13Swing the sickle,
for the harvest is ripe.
Come, trample the grapes,
for the winepress is full
and the vats overflow—
so great is their wickedness!”
14Multitudes, multitudes
in the valley of decision!
For the day of the LORD is near
in the valley of decision.
15The sun and moon will be darkened,
and the stars no longer shine.
16The LORD will roar from Zion
and thunder from Jerusalem;
the earth and the sky will tremble.
But the LORD will be a refuge for his people,
a stronghold for the people of Israel.
17“Then you will know that I, the LORD your God,
dwell in Zion, my holy hill.
Jerusalem will be holy;
never again will foreigners invade her.
18“In that day the mountains will drip new wine,
and the hills will flow with milk;
all the ravines of Judah will run with water.
A fountain will flow out of the LORD’s house
and will water the valley of acacias.
19But Egypt will be desolate,
Edom a desert waste,
because of violence done to the people of Judah,
in whose land they shed innocent blood.
20Judah will be inhabited forever
and Jerusalem through all generations.
21Their bloodguilt, which I have not pardoned,
I will pardon.”
The LORD dwells in Zion!
Original Meaning
A RENEWED BATTLE cry opens the last section with loose ties with the previous section through mention of agricultural implements, and with the beginning of the prophecy through mention of agricultural products (here in abundance, there in scarcity). The double allusion to a valley recalls the double mention bracketing the beginning of this chapter (3:2, 12), and the Day of the Lord makes its appearance yet again (cf. 1:15; 2:1, 11; 2:31), uniting the entire book.
The prophet then anticipates an ideal future for Judah (3:18–21). Those oppressing and opposing her will be done away with, and she will receive not only blessing but unexpected forgiveness. In the immediate context of desiccation and depredation, blessing is presented in terms of much needed water. Something beyond just the physical and ordinary is meant, however, since the water flows not from a spring but from the very presence of God, his house. This will all happen “in that day.”
The Valley of Decision (3[4]:13–17
GOD COMMANDS AN unidentified group to set its hands to attack, using a harvest metaphor, something denied the Judeans by the locust swarm army (Joel 1:7).1 The sickle (Jer. 50:16) is used for grain crops, whose plentiful harvest has ripened (cf. Gen. 40:10; Sir. 51:15). After gathering, the crop is so plentiful that the processing facilities are full. The crop is unidentified, possibly being grain since the processing places are associated with threshing floors (Judg. 6:11; Num. 18:27, 30). The verb associated with the “vats” is only used of liquids, however, though its occurrences are few (šûq; 2:24; Ps. 65:9), so the common understanding of this crop to be grapes has merit, though olives, and their oil, is possible as well. God promised this type of agricultural abundance for his people (Joel 2:24), and now this literal profusion is applied metaphorically to the wickedness of the nations. For this cause they are cut down like grain.
Since the nations are the ones doing wickedness, they cannot be the subject of this call to punish them. Though the nations are roused to prepare for battle (Joel 3:12), it must be God’s own forces (v. 11) here called to the offensive.
The confluence of punishers and punished results in a large gathering (vv. 14–15). This is associated with the crowd of an army (Judg. 4:7; 1 Kings 20:13, 28), but also often with the accompanying tumultuous commotion and uproar (1 Sam. 4:14; Isa. 13:4). This turmoil is emphasized by its repetition.2 The lack of a verb in Hebrew also draws attention to the repeated nouns.
The valley, previously fully identified as that of Jehoshaphat (Joel 3:2, 12), is now identified twice as that of “decision” (ḥārûṣ, “take decisive action”; cf. “judgment,” LXX, GNB). This relates it to the judgment associated with the previous mentions of the valley, both in its name and the related verbs. There are numerous cognates for the word “decision,” however, another one of which also fits the literary context.3 That is, ḥārûṣ can also be an agricultural tool, a threshing sledge used to process grain (Job 41:22; Isa. 28:27; 41:15). Damascus used such sledges made of iron as inhumane instruments of war (Amos 1:3). Joel just referred to the conversion of metal agricultural implements into weapons of war (Joel 3:10), and this motif may be continued here, where the nations receive what they, in another context, inflicted on others.4 This suggestion receives greater weight by Joel’s knowledge of Amos’s prophecy, evidenced by the quote in Joel 3:16.
