Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 9:43
And it came to pass, that he tarried many days in Joppa with one Simon a tanner.
43. he tarried many days ] On the indefinite nature of the time indicated here see above, Act 9:23, note.
with one Simon a tanner ] The trade of a tanner was held as abominable by the Jews. A wife, it is said, could claim a divorce from a husband who became a tanner (Mishna Khethuboth vii. 10, where is recorded the following story): “It happened at Sidon that a tanner died, and left a brother who was also a tanner. The sages held that his (childless) widow had a right to plead, Thy brother I could bear but I cannot bear thee,” and so in this case the woman might refuse to marry her husband’s brother.
It is a sign that in the mind of St Peter some usages and prejudices of the Jews were already becoming of small account, when he makes his abode at the house of Simon a tanner. Such a step prepares us for the history of the next chapter, where he is instructed to go and preach to and baptize the Gentile Cornelius.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 43. He tarried many days in Joppa] Taking advantage of the good impression made on the people’s minds by the miracle, he preached to them the great truths of Christianity, and thus established them in the faith.
Simon a tanner.] Whether the original word signifies a tanner or a currier, is of little consequence. The person who dealt in the hides, whether of clean or unclean animals, could not be in high repute among the Jews. Even in Joppa, the trade appears to have been reputed unclean; and therefore this Simon had his house by the sea side. See Ac 10:6. Of the trade itself the Talmudists speak with great contempt; they reckon it among blemishes. See proofs in Schoettgen.
1. THUS terminates what has not been improperly called the first period of the Christian Church, which began at the day of pentecost, Ac 2:1, and continued to the resurrection of Dorcas; a period of about eight years. During the whole of this time the Gospel was preached to the Jews only, no Gentile being called before Cornelius, the account of whose conversion, and the Divine vision that led to it, are detailed in the following chapter. Salvation was of the Jews: theirs were the fathers, the covenants, and the promises, and from them came Christ Jesus; and it was right that they should have the first offer of a salvation which, while it was a light to lighten the Gentiles, was to be the glory of the Israelitish people. When they utterly rejected it, then the apostles turned unto the Gentiles. Among them the Christian Church was founded, and thus the reprobates became the elect, and the elect became reprobates. Reader! behold the goodness and severity of God! Towards them that fell, severity; but towards thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off, Ro 11:22. Thou canst only stand by faith; and be not high-minded, but fear. Nothing less than Christ dwelling in thy heart by faith can save thy soul unto eternal life.
2. The conversion of Saul of Tarsus is one of the most remarkable facts recorded in the history of the Christian Church. When we consider the man; the manner in which he was brought to the knowledge of the truth; the impression made on his own mind and heart by the vision he had on his way to Damascus, and the effect produced in all his subsequent life, we have a series of the most convincing evidences of the truth of the Christian religion. In this light he ever viewed the subject himself; the manner of his conversion he ever appealed to, as the most proper apology for his conduct; and, on several most important occasions, he not only refers to it, but enters into a detail of its circumstances, that his hearers might see that the excellency of the power was of GOD and not of man.
