JOEL, BOOK OF. This prophet opens his com mission by announcing an extraordinary plague of locusts, accompanied with extreme drought, which he depicts in a strain of animated and sublime poetry under the image of an invading army. The fidelity of his highly-wrought description is corro borated and illustrated by the testimonies of Shaw, Volney, Forbes, and other eminent travellers, who have been eye-witnesses of the ravages committed by this most terrible of the insect tribe. Their accounts tend strongly, we think, to free the literal interpretation from the charge of being the great est exaggeration.' It is also to be observed that locusts are named by Moses as instruments of the Divine justice (Deut. xxviii. 38, 39), and by Solo mon in his prayer at the dedication of the Temple (1 Kings viii. 37). In the second chapter, the formidable aspect of the locusts—their rapid pro gress—their sweeping devastation—the awful mur mur of their countless throngs—their instinctive marshalling—the irresistible perseverance with which they make their way over every obstacle and through every aperture—are delineated with the utmost graphic force. Dr. Hengstenberg calls in question the mention of their flight, but, as it appears to us, without adequate reason. He con siders the expression before them,' in ch. ii., as equivalent to before they rise but in the third verse the same word (1+)th) occurs twice, evidently in the sense of in the presence of," in their front.' The eminent critic just named lays great stress on the alleged omission of this particular, which he considers inexplicable, unless on the supposition that the reality presented nothing corresponding to it. But whether this characteristic be alluded to or not, the argument for or against the literal inter pretation will not be materially affected. Other particulars are mentioned which literally can apply only to locusts, and which, on the supposition that the language is allegorical, are explicable only as being accessory traits for filling up the picture (Davidson's Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 31o). The figurative interpretation has, it must be allowed, the support of antiquity, It was adopted by the Chaldce paraphrast, Ephrem the Syrian (A. D. 35o), and the Jews in the time of Jerome (A.D. 4o0). Ephrem supposes that by the four different denomi nations of the locusts were intended Tiglath-pileser, Shalmaneser, Sennacherib, and Nebuchadnezzar. The Jews, in the time of Jerome, understood by the first term the Assyrians and Chaldeans ; by the second, the Medes and Persians ; by the third, Alexander the Great and his successors ; and by the fourth, the Romans. By others, however, the prophecy was interpreted literally ; and Jerome himself appears to have fluctuated between the two opinions, though more inclined to the allegorical view. Grotius applies the description to the in vasions by Pul and Shalmaneser. Holzhausen attempts to unite both modes of interpretation, and applies the language literally to the locusts, and metaphorically to die Assyrians. It is singular, however, that, if a hostile invasion be intended, not the least hint is given of personal injury sus tained by the inhabitants ; the immediate effects are confined entirely to the vegetable productions and the cattle. Dr. Hengstenberg, while strongly
averse from the literal sense, is not disposed to limit the metaphorical meaning to any one event or class of invaders. The enemy,' he remarks, 'are designated only as north countries. From the north, however, from Syria, all the principal invasions of Palestine proceeded. We have there fore no reason to think exclusively of any one of them. Nor ought we to limit the prophecy to the people of the old covenant. Throughout all centuries there is but one church of God existing in unbroken connection. That this church, during the first period of its existence, was concentrated in a land into which hostile irruptions were made from the north was purely accidental. To make this circumstance the boundary-stone of the fulfil ment of prophecy were just as absurd as if one were to assert that the threatening of Amos, by the sword shall all sinners of my people die,' has not been fulfilled in those who perished after another manner ' (Christalogy, Keith's transl., 1o4). [Comp. Pusey, Minor Proph.., p. 99, ff.] The prophet, after describing the approaching judgments, calls on his countrymen to repent, assuring them of the Divine placability and readi ness to forgive (ii. 12-17). He foretels the re storation of the land to its former fertility-, and declares that Jehovah would still be their God (ii. 1S-26). He then announces the spiritual blessings which would be poured forth in the Messianic age (iii. 1-5, Heb. text ; 2S-32, A. V.) This remarkable prediction is applied by the Apostle Peter to the events that trans pired on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 16 24 In the last chapter (iv. Heb. text ; A. V.), the Divine vengeance is denounced against the enemies and oppressors of the chosen people, of whom the Phcenicians, Egyptians, and Edomites, are especially named. A minute examination of these predictions would exceed our limits ; We must refer the reader for further information to the works named at the close of this article.
The style of Joel, it has been remarked, unites the strength of Micah with the tenderness of Jere miah. In vividness of description he rivals Nahum, and in sublimity and majesty is scarcely inferior to Isaiah and Habakkuk. Imprimis est elegans, clarus, fusus, fiuensque ; valde etiam sublimis, acer, fervidus' (Lowth, De Sacra Paesi Bab-. xxi.) The canonicity of this book has never been called in question.—J. E. R.
[Commentaries.—Leusden, yoel Explicatus, Ul traj. 1657 ; G. T. Baumgarten, IIal. 1756 ; Tur retine (in Tract. de S'S'. interprelat., Opp. p. 104, ff., edited separately by Teller) ; Pococke, Oxf. 1691; Chandler, Lond. 1741; Eckermann, 1786 ; Justi, 1792; Scanborg, Upsal 18°6; Credner, 1831; Ewald, Stuttg. 1S4o ; Meier, Tiib. 184.1 ; Umbreit, Hamb. 1844; FIenderson, Lond. 1845 ; Pusey, Oxf. 1861. Comp. also Hengstenberg, Christology, E. T. [Clark], i. p. 285, ff. ; Niemeyer, Characteristik a'. Bibel,v.295-362; Conn, De Charact. Poet. yoelis, Tub. 1783.]