Joel 2:12 “Now therefore, says the Lord: return to me with your whole heart, with fasting and with weeping and with mourning.”
After God had greatly terrified that people through his prophet, by foretelling the extreme miseries they were about to undergo, there is fittingly added a divine admonition through the same prophet, calling them to conversion, when he says: Return to me, and so forth.
Now since God is present in all things by presence, power, and essence, what is meant when God says, Return to me? We return to things that are behind us when we turn our face toward them, just as we are said to turn toward a wall when we direct our face toward it. But God, since he is most intimate to all things, in what sense are we said to return to him, who is already supremely present to us—and we to him?
We respond that this conversion is not according to nature, by which God diffuses himself into all things, but is to be understood as a conversion according to grace. For when we violate God’s commandments, then insofar as we become enemies of God, we turn away from him—by a metaphor drawn from human enmity. For one who is an enemy turns his back on the other and hides his face from him, because he cannot bear the sight of his enemy. So too God “turns his face away,” that is, withdraws his friendship from his enemies. Likewise, a human being turns away from God when he falls into grave sin, since he no longer loves God’s precepts.
But when a person is properly afflicted by penitence for God’s sake, then, having come to better wisdom and now loving God’s commandments, he is rightly said to be converted to God—namely, through the new love which he has conceived for God by God’s grace and by true penitence. God likewise then turns toward the penitent, because the one whom he had regarded with hatred he now pursues with love, granting him his grace and confirming in him the hope of eternal life.
What God therefore says amounts to this: You who were turned away from me by your crimes, repent of your sins and return to my love and to obedience to my commandments.
But observe that he adds, with your whole heart. There are some who return to God not from the heart but by pretense: they walk with head bowed, clothed in rough garments, scourging themselves with whips so that they may seem to be doing great penance for their sins, yet in their heart they do not abandon sin. For although they perform an external penance, inwardly they carry an empty mind, lacking that interior penitence which is true contrition for sins on account of God. Such a feigned conversion God rejects, for it is a penance of the body, not of the heart.
Penitence must proceed from the heart, because it is from the heart that guilt proceeds. For a human being is like a tree: if the tree is green at its roots, its leaves and trunk also share in that greenness; but if the root is dry, the leaves and branches must necessarily wither. In the same way, since the root from which all human action is administered is the will, it follows that if the will is green—irrigated by divine grace—it flourishes with spiritual life.
The branches are works, and the leaves are words, which derive their vitality from that life. If these proceed from a will that is friendly to God, then they rejoice in heavenly vigor and live a certain spiritual life; the works that come forth from such a root are acceptable to God and lead toward eternal life. Likewise words, if they proceed from the life of the root as we have said of works, will also be living and pleasing to God. And what I have called branches you may also call fruits of eternal life, since through holy works proceeding from a living root we shall at last enjoy heavenly joys.
The opposite is the case if the root is not green but dry, deprived of the irrigation of heavenly grace. Then whatever proceeds from it is dry. For although good works may proceed from such a dry will, nevertheless they are barren, since they cannot bear fruit unto eternal life. Therefore the Lord says: Return to me with your whole heart.
Here the Lutheran teachers fall silent, who teach that free will is free only in name, but in reality is enslaved. For if it is enslaved, why does God require from it what it cannot perform, unless it is truly free? Is it not an act of liberty to return to the Lord? If therefore the Lord demands conversion from a will that is enslaved rather than free, why—pray tell—should God demand conversion at all, or anything else, if the will were not truly free?
It is within our power to convert or to turn away. God does not require what is necessary by nature. Does God require of the sun that it give light, or of the heavens that they move, or of fire that it burn the wood placed before it? Certainly not. And yet it is fitting for God to demand that we convert—but even more, that we do so with our whole heart. For God, who made the whole human being, demands the whole of him, that he might offer himself entirely to God.
Hence that commandment: You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, with your whole mind, with your whole soul, and with all your strength. Although theologians carefully distinguish these terms—judging that loving with the whole heart differs from loving with the whole soul, or the whole mind, or all one’s strength—Scripture often employs such repetition. Here too the same thing is required through diverse words: that we love God by our will and with our entire inner being, and that we devote our whole self to God.
He loves with his whole heart who, in loving God, loves nothing contrary to God. For one who, while loving God, also loves something opposed to God, does not love God with his whole heart, since part of his affection is directed elsewhere. Thus one who grieves over sins, yet not because he loves God, but because he loves something opposed—namely, the very sin he still cherishes—does not truly love God.
