Eoghan
Puritan Board Senior
I am puzzled that Peter is so slow to accept that Gentiles are to be "saved from the wrath to come". Back in Acts 6 we have evidence of Stephen preaching the abbrogation of the Mosaic customs. For this he is martyred. Paul seems to head up the persecution of the Hellenistic Christians for which Stephen was the spokesman.
Yet Peter, the Apostles and the Hebrew speaking church are spared/ignored. Why?
The petition re: the distribution to hellenistic widows suggests some distance or unfamiliarity with the Hellenistic Church. The Apostles do not seem keen to exercise authority save to devolve the matter to the Hellenistic church (or did these Hellenists also serve the Hebrews?).
There does seem to be a divide between the Hellenistic church who are aware of the immanent destruction of the Temple and the abbrogation of Moses customs and the more orthodox, Hebrew speaking Jewish Christians.
When Peter was asked about Stephen's sermons what did he say? "I'm not so sure about his exegesis?" or "If it happens it happens - so why worry about it now?".
Here in Acts 10 God really has to hit Peter over the head to get through to him that the gentiles are not to be excluded or looked on as second class citizens when they come to faith.
I don't think Stephen would have had the same problems in grasping the abbrogation of the Mosaic laws!
As I reflect on this it strikes me as curious that the leaders of the Hebrew and Greek missions are so orthodox. John the Apostle personally knows the High Priest and at Jesus trial goes down to the gatehouse to let him in. Paul is not just Jewish but a pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin (?).
These were Jewish Jews!
So the questions:
1. How deep was the division between Hellenist and Hebraic fellowships
2. Why were the Hebraic Jews not persecuted
3. Chronologically when/how long did it take to start preaching to gentiles
4. Was Peter playing catch up to the martyred Stephen
5. Was Stephen pre-empting what was to come later (i.e. Acts 10) and so God took him home?
Yet Peter, the Apostles and the Hebrew speaking church are spared/ignored. Why?
The petition re: the distribution to hellenistic widows suggests some distance or unfamiliarity with the Hellenistic Church. The Apostles do not seem keen to exercise authority save to devolve the matter to the Hellenistic church (or did these Hellenists also serve the Hebrews?).
There does seem to be a divide between the Hellenistic church who are aware of the immanent destruction of the Temple and the abbrogation of Moses customs and the more orthodox, Hebrew speaking Jewish Christians.
When Peter was asked about Stephen's sermons what did he say? "I'm not so sure about his exegesis?" or "If it happens it happens - so why worry about it now?".
Here in Acts 10 God really has to hit Peter over the head to get through to him that the gentiles are not to be excluded or looked on as second class citizens when they come to faith.
I don't think Stephen would have had the same problems in grasping the abbrogation of the Mosaic laws!
As I reflect on this it strikes me as curious that the leaders of the Hebrew and Greek missions are so orthodox. John the Apostle personally knows the High Priest and at Jesus trial goes down to the gatehouse to let him in. Paul is not just Jewish but a pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin (?).
These were Jewish Jews!
So the questions:
1. How deep was the division between Hellenist and Hebraic fellowships
2. Why were the Hebraic Jews not persecuted
3. Chronologically when/how long did it take to start preaching to gentiles
4. Was Peter playing catch up to the martyred Stephen
5. Was Stephen pre-empting what was to come later (i.e. Acts 10) and so God took him home?