Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Acts 9:43 And Peter stayed many days in Joppa with a tanner named Simon. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Acts 9:43 And so it was that Peter stayed in Joppa for many days with Simon, a tanner. |
Bible Question:
Was this Simon's business considered detestable and unclean to the Jews? If so, Peter's stay at his house was not in harmony with his response to the vision he had about eating the unclean animals from God. Most commentary considered Simon the tanner involved in detestable trade because of treating of animals' dead bodies. I checked Levitus chapter 11 that talks about clean and unclean animals. God only forbids the eating and touching of the dead bodies of "unclean animals" while those that are clean will be seen as unclean if the animal died (not killed). Therefore, if what Simon the tanner dealt with were bodies and skin of clean animals being killed for making leather shoes, etc., he should not be viewed as unclean (according to the Torah). Then I can understand why Peter stayed at Simon's house and had such a response against the vision. Need your help to figure it out. Thanks. Shalom Azure |
Bible Answer: Greetings Sister Azure! Excellent Question! Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Whole Bible states, "Thus terminates what has not been improperly called the first period of the Christian Church, which began at the day of pentecost, Acts 2:1, and continued to the resurrection of Dorcas; a period of about eight years." Halley's Bible Handbook notes that throughout this whole encounter that Peter had with Cornelius, that "Cornelius was not required to quit his army work" and "It was from Joppa (Acts 10:5) that God sent Jewish Peter to Gentile Cornelius. From this same Joppa, 800 years before, God had to use a little extra persuasion on Jewish Jonah to get him to go to Gentile Nineveh (Jonah 1:3)." Zondervan's NASB Study Bible comments (Acts 9:43): "Occupations were frequently used with personal names to identify individuals further (see 16:14; 18:3; 19:24; 2 Tim. 4:14), but in this case it is especially significant. A tanner was involved in treating the skins of dead animals, thus contacting the unclean according to Jewish law; so he was despised by many. Peter's decision to stay with him shows already a willingness to reject Jewish prejudice and prepares the way for his coming vision and the mission to the Gentiles." (pg. 1592) Regarding the disposition of Peter, the commentary of Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown seems to agree: "with one Simon a tanner - a trade regarded by the Jews as half unclean, and consequently disreputable, from the contact with dead animals and blood which was connected with it. For this reason, even by other nations, it is usually carried on at some distance from towns; accordingly, Simon’s house was "by the seaside" (Acts 10:6). Peter’s lodging there shows him already to some extent above Jewish prejudice." And perhaps there was a distinction as far as what kind of a tanner Simon was, according to John Gill's Commentary: "where the Gemara (s) distinguishes between a great tanner and a little tanner; the latter, the gloss says, is one that is poor and has but few skins: which of these Simon was, cannot be said." But most interesting is the commentary from Robertson's Word Pictures: "With one Simon a tanner (para tini Simoni bursei). The use of para is usual for staying with one (by his side). "The more scrupulous Jews regarded such an occupation as unclean, and avoided those who pursued it. The conduct of Peter here shows that he did not carry his prejudices to that extent" (Hackett). One of the rabbis said: "It is impossible for the world to do without tanners; but woe to him who is a tanner." A Jewess could sue for divorce if she discovered that her husband was a tanner. And yet Peter will have scruples on the housetop in the tanner’s house about eating food considered unclean. "The lodging with the tanner was a step on the road to eating with a Gentile" (Furneaux)." If there was such a negative reaction to the occupation of Simon the tanner from a Jewish perspective, then why didn't Peter just simply stay with Dorcas? God was obviously working through Peter and leading him at that time. My conclusion is that he was simply led to the door of Simon the tanner by the Holy Spirit in much the same way that Philip was led in Chapter 8 and Paul would later be led by the Holy Spirit. Blessings to you, Makarios |
Up | Down View Branch | ID# 225105 | ||
Questions and/or Subjects for Acts 9:43 | Author | ||
|
azurelaw | ||
|
Makarios | ||
|
azurelaw | ||
|
Warren F. Kenney |