fitly find a place in a vision of the last things, with wliieh the Hk. of Joel closes (cf. the locusts in NT Apocalypse). 3. The third and, in recent times, the most jrenerally accepted opinion is that the locusts are reiU. The prophet describes an actual loc'ust invasion, and makes it the occasion of hia nropliecy. According to the first two \-iews, the book becomes an eschatological prediction, without an}' liistorical basis, or any direct reference to the prophet's contemporaries. Against this explana- tion of tlie book, the text, on a fair interpretation, oilers serious objections. (1) It is not easj' to fin<l a satisfactory explanation of the twofold call to repentance already noticed. According to the allegorical or ajiocalyptic view, we have to think of the prophet as sitting, like a monk in his cell, brooding over the past history of his people, and endeavouring to forecast their future. The fruit of liis meditations he records for us in this .short book. He has no message to his contemporaries. Kven the call to repentance is a mere ideal appeal. The ground of the appeal is the locust invasion. But to the prophet's contemporaries the appeal can have no practical value, if not a single locust is visible and no trace of locust devastation can be discovered. For the ordinary purpose of prophetic teacliing the appeal vanishes into thin air. This exiilaniition utterly fails to do justice to the text. The prophet urges repentance on his fellow-country- men with a view to the removal of a grave calamity, and the restoration of the divine favour. This imriiose was realized. The second part of the iiooK begins, as we have seen, with the promise of the withdrawal of the judgment and the bestowal of rich blessings. The explanation may be inferred from 2"*- '*'. J'"8 anger is at an end. The way is open to the restoration of the covenant relation between Him and His peo|>le. The inference is that the people have repented and humbled them- selves before Him. Now, that is the practic'al result for which every prophet laboured among his countrymen. And when the proplietic purjiose and tlie result aimed at are exhibited in the proper relation, as they are in Joel, it is scarcely possible to accept the view that the prophecy has no direct reference to the circumstances of the projdiet's contemiioraries. (2) The language in which the locu.st invasion is described is strongly opposed to the allegorical and apocalj'ptic explana- tion. The details of the first chapter have been partially referred to. It is highly improbable that the narrative, in this part of the book, is a pure work of imagination, produced by some recluse of post-exilic times. The description of the second chapter is equally o|iposed to the figurative explanation. If the language is figurative, the locusts represent the world-powers hostile to the Church. The prophet has before his mind men, — warriors, like those led by a Sennacherib or a Nebuchadnezzar. He tells us that these invaders ' run like mighty men ' (v.') ; if they were really gallant warriors, like whom else, or what else, sliould they run? 'They climb the wall like men of war' (if).); if they were human soldiers, what does the prophet mean by these words? He pre- oents a picture of an invading horde, going steadily forward, in perfect order, to the accomiilishment of ineir t;utk. In their progress they reach the capital, and climb the walls ; but it is not said that they make breaches in the walls or ca.st them down. ' They leap upon the city ' (v."), but there is not a hint that their purpose is to destroy it. The ravages wrought by these invaders are confined to the fields. Not a man falls before them. The people sufTor grievously, but it is indirectly, through the destruction of their crops, etc. And when the prophet urges the people to repent with the view of propitiating J", the effect of the with- vol. II
drawal of the judgment is, not the sparing of the lives of the inhabitants, but the renewal of fer- tility to the earth, so that there should no longer be the lack of the materials required for the daily mealotiering and drink-oH'erin" (vi-.'-'"). The de- scription in these verses {'"•) loses its i)oint, and raises a perplexing question as to the literary character of the book, if the locusts are not real but figurative. If the prophet has before his mind — not locusts, but — a horde of cruel men sweeping over the country and leaving ruin behind them, his language raises not the least dilficult of OT problems. And there should be little hesita- tion in admitting a real invasion of locusts.
iv. Date. — The date is greatly disputed, but there is general agreement that it is either very early or post-exilic. The book itself contains no distinct chronological data of the kind supplied by the superscriptions in many of the other pro- phetical books. In such a case the most helpful and trustworthy evidence for the fixing of the date is derived from the nations (if any) mentioned in the book. On this point the argument e silcntio is important in Joel. No mention is made of Syria, Assyria, or Babylon. But from the days of Amos to tlie exile of Judah, one or other of these powers has a prominent place in prophetic litera- ture. It may therefore be reasonably inferred that J. wrote before the Assyr. power began to threaten the chosen people, or after the Bab. power ceased to be dangerous ; in other words, the date is prior to the Slh cent. n.C, or later than the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus. If the late data is accepted, the prophecy would fall in the I'ers. period. No valid objection to this date can be founded on the non-mention of Persia. For, while it is true that the Jews were in subjection to the Persians, there was a rsidical difference between the relation of Persia to the chosen people and that of Assyria and Babylon. The latter invaded and conquered the land of promise, and carried the people into captivity. 'Their relation was one of active hostililv. The Persians inaugurated the period of their supremacy by the restoration of the Jewish exiles to their own land. This would suHiciently account for the Persians being placed in a ditterent category from the Assyrians and Babylonians. And the way is clear for a pre- Assyr. or post- Bab. date, 'fhe prophet, however, mentions certain peoples as hostile to Judah : PhuMiicians and Philistines (3* [Heb. 4^]), and Egyp tians •■ind Edoniites (3'» [Heb. 4'"]). If the typical use of Egypt and Edom is accepted (p. Ii7-' xM, the mention of these countries is of no import- ance in the discussion as to the date. Otherwise, a date must be found comparatively near to hostile action on the part of Egypt and Edom : and the same remark applies to Pliienicia and Pbilistia. In the period lietween the invasion of Judah by Shishak (c. li.C. 930) and the war in which Josiaa fell (u.C. GIO), there is no report of hostile action on the part of Egypt such as would meet the re- quirements of the prophecy. With regard to the other countries mentioned, the case is dillerent. The Chronicler (2Ch 21'°- ") reports an invasion of Judah by the Philistines in the reign of Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat and son-inlaw of Aluib. The serious character of this invasion may be inferred from the statement of the Chronicler, that the palace was captured, and the royal laniily — wives and ciiildren, with the exception of a single son — were carried into captivity. That the Philistines were actively hostile to Judah about this ])criod is sufficiently attested by Amos (1'). According to this jirophet, the Philistines found a market for their Jewish slaves in Edom ; and in this ttatlic the Phienieiaus are associated with the Philistines (Am 1"). Further, as against Edom, which appar-