Hence James rightly says: Whoever offends in one point has become guilty of all, that is, the violation of a single divine precept suffices to show that we do not love God as we ought, even if in the observance of other commandments we seem to love him. For this reason the Lord says: You will be my friends if you do what I command you. And again: He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me.
Now he who loves wholly excludes nothing. Therefore, when it is said, You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, God claims our love entirely for himself—not because there are not other things to be loved besides God, since he himself commands us to love our neighbors and friends, and even our enemies. Paul too indicates this when he says: No one ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it. And he did not remain silent about husbands loving their wives, saying: Love your wives as Christ loved the Church.
But all these things are to be loved insofar as they do not obstruct love for God. They obstruct it when, because of love for children or wife or the like, we transgress God’s commandments. But if these loves are preserved in proper order, loving them does not loosen our bond to God; rather, if we love them for God’s sake, charity in us increases, provided that divine love is not harmed.
To love creatures therefore becomes blameworthy, or even a grave sin, when this love dissolves love for the Creator. For then we love creatures more than God, because for the sake of created love we violate God’s commands.
“Or, secondly, when we love creatures more than is fitting, yet not more than God, since in loving creatures we do not violate God’s commandments; in that case we indeed commit no crime, though we may incur a venial fault. Or, thirdly, when we love creatures according to right reason, but not from an inclination of divine love: as an unbeliever who loves his parents, or an unbeliever who loves his children and wife according to the dictate of right reason, with no circumstance of false religion added; or a sinful believer who does the same, loving his own and others according to the dictates of right reason. These people certainly do not perform meritorious good works, yet neither do they commit even venial sin in acting thus, since they perform a morally good work, adorned with the circumstances it ought to have, just as the pagan philosophers once acted according to moral philosophy.
Thus, to summarize briefly: it sometimes happens that one acts from an inclination of charity, and then we love both God and creatures for God’s sake. At other times it happens that one acts against the inclination of charity, which is wholly ordered either to God as its object or to God as its end—namely, when we love creatures for God’s sake through the love of charity. Therefore, whoever acts against this inclination commits a fault. And then, and only then, does one act against the inclination of charity, when we violate God’s commandments or those things which clearly follow from them.
Finally, it can happen that a person acts neither from the inclination of divine charity nor against that inclination. And in that case it may occur in two ways: either by exceeding the bounds of natural reason, or by not exceeding them, nor falling short of them. If the first occurs, the work that is produced is a venial sin, because of excess or defect with respect to right natural reason in matters that are not contrary to charity toward God and neighbor—such as an officious or playful lie, which is not confirmed by an oath. But if there is neither excess nor defect, and the work is done as it ought to be, according to the measure of right reason, then it is a morally good work: not indeed meritorious, because it does not proceed from the inclination of charity, but neither is it sinful, since it is adorned with its proper circumstances, as we have supposed, and nothing is done in it against charity.
Therefore, whoever wishes to be converted to God with his whole heart, according to the divine admonition of the prophet, must strive to reconcile to himself the charity of God. But he will not reconcile this charity to himself unless, with a contrite and humbled heart, he approaches the throne of divine mercy, and at least has the intention of making vocal confession at the proper time.
Once these things are established, it will be clear to you, I think, what it means to be converted to the Lord with one’s whole heart. It is to grieve over all mortal sins on account of love for God, proceeding from charity; and whoever thus grieves necessarily resolves in his mind not to commit again the errors he has committed, and in due time to submit himself to the keys of the Church.
“With fasting.”
Fasting is bodily abstinence from food, according to ecclesiastical ordinances. But this bodily fasting is a way and a preparation for spiritual fasting, which consists in abstaining from all crimes. For bodily exercise has weight before God because by it the mind is promoted to the love of spiritual things. Hence in the hymn of the Church it is said: Grant that the body be worn down by abstinence, that the mind, sober and free from stain, may fast from sins entirely.
Yet if bodily exercise does not contribute to the sanctification of the mind, it profits little. As Paul says, it is useful unto a little. He rightly says unto a little, since divine Scripture considers anything little which does not promote purity of mind. Indeed, fasting benefits bodily health, because those who overindulge in drink and food often fall into sickness; hence the moral virtue called temperance restrains and bridles gluttony. But all this is of little account before God if it does not wholly tend toward the mind’s progress through spiritual advancement.
