The book of Joel is one of the first descriptions of how God is going to adjudicate enemies, and even His own people, after much patience and warnings on His part. The other O.T. end times book is Zephaniah written two centuries later. The prophecy from these two books are yet to be fulfilled.
Joel, the writer, is thought to be one of the Bible’s first prophets (making him one of the oldest). He is thought to be a contemporary of Elisha putting the former during 835-796 BC. Mention of royalty, countries, or cities of an era contributes to commentators determining dates of prophecy. One deciding factor here is there is no mention of the Assyrians. Other topics covered in this book (rituals, temple, locusts) align it to an earlier era then where in the biblical chronology it is listed.
A devastating drought and locust plague is the object lesson warning of a future invasion on the Israelites in “The Day of the Lord.” This expression means it’s the day when God will deal with the wickedness of man directly and in judgment. Joel could be called “The prophet of the day of the Lord.” In the First Testament, it means to adjudicate the people and is referenced with over eighteen times in the Bible. In some instances, just the use of the word “On the Day” is used. And as seen, this can also refer to the Israelites. Often “the Day of the Lord” points to a future event with the ultimate one described in the book of Revelation, revealing Jesus who finally takes care of the evil men.
The mention of locusts, one of the ten plagues God used to free the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, occurs again. This metaphor, Joel compares the people to be as bad as the Egyptians. He prophesies (Joel 2:30-31) in the similar description also found in the book of Revelation. Specific sins of the people are not mentioned or listed here as in other prophetic books. It shows God’s encompassing concern about all sin, not just a few certain types.
The book highlights two major events. One is the invasion of locusts which symbolizes the cleansing out the invading evil of the land. The other event is the outpouring of the Spirit, later recorded in the New Testament.
It was an eye-opener for me (like a “future shock”) when my childhood bubble of a world perception popped, causing me to really see and acknowledge evil for the first time. As mentioned in Genesis, there are two kinds of evil: human or moral evil and natural evil (weather disasters, disease). Human evil began with the fall of man who disobeyed God in the garden of Eden and the fact God made man as a moral agent to make personal choices. Much of the evil of the world comes from man’s hand, and I would dare say some disease and disasters from weather incidents are due to man’s shortsightedness in using advanced developments (like chemical fertilizer as one example in regards to disease) without thinking about the consequences, or how he is not taking care of the earth (Gen. 1:28, the creation mandate). Consequently, it causes an imbalance in the environment. Or how man stubbornly tries to bend the laws of science in building in unsuitable and vulnerable places without taking proper precautions or consideration of the stakes at risk of overdevelopment.
Evil comes in many forms. God takes this evil, created outside of himself, and turns it around into a greater good as is mentioned throughout the Bible beginning in Genesis. Of course, the apex is Jesus’s death turned around for our salvation. The thing that is interesting about those saying God isn’t good, isn’t all powerful therefore probably doesn’t exist is that somewhere there is a moral standard that people measure against. Where is that moral standard coming from (the paradox of it’s like one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter which falls under a liberation theology)? Not liking something is understandable but that doesn’t mean God is responsible for it or that he does not exist.
I, of course, didn’t know all that truth at the time but never did I think God was someone who punishes. He does judge man though and that frightened me because I knew I didn’t measure up. If there is a secular viewing rating on the Bible it would probably be PG13 (Parental Guidance recommended minimally up to the age of 13). At my age (around 8 years old) I would turn inward into myself when things went wrong instead of crying out to God. Eventually, I became convinced He is omnibenevolent (endless divine goodness and provision in view of evil). And it is within His timing, not ours that He makes it right. It was during this time of my innocence that I turned to God for a sense of security, love, forgiveness, grace, and mercy when the Holy Spirit prompted me to turn to his son Jesus. It began when a neighbor friend my age asked me to go to church with her and her family. Soon, I was the kid who was dropped off on Sunday mornings by herself in front of this same church. My daily sanctification (growing closer to God each day by setting myself apart from the world while a part of it, me working on character development through the Fruit of the Spirit [Gal. 5: 22-23], me dying to self ) took a slower route than than most much external discipleship or family nurturing initially. It has taken me awhile to sift, prod and work through things like world doctrines amidst subtle liberal influences to find biblical truths by going through God’s Word.
Until then I believe my infant baptism signified me as part of Christ’s family and putting an invisible his invisible seal on me. Today, the trend is toward want of a conversion experience versus sacrament of baptism. It’s like that’s the new sacrament now. St. Augustine’s definition of the sacrament is the visible form of invisible grace. All my siblings also had infant baptisms. There are a lot of people who are baptized and not saved. Conversely a lot of people who are saved but not baptized. I didn’t get much spiritual nurturing in my birth family but I did from the church. Only once did I witness mom taking a stand and it was on baptism. It was when I started to go to church alone. After I made a confession of faith, the deacons came by the house to discuss m baptism. Mom let them know that I already was baptized (Eph. 2:8-9, 4:5, 4:30). Through some disciplined higher academic study you could say I took Luke 4:23 (physician heal thyself) as part of my personal stride.
My awareness of evil was from accumulated worldly events beginning in the 1960s. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated to be followed by others in 1968 of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy. My dad died that year too. I remember the creeping insecurity and confusion as these things transpired to being overwhelming and my uncertainty about what the heck was happening in the world. (Joel 2:28, Acts 2:17). My youngest brother was murdered in the early 1970s (mention in the chapter on Daniel).
