The Book of Joel and the Coming Stellar Invasion by Richie Cooley Jr. - HTML preview

And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord. -- Acts 22.16 [NKJV]

And again:

And also, corresponding to [this], baptism now saves you, not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. -- 1 Peter 3.21 [LEB]

And again by way of an allegorical example:

When all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also was baptized; and while He prayed, the heaven was opened. And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, “You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.” -- Luke 3.21-22 [NKJV]

Now at this point you may be saying, hold on a minute; it says “Hashem,” not “Jesus Christ.” This is a complex subject and has led to a lot of error in the church. One way the question often manifests itself is how were people saved before Jesus Christ came? This is an exceedingly common question, but I think it’s a bit misguided. The real question is how is anyone ever saved? If you truly understand that answer then past versus present really doesn’t matter. Let’s start at the beginning…

In Genesis 1 “God” -- Elohim -- creates the universe. In Genesis 2 “Hashem God” -- the God of the covenant -- creates a family for communion. Therefore it is this name of Hashem that Seth’s family looked to for salvation, and it is Hashem whom Joel bids us to call. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have this same name, as it is written…

Having gone [or, When you* have gone], make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit… -- Matthew 28:19

John Gill says…

Hence a confirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity; there are three persons, but one name, but one God, into which believers are baptized…

And again the singularity of the name of Jesus Christ and his Father can be seen when the Lord was eating the Last Supper…

And I am no longer in the world, yet these are in the world, and I am coming to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, which You have given to Me, so that they shall be one just as We [are]. When I was with them in the world, I was keeping them in Your name. [Those] whom You have given to Me I guarded, and none of them was destroyed… -- John 17:11-12

Here we see that Jesus Christ acted throughout his ministry in the name of his Father. This is just as it was prophesied in the Old Testament…

Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the LORD… -- Psalm 118:26 [see also Proverbs 30:4]

This again shows the singularity of persons, hence the singularity of name. Yet one might ask, “Then why can’t people also be saved by just calling on the name of the Father or Holy Spirit?”

You see, in some ways Romans 10:9-13 is the key to heaven, yet it isn’t a magic password. You can’t just mime words and be justified. No one ever chooses to be reconciled to God unless they have been predestined for such. Those who are predestined for justification are graciously taught of God and convicted of their need, and then they call. So how did ancient man get saved? By admitting their sinfulness and crying out to Hashem to redeem them through his mercy. How much did ancient man understand of Hashem? How much did he understand of the person and work of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? I’d like to answer that with two points.

Point one is the fact that the ancients knew a lot more about theology than you might at first think. You have to understand that Adam was created about 6,000 years ago, not 600,000; that makes a big difference. Next you have to understand that all the people in the pre-flood world lived an extremely long time. The make-up of this planet was much different before the flood and was able to support very long lives. Almost all the generations after the fall survived until the flood. So you see there wasn’t a world of ignorance, but of tremendous knowledge. Adam was able to impart teaching that lasted until Noah in nearly a direct manner. Moreover, God had prophets, even writing prophets, as is evident through Jude, who gives us some of Enoch’s words. So ancient mankind always had rich amounts of spiritual knowledge; there wasn’t hundreds of thousands of years where some proto-man ate ticks and grunted about some shadowy gods.

Thus after the flood Noah, a preacher according to Peter, was able to instruct his children based upon a very good understanding of Hashem. Now soon after the repopulation via Noah’s sons, all the nations would rebel and go their own way, and God let them go. They were able to find God if they groped for him (Acts 17), yet apart from sovereign grace no one ever did. The point is however that there was a time of a universal knowledge of God in the recent past, which normally is contrary to what we’re taught.

Point two is the example given of Abraham’s call. When the post-flood world rebelled again and tossed the knowledge of God behind their back, Hashem reached down and laid hold of Abraham (i.e., Abram). He spoke to him many times and confirmed many promises to him. I don’t think we are given a record of Abraham’s conversion; I think that probably happened during his days in Ur. Yet the account of his taking God at his word in Genesis 15 is set forth in the New Testament as being a major example of salvation by grace through faith. God told the ancients as much about Hashem as they needed to know, and their trust glorified God, and was therefore saving faith.