What I say of fasting must likewise be said of weeping and mourning. There is an interior weeping, which is contrition and exists in the will, as has been said; and there is an exterior weeping, which, if it is separated from interior weeping, has no efficacy at all for the conversion of a sinner to God. For there are many who dissolve into outward tears because they have sinned against God, yet their mind remains dry, because it still tends toward the commission of sin.
Interior weeping does not require exterior weeping, for exterior tears are not within our power. There are some of a hard bodily constitution who cannot force even a single tear from their eyes, even if they have seen their own parents deprived of life. Nevertheless, whoever possesses such tears when they flow from within prepares for himself an excellent antidote for the remission of guilt, and even for the remission of temporal punishment—if not wholly, at least in part. Such a one was enjoying this benefit who said: Streams of waters have flowed from my eyes, because they have not kept your law.
Since, therefore, it often happens that a person cannot mortify himself by bodily fasting—whether because of old age or illness—or, as I said, cannot shed tears because of bodily hardness, what God commands here, that they be converted to the Lord with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning, must be understood especially of spiritual fasting, weeping, and mourning, which are always within our power. I say this while granting that those who were able to fast bodily were bound to do so by God’s command if they wished to be converted to the Lord.
From this it follows that the interpretation of these things which we previously set forth is correct. And hence it continues:
Joel 2:13 “Rend your hearts and not your garments.”
Here you see that exterior abstinences were instituted by God for the sake of interior sanctification. It was customary among the Jews, as a sign of great sorrow, to tear their garments. See how this is read of King Hezekiah in 2 Kings 19, and of Josiah in 2 Kings 22, and in Matthew 26, where the high priest tore his garments. Yet this tearing of garments signified nothing of itself in the mind, but rather the sorrow of the soul over sins, because they had violated the divine commandments.
The Hebrews, however, performed many exterior ceremonies and acts of worship, and therefore the Lord often reproaches the Pharisees, who placed all holiness in external worship of God, being more concerned to please human beings than God. Hence they disfigured their faces so that they might display their fasts before the people. But God is not fed by ostentation; he is fed by truth, for he himself is truth. Therefore he now says: Rend your hearts, and so forth.
Not that God does not approve of exterior fasts and other good works that are done outwardly—for he had said earlier, Return to me with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning, and afterward he adds, Sanctify a fast—but because God’s chief concern is the purity of the soul. For if this is not pure, the other things done outwardly do not merit God, even if they are considered heroic, such as delivering one’s body to fire and flames, as is said in 1 Corinthians 13.
It must also be noted that when God says Rend your hearts, he does not mean a material tearing of our heart; nor is this the literal sense. Rather, he means the tearing of our soul, taken metaphorically from material tearing. For when we tear something, we divide and separate what was united. But sinners have their souls united to earthly things and separated from divine things. Therefore the Lord commands that they tear themselves away from visible things and transfer themselves to invisible things. And this tearing is nothing other than evangelical self-denial. For whoever denies his own affections for God’s sake is the one who rends his soul from himself.
Again, by this tearing you may rightly understand a vehement sorrow over sins committed. Hence that saying: And a sword shall pierce your own soul also—which must be understood as meaning that a most vehement sorrow will penetrate your soul. For the Blessed Virgin was afflicted with the highest sorrow when she saw the Lord hanging upon the cross.
“Rend.”
It must further be observed that vehemence of sorrow is twofold: either in degree or in quality. Vehemence in degree is what philosophers and theologians call intensity, so that, for example, the eighth degree is called most intense or most vehement. Vehemence in quality, however, occurs when the quality itself by its nature has excellence: just as the smallest amount of heat is more excellent than the greatest cold, and the least whiteness is by its own species more excellent than the greatest and most intense blackness.
“But indeed, to accommodate these things to our present purpose: contrition is then said to be intense in degree when it possesses many degrees of intensity; by contrast, it is weak when it is content with a small degree—such as when it is only minimal contrition. Yet even if it be most remiss in degree, it is always supreme in its quality. For to grieve over sins solely because the divine majesty has been offended, and to resolve in one’s soul the correction of all of them, together with the intention of vocal confession at the time appointed by the Church—or otherwise when necessity of death presses—and so forth: this sorrow over sins is indeed most excellent and most vehement according to the nature of its quality.
