Joel 2:12-17

““Yet even now,” the Lord says, “return to me with all your heart – with fasting, weeping, and mourning. Tear your hearts, not just your garments!” Return to the Lord your God, for he is merciful and compassionate, slow to anger and boundless in loyal love – often relenting from calamitous punishment. Who knows? Perhaps he will be compassionate and grant a reprieve, and leave blessing in his wake – a meal offering and a drink offering for you to offer to the Lord your God! Blow the trumpet in Zion. Announce a holy fast; proclaim a sacred assembly! Gather the people; sanctify an assembly! Gather the elders; gather the children and the nursing infants. Let the bridegroom come out from his bedroom and the bride from her private quarters. Let the priests, those who serve the Lord, weep from the vestibule all the way back to the altar. Let them say, “Have pity, O Lord, on your people; please do not turn over your inheritance to be mocked, to become a proverb among the nations. Why should it be said among the peoples, “Where is their God?””

— ‭‭Joel‬ ‭2‬:‭12‬-‭17‬‬

Joel is such an interesting little book. The first chapter describes an insane locust plague. There’s nothing left to eat. (Need to look up when Joel lived and when scholars date the book.) Chapter two is often seen as armies invading Palestine (whether Babylon or someone else), but it’s likely a metaphorical depiction of the same locusts. A great army, blackening the sun, hooves so loud, etc. 

Day of Lord is key phrase in Joel and speaks of God’s coming in judgment. It will be picked up in NT. So this is typological fulfillment. Joel is quoted throughout Acts and letters for God showing up in “end times.”

Prophet urges people to repent to see if God will relent from His judgment. “Who knows”? Very similar to king of Nineveh in Jonah. Human perspective when it comes to facing judgment. 

God does long for broken hearts and not just torn garments or sacrifices. We see this throughout the Bible. True repentance and submission to Him. Why? From fear? No, because He is merciful and compassionate, slow to anger. 

Always must remember Old Covenant. So He is judging Israel because of their foolishness and breaking of covenant. These descriptions of His character, though, are interesting, because even in that cultural context it’s how they understood Him.

He will leave a meal/wine offering…more evidence that locusts destroyed everything, but God may leave them something to offer.

Law gave certain people exemptions from tasks (e.g., men from jobs/battle after marriage), but Joel says this is more important. Blowing the trumpet signaled religious assembly. It’s time for all people to gather and cry to God. 

We see the covenant language in vv. 16-17. God is highest god. Don’t want Him to be mocked by other nations and their gods. This is all about your glory. So don’t let us fall down/apart. Don’t ruin us because it’s a reflection of you. Funny, cause that’s why God called Israel. To reflect Him and His name. Using His own purposes against Him.

Next passage has YHWH relenting. 

Mark 1:41

Mark 1:41

σπλαγχνισθείς (splancnisqei", “moved with compassion”) 

    External evidence: “Compassion” is the reading in nearly every manuscript. 

ὀργισθείς (ojrgisqei", “moved with anger”)

    External evidence: “Anger” is only in a few manuscripts: Codex Bezae (D), {1358}, and a few Latin mss (a ff2 r1*). These are primarily Western text type witnesses.

    Internal arguments: It is difficult to see any unintentional change happening with these words (they’re not spelled similarly.) An intentional change is possible, and it is more likely that scribe changed “anger” to “compassion” than “compassion” to anger.” It may not have been as palatable for early church to see Jesus as angry.

However, Jesus also gets angry in 3:5 and 10:14, but no textual variants are introduced. One could argue that it’s possible (but by no means likely) that scribes changed “compassion” to “anger” based on these other passages where Jesus grows angry or indignant.

Conclusion: One is difficult in this text, because the external evidence leans strongly towards “compassion,” but one can make a solid case for “anger” based on the narrative and logic of scribal practices. I think external evidence holds about as much weight as internal evidence, especially when unintentional changes can be predicted, or the author’s style points decidedly in one direction. Intentional changes can be risky to discern (unless it’s a variant of embarrassment or theological primitivity). This is possible here, but the external evidence may outweigh it.  

One would have to answer “why Jesus became angry,” and it could be the man’s lack of faith earlier in the story (v. 40). For the best arguments for ὀργισθείς, however, see M. A. Proctor, “The ‘Western’ Text of Mark 1:41: A Case for the Angry Jesus” (Ph.D. diss., Baylor University, 1999).