Joel, Book of – John the Baptist

Joel, Book of

1. Analysis.- The Book of Joel clearly falls into two parts: (1) a call to repentance in view of present judgment and the approaching Day of Jahweh, with a prayer for deliverance (1-2"); (2) the Divine answer promising relief, and after that spiritual blessing, judgment on the Gentile world, and material prosperity for Judah and Jerusalem (2’8-3 [Heb. 4] 21).

(1) The immediate occasion of the call to repentance is a plague of locusts of exceptional severity (l^‘-), extending, it would seem from the promise in the second part (2^5), over several yearSj and followed by drought and famine so severe as to necessitate the discontinuance of the meal- and drink-offering, i.e. probably the daily sacrifice (cf . Ex. 29*^, where the same Heb. words are used of the daily meal-offeringand drink-offering). This fearful calamity, which is distinctly represented as present (‘before our eyes’ l^^), heralds ‘the great and very terrible day of Jahweh’ (2n), which will be ushered in by yet more fearful distress of the same kind (2i-u). The reason of all this suffering actual and prospective is national sin, which, however, is not specified. Jahweh’s people have turned away from Him (implied in 2’2) . Let them turn back, giving expression to their penitent sorrow in tears, mourning garb, general fasting, and prayer offered by priests in the Temple (2’2-n).

(2) "The second part opens with the declaration that the prayerformercywas heard: ‘Then . . . the Lord . . . had pity on his people’ (2^8 RV). It seems to be implied that the people had repented and fasted, and that the priests had prayed in their behalf. The rendering of this passage in the AV, ‘Then will . . . the Lord pity his people,’ is generally rejected by modem scholars as inaccurate, being, according to Driver, ‘grammatically indefensible.’ What we have in the original is not prediction, but historical statement. This Divine pity, proceeds the prophet, speaking in Jahweh’s name, will express itself in the removal of the locusts (220) and in the cessation of the drought, which will restore to the land its normal fertihty, and so replace famine by plenty (222-28). But higher blessings yet are in store for the people of Jahweh. His Spirit shall afterwards be poured out on all, inclusive even of slaves ^228’- [Heb. 3^‘-]). And when the Day of Jahweh comes in all its terror, it will be terrible only to the Gentile world which has oppressed Israel The gathered hosts of the former, among whom Phoenicians and Philistines are singled out for special condemnation(3 [Heb. 43 4-8), shall be destroyed by Jahweh and His angels’m the Valley of Jehoshaphat (3 [Heb. 4"° ^-j), and then Jerusalem shall be a holy city, no longer haunted by unclean aliens (3 [Heb. 4] "), and Judah, unlike Egypt and Edom, will be a happy nation dwelling in a happy because well-watered land, and Jahweh will ever abide in its midst (3 [Heb. 4] 18-21).

2. Integrity. — The unity of the book was questioned by the French scholar Vernes (in 1881), who, however, admitted the weakness of his case, and by the German scholar Rothstein (in 1896), the latter finding a follower in Ryssel (in the JE). These critics assign the two parts to different writers in different ages. Baudissin (Einleitung) suggests extensive revision. These theories have found little acceptance. Recent criticism generally regards the book, with the exception of a gloss or two, as the work of one hand.

There are indeed two distinctly marked parts, as was shown in the analysis, but that is in no way incompatible with unity of authorship, for the following reasons: (a) ‘The second part does not contradict but supplements the first. (5) The thought of’ the day of Jahweh ‘as a day of terror is conunon to both (1’= and 2" [Heb. 3<]). (c) The alleged lack of originality in the second part, in so far as it exists, can be reasonably accounted for by its apocalyptic character. iji) The distinctive features of the first part, which is mainly historic, are largely due to the special theme — the description of locusts and their ravages, which is unique in Heo. literature.

3. Date . — There is no external evidence. The place of the book in the Canon is not conclusive, lOr the Book of Jonah, which was manifestly written after the fall of Nineveh, is also found in the former part of the collection of the Twelve, and comes before Micah, the earliest portions of which are beyond doubt much older. Hence the question can be answered, in so far as an answer is possible, only from the book itself.

