The Healings and Visions of the Apostle Peter
In this episode
Scripture References
Works
Times will appear once this episode's audio is aligned.
Welcome to Halting Toward Zion, the podcast where we limp like Jacob to the Promised Land and talk about life, the universe, and everything along the way. I’m Emily Maxson here with Greg Uttinger and Rachel Voytek, and we are in Acts 9.
We’ve just seen the beginning of Paul’s ministry after his conversion, and now we are changing focus over to Peter for a little bit, because that’s what the Bible does. What verse are we in?
And it came to pass, as Peter passed throughout all quarters, he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda. And there he found a certain man named Aeneas, which had kept his bed eight years, and was sick of the palsy. And Peter said unto him, Aeneas, Jesus Christ maketh thee whole: arise and make thy bed. And he arose immediately.
It’s a healing miracle. This is not the first time that Peter has healed someone who can’t walk – echoes here of what Jesus said. We’re going to see other echoes of things Jesus did when Rachel talks to us about the next story, Tabitha.
In terms of the progression of the gospel there are a couple things here that perhaps are suggestive. If you’ve read Greek literature you know Aeneas was the hero of – actually it’s Roman, but it has its roots in the fall of Troy and all that – but he’s Trojan. He’s the Roman hero, the hero of the Aeneid, so it’s a Roman/Greek name.
I thought I was going to be coming out of left field with this question – do you think Aeneas was named after the Aeneas from the story? Did people name their kids after literary figures in those days?
No, human nature completely changed somewhere around 1883 and suddenly there was this naming of people after people in stories. Up till that they rolled dice. It is extremely likely that he is named after the Roman hero Aeneas, although the name is Greek in form.
Maybe we’re having some Hellenistic Jews here, somebody with some Greek heritage, maybe a Greek parent, although then as now, what people call their children doesn’t necessarily tell you anything about anybody, especially with name books. “We’re going to name our little boy Dagon, you know, the little fish?”
So there’s revival but he’s not there to generate a revival. He’s just there checking on the churches, encouraging them, that kind of thing, but this miracle provides a foundation, a platform for him to speak to more people. People hear about this and they’re amazed at the power of God and they want to know about this, so Peter tells them. He tells them about Jesus, and revival begins.
Joppa is where he’s going to go next. It plays a significant part in Jewish history as the central place of the Maccabean revolt, but in terms of scripture Joppa is the place where Jonah caught a ship for Tarshish. When Jonah was told to go preach to the Gentiles, he went to Joppa and fled the other direction. We’re back in Joppa and guess what’s going to happen here?
Yes, and the question is will Peter run away? At least that should be the seed planted in our minds. But of course, this is a new covenant and the power of the Spirit and his working in God’s saints is much greater and clearer. So Rachel, take it away. Tell us about Tabitha.
If you don’t know the map of where we are, Lydda is sort of northwest of Jerusalem. If you keep going on that northwestern path then you get out to Joppa on the coast. Lydda kind of takes you toward the coast. That’s why him already being in Lydda is why the disciples think to go get him. Also it’s going to be significant because Joppa is going to be the location for the next story of where God sends Cornelius or Cornelius’s servants to come find Peter, so it sets Peter up to be in that location.
Also if you happen to know modern Israel, Joppa is pretty much synonymous in location with modern Tel Aviv, which is the capital of Israel – well, it depends on who you ask if it’s the capital of Israel. It was the original capital of the current nation of Israel, I’ll say it that way. It’s still one of their most significant cities and a major port and things like that, so even from this time forward it continues to be a significant location on the coast. Many coastal ports are often significant, but just to give you some context of where we’re going on the map.
Peter is in a different city, but there is a disciple, which also demonstrates that the gospel had spread out this far. All of these areas would be considered Judea. We’ve seen it come to Jerusalem, we’ve seen it come to Judea, we’ve seen it go to Samaria, so we’re seeing the fullness of that.
Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas.