For vehemence of quality is recognized from the dignity of the operation; as the commentator says, the operation indicates the form. Now the operation of this contrition is most excellent, since it reconciles a human being to God, closes the gates of hell, and opens the heavenly door. And if you wish to see how excellent the nature of contrition is, you may learn it from this fact: that free will, unless supported by divine help, cannot produce it. God, in his goodness, does not demand from us contrition that is most vehement in degree, because he knows the weakness of our powers; but he does require, if we wish to be saved, the truth of contrition. For true contrition suffices to rend the sinner, because it separates from the heart every affection toward sin.
But if you sprinkle yourself with rivers of tears, if you macerate yourself with fasts, if you afflict yourself with pilgrimages, and if you crush yourself with whatever kinds of bodily chastisements you may choose, yet if this contrition is absent, you will accomplish nothing before God, nor will you enter into grace. For nothing—no matter how great you may say it is—is satisfactory for the remission of purgatorial punishment unless you have first possessed true contrition.
And this is why God says, urging us repeatedly: Rend your hearts. And how exceedingly difficult this rending is—namely, that a human being separate himself from himself, which is to deny oneself. For, as Gregory says in a certain homily on Matthew 16, it is not difficult for a person to renounce what belongs to him, but it is very difficult to renounce himself. For it is less to deny what one has, but very much to deny what one is.
Yet, as Paul says, I can do all things in him who strengthens me. Therefore divine assistance must be sought, that God may grant us this contrition, which is like the mustard seed to which Christ compared the kingdom of heaven; for although it is minimal and most remiss, it nevertheless has marvelous effects, as we have already explained.
“And return to the Lord your God, for he is gracious and merciful, patient and rich in mercy, and one who relents over evil.”
God prevails over evil, since the mercy of God surpasses all our sins. For mercy is infinite and inexhaustible, whereas sin is finite. Or, secondly, as another translation—Vatablus’—has it: He repents over evil, that is, God repents concerning the punishment which he had resolved to inflict on account of our sins, if we repent of the sin committed against God. This is the same sense as in Jeremiah 18: If that nation repents of its evil, which I spoke against it, I also will repent of the evil that I thought to do to it.
I have often warned that God accommodates himself to our ways of speaking so that divine things may be more easily understood by us. God, therefore, is said to repent—not because repentance can exist in God (for it is evident that infinite wisdom cannot repent of its dispositions), but because Scripture speaks of God in a human manner. Thus the sense is: if we know how to withdraw from our sins, God likewise will withdraw the punishments decreed against sinners. And this translation of Vatablus agrees with the Greek of the Septuagint, which reads: And he repents concerning evils. For God revokes the punishments which he had instituted to inflict, if we return from wickedness.
The words of the prophet aim to teach that if those Hebrews had repented of their crimes, the Lord likewise would not have carried out what he had disposed—namely, the devastation of the land through locusts and other plagues. And this is the literal sense. Yet nothing prevents—indeed it greatly supports—a more general meaning: for to us who repent, God will not inflict the eternal punishment which he has decreed from eternity against the obstinate.
You will object: If this is so, then God revokes his decree; therefore God is mutable, which divine Scripture openly teaches to be impossible: “I am God and I do not change”; and likewise, in 1 Samuel 15, “God is not moved by repentance as a man is”; and James says, “With God there is no change nor shadow of variation.”
The answer is that God, when from eternity he decreed punishment to be inflicted upon the obstinate, also decreed from eternity that punishment would not be inflicted upon the penitent. And from eternity he knew to whom punishment would be applied and to whom it would not. Therefore there is a change in the penitent, because he is transformed from the state of sin into the state of grace; but there is no change in God, who from eternity knew this change of state and therefore eternally resolved to transfer the penitent from guilt into his grace.
Joel 2:14 “Who knows whether he will turn and forgive, and leave behind him a blessing?”
The Greek reads: Who knows whether he will return and repent? Vatablus likewise translates: Who knows whether he will turn and repent and leave behind a blessing? The same Hebrew word which our translator earlier rendered as relenting is here rendered as forgiving; yet the sense does not differ, since to forgive is for God to “repent.” The word God is not found in the Hebrew text here, but was added by the Vulgate for the sake of fuller clarification, although it is absent in more accurate Bibles.
At once an apparent objection arises against the prophet’s words: Who knows?, since shortly before he had said that the Lord would revoke punishments for those who repent. Why does he now doubt what he had earlier affirmed?
