Joel 2:12 “Now therefore, says the Lord: Turn to me—lest you fall into those things which I have threatened—turn to me with your whole heart. Do not suppose that I require from you only an inward sorrow; I also wish works of repentance to be joined to it, which may testify that the sorrow is genuine, punish past sins, and compensate for the pleasures of sins by the bitterness of punishments. That sorrow is not great which does not express itself through weeping and works of repentance. Fast together, weep, lament.
Why then do heretics—wandering themselves and leading unstable and unsettled souls into error—detest the works of repentance which God requires? And if they believe that sins are forgiven them through Jesus Christ, they lie if they say they are forgiven.
Jerome says: Show repentance of soul by fasting and weeping and lamentations, so that now, fasting, you may later be filled; now, weeping, you may later laugh; now, lamenting, you may later be consoled. Weeping (fletus) and lamentation (planctus) differ in this: weeping consists of tears, whereas lamentation signifies weeping accompanied by striking the breast or the head or some other part of the body. The same distinction is signified in the Hebrew and Greek words.
Joel 2:13 “Rend your hearts.” It was the custom of the Jews, in sorrowful and adverse circumstances, to tear their garments, as Joshua and Caleb did in Numbers 14, and the high priest in Matthew 26, and Paul and Barnabas in Acts 14. God therefore wills that the sorrow not be merely external, but rather chiefly internal. As if he were saying: Do not satisfy me by the mere tearing of garments; begin with the tearing of hearts.
To rend the heart is to grieve vehemently over sins and to shake them out and draw them forth from the heart by a certain opening—that is, by tears and confession. For which reason the Chaldean paraphrase says: Remove the impiety from your heart. Jerome says: Therefore I command you not to rend garments, but hearts, which are full of sins, which, like skins or wineskins, unless they are torn, will burst of themselves. The interlinear gloss says: Open your hearts through confession of faith, and so forth. But I would rather understand this also of the confession of sins, such as was then required and such as is now required in the Gospel.
“For he is gracious and merciful.” For “gracious,” in Hebrew it is חַנּוּן (ḥannûn), that is, one who delights in doing good and in giving; it signifies to have mercy and to give freely and to forgive sins. The Septuagint renders it ἐλεήμων (eleḗmōn), that is, merciful.
“Patient.” In Hebrew it is אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם (ʾereḵ ʾappayim), literally “long of nostrils,” that is, one who is not quickly kindled to anger and does not hasten to vengeance; for those who have narrower nostrils seem more prone to anger. The Septuagint renders it μακρόθυμος (makróthymos), that is, long-suffering.
“And of great mercy,” or “abundant in mercy,” that is, rich in mercy, as Paul says in Ephesians 2: God, who is rich in mercy. So also in the Epistle to Titus, chapter 2, and in the sermon On the Good of Patience.
“And relenting over evil.” For “relenting” in Hebrew it is נִחָם (niḥam), a word which signifies to be affected with consolation, to be appeased, to be led by repentance; that is, he easily repents of the punishment which he had thought to inflict and is quickly appeased. The Septuagint renders it repenting over evils. Jerome translates it relenting or repenting. The same word occurs in Exodus 32: Let your anger cease and be appeased over the wickedness of your people. And again there: And the Lord was appeased, so that he did not do the evil.
Therefore Cyprian, in book 4 of the Epistles and in sermon 5 On the Lapsed, at the end reads: And who bends the sentence away from wickedness. This is precisely what “relenting over evil” signifies—that he is stronger than evil, better than wickedness, and does not allow himself to be conquered by it.
Moreover, it is well known that “evil” (malitia) is often used in Scripture for affliction, as Jerome sufficiently notes here and on Jonah 1: Come, let us cast lots and know for what cause this evil has come upon us. And in Matthew 6 at the end, and in the Epistle to Amandus which begins Brevis epistola, and in 1 Maccabees 10: They remembered the great evil which he had done in Israel and how he had afflicted them greatly. And Matthew 6: Sufficient for the day is its evil, that is, its affliction. “Evil” has the same meaning, as Tertullian teaches in book 2 Against Marcion, and Damasus in book 4, chapter 20. Hence “evil days” in Psalm 40: In the evil day, that is, the day full of labor and affliction, the Lord will deliver him. And Ecclesiastes 1: This grievous occupation God has given to the sons of men, that is, most burdensome and laborious.