The facts bearing upon it may be briefly stated as f ollowa : (1) The people addressed are the inhabitants of Judah (3 [Heb. 4] !• ‘■ 8- IS"), and Jerusalem (23’ [Heb. 3’] 3 [Heb. 4] "■ !"■ 20). Zion is mentioned in 2i- " (Heb. 3’] 3 [Heb. 4] is- "■ a. There is no trace of the kingdom of Samaria. The name ‘Israel’ is indeed used ‘‘,2" 3 [Heb. 4] ‘■ "), but, as the first and last of these passages clearly show, it is not the kingdom of Israel that 15 meant, but the people of God, dwelling mainly about Jerusalem. (2) There is no mention of royalty or aristocracy.(3) The Temple is repeatedly referred to (l’- ‘"■ " 2" 3 [Heb. 4) ‘). and by implication in the phrase ‘my holy mountain’ (2’ 3 [Heb. 4] "): its ritual is regarded as of high importance (!’• " 2’?), and its ministers stand between the people and meir God, giving expression to their penitence and prayer (!’• " 2"). (4) The people are called on to repent of sin (.2"<), but in general terms. No mention is made of idolatry or formalism, or sensuality, or oppression — the sins so sternly denounced by Amos and Isaiah. (5) The foreign nations denounced as hostile to Israel are the Fhcenicians (3 [Heb. 4] the Philistines (ib.), Egypt and Edom (3 [Heb. 4] i’). Reference is also made to the Grecians {‘sons of the lonians,’ 3 [Heb. 4] and the Sabaeans or S. Arabians (3 [Heb. 41 as slave-dealera. Assyria, Babylonia, and Aram are neither named. nor alluded to. (6) The history of Judah and Jerusalem includes a national catastrophe when the people of Jahweh were scattered among the nations and the land of Jahweh was divided amongst new settlers ^3 [Heb. 4] (7) This book of 73 veraes contains 27 expressions or clauses to which parallels, more or less close, can be adduced from other OT writings, mainly prophetic. In 12 passages there is verbal or almost verbal correspondence: cf. li*^ and Ezekiel 37) liS’i and Isaiah 13:6; 2:2 and Zephaniah 1; 2:6 and Nahum 2:10 [Heb."]; 2 and Exodus 34; 2:14 and 2 S 128; 2 and Ezekiel 36:11 etc.; 2 and Isaiah 45) 2 [Heb. 3:4), and Mai 4^ [Heb. 3:23)), 2 peb. 3:5) and Ob "; 3 [Heb. 4] and Amos 1:2; 3 [Heb. 4] 1 and Jeremiah 33:15 etc. In two other places there is contrast as well as parallelism. 2 [Heb. 3:1) answera to Ezekiel 39:29. but the latter has ‘on the house of Israel,* the former ‘on all flesh,’ and 3 [Heb. 4] "> is the reverse of Isaiah 2:4 and Micah 4. The last clause of 18 is found also in Jonah 4:2 in the same connexion and nowhere else. (8) The Heb. exhibits some features which are more common in late than in the earlier literature. There are a few Aiamaisms: ^dlah ‘lament’ (1:8) soph ‘hinder part’ (2) ior qets; the Hiphil of ndchath 3 nieb. 4] "), and rotnach {3 [Heb. 41) a word of Aramaic affinities; and several expressions often met with in late writers. Still, it is not advisable to lay much stress on this point.

With these facts before them critics have concluded that the book must be either very early or late. Many, led by Credner, found evidence of pre-exilic date, and most of these, after him, selected the minority of Joash of Judah (c. B.C. 737). KOnig prefers the latter part of the reign of Josiah (b.c. 640-609). Recent critics with a few exceptions (Orelll, Kirkpatrick, Volck, ai;d to some extent Baudissin) regard the book as post-exilic: c. B.C. 500 (Driver, but not without hesitation); after the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah (E. Kautzsch, W. R. Smith, G. A. Smith on the whole, Marti, the school of Kueneu, Nowack, Cornill, and Horton). Positive decision between these widely divergent views is at present impossible. Much can be said, as Baudissin has recently shown, in favour of a pre-exilic date, which, it proved, would modify our conception of the growth of Israelitish religion; but several points seem to strongly favour post-exilic origin: the religious atmosphere, the political situation in so far as it can be discerned, reference to the Greeks, and the literary parallelisms, most of which are more intelligible on the assumption of borrowing by Joel than vice versa.