Saul of Tarsus was not a man of a light, fickle, and uncultivated mind. His natural powers were vast, his character the most decided, and his education, as we learn from his historian, and from his writings, was at once both liberal and profound. He was born and brought up in a city which enjoyed every privilege of which Rome itself could boast, and was a successful rival both of Rome and Athens in arts and science. Though a Jew, it is evident that his education was not confined to matters that concerned his own people and country alone. He had read the best Greek writers, as his style, allusions, and quotations sufficiently prove; and, an matters which concern his own religion, he was instructed by Gamaliel, one of the most celebrated doctors the synagogue had ever produced. He was evidently master of the three great languages which were spoken among the only people who deserved the name of nations-the Hebrew, and its prevailing dialect, the Chaldio-Syriac; the Greek, and the Latin; languages which, notwithstanding all the cultivation through which the earth has passed, maintain their rank, which is a most decisive superiority over all the languages of the universe. Was it likely that such a man, possessing such a mind, cultivated to such an extent, could have been imposed on or deceived? The circumstances of his conversion forbid the supposition: they do more; they render it impossible. One consideration on this subject will prove that imposture in this case was impossible: he had no communication with Christians; the then that accompanied him to Damascus were of his own mind-virulent, determined enemies to the very name of Christ; and his conversion took place in the open day, on the open road, in company only with such men as the persecuting high priest and Sanhedrin thought proper to be employed in the extermination of Christianity. In such circumstances, and in such company, no cheat could be practised. But was not he the deceiver? The supposition is absurd and monstrous, for this simple reason, that there was no motive that could prompt him to feign what he was not; and no end that could be answered by assuming the profession of Christianity. Christianity had in it such principles as must expose it to the hatred of Greece, Rome, and Judea. It exposed the absurdity and folly of Grecian and Roman superstition and idolatry, and asserted itself to be the completion, end, and perfection of the whole Mosaic economy. It was therefore hated by all those nations, and its followers despised, detested, and persecuted. From the profession of such a religion, so circumstanced, could any man, who possessed even the most moderate share of common sense, expect secular emolument or advantage? No! Had not this apostle of the Gentiles the fullest conviction of the truth of Christianity, the fullest proof of its heavenly influence on his own soul, the brightest prospect of the reality and blessedness of the spiritual world, he could not have taken one step in the path which the doctrine of Christ pointed out. Add to this, that he lived long after his conversion, saw Christianity and its influence in every point of view, and tried it in all circumstances. What was the result? The deepest conviction of its truth; so that he counted all things dross and dung in comparison of the excellency of its knowledge. Had he continued a Jew he would have infallibly risen to the first dignities and honours of his nation; but he willingly forfeited all his secular privileges and well grounded expectations of secular honour and emolument, and espoused a cause from which he could not only have no expectation of worldly advantage, but which, most evidently and necessarily, exposed him to all sorts of privations, sufferings, hardships, dangers, and death itself! These were not only the unavoidable consequences of the cause he espoused; but he had them fully in his apprehension and constantly in his eye. He predicted them, and knew that every step he took was a progressive advance in additional sufferings, and the issue of his journey must be a violent death!
The whole history of St. Paul proves him to be one of the greatest of men; and his conduct after he became a Christian, had it not sprung from a Divine motive, of the truth of which he had the fullest conviction, would have shown him to be one of the weakest of men. The conclusion therefore is self-evident, that in St. Paul’s call there could be no imposture, that in his own mind there could be no deception, that his conversion was from heaven, and the religion he professed and taught, the infallible and eternal truth of Jehovah. In this full conviction he counted not his life dear unto him, but finished his rugged race with joy, cheerfully giving up his life for the testimony of Jesus; and thus his luminous sun set in blood, to rise again in glory. The conversion of St. Paul is the triumph of Christianity; his writings, the fullest exhibition and defence of its doctrines; and his life and death, a glorious illustration of its principles. Armed with this history of Paul’s conversion and life, the feeblest believer needs not fear the most powerful infidel. The ninth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles will ever remain an inexpugnable fortress to defend Christianity and defeat its enemies. Reader, hath not God so done his marvellous works that they may be had in everlasting remembrance?
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The miracle had only prepared them to receive his doctrine, which Peter tarried some time with them to instruct them in: the miracle had prepared the ground, and now he takes this season to sow the seed of the word into it.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
43. with one Simon a tanneratrade regarded by the Jews as half unclean, and consequentlydisreputable, from the contact with dead animals and blood which wasconnected with it. For this reason, even by other nations, it isusually carried on at some distance from towns; accordingly, Simon’shouse was “by the seaside” (Ac10:6). Peter’s lodging there shows him already to some extentabove Jewish prejudice.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And it came to pass,…. Or so it was;
that he tarried many days in Joppa; conversing with the saints, confirming the disciples, and preaching the Gospel, to the conversion of sinners; and his abode
was with one Simon a tanner; it seems as if persons of this trade used to dwell in towns near the sea, as fit for their business; so we read of some at Sidon, a city on the sea coast, as Joppa was;
“it happened at Sidon that a certain , “tanner”, (the same word here used, adopted into the Hebrew language,) died, and he had a brother a tanner, c. r”
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. This business was very contemptible with the Jews; they say t,
“woe to him whose trade is a tanner:”
and further observe u that they never make one a king, nor a high priest: but their doctors many of them were of as mean trades, as shoemakers, skinners, c. [See comments on Mr 6:3] and Simon the Athenian philosopher was “a leather cutter” w and according to the Ethiopic version, this our Simon was a shoemaker; with him Peter chose to abide, and not with Dorcas.
r Misn. Cetubot, c. 7. sect. 10. s T. Bab. Cetubot, fol. 77. 1. t T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol. 82. 2. & Bava Bathra, fol. 16. 2. u Kiddush, fol. 82. 1. w Laert. in Vit. Simon
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Many days ( ). See on verse 23. Luke is fond of the phrase and uses it for time, number, size. It might be “ten days, ten months, or ten years” (Page).