Imagine Hashem as being a figure, and with one sight of this figure you can understand that he is also the crucified Son of God, and also understand every other important doctrine about the Godhead. Now imagine this figure is far away and started to move closer to you; obviously you could still see him, even though some of the details are blurry. Yet when he comes into view you can’t say, No, actually, I want to know you, but only that really distant version of you. So now that the full epoch of Jesus Christ has been made fully known you can’t say, No, actually, I’ll just leave that Jesus stuff with you; I’ll just take the Father. That’s impossible, for it evidences that you were never taught of God to begin with. God has revealed himself to be Jesus Christ, so how can you reject that and claim to know God?

Let’s put it this way. Let’s say that you go to Saudi Arabia to preach the Gospel. Right, so two days later you’re in prison awaiting execution. You have a cell mate who is being executed before you. Your Arabic is very rough, but you’re able to holler out to him, “Believe in God’s crucified Son and be saved.” He bows and prays. Great, he may be a saved man. Now imagine that right before he’s killed someone pardons you both and you’re free to leave. You then visit him and take a Bible and begin to teach him more about Jesus Christ. If he was truly converted he will accept what the Scriptures say, and he will grow in knowledge. He was initially saved without any knowledge of the virgin birth, of the full deity of Christ, of his ascension and second coming, etc. His knowledge of the person of Hashem will become clearer and clearer and he will embrace it. However, if when trying to teach him the Scriptures he rejects the knowledge and despises the fuller Biblical light that you bring him, this is evidence that he was never regenerated.

So the point I’m trying to make is that we’re living in the days when God has fully revealed himself. We can’t undo that. We must accept salvation from Hashem based upon as much of Hashem as we understand at the present, while seeking to grow in the knowledge of him afterwards. This is what the ancients did; this is what the hypothetical person with limited knowledge on the gallows must do; this is what we must all do. If God predestines us then we can be sure he will bring us the teaching that we need to embrace to be saved; that teaching will be as much about the persons of the Godhead as possible at the time of conversion, with a guidance into further truth afterwards.  

Now you might say that I’m presenting a revisionist history when I intimate that there was ancient knowledge about Jesus Christ, but this isn’t so (see Job 19!). Read my last book where I talk a lot about Messianic prophecies, etc. I also discuss at some length the fact that the ancient understanding of the Messiah was a lot more Christian-like than many now-a-days would care to admit. This can also be seen in a piece of evidence I’ve since become aware of from Qumran. In cave 11 there was discovered decades ago an interesting text casting Melchizedek [from Genesis 14/Psalm 110] as a divine Messianic figure…

...[And it will be proclaimed at] the end of days concerning the captives as [He said, To proclaim liberty to the captives (Isa. 61.1). Its interpretation is that He] will assign them to the Sons of Heaven and to the inheritance of Melchizedek; [for He will cast] their [lot] amid the [portions of Melchizedek], who will return them there and will proclaim to them liberty, forgiving them [the wrong-doings] of all their iniquities…

…And the Day of Atonement is the [end of the] tenth [Jubilee], when all the Sons of [Light] and the men of the lot of Melchizedek will be atoned for. [And] a statute concerns them [to provide] them with their rewards. For this is the moment of the Year of Grace for Melchizedek. [And] he will, by his strength, judge the holy ones of God, executing judgment as it is written concerning him in the Songs of David, who said, ELOHIM has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment [Psalm 82:1]... And Melchizedek will avenge the vengeance of the judgements of God... and he will drag [them from the hand of] Belial and from the hand of all the [spirits] of his [lot]…This is the day of [Peace/Salvation] concerning which God spoke [through] Isaiah the prophet…

And [your] ELOHIM is [Melchizedek], [who will save them from] the hand of Belial. (Only portions of a longer text has been reproduced.)