4. Interpretation. — The ancient Jews, as represented by the Targum, and the Fathers, who have been followed by Pusey, Hengstenberg, and others, to some extent even by Merx, regarded the locusts of the Book of Joel as not literal but symbolic. That view, however, is now generally abandoned. The seemingly extravagant descriptions of the locust-swarms, and the havoc wrought by them, have been confirmed In almost every point by modern observers. What Is said about their number (1:6), the darkness they cause (2:10). their resemblance to horses (2:4), the noise they make in flight and when feeding (2:5), their irresistible advance (2:7 ff.), their amazing destructiveness (!’• ""‘■ 2:3), and the burnt appearance of a region which they have ravaged (28"‘‘) — can hardly be pronounced exaggerated in view of the evidence collected by Pusey, Driver, G. A. Smith, and other commentators. The colouring of the picture is no doubt Oriental and poetic, but when allowance is made for that, it is seen to be wonderfully true to life. The description of the locusts as’ the northern army ‘(2) is Indeed still unexplained, but is insufficient of itself to overthrow the literal interpretation. On the apocalyptic character of the latter portion of the book there is general agreement.

6. Doctrine. — As compared with some of the other prophetic writings, say with Deutero-Isalah and Jonah, the Book of Joel as a whole is particularistic. The writer’s hopes of a glorious future seem limited to Judah and Jerusalem, and perhaps the Dispersion (2 [Heb. 3:5)). On the other hand, it is remarkable that the outpouring of the Spirit is promised to ‘all flesh,’ not merely to ‘the house of Israel’ — a general way of stating the promise which made the NT application possible (Acts 2:16 ff.). So the book may be said to contain a germ of universalism. Its other most striking characteristic, from the doctrinal standpoint, is the importance attached to ritual and the priesthood, and the comparatively slight stress laid on conduct. Still, it is here that we find the caustic words: ‘Rend your heart and not your garments’ (2:13).

6. Style. — In style the Book of Joel takes a very high place In Hebrew literature. It is throughout clearly, elegantly, and forcefully written. Skilful use is made of parallelism — note the five short clauses in l’»; of Oriental hyperbole (2:30 f. [Heb. 3:3 f.)) and of word-play, e.g. shuddadh sadheh ‘the field is wasted’ (1:10), yabhtshu . . . hdbhlsh ‘are withered ... is ashamed’ (1:12), shdd mish-shaddai ‘destruction from the Almighty’ (1:15). and the play on the verb sMphat and the name Jeho-shapJmt in 3 [Heb. 4] 2. w. Tatloh Smith.

Joelah

A warrior who joined David at Ziklag (1 Chronicles 12:7).

Joezer

One of David’s followers at Ziklag (1 Ch 128).

J06BEHAH.— A town of Gad in Gilead (Numbers 32:35), named also in connexion with Gideon’s pursuit of the Midianltes (Judges 8:11). It Is the present ruin el-JubeihOt (or Ajbelhat), N.W. from Rabbath-ammon, and about midway between that place and es-Sault.

Jogli

The Danite chief who took part in the division of the land (Numbers 34:22).

Joha

1. A Benjamite (1 Chronicles 8:16). 2. One of David’s heroes (1 Chronicles 11:45).

JOHANAN,— 1. 2 Kings 25:23, Jeremiah 40:8, the son of Kareah, chief of ‘the captains of the forces,’ who after the fall of Jerusalem joined Gedaliah at Mizpah. After the murder of Gedaliah he pursued Ishmael and the other conspirators, recovered the captives, and, in spite of the protest of Jeremiah, carried them to Egypt. 2. A son of Josiah (1 Chronicles 3:15). 3. 1 Chronicles 3:24 a post-exilic prince of the line of David. 4. 1 Chronicles 6:9, 10 a high priest. 5. 6. 1 Ch 12:4, 12 two warriors who came to David to Ziklag, a Benjamite and a Gadite respectively. 7. Ezra 8:12 (Joannes, 1 Esdras 8:38) one of those who returned with Ezra. 8. 2 Chronicles 28:12 an Ephraimite. 9. See Jonathan, No. 7, and Jehohanan, No. 3.

John

1. The father of Mattathias, and grandfather of the five Maccabaean brothers (1 Maccabees 2:1). 2. The eldest son of Mattathias (1 Maccabees 2:2). In b.c. 161 he was slain by the ‘sons of Jambri’ (1 Maccabees 9). In 2 Maccabees 8:22, and perhaps again 10:19. he is by mistake called Joseph. 3. The father of Eupolemus (1 Maccabees 8:17, 2 Maccabees 4:11), who was sent by Judas Maccabseus as an ambassador to Rome. 4. An envoy sent by the Jews to treat with Lysias (2 Maccabees 11:17). 6. One of the sons of Simon the Maecabee (1 Maccabees 16:2), commonly known as John Hyrcanus, and described as ‘a (valiant) man’ (1 Maccabees 13:53). See Maccabees, § 5. 6. The father of Simon Peter (John 1:42 21:15–17 RV; AV Jonas), who is called in Matthew 16:7 Bar-Jona(h) . In the latter passage the form Jonas may be a contraction for Joanes, or possibly Peter’s father had two names, as in the case of Saul — Paul. 7.0ne ofthehigh-priestlyfamily(Ac#). S. John Mark (see Mark). 9. 10. For the Baptist and the Apostle see the following two articles.