With one Simon a tanner ( ). The use of 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).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “And it came to pass,” (egeneto de) “Then it came to pass,” happened or occurred, following this event.
2) “That he tarried many days in Joppa,” (hemeras hikanas meinai en loppa) “That he remained several days in Joppa,” as the Lord had even greater things for him to do, a few miles up the Mediterranean coast, in Caesarea, Act 10:1-48. For there he was to bring the gospel to an entire Gentile household, Act 10:33.
3) “With one Simon a tanner,” (para tini Simoni Bursei) “With (in the company of), as the guest of Simon a tanner,” who was a tanner by trade, by the seaside – there are still tanners by trade in the same seaside area today, Act 10:6; Act 10:32.
A “great and effectual door” was there opened to him, as to Paul in Ephesus of Asia Minor years later, 1Co 16:8-9. God opens doors of opportunity for witnessing and service to His children. They should be diligent to enter them, and faithful witnesses to serve, as our Lord did, Luk 19:10; Joh 20:21; Act 1:8; Rom 1:14-16; 1Co 9:22-23, as well as Peter, Paul and other apostles and early church disciples or saints.
JOPPA
Peter “came down” from the mountains of Samaria “to the saints which dwelt at Lydda; and all they that dwelt at Lydda and Saron saw hem and turned to the Lord;” and “forasmuch as Lydda was nigh to Joppa,” he arose and went thitherto comfort the disciples mourning for the loss of Dorcas; and there “he tarried many days” with the tanner Simon, whole “house was by the seaside.” On the flat roof of that house – – – overlooking the waves of the western sea, as they dash against the emerging rocks of the shallow and narrow harbor – – – the vision appeared which opened to the nations far beyond the horizon of that sea “the gates of the kingdom of heaven,” and which called the Apostle to make the memorable journey along the sandy ridge of the coast, to find on the morrow the first Gentile convert in the Roman garrison at Caesarea.
– Stanley
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
43. When as he saith that Peter dwelt with a tanner, we may hereby gather of what manner of men the church of Joppa did consist, for if the chieftains of the city had been converted to Christ, some one of them would have lodged Peter; for it had been too cruel a thing to suffer an apostle of Christ to be so despised. Therefore, the Lord did gather together there, as every where, a church of the common sort of men, that he might throw down the pride of the flesh; and also thereby appeareth Peter’s courtesy, in that he vouchsafeth to lodge with a man of that calling; although it seemeth that he was rather a merchant of some good estimation, than one of the basest sort of workmen. For Luke will say afterwards that there were there some which ministered unto Peter, whereby it appeareth that he was well and honestly used.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(43) Many days in Joppa with one Simon a tanner.Either as bringing with it, through contact with the carcases and hides of dead beasts, the risks of ceremonial defilement, or being generally a repulsive and noisome business, the occupation was one from which the stricter Jews generally shrunk. The Rabbis held that if a tanner about to marry concealed his occupation from his intended wife, the concealment was of the nature of a fraud that invalidated the contract (Schttgen, Hor. Heb., in loc.). In taking up his abode with one of this calling, Peter must accordingly have been taking one step in advance towards greater freedom. He had learnt, partially at least, the lesson which his Master had taught as to that which alone can bring with it real defilement (Mar. 7:17-23), and was thus being trained for a fuller illumination. We have no data for determining the length of time implied in the many days. In Act. 9:23, as we have seen, the words covered a period of nearly three years.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
43. With one Simon a tanner Tanning was an unclean trade in a Jew’s estimation, spoken of with great contemn by the rabbies, and excluded from Jewish cities, and so Simon’s tannery was by the sea side, (Act 10:6.) Peter had, no doubt, so far relaxed his high Judaism as to slight this prejudice.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And it came about that he abode many days in Joppa with one Simon a tanner.’
