Completing Cook’s Prophecy and Apocalypticism

I finished Stephen L. Cook’s Prophecy and Apocalypticism: The Postexilic Social Setting.  In my reading today, Cook talked about Zechariah 1-8, 9-14, and Joel.  For Cook, all of these works are apocalyptic because they envision God (accompanied by cataclysm) intervening to end one order and to establish another.  But these works serve agendas of the establishment Zadokite priesthood, as far as Cook is concerned, and this contradicts the argument of Paul Hanson and others that apocalyptic is from the marginalized and the powerless, not the establishment.

According to Cook, Zechariah 1-8 is about establishing a practical program that would precede the eschaton, much like the American Puritans tried to set up a godly society that would come before the second advent of Christ.  My impression is that the aim of the program was to please God so that God would intervene and set up a paradise.  For Cook, while Haggai had messianic expectations about the Davidid governor Zerubbabel, Zechariah did not, but its eschatological expectations were future-oriented.  Perhaps Cook’s point is that Zechariah 1-8 holds that God will replace Zerubbabel with the Davidic Messianic king, the same way that the Puritans expected Jesus Christ to supplant Governor John Winthrop, whom they nevertheless admired as an important element of God’s work.  Cook makes a similar argument on page 142, where he states that “the visions announce the present building of the mundane temple (Zech. 4:9), which is a type of the millennial temple (Zech. 6:12-13).”  In this scenario, the present order prepares the way for the eschaton, which will still replace it with something better.

Unlike Hanson, Cook believes that Zechariah 9-14 is from the same community that created Zechariah 1-8, only Zechariah 9-14 was produced when the community was much more pessimistic.  Cook disagrees with Hanson’s argument that, in Zechariah 9-14, the noble clans of Judah (the visionaries) are set in contrast with the corrupt city of Jerusalem, for Zechariah 12:8-9 discusses the exaltation of Jerusalem, whereas Zechariah 14:15 may be about the destruction of Judah.  Cook regards Zechariah 9-14 as pro-priestly and pro-Davidid, and yet he maintains that Zechariah 9-14 had problems with the governors, which was presaged in Zechariah 7.  For Cook, Zechariah 9-14 anticipates God replacing the corrupt and oppressive governors with a righteous Davidic monarch.  Apparently, in Cook’s model, one influential group is attacking others who are influential.

Regarding the Book of Joel, Cook argues that it reflects an attempt to encourage post-exilic Israel to appease God cultically, in light of the coming eschaton, of which certain disasters (which Israel was then experiencing) are a sign.  For Cook, that Joel is priestly is evident from its concern for the cult.

Cook does not regard the Zadokites as monolithic, however, for Ezekiel 40-48, Zechariah, and Joel have different ideas.  For example, whereas Ezekiel 40-48 is exclusive in its restriction of certain cultic activities to the Zadokites, Zechariah envisions a day when all of Jerusalem will be holy.  For Cook, there were a lot of Zadokites, and one should not expect all of them to have thought exactly the same way.

I would now like to touch on one last item.  On page 157, Cook states that “The Zechariah group and the Persians…cooperated in support of the importance of the Davidide in restoration policy (see Ezra 1:8).”  This interested me because I have wondered why the Persians would have tolerated pro-David material.  Wouldn’t they consider talk of a restored Davidic monarch to be subversive?  Ezra 1:8 says that Cyrus the king of Persia counted out the articles of the Temple to Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah.  The Persians tolerated Davidic princes, perhaps because they didn’t feel threatened by allowing post-exilic Yehud to be governed in some capacity by the ones the Judahites were accustomed to having as rulers: the Davidids.  Regarding the eschatological talk of a Davidic Messiah, maybe the Persians didn’t mind letting the Yehudites dream a bit, as long as they contented themselves with waiting on God and didn’t try to launch their own revolt against the Persians.

I think that this book is important because it contains information about a variety of apocalyptic movements as well as offers an alternative to Hanson’s scenario.  In my opinion, Cook convincingly demonstrates that the establishment can use apocalyptic.  But I still think that Hanson makes good arguments about Third Isaiah, and how its contents indicate an anti-establishment orientation.  There are a variety of people who can use apocalyptic, from the establishment and the marginalized.

Peckham on Joel

In this write-up on Brian Peckham’s History and Prophecy, I will talk a little about Peckham’s view on the Book of Joel.

Peckham believes that Joel is disagreeing with the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH).  The Deuteronomist believed that the Babylonian destruction of Judah and Jerusalem as well as the exile were divine punishments for Judah’s sin.  The Deuteronomist also thought that God preserved Israel out of faithfulness to his promises, and he denied that God dwelt in an earthly temple, for he maintained that the earthly sanctuary was for God’s name, whereas God actually dwelt in heaven.