I confirmed with my husband that Tabitha and Dorcas do mean the same thing. Tabitha is Aramaic or Hebrew, whereas Dorcas is Greek, but both mean gazelle, the idea of a beautiful, graceful, fast creature.
Tabitha is very similar but not identical to the word that Jesus says in his raising of Jairus’s daughter, when he says “Talitha cumi” which means “young maiden, arise,” but it’s not the same word. I thought, “Oh, that would be really cool if it was the exact same word,” but David said no.
It’s very similar so we should be hearing some of this as we’re seeing Peter do these things, or as he’s going to do these things there should be some of those sound associations for us in her name. The text is going to flip back and forth with her name, but Peter, when he actually does the miracle, will refer to her as Tabitha, so keep that in mind.
We see an example here of a woman, so again we’re having representation, if we want to call it that, of female disciples. The reason that she is called out is because she is known for her good works and alms deeds which she did, meaning that she cared for others. She gave – alms would be charity – because she is somebody that makes clothing, as we’ll find out later.
And it came to pass in those days that she was sick, and died: whom when they had washed, they laid her in an upper chamber. And forasmuch as Lydda was nigh to Joppa, and the disciples had heard that Peter was there, they sent unto him two men, desiring him that he would not delay to come to them.
That’s interesting because often in the miracles of Jesus, people are hurrying to get to Jesus before somebody dies. She has already died and they say, “Hurry up, get here. We still need you,” so there’s a sense that they haven’t lost hope. And yet also in the book of Acts, unless I’m forgetting something, we have not seen a resurrection miracle from the apostles.
Yes, so that’s also important because Jesus has been the main one raising people from the dead, and yet they understand that the power of Christ rests upon the apostles, so they have full confidence and faith that if Peter comes, something can change.
Then Peter arose and went with them. When he was come, they brought him into the upper chamber and all the widows stood by him weeping, and shewing the coats and garments which Dorcas made while she was with them.
That tells us her gift to them was something that women did, which was to make clothing. We’re used to having lots of clothing today, buying it cheaply and throwing things away quickly, but even one piece of clothing then was very significant. To be able to give someone a coat to keep them warm, to give them a nice piece of clothing was a very significant cost both in materials and also time. It was also significant in what it meant to the person, to be able to have even one coat.
What she was doing was very practical and it made her very beloved, particularly they said by widows, which should make us think of the diaconal work of the church and the ways that she’s contributing, not by becoming a deacon but by doing what she knows for others.
This might a good time to point out something that we come across in Paul’s epistle to Timothy. There was an office of widow in the early church – I say ‘office’ for lack of a better word, you can call it what you want.
Yes. These were women who had no one to support them. They were “widows indeed,” as Paul would say, so the church took over their support, but it was assumed that they would therefore continue in a lifestyle of alms, deeds, charity, washing the saints’ feet, all sorts of things.
In the Old Testament we see this in part in the women who gathered at the tabernacle. As we come into the New Testament, Anna was one such – she was a widow. So just because you’re getting on in years, and just because you may not have children or grandchildren to directly minister to, it doesn’t mean that God doesn’t have things for you to do.
Actually, my friend Virginia makes this point. Her scholarly background is in women in the early church and the role of deaconesses in the early church, which is very interesting. She likes to draw this forward to single women in the church today, where we have a lot more women on their own in today’s culture than they did back then.
Generally back then there was a household, unless they were wealthy. They were dependent upon a husband or a brother. But the widows who were on their own played a significant role in the church then, so for single women in the church today – when I was single I found that a very encouraging thought. We’re not forgotten. We do have a role in the church, not just to find a household to be a part of.
It’s also not anybody else’s role. I think sometimes the error that we see in church history is, “We don’t know where to put this person, so they should go into a preexisting position. This person wants to serve; therefore, they should become a deacon, even if they’re a woman. Or this person wants to teach; therefore, they should become an elder because they want to teach, or they want to be a pastor.”
