On Faith: Parachute Theology exists in the Apostolic Scripture

Brent Emery

On Faith

In last month’s column, I addressed the issue of context and “parachute theology” within modern Christian churches. The idea for these discussions came from the book “What the Bible Didn’t Say” by J. Stephen Lang.

As a listener or reader, we owe it to the speaker or writer to interpret their words in context. To take words or phrases out of context allows for the reader to import meaning rather than export meaning. By “parachute theology,” I refer to the phenom of many who land on one verse and ignore the context, then proceed to find a meaning that violates the context.

Last month, I explored commonly used verses from the Hebrew Scripture (Old Testament), and this month, I want to explore some common verses from the Apostolic Scripture (New Testament).

Reading verses in context doesn’t require any “credentials” or earned degrees, but it does require paying close attention to the context.

One of the most abused verses in the Apostolic Scripture is Matthew 18:20, which reads, “For where two or more are gathered in my name, I am there in the midst of them.”

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard this verse quoted at times of corporate prayer. Some well-meaning individual quotes Matthew 18:20, indicating that, since there are multiple people assembled for prayer, G-d is now in our midst.

But is corporate prayer the context of Matthew 18? Does G-d only enter our midst if we pray with others?

The context of Mattthew 18 deals with the discipline of a fellow believer who has violated or sinned against another believer. The “two or three” of verse 20 refers to verse 16, which states, “by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.”

That phrase is a quote from the Hebrew Scripture (see Deut 19:15) and requires one to understand the context. Thus, the “two or three” of verse 20 refers to the “two or three witnesses” of verse 16.

In order to properly adminster discipline, it may become necessary to confront the erring one with two or more in an attempt to restore him or her to fellowship. The context of Matthew 18 is discipline of a wayward believer and does not address the need for multiple people present for G-d to hear us when we pray.

Admittedly, some verses taken out of context don’t create theological harm and are rather benign. There are, however, verses taken out of context that do have broader theological implications.

One such verse is II Corinthians 5:21, which states, “G-d made Him (Yeshua/Jesus) who knew no sin, to become sin for us that we might become the righteousness of G-d.”

On the surface, the verse seems to say that, originally, Yeshua (Jesus) was not a sinner, but in the sacrifice of life, he became a sinner Himself in order to make us righteous.

Now this issue is very important, and context needs to be carefully understood when we’re making assertions about the living G-d and His Son, Yeshua.

The issue at stake is, “was Yeshua/Jesus a sinner,” even if it was for us?”

Let’s remind ourselves that there is context, and there are contextual circles surrounding the immediate context.

We must remember that “the Bible” of the apostolic authors of what we now know as the Apostolic Scripture was the Hebrew Scripture. When Paul penned the words of II Corinthians 5:21, there was no canon of the New Testament like we have today. Thus, if we are going to understand Paul’s use of the word “sin” in verse 21, we will have to go the Hebrew Scripture.

While the Apostolic Scripture is written in Greek, the mindset of the apostolic authors was Hebraic, and Hebrew language regulated their thoughts. The primary (not the only) Hebrew word for “sin” is the Hebrew word “chattat.”

The word “chattat” came from the world of archery, where bows and arrows were used as a weapon by many. To shoot an arrow and miss the mark was to have done “chattat.”

So, the word “chattat” was borrowed and used to indicate a person who had missed the standard.

The standard, in this case, was the commandments of the Hebrew Scripture. A search of any Hebrew language dictionary will reveal that, while the word “chattat” can mean sin, it also can be used to represent the “sin offering.”

How different Paul’s words read when we say, “He who knew no sin, became a sin offering for us.”

We could multiply the examples of this column many times over, but hopefully the need for understanding the context is evident to all.

Note that the context for understanding both of our examples came from the Hebrew Scripture. Without the Hebrew Scripture, the context and background of the Apostolic Scripture is not just hampered but impossible.

The reference of ‘G-d’

Some readers have contacted The Peninsula Gateway curious about Brent Emery’s reference to God in his On Faith column.

The following is an explanation from www.jewfaq.org:

“Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of God per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of God. However, observant Jews avoid writing any Name of God casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better ... Normally, we avoid writing the Name by substituting letters or syllables, for example, writing ‘G-d’ instead of ‘God.’ ”

On Faith columnist Pastor Brent Emery can be reached at Congregation Beit Tefillah or by e-mail at torah4today@comcast.net.