Joel, by contrast, does not say that the Judahites are being punished for sin.  Rather, Joel blames natural cycles or nearby nations for Judah’s predicament; at the same time, Peckham does seem to acknowledge (if I am understanding him correctly) that the suffering Judahites are experiencing the Day of the LORD, according to Joel.  For Peckham, Joel advocates humble prayer as the means to convince Israel’s gracious God to reverse her predicament.  Joel does not endorse repentance of sin, as if Judah’s sin led to her downfall, nor does he refer to any promises to which God is faithful.  And, unlike the Deuteronomist, Joel assumes that God dwells in the temple (in whatever capacity it existed after 587 B.C.E.).

Another point: As with his understanding of the Book of Ezekiel, Peckham holds that the Book of Joel had an editorial stage designed to create a practical program of restoration.  There is a difference of opinion within prophetic literature over who were God’s favorites: the exiles or those who stayed behind in Judah.  Second Isaiah and the author of the Book of Jeremiah answer “the exiles”.  (See Jeremiah 24.  I’m not sure if Peckham attributes that to the prophet Jeremiah, for Peckham says that Jeremiah himself thought that God would deliver Judah at the last minute, preventing a large-scale exile.  But Peckham may distinguish the prophet Jeremiah from the author of the book that bears Jeremiah’s name.)  But, according to Peckham, the editor of Joel believes that the remaining people of Jerusalem were “now the nucleus of the holy restored community” (page 677).

Naughty, Naughty

In Joel 3:21, God says that he will treat Israel’s blood as innocent, something he had not done before. As a result, God will regard Israel’s Gentile oppressors as if they had shed innocent blood, which is a big “no no” in God’s sight. In effect, God will punish the sinful Gentile nations through destruction, even as he preserves sinful (yet repentant) Israel.

How should Israel feel in this chapter? Here are the Gentile nations, getting their just deserts. And here are the Israelites, who also deserve destruction yet receive God’s presence and favor. And the reason for God’s activity is that the Israelites are his chosen people. God values Israel, so he shows justice with respect to her enemies and mercy with respect to her.

If I were Israel, I’d be humbled. I’d feel grateful. It would be like being the sole survivor of an automobile accident or a burning building, only I’d know that my survival was due to God’s favor rather than blind chance. Would I mourn over the destruction of my enemies? I’d probably feel the same way I did as a child when I no longer had to deal with a bully (or, in one case, my grandparents’ vicious dog): relieved at my newfound safety. I’d be at peace. I know that sounds selfish, but that’s how I’d feel.

I’m sure you’ve seen the bumper sticker that says, “Christians are not perfect, just forgiven.” According to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, all people are sinners who deserve God’s wrath. Christians are no different from anyone else, for they too have sinned in the past. Maybe their behavior is better now, but all it takes is one crime to get a criminal record in today’s justice system (though, of course, many crimes can be expunged). In the eyes of God, Christians have a criminal record and deserve punishment, just like every other person on the face of the earth.

But God chooses to treat Christians as innocent, even though they technically are not. Calvinists say this is because God chose them before the foundation of the world, and Arminians contend that salvation is based on a decision to receive God’s free gift. But both sides agree that Christians are getting something that they don’t deserve.

So why do a lot of Christians act like they’re better than non-believers? Not all, or most, but a lot of Christians seem to have that attitude. Maybe they forget where they came from. We as Christians should remember that we too are sinners who deserve God’s wrath. We’ve been plucked from the fire. We should feel relieved and grateful, not smug and superior in the confines of our Christian cliques.

That’s why I get annoyed when I hear the cliche “Hate the sin but love the sinner” in today’s debates on homosexuality. I suppose that I agree with the slogan on some level, for I believe that homosexuality is wrong yet maintain that all people should be loved (though my love for others is far from perfect). But the slogan strikes me as rather patronizing, as if we righteous Christians should condescend to love those lowly sinners. Hate the sin but love the sinner? Christians are sinners. Not to mention the fact that I’m sick of hearing the cliche all the time, as if it’s the definitive answer to the homosexuality debate.

At the same time, I also don’t like the other extreme, which says that we can’t make moral judgments because all of us are sinners. I’ve heard homosexuals say to Christians, “Who are you to judge me? You’re not perfect!” But there has to be some room for moral judgment and outrage. And I’m not speaking primarily about homosexuality here. If I’m a criminal who stole a few pieces of candy from a grocery store, and I hear about a man who raped a child, killed her, and threw her corpse into a nearby dumpster, don’t I have a right to be mad about his actions? Sure, I’m not perfect, but does that mean I can’t have any moral outrage?

So there has to be a balance between humility and moral outrage, though I’m not exactly sure where the right point of balance actually is.

I want to make a transition to the next book that I’m reading for my daily quiet time: the Book of Amos. On at least one occasion, Amos discusses the same issue, only, in his scenario, the Gentiles are the ones evaluating the Israelites’ behavior. In Amos 3:9, we read, “Proclaim to the strongholds in Ashdod, and to the strongholds in the land of Egypt, and say, ‘Assemble yourselves on Mount Samaria, and see what great tumults are within it, and what oppressions are in its midst’” (NRSV).