John the Baptist

The single narrative of John’s birth and circumcision (Luke 1) states that, as the child of promise (v. 13). he was born in ‘a city of Judah’ (v. 39). when his parents were old (v. 7). They were both of priestly descent (v. 5). and his mother was a kinswoman of the mother of Jesus (v. 36). John was a Nazirite from his birth (v. 15) he developed self-reliance in his lonely home, and learnt the secret of spiritual strength as he communed with God in the solitudes of the desert (v. 80). In the Judsean wilderness — the wild waste which Ues to the west of the Dead Sea — this Elijah-hke prophet (v. 17) ‘on rough food throve’; but, notwithstanding his ascetic affinities with the Essenes, he was not a vegetarian, his diet consisting of edible locusts (Leviticus 11:22) as well as the vegetable honey which exudes from fig-trees and palms (Matthew 3:4). For this and for other reasons — as, e.g., his zeal as a social reformer, — John cannot be called an Essene (Graetz). It was not from these ‘Pharisees in the superlative degree’ (SchUrer) that the last of the prophets learnt his message. His familiarity with the OT is proved by his frequent use of its picturesque language (Luke 3:17, cf. Amos 9:9. Isaiah 66:24; John 1:23, cf. Isaiah 40:3; John 1:29. cf. Isaiah 3:7. Exodus 29:38 12:3). but he heard God’s voice in nature as well as in His word: as he brooded on the signs of the times, the barren trees of the desert, fit only for burning, and the vipers fleeing before the flaming scrub, became emblems of the nation’s peril and lent colour to his warnings of impending wrath (cf. G. A. Smith, HGHL p. 495).

In the wilderness ‘the word of God came unto John’ (Luke 3:2). The phrase implies (1 Samuel 15:10 etc.) that, after more than three centuries of silence, the voice of a prophet was to be heard in the land, and the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 3:1–12. Mark 1:1–8. Luke 3:1–20) tell of the stirring effects of his preaching in ever- widening circles (Matthew 3:5). and give a summary of his message. It is probable that, in the course of his successful six months’ ministry, John moved northwards along the then more thickly populated valley of the Jordan, proclaiming the coming of the Kingdom to the crowds that flocked to hear him from ‘the whole region circumjacent to Jordan’ (Luke 3:3) once at least (John 10:40) he crossed the river (cf. Sanday, Sacred Sites of the Gospel, p. 35 f.; Warfleld, Expositor, III. [1885] i. p. 267 £f.; and see Bethany, Salim). ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand’ (Matthew 3:2) was the Baptist’s theme, but on his lips the proclamation became a warning that neither descent from Abraham nor Pharisaic legalism would constitute a title to the blessings of the Messianic age, and that it is vain for a nation to plead privilege when its sins have made it ripe for judgment. There is a Pauline ring in the stern reminder that Abraham’s spiritual seed may spring from the stones of paganism (Luke 3:8, but also Matthew 3:9. cf. Romans 4:16 9:7. Galatians 4:28). On the universality of the coming judgment is based John’s call to repentance addressed to all men without respect of persons. The axe already ‘laid to the root of the trees’ (Luke 3:9) will spare those bringing forth good fruit, and not those growing in favoured enclosures. Soldiers, publicans, and inquirers of different classes are taught how practical and how varied are the good works in which the ‘fruits’ of repentance are seen (Luke 3:8 ff.).