This version is from Geza Vermes [The Dead Sea Scrolls; The Folio Society, pgs. 303-304], but most of the quote can also be found on Wikipedia [as of November 2014].

Anyway, going back to calling, there are a couple of issues that have impacted the modern evangelical church. First, there are many Calvinists now-a-days who don’t like over-emphasizing this portion of the doctrine of Justification; they feel it might lead people astray into just saying some phoney prayer and thinking all is well when it isn’t if they’ve acted insincerely. I do not agree with this view of the Calvinist. Let’s make much of Romans 10:9-13; let’s give examples of how to call upon the name of Jesus Christ at the end of our services; let’s give the key to all who seek to enter.

The Calvinist thinks that in hiding the key it will make things better for the church; at the end of the day -- their reasoning goes -- if someone is truly being led by God to believe, it will happen; that person will not stop pursuing until they finish the job. I do not believe in that outlook via predestination. I believe that behind the scenes God is working out his purposes and that he has eternally elected a people to show mercy to, yet I don’t believe it should ever change the way we live life or conduct ministry in the slightest bit. If you were a single young man and a very lovely young lady wanted to go out to lunch you wouldn’t withhold your phone number just to see if she really wanted to date you. No; you would probably paint a fluorescent stripe from her front door to the restaurant so she wouldn’t forget. Likewise, if you were applying for a job you wouldn’t withhold your address just to see if they really wanted to give you the job. Let us not care about romance and money more than we care about souls. Let us not tempt God. Let us not force him to act boldly. Let us make the Gospel clear.

The last issue is so over-hashed that it’s almost embarrassing to mention; yet it still affects the church, even though the very name of the controversy causes my eyes to immediately roll into the back of my head: the controversy I’m referring to is “lordship salvation.” I have to mention this because Joel 3 is the only real silver bullet to end the argument and I believe it’s worth underlining that fact; but again, some excellent teachers like Macarthur (who is a giant of God and I am just a little piece of poop) have taught along these lines and they are brothers and I love them very dearly.

I really think what started the whole craze was sin. Like I said before, church history is simply one violent over-reaction after another. The Christian in the twentieth century had found a sort of utopia in the U.S. Everything was fairly moral; everything was fairly Judeo-Christian. The worst villain the average home faced was Eddie Haskell. Pop culture grew worse however; it always does. There’s a constant need to push the envelope for ratings. When things began to grow very sour the Christian did not tune out. They were in love with their cinema and television and they were not going to part, regardless of the sex, violence, and blasphemy that were constantly being portrayed. (Imagine Christians sitting through films where the name of Jesus Christ is being taken in vain, the very one who died for them!)

Anyway, so the evangelical church rotted quickly. During this time pastors began to react violently. They saw their congregations growing more and more undone and so one of the ideas that seemed to catch on was to toughen the Gospel. The call was no longer to be reconciled to God through saving repentance and faith; it was rather an invitation to decide to make Christ “lord” of your life. The typical evangelist would then come to preach to the choir. The messages consisted of making demands for evidences of salvation, evidences so far out and unrealistic that no one could think to measure up; so the unconverted felt farther from the Gospel and the converted believed themselves to be fraudulent.

The Gospel of grace was out the window; everything was about discipleship and lordship. This even affected Romans 10:9. No longer was it based on Joel’s calling but rather on Isaiah 45:23 where God says that all will swear allegiance. Now I know Romans 10:9 can be legitimately interpreted several different ways (i.e., “the Lord Jesus,” “Jesus is Lord,” or “Jesus is Hashem”), and I also know that given statements like 1 Corinthians 12:3 and the example of the early church baptismal creeds that Romans 10:9 might be creedal in nature; yet it’s very clear from the rest of Romans 10 and through the other quotes mentioned above (and many more) that calling out for mercy was also in view. What concerns me is that the early church made the baptismal service more complex as time went on; the creeds became central, and calling out for grace was lost; eventually baptism became a strenuous event, the candidate having to become a catechumen for many months leading up to it; I see this trend being repeated. I’ve even heard preachers relate stories quite proudly of how someone was willing to accept Christ and then they sat this person down and told him he had to hate father and mother etc. or he couldn’t be saved; obviously the one who was interested got up and left.

