Paul's Problem Passages

Home Articles Media Storefront

By David Block

Every student of the Bible, at one time or another, will utter the phrase, “What exactly does that mean?” When reading through the Bible passages appear that require a little more thought than what a casual reading can glean. The careful studying of these passages in conjunction with their context and original language will often lead to a meaning that best suits it. Without careful study, people throughout church history have taken some of these passages and created false doctrines and even their own cults. With this is mind, we turn to three such passages: Ephesians 1:11-14, Philippians 2:7, and Colossians 1:15.

In the New American Standard Bible Ephesians 1:11-12 is translated, “also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.” The problem in this passage is over who posses the inheritance. The Greek seems to be ambiguous allowing translators to judge from the context which meaning is the correct one. The two solutions given for this translation problem are that we have obtained an inheritance, as in the NASB cited above, or that we are God's inheritance.

First, the translation “we have obtained an inheritance” is popular among many of the modern translations. The obtainment of the inheritance of God can be found in verses such as Acts 20:32; Romans 8:17; 2 Peter 1:3,4; and many more. Obtaining the inheritance promised by God to Abraham which was manifested by Christ is obviously a major theme that runs throughout the Bible so it makes sense that it would appear once again in the letter to the Ephesians. This being especially so in a passage talking about the work of God in salvation.

The second option is to translate this passage as “we were made His inheritance”. to the Old Testament evidence as in such verses as Deuteronomy 4:20; 9:29; 32:9; Psalm 16:6. 94:14 and so on. All of these passages state that God's people are his inheritance. In fact, in Psalm 132:11-14 it tells of how God chose his inheritance and how he desires to live in them. This fits perfectly within the Ephesians passage of how God sovereignly chose his people, and through the work of Christ now indwells them by the Spirit.

The question comes down to which translation do we choose? There is contextual and biblical evidence to support both being viable answers. I think that is why the Amplified Bible puts it this way: “In Him we also were made [God's] heritage (portion) and we obtained an inheritance”. Providing both solutions seems to work the best. Yes we are God's portion but because of this we have obtained an inheritance, all to the praise of God's glory.

The second problem passage for us to consider is Philippians 2:7a which in the NASB reads, “but emptied Himself”. This little phrase though easily translated, unlike the previous passage, can open up all kinds of theological problems in relation to its meaning. The question is what happened to Christ when he emptied himself and became a man? Did Christ lose something at the incarnation? The answering of these questions and the interpreting of this phrase can affect a persons entire Christology so care must be taken.

First of all, many attempts at explaining this passage have robbed Christ of his deity. Some people suggest that He gave up his omniscience, omnipotence, and his omnipresence. They suggest that when he became a man he gave up the use of some of his divine attributes. Some say that he was fully confined to human limitations. But of course, none of these can be so, for if the deity of Christ was changed in any way then we would have to ask the question: How much could he change and still be God?

Many modern translators have opted not to use the literal “emptied” but to use “made himself of no reputation” or the like. The use of this phrase is usually done so that people aren't confused about the true meaning of the phrase. People have their own connotations about the word empty and usually carry those into this sentence. But as we have previously seen some connotations destroy the very nature of Christ. We know that Christ is the “same yesterday, today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). How could the author of Hebrews say this if, in fact, he did change when he took on flesh? He did not lose or give up his power for it is by that very power that he is alive today (2 Corinthians 13:4) and the very same power that is now directed toward the believer. He did not lose his glory that radiated the tabernacle and temple because it shown forth, though still veiled at his transfiguration. In the John 17:5 Jesus asks the Father that he would once again be glorified as he was before the incarnation. He is not asking for something that he doesn't have, but rather he is asking the Father to allow him to shine forth glory like the Father's as he had done in eternity. In fact, at the beginning of John's gospel he tells us that he beheld the glory of Christ (John 1:14). Though in the flesh he was still equal with God yet, because of the emptying, he chose not to assert it. This is the true meaning of this passage. To suggest that the Son gave up any aspect of deity is to corrupt the entire idea of the incarnation. Jesus Christ was the God-Man, two natures in one body. He was fully God and fully man.

It is easy to misinterpret this passage when it is taken out of context. However, with the succeeding phrases it all becomes clear. The rest of the sentence reads, “taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.” Nowhere in these two phrases do we find a reference to Christ giving up his deity. Rather we find that he took the “form” and “likeness” of humanity. His substance remained the same but the form he took was different. The kenosis, then, was the great incarnation of the glorious Son taking on the status of a bond-servant to redeem his people.

The final passage to look at is Colossians 1:15. “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” The problem phrase to consider is “the firstborn of all creation.” This phrase begins a long description of who Christ is and what he has done. But what does it mean that he is the firstborn? Was he really born? Like the kenosis, this phrase has the potential to create a lot of theological problems if interpreted incorrectly.

First, we can narrow the meaning of firstborn down to two options. The first, is a literal meaning as we find in Luke 2:7. “And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.” Here, Mary literally births her firstborn son. He was the son that was born first of all the other children that Mary had thereafter. Many false teachers like the Jehovah's Witnesses that take this literal view of Christ being the firstborn say that he was in fact the first being that God created. Unfortunately, these false teachers failed to miss the point of the next sentence which says that “all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things.” If he were before all things, and all things were created through him, how was he then created? No, this obviously cannot mean literally that Christ was the firstborn.

The second option is a figurative meaning. We see the word firstborn used this way several times in the Bible. For instance, in Exodus 4:22, “Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, 'Israel is My son, My firstborn.” Clearly the nation of Israel is called the firstborn is this passage. Obviously, this has no reference to birth nor to being the first nation, but to the uniqueness of the nation due to the fact of God's choosing it. Consider Psalm 89:27, “I also shall make him My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.” God says that he will make David the firstborn. How can this be if Jesus is the firstborn? How can you make someone a firstborn if they are already born? As is made obvious even by these two passages the word firstborn is not in reference to time or generation but to the specialness of the object.

To sum all of this up, the reference to Christ being firstborn is to his quality. He has the preeminence over and possesses the right over all of creation. He existed before creation and has an exalted rank over it. He is truly the sovereign and Head over all things.

The key to quality Bible study is to always be asking: What does this mean? If you were only to take a casual look over the verses we covered it would be easy to misinterpret or even fall into heresy. Through careful study these problem passages are shown, not only to coincide with the rest of Scripture, but also to give more insight into the nature and work of Christ.

Bibliography

Amplified Bible (AMP) The Lockman Foundation.1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987.

New American Standard Bible (NASB). The Lockman Foundation.1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995.