God is putting the Israelites on display before two sinful Gentile nations: Egypt and Philistia. I wonder what the Gentiles’ reaction is when they see the Israelites’ sin. Here are some possibilities:

“Naughty, naughty. Look at that oppression! Those Israelites are always strutting around, acting like they’re better than the rest of us. But we’d never have oppression like that in our nation.”

“Yeah, the Israelites oppress people. So what? We do that in our own countries. It’s part of our culture.”

“The Israelites have sinned, and God is punishing them. Let us take that as a warning and an exhortation to ourselves. Let’s stop oppressing people in our midst and outside of our borders. Let us pursue justice!”

Of the three responses, I’d venture to say that the third is closest to the attitude that God would like us to have. And, of course, it should be mixed with compassion for the sinners, yet a compassion that is not patronizing and does not compromise moral outrage.

Calvinism, Arminianism, and Joel

The new Jewish Publication Society translation of the Tanakh renders Joel 3:21 as follows: “Thus will I treat as innocent their blood, which I have not treated as innocent; and the LORD shall dwell in Zion.” According to this understanding of the verse, God will regard Israel as innocent, even though she is actually guilty. Meanwhile, God will destroy Israel’s sinful enemies.

That doesn’t exactly sound fair. Israel is sinful, yet God treats her as innocent. Israel’s Gentile enemies are sinful, and God punishes them. Sounds like a double standard to me!

There are at least two ways to answer my qualm. First of all, one can argue that Israel did not get off scott free, for most of the prophetic writings are vivid descriptions of God’s wrath upon Israel. That is true, but God definitely gives Israel preferential treatment. Jeremiah 30:11 says, for instance: “For I am with you, says the LORD, to save you; I will make an end of all the nations among which I scattered you, but of you I will not make an end. I will chastise you in just measure, and I will by no means leave you unpunished” (NRSV). While God destroys other nations for their sins, he merely chastises Israel. Granted, he makes her endure all sorts of hell, but he does not put an ultimate end to her. She’s his chosen nation.

Second, one can say that God is fair because the nations are getting what they deserve. Just because God lets Israel off, that doesn’t mean that he’s treating the other nations unfairly. They are simply experiencing God’s fair justice, whereas Israel is not. There is Scriptural support for this position, for God affirms in Exodus 33:19, “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.” At the same time, there are other passages that condemn preferential treatment and uphold the same standard of justice for all, rich and poor (Exodus 23:2-3; Deuteronomy 16:19). And God asserts that he himself is impartial (Deuteronomy 10:17). In at least one strain of the biblical tradition, fairness means treating everyone according to the same standard, which excludes preferential treatment.

Calvinists and Arminians divide on this very issue. For Calvinists, God chose the people he wanted to save before the foundation of the world, while he condemned everyone else to their just punishment in hell. If you say to them that this is not fair because God is showing preferential treatment to one group and not another, they will inevitably respond, “God can save anyone he wants. He’s not obligated to show mercy to anyone. We all deserve to go to hell. If God chooses to spare one group of people and not another, then that is his prerogative. It’s his free gift to give.” Arminians argue, by contrast, that salvation is available to everyone, but one must repent and believe in Jesus in order to receive it. In the Arminian scenario, God is impartial in that he offers to all people the opportunity to avoid hell. Those who choose not to receive God’s gift will experience damnation, and they have only themselves to blame.

The Book of Joel has both Calvinist and Arminian elements. On the Arminian side, the Israelites must repent if they want God’s wrath to cease. “Rend your hearts and not your clothing,” God exhorts Israel. “Return to the LORD, your God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and relents from punishing” (Joel 2:13). On the other hand, God does appear to prefer Israel. In Joel, does God grant the other nations an opportunity to repent and avert their destruction? Not that I can see. In fact, God encourages the Gentile nations to fight so that he can demonstrate his strength and destroy them. Israel seems to have privileges that the other nations lack.

Joel 3 and Collective Guilt

In Joel 3, God promises to punish Tyre and Zidon for selling Israelites into slavery. The penalty will be what is commonplace in the Bible: tit for tat. What goes around comes around. Essentially, God will hand over the Tyrians and the Zidonians to the Israelites, who in turn will sell them to the far away Sabeans. For Joel, what they did to others will soon be done to them.

Is this true justice? When God punishes Tyre and Zidon by selling their inhabitants into slavery, he is hurting whole cities because of the sins of a few merchants. There were inhabitants of Tyre and Zidon who were taken from their homes and removed to a far away country for something that they did not directly do. Is this fair?

Like a lot of people, I have a problem with the concept of collective guilt. But, interestingly, there are Christians today who believe in it. I once had an African-American friend who thought that his race was the center of the universe (or at least that was my impression). He viewed 9/11 as God’s punishment of America for its treatment of blacks. And he maintained that there was more divine wrath to come. As evidence for his belief in such retribution, he appealed to the presence of collective guilt in Scripture. After all, in Exodus, there were innocent Egyptians who suffered and died from God’s plagues on Egypt.