The account is introduced by this indication of the whereabouts of Peter. It is significant in itself. No tanner would be allowed to ply his trade within the walls of Jerusalem or within 50 cubits of them. And that applied to all fully Jewish cities. A specific distance from the city was required for his trade premises (which would usually also be his home). There would, however, be a large number of tanneries around Jerusalem, outside the strict limits, as there was a large scale requirement for them in view of the abundance of hides that the priests obtained from all sacrifices that they offered (for the hide went to the officiating priest) and from the hides received by landlords from Passover visitors, for the hide was seen as a kind of rental for the ‘free’ use of the premises. So while such tanners were looked down on, it was a useful trade that (in the usual hypocritical way that man has) all knew was required, even though it was one in which no ultra-respectable Jew would engage. Of course those who were brought up to the trade saw it differently through familiarity.
This requirement to be outside the city might not strictly apply in Joppa, for it was a multinational society, and such a provision might not have been enforceable, but it does serve to demonstrate that the trade was seen as ‘unclean’, and this was mainly because it meant constant association with dead matter, and because of the methods used for tanning (dipping in urine). No respectable Jew would become involved with it, and there would be strict regulation and control applied to Jews who did, and a certain level of ostracism by the ‘more religious’ who were fastidious about ‘uncleanness’. Furthermore if a damsel became betrothed to a tanner without being made aware of his trade, the betrothal could be nullified on her learning of it. She could not be forced to marry a tanner.
Thus the fact that Peter willingly lodged with a tanner probably demonstrated the more casual approach to uncleanness followed by Galileans. A Judaean would have been much more wary of doing so. Nevertheless we can be sure that Peter carefully ensured that he did maintain a full level of ‘cleanness’ while he was there, and would be expected to by all. It does, however, serve to demonstrate that Peter was to some extent more open to being persuaded on such matters than, for example, an inhabitant of Jerusalem would have been.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Peter and Cornelius (9:43-10:48).
It is difficult for us to appreciate the huge step that is now about to be described. To us it may all seem like a great fuss about nothing. But it was bringing about a total change in the way that Christian Jews would see Gentiles. It was doing nothing less than opening the Gentile world to the possibility of their becoming Christians without being circumcised and having to observe all the ritual regulations of the Jews.
For centuries the Jews had seen themselves as separated from the Gentiles by the question of religious ‘cleanness’ and ‘uncleanness’. On the whole Jews were ‘clean’ and Gentiles ‘unclean’ by virtue of the nature of their lives. This was because of the regulations that all orthodox Jews followed, some to a greater extent than others. This covered such things as washings, types of food eaten, contact with dead things, partaking of blood, contact with skin diseases, contact with those who were ‘unclean’, and so on. That is why when Gentiles sought to become Jewish proselytes, and to become ‘members of the congregation of Israel’, and so able to enter the Court of Israel in the Temple and partake in the Passover, they had to initially ritualistically bathe themselves fully in order to remove the ‘uncleanness’ of the Gentile world, and be circumcised. After that they could be treated as full Jews.
‘God-fearers’, on the other hand, were people who worshipped the God of Israel as the one God, and respected the Old Testament and the moral teaching of the Jews, but were not willing to be circumcised. Nevertheless any of these who wished to mix and eat with Jews would certainly be required to observe the basic laws of ‘cleanliness’.
These laws are in part described in Leviticus 11-14, and include the necessity of avoidance for food purposes of ‘unclean’ animals, such as pigs, conies and camels, (any which did not both ‘cleave the foot and chew vigorously’), together with the avoidance of certain types of bird and fish, and of all creeping things, and included the necessity of avoiding the eating of blood, and of killing animals in such a way as to avoid this. And especially important was the avoidance of contact with what was dead or had had contact with death.
These were good laws which to some extent prevented them from eating things that could have done them harm, but, more importantly, they originally inculcated in them a taste for what was wholesome (see our commentary on Leviticus 11), and ensured a wholesome environment. It should be noted that the laws themselves were originally given in order to promote positive wholesomeness of life. It was only once Israelites began to live among other peoples that they necessarily resulted in a certain level of separateness and discrimination against them. And as so often with such things certain very religious people began to take them to extremes, and as a result even began to discriminate against fellow-Jews.
