Should the text read “the early rain for vindication” or “the teacher for righteousness”?

Explanation:

Joel has been describing divine judgment on Israel by means of a locust plague (Joel 1:11–12), an invading army (Joel 1:6; Joel 2:20), and even a drought (Joel 1:20). Now, God has pity and restores his people by driving the enemy from the land (Joel 2:20), restoring the fruit trees and pastures that the locusts destroyed (Joel 2:22), and bringing rain upon the earth to relieve the drought so that the crops can grow. Thus, when Joel states that God will give the early rain for vindication he means to explain that the natural disasters brought on by God as a judgment are over, so Israel will no longer be put to shame among the Gentile nations (Joel 2:26). God will send the rains to replenish the land, and by them Israel will be vindicated.⁷

Counterargument:

While vindication is a possible gloss for the term צְדָקָה, the more common interpretation is righteousness. Of course, it is hard to see what it means for God to send rain of righteousness. Further, the term used for rain, מוֹרֶה, can just as easily be translated teacher (see Interpretation 2, argument 3). If we translate the term מוֹרֶה as teacher and combine this with the most common translation of צְדָקָה, we could rightly render the phrase as teacher of righteousness. This does the most justice to the term צְדָקָה.

Response to counterargument:

The notion that צְדָקָה is often translated as righteousness is not enough to turn over the translation rain for vindication. The fact is that the term צְדָקָה can be translated perfectly well as vindication. One can decide on the best translation for a term based on the context. In this case, we have the prophet announcing natural disasters, including a drought, and God restoring the people’s fortunes, including through rain. In fact, Joel mentions rain four times with three different terms in this one verse, so it is hard to see how he could mean anything but rain.

Added to this, the verse is sandwiched between two other verses that use repetitive language to explain how God is restoring the land. Joel 2:22 states that the pastures are green, the trees bear fruit, and the fig trees and wine give their full yield. Joel 2:24 states that the threshing floors will be full of grain, the vats shall overflow with wine and oil, and the years that the locusts destroyed will be restored.

In both cases we see the threefold repetition of God restoring the land and the produce the land bears. Thus, it is no surprise that between these two verses, Joel records how God 1) gives early rain for vindication. That is, 2) he pours down abundant rain, 3) early rain and late rain.

Explanation:

God established a covenant with Israel, in which he promised to care for the land by sending the early and the late rains. The condition for Israel is that they obey God’s commands by loving him with all of their heart, soul, and mind (Deuteronomy 11:13). Deuteronomy explicitly states that if Israel upholds their end of the covenant, God will send the rains, the early rains and the late rains, so that they can gather their wine, grain, and oil (Joel 2:23).

Now, after having mercy on his people, God restores the land, remaining faithful to his covenant by delivering exactly what he promised to Israel. In other words, the term צְדָקָה not only captures the sense of vindication, but also the righteousness of God. God sends the rain of righteousness in the sense that the rain reflects the righteousness of God and his faithfulness to the covenant. At the same time this rain vindicates Israel as a people who are restored due to God’s righteous judgement.⁸

Counterargument:

No one can argue that God established a covenant with the Israelites, or that God is perfectly faithful toward upholding his end. The problem with thinking that Joel 2:23 has to do with God’s righteousness toward the covenant is that in Deuteronomy 11:13 God sets the condition that he will be true to the blessing of the covenant only if Israel obeys God’s commandment to love him with their whole heart, soul, and mind. There is no indication from Joel that the Israelites are obedient toward God; in fact, the disaster that has fallen upon Israel seems to be the result of their own sin (Joel 1:5).

Response to counterargument:

While it might be that the reason Israel has come under God’s judgment is because of their own sin, God shows his righteousness to the covenant when Israel repents and turns back to God. In fact, in Joel 2:12–13 Joel uses language reminiscent of Deuteronomy where he states that if Israel will return with all their heart to the Lord who is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in love (Joel 2:12–13), then God will restore them. In other words, God is not only righteous toward the covenant when Israel obeys it, but because of his loving grace and mercy he is also righteous to the covenant when they repent from their sins.

Possible weakness:

The weakness of this view is that it is not immediately clear what the phrase rain for vindication could mean. On the other hand, the phrase teacher of righteousness is instantly intuitive. Without any thought we can grasp the concept of a teacher of righteousness. Given the fact that מוֹרֶה can be translated as either rain or teacher and that the phrase teacher of righteousness is plausible, we have good reason to take the translation teacher of righteousness. Of course, when we look at the rest of the verse, and the broader context, a good case can be made for the translation rain for vindication. Still, rain for vindication is not very clear as a standalone phrase.

Explanation:

Joel relies on the theological teachings of the book of Deuteronomy to underpin his message. For example, Deuteronomy 28:38–68 warns Israel that a locust plague will be the precursor to a military invasion and exile, both of which seem to be fulfilled by Joel’s prophecy (Joel 1:4, Joel 1:6). We should assume that Joel and his readers share the same Deuteronomic theology.¹²

A significant aspect of Deuteronomy is the blessings and curses that Moses pronounces depending on whether or not the Israelites obey God’s commands. The locust plague, invasion, and exile are due to disobeying God’s commands. Another significant element of Deuteronomic theology is that after Moses, the Lord will raise up a prophet from among the people like Moses, who will speak the words of the Lord (Deuteronomy 18:15–18).¹³

Now that the curse has come upon the land, Joel brings comfort to the people by hinting toward the eschatological saviour whom Moses spoke about in Deuteronomy.