The baptism of John was the declaration unto all men, by means of a symbolic action, that the condition of entrance into God’s Kingdom is the putting away of sin. It was a ‘repentance-baptism,’ and its purpose was ‘remission of sins’ (Mark 1:4) [Weiss regards this statement as a Christianized version of John’s baptism, but Bruce (,EGT, in loc.) agrees with Holtzmann that forgiveness is implied ‘if men really repented ‘]. John’s baptism was no copying of Essene rites, and it had a deeper ethical significance than the’ divers washings’ of the ceremonial law. It has close and suggestive affinities with the prophet’s teaching in regard to spiritual cleansing (Isaiah 1:16. Ezekiel 36. Zee 13:1). the truth expressed in their metaphorical language being translated by him into a striking symbolic act; but John’s baptism has most definite coimexion with the baptism of proselytes, which was the rule in Israel before his days (Schtlrer, HJP 11. 322 f.). John sought ‘to make men " proselytes of righteousness" in a new and higher order. He came, as Jesus once said, " in the way of righteousness"; and the righteousness he wished men to possess . . . did not consist in mere obedience to the law of a carnal commandment, but in repentance towards God and deliberate self-consecration to His kingdom’ (Lambert, The Sacraments in the NT, p. 62). When Jesus was baptized of John (Matthew 3:13 ff.; Mark 1:9 ff.; Luke 3:21 f.). He did not come confessing sin as did all other men (Matthew 3:6) the act marked His consecration to His Messianic work, and His identification of Himself with sinners. It was part of His fulfilment of all righteousness (v. 15), and was followed by His anointing with the Holy Spirit. John knew that his baptism was to prepare the way for the coming of a ‘mightier’ than he, who would baptize with the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:8). But after Pentecost there were disciples who had not advanced beyond the Baptist’s point of view, and were unaware that the Holy Spirit had been poured out (Acts 18:25 19:3 f.).

The narrative in John 1:15–34 assumes as well known the Synoptic account of John’s activity as evangelist and baptizer (v. 25 f.). From what John heard and saw at the baptism of Jesus, and from intercourse with Jesus, he had learnt that his mission was not only to announce the Messiah’s coming, and to prepare His way by calling men to repent, but also to point Him out to men.

Many critics regard the words, ‘Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world’ (v. 29). aa inconsistent with John’s later question, ‘Art thou he that Cometh, or look we for another?’ (Matthew 11:3) but if John learnt from Jesus what was His ideal of the Messiah’s work, it may well be, as Garvie says, ‘that Jesus for a time at least raised John’s mind to the height of His own insight; that when the influence of Jesus was withdrawn, John relapsed to his own familiar modes of thought; and that the answer of Jesus by the two disciples . . . was a kindly reminder’ of an earlier conversation {Expositor, vi. [1902] v. 375).

This heightened sense of the glory of Jesus was accompanied by a deepening humility in John’s estimate of his own function as the Messiah’s forerunner. In his last testimony ^to Jesus (John 3:29) ‘the friend of the bridegroom’ is saidT^^ave rejoiced greatly as he heard the welcome tidinesMfaat men were coming to Jesus :ulogy when Jesus said, ‘John 0 the truth’ (John 5:33) but it aim that the lowlier members is bride, enjoy greater spiritual privileges than he who! in spite of his own disclaimer (John 1:21), ^as truly tlife Elijah foretold by Malachi (Matthew 11:14; cf. Mai 4:5), — the herald of the day of which he saw only the dawn. It was not John’s fault that in the early Church there were some who attached undue importance to his teaching and failed to recognize the unique glory of Jesus — the Light to whom he bore faithful witness (John 1:7 f.).

The Synoptic narrative of the imprisonment and murder of John yields incidental evidence of his greatness as a prophet. There were some who accounted (v.). It was a higl hath borne witness also implied the high of the Church, which is’ for the mighty works of Jesus by saying ‘John the Baptist is risen from the dead’ (Mark 6:14).

Josephus (Ant, xviii. v. 2) makes the preaching of John the cause of his execution, and says notlung of hig reproof of Antipas for iiis adultery with his brother’s wife (Mark 6). Some historians (e.g. Ranke) arbitrarily use Josephus as their main source, to the disparagement of the Gospels. But Sollertinsky (JThSt i. 507) has shown that when the person of Antipas is concerned, ‘we are boimd to consider the historian’s statements with the greatest care.’ Schiirer (op. cit.). who holds that the real occasion of John’s imprisonment was Herod’s fear of political trouble, nevertheless allows that there is no real inconsistency between the statement of Josephus and the further assertion of the Evangelists that John had roused the anger of Herod, and still more of Herodias, by his stem rebuke.

The last mention of John in the Gospels (Matthew 21:26. Mk 11. Luke 20) shows that Herod had good cause to fear the popular temper. John’s influence must have been permanent as well as wide-spread when the chief priests were afraid of being stoned if they slighted him. After the transfiguration our Lord alluded to the sufferings of John, as He endeavoured to teach His disciples the lesson of His cross: ‘I say unto you that Elijah is come, and they have also done unto him whatsoever they listed’ (Mark 9:13). J. G. Tabker.