Why did Peter choose to stay with Simon the tanner in Acts 9:43? Biblical Text “Peter stayed for many days in Joppa with a tanner named Simon.” (Acts 9:43) Historical and Cultural Background of Tanners Tanners handled the carcasses of dead animals, soaking hides in vats of lye or urine to produce leather. The Mishnah (Kiddushin 4:14) refers to their occupation as malodorous and ritually defiling; they were required to live a prescribed distance (about fifty cubits) outside a town’s residential quarter. Rabbinic writings list tanners among trades one could lawfully refuse to marry into because of perpetual uncleanness. By first-century standards, therefore, Simon’s home was a social and ceremonial fringe—precisely where the gospel was soon to break Judaism’s ceremonial fences. Ritual Cleanliness and Jewish Law Anyone who touched a carcass was “unclean until evening” (Leviticus 11:24-25). Living with a tanner would expose Peter, a devout Jew, to continual contact with items that the law rendered defiling. His willingness to lodge there signals a softening of strict purity boundaries and foreshadows God’s declaration in the next chapter: “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” (Acts 10:15) Geographical Importance of Joppa Joppa (modern Jaffa) was Israel’s principal Mediterranean port. From here Jonah fled God’s call to preach to Nineveh (Jonah 1:3), an ironic backdrop as Peter, in the same city, readies to obey a call to Gentile Caesarea. 2 Chronicles 2:16 notes that cedars for Solomon’s Temple arrived here, marking Joppa as a gateway for God’s purposes. Peter’s coastal setting placed him a one-day journey from Cornelius’s household. Preparatory Role for Peter’s Vision in Acts 10 Luke purposely ends chapter 9 with Peter in a tanner’s house to set thematic tension before the sheet-vision. The constant smell of treated hides and sight of animal skins would have reinforced the clean/unclean divide even as Peter prayed on the flat rooftop (Acts 10:9). God then used the vision to overturn ceremonial barriers and send Peter to Gentiles. Staying with Simon the tanner was part of the divine object lesson. Theological Implications for Jew–Gentile Relations Peter’s choice embodies Ephesians 2:14—Christ “has broken down the dividing wall of hostility.” The gospel reorients holiness from ritual separation to Spirit-empowered mission. By accepting a tanner’s hospitality, the apostle enacted the gospel’s inclusive reach before preaching it in Caesarea, demonstrating that the cross, not ceremonial law, defines purity. Missional Strategy and Hospitality Patterns in the Early Church Early believers practiced reciprocal hospitality (Romans 12:13; 3 John 8). Lodging in homes of local disciples fostered teaching, fellowship, and evangelism. A tanner’s seaside house doubled as a strategic vantage for travelers and sailors. Peter’s extended stay allowed him to ground new converts after Dorcas’s resurrection (Acts 9:36-42) and to form a ministry base rather than monopolize space in a more prestigious home that might intimidate seekers. Chronological Considerations Acts 9 corresponds roughly to A.D. 40–41, less than a decade after the resurrection. Peter’s movements fit the timeline preserved by Luke’s meticulous “we-sections,” and the narrative harmony affirms early, eyewitness sourcing (cf. Luke 1:1-4). The episode precedes the Jerusalem Council (A.D. 48–49), where Peter’s experience with Cornelius became key testimony (Acts 15:7-11). Archaeological and Extra-Biblical Corroboration • A first-century tannery complex has been excavated at Akko, 50 miles north of Joppa, confirming coastal siting and required proximity to seawater for rinsing hides. • Pilgrim diaries from the fourth-century Bordeaux Itinerary and later Crusader maps mark “the house of Simon the Tanner” in Jaffa; the traditional site still stands, lending topographical continuity to Luke’s details. • Ossuaries and tomb inscriptions from first-century Judea bear the name “Simon,” matching Acts’ prevalence and supporting the text’s realistic onomastics (cf. Tal Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names). Practical Reasons for Peter’s Stay 1. Availability: After Tabitha’s miracle, Simon’s home likely opened immediately. 2. Location: A rooftop by the sea offered solitude for prayer. 3. Mobility: A port city eased travel to Lydda, Caesarea, and beyond. 4. Ministry Presence: Remaining “many days” consolidated the young Joppa assembly. Application for Believers Today Peter’s decision invites modern Christians to practice barrier-breaking hospitality, prioritizing gospel mission over cultural comfort, and to seek out overlooked people groups. It also encourages confidence that God orchestrates mundane lodging choices for strategic kingdom impact. Summary of Key Points • Tanners were ritually and socially ostracized; Peter’s lodging with Simon signaled gospel inclusivity. • The setting primed Peter for the vision of clean and unclean animals, launching Gentile evangelism. • Joppa’s history and geography underline God’s redemptive continuity. • Archaeology and extra-biblical sources corroborate Luke’s precision. • The episode models how theological truth dismantles social divisions in Christ. |
    |