But as Jesus demonstrated, it was possible to observe these laws of cleanliness without discriminating against people to such an extent as to have nothing to do with them. No Pharisee ever criticised Jesus for failing to keep high Scriptural standards of ‘cleanliness’, and yet He still moved freely among tax collectors and ‘sinners’ (Mar 2:15-17; Luk 5:27-32). He lived a disciplined life.
It was in order that Gentile Christians might be able to eat with Jewish Christians that the meeting of Apostles and elders at Jerusalem would later enjoin on Gentile Christians, even at that stage, the need to avoid ‘what is strangled, and blood’ (Act 15:20). But those were the minimum limits which it was felt must essentially be applied even after the willing acceptance of Gentiles into the body of Christ, when prejudices had to some extent been broken down. This was partly as a result of what is about to be described. Even at that stage close contact with Gentiles as a whole was seen as not possible for a Christian Jew without careful regulation.
But at this stage in the life of the church things were not even as liberal as that. The general thought during the first chapters of Acts would be that if a Gentile wished to be accepted into the ‘community of Christians’ (something which rarely came up at that stage when the preaching was to Jews), it must be by becoming a proselyte, by an initial bathing to remove attaching ‘uncleanness’, followed by circumcision, for they would be seen as becoming members of the new Israel. They would then, of course, be expected to keep the laws of cleanliness in their lives and within their residences, in other words behave as Jews did as regards the laws of uncleanness. In this way no doubt a Gentile might be allowed to become a Christian.
But the thought of wholesale acceptance of Gentiles without following these conditions would have been anathema. Gentiles were of necessity ‘unclean’, for they made no attempt to avoid ‘uncleanness’, their lifestyles and homes were ‘unclean’, especially because they ate what was ‘unclean’ and allowed what had been involved with death into their homes, they were careless about contact with dead things, they partook of blood, and all in all it was necessary to keep them at a safe distance. (While we may criticise this we do well to remember that hygiene in Jewish homes was unquestionably superior to that in most Gentile homes).
We can thus imagine what Peter’s reaction would have been (and the reaction of all Jews who heard of it) if without any warning he had been invited into the home of a Gentile centurion, even a God-fearer. God-fearers remained on the fringe of synagogue life. They believed in the one God, admired the moral laws of Israel, and observed the Sabbath. Their contributions to the synagogue were gratefully accepted, and they were welcome to participate to some extent in synagogue worship, but they were in no way looked on as Jews. In order for that to happen they had to become proselytes, which would include circumcision. So even for Peter to visit such a God-fearer in their home would have been frowned on in normal circumstances.
Of course, he had been used to meeting such people when they had joined the crowds in order to hear Jesus, and where they had been welcomed by Him, but that was a very different situation from this. While many would go away believing in Jesus and seeking to follow His teaching they did not join any form of identifiable ‘community’. He also knew that Jesus had responded to the Syro-Phoenician woman, and to the former demoniac in Decapolis, and we can compare also Jesus contact with the Greeks brought to him by Philip the Apostle in Joh 12:20-26. But in none of these cases had there been the suggestion of too close a personal contact or of entering into their homes or of them becoming part of a ‘community’.
To Peter had been given the keys (the method of opening the door) of the Kingly Rule of God. In Acts 2 he had therefore opened that door to Jews at Pentecost, and he had constantly opened that door since, as had all the Apostles, together with, among others, Stephen, Philip and Saul. Now he was to take a step further and open it to God-fearers (who would in future prove for some time to be the most fruitful people to evangelise).