Or this person wants to serve God, so he should become a monk, or she should become a nun, because those are the categories we’ve built up and they’re easy. “Your Majesty, you have a daughter who no one wants to marry. Have we got a nunnery for you.” It’s a dangerous way of trying to apportion spiritual gifts, talent, and energy.
So we have these women, and they are there with genuine sorrow and sadness. Even in believing that she can be raised from the dead and will be raised from the dead, it’s still appropriate for them to sorrow with her being gone, and over the death that she has experienced, and yet to also desire that Peter would bring her back.
I don’t know if this has been an error, to think, “Oh, she’s going to receive a miracle because she deserved it because of her alms and good deeds.” That’s not the point. It’s simply them showing why she’s beloved and why they’re advocating for her, not that Peter has to do it because she gave so much to the church so she deserves to come back to life.
Exactly. She’s also a disciple, which means she’s someone who trusts in Christ, which means she needs Christ.
But Peter put them all forth and kneeled down and prayed; and turning him to the body said, Tabitha, arise.
That sequence of events should also very much remind us of Christ with Jairus’s daughter, of putting others out and then a simple two words – the name that he calls and that command “arise.” But he’s not doing it in his own name or his own strength as Christ did, but rather he prays and then calls to her. He calls her, in a sense, to come running back as a gazelle to come back to them. She has more to do, more to share with the church.
Immediately – there’s no delay – she opens her eyes and she sees him and sits up. There’s no recovery period. It’s a full complete clear miracle.
And he gave her his hand, and lifted her up, and when he had called the saints and widows, presented her alive.
What an absolutely amazing moment to have been there. Even though they called and they asked, because they had faith that it could happen, that moment when you see a dear friend who you thought was gone, suddenly walk back out of a room alive and smiling at you, having received that gift of life again from the Lord, that would be incredible.
One thing here is that there is no presumption. You kind of hinted about it, but I think we should be clear. From the moment they send for Peter there’s no guarantee. Even Peter, as you said, prays before the words of command. They know God can do this. They know that Jesus has done this when he was on earth.
A lot of people died around Jesus and he didn’t raise them all. A lot of people were sick around Jesus and he didn’t always heal them all. So there’s a trusting in God’s power, but as you said, there’s no presumption like, “Well, she was so good, he has to,” or “We miss her so much, he has to,” or any other “he has to” kind of argument. This is God’s sovereign grace.
The text itself tells us one of the main reasons that the Lord allowed this miracle and gave this miracle, which is –
It was not in Peter, not in Tabitha or Dorcas, but rather she stood as a testimony to the power of God, and it brought many to faith in Christ. It’s always God’s providence that determines where those miracles need to happen, or don’t, as we would ask for them.
Something else here in terms of the grand flow of the book of Acts. We were told or it was implied up front in the first chapter that whereas the gospel of Luke was an account of all that Jesus began to do and to teach, that this book is going to tell us about the things Jesus continues to do and to teach. It’s not so much the acts of the apostles as it is the acts of Jesus, as we focus in on how he pushes the gospel in terms of first Judea, then Samaria, then the uttermost parts of the earth.
What’s sort of going to be a turning point here, in the next chapters we’re going to see some very important things, and then we’re going to leave Peter and go to Paul as Paul works and builds on that. So it’s fitting at this point that, as you said, there are echoes of what Jesus has done in the past, quite a few, actually.
I think we need to keep in mind the truth that we have brought up from Dorcas or Tabitha, which is that she receives this miracle by the grace of God, not because of works that she had done, because when we come to Cornelius, again people are going to give good testimony of him, but that’s not why he gets to be the one. It’s not that he earned his position and was a better Gentile than all the other Gentiles. Rather it’s evidence of the work of God in him.
It is interesting to see how those do overlap, of a Jewish Christian and then coming in as a Gentile Christian, that there are a lot of similarities in the ways that they serve the Lord, and the ways that the Lord then cares for them and provides for them. But in neither case is it their own merit, but rather than that they are believing in Christ or will believe in Christ.
And it came to pass, that he tarried many days in Joppa with one Simon a tanner.
Yes. A tanner works with dead animals and cuts off the skins from them. Technically you could run that profession under the Mosaic law. You’d probably have to go through purification rituals on a regular basis. The Pharisees and Israel at the time pretty much just gave up on them and told them, “Go live out there someplace away from the city, because you’re unclean all the time for all practical purposes. You may be a Jew, but you are so second- or third-rate. Just go.”
Peter is staying there so that’s good, and they even have the same name, Simon. Then we move into chapter 10. So maybe the Lord is working on Peter here, at least dropping some heavy clues, but the camera shifts.
There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band [associated with Italy itself] a devout man and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people [there’s a connection back to Tabitha], and prayed to God alway.
He’s not a proselyte. He hasn’t been circumcised. He’s a God-fearer. He fears the true God, loves him, prays to him, does good in his name, devout. The fear of God is a phrase that sums up believing in God and his promises. In the book of Revelation, the everlasting gospel is summed up as fear God and keep his commandments, so this is a man of true faith.
And he’s taught his whole household as well, which will be significant later when it speaks of his whole household coming to faith, that they already had that testimony about them. His household would be more than just his immediate family as well, particularly if he was a well-known centurion. The whole reason he’s giving lots of money is because he’s wealthy.
Yes, he has slaves. He’s there in that area because of the Roman rule. It’s an interesting choice on God’s part for a Gentile because he’s a representation of a foreign power ruling God’s people, and yet he does good to them, not evil, and then is there to hear the gospel as well.
We can think here of the centurion who’s unnamed in the gospel accounts who in Capernaum had built the Jews a synagogue, and all the Jews loved him. “He has done many good things for us. He deserves for you to come and heal his servant,” and he sends back, “No, not remotely. I know this authority gig. I’m not worthy for you to come here. Just say the word and he’ll be healed.”
Probably not. I suppose it’s possible. It depends on how they’ve shuffled people around.
I think something we do need to note is that he’s a Gentile God-fearer still trapped in the old covenant, because although the new covenant has broken out and is spreading, and in terms of the church’s relationship with God is a reality, not everybody knows that. So here’s a Gentile still living in terms of the old covenant, but in terms of the old covenant he’s everything you would expect a Gentile to be if he has true faith. But we need a change of status here.
It’s more than yes, he needs to know Jesus personally as Jesus and what Jesus did, but he also needs to be lifted out of that also-ran category. “Yeah, God’s people and these other people are coming along, a multitude of God-fearers.” Things are going to change here very radically.
Anyway, what we’re told is he saw a vision. Already this is strange territory. I’m trying to think of how many Gentiles in the Old Testament saw visions. I can think of a couple. There was a Philistine king to whom God appeared and said, “Don’t touch that woman. She’s another man’s wife.” You can think of Balaam. That did not go well for Balaam, but it gave us some prophecies of Messiah. And then of course eventually Nebuchadnezzar.
We could also say Pharoah’s dreams, which were a type of vision. Both he and Nebuchadnezzar have dreams from God.
Yes, and both seem to be converted as a result so it’s not unheard of, but it is unusual. And he’s not a king, he’s just a centurion.
This was about the ninth hour of the day, about 3:00, so this is the hour of prayer, the time when the evening sacrifice was offered, followed by the incense offering in the holy place. Since the incense depicted the arising to him, it was deemed a fit hour for prayer. It doesn’t mean they prayed the whole hour necessarily, but that was the time that was set, so lots of people imitated that in Israel, and apparently this man did too.
He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. And when he looked on him, he was afraid…
I don’t know if there’s anyone in scripture who actually meets an angel and, knowing it’s an angel, isn’t afraid. I’m probably missing somebody. Mary perhaps comes the closest.
He said, “What is it, Lord?” because it sounded cheeky to call him nothing, but this is not the Lord, it’s an angel.
And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.
That means they’ve been offered in true faith. Again, this is not how you earn God’s favor or God’s blessing or any such thing. This is the outpouring of a joyful thankful heart that trusts God and believes his promises, so God looks and takes note and says, “I’m going to use that guy.”
And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter. He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the seaside. He shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.
The angel knew what was going on here, and in terms of knowledge he had the knowledge that he on that level could have told Cornelius, but angels by and large are not allowed to preach the gospel. They’re very limited. This is something God has given to his church.
We’ve talked in different contexts about all the revelations that Muslims seem to have round-about their conversion time. I think, Rachel, your attitude was to suspend judgement for now. I think that’s probably a good policy.
My general thought is that visions seem to come where the Word of God is hard to find, or where there needs to be a dramatic intervention and there’s not another person there to do it. If you’re surrounded by other Christians, you would not generally expect these kinds of visions, but when it’s a breaking in and changing of all expectations, or there simply is no preaching to be heard, it seems that there are more reports of these visions that people have, particularly among Muslims in the last 10 years or so.
They seem to be having dreams or visions, but pretty much all the stories then tell of how they find Bibles, they find Christians at “random,” where they had this vision and then they go walking down the street and they run into missionaries in the middle of the Middle East, or they find a Christian at the hospital in Pakistan, and these sorts of things.
It’s sort of similar to how we see more overt demonic activity when the gospel is breaking into a new place.
Yes. Missionaries on first-contact situations are far more likely to run into demonic activity. Rationalist brothers back home say, “Yeah, that’s a nice story. I’m sure there’s a rational explanation.” “Yeah, the demons got mad is the rational explanation.”
Angels and demons generally are supposed to keep quiet. They’re stage managers. They work behind the scenes. So are we supporting the idea of ongoing miracles and revelations and visions? No. However, God can do marvelous things as he wills, and he still has angels who work for him. And there’s always the, “Oh, what was that dream about? It must have been something I ate,” and maybe it really was something you ate, but then God directed your neurons to produce what he needs.
How many of us have woken up and had our day affected by a dream we can’t remember, but we remember the feeling, and that’s just a simple dream. You go, “I know I was mad at you, and I don’t know why, but I’m still mad at you,” or “I was so happy and I don’t know why.”
This was a real angel, but he doesn’t get to tell the good news. He just gets to say, “Go over there and someone else will. Go call for this guy Peter. He will tell you what you need to know.”
And when the angel which spake unto Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants…
Of course, two is the biblical requirement for witnesses. It’s a good thing to have someone there to confirm what actually happened and what people actually said.
And when he had declared all these things unto them, he sent them to Joppa.
The journey is about 32 miles down the coast. Caesarea is north of Joppa. Both are right on the coast, so it would be following that.
You can walk about 3 miles/hr so it’s a long day’s walk, but presumably back then they also walked a lot more. Still, it would have been one very long day walking each direction, or two days each way, so it’s a commitment.
On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour…
That’s presumably noon, depending on whether we’re on the Greek or Roman clock. If it’s the Roman clock then it would be 6 pm. It’s probably not 6 in the morning.
…and saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners and let down to the earth, wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter. Kill and eat.
He doesn’t really know immediately what’s going on here. It’s obviously a message from God, and the command seems clear enough. But he looks at these things – four-footed beasts. These are not cattle. These are not domesticated animals, so apparently if there were sheep and oxen they’re not catching his attention. Wild beasts might include deer and gazelle, which would be kosher, but beasts suggests maybe not.
Creeping things – the only creeping things allowed under the Mosaic law are grasshoppers, technically because they don’t creep, they leap on all fours. They’re kind of flying things.
Fowls of the air – there are clean fowls, but there are a whole lot more unclean fowls.
He’s not told how exactly he’s supposed to do that. We’re not told if there was also a butcher knife laid out for him, a table for killing, none of that. We all know that in dreams we attempt things, are told to do things, take on things that in waking life we would say, “Wait, how was I supposed to even do that? I didn’t have this or that,” but in the dream it makes sense. He believes that in this dream he could comply.