My biggest problem was his view that I as a white person was responsible for racism in America. He said that I should talk to my community (fellow white people) and tell them that blacks are mistreated, and, hopefully, that would generate a positive chain reaction. He also said that I as a white person benefit from the oppression of blacks, since blacks built this country. I had difficulties with his proposals for a variety of reasons (e.g., shyness, not wanting to preach certain liberal cliches that I did not believe, etc.).

By planting that seed in my mind, he ruined my viewing of The Ten Commandments one year (how dare he!). I watch The Ten Commandments every year during the Days of Unleavened Bread, and, ordinarily, it is quite a powerful experience. “That’s my God!” I shout. “Show those Egyptians who’s boss.” After my interactions with my friend, however, I wondered if I should identify more with the Egyptians than the downtrodden Israelites. So my viewing was not too euphoric that time around.

Are all people in some sense participants in their national culture, making them individually responsible for what their nation does? Was the average Tyrian or Zidonian somehow responsible for his nation’s slave trade, either because he did not fight it or benefited from it? Was the average Egyptian guilty for how Egypt treated the Israelites? Am I responsible for my country’s treatment of minorities?

Yes and no. For the “yes” side, going with the flow of one’s national culture is easy. The average Egyptian may not have been personally responsible for the oppression of the Israelites, but he probably saw his people as superior. There’s a strong possibility that he looked down on the Israelites and took the system of slavery for granted. One can identify with the dominant culture and disregard the suffering that it is causing.

At the same time, on the “no” side, there are passages in the Bible that contradict the concept of collective guilt. Abraham pleads to God on behalf of the righteous inhabitants of Sodom, and God answers his prayer by sparing Lot. Ezekiel 18 explicitly argues against collective guilt, for it states that God does not hold people accountable for sin when they individually try to do what is right. So there seems to be a voice in Scripture assuring me that I am not responsible for the sins of my nation. All I have to do is try to love God and my neighbor (regardless of race, color, and creed), and God will exempt me from his wrath on my country.

Both voices are important. The collective guilt message should influence me to ask to what extent I go with the flow of my nation’s culture. Yet, at the same time, I would go crazy if I felt personally responsible for every single national sin. I’d have difficulty relating to God if I thought that he hated me because of the way minorities are treated in America. So I also need the assurance that God values me and the good that I try to do, however small it may seem.

Joel 3: Where Is the Justice?

In M. Night Shyamalan’s Lady in the Water, Cleveland Heap wonders why this dog-like creature called a “scrunt” is getting away with murder. The scrunt is trying to prevent the sea-nymph Story from returning to her own world. He’s a renegade scrunt because he is not legally allowed to do so, and, ordinarily, these three bloodthirsty monkeys called the “Tartutic” maintain justice through sheer intimidation. Unfortunately, they are not enforcing the law at that time. So Cleveland Heap, the protagonist of the story, asks in a dramatic yet humble manner, “Where is the justice?”

Many people ask this about far worse situations (not that renegade scrunts aren’t a problem, at least in the movie). And it is obviously an ancient question, for it appears throughout the Bible. Biblical authors and characters often wonder why God does not punish evildoers but allows them to continue their destructive activity. The Psalmist tends to respond, “Just be patient. God will punish them soon.” The Book of Job appears to leave the question totally unanswered, as God elaborately tells Job about his human limitations. And the prophets project justice onto an eschatological event, in which God will dramatically intervene in history, restore Israel as a nation, destroy her enemies, and set up a new kingdom of righteousness, peace, and prosperity.

Joel 3 opts for the last approach: it projects justice onto an eschatological event. According to the chapter, after God restores Israel, he will judge Tyre and Zidon for selling Israelites into slavery, an act that removed them (the Israelites) quite a distance from their homes. God will punish Tyre and Zidon by turning them over to the Judeans, who in turn will sell them to the Sabeans, a far off people. God then goads Israel’s enemies into a battle, presumably so he can destroy them. “Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears,” God proclaims to the Gentiles. In the end, God destroys Israel’s notorious nemeses, Egypt and Edom.

Why do I fail to completely identify with this chapter, or a lot of the Bible, for that matter? I think the reason is that I have no enemies who are deliberately out to destroy me. “Well, wait till you’ve lived long enough,” I can hear people telling me. Fair enough. But, up to this point in my life, I can’t think of anyone who has actually tried to ruin my life.

Don’t get me wrong. I have been hurt in the past. But, most of the time, my hurts are a result of my frustration at not being socially accepted. Indeed, there are many times when I say to God, “Look, I try my best to be nice, and these jerks do not accept me.” And maybe there is a part of me that wants God to punish them. But, in the end, I do not wish that they were dead. I just wish that they accepted me. And, while I may be angry at them, I do not put them in the same category as a rich noble who’s seeking to exploit society’s most vulnerable (the type of person the Bible condemns). My “enemies” can’t help whom they like or dislike, anymore than I can. So a part of me would like for them to be hurt, and a part of me would not.