The point to Joel 3:5 (2:32 in some versions) and Romans 10:9-13 can best be found in Psalm 107, where people in various desperate circumstances call out for help and are delivered. We are to be convicted by the moral law as sinners; we are to understand what the future consequences of our sins are; we are to realize we are unable to save ourselves, and in desperation call out to God for forgiveness, believing that the risen Christ had lived and died to save us from all our transgressions. Lordship is certainly implied in this; after all, you’re being saved from sin. Yet we must focus our attention on the right antidote; it’s not our commitment began, it is Christ’s commitment completed that saves us. Let’s not toughen up the Gospel to the point that we obscure the fact that it is of grace. Let’s stop preaching to the choir and preach rather to the lost and dying world. 

II. The Great Assemblage (4:1-3/3:1-3)

1 For behold, in those days and in that time, that I will return/turn back* the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem. 2 And I will gather all the nations and will bring them down to/towards the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and I will enter into judgment with them there on account of my people and my inheritance, Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations; and they have divided my land. 3 And they have cast a lot [as] to my people, and have given the boy in [exchange for] the harlot, and sold the girl in [exchange for] the wine, and they have drunk [it].

This is one of the most amazing passages in the history of the written word. What a prophecy! God is going to bring the nations of the world, millions and millions of men from the four directions of the compass, all down towards one valley in Israel. Who but God would be bold enough to predict such an amazing event? Yet we can be sure that it will happen; first and foremost because the Bible said it would; secondly because it is the natural outworking of sin.

When Christ is about to come in his glory to end this wicked age, what else will wicked men do but fight it? Look at the sea of Christian blood being shed today, not only by Muslims in Africa and the Middle East, but by Buddhists in Nepal and Hindus in India and Communists in Vietnam and North Korea and China; the news doesn’t often report on it, but Christian persecution is at crisis levels throughout the world. Why? People hate light. When I use to drink and party the last people I wanted to see the next morning were my godly parents. I’d scrub my teeth and use eye-drops and even then would stay in my room for as long as possible. The world wants to be far from God.

In the West this isn’t happening through violent deaths yet; rather, it’s a slow choking process where Christians are having businesses shut down or being arrested for preaching in the wrong place, etc. It’s amazing how things changed so fast. I remember years ago there was a controversy with a new artist named Eminem; a big issue was that he insulted homosexuality; would he be able to get along with Elton John at an awards ceremony was the hot topic. That was less than two decades ago! Now look at the West! A founder of Mozilla legally gave money to a legal referendum about homosexual marriage years ago, people recently found out, and he had to quit his job. Amazing! Two decades ago you could be a respected artist and disdain homosexuality; now you can’t even voice the slightest question or it’s off with your head.

Why? It’s not because science has validated homosexuality; far from it. You know Richard Dawkins published a book I like to quote from called, The Greatest Show on Earth. It’s basically sort of a modern apologetic for Darwinian evolution. He describes a very interesting experiment in the book. A man wanted tamer foxes, and so conducted a breeding program. The breeder intentionally selected the foxes that were the friendliest and bred them. He did this for several generations of foxes, and do you know what happened? The foxes eventually resembled normal pet dogs. The point is that the internal and external are a package deal. Foxes are wild animals with wild personalities; if you select for tamer personalities you affect their appearance as well…

The tame foxes not only behaved like domestic dogs, they looked like them. They lost their foxy pelage and became piebald black and white, like Welsh collies. Their foxy prick ears were replaced by doggy floppy ears. Their tails turned up at the end like a dog’s, rather than down like a fox’s brush. The females came on heat every six months like a bitch, instead of every year like a vixen. According to Belyaev, they even sounded like dogs (pg. 76). 