Once again the approaching “day of the LORD is mentioned (Joel 3:14; cf. 1:15; 2:1), this time as it affects the nations rather than God’s people. In fact, the focus of the Day turns in a completely different direction.5 It is not only near, but it is “awesome” (NIV “dreadful,” 2:11; 2:31; see comments), though that descriptive term is not used here. Nations experience the same upset of earth and heavens as Judah suffered, with the exact clauses of 2:10 repeated.
The exact words of Amos 1:2 (cf. Jer. 25:30) occur in the first half of Joel 3:16, where they also concern the herald of the power of God’s response in judgment and punishment against the nations, there including also Israel and Judah. Zion, as the residence of Yahweh in his temple, is the place from which Yahweh’s call goes out (cf. Joel 2:1, 15).6 This quotation uses a word different from Joel’s other terminology for divine utterance. This is not a feeble cry but a mighty roar, as of a lion or thunder (2:11; Judg. 14:5; Job 37:4; Ps. 22:13; Isa. 5:29). The heavens and earth tremble as they did at the advance of the locust army (Joel 2:11), giving a modification of the first part of the same verse, the latter part of which is cited in 3:15.
In marked contrast to the turmoil facing the nations, Yahweh stands firm on behalf of his people (2:16, 17[2x], 18, 19, 26, 27; 3:2, 3), in contrast to the “people” of the locusts (2:2, 5) and the neighboring peoples (2:6). He is the place where one can take “refuge” (cf. Jer. 17:17) as from the rain (Isa. 4:6). The natural elements do none of the harm they did earlier in the book. It is not just a place of hiding, however, but a “stronghold,” a place of strength. There is a contrast here between security in Yahweh and the insecurity of those against whom he moves.
The section concludes (Joel 3:17) by an address to a “you” for whom Yahweh is God, a favorite self-description of the first part of the prophecy (1:13, 14; 2:14, 23, 26, 27). Now, after seeing the recompense brought on those who oppress them and after being restored from the depredations of nature, the people can see the identity of God and his relationship to them that is stated in similar terms in 2:27 (see Bridging Contexts section).
Instead of simply being in their midst, Yahweh “dwells” on Zion, his temple mount. The participle, with its durative function (see Joel 2:32), along with the verb itself (škn), shows that Yahweh is not a temporary resident, an alien, but one who is sinking down roots with his people (2 Sam. 7:10; Ps. 102:28). Because of God’s presence there, Zion can be called his “holy hill.” While for Israel Zion is a place of action as she prepares to face her attackers (cf. 2:1), it can also be a prayerful place where destruction and tumult are distant (Isa. 11:9; 55:7; 65:25). Since holiness denotes separation from that which is unclean (Lev. 7:19–21; 12:4), Jerusalem, like Zion within it, is sanctified by separation from “foreigners,” those called in Isaiah 52:1 “the uncircumcised and defiled” (cf. Ps. 74:7; Ezek. 7:22; Dan. 11:31).
Unlike Zion, described by an adjective (qādôš; Joel 2:1), Jerusalem’s state is described by a predicate nominative: (lit.) “Jerusalem will become a holy place/a sanctuary” (qōdeš). The tabernacle and temple are called holy places (e.g., Num. 4:15; 2 Chron. 29:7), and this sanctity, deriving from the presence of God within them, extends to the entire city when what is unclean is removed (cf. Zech. 14:20, 21). The foreigners are to be kept away permanently, for they will “never again … invade her.”
In That Day (3[4]:18–21)
THIS LAST SECTION begins with a new time reference (cf. Joel 3:1), continuing the theme of restoration from the beginning of the chapter. The audience needs encouragement on one more level: Their human oppressors have been eradicated through the power of Israel’s mighty God (3:1–17), but their physical world is still in disarray because of the severe losses arising from the locusts and the drought (chs. 1–2). God now promises that this worry also will be no more, with produce aplenty.
