Scriptural Truth Found in Ancient Texts?

"So, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place; that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He would be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles." (Acts 26:22-23 NASB)

 While camping one year, I met a believer who had some very unorthodox views.  He said he was somewhat like a church movement trying to get away from "organized religion" and back to early church roots.  It sounded interesting until two topics popped up chained together.  First he was against tithing saying it was a thing created by large churches to get more money.  Second, he based this view on his rejection of the Hebrew Scriptures as valid for Christians.  He totally missed the irony, even when I tried to explain it to him.

How can any Christ-following movement claim to be anywhere near the mindset of the early church and yet reject the very Scriptures they used in worship?  While this person, and others in such a movement may be an extreme example, there are others who are functionally in the same boat.  I have heard all sorts of excuses for such a practice: We're under "grace" not "law", The Old Testament was superseded by the New, Jesus said to reject it when He taught on "wine skins", and on and on.  HOG WASH!

Rather than debate these ridiculous excuses or give them any further thought time, let me ask the following:

1. When Jesus is tempted, where does He get His responses to Satan?  Where are those references found?
2. When Jesus corrects the Pharisees and religious leaders, what does He quote to them? Where are those references found?
3. On the road to Emmaus in Luke 24, what did Jesus use to support His statement that what happened was supposed to happen?  Where did He get those references?
4. How can Paul claim that he follows the law of the Jews in his repeated self-defense in Acts 22-26 if he has rejected the Hebrew Scriptures?
5. Why would he claim in Acts 26:22-23 that the core of his good news is "...nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place..." if he has rejected the Hebrew Scriptures?
6. What was being read in the Early Church gatherings in Troas since we don't have a "letter" from Paul or anyone else to them?  One isn't even mentioned, so what were they reading?  The ink was drying on the other letters we do have, so what did everyone else read?
7. How can Jesus claim that He did not come to abolish the law, that not least stroke would disappear until all is completed, if He didn't want His followers reading those Scriptures?  Unless I suppose that those in these reject movements believe they are completed, which would fit their arrogance.

The only conclusion I can reach is that anyone claiming to follow Jesus yet rejecting, functionally or openly, the very Scriptures He used Himself are not even reading the Scriptures they claim as valid.  This is a rant, perhaps a "straw man" argument, and I am clearly emotionally hot about this topic.  I admit it, confess it, but I'm not apologetic.  A view of God that does not incorporate both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures together is not only wrong, but dangerous.  That's not an opinion, it cannot be done and my Master be honored, be worshiped, or be obeyed.  There are sixty-six books, no more, no less, or someone else is being worshiped.

Repenting: Changing And Turning, Changes Everything

"So, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision, but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance." (Acts 26:19-20 NASB)

 One of the things that drove me to study the Scriptures in original languages was to better understand terminology used in theology.  At least I couch it in those terms now, but at the beginning of my studies I really couldn't articulate it that way.  All I knew is that I wanted to understand those discussions for myself.  I knew I had to be able to work with the text as it truly is rather than as someone told me it is.

As with most lessons my Master brings me through, I never end up anywhere close to where I aimed at the beginning.  In this case, in studying original languages, I discovered "textual criticism" and the reality that I would never be able to 1) work with the text as it truly was; and 2) never really understand theology all by myself.  It was a very "unAmerican" discovery to make, that I would always be dependent on others for my understanding.

Instead, where I wound up was learning that terms and thoughts are much more vibrant and deep than I expected.  I wanted to know the real meaning of church-word, "holy" and all its uses.  What I discovered is a pagan word used by idol worshipers which was adopted and redefined by Scripture.  That wasn't what I expected to find.  All across my scope and range of assumptions, I found that I was usually wrong, or at least severely limited.

This passage in Acts 26 is an excellent example of the journey where I lost an assumption, replaced it with a false one, and then lost that one to be replaced by an uncomfortable combination of the two.  It's an example of how my Master speaks and says what He wants, rather than what I want to hear.

Repentance, I had been taught, was a 180 degree turn in my behavior from sin to obedience to Jesus.  To repent was to stop behavior.  So, no stop of behavior meant no repentance.  Well, it's not so easy.  Such a definition of repentance leaves it in my court, my choice, my power.  The reality is that Scripture uses three concepts for repentance, not this limited pale feeble guilt-ridden one with which I started.

In verse 20, Paul says that his message to both Jews and Gentiles was "...that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance."  Obviously there was more to his message, but this is how he boiled it down in this particular presentation.  Notice three elements in his message.

First, the word almost always translated as "repentance" refers to a change of mind or manner of thinking.  It's made up of the preposition, "after" and the word, "mind" or "thought".  It refers to what is concluded after thinking through something and arriving at a different place in the mind.  In other words, the mental perceptions about a thing have been altered to reflect a different point of view.  In this sense, and in all of its use in Scripture, this new point of view matches that of my Master.  So repentance is a change of mind to match the mind of my Master; partly.

The second piece is almost always translated as "turn", and is the common definition for "repent" although it's never translated as repent.  At first I said, "Aha!  See, repentance is a change of mind not behavior!"  And on the surface it might look that way, perhaps from other occurrences of this word or the previous one.  This is where my first assumption (that repentance was only a change in behavior) was crushed.  This word was never used for repentance.  In one sense I was free from the requirement to behave and be judged on my behavior, but such freedom didn't last long.

The third piece completes the structure of repentance.  Paul goes on to say in the same breath, "...performing deeds appropriate to repentance."  And there went the false prop for my new assumption.  This inescapably ties behavior to repentance.  There is a change in behavior tied to repentance.  The question I then asked was how do these three connect?

The three pieces may not require a particular order, but they must all be present.  In order to repent, my mind must be changed to match the point of view of my Master.  In order to repent the direction of my life must be aimed at my Master.  And, in order to repent, my behavior must reflect the previous two changes.

Now, I will admit that it can happen that I change my behavior, and learn to see things from my Master's perspective through obedience.  It's possible to change my behavior and discover the direction of my life has changed more toward my Master.  But I can't say that it always happens this way.  Now my belief is that, more often than not, these three are intertwined; first one preceding the others, then at another time the order changes.  But my belief can never separate the three from my understanding of repentance.  There is no longer an option for leaving out a change in my behavior to obedience to my Master, a change in the direction of my life toward my Master, and a change in my way of thinking to His way of thinking.  You see, I repented of my former misunderstanding of repentance.