Then there was the upheaval of the ethical current transitions. Not everyone wore love beads during the late 1960s of the Vietnam conflict; some wore dog tags. In 1971, a group of high-profile celebrities and performers, to include actress and activist Jane Fonda, came to the town I lived to meet at an anti-war revue for the soldiers stationed at the nearby military base. The U.S. still operated under the mandatory call to military duty before ending the draft call in 1972.
This group met at this coffeehouse which as a child suspected was a bar, the Oleo Strut, named after a shock absorber for helicopters. It was commonly known to be a haven, like many others that sprung out around the country, for civilians and soldiers to express their opinions about the war as part of a Vietnam peace movement. A peaceful protest march in town yet disrespect words spewed by the high profiles celebrities that made this part of the circuit begetting press coverage. Meanwhile, it became common to see the disrespect and ostracizing of the troops returning Vietnam individually (not with their units as is done now). They were spat upon at airports and in public places, called them baby killers, etc.
My dad was a veteran of WWII and Korea. The outlook in my home while growing up was respect for military protocol and order. My childhood understanding was that criticism of the commander-in-chief (president) or any senior government official or military personnel was not said in public. My parents may not have agreed with the commander in chief but for the sake of the unity of the country and their loyalty to their military oath they did not publicly voice their opinions. In Matthew 12:25, it is written: “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and any city or house divided against itself will not stand.”
It was a period when reverence for the flag was prevalent. When flown, it was always intact, not tattered or torn. It was a period before the stars and stripes of the flag were worn as apparel.
It was a social and spiritual tsunami of change, a confusing time to grow up, and it still holds vibrant images in my mind. I left the innocent child perspective and began to see what was going on in the world. As in all paradigms experienced by individuals, it shapes who I am. Some may call part of my upbringing archaic or maybe backward. I can live to tell how I survived in spite of spankings, lead paint, rusted playground equipment, secondhand smoke from dad’s cigarettes, toy rifles and guns, no seat belts, no safety helmets and I drank water from a hose. Now it has changed, some for the better, but not all change is for good. I miss that which was considered sacred, of expected behavior in the public square and the defining qualities of respect.
Fortunately, now we don’t hate the soldier who goes to war. Instead, we hate and condemn the war. As a country, we learned from the Vietnam conflict, and we are kinder, more caring and understanding of the soldier’s role in the war. They are not responsible for the war. We again see them as the selfless patriots that they are, as we did back in the days of the World Wars I and II. The philosophical construct of the military is for a purpose, and it is incomparable to anything in the civilian sector. Part of the military oath is as a binding document that requires obedience to legal military orders of superior officers.
People routinely forsake the sacred and would run the gambit of taking God’s name in vain, denouncing Him or teaching selective doctrine at the exclusion of others. They do evil things to each other in the name of Christianity. To most, it seems God does nothing about it. The book of Joel warns that God will respond in His time.
If I hadn’t become part of a church community, I might not have made it through the period mentioned above (and future ones associated with my family life) in the same way. Participating in communal religious rituals and shared beliefs helps me to cope and connect with a higher being. I would not have had as many tools sharpened in my foundational moral kit without that community. With each significant trauma that happened to my biological family, members sought out different ways to make sense of it; trying routes alternate to mine (of the church culture) in attempts to cope. What difference one consonant makes in the word cope and hope. I periodically would venture, briefly, to travel the routes they were on. Doing so I saw the future destination of their journey on my horizon, and it was not healthy. I went back to my coping mechanism.
Revolutionary socialist Karl Marx said, “Religion is the opium of the masses.” He said religion gives people artificial, illusory happiness, and falsely frees people from that unrealistic illusion towards building a better society. In other words, if we are guilty of placing too much emphasis on personal salvation alone, religion can truly become what Marx says. But if part of that salvation is experienced as that of being part of a community, helping and improving situations in life, we remain true to biblical religion. An example of this latter truth is the positive movements started by a disproportionately large number of humanitarian advances in history (in education, medicine, law, arts, working for human rights, in science) done by people of religion (i.e. slavery abolitionist William Wilberforce, or civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr.).
My older siblings would taunt and accuse me of using religion as a crutch. My curt response was “Well at least I am still standing.” There are too many strong, logical, scientific, and philosophical arguments for the existence of God. In the history of humanity, many of the most intellectually brilliant writers and thinkers were theists.
Little did I know, theologically, that it was also during the 1960s and 1970s that the tide took the turn towards questioning the interpretation of the Bible as inspired revelation. The advancement in technology of the two World Wars earlier in the century, then the turbulent 60s took their toll. The conclusion by most was that the world is not self-explanatory as the enlightened generation said, no one is in control of their destiny. The traditional biblical moral values were deemed oppressive for those trying to figure out life. It was a turn away from outside authority of all sorts of individual autonomy. C. S. Lewis says “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.”
Do some use religion as a crutch? Does it mean religious claims are invalid? No. Faith and then religion is a natural response to the evidence for the existence of God and the recognition that I have a real tendency to think evil judgmental thoughts of others (if not myself) and need repentance. The hurt, damage, and duress in the world are apparent. Part of my life advocacy is to make a difference in places while simultaneously working on myself as well. I come away from reading the book of Joel contemplating the locust that permeates the land to cleanse it knowing it is going to get worse before it gets better and look to the future hope of Jesus who redeems us through His Spirit to His people ( Joel 2:28, cf. Acts 2:17).