Acts 9: 36--43

When Luke begins his book about the Apostles' activities, he immediately sets Peter at stage center: two long sermons, a healing, and the confrontation with Ananias and Sapphira between two appearances before the Sanhedrin. Although accompanied at times by John, it is clearly Peter, the "cowardly lion" of his Gospel, whom Luke places in the spotlight (1: 13--5: 42). Then the long story about Stephen interrupts, followed by three vignettes concerning Philip, in the course of which Peter makes a dramatic appearance(1) (ch.6--8). Next, we read about Saul (ch.9), ending with the church at peace (9: 31(2)). Peter returns with two solo healings prior to his roof-top visions, another sermon, and the baptism of the gentiles of Cornelius' household (9: 33--11: 18). What does all this "context" tell us about today's lesson?

For one thing, we note a parallelism between the two physical healings-- one a "resurrection"-- and the spiritual "healing" of Saul, a comparison that Luke makes many times in his Gospel(3). The equation of healing and the forgiveness of sin is a major theme for Luke, and he works hard to get the lesson across to us.

Second, and in light of the above, we read today's lesson as a prelude-- for both Peter and us-- to the succeeding story: the extension of "healing" to the gentiles. Peter-- and we-- need to be shown the awesome power of God's will to express grace: forgiveness, acceptance, reconciliation, love: to everyone.

Why does Luke tell two healing stories? Consider the progression: Aeneas was paralyzed, Tabitha was dead. Now apply them symbolically to the human spiritual condition. Some believe, but are "paralyzed"(4), unable to act freely on their faith; others are "dead", lacking faith. Both stand in need of healing.

Now compare the "agency". To the paralytic, Peter says: "Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you. Get up" (34). No-one would argue about who is responsible for healing in that statement. But it is followed by "Tabitha, rise up." (40) What is Luke trying to tell us? Yes, Peter prayed first, but still he omits any mention of Jesus! Read again Luke 5: 17--26 and John 14: 12. What John has Jesus state explicitly, Luke shows us by example after example.

As if that were not enough, prayerfully consider the "moral" Luke attaches to each of these tales: and they turned to the Lord (35), and many came to believe in the Lord. (42) Mercifully, Luke only wrote two stories; if he had written the third, would we not feel too uncomfortably comparable to Peter, who learned the hard way the lesson of "three times"?

Psa. 23

This is true-- from God's standpoint. You and I lack nothing. But from where I and many Christians are, there is a lack: a deficiency of faith-- trust-- that what God says in Scripture is true; that, through and because of faith, we can (and should) be instruments of healing, physical healing; and that to the end that others may turn to the Lord and believe in the Lord. We lack nothing. Except, perhaps, confidence in God.

Oh. I see. I have to read it in context, right? It's all about the "shepherd" metaphor, and all it means is that I am protected and provided for. Is that it? Well, thank-you. That certainly relieves me of a lot of guilty feelings. And responsibility! Ah, yes, the pastoral scene: quiet, calm, serene, safe, satisfied. And all I have to do is sit back and enjoy. Oh, yes! I like that interpretation! And yet--

You spread a table for me in full view of my enemies (5). Suddenly and brusquely that tranquil, verdant glade is transformed into a battlefield, where two opposing kings, each on his own hillside surrounded and guarded by his army, sit at table... in full view of [his] enemies, trying to surpass each other with a lavish, luxurious, confident repast. There is a war going on, down in green pastures (2). And I (and you?) am one of the kings! Who is my enemy?

Rev. 7: 9--17

I had a vision of a great multitude (9). Who are they? My enemy's army? Shudder! But they are all wearing white robes, which are not exactly battle fatigues. And holding palm branches in their hands, instead of rifles and grenades! What kind of warfare are they engaged in? They raise their horrifying voices in battle-cry, but do not attack! Am I dreaming? Then an emissary comes over, asking: "Who are these wearing white robes, and where did they come from?" (13)

Instantly I become aware that my "army" has vanished, deserted, and I am alone! "How should I know?" I babble, too bewildered to be scared. Then the old gentleman smiles at me-- you know that kind of smile-- and explains the situation, easing me back into the "garden" and quiet repose. It seems odd, out there among green bushes and trees, to see a throne. Odder yet, it is not a king but a lamb seated thereon, but I will not complain. Somehow-- oddly enough-- it seems sort of right. Like the "war" is over. Or is it?

John 10: 22--30

Jesus answered them, "I told you and you do not believe. The works I do in my Father's name testify to me. But you do not believe, because you are not among my sheep. (25--26) Jesus speaks of His works; what about His words? Consider this substitution: "The [words] I [say] in my Father's name testify to me." Is it legitimate? If so, then do we not stand convicted, because we do not truly believe His Word?

"Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes in me will do the works that I do, and will do greater ones than these, because I am going to the Father." (14: 12) What works was He appointed by God to do?

And what did Jesus charge His disciples to do? "As you go, make this proclamation: 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.' Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, drive out demons. Without cost you have received; without cost you are to give." (Mat. 10: 7--8)

Do we do all that? No. Why not? Consider Jesus' words: "But you do not believe, because you are not among my sheep." Something to think and pray about, no? "Tabitha, rise up."

1. 1 Peter chastises Simon; is Luke conveying another message here?

2. 2 A deliberate contrast to 8: 3--4?

3. 3 See Luke 5: 17--26; esp. v.23.

4. 4 Paralysis usually is partial, not total, as is death.

(comments to Phil at ENAPXH@aol.com )