‘And at Lystra there sat a certain man, impotent in his feet, a cripple from his mother's womb, who had never walked, the same heard Paul speaking, who, fastening eyes on him, and seeing that he had faith to be made whole, said with a loud voice, “Stand upright on your feet.” And he leaped up and walked.'
It is probable that this incident occurred at the gates of the city (see Acts 14:13). There would regularly be a space there which could be used for assemblies, and therefore for preaching. As Paul preached there (the man heard Paul speaking) he saw the cripple, eagerly listening, with the faith shining in his eyes. He was a man who had been crippled from birth, one who had never walked. And Paul, seeing that he had faith to be made whole, called over to him in a loud voice, “Stand upright on your feet.” And he leaped up and walked'.
It was done openly before all as an acted out parable. It proclaimed to all that they had come to make men whole, even though they had been ‘crippled from birth'. It informed them that there was now One among them Who could heal them body and soul.
There is an intentional parallel here with Acts 3:1-11. Both incidents refer to a man crippled from birth, in both cases eyes were fastened on them, both were commanded to rise up, and both leaped up and walked. But it is not a question of a duplicated story, for there are significant differences, and there must have been hundreds of such healings following a similar pattern. It is simply a matter of the consequences that arose from the particular healings, which were both seen as so memorable (the men had been known from birth) that they made a great impact and caused widespread thought and discussion.
Both incidents have Isaiah 35:6 in mind and are a reminder of the presence of the promised Kingly Rule of God, and both result in response from a temple. For the point is that the Temple of the Jews and the temples of the nations were equally blind. Neither worshipped God in Spirit and in truth (see John 4:20-24). Neither recognised the miracle for what it was. It is intended to be significant that while the supposed Temple of God in Jerusalem in its blindness and obstinacy rejected God's sign and God's messengers, and closed its mind to the presence of the Kingly Rule of God, the temple of the foreign deity, while welcoming God's messengers under a misunderstanding, also finally rejected them, and in equal blindness misinterpreted God's sign. Its mind too was closed to the Kingly Rule of God. The one was too critical and too hardened, the other was too gullible and too wildly astray and interested in sensation. For both Jew and Gentile were in darkness, and would be until the light shone in their hearts. Neither Temple could offer salvation. And while the Jews were unreceptive and would not accept any truth, because they were too set in their own ways, the Gentiles were too receptive, and would accept anything, anything that is but the truth. (Such was man's blindness that only those who were disposed towards eternal life believed).