The mountains, where previously there was the call to prayer for aid before the advancing army (2:1, 2, 5), now “will drip new wine,” like water poured from the rain clouds (Judg. 5:4; Ps. 68:9). The new wine, previously cut off from drinkers’ lips (Joel 1:5), is now restored in abundance. The other half of the common word pair with “mountains,” “the hills” (cf. Hos. 10:8; Hab. 3:6)7 “will flow” with milk, a verb (hlk, “go, walk”) previously only used of the encroaching locust army (Joel 2:4, 7). Milk forms part of the people’s staple diet (Gen. 18:8; Deut. 32:13–14; Isa. 7:15, 22) and is a gift of God. Note that one of the signs of the richness of the land promised to Israel is that it would be “flowing with milk and honey” (e.g., Num. 13:27; Deut. 6:3). These are not new delicacies added to Israel’s diet here; rather, the emphasis is on their plentitude and the ease of obtaining them. This promise seems to allude to a prophecy with similar wording in Amos 9:13, another promise of God’s abundant restoration after a time of hardship.8
Not only milk, but also an even more valuable commodity, water, will flow. Israel was a semiarid agricultural country, especially in the southern region of Judah. It was dependent on a water supply that was not only somewhat regular but was sufficient to meet not only their need for drinking but also for irrigation. That the once-dry ravines or channels (Joel 1:20) “will flow” is welcome news indeed to Judah. Not only will there be sufficient water for her needs, but its “fountain” (better “spring”; cf. 1 Kings 18:5; 2 Kings 3:19) is a source of fresh water for others (cf. Ezek. 47:1–12).
The exact location of this spring is not certain. “The valley of the acacias” (“valley of Shittim,” NIV text note) uses a different word for “valley” than that used in Joel 3:2, 12, 14[2x], so a different location is in mind. This word, also translated “wadi” (e.g., Num. 34:5), designates an occasional streambed that carries water when rains fall but is dry for much of the year. Many of them exist, so the designation does not help pin down its location.9 The identification with acacias (šiṭṭîm) provides little help, since acacias, which do not require much water, are common throughout the area. Israel’s final encampment before entering the land was at Shittim in the Jordan rift valley (Num. 25:1). But Shittim itself cannot be meant here since it is in Transjordan, across the Jordan River from this source of water. That Jordan valley is also not appropriate since that river is not a wadi. Wherever it is, the once dry and devastated land will now be a source of blessing for others.
The nations, in contrast, receive no blessing, but rather the devastation that once was Judah’s (v. 19). Egypt, Judah’s mighty neighbor to the southwest, and Edom to its southeast will become the same desert wasteland (2:3, cf. 1:7, 17, 19, 20; 2:22), a place that is uninhabited. Neither nation has been mentioned previously, but they are included among “all the nations” condemned earlier in this chapter (3:2). This does certify that those nations mentioned earlier—Tyre, Sidon, and Philistia (3:4)—are just representative of many others who now join them in their judgment.
Egypt was a major power throughout Israel’s history in the land and a regular source of attack.10 Their association with Israel’s enslavement (e.g., Ex. 1:11; 13:3; 20:2) could make them an appropriate choice of target here (cf. 3:6). Edom, the descendents of Jacob’s brother, Esau (Gen. 36), also had a long history of animosity with their neighbors,11 including atrocities in Amos 1:11–12 (which may have influenced the two books being side by side in the canon).
Both Egypt and Edom treated Judah violently, including the shedding of blood, a frequent enough event that using it for dating to any specific incident is impossible. The blood is shed (lit.) “in their land,” referring either to the land of Judah or to the lands of Egypt and Edom. The former is the understanding of the NIV (also NASB, NLT, NRSV, GNB), in which case it refers to one of their campaigns against Israel. Other interpreters leave it ambiguous, which is truer to the original text. The blood is “innocent,” not guilty of some particular offence (e.g., Deut. 19:19; 21:8–9; 1 Sam. 19:5) rather than being absolutely free from sin.
The contrast with Egypt and Edom’s demise through the lack of inhabitants is in the permanent existence of Judah and Jerusalem (v. 20). They will “be inhabited” (cf. Isa. 13:20; 45:18; Zech. 7:7; the verb serves both separate locations; cf. Joel 1:2) “forever,” the same period for which Judah will be unashamed (2:26–27), and “through all generations” (lit., “to generation and generation”; cf. 1:3; 2:2). The prophet uses both concepts to refer back to the destruction that is without equal in previous times, in contrast to this great time of blessing for his restored people, which continues through future time.