The answer is that these are the words of the prophet, and indeed he was not ignorant that God would truly revoke punishments for those who repent; but what he doubts is whether his fellow countrymen would perform true repentance worthy of God, such that they might obtain the remission of the punishments decreed by God. Or, if you prefer, say that punishments for sins are twofold: eternal and temporal. To doubt concerning the eternal punishment would be impious, since God will not inflict it on those who truly repent—something no believer is ignorant of. But the same reasoning does not apply to temporal punishment, for it can happen that even after true repentance, punishment established by God is still inflicted.
Indeed, such punishments are antidotes against the poison of sins and often remain for the greater correction of sinners and for greater caution in the future. For David truly repented when he was admonished by Nathan, yet nevertheless God afflicted him with many punishments after the remission of his sin: the firstborn child of Bathsheba died; Absalom rebelled against his father and acted treacherously against him, and even slept publicly with his father’s concubines. Therefore the prophet could well be uncertain whether, even after repentance by the Israelites, punishments established by God—through swarms of insects—might still not be revoked, even though he trusted in divine mercy; for the prophet had not learned this from prophetic light, since not all things are revealed to prophets, just as Elisha did not know the cause of the Shunammite woman’s sorrow (2 Kings 4). Hence he says: Who knows?
“And leave behind him a blessing.”
By blessing he understands an abundance of fruits, so that the sense is: Who knows whether God, from his great mercy, will so accept your repentance that, after the threatened sterility, he will nevertheless leave you an abundance of produce?
“A sacrifice and a libation to the Lord your God.”
Namely, so that you may be able to offer sacrifices to your God from produce and cattle, and libations from liquid goods—wine and oil.
Joel 2:15-16 “Blow the trumpet in Zion; sanctify a fast; call an assembly; gather the people; sanctify the Church; assemble the elders; gather the little ones and those who nurse at the breast.”
In solemn processions, which are customarily held among the faithful in times of urgent necessity, all are gathered together—clergy and people alike—so that the prayer offered by many voices may be more efficacious. This is precisely what the prophet now commands the priests to institute: public processions, in which all should gather, with a fast proclaimed by them, because fasting assists the prayers of the faithful so that they may be more effective before God (Matthew 17; Mark 9): This kind of demon is not cast out except by prayer and fasting.
But you may ask why infants nursing at the breast are to be gathered, since they cannot pray to God. The answer is that this was not commanded on account of the infants’ prayers, but on account of their mothers, who, if they had left their infants at home, would have been anxious about them and thus unable to offer prayer to God with full attention. Or, secondly, so that, when the multitude of infants crying in their mothers’ arms was seen—as is their custom—the people, witnessing their cries, might themselves be stirred more strongly to pour out devout prayers to God.
The remaining matters pertaining to the exposition of these words you may draw from the first chapter. And in Jonah, chapter 3, you will find that a similar universal fast was proclaimed by the king of Assyria—not only for human beings but even for beasts—in order to avert the wrath of God threatened by Jonah against the Ninevites.
Joel 2:16 cont. “Let the bridegroom go forth from his chamber, and the bride from her bridal room.”
That abstinence from conjugal acts for the sake of prayer is lawful, Paul has taught—provided it be by mutual consent of the spouses. This is what the prophet now commands the spouses: that both consent to abstain from conjugal embraces for a short time, so that they may pray more purely to God and obtain the averting of divine wrath hanging over the people. But because he may perhaps be speaking of betrothed couples, it seems another interpretation is possible—namely, that bridegrooms and brides abstain from nuptial joys, so that they may pray to God for the removal of so great a calamity. The Hebrew word corresponding to bridal room signifies the enclosure in which the bride was kept until the day of the wedding; and the prophet commands that the enclosure of the bride be opened for the aforesaid purpose.
Joel 2:17 “Between the vestibule and the altar let the priests weep.”
It belongs to priests by office to pray to God for the people entrusted to them. Therefore, while the people pray in the courts of the Temple, the prophet says that the priests are to pray with weeping and tears between the vestibule of the Temple and the altar of holocausts, which stood in the open air.
“Let them weep.”
For great diseases require great remedies, and severe wounds demand severe antidotes. Since, therefore, the sin of the Jews was grave, the prophet commands that it be cleansed by tears, fasting, and other chastisements.
“And let them say: Spare, O Lord, spare your people.”
