two verses all occur in earlier passages in Joel (see 1:14 for verbs 2–5, 7; 2:1 for verb 1; 2:6 [“turns pale”] for verb 6 [“bring together”]), as do all the nouns save three.5
The people are called by a trumpet blast (see 2:1), though for a different reason. Earlier it was a call of alarm, signaling fear and dread. Here it is a call to assemble for more hopeful reasons.6 The “assembly” indicates a gathering of people for cultic, that is, “sacred” purposes (2 Chron. 30:13; Neh. 8:17). The people gathered here include even the very young (nursing infants; cf. Ps. 8:3; Lam. 2:11; 4:4),7 who are the polar opposite of the “elders,” the only ones called in the first several summons in the book (Joel 1:2, 5, 11, 13; 2 Chron. 20:3–4, 13).
Also included are the bridegroom and bride, thematically related to the couple mentioned in Joel 1:8, though the vocabulary is different. They are newly wed, since they are called out of the privacy of their nuptial chambers (Song 1:4; Ps. 19:5). Ministering priests, who wept in frustrated ineffectiveness (Joel 1:9), now weep in fervent prayer in the area where they perform their cultic service, between the altar (1:13) and the “temple porch” (the vestibule of temple or palace: 1 Kings 6:3; 7:6).
The priestly prayer in verse 17 is the second in the book (see 1:15–20). It also includes an imperative and a jussive verb directed toward Yahweh. He is requested to “spare, show pity” (ḥûs; 1 Sam. 24:10; Ps. 72:13) on his unfortunate people (Joel 2:16), also called his “inheritance” or “property” (Deut. 9:26, 29; Isa. 47:6).8 Both people and property are God’s by virtue of the covenant.9
The priests request that God’s own be spared from “scorn” and ridicule (1 Sam. 11:2; Ps. 69:9–10), from becoming an international “byword” or word of contempt.10 In the case of Israel, their claim to be God’s people and inheritance would become a lie if they were destroyed. People would ridicule not only their claims but also the very existence or power of their God. “Where is he, if he can’t even help you?” (cf. 2 Kings 18:34//Isa. 36:19; Ps. 42:3; Mic. 7:10; Luke 23:35). The last sentence in Joel 2:17 is found almost verbatim in Psalm 79:10; 115:2. This theme of concern for the reputation of God and his people seems to have been common.
Rather than thinking that the disaster that befell them is only a fluke of nature, the people realize that it is from God. While God is instigator, he also desires to restore the relationship and actually commands his people to approach him for restoration. All society has suffered; now all must turn to the Lord for aid. Their attention is now directed away from the calamities of the past and toward the possibility of restoration through God’s response in the future to their previous laments.
Bridging Contexts
REPENT/CHANGE THE MIND. The expression of God’s willingness to “relent from sending calamity” (v. 13) needs cautious handling. The verb (nḥm) occurs 108 times in the Old Testament, with various meanings. It is used of people facing a situation of loss or suffering, causing them to need “comforting.”11 As an extension of this meaning, it is used of sinful humans to indicate their repentance, which is understood as realizing the error of, and turning away in sorrow from, a wrong action (Job 42:6; Jer. 8:6). This may be entertained as the meaning here in Joel, since the noun “calamity” often denotes “evil” in the ethical sense (Gen. 44:4; 1 Sam. 12:17).
The larger theological context of Scripture does not allow this interpretation, however, since Yahweh does no evil, so he has no need to repent of it. The noun translated “calamity” can also mean “evil, suffering, disaster” in the physical, nonethical sense (Ezek. 7:5; Eccl. 12:1), “on account of which” (Gen. 20:3; Ex. 17:7) Yahweh acts (see Ex. 32:14, where the same verb-preposition-noun combination occurs with this meaning). The sense of the verb nḥm that best fits Yahweh as subject is to feel grief or sorrow and subsequently to relent from a course of action.12 It is this characteristic that is hoped for in Joel 2:14, where the two identical verb forms are hidden by the NIV translations of “relent” and “have pity.”
There is a heated debate over this topic in contemporary theology, precipitated by what is called “openness theology.”13 It is a variation of Arminianism, which diverges from Reformed theology in four areas: God and time, God and change, the sovereignty of God, and God’s foreknowledge.14 Relevant to the issue at hand in Joel, classical Reformed theology has seen God as immutable or changeless.15 This causes problems to any of the proposed interpretations of the verb: God as holy cannot sin, so does not repent of sin; God as immutable does not change his mind; God as immutable and “without … passions” cannot feel sorrow. To address this concern, this verb, and other verbs of “passion,” can be taken as being metaphorical, an anthropomorphism attributing to God emotions that he does not have.16 The topic is vast and important, but beyond the scope of what can be adequately addressed in this commentary.