He doesn’t say, “Sorry. You want me to do that? You better give me a knife, an apron, and someplace to do this. I have to say no until I have…surely you don’t want me to use my bare hands. That would be gross.” He seems to assume this can be done. He’s just not going to do it.
Let’s stop there for a second. “Not so, Lord.” It seems he does know who he’s talking to. He’s talking to Jesus and he just said, “No.” His reasoning is “…for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.”
If you think back to the book of Ezekiel, there is something that is sort of parallel. You all know Ezekiel bread? It’s been touted as the perfect diet food, or all kinds of weird things have been said about it. Early in Ezekiel the Lord tells Ezekiel to take some of this and some of that, all things that could go into a bread, and then to bake it over man’s dung – gross. That’s kind of Ezekiel’s reaction. He says, “I’ve never tasted anything unclean.”
God says, “Okay, fine. I’m giving you cow’s dung in place of man’s dung. Now, moving on…”
He doesn’t undo the command. “Oh, what was I thinking? Sorry about your tender sensibilities here. Yes, I know that you want to keep your track record and maintain your list of ‘things I’ve never done,’ so sorry to ask something so hard. Never mind, I’ll find…”
He doesn’t do that. In Ezekiel’s case he makes a minor alteration. “Fine, you can bake it over cow’s dung rather than human dung.” I think we would all say that’s better, maybe?
Here there’s no accommodation whatsoever. There’s no shifting ground. There’s no, “Okay, well, if that doesn’t work for you, how about this?” Rather, there is an immediate response from the Lord.
And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
Peter is objecting to the animals that are unclean, and to those that by their association with unclean animals would be rendered less than clean, less than ideal. He doesn’t want anything to do with that, and he does not plead.
Maybe he thinks he’s pleading this, but he doesn’t say this. He does not say, “Remember your law, Lord. You’ve forbidden me to do such things, and I’ve always tried to obey you on this. Am I missing something?” It’s simply, “No, I’m not doing that because I have this track record of dietal perfection.”
God says, in so many words, “Shut up. Don’t tell me what to do. I’m telling you what to do. Your verdict in this is 1) irrelevant and, 2) untrue. I have cleansed these things. You may not have figured that one out yet, so I’m telling you. I have cleansed these things. They are not to be considered common or unclean anymore.”
Which is an important lesson in that God is the one who defines what is good in his creation, and we have to read and understand, because we could go to the Old Testament and say, “Ah, we know exactly how God wants us to eat. I will now do all these things and feel very holy about myself. I will know that all pork is clearly bad for you.”
There’s a certain podcaster that I enjoy sometimes, and he likes to advocate for something he calls the biblio-diet. It’s basically that idea that if God has said that we shouldn’t eat something, then it must be unhealthy for us.
The rest of us go, “What about the New Testament? What about this specific passage where God says ‘eat it.’”
That too. I’ve heard the response, “Well, this is about the gospel going to the Gentiles,” which is true, but also misses the fact that if God is going to tell you to do something, you should do it, even if it is a metaphor for something else as well.
He can do things for multiple reasons. The Old Testament dietary law was also a metaphor, but they still had to eat that way.
Very good. “And Jesus is the lamb of God, but we’ll go on offering sacrifices because God told us to once, so we’re just going to do it forever and ever throughout eternity.”
“Isn’t it a good picture of Jesus for us to keep on remembering and remembering and remembering?”
I will add my one final thing of our rant against such things. As you talk about your own food, be very careful with using the phrase “clean” and “unclean.” One of my pet peeves is people telling me that they’re “clean” ingredients or eating “clean.” No food is truly clean, because it’s from a sinful world, but all food can be clean in that we eat it with thankfulness.
That’s just one of my pet peeves partly because of how the Bible uses the words clean and unclean, and it has to do with our ability to approach God. No food can make us unclean in that.