I also see this usage among Homer, who calls misfortune and calamity κακότης (kakótēs), that is, “evil,” as in Odyssey 3: ὄφρα τάχιστα ὑπ᾽ ἐκ κακότητα φύγοιμεν (“that we might most quickly flee from evil,” that is, from a storm that would greatly afflict us). And in Iliad 4: οὐδὲ οἱ ἄλλοι ἶσ᾽ οἵ κεν κατηδῆμον ἀλάλκοιεν κακότητα (“nor were there any others who could avert the evil,” that is, bring him help so that he would not be afflicted by the suitors). And μηδέ γερόντα κάκου κεκακωμένον (“nor afflict an old man already afflicted”).
Joel 2:14 “Who knows whether he will turn…?” For in Hebrew it is simply: Who knows? He will turn… And the Jewish teachers and some others understand it thus: Who knows and recognizes his sins, let him turn, and the Lord will forgive. But this interpretation is indeed harsh and forced, and in no way to be accepted, since it conflicts with the common teaching of the saints and with the customary usage of Scripture, which ought not to have been unknown to those men.
For Scripture is accustomed, in interrogations of this sort, to omit the conjunction “if,” which must be understood implicitly, as in Jonah 3: Who knows if God will turn and forgive? The Septuagint translated both places with if, and in both places the saints so interpreted them. Likewise in 2 Samuel 12: Who knows whether the Lord may grant him to me and the child may live? Will they interpret this also as: Who knows whether he himself is in sins or not?
Indeed, it is well known to those who read Scripture in its own idiom that such particles as if, unless, and the like are often omitted according to the custom of that language. Therefore, with the true translation established, we ask why the prophet hesitates in a matter that is clear. Which of the faithful would doubt that God turns through repentance and forgives men? Turn to me, says Zechariah 1, and I will turn to you.
Ambrose, in book 2 On Repentance, denies that Peter doubted when he said: Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to God, if perhaps this thought of your heart may be forgiven you. For if, he says, Peter doubted—did God also doubt when he said to Jeremiah the prophet: Do not withhold a word; perhaps they will hear and turn? Let them then say that the Lord was ignorant of what would happen! Not ignorance is expressed by that word, but a customary manner of speech frequently found in divine Scripture, because the expression is simple.
For the Lord also says to Ezekiel: You shall say to them: Thus says the Lord, perhaps they will hear and be afraid. Did he not know whether they could or could not be converted? Therefore this manner of speaking does not always signify doubt.
Ambrose therefore teaches that this is a scriptural figure of speech, that it sometimes uses words of doubt when there is no doubt at all. And he confirms this by examples taken from Homer. Finally, he says, even the wise men of the world, who place all their glory in verbal expression, did not always use τάχα (tácha, “perhaps”) to indicate doubt. Thus the first poet says: ἦ τάχα χήρη ἔσομαι (“I shall soon be a widow”), and elsewhere: τάχα γάρ σε κατακτανέουσιν Ἀχαιοὶ πάντες ἐφορμηθέντες (“for soon all the Achaeans, rushing together, will kill you”). For he would not doubt that one man could easily be slain by all attacking at once.
These things Ambrose says, and others to the same effect—if indeed it was Ambrose who wrote those books On Repentance. The citation from Homer is one and the same testimony, from book 6 of the Iliad, where Andromache, calling Hector back from battle, says: Δαιμόνιε, φθίσει σε τὸ σὸν μένος… ἤτοι μ᾽ ἄμμορον ἤ τάχα χήρη ἔσομαι (“Wretched man, your strength will destroy you… I, unhappy, shall soon be a widow”), and again: τάχα γάρ σε κατακτανέουσιν Ἀχαιοὶ πάντες ἐφορμηθέντες (“for soon all the Achaeans will kill you, rushing upon you”). Though this too may be translated: Perhaps I shall be a widow; perhaps the Achaeans will kill you.
We indeed confess that God does not doubt, since nothing can be hidden from him. But why should man, from whom many things are hidden, not doubt? Yet if there is doubt to be understood, we must not always admit doubt in those who speak in Scripture. David doubted nothing when he said: Who knows whether the Lord will grant him to me? Or when he said: Perhaps now the kingdom will be divided and the most beautiful of the women chosen. I do not think Ambrose said this, nor whoever was the author of those books on repentance; but only that Scripture does not always imply doubt in those who seem to doubt.
But how and why this happens must be explained. When words of doubt are used by one to whom nothing can be uncertain—namely, God—then that form of speech is altogether used so that something may be signified by it, as Gregory teaches in Homily 9 on Ezekiel.
There are therefore two reasons for this manner of speaking. The first is to show that men possess free will and that God does not impose necessity by his foreknowledge or will. Thus in Luke 20: I will send my beloved son; perhaps when they see him they will respect him. Chrysostom and Jerome briefly teach this on the same words in Matthew 21.
