“In those days and at that time,
when I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem,
2I will gather all nations
and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat.
There I will enter into judgment against them
concerning my inheritance, my people Israel,
for they scattered my people among the nations
and divided up my land.
3They cast lots for my people
and traded boys for prostitutes;
they sold girls for wine
that they might drink.
4“Now what have you against me, O Tyre and Sidon and all you regions of Philistia? Are you repaying me for something I have done? If you are paying me back, I will swiftly and speedily return on your own heads what you have done. 5For you took my silver and my gold and carried off my finest treasures to your temples. 6You sold the people of Judah and Jerusalem to the Greeks, that you might send them far from their homeland.
7“See, I am going to rouse them out of the places to which you sold them, and I will return on your own heads what you have done. 8I will sell your sons and daughters to the people of Judah, and they will sell them to the Sabaeans, a nation far away.” The LORD has spoken.
9Proclaim this among the nations:
Prepare for war!
Rouse the warriors!
Let all the fighting men draw near and attack.
10Beat your plowshares into swords
and your pruning hooks into spears.
Let the weakling say,
“I am strong!”
11Come quickly, all you nations from every side,
and assemble there.
Bring down your warriors, O LORD!
let them advance into the Valley of Jehoshaphat,
for there I will sit
to judge all the nations on every side.
Original Meaning
STILL LOOKING TO the future, God directs his attention away from his own people, as he has been doing, to speak judgment and restoration on the nations. His people become secondary in chapter 3 (cf. 3:1, 16–18). Different sections are marked by shifts of grammatical person and division indicators. The first section (vv. 1–3) speaks about the nations, using the third person (“them”). The rest speaks directly to the hearers in the second person (“you”). The second section (vv. 4–6) details the wrongs committed, while the third (vv. 7–8) describes the results of God’s judgment. The fourth section (vv. 9–12) exhorts these nations in a series of imperatives.
The entire passage is bracketed as a unit by mention of judgment in the Valley of Jehoshaphat. God’s people have been subject to great loss through natural phenomena as well as at the hand of her neighbors. Now those nations in general will suffer at the hand of God.
Wrongs Committed (3[4]:1–3)
BOTH SYNTAX AND semantics indicate this as a new section. There is a shift of interest to foreign nations that is also tied to God’s promised deliverance of his people.1 Verse 1 sets the stage for what follows.2 There is a new time indicator with several elements. First is an emphatic demonstrative indicator of proximity to the previously mentioned events:3 “those days” and “that time.” The most immediate referent of these is the period described in 2:28–32, that these new things happen right in conjunction with sending the Spirit (3:2). Jeremiah uses a similar time indication to describe God’s future restoration of the fortunes of his repentant and forgiven people (Jer. 33:15; 50:4, 20). This same repentance of the people is seen in Joel 2:32.
The time is described further in a relative clause concerning the restoration of Judah and its capital, Jerusalem (cf. Jer. 33:15).4 What is restored (šûb)5 is a matter of debate. The cognate noun (lit., “returning,” šebût; NIV “fortunes”; elsewhere also šebît) can mean “captivity” (LXX, KJV, ASV, NKJV), referring to the restoration from exile (Jer. 29:14; 30:3; 31:23; 32:44; Amos 9:14 [so NIV]; cf. Ezek. 29:14 of Egypt). Return from Judah’s captivity in this case most likely indicates the end of the Babylonian exile in 535 B.C., necessitating a late date for Joel.
There are a number of contexts, however, where šebût indicates hardship and loss, not specifically captivity and exile. It is used of other nations (e.g., Jer. 48:47 [Moab]; 49:6 [Ammonites], 39 [Elam]; Ezek. 16:53 [Sodom]) and individuals (Job 42:10) who suffer but are not exiled. In light of this, the more general “restoration of fortunes,” which may include return from exilic captivity but does not demand it, has been adopted by many translations (e.g., ESV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT; cf. Rudolph, Allen, Barton, Crenshaw). This would not necessitate a late, postexilic date for the prophecy (cf. Zeph. 3:20, a preexilic prophecy, where the same clause is used), though it allows it. It also fits well into the context of real loss suffered in the first chapters of the book, losses already stated as having been put right (Joel 2:25).