The dietary laws themselves were echoes of the curse in Eden, and that’s a discussion for a different time. And yes, they also separated Israel from the nations round about her in consequence. They were never binding on the Gentiles.
Yes, the main point is the gospel can go to the Gentiles; however, that should imply, especially when it says so, that the figures surrounding keeping the gospel away from the Gentiles need to collapse. They need to go away. The access needs to be clear. All the metaphors we use now need to show the invitation to come, not the restrictions on staying out.
So after this first round, the thing happens again. The sheet comes down, and Peter has learned nothing. “Not so, Lord. I’ve never…” and Jesus says again, “Don’t call what I’ve cleansed common or unclean.” Peter is scratching his head, the sheet goes back up, and then it comes back down.
Yes, God repeats himself three times, and Peter keeps saying the same thing. Peter is not getting it. Of course, if you can’t get over that you can eat pork now, how are you going to get over, “And I can’t have this Gentile in my house or show him any kind of brotherly affection, because he’s a Gentile?” If you can’t handle the lesser, how are you going to handle the greater challenge?
We’ll find out next time how that works, but God is not done here. He’s going to have one more direct word for Peter. “There are some messengers here. Go with them.” When Peter finally gets it and goes back to Jerusalem, the church jumps him and says, “What did you do?” and then we get the whole story all over again.
The church in Jerusalem is a little quicker to receive it because they get the whole story at once, but it’s this constant “No, you can’t mean this.” Spiritually, theologically, and covenantally this is an incredibly important passage. Historically, this is marking the cultural/sociological obvious shift of Christianity being a Jewish religion, a Jewish sect, to be a world-conquering faith, so we should not be surprised that it gets a lot of coverage and a lot of repetition. We keep hearing it over and over again from different mouths because we would not be where we are if this had not happened.
Yes, and we will pick this up next time. Until then, shall we leave off with some recommendations?
My recommendation is for anyone who is interested in thinking biblically and critically about artificial intelligence and all of that. I listened to a podcast a couple weeks ago from Alisa Childers that was called “What Every Christian Should Know About Artificial Intelligence” with Ryan Pauly.
He was talking about a book that they put out recently that is a compilation of a bunch of different authors – I think a different author for each chapter. It’s called “Stewarding AI” and it’s attempting to understand how Christians should use AI and how they should think about it.
A lot of the content actually reminded me, Emily, of what your David talked about when he came and spoke to the staff, in terms of understanding AI as a tool, understanding what we’re made in the image of God to do, and how AI can complement or hinder that. What does it mean to take dominion as we’re called to and be good stewards of the creation? Listening to the podcast and looking at the book, it seems like those are some newer resources that are coming out.
I also listened to another podcast by Unshaken Faith. They were interviewing I think a pastor and maybe computer programmer, who together have been working to create the first “Christian” AI platform called Dominion, so that’s another one to go listen to as they discuss how and why and what they’re doing to try to make theirs Christian vs the others.
Also if you’re interested in AI, watch this space because the next special we have coming up at some point will be my husband, who works in AI, talking about AI.
Listeners, if you want to send questions about AI to [email protected], we would love to get those and see if we can work them into the program.
I have a recommendation. I told you last week that I was going to do a string of poetry-related recommendations, and the one for this week is an album that you can buy on BandCamp if you’re into physical media. I think you can also buy a download version.
Phil Keaggy, the renowned guitarist, prog rock icon, and devoted Christian released an album called Strings & Sonnets. I say he released it, but he released it with Malcolm Guite, who is a poet and a C.S. Lewis and Tolkien scholar. He just released a new setting of the Grail legend in ballad form, which is available, if you have Spotify, as an audiobook. I’m sure it’s available other places as an audiobook, too.