So the idea that nature created people with male genitals or female ones who originally don’t desire to use them to procreate normally is monstrously unscientific. Nature doesn’t create male exteriors and female interiors; this wicked teaching has even caused children to desire mutilation; rather, the human being is a package deal. The only reason people can become homosexual is because attraction is a very pliable thing. No child naturally craves squid jerky, but you can develop a taste for it.

Anyway, these are the days when no one wants morality, only moral freedom; but what does that really mean? I have to wonder at the ideology of Justin Timberlake. He performed a song with Madonna where he sang a line that went something like…if I die tonight at least I can say I did want I wanted to do. Really? You think you are free? You’re not free. Get up at the next awards ceremony and say you love Jesus Christ with all your heart and that you should all stop promoting sex; will you ever work again (well, maybe Mike Seaver will give you work)? And you think you’re free? Okay, you’re free to sleep with lots of women, which is probably what you meant, yet you’re not allowed to use your brain. You have to go along and spout whatever the progressives say or you will not be a success.

The book of Romans speaks a timely word about sin…

…But on the other hand to the [persons who are] selfishly ambitious and [who are] refusing to believe the truth, but obey unrighteousness, [there shall be] anger and wrath...

Did you catch that? Paul didn’t say…[who are] refusing to believe the truth, but do whatever they want whenever they want cuz they’re so cool and powerful and no one can contain ‘em…No, he said…[who are] refusing to believe the truth, but OBEY unrighteousness.

Mister Timberlake, I seek to obey God; you seek to obey Ellen DeGeneres. Have at it. On a footnote, I think it was at the Grammys last year that America once and for all collectively spit in the face of God. I think it was also at this procession that many Christians realized that the progressive liberals had won. Poor progressive liberals! Who would want to “win” in this society? No matter who you are, if you are on top of this cold, cynical, hate-filled world, you will be despised. Websites are beginning to restrict people leaving comments because they are so often snide and nasty and sardonic. You see, above all things sinners hate authority; it doesn’t really matter if that authority is conservative or liberal. The wheel goes round and round, but always in the mud.

Okay, so liberals have “won,” and so everyone will throw tomatoes at them and then the world will become Putin-conservative. Yet insincere moralism is just as odious as Katy Perry’s witchcraft. I’m not worried about red states and blue states; I’m prayerful rather that all repent and believe in the Gospel; for it’s true that the wheel goes round and round, but eventually it comes off or becomes useless. We see this masterfully in the genius book of Judges; entropy, entropy, everywhere is entropy (just don’t tell that to evolutionists; and the idea that an “open” system changes this is the biggest red herring of all). Let’s all set our hope to the heavens from where our true Kingdom will come, “looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Hebrews 11:10).

III. An Ancient Enemy (4:4-8/3:4-8)

4 And also what [have] you [to do] with me, [O] Tyre and Zidon, and all the districts of Philistia? [Are] you repaying upon me a recompense? And if you [are] recompensing upon me, swiftly [and] speedily/hastily will I return your recompense on/in your head. 5 [In] that you have taken my silver and my gold, and have brought into your temples my goodly desirable objects, 6 and the children of Judah and the children of Jerusalem have you sold to the children of the Greeks, in order to remove them far from upon their border. 7 Behold me -- rousing them up from the place [to] which you have sold them thither [lit- towards there], and I will return your recompense on/in your head. 8 And I will sell your sons and your daughters in[to] the hand of the children of Judah, and they will sell them to [the] Sabeans, to a nation far off, for Hashem has spoken.

When specific nations and cities are mentioned in the prophets it can be very difficult to ascertain the full relevance. The nation could be stated because it is a genuine unfulfilled prophecy; it may be an historical allusion with a timeless lesson, or it could be a poignant allegory for something that’s going to happen to another land one day, or even to the world at large. More than ever there is the need to compare Scriptures to see what all the prophets say about such a topic. The fact that both Joel and Zechariah mention the Philistines is interesting, as they are both short, taut books that focus heavily on either timeless truths or the end times apocalypse. Why mention these people?