Many interpreters see here in 3:1–2 an eschatological formula, anticipating some as yet future restoration.6 While this may be part of what is envisioned, the more immediate return from exile also makes sense of the historical context and itself can anticipate a fuller restoration of fortunes. Even with eschatological overtones, the text need not be postexilic, since the terminology is also used in earlier centuries as well.7
“All nations” now becomes the subject of Joel’s prophecy (3:2), just as all resident Israelites were previously (cf. 1:2). These nations are those who previously taunted a devastated people (2:17, 19). They are now gathered together as God’s people were gathered in Jerusalem for prayer in the face of devastation (2:15–16; 3:11).
When “I will gather” occurs elsewhere, Israel is usually the object, and it refers to a return from exile (Jer. 29:14; Ezek. 11:17; 20:34, 41; 36:24; 37:21; 39:27). Others gather in the context of judgment (Ezek. 16:37), which is the context here, while the nations in particular gather either for battle (Zech. 14:2) or to see the glory of God (Isa. 66:18).8 The verbal form in “I will enter into judgment” implies taking up a legal case against someone, usually with Yahweh as the plaintiff subject of the verb.9 The nations have done something wrong to Israel, for which they are charged. Rather than being the northern kingdom, the term “Israel” here most likely refers to the entire nation, identified in Joel 3:1 as “Judah.” She is described as belonging to Yahweh as “my people” (cf. also 2:26, 27; 3:3), explaining his special concern for them as his special “inheritance, possession” (2:17).
The nations are to congregate at “the Valley of Jehoshaphat” (3:2, 12). There is a play on words here, since “Jehoshaphat” (“Yahweh has judged”) is related to the verb “judge” (špt). Jehoshaphat was the fourth Judean king (c. 873–849 B.C.). In his war with the neighboring ruler, Mesha of Moab (and his ally Ammon), Judah, Israel, and their ally Edom stood by and watched as Yahweh provided the victory (2 Kings 3:4–27//2 Chron. 20:1–30). The victory proved short-lived, however. This event took place in a valley south of Bethlehem, which, in the battle accounts themselves, receives the name of “the Valley of Blessing [Beracah]” (2 Chron. 20:26). This could be what is intended here, in which case it was a site with a history of God’s intervention known to the Judean audience, who would be encouraged by its association. Bad news for their bothersome neighbors is good news for them. God will “bring down” these nations there, in contrast to the other, locust “nation,” which went up against Israel (cf. Joel 1:6; 2:7, 9).
The nature of the evil of these nations is scattering God’s people “among the nations.” This may refer to the Babylonian exile of the early sixth century B.C. or to the earlier Assyrian exile of Israel in 722 B.C. The nations are accused of “dividing up my land.” This verb-noun combination describes the allocation of the land under Joshua (Josh. 13:7; 18:10; 19:51; cf. Ezek. 47:21), but here it is parceled out by Yahweh’s enemies (Mic. 2:4, where the object is “fields”). This expression is not used elsewhere in the context of the Exile.
The list of wrongs continues in verse 3 (note that verse divisions are not original to the text, since the first clause fits better with v. 2). To “cast lots” is a random means of ascertaining something. The “lot” was a small item such as a stone or piece of bone thrown in some way to help determine God’s will. Even though prophecy was the primary means of revelation, casting the lot was an acceptable practice in Israel to find out, for example, which goat was to be used on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:8–10) or who had done wrong (Josh. 7:14). The lot seems to have worked on the principle of binary opposition, indicating one of two things (e.g., “yes” or “no”). Its human randomness allows impartiality in such things as determining who gets spoil or land (Num. 26:55; Josh. 14:2; John 19:24). In the context of land division (Joel 3:2), this may be what is meant here. The nations care so little for God’s land and people that they gamble for them (cf. also Obad. 11; Nah. 3:10).
This disregard for the value of fellow human beings is clear from the next two clauses. They misuse both male and female children (lit., “the boy and the girl,” the definite article indicating an entire class) as the means of barter, treating them like foreign chattel slaves by selling them. They give or sell them (cf. Joel 3:6, 8[2x]) in exchange for the means of debauchery, prostitutes, or wine.10 While wine is a blessing from God (1:5; Deut. 14:26), the Bible warns against its misuse (Gen. 19:32–35; 1 Sam. 1:14), though never condemning it outright.
Prostitution in the Old Testament was of two types. Cultic prostitution was part of pagan fertility practices and is condemned outright (Deut. 23:18). Regular, secular prostitution also appeared in Israelite society, and this is what is spoken of here (Gen. 34:31). The two types of prostitution are distinguished (cf., e.g., Gen. 38:15, 21; Hos. 4:14). Prostitution does not seem to be condemned per se, though the money earned by it is unsuitable for payment of a religious vow (Deut. 23:19), and the condemnation of adultery is one of the foundational principles of Israelite life (Ex. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). What seems condemned by Joel is the disregard for the value of human beings, especially that of the young; something as necessary for the continuation of society as her next generation is squandered on something so fleeting.
What Are You to Me? (3:4–6)
JOEL NOW SPEAKS directly to some of Israel’s neighbors to the north (Tyre and Sidon) and southwest (Philistia), addressing them through questions. He opens with the same sequential transition marker as used in Joel 2:12 (see comments), made up of the coordinating conjunction “and” (showing continuity with what precedes) and the adverb “moreover, in addition,” which accentuates the same thing (NIV simply uses “now”).
The first rhetorical question is grammatically straightforward, but it raises several different interpretations, all of them sobering. “What [are] you to me?” is a verbless clause,11 with the various interpretational options arising from the verb that needs to be supplied in English, and also from how the preposition is understood. A number of interpreters take the question literally as translated above (e.g., LXX, ASV, ESV, NASB, NRSV). They understand the preposition as expressing interest or benefit: “Of what interest/advantage are you to me?” While on a surface level this seeks information, a rhetorical question such as this most regularly expects a negative response, so the deep-level meaning is, “You are of no interest to me.” This results from their disregard for human compassion through the plundering and kidnapping mentioned.
Others see the clause as meaning, “What have you to do with me?” (KJV), an opposite perspective to the previous one. Here it is God who is of no interest to the nations; they want to have no dealings with him, as evidenced by their lack of care for his people. Still others suggest a form of the verb “to do” has been elided, this being an abbreviated form of “What have you done to me?”12 Wolff suggests that this is the opening of an actual legal dispute between Yahweh and the nations, a literary form found in other passages where they are summoned before him (Isa. 43:9; Mic. 1:2; Zeph. 3:8). While this may be a lawsuit, the fuller form suggested by Wolff is not used, and there is no compelling evidence for an elided verb.13 The NIV and others see the preposition as indicating opposition (“against me,” cf. NCV, NLT). The following context, then, appropriately continues this thought, explaining in which ways they do so.
Only three names are singled out for specific mention from among “all nations” (Joel 3:2). But Joel likely sees these three as representative of all the enemy nations of God’s people. Note, for example, how in Obadiah, one nation, Edom, is representative of “all nations” (see the commentary).
Note too that Joel has used several merisms (extreme parts representing the whole, e.g., 2:23, 32), so he may well be doing the same thing here. This suggestion is strengthened by the geographical location of the nations. Tyre and Sidon are a frequently recurring word pair (e.g., Isa. 23; Jer. 25:22; 27:3; Ezek. 27:3, 8; Zech. 9:2). They are located about twenty-five miles apart on the Phoenician seacoast north of Israel in what is now Lebanon (see the introduction). Bracketing Israel to the south is the Philistine region, whose inhabitants lived in tension with Israel since they both arrived in the land about the same time. Among other things, the Philistines were slave traders (Amos 1:6). These northern and southern neighbors, both sharing the same wrongdoing, geographically bracket Israel in Amos 1:6–10 as they do in Joel, only there it is in a south-north order. This bracketing strengthens the suggestion that they are a merism for all of Israel’s neighbors, similar to that of Dan and Beersheba as northern and southern extremities serving as a merism for the entire land of Israel (Judg. 20:1; 1 Sam. 3:20).
The next question in verse 4 asks literally, “Is it a recompense that you are paying back concerning/against me?” That is, have I done anything wrong, that you should make it up to me as I made up the destroyed years for Israel (2:25)? The noun “recompense” and the root from which it derives (gml) is neutral, used either in a positive sense as a reward (2 Sam. 22:21//Ps. 18:21; Prov. 19:17) or, more commonly, in a negative sense as a punishment (Deut. 32:6; Ps. 7:5). The context here falls most definitely in the latter category, since the precipitating actions themselves are negative. The response is not delayed but comes quickly, as does the Day of the Lord (Zeph. 1:14). The fact that the deeds of the nations return on their own heads is a direct quote from Obadiah 15, with the sole difference being the number of the pronoun “your” (cf. also v. 7 below). Here it is plural, referring to the three representative nations, while in Obadiah it is singular, referring to Edom, which is also representative of “all the nations.”
Verses 5–6 detail some of the wrongs for which the nations are to be repaid. The first is plundering the treasure of God and taking it to their own temples. The silver, gold, and “finest treasures” are God’s, as are the land and its people (cf. 1:6; 2:26, 27; 3:2, 3), grape vines and fig trees (1:7), Zion (2:1), and even the locust army (2:25). Everything belongs to God, including these valuables. “My finest treasures” (lit., “my good desirable things”) is not specific but can include gold, silver, and family members (1 Kings 20:6–7; Ezek. 24:16–18, 25; Hos. 9:6, 16) as well as Jerusalem, the temple, and its implements (Isa. 64:10–11; Ezek. 24:21; Lam. 1:10; 2 Chron. 36:19), and even necessities like food (Lam. 1:11), all being liable to plunder. This may refer to such things as the goods that the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser received from Menahem (2 Kings 15:20), (Jeho)ahaz (2 Kings 16:8; 2 Chron. 28:21), or Hoshea (2 Kings 17:3), or that Sennacherib claimed as tribute from Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:14),14 or perhaps even the pillaging of the temple by the Babylonians (2 Kings 25:8–21; 2 Chron. 36:17–20).
In none of these episodes elsewhere in the Old Testament is any of the three nations named in Joel mentioned as perpetrating such acts, though not all such events are likely to have been recorded (cf. Obad. 10–14, where Edom is implicated of complicity in the sack of Jerusalem, an involvement not mentioned elsewhere). There are many times in Israel’s history when these three nations, and other neighboring nations they represent, did prey on Israel (e.g., 2 Chron. 16:2). This does not, therefore, have to be a historically inaccurate substitution of some people for others, nor does it necessitate a date for the prophecy from at least the exilic period, though that is not precluded either.
An even more egregious wrong is the slave-trading these peoples engaged in, possibly the same actions as referred to in Amos 1:6–10 (a passage already shown to have formal similarities to this one; see comments on Joel 3:2–3). Judeans, more specifically Jerusalemites (3:1), are sold, referring either to the events of 3:3 or to more general practices for prisoners of war (Deut. 20:10–15; Neh. 5:8).15 Kidnapping an Israelite for slavery is a capital offense (Ex. 21:16; Deut. 24:7), so this strong reaction may well be an extension of this prohibition. The purchasers of these slaves are the Greeks (yewānîm; i.e., “Ionians”), in whose culture slavery was ubiquitous.16 This slavery distances the Israelites from their own land (Joel 2:20), a horrible fate for a people so tied to their land (cf. Jer. 27:10; Ezek. 11:16).17 Those sold are literally “sons” (cf. Joel 2:28; NIV “people”), here being gender inclusive to include all the inhabitants of the land regardless of age or gender.
No biblical text mentions Greek involvement in this practice with Israel, though there is frequent mention of the return from exile of Israelites from the “coastlands” (e.g., Isa. 10:11; Jer. 25:17–26),18 a locale associated in at least some cases with Greece (cf., e.g., Gen. 10:4–5). In Jeremiah 31:10–11, the Israelites are brought back from these coastlands by “ransom” and “redemption,” both words associated with release from slavery (“ransom”: Deut. 7:8; 13:6; Mic. 6:4; “redemption”: Ex. 6:6; Lev. 25:48, 49). While Joel 3:6 may refer to those dispersed during the Babylonian exile, this exile was by no means the only case of Israelite dispersion, and the Greeks were active in the area of the eastern Mediterranean from the late third millennium B.C., with much trade in later periods.19 Mention of trade with Greece, therefore, does not support or preclude any dates proposed for Joel. This trade could include trafficking in humans.
Role Reversal (3[4]:7–8)
A NEW SUBSECTION opens with the same interjection with which Yahweh earlier spoke words of encouragement and restoration to his people (Joel 2:19; hinenî, both untrans. in NIV). This time they are words to an opposite effect. Previously God promised restoration of what his people had lost; now he promises a recompense for the loss inflicted on his people. There is even a parallel in verbal structure between the two passages, since both express the action in the form of a participle. Here God says that he will “rouse them” (ʿwr), that is, “the people of Judah and Jerusalem” in 3:6. Like those sleeping, he awakens them (cf. Isa. 50:4). Israel has become habituated to the slavery into which they were sold (Joel 3:3, 6), but God will rouse them out of their despondency and repay their captors, as he previously promised (v. 4).20
The slave traders receive the same treatment they inflicted on Judah (v. 8): They too will be sold. God himself is the seller, through the agency of the Judeans. Those sold include “sons and daughters,” with the former term now being gender specific, in contrast to its use in relation to Judah (see comment on v. 6). God metaphorically sells them, placing them into the control of Judah, who literally sells them in turn.
The buyers this time are “the Sabaeans.” These peoples are identified in the Table of Nations as “Sheba” (Gen. 10:7), probably located on the southwest corner of the Arabian peninsula in what is now Yemen.21 It was a nation rich from its own products and from trade (e.g., 1 Kings 10:1–13//2 Chron. 9:1–12; Job 6:19; Isa. 60:6; Ezek. 27:22, 23; 38:13), which also probably included trade in slaves. It was also known for its distance from Israel (Jer. 6:20), so just as Judean slaves were distanced from their native land as slaves (v. 6), so too these slaves would be sent to a land far away.
The section closes with a somber boundary indicator: It is Yahweh himself who is speaking. This form almost always occurs at the beginning of an episode (Isa. 1:2; Jer. 13:15; cf. Ps. 50:1) or at its end (1 Kings 14:11; Isa. 22:15; 25:8; Obad. 18), as it does here.22 This marker of direct discourse is especially concentrated in Isaiah, which, along with its occurrence in Micah 4:4, becomes particularly relevant in the discussion of verse 10, below.
You Nations! ([4]:9–12)
A CALL TO battle is made up of a new set of imperatival forms, many repeated from previous sections.23 This separates it from its preceding context, where such forms are not used. Yahweh continues to speak (cf. v. 8), calling unnamed hearers to proclaim (qrʾ ) the following message to all of the gathered “nations” (cf. 3:2). The previous two times this imperative is used in Joel, it is directed to Israel (her priests, 1:14; 2:15), so they may again be the subject here. The demonstrative pronoun “this” refers to the message that follows.
While suffering Judah was to sanctify a fast (Joel 1:14; 2:15) and themselves (2:16), the nations are to (lit.) “sanctify a war” (NIV “prepare for war”). Since the deities of nations actively involved themselves in the warfare and religious dedicatory practices were often part of the preparation (see Bridging Contexts section), this juxtaposition of theology and warfare was familiar to Joel’s hearers. Calls for preparation for war are part of other prophetic messages (Jer. 49:14; Obad. 1).The terminology here strongly reflects that language describing the encroaching locust swarm. The swarm is metaphorically at war against Judah (Joel 2:5, 7), its “warriors” (cf. 2:7; 3:10, 11) also called “fighting men” who “attack” (“scale,” 2:7). It is clear that the one fighting force is deliberately described in reference to the other. Yahweh now calls for the mustering of the troops, as he promised (3:7).
There is a juxtaposition of the sedentary, agricultural life, with its implements such as plowshares and pruning hooks, with the life of war, with its swords and spears. The first of these (ʾittîm) is a cutting implement made out of iron, a metallurgical technology unavailable to Israel early in her nationhood, necessitating going to the Philistines, who developed iron technology. In 1 Samuel 13:20–21, this word joins several similar other implements, including axes and plowshares, so the ʾittîm seem to be something other than plowshares. A related Akkadian term is part of a plow,24 and this is how the English translations generally take the word, though it may be better to see it as a more general term for a sharp cutting implement. It is clearly made of metal in Joel, since it is shaped by beating. Deist suggests that it is the implement used to clear and open new land, which could later be kept productive through the use of a plow.25
The verb “beat” applies to the second noun (mizmērôt, “pruning hooks”) as well. Another context in which this implement is used is to cut thin shoots from a grape vine (Isa. 18:5).26 In other words, what the farmers are giving up here is the ability to open new land and to adequately harvest what they produce.27
The resulting implements are clearly implements of war. The “sword” is a hand weapon, at times with two edges, used for cutting (Judg. 3:16; 1 Sam. 17:51), and the “spear” is one that is thrown or thrust (Num. 25:7), often used with a shield (Judg. 5:8; 1 Chron. 12:8).28 The nations are warned that they will face the same situation as regards their agricultural life as the Israelites whom they have oppressed. Israel loses her agricultural livelihood to natural disaster; the nations lose theirs to war.
Joel here provides an interesting reversal of a saying known from previous prophetic utterances. Both Isaiah (Isa. 2:4) and Micah (Mic. 4:4) use almost a mirror opposite to the Joel saying: “They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.” This saying appears familiar to Joel and his audience, and he reverses it for rhetorical impact.29 The reversal of the expected is a powerful means of attracting attention. Where in the original context the peaceful aspects of Yahweh’s reign in Jerusalem, the “city of peace,” are the subject, this reversal indicates that it will not be so peaceful for those who oppose him or his people. Yahweh warns them to get ready for a fight! It is not only the warriors who are going to be involved in conflict; even the “weakling,” one who is close to death (cf. Job 14:10) or already defeated (cf. Ex. 17:13; Isa. 14:12),30 now has to claim fighting vigor. He too is one of the warriors (Joel 3:9; 2:7; 3:11). Even those unable or unexpected to fight will be called upon to do so.
All the surrounding “nations” (v. 11; cf. v. 9) are summoned to “come” in response to these events. The exact nature of their coming is unclear, since the verb (ʿwš) only occurs here in the Bible. Translations such as “hurry” or “help” have been proposed. Either fits the context, and neither is compelling. They must also gather (2:16), just as the nations were already told to gather (3:2). In this verse the place of assembly is not identified apart from their being called “to there.” The nearest location is in the next verse, the Valley of Jehoshaphat, the same gathering place as at the beginning of this chapter (3:2).
The final imperative in verse 11 has a different subject. The prophet himself steps back into the frame, directly addressing Yahweh. As the enemy’s warriors were previously called to action (vv. 9, 10), Joel now calls Yahweh to bring his own warriors down (nḥt) just as he had at other times brought his hand down in punishment (Ps. 38:2). The repetition of “warrior” in each of these three verses ties them together (cf. Obad. 9). The verb nḥt signifies military attack (cf. Jer. 21:1 and context).31 Reading the clause in this way shows an impatient prophet who is almost saying, “Enough talk, God. Get moving!” (cf. Hab. 2:1).
Yahweh’s directions resume in verse 12. He repeats his call for the arousal (cf. vv. 7, 9) and ascent (cf. v. 9) of the surrounding nations to the same valley to which he promised they would be gathered in 3:2. This shows that the summons, while worded as a call to war, is in fact for a different end: God will bring them to judgment (cf. 3:2).
Literarily, the episode in 3:11–12 is coming back to its inauguration in 3:2, signaled by the use of many elements repeated from that verse: “gather,” “all of the nations,” judgment, “there,” and a Niphal verbal form. Over this entire procedure, Yahweh sits, not in patience as he did for Gideon (Judg. 6:18), but rather as a mighty, enthroned king (1 Sam. 4:4; Ps. 61:8; 99:1; 132:14) or judge (Ex. 18:13).
Bridging Contexts
ISRAEL AND THE LAND. Land was central to Israel’s self-identity. From its prenational period under Abram, land was part of Israel’s promise (Gen. 12:1). At first unspecified, it was soon identified as “this land” (15:7, 18) and “the land of Canaan” (17:8; cf. Ex. 6:4), where Abram dwelt (Gen. 13:12; 16:3), followed by his descendants (28:4; 31:18; 37:1). When separated from the land, return to it was a strong desire and greatly anticipated (31:3, 13; 48:21; cf. 49:29; Ex. 3:8, 17; 13:5, 11; Lev. 14:34; 20:24; 25:38).
One of the problems of Israel’s settling into the land relates to one of its previously mentioned designations: land of Canaan. It was already inhabited by the Canaanites, who were comprised of several subgroups (e.g., Ex. 13:5), people who also felt an affinity with the land, which is theirs by possession, having been out of direct control of Abraham’s descendants for centuries. Even though the land was often identified with their name, Israel was not to identify with them, since Yahweh clearly distinguished between its current residents and those who moved in by right of ancestral inheritance. One of the distinctions made was moral, that Israel must have nothing to do with the Canaanite practices (Lev. 18:3). Israel used Yahweh’s land promise as an apologetic for their right to it when they returned. This was based on God’s ultimate right to the land since he created it in the first place (Gen. 1:1).32
On the verge of entering the land, God reiterated his promise to the Israelites (Num. 13:2), but they lost their focus on the land as one of promise and also lost faith in the One who promised; thus, they were instead terrorized by its inhabitants (13:32).33 As a result, that entire generation was unable to enter into the land (14:21–22). The promise was not abrogated, however, since God did allow the next generation to complete the journey, arriving in the land and settling it (Joshua–Judges).
Before even settling the land, however, God announced that failure to keep her covenant regulations would result in Israel’s exile from it (Deut. 28:64), but he also promised that a return to the covenant would precipitate a return to the land and the life it held (30:5, 16). It is this promise and warning that the prophets repeatedly held up in front of Israel and its leaders: As their relationship with the covenant was, so would be their association with the land.34
This emphasis on land as home rather than as property is something foreign to many in the West. Especially in North America, geographical ties are held lightly since we are a mobile society. This is not the case for many, who have a much closer tie to the land, which is often described as the “mother land,” emblematic of the love felt for it. An example of this attachment is the Nobel Prize-winning author Alexandr Solzhenitsyn. He was exiled from Russia in February 1974, but in spite of his great suffering there, he returned in 1994 at the end of the Cold War, because in spite of the comforts of his American residence during exile, that is still home.
Selling people. Israel’s neighbors are strongly condemned for human trafficking (Joel 3:3, 6, 8). People in Israel and in the wider ancient Near East became enslaved for numerous reasons. Sometimes economic deprivation led to selling one’s family or even one’s self into slavery (e.g., 2 Kings 4:1). In Israelite practice, Israelites who found themselves in this position were to be released after six years of service (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12; Jer. 34:14), in effect serving their master as an indentured servant (Lev. 25:39–41). Foreigners often became slaves through being prisoners of war (Deut. 20:11–14), though usually this involved only the women and children, since the men were killed as enemy combatants (Num. 31:9, 35). They became the permanent property of their owners. Slaves could also be acquired from neighboring nations (Lev. 25:44–46). These presumably were non-Israelites, who would have been treated differently.
The slavery denounced by Joel could well be of people obtained by a different means, one strongly condemned by Israelite law: kidnapping. This was a capital offence under Israel’s covenant obligations (Ex. 21:16; Deut. 24:7). Regardless of how the people trafficked in Joel’s day were obtained, they seem to be treated as nothing but chattels, objects to be bartered for fleeting personal gratification. Whether the issue is the concept of slavery itself (and that of Israelites in particular by their enemies) or the deprivation of basic human dignity, God is upset at Israel’s neighbors for their actions.
Holy war. This theme of holy war appears also in other Old Testament passages. The verb used in Joel 3:9 (lit., “to sanctify”) is used twice with war as the direct object (Jer. 6:4; Mic. 3:5). In another case (Jer. 22:7), it is warriors who serve this grammatical function, and in yet another passage the context indicates that the verb itself, without a specific direct object, is used with the meaning of “prepare for war” (Jer. 51:27–28; cf. ESV, NCV, NIV, NLT, NRSV, GNB).
In Israel, war was initiated by divine oracle (e.g., Josh. 6:2–5; Judg. 1:2; 20:1, 18, 23, 27–28), and preparation for war included rituals (e.g. Judg. 20:26; 1 Sam. 7:4, 9). Yahweh (or at least his cultic symbols or personnel) was involved in the battle (Josh. 6:8–16; Judg. 4:15; 1 Sam. 14:1–18, 23; 23:6–12; 30:7–8),35 and the results of war included dedication of plunder to God (Josh. 6:17–7:1; 1 Chron. 26:27). War for Israel was more than simply a sociopolitical act; it was also theological, and in this could be understood as “holy.”
Deities were also credited as taking part in warfare in the ancient Near Eastern world. The eighth-century B.C. inscription of Zakir, a Syrian king, credits his military victory to the intervention of his god, Ilu-Wer (Hadad).36 The Hittites had a ritual they performed before entering into battle,37 in which they not only appealed to all their own gods but also to those of their enemy to come over to join them. They also anointed their warriors and accoutrements before battle.38 In Mesopotamia, magic rituals were thought to help in times of war.39
The Israelite ethos was different from that presented among her neighbors. While prayer was a real part of Israelite life and prayers against one’s enemies are recorded (e.g., Ps. 3:7; 7:6; 30:1; 59:1; 60:11), most of these were not in a battle context. In a military situation, the call often went in the other direction. God called his people to battle, with him at their leader. Theirs was holy war in that it was divinely instigated. This is a completely different thing from what is called “holy war” today. Today wars of national or partisan interest, such as that in Iraq or of Islamic extremists against their opponents, are designated so as to baptize something that is humanly instigated and definitely not “holy” with some kind of theological veneer.
Journeying to Jerusalem: a reversal. Coming up to Jerusalem is an important motif in the Old Testament. Especially after the establishment of the temple and its rituals, Jerusalem was the center for service, worship, and pilgrimage (e.g., 2 Chron. 11:14; 30:3, 11; 32:23; Ps. 24:3; 122:4; Jer. 31:6; cf. Ezra 1:3; 3:8). Since it was also the nation’s capital, people came to it for sociopolitical reasons as well (e.g., Jer. 35:11; Obad. 21). Other nations also are said to come up to the holy city, not only for worship (e.g., Isa.2:3//Mic. 4:2; Jer. 3:17; Zech. 8:20–23; cf. Zech. 14:18, 19), but also for war (Jer. 6:4–5; cf. animals, Isa. 35:9).
In 3:10, Joel plays off these two reasons for coming up to Jerusalem in his reversal of Isaiah 2:3 and Micah 4:2. In the two earlier prophecies, people are urged to come up to Jerusalem to learn about, and worship, the God who lives there. A stated attraction for this teaching is that it is one of peace, one leading to the conversion of war materiel to agricultural purposes. Joel also calls people to come up to Jerusalem (Joel 3:9), but not for peacemaking; these are makers of war, those who reconstitute the decommissioned weapons so that even the least warlike becomes aggressive (v. 10).
Contemporary Significance
SLAVERY. Slavery is outside of the experience of most Western Christians. Some of them have ancestors who were enslaved, while others have within their family tree those who owned slaves, and yet others have both. While this is all part of our heritage, it is not an active element of our daily experience. This is not so for Joel’s Israel, nor of many in the world today. Slavery was only banned in Yemen and Saudi Arabia in 1962, and in Mauritius only as recently as 1980.40 Recently a Yemeni girl from Birmingham, England, wrote an account of her father who sold her and her sister as brides back in Yemen.41
This is not just an issue affecting others, however. In 1999, the CIA estimated that between 45,000 and 50,000 women and children are trafficked into the United States each year.42 This does not include internal traffic within the United States itself. Most of these women and children are used within the sex industry, for prostitution and/or pornography. Christians also make use of both of these, especially through internet viewing or pornography.43 There are members of our churches, both those in the pew and those behind the pulpit, who are supporting this slave trade through their participation.
This must be addressed in at least two ways, both involving education. (1) The church needs to be made aware that this is not just the “world’s” problem, or if so, it is one of many ways in which the world has infiltrated the church. It is also not something that is just done “in the privacy of one’s own home,” but has national and global implications. (2) There also needs to be assurance that, though the matter is serious indeed, it is not the “unforgivable sin”; there is hope, and a way out of sexual addiction.44 The church, recognizing that all human beings are in God’s image and are valuable enough to God that he sacrificed his Son for them, needs to strive mightily to free people from slavery in the twenty-first century, just as they did in England and the United States in the nineteenth century.
Holy/just war. War and peace are still vexing topics for the church and the wider society in the twenty-first century. Some in the United States justify a de facto unilateral invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq through a just war theory.45 Moreover, some Muslims call on the concept of jihad to justify attacking civilian as well as military targets around the world. This is another case where theology is a life-and-death issue. This becomes clearer when one understands that jihad is a spiritual as well as physical war against “infidels.” Christians get justifiably upset when this is directed against them, but this exemplifies the relativity of terminology. Since an “infidel” is one who does not hold to a particular belief system, Christians are infidels in the sight of Islam, and Muslims are definitionally the same in relation to Christians. This is clear from the Crusades, when this very term was applied to Muslims.
At its root, a more foundational question is how one views one’s fellow human beings. If an enemy has become someone “other” than us and therefore does not merit human dignity, we forget that we all are created in God’s image and the object of his self-sacrificing love. While the human default setting since the Fall seems to be violence, are not Christians called to represent Christ’s kingdom, with a different ruler and different rules? While this brief note cannot persuade in any of the myriad positions proposed by people of good faith, the thinking Christian needs to at least be aware that there are options held by sincere Christians of good will. Each of us needs to come to our own position on this and many other vital ethical issues, since theology cannot stay just in our heads but must also live through our hearts in our hands.46