The first two clauses of verse 21 have been variously interpreted. Literally they read, “I will declare clean/innocent their blood I have not declared clean/innocent” (see Num. 14:18; Nah. 1:3).12 The interpretational variety arises depending partly on the various understandings of who the pronoun “their” refers to. Some refer it to the Egyptians and Edomites of Joel 3:19 (NCV), but that seems too distant a referent for the pronoun. Moreover, proclaiming the innocence of the oppressive neighbors of Judah would be unique in Scripture, so that interpretation is unlikely.
More likely, therefore, “their” refers to Judah and Jerusalem (v. 20; NLT). Their blood, unjustly shed by Egypt and Edom, is to be avenged by God himself. The verbal root of “declare innocent” (nqh) is the same as that of the adjective “innocent” in verse 19. Their “blood,” using a literary figure called metonymy, where a part stands for the whole, refers to God’s people suffering shed blood and the resultant death.13 Those previously lacking innocence are now made or declared right, released from any obligation or guilt brought about by wrongdoing (cf. Gen. 24:8, 41; Ex. 21:19; Jer. 2:35).
God’s own people were previously called to repentance (Joel 2:12–16), and this is the promise that forgiveness is granted.14 As Joel is wont to do, he picks up a motif from earlier in his prophecy in order to note its coming to pass. In this case, the entire prophecy comes to a close with these two positive statements to God’s people: “I will forgive you, and I am with you.” This last statement picks up the statement of 3:17, a surety he wants them to know in that verse and one he repeats here so as to be branded in their awareness as his concluding promise. Though locusts, droughts, enemies, and devastation come, from natural causes or from their own guilt, Yahweh is there.
Bridging Contexts
KNOWING GOD. Among Israel’s polytheistic neighbors, it is important to know one’s personal deity from whom help might be expected. Uncertainty seems a troubling part of life. This is shown by a seventh-century B.C. “Prayer to Every God” found in the library of Ashurbanipal and written in interlinear Akkadian and Sumerian. Part of it reads:
O Lord, my transgressions are many; great are my sins.
O my god, (my) transgressions are many; great are (my) sins.
O my goddess, (my) transgressions are many; great are (my) sins.
O god whom I know or do not know, (my) transgressions are many; great are (my) sins.
O goddess whom I know or do not know, (my) transgressions are many; great are (my) sins.
The transgressions which I have committed, indeed I do not know;
The sin which I have done, indeed I do not know.
………………………………
Man is dumb; he knows nothing;
Mankind, everyone that exists—what does he know?15
At this level, knowledge is simply the intellectual awareness of a fact. The one praying does not even know to whom he is praying or for what he might be praying. This foundational level of awareness seems to be what Yahweh intends to address when he provides the grumbling Israelites meat and bread in the desert for this specific purpose: “Then you will know that I am the LORD your God” (Ex. 16:12). This is Yahweh, the one who is speaking to them, who is their deity, not any of the numerous gods whom they left behind in Egypt or whom Abram may have known in Mesopotamia.
A lack of this basic recognition caused serious difficulties for the pharaoh of the Exodus (Ex. 5:2), and living in such a situation of unknown gods was to be the punishment of a rebellious Israel (Deut. 28:36; cf. Jer. 15:14; 17:4). Ironically, Israel, in turning to unknown gods (Deut. 29:26), was punished by having to live among them. It might be expected that non-Israelites would not know God in this way (cf. John 15:21; 17:25; 1 Cor. 1:21; Gal. 4:8; 1 Thess. 4:5); but Israel was expected to know him (e.g., Ex. 10:2; Ezek. 6:7; 7:4, 9 and numerous other instances in Ezekiel). Though having a close covenant relationship with the Creator of the universe, she knew less than a dumb animal: “The ox knows his master, the donkey his owner’s manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand” (Isa. 1:3).
A deeper level of understanding, beyond the simple knowing of a fact (cf. German wissen), is knowing a person or other animate being, becoming acquainted with them (cf. German kennen). God acts not only to let Israel and others know the fact that he exists, but also that they might experience and appreciate his character and very being. God declares that the special covenant relationship between him and his people produces this deeper intimacy (Ex. 6:7), using the same clause as that in Joel 3:17 (“Then you will know that I [am] the LORD your God”). This will not be simply an intellectual awareness but a personal encounter, since he said that he is the One “who brought you out from under the yoke of the Egyptian” (Ex. 6:7). Part of this knowledge of God is to be able to distinguish him and his being from other gods competing for Israel’s attention and worship (e.g., 1 Kings 20:28).
