Category Archives: Acts 2

Acts 2: Temporary markers of a new reality

Leave a reply

OK, I’ll wrap up this analysis of Acts 2 (check the posts from the last two weeks if you’ve missed them).

For now, I’m leaning toward seeing the destruction of Jerusalem as the “day of the Lord” being discussed. New Testament writers felt a freedom to use Old Testament passages in ways that the original writers didn’t use them; I write that off to an inspiration that I don’t possess. The Holy Spirit could lead them to reuse words outside of their original intent; I don’t feel good doing the same.

I don’t think Joel necessarily had the destruction of Jerusalem in mind. I think Peter was talking about just that, though I agree with Nick’s comment yesterday that he would have seen that as a type of the final judgment. (Much like Jesus’ discourse in Matthew 24)

The dreams, visions, and prophecy described in the Joel don’t seem to be ongoing aspects of the new age of the Spirit any more than the apocalyptic signs of verses 19-20 were expected to be permanent realities. There was an outpouring of the Spirit, accompanied by special signs. All of that was a warning about the coming judgment.

Does the fact that God included women in the signs point to a new approval for women taking leadership roles in the church? I just can’t see that, not if we’re going to be fair with this passage. We take a whole list of things and pick one of them to be an ongoing part of the church age, while seeing everything else as temporary? Doesn’t make sense to me.

I see the miraculous signs listed in Acts 2 as temporary signs marking a new age and warning of coming judgment. I don’t see any of them as permanent aspects of the Christian era.

Save yourself from this generation

1 Reply

Verse 39 is a reference back to this quote from Joel. Is verse 40 referring to the day of the Lord when Peter says to “save yourself from this corrupt generation”?

This was the last of the questions I wanted to look at from Acts 2. I’ll be honest; I almost always skip verse 40 when talking about Acts 2. And I rarely hear anyone else discuss it.

This could mean to come out from the group of Jews who still opposed and rejected the message of Jesus. This would be something like “escape from this generation.” Albert Barnes describes it as “preserve yourselves from the influence, opinions, and fate of this generation.” (Found on StudyLight.org)

McGarvey specifically rejects the idea that this is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, arguing that most would die of natural causes before that time. He says that the idea is to escape the fate that awaited the unbelieving Jews, that is, eternal condemnation. (Also found on StudyLight)

If that’s the thought here, then the day of the Lord in this chapter is probably the final judgment. I’m still not sure, but will continue to study it. I still see a real possibility that Peter is referring to the same thing that made Jesus weep over Jerusalem, the terrible siege that was awaiting the rebellious Jews.

What do you think?

Dark sun and bloody moon… should we be waiting for these?

Leave a reply

I’m still working through these questions on Acts 2. I’ll go ahead and post them again:

  1. Verses 17-20 describe signs that will occur “before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.” What is that great and glorious day? Is it the final judgment? Is it the destruction of Jerusalem? Doesn’t seem to be Pentecost itself, in my view, since these things were supposed to happen before that event.
  2. Do you take verses 19-20 literally? When do you think those happened or will happen?
  3. Why do we view verses 17-18 as ongoing while viewing verses 19-20 as one-time events? Or do you interpret verses 19-20 in a way that they could be seen as ongoing?
  4. Verse 39 is a reference back to this quote from Joel. Is verse 40 referring to the day of the Lord when Peter says to “save yourself from this corrupt generation”? That would fit if he’s talking about the destruction of Jerusalem. How else can we read these words?

When I started working on the questions, I accidentally skipped the second one, which would have been very appropriate with the solar eclipse last week. The question is about how we view these verses:

I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.

Were these literal signs that were/are to occur before the day of the Lord? If so, what was/is the timing on that? Were there celestial signs before Pentecost? (Like what happened at the crucifixion?) Were there such signs before the destruction of Jerusalem? Should we expect such before the final judgment?

Or is this apocalyptic language that doesn’t need a literal fulfillment?

What is Peter talking about here?

Ongoing conditions or conditional signs in Acts 2

Leave a reply

Continuing to look at some questions that have arisen as I study Acts 2. The second question I raised was:

Why do we view verses 17-18 as ongoing while viewing verses 19-20 as one-time events? Or do you interpret verses 19-20 in a way that they could be seen as ongoing?

This is a big one for me. I have not read any serious studies that consider that the dark sun and bloody moon were ongoing, whether the interpreters see these as mere symbols or as literal events. But many have sustained that verses 17 and 18 support women “prophesying” in church. (I put that in quotes because of differing views of how to define prophesy)

I don’t see how we can sustain both positions. The signs accompanying the outpouring of the Spirit and preceding the day of the Lord are ongoing or are tied chronologically to those events; we can’t have it both ways.

I’m a member of the churches of Christ. We don’t expect our young men to have visions, nor our old men to have dreams of significance. But if a woman wants to preach, she’s seen as fulfilling the promises of Acts 2. Consistency has never been our strong point.

The prophecy from Joel, it’s use in Acts 2… these sure seem like signs that accompanied specific events, showing the outpouring of the Spirit and preparing God’s people for the coming day of the Lord.

The Day of the Lord in Acts 2

Leave a reply

Yesterday I presented some questions about Acts 2. I’ll confess that I’ve been thinking about these some because this passage has become a major proof text for those promoting an expanded role for women in Christian ministry. The more I’ve looked at this passage, the more questions I have.

The first question I presented had to do with “the great and glorious day of the Lord” that Peter refers to. He’s using prophecy from Joel 2 to talk about the outpouring of the Spirit and salvation being offered to all that call on the name of the Lord. But he quotes a (relatively) long section from Joel 2, and Luke saw it as important enough to include in the book of Acts.

In context, Joel is writing after a terrible plague of locust had struck the Promised Land. In chapter 2, he calls the people to repentance, then talks about a time of restoration when God will bless the people with great abundance. He concludes that section by saying “never again will my people be shamed.”

The prophecy that Peter quotes begins “And afterward…” Peter quotes this as “In the last days…” I’m not sure if that comes from the Septuagint or from a different rendering of the Hebrew. Joel’s prophecy would speak of a time of restoration before the Day of the Lord, which certainly isn’t what Israel experienced in the first century. The way Peter quotes the passage, however, creates a disconnect with what comes before. All of that to say that Joel’s “Day of the Lord” and Peter’s “Day of the Lord” may not be the same.

I’m leaning toward seeing Peter’s day of the Lord as the destruction of Jerusalem and not the final judgment. That doesn’t mean that salvation is only about saving yourself from that terrible siege; I think we’re correct in giving that term a spiritual sense as well. But Peter knew that Jesus had spoken of a terrible judgment that was coming on Jerusalem; he would certainly have wanted to warn people about that. My hypothesis is that he saw the signs that accompanied the outpouring of the Spirit as a warning to the Jews of God’s impending judgment on their physical nation.

How do you see it?