It was inevitable that at some stage this challenge as to what to do with God-fearers would come up, and that fairly rapidly, so that we should not be surprised to find reference to it here. In fact we might rather be surprised that the issue had not arisen for Peter earlier. They were already to a certain extent accepted within Judaism, and the Jewish church would therefore inevitably have to consider what they were to do about them once they showed an interest in Jesus as their Messiah. Indeed how the Christians would face up to them would certainly have to be decided as soon as Christian preachers went to mixed territory, as Peter was doing here. Peter could hardly have preached in the synagogues here, in a mixed Jewish-Gentile community without the question arising, ‘can we God-fearers be baptised?’ Perhaps even as this all happened he had been challenged on the matter and was puzzling about it in his own mind. But it is certainly no surprise that he would be faced up with the question. Luke is actually not dealing here with the question as to whether any believing God-fearers had already become one with Christ. That was between them and God. He is concerned with the question of what Peter did when he was faced up with the question (as at some stage he had to be) of whether he should enter their homes, and whether they could be baptised and accepted into the community of Christians without become proselytes, together with its consequences for the future.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
REFLECTIONS
Pause, my soul, over the several miracles recorded in this chapter, and behold the wonders connected with the event of Christ tabernacling in the flesh! All, and every circumstance, which hath occurred, or hereafter to be accomplished, in the present life, of the time-state of the Church; all spring out of that one mystery, God manifest in the flesh! Precious Lord Jesus! what a world of mysteries is thy Church in? What a world of mysteries is the one view of thy love to thy Church? While I read the conversion of Paul, the healing of Eneas, the bringing back to life Tabitha; and ponder the cause of these, and all the numberless miracles recorded in the word of thy grace: while I contemplate the continuation of the same, daily going on through the earth; and all arising from the love of my Lord to his Church; oh! who shall speak of the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge.
And is this the manner of Jesus, in testifying his love? Doth Jesus indeed delight to raise a persecuting Saul from the brink of hell, to employ him in the service of heaven? Will the Lord indeed take pleasure, from having his name proclaimed from those very lips which have been uttering continued blasphemy? Shall he, who consented to the murder of Stephen, and persecuted unto death, men and women, of the Lord’s people, be the very One Jesus hath chosen to be his honored instrument in the conversion of thousands? Lord! how mysterious thy ways; and how full of grace thy judgments? But, my soul! amidst all these wonders with which thou art surrounded do not lose sight of what the Holy Ghost taught Saul after his conversion to tell the Church; that it was for this cause he obtained mercy, that in him the Lord Jesus Christ might shew forth all long suffering for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting!
Reader! let us bless the Lord for the sweet records in this chapter; and for the grace manifested to the Church in the rest which she is here said to have enjoyed after the sharp persecutions. Oh! that those latter ages may find revivals from the Lord among the people; and that walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, they may be multiplied.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
43 And it came to pass, that he tarried many days in Joppa with one Simon a tanner.
Ver. 43. With one Simon a tanner ] Of mean rank and despicable, but religious and hospitable. Of such, and not of great ones, consisted this Church of Christ at Joppa. The poor are gospellized, , Mat 11:5 . The lesser fishes bite soonest. Grandior solet esse Deus in parvulis, quam in magnis. See Trapp on “ Act 10:6 “
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
43. ] From the extracts in Wetstein and Schttgen, it appears that the Jews regarded the occupation of a tanner as a half-unclean one. In this case it would shew, as De W. observes, that the stricter Jewish practices were already disregarded by the Apostle. It also would shew, in how little honour he and his office were held by the Jews at Csarea.