He writes out the form of prayer and repeats Spare, spare, to indicate vehemence of affection. The sense is: Forgive us our sins; do not hand us over—us who are your worshipping people and your inheritance, since you have chosen us as your own possession—to reproach among the nation as Nicholas judged against the Rabbi. For indeed, if the barrenness threatened against us by your prophet should press upon us, we would be compelled to wander among barbarous nations in order to provide sustenance for ourselves, lest we perish by famine. And the barbarous nations would reproach us, saying: ‘Where is their God, who allows his worshippers to perish from hunger?’ From this you see that, for understanding this passage, it is not necessary to have recourse to a devastation carried out by the Chaldeans or the Assyrians, according to the interpretation of Rabbi Solomon. Rather, these words seem to be referred to the Jews among whom the Temple and the priesthood were present.
Joel 2:18 ‘The Lord was zealous for his land and spared his people.’ The past tense must be taken for the future; that is, ‘the Lord will be zealous’ and ‘the Lord will spare,’ with an implicit condition understood—one that is always implied in divine promises and threats—namely, if they shall have acted rightly in these matters. But if they shall not have repented, as we said in our explanation of Hosea, then the promise does not stand. That is, he will be zealous and will spare them if they perform true repentance.
Joel 2:19 ‘And the Lord answered and said to his people: Behold, I will send you grain and wine and oil, and you shall be filled with them, and I will no longer make you a reproach among the nations.’ Again, the past tense is used for the future; that is, the Lord will answer through the prophet and will say: I will supply you with an abundance of grain. For, as Rabbi Solomon says, after that extreme scarcity of provisions which occurred under Joram, king of Israel, there followed a great fertility of produce. Hence the widow woman whom Elisha had advised to sojourn elsewhere, famine compelling her, returned once the famine had ended to the land of Israel, so that she might enjoy the abundance of fruits now granted by God—she who had lived for seven years among foreigners for the sake of seeking sustenance.
And I will not give you over any longer to reproach among the nations. For indeed, the Israelites, that is, the Jews, who were held in contempt among the nations where they sojourned on account of the alms by which they were sustained—alms they desired while in the promised land—having returned to their own homes through the abundance granted by God, escaped the reproaches of the nations and shook off the servitude to the Gentiles which had been a reproach to them, now abounding in sustenance in their own land.
Joel 2:20 ‘And him who comes from the north I will remove far from you, and I will drive him into a dry and desolate land, his front toward the eastern sea, and his rear toward the western sea. And his stench shall rise up, and his corruption shall ascend, because he acted proudly.’
There are those who think that the prophet must be understood here as speaking of the Chaldean devastation, and they refer these words and all the preceding ones to Nebuchadnezzar, who advanced from the north to lay waste the land. And indeed, if all this were referred to the Chaldeans, it could be defended from Jeremiah’s words: ‘From the north shall all evil be opened upon the inhabitants of the land,’ implying that the Chaldean emperor was going to devastate the land of the Jews.
But we will follow the same thread of interpretation as before, understanding the devastation of that region to have been caused by locusts and other insects. Therefore, by “him who comes from the north” we must understand the northern swarms of those insects. These swarms he previously called an “army,” and now again he calls them “him who comes from the north,” that is, that army of which he had spoken above.
Hence the Lord says: Those hosts which will be very harmful to you, I will remove from you and will drive them into deserts and vast solitudes where they can harm no one, because such places are uninhabitable. How great the force of those swarms was he declares by saying that the front, that is, the leading part of the swarm, reached as far as the eastern sea, and the rear part as far as the western sea, that is, the Mediterranean Sea. From this anyone can estimate how widely that plague of locusts was spread, since it stretched from east to west.
‘And their stench shall rise up.’ After I have driven away those swarms of immense strength, and they have perished for lack of nourishment in desert places, they will then be heaped together and will stink greatly from excessive putrefaction, which will set in after their death.
‘Because he acted proudly.’ In locusts or other insects there is no proud action properly speaking. Rather, the sense is that they struck you magnificently—that is, with overwhelming force—so that the devastation they inflicted upon that region was such that no human power could resist it. Scripture sometimes calls such excellence or overpowering force “pride” by metaphor, even in inanimate things.
Hence that saying in Jeremiah 12: ‘What will you do in the pride of the Jordan?’ For the Jordan cannot truly be proud, but Scripture calls the excellence of that river “pride” by a metaphor drawn from human pride. And Isaiah 60 likewise says: ‘I will make you the pride of the ages,’ that is, most renowned throughout the ages.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment