Peter in the Footsteps of Jesus -- Peter's Ministry in Acts 9:32-43 (2024)

You will do greater works even than these.

Bible Study Ideas and Commentary for Acts 9:32-43

After Paul's conversion, the teeth of the Jewish persecution is removed, and the church has a season of calm. Peter uses the season to travel further from Jerusalem where he performs two miracles in Samaritan territory. Luke's emphasis is not on the miracles themselves, but on the fact that God uses them to bring many Samaritans to saving faith in Christ.

(The artist's name is Christopher Parkin.)

When We Studied This Passage in 2016

This is admittedly weird, but I have changed my mind on how to interpret this passage. In 2016, I based the entire lesson on the idea that the widows in Joppa were boldly asking for Tabitha's resurrection from the dead. I'm no longer convinced that's what they were doing. The end result doesn't look any different; the meaning and purpose of the passage is not affected. I just now believe that the widows simply wanted Peter to help them understand how to cope with this loss, and Peter instead prayed for God to return Tabitha to life.

That post also explains the difference between "resurrection" and "resuscitation" (which I'm pretty lax on my use of "resurrection").

Getting Started: Things to Think About

Following in the Footsteps

The Paris Olympics is happening as I write this post. One of my favorite parts of the Olympics broadcast is immediately after the competition when the winning athlete(s) runs to the stands and hugs somebody. It's usually a parent or coach or spouse (or a parent-coach), and we get to see how happy/proud the coach is for the athlete. What a great moment for the person in the stands! -- to be there when the person you have invested so much into achieves something marvelous.

Of course, this sort of thing happens in all walks of life. If you have ever been a teacher or a mentor or a coach (or a parent), you know the feeling when one of your "students" succeeds. So, try to share that feeling with your group. What's it like to see your investment in someone else's life come to fruition?

For this week's passage, I'm going to "zag" on the traditional emphasis on the miraculous healings. Peter performs two amazing miracles, and that's a great thing to focus on! But I believe that Luke has structured his history to show that Peter is simply walking in the footsteps of Jesus. Whatever the righteous version of "pride" is, I believe that Jesus felt that for Peter in this first half of Acts. When Jesus called Peter, Peter was a hotheaded fisherman. And now, Peter is teaching what Jesus taught, performing the miracles that Jesus performed, and carrying on the mission that Jesus gave to him.

(No, we wouldn't expect anything else; Jesus taught and empowered Peter, and the Holy Spirit -- whom Jesus sent from God the Father -- is at work in Peter. But the point is that all of those years of investment in Peter is truly "paying off".)

If you use this topic, you'll want to take it in a spiritual direction. Who are the people who have invested in you spiritually? And how are you "making good" on that investment? Likewise, who are the people you have invested into, and how is that going? A lot of professors and church leaders have invested knowledge and wisdom in me, and it does cause me to ask regularly if I am doing all I can with their investment.

How Do You Want People to Remember You?

This is definitely a somber topic, so it might not work in every group. In this week's passage, Peter comes to a town that's mourning the loss of a much-beloved member named Tabitha. Pastor David regularly mentions Tabitha in funeral messages because the way family members think of their lost loved one is the way Tabitha's friends thought of her. The Bible describes Tabitha as "always doing good works and helping people". Wow. So, how do you want people to remember you? And what are you doing to make that reality?

This Week's Big Idea 1: Jesus and Peter and Paul

In this week's passage, we read about Peter performing two great miracles. And Luke has left clues to help us connect it back with the ministry of Jesus. Let's remember this amazing episode in Luke 8:

(Note: we studied Mark's version of this event in

If you have questions about the passage, take a look at that post.)

And you say, Jesus performed lots of miracles; what's so important about this set? Well, it's something that we're not going to notice in our English translations. The bolded phrase, "Child, get up!" is Aramaic "Talitha, koum!" Guess what Peter said to the dead woman Tabitha? "Tabitha, koum!" Luke didn't make anything up or manipulate anything; he simply noticed something that he thought was cool and wanted to make sure it was in his Gospel and history.

It's the fulfillment of something Jesus said to Peter and the disciples:

Luke simply observed in Peter's post-Pentecost ministry (like this week's passage and chapter 3) the works that validated him as someone worthy of following as he followed in the footsteps of Jesus.

Now, let me briefly peek ahead in Acts. I mentioned Paul in my heading, and this is why:

Luke obviously saw Peter as a key figure for the early church, especially in Jerusalem. And he couldn't help but notice that Peter performed the same kinds of miracles that Jesus did. Luke made sure to draw attention to them in his history of the early church so as to reinforce Peter's authority. And guess what? Luke will do the same with Paul. We will talk about this in more detail when we study Paul's ministry in the future, but keep that general idea in mind when you read about the things Paul did on his missionary journeys.

Luke did not highlight Peter's and Paul's miracles for bragging rights (like Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8). He did so to tell church members that Peter and Paul were walking in the footsteps of Jesus, and they could be trusted.

This Week's Big Idea 2: Miraculous Healings

I'm going to put a section about this at the very bottom, just FYI.

Where We Are in Acts

Last week, we read about Saul the Persecutor's conversion on the road to Damascus. It fits the broader narrative --

Here's a handy map I found on Pinterest. Remember from last week that Damascus is way up in Syria. After his conversion, Saul came to Jerusalem to meet with the apostles (and yet again it took someone taking Saul under his wing and integrating him into the church). But the Jews in Jerusalem were pretty stirred up against Saul, so the apostles sent Saul far away to Tarsus. And as far as I can tell, Saul was the driving force of persecution, so taking him off the board really calmed things down. This leads to a theory that the apostles had been largely hunkered down in Jerusalem -- not out of fear, but out of prudence. It was simply too dangerous for Peter to go out on the open road. That's why Philip (a Greek deacon) took the lead and only called in Peter when something monumental (the salvation of Samaritans) had happened. But now that the persecution has calmed down, Peter is able to "make the rounds" in a wider sense. In Acts 9/10, Peter travels to Lydda, then Joppa, and finally all the way to Caesarea.

The Challenge of the Timeline

You might have noticed this if you read the Galatians 1 passage I included in last week's post. Paul says that after he was saved, he went to Arabia, then back to Damascus for 3 years, then to Jerusalem, then to Syria (Antioch) and Cilicia (Tarsus). It's 14 years later when Paul and Barnabas go on their first missionary journey. (See Galatians 1:13-2:2.)

But Luke doesn't include all of that in his Acts records. What gives?

The best I can say is that Luke had a narrative. Paul was saved, then Paul was affirmed by the apostles in Jerusalem, then the church had a season of calm, then Peter went on the journey that opened the mission to the Gentiles. In Acts, we might read it as if these happened in a matter of days or weeks, but in reality it was over the course of months and years. That doesn't make Luke careless as a historian; it simply means that he didn't want to overwhelm his readers with the intricacies of Paul's travel itinerary.

The point is that Paul's conversion and removal to Tarsus led to a real calming of persecution (over the course of several years) which led to Peter's ability to safely travel into Samaritan and Gentile territory. Finally, let's remember:

Jesus' commission is being realized.

Part 1: A Miraculous Healing in Lydda (Acts 9:32-35)

Remember the immediate context -- Paul's conversion had led to a calming of persecution, making it easier for Peter to "travel from place to place".

This town, Lydda, was in Samaritan territory; Sharon is the name of the region. So, this is a good sign that Peter has begun to travel beyond Judea on his own, and not in response to a request from someone like Philip. Through Philip's ministry, we know that the apostles have recognized that God is willing to save Samaritans. (It's also important to remember that at Pentecost, there were Jews from all over the known world, and eventually they returned to their homes, some as new Christians. This would suggest that there would be Christians in places where there had been no "mission work" yet, like Lydda.)

We are given the impression that Aeneas was one of the "saints" in Lydda. Here, Luke uses "saints" like we do "Christians" today. The name "Christian" doesn't appear until 11:26, so my guess is this is what they called one another before that term spread.

We should notice the parallels with the miracles Jesus performed. I mentioned Luke 8 in which the woman had suffered from bleeding "for twelve years". The Lifeway material points us to John 5 and the man who had been disabled "for 38 years". The length of time simply helps the audience see that this is no trick.

We don't know why Peter went to Aeneas. We can assume that there were more ill or disabled people in Lydda. But that's also beside the point. Jesus did not heal every person He encountered. Why? Because the healings were to point the people to their need for eternal, spiritual healing which only He could provide.

Note how clearly Luke (via Peter) explains that Peter did not do this miracle, or any miracle. Jesus did the miracle through the Holy Spirit; Peter simply voiced it. I'll talk more about the gift of "miraculous healings" at the bottom of this post. For right now, we need to see Luke's point: this miracle enabled Peter to get a favorable hearing from the people of Lydda. This miracle was a tangible way the people could see that God did indeed love them. Remember that their whole lives, they had been told by Jews that God rejected them. This is proof that God has not rejected them.

Note in particular that Aeneas did not have the option to say no. This miracle was not based on anybody's faith, so it is an unconditional healing, so to speak.

[Aside: Aeneas's bed. Aeneas was probably in a home, in a pallet bed, and not on a rolled-out mat near the road. So when Peter tells him "Make your bed," this is different than "Take up your mat and walk". Aeneas, being bedridden, probably relied on other people to do things like change his sheets and even help him go to the bathroom. Telling Aeneas to make his bed might be more mundane than "Take up your mat and walk", but it's no less dramatic.]

This is a bigger-picture topic, but you could ask something along the lines of "Who are people around us who don't believe that God loves them, and what can we do to show them they are wrong?" As I'll say below, we don't have the power over God to command Him to do miracles at our bidding, but there are things we can do. And far as I'm concerned, you could narrow this down to a neighborhood, a family, or even an individual. God loves everybody; Jesus came for everybody. What can we do to "show" people that?

Part 2: A Major Loss in Joppa (Acts 9:36-38)

Joppa is about 10 miles away from Lydda, so "near" is relative; it was still a big journey. Unlike what Lifeway suggests, I don't think the historical details about Joppa really make a difference to Luke's point. This is a town "on the outs" with Jerusalem, like any other town in this region. The point is that God's love and power reaches even to them.

Both "Tabitha" and "Dorcas" mean "gazelle". I would rather be called "Tabitha".

Clearly, Tabitha was a very beloved woman, and her loss would leave a big hole in the community. If you haven't yet, you might here use the "How do you want to be remembered?" discussion.

So here's the biggest question we have about this event: why did the disciples in Joppa send for Peter? Did they really expect Peter to bring Tabitha back to life? Or did they just want an important apostle to mourn with them about the loss of an important church member? Most of what I read about this passage indicates that we assume they wanted Tabitha raised from the dead. That's how most readers seem to interpret the tidbit about them placing her body in an upper room (a very nonstandard practice.) I'm not convinced that's the case. What if they just wanted Peter to eulogize Tabitha? What if they just wanted Peter to help them understand how to cope?

[Aside on Christ's return: remember that there was real confusion in the early church about how soon Christ would return. Many people believed He would be returning soon, and this led to great fear that Christians who died before He returned would "miss out". That's why Paul felt it necessary to write:

You might not realize this, but this is the first time an apostle has raised someone from the dead. (And the only other time is Paul raising Eutychus in Acts 20, cf. the parallels between Peter and Paul). The disciples in Joppa would have no way of knowing this is even possible.

And the bigger point is this: Tabitha died again. The church would eventually "lose her" again. Did they call for another apostle? What about a time anyone else in the church died?

Here's the bigger concern I have: many readers seem to conclude (even unintentionally) that God raised Tabitha from the dead because she was such a good person. Uh oh! What's the problem with that conclusion?

So, if Luke didn't include this detail to explain why God raised her from the dead, then why did he include it? I now think it's to explain why the people were so torn up about this loss. This leads to an important, but difficult, topic: how does your church handle "losing" an important church member, to death or to moving away? IMO, this is one of the hardest parts of vocational ministry. Every year at our Associational Meeting, we see a list of the church members who died the past 12 months. I know from conversation how devastating those losses have been. And if we consider how small the church in Joppa must have been, we can appreciate what a huge hole she would have left.

A takeaway I have from this is that it is good to mourn the loss of our fellow church members. And more so, we should desire to be the kind of church member who will be mourned when we are gone. (But let's not put too much emphasis on any one person; no matter how important you are to your church, the church will move on after you are gone.)

Part 3: A Miraculous Healing in Joppa (Acts 9:39-43)

I've already mentioned the parallels between this event and Luke 8.

What is more likely for these other widows to be "saying" to Peter: "you have to bring this woman back to life" or "how are we going to get on without her"? In 2016, I said the former. Now in 2024, I say the latter.

First, I've realized the subtle implications of the former. Did the widows call for an apostle every time anyone died? What about when Tabitha died again? If not, are they suggesting that Tabitha was "more worthy" of such a request?

Along with that, there's the implication that Peter did this out of pressure. Well, we know that Peter didn't do anything, that Jesus did the miracle, so how does that reconcile? (I've worked so hard to explain in my posts that God is not under our power to command to perform miracles; see below.)

If not the widows, then that means that Peter took the bold step on his own to pray to God for this miraculous healing/raising. This then is a miracle of grace and love, not pity or compulsion. And it still leaves Peter in a very bold place -- Peter, on his own, prayed that God would raise this woman from the dead.

Why? Because she "deserved it"? Say that out loud and listen to yourself. So if not that, why else? Yes, it was a gracious thing to do, but Peter also realized the impact it would make on that church and the entire region.

Thus like with the healing of Aeneas, this miracle led to more people coming to faith in Jesus.

From a narrative perspective, this episode also put Peter in Joppa for Cornelius to send to him. And Cornelius would be the center of one of the most important events in the entire book of Acts.

Two directions for discussion:

Closing Thoughts: About Miraculous Healings

I don't know anything about Crossroads Church, but I read an interesting article from a medical doctor who must be a member of that church:

In her work as a doctor, she says that she has very rarely see what we would call a "miraculous healing" (which makes me like this article -- a miracle must be by definition exceedingly rare and inexplicable). Her big -- and irrefutable -- point is that God performs miracles that we will never see, but that doesn't make them any less miraculous.

So, with that perspective in mind, what do we do with the Pentecostal/Charismatic view that "miraculous healings" should be normal in Christian churches? I'm going to summarize a section from that Mark 5 post.

Most importantly, we have to acknowledge that God is able to perform miraculous healings, even today. You don't doubt that, do you?

In that post, I called attention to the Church of the Foursquare Gospel as representative of the Pentecostal theology. They teach that Jesus is (1) Savior, (2) Baptizer, (3) Healer, and (4) Coming King. To them, a Jesus who does not heal our diseases is not the biblical Jesus. Why doesn't Jesus heal people today like in the Gospels? Because we do not have enough faith.

This leads to two parallel (but different) discussions:

I've done everything I can in these posts to explain that the miraculous healings in the New Testament were always tied to an advancement of the kingdom. A person is miraculously healed -- and people get saved. That's not how the Pentecostal movement views miraculous healings; to them, the healings are for the benefit of the person receiving it and based on the faith of the person asking. Do you see how that's different?

This is why I push back on the idea that Peter raised Tabitha from the dead as a response to the widows' faith and as a reward to Tabitha. Yes, God did a wonderful thing for these widows, but the bigger picture is that He would use this miracle to push His gospel further into a dark land.

(And then there's the truth I feel obligated to keep pushing: a "miracle" is by definition exceedingly rare.)

But I think that second topic is also really important, and it's a very good point our Pentecostal brethren raise. Do Baptists not pray for miraculous healings because we don't really believe that God can do it? I know some Baptists who sure seem to fit that description. Realize just how bold Peter was in praying this thing in the first place. (Also realize that only two people were raised from the dead after Pentecost.)

To me personally, there's a big difference between "God can't" and "God won't". If miraculous healings are rare, then that means that most (nearly all) requests for miraculous healings will be "denied". That's not God's plan for the person who is sick.

And that's why I like the article from that doctor -- she sees God's miraculous power at work in the people who discover treatments, in the doctors who make diagnoses, in the family members who are compelled to take someone to the doctor. To her, while those things might be under-the-radar, they are no less miraculous. I think she's onto something.

Peeking ahead to next week:

This week, I read a summary of the latest survey by Barna, suggesting that evangelicals aren't as firm in their beliefs as thought. This fits a lot better with next week's lesson, but it's worth pointing out here that a big part of our "job" in Bible study is helping our group members know what the Bible says about the questions we have. And one of those questions is "why didn't God miraculously heal so-and-so?" It's almost always appropriate to take an in-class detour to answer questions like these that come up. And if you don't know the answer, it's also appropriate to say, "I'm not sure, but I'll get back to you on it."