The second is that rarity or paucity may be shown; that is, that few will act rightly. Thus Gregory explains in Homily 9 on Ezekiel, commenting on Ezekiel 2: And you shall say to them: Thus says the Lord; perhaps they will hear and perhaps they will cease, for they are a rebellious house. For it signifies that among a great multitude, few will listen. In the same way that passage in Matthew 24 is explained: They will give great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. For then even the elect will be shaken, but not fall. In the same manner that saying in Luke 18 is understood: When the Son of Man comes, do you think he will find faith on earth?—that is, he will find it in very few.
But when a man speaks with doubt—that is, an apostle or prophet—the reader should consider whether the matter is such that the one speaking could rightly doubt about it. And if he judges that to be the case, he should understand that there is real doubt; if not, then it must be taken as an affirmation, explained in one of the ways we have described.
Thus what Peter said: Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to God, if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you. If he was speaking of the remission of guilt, so great an apostle could not doubt. And this is what Ambrose meant. But there are many things in which the apostle or prophet may rightly and deservedly doubt, since God has not yet revealed them. In such cases we rightly say that he spoke thus because it was truly so.
For example, in Psalm 2: Embrace discipline, lest the Lord be angry and you perish from the just way. He could doubt whether that would happen to those to whom he was then speaking, since often those who do not embrace discipline are drawn to God by his mercy and do not perish from the just way.
Similarly, in the words of Peter which we mentioned, he could not doubt whether guilt would be remitted to one who repented and prayed to God; but he could doubt whether Simon’s repentance and prayer would truly come to pass. Or, if we wish to understand it of remission, he could doubt whether Simon’s sorrow would be so great that he would obtain remission of punishment and thus no longer be punished by God at all.
In this way, I think the words of our prophet should be understood: “Who knows whether God will turn and forgive?” that is, perhaps he will not allow the Chaldeans to enter your land if you do repentance, nor carry you away captive. Jerome and Rupert understood it thus, who, speaking in the person of the prophet, say: I know God to be ineffably merciful; but because we cannot know the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God, I temper my judgment and rather hope than presume.
The Ninevites plainly show that this is what is meant, for when they said: Who knows whether God will turn and forgive? they add: And turn from the fury of his anger, so that we may not perish.
“…and leave behind him a blessing. For when he said, Who knows whether he will turn?—that is, whether he may return favorably to you, from whom he had withdrawn because of sins—he now adds, and leave behind him a blessing, that is, that returning to you he may bring with him a blessing, namely an abundance of goods and fruits, the fertility of vineyards and trees, from which a sacrifice and libation may be offered to the Lord your God.
For these words, sacrifice and libation, are to be joined with the verb leave behind, as we see in the translation of the Septuagint and in some others; and thus Jerome seems to have understood it. But if someone wishes to begin a new sense from those words, in this way—Offer sacrifice and libation to the Lord your God—as if he were saying, I still exhort you to offer sacrifices and to strive to appease God—this sense also is rightly supported by the Hebrew words. Rupert, Lyra, and Pagninus interpret it thus.
Joel 2:15 “Sanctify the assembly.” That is, let there be no one unholy in your entire congregation, as Jerome says; or, prepare it, so that it may come into the presence of God with repentance. Again he exhorts them to repentance.
Joel 2:16 “Gather the little ones.” So that even by their crying and wailing they may, in their own manner, ask for mercy. Thus in Judith 4: The priests put on sackcloth, and the infants were prostrate before the face of the temple of the Lord.
“Let the bridegroom go forth from his chamber.” Let there be no place for pleasure; let all devote themselves to mourning.
Joel 2:17 “Between the vestibule and the altar let them weep.” That is, let them weep, as Jerome and others explain. For often expressions of this kind, though future in form, have the force of a command.
But perhaps the reader asks: Which altar is this, and what is the vestibule, and in what place are the priests commanded to weep?
The Temple, properly so called—the house of the Lord—had two parts. The interior and more sacred part, which faced westward, was open only to the high priest and was called the Holy of Holies. The exterior part was called the Holy Place. Of this house it is written in 3 Kings 6: The house which King Solomon built for the Lord was sixty cubits in length, twenty cubits in width, and thirty cubits in height.
To this house was attached a portico, which in Hebrew is called אוּלָם (ʾûlām). Of this it is immediately said: And the portico was before the temple, twenty cubits according to the measure of the width of the temple, and it had ten cubits of width. This the prophet here calls by its proper name אוּלָם (ʾûlām); Jerome calls it vestibulum; Symmachus translates it πύλαιον (pýlaion), that which is before the doors of the temple; Aquila πρόδρομος (pródromos), that is, the portico which runs before the doors of the temple. In 2 Chronicles 3 it is called vestibulum: He also set up the columns in the vestibule of the temple.
