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  I have heard all sorts of excuses for such a practice: We're under "grace" not "law", The Old Testament was superseded by the New, Jesus said to reject it when He taught on "wine skins", and on and on.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.

How Does Peter Understand Jesus In Acts 2?

"Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know -- this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.  But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power. (Acts 2:22-24 NASB)


"Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ -- this Jesus whom you crucified." (Acts 2:36 NASB)

I have heard for years from a lot of different quarters that the church today should emulate the early church.  I have talked with people who have a variety of ways we should accomplish that.  Some of the views and ideas of practice make sense, and some do not.  The ones saying we need to adopt the early church theological perspectives probably interests me the most.  I wonder if they realize what they're saying.

Unbeknownst to most, but knownst to systematic theologians with PhD's and so on, the theological positions we typically hold today have been developed over the last two thousand years (or longer depending the particular theologian you talk to).  At this point it would shock people how much would need to "jettisoned" that has been added to explain various points about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and church (ecclesiology).

It's not that there isn't biblical support for the developments, it's just that they are "logical" (mostly) developments from considering Scripture rather than from Scripture.  They are one step away from the text in some cases, and more and others.  They attempt to explain what can be deduced from the writers, the intent of the Holy Spirit, and what we see of what God has revealed about Himself through Scripture.

This could (and probably should) make some people feel a bit uncomfortable, especially if you've never really traveled on this train of thought.  Many heretics have been burned, not for countering Scripture, but interpretations of it.  Much of church strife has centered around theological positions, not necessarily Scripture.  So, these few steps away from the text to explain the text have become critical to us, whether we are aware of it or not.

Peter, on the day of Pentecost says the words in the initial text I used to explain Jesus.  He calls Him a Nazarene, but here refers to where He's from (Nazareth) rather than a Nazarite Vow.  He refers to Him as a man through whom God performed miracles and wonders and whom God raised from the dead.  To this point, Jesus doesn't sound divine per se.  In verse 36 Peter finally declares that God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ.  This is where I want to hang out for a second.

There are two ways to understand Lord in Peter's day.  One way refers to those in authority over people, as in kings, governors, and so on.  The other is the Scriptural reference to the name of God in the Hebrew Scriptures.  By this time, the Greek text of the Hebrew Scriptures is in wide use.  That Scriptural translation does not use the name of God, but substitutes "Lord".  So Peter's crowd might see this as a reference to Jesus being exulted as God or deified.  So, God has made Jesus a deity rather than Jesus being deity from the beginning?  There are other Scriptures that clearly make the point that Jesus is One with God from the beginning (John 1:1-3 for instance).  But how does Peter understand Jesus and present Him here?  Not later on, but at the moment he speaks on Pentecost.

Before you get all "freaky" on me and start grabbing torches and pitchforks and your witch-burning paraphernalia (especially those of you who know my address), I'm not reducing Jesus to non-eternal God status.  What I'm asking is how Peter understood Jesus on the day of Pentecost.  I'm not espousing a theological position about Jesus, but asking if getting back to the theology of the early church would be as comfortable or as easy as it sounds.

Why do I ask?  Because I am pretty confident in my theological positions, comfortable in my view of the major systematic theological categories, and believe I can adequately explain my views on Scripture, God, the church, and so on.  But that does not give me any sort of right or obligation to pound someone else's.  That I may be able to explain mine doesn't make me right.  I need to go back and re-read these sorts of passages to remind myself that these positions are neither as easy to understand nor as cut and dried as I seem to make them out to be.

Yes, I believe Jesus is the eternal Son of God, but I have to admit that, in making a point, some of the writers of Scripture (and therefore the Spirit inspiring them) sacrificed support for that view (as in Acts 2:36).  These passages are not the definitive statements on such theological perspectives, but since I am to consider all of Scripture, not just my "favorite" passages, I also need to consider these.  What I learn by doing that is it is possible that Peter didn't have all the systematized theological support lined out 10 days after the ascension of Jesus.  What I come away with is that if Peter didn't necessarily have it all together, maybe I don't.  Think of the difficulty of stating the glorification of Jesus, holding in tension the divinity and humanity of the unique Son of God, second Person of the Trinity, and not sacrifice at some point, some element of all Who Jesus is.  I don't think I could do it.

So, I am left with the realization that I am comfortable in my beliefs, but perhaps I'm too complacent as well.  Can I think of anything more worthy than the Person of my Master?  Why would I stop considering Him, as if I have Him figured out?  What real comfort can there be in the presence of the One responsible for enormous stars, vast nebulae, the internal structures of living cells in simple and complex creatures, molecules, atoms, electrons, and quarks?  How can I be comfortable in His presence?  And isn't the summation of my beliefs about Him grounded in what He has revealed of Himself in Scripture?  Isn't the Person revealed there awesome and powerful enough to completely remove any comfort in His presence?

I'm either trembling because I'm cold, and the ceiling fan above me isn't helping, or I'm finally getting the point, and sensing I'm in the presence of my Master.  Only my skin is cold, inside I feel very warm.  I think it's time for me to worship.  See you tomorrow.