Joel 2:23

hath given another instance of the prophetic perfect.

the former rain … and the latter rain Heb. môreh, and malḳôsh:the rains which marked respectively the beginning and the close of the wet season, coming in Oct. Nov. and March April respectively. The "former rain" moistens the earth and fits it to receive the seeds which are sown shortly afterwards: the "latter rain" is important forgiving fulness and strength to the ripening crops: if either rain fails, the ensuing harvest is seriously damaged. Comp. Deuteronomy 11:14; Jeremiah 5:24. The refreshing and invigorating effects of the "latter rain" are alluded to in Hosea 6:3; Proverbs 16:15; Job 29:23: in Jeremiah 3:3 it is spoken of as having been "withheld."

moderately according to righteousness (comp. Hosea 10:12 Heb.), i.e. as His righteousness prompts Him to give it (cf. Isaiah 42:6; Isaiah 45:13). R.V. in just measuredoes not adequately bring out the force of the expression.

The Heb. words rendered "the former rain moderately" would admit also of the rendering "the teacher unto righteousness" (teacher, as Isaiah 30:20, of the prophets). This is an old Jewish interpretation, found in the Targ., Symm., Vulg. (doctorem justitiae), Rashi, Abarbanel; adopted hence in A.V. marg., and by some moderns, as Keil, Pusey, Merx, the reference being supposed to be to the Messiah. But the context, which from Joel 2:22 to Joel 2:26 speaks solely of the gifts of the earth, is much opposed to this explanation; the spiritual gifts follow in Joel 2:28.

will cause, &c. hath caused. The future tense, though correct as an interpretation, is utterly unjustifiable as a translation;the tense in the original is the historical one, which normally in Hebrew (Genesis 1:3-10, &c.) introduces the sequel to a preceding historical one. The prophet, however, maintains the standpoint which he has adopted before (hath done Joel 2:21; have sprung&c. Joel 2:22; hath given Joel 2:23), using "prophetic" pasts, and describing what is future as though it were already accomplished. There is an exactly similar case in Isaiah 9:6 (Hebrews 5): shall be(twice) ought there to be grammatically is, the prophet still maintaining the standpoint of Joel 2:1 (Heb. 8:23 9:3), and continuing to describe the future in terms of the past.

the rain géshem, an abundant rain, or winter-rain (on Amos 4:7).

the former rain, and the latter rain in the firstmonth] The first month (of the ecclesiastical year) was Nisan, which corresponded to part of our March April, and so would agree with the time of the "latter rain"; but the addition destroys the balance of the two clauses, besides being otiose (since every one would know at what period of the year the "latter rain" might be expected). Others (placing the comma differently) render, "the former rain and the latter rain, at the first" (so R.V. marg.), or first of all, in contrast namely to the spiritual gifts to be added afterwards(Joel 3:1); this yields a tolerable sense, but implies בראשונה (Zechariah 12:7; Deuteronomy 13:10 al.) for בראשון. As aforetimeis perhaps the idea that would most naturally be expected: but this implies כבראשונה (Isaiah 1:26 al.) or possibly (for it does not actually occur with that meaning) בראשונה for בראשון.

The -former rain" and the -latter rain" are not naturally epexegetical of the preceding géshem, which would denote rather the copious rains of winter; the repetition of the -former rain" in the verse is also tautologous. The verse is improved, if with Wellh. we suppose the second -former rain" to have come in by error (on account of the natural combination "môrehand malḳôsh"): if it be omitted, the three principal rains of the year will be mentioned successively, the former rain, the winter-rain, and the latter rain(cf. Jeremiah 5:24 Heb.).