Outward versus inward. The prophet draws a sharp contrast between internal and external realities when he distinguishes between torn clothing and a torn heart. The former is a formal, visible indication in Israelite society of an inner reality of grief, mourning, or other upset (cf. Gen. 44:13; Num. 14:6; Judg. 11:35; 2 Kings 2:12; 5:7; 11:14; 18:37–19:1; 22:11, 19; 2 Chron. 34:19; Ezra 9:3, with pulling hair and sitting; Job 1:20, accompanied by shaving and prostration; Jer. 41:5, accompanied by self-mutilation and shaving the beard). It could be accompanied by other symbolic gestures, such as wearing garments of coarse cloth (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31; 1 Kings 21:7, accompanied by fasting; 2 Kings 6:30; Esth. 4:1), falling on one’s face (Josh. 7:6), or putting dust or ashes on one’s head (Josh. 7:6; 1 Sam. 4:12; 2 Sam. 1:2; 13:19; 15:32; Esth. 4:1; Job 2:12). These mourning practices, perfectly acceptable for the people, were forbidden for the priests (e.g., Lev. 10:6; 21:10).
Joel does not condemn the practice per se here. Rather, he denounces an outward show that does not correspond to an inner reality, a public show of mourning when there in fact is none is hypocrisy. If there is to be a choice between the two, inner posture should be chosen over outer posturing.
Surface appearance is more readily apprehended, but since it can mislead, one’s true character is key, as God informs Samuel at the anointing of David (1 Sam. 16:7; cf. Gal. 2:6; James 2:1–4). Amos condemned the sham of hypocritical religious cult among a people who did not in reality hold to a covenant commitment (Amos 5:21–24), and Jeremiah warned that one of the external trappings of religion, even if it is the temple itself, has no value if the practices of the people fail to meet their obligations (Jer. 7:1–11). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus took the inward/outward distinction a step further. While some understood the law as something that could only be broken in practice (the outward), Jesus stated that attitude and thought (the inward) could also contravene it (Matt. 5:28; cf. 15:8). One’s essential character is inward and will produce external fruit commensurate with its nature (13:33–35; 15:18–19). God’s ultimate goal is that the inward and the outward coalesce in the image of his Son (cf. 1 Cor. 14:24–25).
Contemporary Significance
A GOD OF PASSION. God’s immutability (i.e., whether he ever changes or even if he knows real emotions) is not only a theological question but also a personal issue, one that touches the heart. One pastoral point will be raised here. In some discussion about this issue, it is proposed that, for the comfort of the believer, the immutability of God is the most important theological concept. I find this theologically and pastorally troubling. In an experience of personal crisis, there seems to be much more practical assurance of hope in knowing that I am in the hands of a God who loves me and cares for every aspect of my life than in knowing that I have to do with a God who is emotionless and dispassionate. A child growing up with a parent who only shows emotional detachment and distancing, one who cannot or will not exhibit love or intimacy, experiences personal dysfunction. How much more so if this is the attitude of a heavenly Parent!
Related to this discussion is the divine “perhaps” of verse 14 (“he may turn”). However one understands God’s foreknowledge and immutability, this is not an attribute he shares with human beings. Whether his actions are always predetermined or at times might be contingent either on human request or response, they are not something that can be known to his creatures in advance, apart from divine revelation. One might hope for a gracious response based on such occurrences in the past, but it must not become expected; each time grace comes, its recipients should be surprised.
As Prinsloo states, “there is no direct causal connection between the people’s penitence and Yahweh’s response.”17
Who knows? The prophet presents a healthy view of God. He calls for the people to respond in penitence, with its appropriate rites (vv. 12–13). This is in their power to do; it is a choice they can make. On the other side, God can also choose to respond to this repentance as he wills. Based on his prior reactions to Israel’s return to him, Joel and his contemporaries hope that he will accept them back. This is within his power to do; it is a choice he can make.
Some in the church today, however, see both choices lying within the hands of God’s human creatures. Human actions compel God to act in a certain way, usually to bless the actor. This is in reality a magical, esoteric view of human power found most commonly in neopaganism. In this view, such things as the pronunciation of the true name of God or possession of the Holy Grail endow one with powers beyond the natural.18 The increasing numbers involved in these beliefs and practices is apparent by the spate of published titles on such things as witchcraft and spells, the many internet sites devoted to neopagan practices, ranging through druidism, wicca, and satanism, and the acceptance by the U.S. military of neopaganism as a valid religion.
