The article is called, "The Character of the Lame Man in Acts 3-4". If you want a new big word, it looks at the character of the man in light of ancient "physiognomy" -- attempting to link a persons outward characteristics with inner moral qualities. Let's just say that there is ample evidence to suggest that lameness was seen, not merely as a physical disability, but as a moral failure of the person. Here's a good quote for you from an ancient "physiognomic text" (say that three times fast)that Parsons quotes from Polemo: "If you see contracted, strong feet, and their tendons are straight and strong, and their joints are evenly proportioned, these are signs of powerful and might men. If they feet are very fleshy and soft, they indicate weakness, softness, and laxity." If you'd like, you can test this hypothesis during the bible study.

The point in the healing of the man is that, as Parsons states, "membership in the eschatological community of the Way requires rejection of the assumption that physical appearance is directly connected to the moral character" (p. 300). His leaping after the healing shos that "the lame man's healing is paradigmatic for the potential restoration of Israel within the establishment of the cosmic reign of God" (p. 312).

It might be interesting to discuss how our society employs physiognomy". What type of "outward appearances" does our society relate with "moral character"? If there is a sense in which this works, this might help us understand the restoration of the man, the response of the authorities, and the reason for the disobedience of Peter and John. This all sets the setting for the final 'episode' in this story.

As Parsons rightfully notes, Acts 3-4 is unusual in the New Testament because it is a continuous narrative: "This narrative segment is comprised of four scenes: 3?1-10; 3:11-4:4; 4-5-22; and 4:23-31, demarcated by temporal and spatial shifts. The temporal shift from day 1 to day 2, effected by a 'nocturnal pause' between 4:4 and 4:5, causes scenes 1-2 and 3-4 to be more closely related to each other" (p. 300). If this is so, Peter and John's meeting with "their own people" (v. 23) is closely tied with last weeks meeting of the authorities threatening to arrest Peter and John, and their avowal of disobedience to the authorities.

V. 23 sets the setting for this new segment of the story. Why would Peter and John, after being threatened with arrest, go to "their own people"? Who are "their own people"? Why are these people "their own"? With whom are "their own" contrasted? What does that say for who we are, who "our own" are today? Why is this so? Peter and John discuss "what the chief priests and elders had said to them". Why?

Vv. speak of "their own's reponse to what Peter and John tell them? What do "their own" do in response? Why? Verses 25b-26 quote from Psalm 2. Reading Psalm 2 might be helpful to understand the prayer. Who do they perceive the threat to arrest Peter and John resisting? What is the request at the end of their prayer?

V. 31 speaks of the aftermath of Peter and John's report and the prayers of the church. What happens? What would be the reason for such intensity that "the place where they were meeting was shaken"? As a result of this shaking, what do they do?

Here we see an informal meeting of the church for prayer, rather than worship? Given this, why is it important for such meetings of the church for prayer? What does the whole meeting presuppose about the life of the church? What is really at stake in a prayer meeting like this as a part of the whole story for the witness of the church? How does this determine the content of prayers and the perception of oneself, the church, and those outside the church? How is praying together part of the witness and mission of the church in these informal gatherings?

It is interesting to see, and might be fun to talk, how our meeting together in informal prayer groups finds its origins here in this passage. How does this help you see why it is necessary for us to so gather? How does the fact of your gathering to pray help you understand this passage?