But there are many people in the world who desperately thirst for justice, who seek some indication that an authority cares enough about their pain to punish the people who caused it. And that is the feeling that Joel 3 addresses. “Those foreigners sold us into slavery!” I can picture the Israelites saying. “Does anyone care? I want them to feel just as bad as I did when I was taken from my home.”

Most of the Bible has this “What goes around comes around” sort of theme, but one of the prophets adds mercy into the equation. First Isaiah discusses God’s wrath against the nations, but it also contains a beautiful passage, Isaiah 19:22-25:

“The LORD will strike Egypt, striking and healing; they will return to the LORD, and he will listen to their supplications and heal them. On that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian will come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians. On that day Israel will be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the LORD of hosts has blessed, saying, ‘Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my heritage’” (NRSV).

Imagine that! There is Egypt, the nation that placed Israel into captivity and ditched her when she needed military assistance. There is Assyria, the notoriously bloodthirsty power that defeated Northern Israel and decimated much of Judah. Joel presents the destruction of Egypt and other enemies to Israel, but Isaiah offers a different picture. For Isaiah, Egypt and Assyria get their punishment, sure, but then they come together with Israel to worship the true God. And God essentially says, “Welcome home,” even as he affirms their value in his sight.

Isaiah must have had a lot of strength to write this vision. Jonah certainly couldn’t stomach the possibility that God might have mercy on the savage Assyrians, so he fled from his mission. “The world would be better off without them!” he probably thought. But Isaiah dared to value Israel’s enemies as people, even though he too saw the pain that they had inflicted.

I saw a good episode of Touched by an Angel recently. For a second, I thought I was watching a Dallas/Knots Landing reunion, since it had Joan Van Ark and the lady who played Rebecca Wentworth, the mom of Pam Ewing and Cliff Barnes. But, anyway, there was a scene in which a son was talking to his dying father. The father had continually stuck with his wife despite her bossiness and infidelity, and he chose to love her and the daughter she had through an affair. The son told his dad that he always saw this as a sign of weakness. And that attitude was playing itself out in the son’s own life, for he was about to leave his spouse. Then, the son realized (at the coaxing of Andrew, the angel of death) that his father was actually the strong one, since he chose to love in spite of his hurt.

On a certain level, I can sympathize with both voices of the biblical tradition: justice and mercy. And I say this with the disclaimer that I’ve never experienced the level of pain that Israel endured at the hands of her oppressors. People who are wronged want some acknowledgment of their pain, and they don’t want the victimizer to get off scott free. And Isaiah recognized the value of justice, since he could be as graphic about God’s wrath as the rest of the prophets. But Isaiah also dared to ask, “Wouldn’t it be nice if we were all friends?” That’s like what I was saying above about my own attitude: I don’t necessarily want my enemies to suffer. I just wish that they accepted and respected me.

But things don’t always work that way in the real world. In the same way that the prophets project justice onto an eschatological era, Isaiah projects reconciliation. But, hopefully, Isaiah’s vision can inspire us to value people the way that God does, even as Joel reminds us of the importance of justice.

A Shallow Vision?

As I thought about Joel 3 yesterday, my mind turned to the Deuteronomists’ contribution to biblical theology. For those who are wondering who the Deuteronomist is, he is the author of Joshua-II Kings, or at least his influence pervades those books. His belief is that Israel will be blessed if she obeys God, in that she will have prosperity and security from her enemies. If she disobeys, however, then she will be cursed. So the Deuteronomist posits a system of divine reward and punishment.

During my daily quiet time, I was expressing my problems with the Deuteronomic idea of divine retribution. One question with which I wrestled applied both to various prophets’ visions of Israel’s restoration and also the Deuteronomic motif of reward and punishment. What I asked myself (and God) was this: “Is the Bible’s presentation of reward and punishment and Israel’s restoration shallow?”

Joel 2-3 discusses Israel’s restoration after her repentance. Like the other prophets, Joel forecasts a time of prosperity, peace, and security for Israel. But isn’t that rather shallow? Obey God and you will be rich. You won’t experience any more problems if you just stick with the divine program. Although I struggle with the New Testament as much as I do the Old, the New Testament seems to have a deeper approach to human suffering. For many New Testament authors, following God does not necessarily lead to prosperity, peace, and security. This is Satan’s world, so God’s people can expect a lot of persecution. The very founder of Christianity died on a cross, after all! But suffering has its benefits because it builds character. Plus, as far as riches are concerned, they’re not all they’re cracked up to be. Life does not consist in the abundance of possessions that one owns. A person can be materially rich yet be poor towards God. True riches include love of God and neighbor, since only they can provide genuine satisfaction. That’s my overview of New Testament teachings on suffering and wealth.

So, on a certain level, I look at the prophets’ visions of eschatological restoration and the Deuteronomic motif of divine retribution, and I ask, “Where’s the beef?” So Israel will be rich, safe, and struggle-free once God restores her, or if she obeys God’s commandments. Is a life without struggle really worth living? We always hear that money can’t buy happiness. So why do the prophets and the Deuteronomist seem to focus so much on the material?