This album, Strings & Sonnets, is a bunch of Malcolm Guite poems, and he reads them, and Phil Keaggy heard the poems and thought, “I want to do custom guitar accompaniments to these.” So it’s about 20 tracks of Malcolm Guite reading his poems, with custom accompaniment by Phil Keaggy, and it is so delightful. I have it in my car, so that’s what I’m listening to up and down the hill as I’m driving with the kids and it’s delightful.
Recommendation: Strings & SonnetsThere’s one called “Smoke Rings from my Pipe.” I think it’s the only poem on the album that is not actually a sonnet. I think the rest of them are sonnets. They are really, really great, good meditations on scripture, on art in general, and on the Christian imagination.
It seems like they would be a wonderful addition to the British literature class at Cornerstone, when they go over sonnets, trying to see some modern adaptations of what sonnets can be like, particularly when you start adding music so you can maybe get more of the meter and such. It could be fun.
Yes. That leaves me, and this kind of a weird recommendation. I’ve been working on a new Old Testament curriculum for the RCUS and I was told, “You can’t stop with the histories. You have to include the wisdom literature,” so I’ve spent a good part of the summer just psyching myself into doing it, and then once I started it wasn’t too bad.
But then I came to the Song of Solomon and realized, “This is not a book.” I mean I’ve read it once a year since I was 16 at least, so I more or less know what’s in it, and of course the traditional approach is allegorical, but you get into some real problems there. The bride’s two breasts, what are they? The Old and New Testament? You get all kinds of weird things going on.
For a long time I’d emphasize that, first of all, this is a story of the physical love, romance, and sexual love of a man for a woman, but I thought, “I better do a lot of reading before I write this,” which is going to amount to be three paragraphs and some questions.
The one commentary on Song of Solomon that I had handy is from the Tyndale series, by G. Lloyd Carr. It’s simply called The Song of Solomon: An Introduction and Commentary in the Tyndale series. I don’t recommend it unconditionally by any means, but I do recommend it as a book that, while waving politely at the allegorical method and leaving it behind, looks at other options and I think comes down on what I think is the correct position. I’m still working on it.
Recommendation: The Song of Solomon: An Introduction and CommentaryFirst of all, it is a book about physical romantic love. “Why would God put something like that in the Bible?”
Yes, and the fact that you have to ask that suggests why he may have put it in the Bible. I remember telling a Christian schoolteacher once – we were talking about God not being ashamed of sex – and I said, “Well, he put a song about sex in the Bible.” “I don’t believe God would ever do that.”
As a starting point – and I would not advertise it as more than that – but he does seem to take the text of scripture seriously. He’s obviously very well-learned and he is polite in his discussions.
His take – and again I’m inclined to think he’s right – is that although the book is by Solomon, Solomon isn’t one of the characters. The two characters are a man and a woman, a shepherd and shepherdess who love each other and who don’t compromise and who don’t give in. Some people have suggested that Solomon is the third character as the one who tries to seduce her away from the shepherd, and I can see that, but I think it’s simpler just to go with this.
“Well, where’s Jesus?” As you said, he invented sex, he invented romance, he invented marriage. No one ever looks at Proverbs 31 and says, “Where’s Jesus in this? This is just about some woman who’s got it all together. Or how about 1 Corinthians 13? That’s just telling us how to love one another. Where is Jesus in that?” “Jesus is love.” “Come on, guys, let’s think a little deeper here.”
Yes. Anyway, if you’re thinking about Song of Solomon and struggling with it, or trying to at least get a place to start, I’m going to recommend this if only so that someday I can go back and say, “Oh yeah, that’s from the book I was reading at the time.” So there you go.
All right. Thank you both so much. This has been a delight, as ever. A big thank you also to David, our producer and my lawfully-wedded husband. A big thank you to our financial supporters for keeping the show rolling.
Again, if you’d like to get in touch with us, send us any questions about AI or anything else, send it to [email protected]. We’d love to hear from you.
Like, subscribe, and share on YouTube. Give us a 5-star review wherever you’re listening, and tell your friends. Have a wonderful night and we’ll see you next time.