I Can Do All Things Video

When your application deforms your interpretation.

This is a video examining three takes on Philippians 4:11–13.

The Transcript (narration only)

WELCOME to the outrageously popular CHRISTIAN THEOLOGIST channel, where reason and sound exegesis are used to highlight faulty doctrine and practice in the contemporary, English-speaking Church. The title of this video is taken from the first clause in Philippians 4:13 – “I Can Do All Things.”

Because I’m fairly certain that most Christians today are sensible enough to disregard the more literal, contextless interpretations of this verse out there, I thought I’d discuss where and why even those preachers and teachers who strive to interpret this verse from its context can fall short as soon as they try to apply it – Okay, let’s begin.

In this video, I’m going to briefly examine the interpretations of Philippians 4:13 of three random bible teachers on YouTube: John Schoenheit, Francis Chan, Dr Lynn Cohick.

First up is John Schoenheit, of Spirit & Truth Fellowship International, who starts out sensibly enough.

Unfortunately, Schoenheit proceeds to place the verse in the wrong context. Yes, wisely, he does tie verse 13 back to verse 12, but he stops there, then shoots forward and ties it to verse 14.

The mistake he makes with this is that, by not going back far enough, to verse 11 and then 10, he missed where Paul pauses his commendation of the Philippians in verse 10 to make a three verse-long parenthetical statement about himself, that is, verses 11, 12 and 13. This is indicated at the start of verse 11: “Not that I am speaking of being in need ….” Paul finishes his short aside about himself, then returns to his commending the Philippians with verse 14’s “Yet it was kind of you ….”

So, Schoenheit catapults Paul’s short parenthesis out of its own self-contained context – that of his personal contentedness with any material condition in which he finds himself –into the context of his current “troubles;” meaning his being imprisoned and facing possible execution.

No. Paul is explicitly not talking about his current situation vis-à-vis imprisonment, he is talking about his material situations generally; nor is he talking about “doing well,” but rather remaining contented with either material need or material abundance. The “all these things” of verse 13 are the things he just mentioned, that is, “being brought low” or “abounding,” facing “plenty” or “hunger,” “abundance” or “need.”

After subverting the context, Schoenheit then reaches this astonishing conclusion:

The reason Schoenheit does this contextual bait and switch while interpreting the verse is so he can pave the way for his pet application of the verse; which turns out to be that every Christian has the ability to replicate Paul’s victory over his emotional fragility.

This is exactly backwards: instead of his interpretation informing his application, Schoenheit’s application is deforming his interpretation – classic eisegesis over exegesis.

Our next expositor also lets his application deform his interpretation. Like Schoenheit, Francis Chan of Crazy Love Ministries – yeah, I know, craaazy – starts out with good intentions:
Unlike Schoenheit, Chan obviously gets the basic context right, that it’s about Paul’s material situation. But instead of exegeting this clearly, Chan subsumes his interpretation into his application. Instead of talking about what the Apostle Paul was saying about himself in this verse, Chan talks about some supposed purpose of the verse relative to his audience.
There are two things wrong with this application. One, this is not a didactic passage, it is expository, meaning it is not a teaching, but a description. Paul is not teaching anything about how the Philippians, or any Christians, should be; he is merely explaining what he is not referring to in his discussion their delay in sending him material assistance – again, this passage starts with “Not that I’m talking about need.” Paul is saying that he is not complaining that he had to do without, because he was content when they were helping him and when they weren’t. That is the purpose of this passage; it has nothing to do with his holding himself up as an example to them.

The second thing wrong with this application is that it takes Paul's commendation to the Philippians and turns it into some kind of passive-aggressive rebuke. When the Philippians weren't helping him, Paul was concerned that, they might have endangered theirown souls by putting a stop to their charity to a fellow believer. He was overjoyed for them when they resumed their help with the same vigour as before. He was not concerned with how content they were with their lot in life.

Our third teacher, Dr Lynn Cohick, current provost/dean of Denver Seminary, devotes a lot of her short video on the meaning of “all things:”


But she too expands the context beyond material needs to include things like physical dangers:

… she just had to get a woman in there, eh? Actually, that solipsistic reflex might point to the motivation behind her expansion of the context – an expansion which, not surprisingly, leads her to misinterpret the passage, too:

So, it seems clear from that that Cohick really wants to make this verse relevant to today’s Christian experience. So she interprets it in such a way that it can be applied to any and all ministry situations, regardless of its original meaning and context.

Thanks for watching, and before you go, don't forget to hit the thumbs up, subscribe, and bell notification buttons. God bless.