And then there is the impression I get that the prophets’ vision of eschatological restoration focuses more on correcting a negative rather than instituting a positive (except for wealth and security, of course). What do I mean by that? Well, the prophets predict a time in which God will end oppression. God will stop Israel’s suffering at the hands of foreign powers, and he will cause all oppression within Israel to cease, since he will punish those who hurt society’s most vulnerable. There will be no more lying or fraud or adultery, for God will not tolerate sin. In the prophetic visions of eschatological restoration, God will correct negatives.

I guess my problem is that I can picture all of these things happening, and yet they do not completely satisfy me. The question that enters my mind is, “Then what?” Okay, there is no more oppression of the poor. Then what? There is no more lying. Then what? There is no more adultery. Then what? Will God fill the void left by the absence of the negative with something positive?

I admit that my concern here reflects my own personal shallowness. It is hard to pray “Thy kingdom come” when I am satisfied with my life in the here and now, at least materially. I have never been a poor person who’s suffered from exploitation at the hands of wicked people. I do not really feel physically unsafe. Even after 9/11, I don’t have a great deal of fear about our nation being harmed by foreign forces (but, then again, Hillary isn’t President yet). It’s just not a problem that I encounter on a day-to-day basis, so I have a hard time stressing out about it. Unlike Israel in the time of the prophets, America is the most dominant nation on the face of the earth, giving it a sense of invulnerability (which is less after 9/11, but still there).

But those who experience these problems would probably respond differently. They would greet the prophets’ vision with hope and enthusiasm. For them, it couldn’t come to pass fast enough!

But I do have personal concerns. At the present time, I don’t struggle with being exploited at the hands of a rich oppressor or a foreign invader. But I do have a lot of fear about the future, as I wonder whether or not I will get and maintain a job (since there are many people with Asperger’s who have a hard time finding or keeping employment). And, more importantly, I have a desire to be accepted, which is a struggle for me.

Interestingly, the prophetic vision does address my concerns. How? Well, in God’s kingdom, most likely everyone will have a job, perhaps in the area of agriculture. According to Ezekiel, even the non-Israelite resident alien will get a piece of land when Israel is restored (Ezekiel 47:22-23). This differs from the resident alien’s status under the Torah, since, under that system, he didn’t have any land to farm and was thoroughly dependent on the Israelites who did.

Tasks give life meaning. They provide us with a reason to get out of bed in the morning. Taking time for rest, leisure, worship, and fellowship is also important, but they are so much more enjoyable when they are balanced with hard work. A cycle of work and rest makes for balance and happiness.

As far as my desire for acceptance is concerned, the prophetic vision speaks to that as well. The vast majority of the prophets emphasize that God will dwell in the midst of Israel after her restoration. So, for the prophets, prosperity, health, and security are not enough. Israel needs the personal presence and favor of God. She must have fellowship with the being who cares about her.

I don’t entirely know what that will entail. At the present time, my relationship with God doesn’t seem to be a two-way street, for it is mostly me talking to God about what I read in his word (along with other topics). Evangelicals tell me that being loved by Jesus should give me a sense of inner peace and satisfaction, but being loved by someone I can’t see or hear does not heal my feelings of alienation. But, one day, God will be right there. He will be as real to me as the people whom I can see and hear. And that is something to eagerly anticipate.

Slavery, the Nations, and the Book of Joel

There are a lot of times when I am frustrated with God as he is presented in the Bible, particularly the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. As with a lot of people, the issue of slavery in Scripture has always gotten to me. I thought about this as I read Joel 3:1-8 for my daily quiet time. In that passage, God promises to punish Gentile nations because they sold the people of Israel into slavery. In retaliation, God will sell those Gentiles into the hands of the Judeans, who will in turn sell them to the Sabeans.

Selling people into slavery is wrong. I don’t know how I would feel if it ever happened to me. Being taken away from my family and friends to a land that’s totally unknown to me, to be made the absolute property of another human being? That’s a scenario that gives me chills just thinking about it. But, reading Joel, my impression is that God didn’t really oppose the slave trade for humanitarian reasons. He just didn’t like that sort of thing happening to his own people. Not only does he have a special concern for his people that he does not have for other nations, but the nations’ treatment of Israel is also a reflection of their attitude toward the God of Israel. If they are bad to Israel, then they must not be too afraid of the LORD who has chosen that nation for himself. And God is particularly concerned that the nations regard him with the utmost respect.

Sure, as I read Joel 3:1-8, I can somewhat detect that God is disgusted with the actual practice of slave trading itself. In v 3, God mentions that the Tyrians and Sidonians sold the Israelites in exchange for prostitutes. Overall, the Old Testament has a rather low view of prostitution, so God appears to look down with contempt on what those nations are doing. Also, I get a chill when I read v 6, in which God says that the nations sold the Israelites to the Grecians, that they might remove them far from their border. The Israelites are being removed far away from the comfort of their own homes. God does appear to display a sensitivity to plight in this passage.