Some forms of Christian theology approach this type of coercive manipulation, claiming its power when directed against God. The “name-it-and-claim-it” prosperity gospel movement says that statements of God’s promised blessings in relation to one’s self guarantee their reception.19 There is no discussion of the theological context, of such matters as obedience and faithfulness on the part of the believer. Nor is there a discussion of the sovereignty of God. Rather, there has developed an arrogant expectation that a creature can force the hand of the Creator. The prophet’s “perhaps” becomes rather “God owes me.” Even prayer itself can be perverted, a coercion of God, “but coercion by prayer is yet coercion.”20
A proper understanding of the relationship between human and divine is better expressed by a certain Christian leader shortly before he passed away. When asked how he grappled with the theological question of how he could be dying despite the prayers of many faithful Christians, he said: “When I am in the presence of God, it seems uniquely unbecoming to demand anything.”21 This shows the correct attitude toward God; he is the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, as stated in the Apostle’s Creed. Any view that espouses divine coercion envisions only a diminished God, placing him a little lower than his creatures, who are in control. This is neither the God of orthodox Christianity, nor is it the God of Joel.
Theological community. Theodore Geisel, writing as Dr. Seuss, shows in several of his works that the community is made up of individuals, and that individual actions can have direct bearing on the life of the community. This is most clearly illustrated in Horton Hears a Who.22 In this story, an entire community is endangered because one of its members does not take part in an action that requires the involvement of everyone. When that one joins in, he sways the balance, even though he is the smallest member of the community; as a result, the community is saved. The Bible also records incidents when the actions of a single person affect their entire community for either good (e.g., Esther’s willingness to risk all for their people, Esth. 4) or ill (e.g., Achan’s withholding for his own use things dedicated to God, Josh. 7).
Western Christianity too often suffers from this individualistic tendency. While many give lip service to a body theology as articulated by Paul (e.g., 1 Cor. 12:12–31), they act on the theology articulated by Frank Sinatra, “I did it my way.” This is exhibited through disconnecting from both the past and the present. While the Roman Catholic Church may have laid too great an emphasis on tradition, evangelicalism has denigrated tradition. We share testimony on how God has worked in “my life,” which is of some encouragement, but we sell short, or are completely ignorant of, how God has also worked mightily in the lives of our fathers and mothers.
It is the community memory of God’s actions in the life of Israel that prompts hope in generations of the nation of Israel (e.g., in Deuteronomy, which itself is in the literary form of an aging leader’s reminiscences to his followers before he bids them farewell; cf. also Josh. 24:2–13; Ps. 44:1–3), as well as in the hearts of individuals (e.g., Ps. 22:4–5, 9–10). While not all of our tradition is helpful, it all molds our beliefs and our being in some way. What we must strive for is not an abandonment of tradition, which is impossible; rather, Christians need to develop a theological lens through which to critique and evaluate tradition. This will allow us to appreciate that which draws us closer to God and to discard that which shadows him from us.
The present is also hindered by typical Western individualism, since the body does not grow when individual members feel autonomous and self-sufficient. This can manifest itself in many ways, but an egregious example brought to my attention is of an itinerant preacher who said that he never uses commentaries or study aids for sermon preparation; rather, he relies solely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I am not trying to downplay the role of the Spirit in sermon preparation (though he seems to be ignored often in such pursuits, judging by many of the sermons I hear preached!), but this is laying something to the charge of the Spirit that is never mentioned by Scripture. It also flies in the face of an expectation that we use our own gifts and intellect in the service of God (cf. 2 Tim. 2:15), including showing enough intellect that we do not think that everyone must reinvent the wheel. If believers through the ages have diligently and correctly interpreted Scripture, why be a fool by not taking their advice and instruction (Prov. 12:15)?
Self-absorbed individualism can also deny the community of much-needed ministry. In the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:30–35), the priest and the Levite do nothing wrong, from their viewpoint of self-interest. Both obey the law that warns any who minister in the sanctuary not to touch a corpse (Lev. 22:4). They follow a negative ethic of avoidance, but they are not ministering to the present and pressing need of a member of the community. They do not follow an ethic of engagement, putting a community need above their own individual need. Using contemporary evangelical jargon, they are more worried about their own salvation than they are about that of the other.
Individualism often manifests itself in the most mundane areas of life, such as greeting those we encounter. When we see someone on a Sunday morning, we say, “Hi. How are you?” The acceptable response is, “Fine. And you?” When someone instead says that their spouse has just been diagnosed with cancer or that their business has just declared bankruptcy, we are brought up short and often find ourselves irritated. Don’t these folks realize that our greeting is just rhetorical, that I just want you to notice that I have noticed you? You see, it’s not really about the other person at all, it is about me. My outward façade of caring hides an inner reality that is quite different.
Even in this simple area of greetings, community plays an important role. Paul exhorts his readers in Galatia to “carry each other’s burdens” (Gal. 6:2) if we are to truly live in God’s kingdom community. In order to do this, we must know what these burdens are, and in order to know, we must care about them and really ask as if we do care. This can be dangerous to our self-centered lives, since it can cost in terms of time, emotions, and commitment. But after all, these three things seem to be what turns a simple collection of people into a community.
A strong concern for community, and that in its entirety, is the concern of Joel in this passage (v. 16). The prayer of the priests is for the entire nation, not just for themselves. This is the call to the church as well (e.g., Gal. 6:2).