Before this vestibule was the court of the priests, which was called the inner court. It was a large open area under the sky, enclosed by walls and adorned on all sides with porticoes. Of this it is written in 2 Chronicles 4. The outer court, however, was before the court of the priests; in this the people stood. In 2 Chronicles 4 it is called the great court. Concerning these courts, see Josephus, Antiquities book 8, chapter 2.
Beyond this outer court it was not permitted for anyone of the people to pass; but the people brought the victims to be sacrificed as far as the gate of the priests’ court, where the priests received them, as Bede writes in his book On the Temple of Solomon, chapter 16.
Now there were two altars. One was called the altar of incense, which was in that part of the temple called the Holy Place, before the Holy of Holies. This altar could not be seen by the people, because the priests’ court and the vestibule lay between. Hence in Luke 1 we read of Zechariah: It fell to him by lot to offer incense, having entered the temple of the Lord; and the whole multitude of the people was praying outside at the hour of incense. And the people were waiting for Zechariah and wondered that he delayed in the temple; but when he came out, he could not speak to them, and they knew that he had seen a vision in the temple—for they did not see what he was doing.
The other altar was the bronze altar, on which the victims were sacrificed, and therefore it was called the altar of holocausts. This altar was in the part of the priests’ court that was nearest to the vestibule, as Josephus clearly relates (Antiquities 15, chapter 14). It could be seen by the people, since the priests’ court was not separated from the people’s outer court by higher walls, but only by a certain barrier three cubits high, as Josephus notes (Antiquities 8, chapter 2).
Therefore, when he says, Between the vestibule and the altar, I think he is speaking of this altar of holocausts, which without further qualification was simply called the altar, since it was larger and was the only altar visible to the people. Thus he commands the priests to weep in the part of their court nearest the temple, as the seriousness of the matter required, yet still before the portico—that is, in the space lying between the outer altar and the portico or vestibule of the temple—so that they might be seen by the people, and their words and wailing might be heard, so that the cry and tears of the people might be joined with the prayers and tears of the priests, and each might encourage the other to mournful cries and thus more effectively obtain mercy.
I think the same place is indicated in Matthew 23: Even to the blood of Zechariah, son of Barachiah, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.
“And do not give your inheritance to reproach, that the nations should rule over them.” Jerome says: The enigma which lay hidden is now made clear. For that people, great and strong, which above was described under the names of the palmerworm, locust, cankerworm, and mildew, is now shown more manifestly who it is: that the nations should rule over them. The inheritance of the Lord is given over to reproach when it serves enemies and when the nations say: Where is their God, whom they boasted to have as their ruler?
We may also interpret the nations as hostile powers, which rule over us so long as we do not do repentance, and which reproach us and say, Where is their God? Thus far Jerome.
“Where is their God?” This was most grievous—to have this reproach cast upon them by the nations, that is, by the Gentiles, because they worshipped a God by whom they seemed not to be defended. For this touched the glory of God and was a disgrace to the people themselves. Thus Psalm 78: Lest they say among the nations: Where is their God? Let it be made known among the nations before our eyes. And Psalm 113: Why should the nations say: Where is their God? Read Daniel chapters 3 and 9.
Joel 2:18 “The Lord was zealous for his land.” He was moved with zeal and indignation that it should be so harshly afflicted. For zeal is an indignation born of love, when we see a thing we love despised or harmed by some evil or affliction. It is also called emulation by our translator, as in Numbers 11: Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets! For there the same Hebrew word is used.
“And he spared his people.” This signifies not only the removal of the evils which he had threatened, but also goodness and mercy after punishments—that is, that he put an end to the evils and labors of his people and again bestowed benefits upon them.
That captivity therefore came which was foretold, and the army of the king of Babylon devastated the land, as we are taught here. And I will restore to you the years which the locust, the cankerworm, the mildew, and the caterpillar have eaten, my great army which I sent among you.
If therefore these things happened which the prophet now proclaims, and yet they were nevertheless conquered by enemies and led away captive, the question is indeed difficult and has been little explained by interpreters.
From Jerome it can sufficiently be understood at what time he thought this prophecy to have been fulfilled, except that later, when the prophet says, And him who comes from the north I will remove far from you, he interprets this of the king of the Assyrians, who in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah came up against the fortified cities of Judah and took them (4 Kings 18). But since Jerome refers all these things to the army of the Chaldeans, which some years later invaded Judah after the defeat of Sennacherib, how can he promise deliverance from the Chaldeans before the Chaldeans had come, if the Assyrian invasion had already occurred?