But, as I bring other biblical passages into the discussion, I cannot really take for granted that God’s main concern about slavery in Joel 3:1-8 is humanitarian. In Leviticus 25, God distinguishes between Israelite slaves and slaves taken from the Gentiles. Israelite slaves are to be released at the Jubilee, whereas Israelites can hold Gentile slaves in perpetuity. God gives a reason in v 42: the Israelites are not to be the perpetual slaves of another human being because they are God’s servants, not anyone else’s. God did redeem Israel from slavery in Egypt, after all. So God is not really opposed to slavery per se. He just doesn’t want to see his people as slaves, at least not to humans.

And I can see this sort of preferential treatment of Israel in other passages. Throughout the prophets, God relents from destroying Israel for her sins, but he finds no problem in destroying other nations. Israel is special because God has a covenant with her. Plus, how would his reputation look if he destroyed his very own nation?

I know that my presentation here is rather one-sided. There are times when I can detect that God has a genuine concern for the Gentiles in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. In the Torah, God commands Israel to use its bad experience in Egypt as a motivation to treat the resident alien with dignity (Exodus 22:21). There are also prophetic passages in which God restores Gentile nations, for whatever reason (Jeremiah 48:47; 49:6, 39; Ezekiel 29:14).

And, when we get to the New Testament, there appears to be more disapproval of slavery as an institution, whether the slave is Jewish or Gentile. For example, I Timothy 1:10 lists slavetraders in its list of sinners. In addition, in a celebration of the fall of Babylon, Revelation 18:13 mentions that it traded slaves and the souls of men. For some reason, the feeling I get when I read the phrase “souls of men” is this: “These Babylonians were trading actual human beings! How low can you go?”

But there are times when I just get frustrated when I read the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. Eventually, I get tired of making excuses for God’s preferential treatment of Israel. I said in prayer as I read Joel 3:1-8, “Lord, it’s wrong to sell the Israelites and take them from their homes. And the reason is not that they are your special people, nor is it primarily that treating the Israelites in this manner shows disrespect to you. It is wrong because it hurts human beings. I just wish that you would focus more on the humanitarian dimensions of this injustice!”

But I cannot change the Bible, and I don’t really want to do so. God has legitimate reasons for acting as he does. I just don’t always see their legitimacy. But that is because of my human limitations.

God, His Glory, and the Nations

In Joel 2:17, the Israelites appeal to God’s reputation in their request for God to stop the plague of locusts. We see this motif elsewhere in the Bible. Perhaps the most prominent place is Exodus 32:11-12, in which Moses tells God not to destroy the Israelites because of what the nations might think. According to Moses, if God destroys Israel, then the nations will conclude that God was not powerful enough to bring them into the Promised Land. And God wants the nations to believe that he is powerful.

But why does God care so much about what the nations think? The typical C.S. Lewis response is that God magnifies himself before the nations so that they will want to have a relationship with him. That works with some prophets, but not all of them. The prophets with whom it works are Isaiah and Zechariah. Throughout the Book of Isaiah, there is the motif that all of the nations will worship the LORD at Israel’s restoration (see Isaiah 2, 19, 66). Zechariah also presents the nations honoring God, some on account of force, and others because they are attracted (Zechariah 8:23; 14).

But Ezekiel and Joel seem to be rather xenophobic, by contrast. Throughout Ezekiel 38-39, for example, God says that the heathen will know that he is the LORD. But God is not magnifying himself to woo them into a relationship with him. Rather, they find out that he is the LORD right before the LORD destroys them. That’s the last thought they have. So much for the relationship! And Joel 3:17 prophesies that no strangers will pass through Jerusalem after God’s restoration of Israel. That seems to differ from Isaiah’s picture of all the nations traveling to Zion to learn God’s ways.

As I was thinking about God’s concern for his reputation, my mind wandered onto what various Calvinists have said about the glory of God. Calvinists are really big on God’s glory. I’ve often heard them say, “God doesn’t act for our sakes, but for his glory.” And there are biblical references in which God actually says that, specifically in Ezekiel (36:22, 32). But one question that I’ve asked myself is this: “If God wants to look good, then why does he do things that do not look good?” Let’s take Calvinism, for instance. Calvinism says that God chooses to save only a few people, while he condemns the rest to burn in hell for eternity. As far as Calvinists are concerned, those who are not in the “elect” have no chance of ever being saved. That does not make God look good! It doesn’t look all that fair, or loving, for that matter. But, of course, Calvinists will then tell us to just have faith. After all, that’s what we’re supposed to do with the parts of the Christian religion that don’t make sense.

So I’m not entirely sure why God is so concerned about his reputation. Not all of the prophets say that he is seeking a relationship with the nations, plus even Christian movements that emphasize God’s glory present him in a seemingly less-than-glorious fashion. And, on some level, they have a point in doing so, since God is not really in the PR business. He’s not like Bill Clinton. He doesn’t take a poll to see what the nations want a God to be before he decides to act. And, yet, for some reason, he does want to communicate to the nations his power, justice, and solidarity with Israel.

The Prophets and Immediate Restoration

In the Book of Joel, the prophet addresses a serious problem in Israel: a plague of locusts is consuming the crops. Whether the locusts are literal insects or a symbol for a foreign invader, Joel exhorts his fellow Israelites to take action. Everyone in the nation, young and old, is to appear before God in a solemn assembly. The situation is so serious that brides and grooms must interrupt their weddings to attend. There are no grain and drink offerings, since the locusts have consumed the crops, but the Israelites can still reach God without such sacrifices. God is more concerned about their hearts anyway, so Joel tells them to mourn and fast before God in humble, heartfelt repentance.

At first, Joel expresses the possibility that God might turn from his anger and restore Israel’s prosperity, but he is not absolutely certain. Then, one day, Joel gets a message: God has acknowledged the Israelites’ repentance and will cease from his wrath. He will send them grain, wine, and oil, thwart the northern invaders, and ensure that the Israelites will never again be put to shame. Then, God will pour out his Spirit on all flesh so that the sons and daughters of Israel shall prophesy.

Was Joel expecting such a dramatic restoration of Israel in his own lifetime? If he was conveying God’s message of hope in response to plague of locusts that existed in his own day, then the answer seems to be “yes.” But there is a problem with that. First of all, for Christians, many of the predictions of Joel 2 were fulfilled at Pentecost in the first century C.E., when God poured out his Spirit on the early church (see Acts 2). And, second, Joel affirms that the Israelites shall never again be put to shame. But the Israelites have continually experienced shame even after Joel’s death. The Jews have endured persecution and humiliation from all sorts of people (e.g., medieval Christians, Nazis, Communists, etc.).

What Joel does is not exactly unique, for most of the prophets discuss Israel’s ultimate restoration in light of the socio-political reality of their times. First Isaiah (Isaiah 1-35) predicts that God will use the Assyrians to execute his judgment upon his people; then, after the land of Israel has been cleansed, God will set up a kingdom of righteousness and peace. Jeremiah states that the Jews will only be exiled for seventy years; after that time, God will return the exiles, reconstitute the monarchy and priesthood, and establish a new covenant with Northern Israel and Judah. Jews and Christians have both projected these expectations onto the future. Traditional Jews say that God will one day send a Messiah who will set up a kingdom of peace, and Christians assert that this will take place at the second coming of Jesus Christ. The prophets, however, appear to have believed that such things would happen in their own day, or at least soon (since Jeremiah didn’t live seventy years after the Babylonians took Judah).

And so there appears to be a theological problem, as far as traditional Jews and Christians are concerned: The prophets seem to have predicted that restoration was imminent, and it was not exactly. So were they false prophets? What are some ways to approach this difficult issue?

One way may be to say that God was speaking to Joel’s situation in light of his overall plan. God planned to restore Israel far off into the future. His agenda was eventual restoration, and he had Joel share this with Israel to offer her hope. God’s goal was to assure Israel that he still loved her and had plans for her as a nation, even though not all of them would be realized at that particular moment. This solution may have some merit, but I have difficulty believing that a prediction about something far off into the future would offer Israel hope right then and there. They were in an emergency situation, after all. They needed assurance about something immediate.

Another possibility is that prophecy is conditional. Maybe God planned to restore Israel, but she did not repent properly, so God delayed his plans. Interestingly, this seems to be the approach of certain biblical authors and redactors. Second Isaiah (Isaiah 40-55) prophesied a dramatic restoration of Israel after she had left Babylon, yet that did not exactly occur. Then Third Isaiah (Isaiah 56-66) came along and told Israel that she was sinning, and her sins were holding up God’s program. That may be true, but I have a problem: A lot of the prophets (e.g., Jeremiah, Ezekiel) predict that God will make Israel righteous after her restoration. For them, the Israelites will no longer be habitually sinners, because God will make them habitually righteous. In this scenario, God will act to take care of Israel’s sin problem, so how can Israel’s sins hold up God’s plan?

A third possibility that entered my mind was that Joel was predicting a locust plague for the far off future. After all, the Book of Daniel is set in the days of Babylon and Persia in the sixth century B.C.E., yet it speaks to a situation that existed in the second century B.C.E. Could Joel have been a book stored up for a later time? Perhaps, but I have a problem making that claim about all of the prophetic books. Isaiah, after all, talks about eschatological restoration in light of nations that were present in his own day (e.g., Assyria).

There may be more proposals. The above ones have their strengths, and possibly even some truth. Yet, they are not completely adequate. Perhaps the fact that the prophetic hope kept surviving despite continual disappointment attests to the steadfast faith of Jews and Christians. As they looked at the evil around them, they continually clung to God in the hope that he would set up his kingdom, one of righteousness and peace.