Counterargument:

First, one does not need to assume that Joel had a thorough knowledge of the book of Deuteronomy for him to make a prophecy that fulfills the curses pronounced in Deuteronomy. Rather, the fact that the prophecy pronounced in Deuteronomy is being fulfilled is evidence of the justice and consistency of God, who warned previous generations that unless they obeyed God’s commands, judgment would come upon them and the land. That this judgment is now coming upon the people and the land simply implies that Israel has not kept God’s commands.

Second, there is no connection between the curses pronounced in the latter part of Deuteronomy and the rising up of the prophet anticipated in Deuteronomy 18:15–22. In other words, Moses does not state that once disaster comes, a prophet will rise up among them. Rather, God is giving Moses instructions for when Israel enters the land, which includes the establishment of a king (Deuteronomy 17:14) and a warning not to get involved in the religious practices of the nations they conquer (Deuteronomy 18:9). He then explains that just as the people were afraid to hear the voice of God for themselves at Mount Horeb, God will raise up a prophet to declare the Lord’s words (Deuteronomy 18:18). God seems to be explaining that prophets such as Elijah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and others will continue to speak the word of God after Moses is gone.

For this interpretation to work, one needs to understand Deuteronomy 18:18 as a messianic text about the teacher of righteousness, and one needs to connect this text with the situation that Joel is experiencing. While it is true that Deuteronomy 18:18 is a messianic text, there does not seem to be any strong connection between the meesiah predicted by Deuteronomy 18:18 and the disaster that Joel is experiencing.

Response to counterargument:

The connection does not have to be strong in order to be true, given the Christ-centredness of the Old Testament. New Testament authors interpreted the Old Testament as messianic (for example, Psalm 16:8–11 in Acts 13:35–37; Jeremiah 31:31 in Hebrews 12:24; Isaiah 61:1–2 in Luke 4:16–21). Joel’s prophecy includes elements that nod toward the great Messiah, Jesus Christ.

Explanation:

In the mind of an Israelite, there was a link between the notions of rain and right teaching. That is why it is no surprise that Joel develops a clever wordplay in the midst of this passage, linking the coming of rain from God and the coming teacher of righteousness. For example, in 1 Kings 8, Solomon connects the notions of rain and teaching when he prays to God. He states that when the heaven is shut up and there is no rain because they have sinned toward you, if they pray…and turn from their sin…forgive the sins of your servants when you teach them the good way in which they should walk, and grant rain upon the land (1 Kings 8:35–36).¹⁴

Another connection between right teaching and rain comes from the prophet Isaiah. In Isaiah 30 the prophet states that after adversity and affliction the Lord will provide a Teacher who will walk behind his people, explaining the right way to go (Isaiah 30:20–21). God will also give rain for the seed sown upon the ground so it can grow (Isaiah 30:23).

Finally, Amos connects the word of the Lord with drought. Connecting the word of the Lord with drought is similar to the notion of a teacher of righteousness who would speak the word of God (Deuteronomy 18:18) and rain. Specifically, Amos states that the Lord will bring a thirst upon the land, not for water, but for the word of God (Amos 8:11).

Counterargument:

It might be the case that the Israelites connected rain with right teaching, but it is hard to see how they would connect rain with someone who is a teacher of righteousness. The passage from 1 Kings 8:35–36 asks that after the Israelites repent and are taught the right way, God would send rain. In other words, the teacher of righteousness is the calamity that has brought Israel to realize their dependence upon God. Now that the locust plague and invading army, who have acted as God’s disciplinary agents, have come, the rains will fall on the land.

Similarly, when it comes to Isaiah 30:20–23, it seems that after a Teacher teaches the right way to go, rain will fall upon the land. Joel seems to be describing how the Israelites will experience destruction, which is meant to teach them a lesson, before restoration, which is confirmed when God makes the pastures green once again, and brings rain upon the land.

Finally, Amos 8:11 is a loose connection at best. There the prophet is discussing famine in the land because there are no prophets to speak the word of God. It is hard to see how that passage connects with the wider theme of rain and teaching.

Explanation:

The root for the noun מוֹרֶה (rain/teacher) is יָרָה (to show/to teach), which most often refers to a teacher.¹⁵ Still, it can also be translated rain as in Psalm 84:6. Further, Joel will repeat the noun מוֹרֶה (rain/teacher) in the same sentence. It is hard to believe that Joel would use the same word twice in one sentence unless he intended the construction as a literary device to make a deeper point. The notion is that Joel knows his audience, and he knows they associate rain with righteous teaching, so he crafts a double entendre, recognizable to the original reader, which refers to both the rain of vindication, and the teacher of righteousness.

Counterargument:

While it is possible that Joel is using a creative literary device to connect the notions of rain with the teacher of righteousness, it is just as likely that he is using the rhetorical device of repetition. If rain and teaching in righteousness were closely associated for the Israelites, then Joel would have been better off using the term מָבוֹן, which also means teacher, but which would have resolved the ambiguity of his message. It is confusing to use the same noun twice in one sentence with different meanings, so if this was his intention, the other term for teacher (מָבוֹן) would be more suitable.

Response to counterargument:

The noun מָבוֹן (teacher) occurs only once in the Old Testament (2 Chronicles 35:3). By contrast the root יָרָה (to show/to teach) is often used to denote a teacher. Added to this, it is precisely because the term is associated with both teaching and rain that it is the right literary choice for Joel. He uses the term not for ambiguity but for creativity in order to draw his reader into the message.

Possible weaknesses:

The problem with this view is that there is no indication from the rest of the book, let alone the immediate passage, to justify the introduction of the teacher of righteousness. While the phrase is a fine translation of the Hebrew terms, and makes sense as a standalone concept, the teacher of righteousness does not fit in well with the rest of the context.