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 9:43 . , see on Act 9:37 , Plummer, St. Luke , p. 45, on the use of . The phrase also marks (as often in Luke) a transition to the following narrative (Nsgen). , see on Act 8:11 , and Act 27:7 . Kennedy speaks of the adjective as used in the vernacular sense of “long,” “many,” Aristoph., Pax. , 354. , in classics : it is difficult to suppose that the common estimate of the work of a tanner amongst the Jews as unclean, on account of their constant contact with dead animals, has here no significance. At least the mention of the trade seems to show that St. Peter was already in a state of mind which would fit him for the further revelation of the next chapter, and for the instructions to go and baptise the Gentile Cornelius. On the detestation in which this trade was held by the Jews, see Wetstein, in loco ; Edersheim, Jewish Social Life , p. 158; cf. Mishna, Khethuboth , vii., 10. It does not in any way militate against the historical character of the narrative, as Overbeck maintains, to admit that the description is meant to introduce the “universalism” of the following incident. Both Chrysostom and Theophylact (so too Erasmus) dwell upon this incident in St. Peter’s life as illustrating his unassuming conduct. , see on Act 9:36 . Heb. , “beauty,” Jaffa ; see for references Jos 19:46 , 2Ch 2:16 , Jon 1:3 , Ezr 3:7 ; the port of Jerusalem from the days of Solomon (from which it was distant some thirty-five miles), situated on a hill so high that people affirmed, as Strabo mentions, that the capital was visible from its summit. It was comparatively (Schrer) the best harbour on the coast of Palestine (although Josephus, B. J. , iii., 9, correctly describes it as dangerous), and in this lay its chief importance. The Maccabees were well aware of this, and it is of Simon that the historian writes: “With all his glory he took Joppa for an haven, and made an entrance to the isles of the sea” 1Ma 14:5 (about 144 B.C.). The Judaising of the city was the natural result of the Maccabean occupation, although the Syrians twice retook Joppa, and twice Hyrcanus regained it for the Jews. Taken by Pompey B.C. 63, restored to the Jews by Csar 47, Jos., Ant. , xiv., 4, 4; B. J. , i., 7, 7, and Ant. , xiv., 10, 6, and at length added to the kingdom of Herod the Great, Ant. , xv., 7, 3; B. J. , i., 20, 3, Joppa remained Jewish, imbued with all the fanatic patriotism of the mother-city, and in the fierce revolt of 66 A.D. Joppa still remained alone in her undivided allegiance to Judaism, and against Joppa the first assault of Cestius Gallus was directed. On the Joppa which St. Peter entered, Act 10 , and its contrast to the neighbouring Csarea, see Act 8:40 and G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog. , p. 136 ff.; see also Schrer, Jewish People , div. ii., vol. i., p. 79 ff. E.T.; Hamburger, Real-Encyclopdie des Judentums , i., 4, 601; B.D. 2 , “Joppa”.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
tarried = abode. Greek. meno. See note on p. 1511.
one = a certain. Greek. tis. App-123.
tanner. Greek. burseus. Only here and Act 10:6, Act 10:32. Perhaps no one else would receive him.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
43. ] From the extracts in Wetstein and Schttgen, it appears that the Jews regarded the occupation of a tanner as a half-unclean one. In this case it would shew, as De W. observes, that the stricter Jewish practices were already disregarded by the Apostle. It also would shew, in how little honour he and his office were held by the Jews at Csarea.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 9:43. , a considerable number of days) He did more than they had asked, Act 9:38.-, Simon) who lived perhaps near the place.-[, a tanner) What condescending familiarity with the people did the illustrious apostle in this instance exhibit in external things, after the great deed which he accomplished in this very town, Joppa, and before the grand business which he was about to undertake at Csarea!-V. g.]
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
one: Act 10:6, Act 10:32
Reciprocal: Jos 19:46 – Japho Luk 14:22 – it is Act 10:17 – the men Act 11:13 – to Joppa Act 28:14 – we found
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
3
Act 9:43. The decision to spend more time in the city is mentioned as a mere incident, but it connects up with the events of the next chapter.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
43. Peter was engaged, at this time, in general evangelizing among the Jews, adapting his stay at a given point, and his change of place, to the exigencies of the cause. The restoration of Dorcas, doubtless, opened a wide field for usefulness in the surrounding community, (43) “and he tarried many days in Joppa, with one Simon, a tanner.” Here the historian leaves him for awhile, and introduces us to the circumstances which removed him from this to another field of labor.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
This verse provides a geographical and ideological transition to the account of Peter’s visit to Cornelius (Act 10:1 to Act 11:18). Evidently Peter remained in Joppa to confirm these new converts and to help the church in that town. His willingness to stay with a tanner shows that Peter was more broad-minded in his fellowship than many other Jews. Many Jews thought tanners practiced an unclean trade since they worked with the skins of dead animals, and they would have nothing to do with them. However, Peter was about to receive a challenge to his convictions similar to the one that Saul had received on the Damascus road.
Note how God used the invitation of the people of Joppa to bring Peter there. Likewise God often uses what appear initially to be incidental occurrences to open up great ministries. Luke illustrated this divine method repeatedly in Acts.
"It was important to demonstrate that Peter was in the full stream of his usefulness, and the agent of miracles curiously like those performed by his Master (Mt. ix. 23-26; Mk. Act 9:38-43; Jn. Act 9:6-9), when the call came to him to baptize a Gentile." [Note: Blaiklock, p. 94.]