Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

— Matthew 16:16

In the first year of Jesus’ ministry, while preaching by the Sea of Galilee and being pressed into the water by the throng, Jesus asked Peter that He might get into his ship.

After preaching from the ship to the people for a time, He asked Peter to launch out into the deep and let down his net for a draft of fish.

Peter replied, “Master, we have toiled all night and caught nothing; nevertheless at Your word I will let down the net” (Luke 5:5).

Peter surely must have been startled. He, an old man and fisherman all his life in these very waters, was then taking fishing instructions from a young carpenter after he had fished all night and caught nothing!

Evidently, to prove to his instructor that He was wrong, Peter yielded to Jesus’ wish. But when he and his helper could not pull in the net because of the multitude of fish and had to call for help from James and John in another ship—filling both ships until they began to sink—he fell at the feet of Jesus and said, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!” (Luke 5:8).

Why was he occupied with his sinful state? Because, with the revelation of Jesus as the Son of God, there also came to him a revelation of his own condition. No one can come in vital contact with Deity and be the same again.

PR

“…one of the early 20th Century’s prophetic voices still speaks today…” — Jack W. Hayford

Reprinted with permission from Daily Seedings: A Devotional Classic for the Spirit-Filled Life by Ivan Q. Spencer (selected and edited by Edie Mourey), Furrow Press, 2008.

For more about Ivan Spencer, see “Following in His Steps” by Edie Mourey.

James R. Peters, The Logic of the Heart: Augustine, Pascal, and the Rationality of Faith. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 300 pages.

This book is not for the faint of heart or the non-academic reader of philosophy. James R. Peters wraps his thesis around abstract conceptualizations, while he weaves loquacious arguments throughout his book. The text is thickly worded and the reader is urged to keep a dictionary nearby. Essentially, Peters posits a philosophical middle way that balances rationality and mysticism. He proposes that the rationality of the heart must become entangled neither in the objectivity of Modernity, nor in the subjectivity of post-Modernity. In doing so, Peters engages the foundational rationalists (Descartes and Hume) of Modernity conversationally with the mysticism of Augustine and Pascal.

There are two principle difficulties with this book. First, it is elitist in its use of language and written exclusively to the academic community. In doing so, its genre is generally inaccessible to the layperson. Indeed, it is so unapproachable that it may characterize the elitist genre whereby no academic dares to proclaim that the emperor has no clothes, for if one has the courage to confess that Peters is incomprehensible, then one risks the accusation of being dull of mind. Second, Peters has two simultaneous conversations that compete for the reader’s attention. One is in the body of the text and the other is in the footnotes. As a reviewer of this book, it is a noteworthy distraction and one would prefer to see the two conversations merged and the footnotes reserved for reference citations.

How then can someone untrained comprehend this book? We offer three suggestions: First, read the ending first so that you will see the target that the author is aiming at. Second, read the concluding segment of each chapter so that you will discern the logical steps that the author has taken to achieve his goal. Finally, read the introduction to each chapter. Once the reader has a basic understanding of Peters’ theme for the book, then one can begin to explore the depths of his argument. To approach the book with the mindset of reading it front-to-back will undoubtedly find the reader lost before the end of the first chapter.

Reviewed by John R. Miller

Preview The Logic of the Heart: books.google.com/books?id=USJFI8wgQRwC

Chris A. Miller, “Did Peter’s Vision in Acts 10 Pertain to Men or the Menu?” Bibliotheca Sacra 159 (July-Sept 2002), pages 302-17.

Over the years I have been interested in the various interpretations of Peter’s dream in the 10th chapter of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles. It is interesting to take a glimpse at the range of theories and the support for those theories.

Admittedly as a Messianic believer, my opinions already lean in support of a “whole Bible” approach to shaping my theological beliefs. So it was with great delight that I encountered Chris Miller’s article as he allows the text to interpret itself, dispelling some of the popular but inaccurate applications of this pivotal passage in Peter’s life, and in the life of the community of the redeemed.

Chris A. Miller is Assistant Dean at Cedarville University in Cedarville, Ohio.

Miller insightfully points out what we know about Peter and what we know about his hosts Simon the tanner and Cornelius the centurion. Each character study demonstrates that all appear to have been living a biblical lifestyle in every way, right down to what they ate. Verse 2 tells us that Cornelius was “a devout man, and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people, and prayed to God continually” (NASB). God-fearers were Gentiles that had attached themselves to the God of Israel and His people. Even in verse 3 we find him in prayer at the ninth hour, the hour of the afternoon sacrifices in the temple, and the time for corporate prayer.

As Miller points out, “It is hard to imagine that one so sympathetic toward the Jewish nation would be so insensitive as to offer unclean food to his guest, for whose arrival he had four days to prepare and at whose feet he fell at their first meetings” (p. 310).

It is this type of logic that flows throughout Miller’s well-documented and footnoted article. In his final analysis, “Luke’s formidable skills as a writer drew out the lesson of Peter’s vision to people. As the angel and Peter entered Cornelius’s house, so also Cornelius entered God’s ‘house.’ God has now granted the Gentiles not only repentance unto life, but also the fullness of the Holy Spirit and full acceptance into His house-hold as first-class citizens” (p. 316).

Regretfully, Miller (as well as many other commentators) does not address one of the issues at hand. As he writes, “Simply eating with Gentiles was a significant charge in itself . . .” (p. 309). This thought is based on Peter’s own words, “And he said to them, ‘You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him’” (Acts 10:28 NASB). Yet never does God’s Torah stipulate that a Hebrew and a Gentile may not associate nor share a meal! This is not the Torah the Law of the God of Israel. It is however, a part of the torah (small “t”) otherwise known as the oral tradition of the religious community. This torah created many rules and regulations prohibiting the interaction of Hebrews and Gentiles and became the middle wall of partition evident in synagogues and kosher restaurants today. The message to Peter may have been the same message Paul wrote for us in Ephesians 2:14, “For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall” (NASB).