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.