Part of the magnitude of Israel’s sin is turning away from the God whom they know in this intimate way:
I brought you into a fertile land
to eat its fruit and rich produce.
But you came and defiled my land
and made my inheritance detestable.
The priests did not ask,
“Where is the LORD?”
Those who deal with the law did not know me;
the leaders rebelled against me.
The prophets prophesied by Baal,
following worthless idols. (Jer. 2:7–8; cf. 4:22)
A deeper experience of God and his grace, as well as of his expectations, brings with it a fuller responsibility (e.g., Prov. 10:17; Hos. 4:5–9; Amos 2:4–16, where Judah and Israel are more culpable since they know God’s revealed will through the law; Luke 12:48; Acts 17:30; 1 Peter 1:14–15). Jesus on several occasions also brings out the distinction between knowledge of God cognitively and experientially. In John 4:22 he said: “You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.” He anticipates the day when all will worship “in spirit and in truth” (v. 23), with a fuller awareness and deeper knowledge of God (see also 7:28–29; 8:19, 55; 1 John 4:7–8).
Contemporary Significance
HEAD AND HEART. Evangelism Explosion has refined the use of the evangelistic question “If God were to ask you, ‘Why should I let you into My Heaven?’ what would you say?” The question is effective in causing the person on the street to think about life and the future. Responses come back such as: “I go to church regularly” [read: “at Christmas and Easter”]; “I pray to God” [read: “when I am really in trouble”]; “I am a good person” [read: “at least I don’t get caught very often”]. Unfortunately, if the same question is asked in many churches, the same range of answers returns. One is then forced to ask the question, “What difference does church make?” The answer too often must be, “Not much difference at all.”
A contributing factor to this problem is a wrong perception, that “church” makes a difference when it is in fact God who makes the difference. “Church” is not an end in itself; rather, it is a means to a greater end, developing an intimate relationship with God. The megachurch phenomenon brings many new folk through the doors, which is laudable indeed, but that is not the end, but rather only the beginning. It is not numbers through the door that are determinative of success, but rather the number of maturing disciples; it is not even a convert score that is important, but rather people who are developing in Christlikeness. The aim of the church should not be to get people to know about God, but rather to get to know God. In a way similar to relationships on a human level, true intimacy is not attained quickly but in a sustained encounter in which the details of one’s very being are shared and appreciated.
This deepening encounter involves what Eugene Peterson calls “a long obedience in the same direction.”16 Time spent with an acquaintance can develop into a friendship, and time spent with a friend can transform that person into one’s beloved. This is the way to move a human relationship from one of the head to one of the heart, and it also is the way to develop intimacy with God, getting to know him. Joel equates this intimacy of knowing God with holiness (Joel 3:17), with sharing relationship leading to a changed being. Peterson’s subtitle (Discipleship in an Instant Society) indicates one way in which this kind of shared time is achieved: through discipline. While “discipline” can have a negative connotation to our ears, sounding of punishment, it is not the attitude with which one should face spiritual discipline. This is rather a way to be purposeful about spending time with the Beloved.17 After all, it is in both word etymology and in actual practice that discipleship relates to discipline.
Unfortunately, human relationships today are disintegrating at an alarming rate, inside the church as well as outside of it. Approximately 43 percent of first marriages end in separation or divorce within the first fifteen years, based on a 1995 study.18 The church does not fare much better, with its divorce rate (23 percent) almost matching that of the general population (26 percent) according to a 2000 study by the Barna organization.19 Lack of communication is a major contributing factor to relationship breakups such as this. This is exemplified by one estimate that married couples spend approximately fourteen minutes per week in elective conversation.20 The foundation on which a relationship is initially born and fostered, getting to really know a person, has been eroded and diminished to such an extent that the edifice of the relationship cannot be expected to stand. In order to counteract this erosion, a couple needs to do what John urges on the lukewarm Ephesians: “Do the things you did at first” (Rev. 2:5), spend time together, and become reacquainted.
How can the human-divine relationship be expected to flourish without an equal amount of care and attention? While God is one party in the relationship, and he knows and loves those who are in relationship with him, the necessary precautions are not needed for him but for us humans. We must spend time, not only in our talking to him in prayer, but also in our listening to him, in reading Scripture, and in being in his presence. The church needs to return to a realization that we very much need to know God.21