Other interpreters either, with the Hebrews, interpret everything of locusts—which we have already sufficiently refuted in the first chapter—or they think that this whole calamity which the prophet had thus far foretold was that which Sennacherib brought upon Judah, and that it was driven away by the prayers of the priests, when in one night one hundred and eighty-five thousand men were slain.
But even if the other points could be made to agree—which perhaps they cannot—how will they interpret what follows: And I will no longer make you a reproach among the nations; and him who comes from the north I will remove far from you, and what follows after, when only a few years later, as Jeremiah prophesied, the armies of the Chaldeans came from the north, burned the city and the temple, and the people were given over to reproach among the nations, as they themselves testify in Daniel 3: Because we have been humbled more than all and are lowly throughout the whole earth because of our sins. And in chapter 9: Because of our sins and the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and your people are a reproach to all who are around us.
Since these and many other similar passages occur in the prophets, it must be carefully noted and borne in mind that this is a frequent manner of the prophets: when they have foretold imminent punishments, they immediately present God as appeased and promise benefits by which they console themselves and the people after past punishments—but those benefits are not temporal, but for the most part spiritual, and are to be deferred to the time of evangelical preaching.
I said that they are for the most part spiritual, though sometimes certain temporal benefits are also promised together with spiritual ones, either soon or after a long time. Lest this seem strange to some, I will confirm it by several examples, which, if rightly grasped, will bring light to the understanding of many passages in the prophets.
Hosea chapter 5 ends with great threats; but immediately in chapter 6 there is a promise to be fulfilled through Christ: In their affliction they will rise early to me. Come, let us return to the Lord, for he has torn us, and he will heal us; he has struck us, and he will bind us up; he will revive us after two days; on the third day he will raise us up. And in chapter 11: How shall I give you up, Ephraim? How shall I protect you, Israel? How shall I make you like Admah, set you like Zeboiim? My heart is turned within me; my repentance is stirred together. After many words exhorting them to repentance, he adds: I will not return to destroy Ephraim, for I am God and not man. And yet we know that Ephraim was destroyed and led captive by the Assyrians. But of what time the promised benefits are to be understood he immediately makes clear: They shall walk after the Lord; he shall roar like a lion… and I will place them in their houses, says the Lord. Which we know was fulfilled in the preaching of the Gospel, as we have explained in its place.
And in chapter 13: The pains of childbirth shall come upon him… I will ransom them from the power of death; I will redeem them from death; O death, I will be your death; O Sheol, I will be your sting. And in chapter 14, after repentance, he adds promises to be given long afterward: I will heal their apostasies; I will love them freely, for my anger has turned away from them. I will be like the dew to Israel; he shall blossom like the lily, and so forth.
It is very easy to show the same in the other prophets.
Isaiah chapter 59 foretold the captivity of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans; and immediately in chapter 40 he says: Comfort, comfort my people, says your God. Speak to the heart of Jerusalem and cry to her that her warfare is completed, that her iniquity is pardoned. Who would not think that these things were to be taken as immediately fulfilled? But what follows at once? A voice crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Which John the Baptist fulfilled, as the Evangelists teach, and as John himself testified, pointing to Christ and the people believing in him.
Jeremiah 31: Is Ephraim my dear son? Is he a delightful child? For as often as I speak of him, I still remember him; therefore my bowels are troubled for him; I will surely have mercy on him, says the Lord. But when will he have mercy, and when will he return to his cities? A woman, he says, will encompass a man. Then what I have said will come to pass, and the rest which I immediately promise as future.
In Daniel, together with spiritual promises, he also promises certain temporal ones—namely, the return from the Babylonian captivity and the rebuilding of the city—but he chiefly announces spiritual things, even though Daniel seemed to be speaking only of the captivity of his people. Seventy weeks are shortened upon your people and upon your holy city, to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, and so forth.
From these things all that remains in this prophet is most excellently explained. For first he promises temporal benefits, to be understood after the return from captivity, up to those words: The fig tree and the vine have given their strength—though even these can be understood typologically of the same spiritual goods. But what follows from there to the end of Joel is to be understood of the goods to be brought by Christ to believers.
Now let us explain each point.
“The Lord was zealous for his land and spared his people.” That is: this the prayers of the priests and the repentance of the people obtained—that although enemies would come and devastate the land, yet God, seeing their cruelty and the captivity and affliction of his people, would at some time be appeased, look again upon his own, and lead them out of their harsh bondage back into their homeland.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment