Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Colossians 1:24 - 1:24
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Col_1:24.[61] A more precise description of this relation of service, and that, in the first place, with respect to the sufferings which the apostle is now enduring, Col_1:24, and then with respect to his important calling generally, Col_1:25-29.
ὃς (see the critical remarks) ΝῦΝ ΧΑΊΡΩ Κ . Τ . Λ .: I who now rejoice, etc. How touchingly, so as to win the hearts of the readers, does this join itself with the last element of encouragement in Col_1:23!
νῦν ] places in contrast with the great element of his past, expressed by οὗ ἐγεν . κ . τ . λ ., which has imposed on the apostle so many sorrows (comp. Act_9:16), the situation as it now exists with him in that relation of service on his part to the gospel. This present condition, however, he characterizes, in full magnanimous appreciation of the sufferings under which he writes, as joyfulness over them, and as a becoming perfect in the fellowship of tribulation with Christ, which is accomplished through them. It is plain, therefore, that the emphatic νῦν is not transitional (Bähr) or inferential (Lücke: “quae cum ita sint”); nor yet is it to be defined, with Olshausen, by arbitrary importation of the thought: now, after that I look upon the church as firmly established (comp. Dalmer), or, with Hofmann, to be taken as standing in contrast to the apostolic activity.
ἐν τοῖς παθήμ .] over the sufferings; see on Php_1:18; Rom_5:3. This joy in suffering is so entirely in harmony with the Pauline spirit, that its source is not to be sought (in opposition to Holtzmann) in 2Co_7:4, either for the present passage or for Eph_3:13; comp. also Php_2:17.
ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ] joins itself to ΠΑΘΉΜΑΣΙΝ so as to form one conception, without connecting article. Comp. on Col_1:1; Col_1:4; 2Co_7:7; Eph_3:13; Gal_4:14. Since ὙΠΈΡ , according to the context, is not to be taken otherwise than as in ὙΠῈΡ ΤΟῦ ΣΏΜ . ΑὐΤΟῦ , it can neither mean instead of (Steiger, Catholic expositors, but not Cornelius a Lapide or Estius), nor on account of (Rosenmüller, Heinrichs, Flatt; comp. Eph_3:1; Php_1:29), but simply: in commodum,[62] namely, ἵνα ὑμᾶς ὠφελῆσαι δυνηθῶ , Oecumenius, and that, indeed, by that honourable attestation and glorifying of your Christian state, which is actually contained in my tribulations; for the latter show forth the faith of the readers, for the sake of which the apostle has undertaken and borne the suffering, as the holy divine thing which is worthy of such a sacrifice. Comp. Php_1:12 ff.; Eph_3:13. The reference to the example, which confirms the readers’ faith (Grotius, Wolf, Bähr, and others), introduces inappropriately a reflection, the indirect and tame character of which is not at all in keeping with the emotion of the discourse.
The ὑμῶν , meaning the readers, though the relation in question concerns Pauline Christians generally, is to be explained by the tendency of affectionate sympathy to individualize (comp. Php_1:25; Php_2:17, et al.). It is arbitrary, doubtless, to supply τῶν ἐθνῶν here from Eph_3:1 (Flatt, Huther); but that Paul, nevertheless, has his readers in view as Gentile Christians, and as standing in a special relation to himself as apostle of the Gentiles, is shown by Col_1:25-27.
καί ] not equivalent to ΚΑῚ ΓΆΡ (Heinrichs, Bähr), but the simple and, subjoining to the subjective state of feeling the objective relation of suffering, which the apostle sees accomplishing itself in his destiny. It therefore carries on, but not from the special ( ὑμῶν ) “ad totam omnino ecclesiam” (Lücke), since the new point to be introduced is contained in the specific ἈΝΤΑΝΑΠΛΗΡῶ … ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ , and not in ὙΠῈΡ Τ . ΣΏΜ . ΑὐΤΟῦ . The connection of ideas is rather: “I rejoice over my sufferings, and what a holy position is theirs! through them I fulfil,” etc. Hence the notion of χαίρω is not, with Huther, to be carried over also to ἈΝΤΑΝΑΠΛΗΡῶ : and I supplement with joy, etc. At the same time, however, the statement introduced by καί stands related to ΧΑΊΡΩ as elucidating and giving information regarding it.
ἀνταναπληρῶ ] The double compound is more graphic than the simple ἀναπληρῶ , Php_2:30; 1Co_16:17 (I fill up), since ἀντί (to fill up over against) indicates what is brought in for the making complete over against the still existing ὑστερήματα . The reference of the ἀντί lies therefore in the notion of what is lacking; inasmuch, namely, as the incomplete is rendered complete by the very fact, that the supplement corresponding to what is lacking is introduced in its stead. It is the reference of the corresponding adjustment,[63] of the supplying of what is still wanting. Comp. Dem. 182. 22: ἀνταναπληροῦντες πρὸς τὸν εὐπορώτατον ἀεὶ τοὺς ἀπορωτάτους (where the idea is, that the poverty of the latter is compensated for by the wealth of the former); so also ἀνταναπλήρωσις , Epicur. ap. Diog. L. x. 48; Dio Cass, xliv. 48: ὅσον … ἐνέδει , τοῦτο ἐκ τῆς παρὰ τῶν ἄλλων συντελείας ἀνταναπληρωθῇ . Comp. ἀντεμπίπλημι , Xen. Anab. iv. 5. 28; ἀνταναπλήθειν , Xen. Hell. ii. 4. 12; and ἀντιπληροῦν , Xen. Cyr. ii. 2. 26. The distinction of the word from the simple ἀναπληροῦν does not consist in this, that the latter is said of him, who “ ὑστέρημα a se relictum ipse explet,” and ἀνταναπλ . of him, who “alterius ὑστέρημα de suo explet” (so Winer, de verbor. c. praepos. in N. T. usu, 1838, III. p. 22); nor yet in the endurance vieing with Christ, the author of the afflictions (Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 275); but in the circumstance, that in ἀνταναπλ . the filling up is conceived and described as defectui respondens, in ἀναπλ ., on the other hand, only in general as completio. See 1Co_16:17; Php_2:30; Plat. Legg. xii. p. 957 A, Tim. p. 78 D, et al. Comp. also Tittmann, Synon. p. 230.
τὰ ὑστερήματα ] The plural indicates those elements yet wanting in the sufferings of Christ in order to completeness. Comp. 1Th_3:10; 2Co_9:12.
τῶν θλίψ . τοῦ Χριστοῦ ] τοῦ Χ . is the genitive of the subject. Paul describes, namely, his own sufferings, in accordance with the idea of the κοινωνεῖν τοῖς τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθήμασι (1Pe_4:13; comp. Mat_20:22; Heb_13:13), as afflictions of Christ, in so far as the apostolic suffering in essential character was the same as Christ endured (the same cup which Christ drank, the same baptism with which Christ was baptized). Comp. on Rom_8:17; 2Co_1:5; Php_3:10. The collective mass of these afflictions is conceived in the form of a definite measure, just as the phrases ἀναπιμπλάναι κακά , ἀναπλῆσαι κακὸν οἶτον , and the like, are current in classic authors, according to a similar figurative conception (Hom. Il. viii. 34. 354, 15:132), Schweigh. Lex. Herod. I. p. 42. He only who has suffered all, has filled up the measure. That Paul is now, in his captivity fraught with danger to life, on the point (the present ἀνταναπλ . indicating the being in the act, see Bernhardy, p. 370) of filling up all that still remains behind of this measure of affliction, that he is therefore engaged in the final full solution of his task of suffering, without leaving a single ὑστέρημα in it,—this he regards as something grand and glorious, and therefore utters the ἀνταναπληρῶ , which bears the emphasis at the head of this declaration, with all the sense of triumph which the approaching completion of such a work involves. “I rejoice on account of the sufferings which I endure for you, and—so highly have I to esteem this situation of affliction
I am in the course of furnishing the complete fulfilment of what in my case still remains in arrear of fellowship of affliction with Christ.” This lofty consciousness, this feeling of the grandeur of the case, very naturally involved not only the selection of the most graphic expression possible, ἀνταναπληρῶ , to be emphatically prefixed, but also the description, in the most honourable and sublime manner possible, of the apostolic afflictions themselves as the θλίψεις τοῦ Χριστοῦ ,[64] since in their kind and nature they are no other than those which Christ Himself has suffered. These sufferings are, indeed, sufferings for Christ’s sake (so Vatablus, Schoettgen, Zachariae, Storr, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Böhmer, and others; comp. Wetstein), but they are not so designated by the genitive; on the contrary, the designation follows the idea of ethical identity, which is conveyed in the ἰσόμοιρον εἷναι τῷ Χριστῷ , as in Php_3:10. Nor are they to be taken, with Lücke (comp. Fritzsche, l.c.), as: “afflictiones, quae Paulo apostolo Christo auctore et auspice Christo perferendae erant,” since there is no ground to depart from the primary and most natural designation of the suffering subject ( θλῖψις , with the genitive of the person, is always so used in the N. T., e. g. in 2Co_1:4; 2Co_1:8; 2Co_4:17; Eph_3:12; Jam_1:27), considering how current is the idea of the κοινωνία of the sufferings of Christ. Theodoret’s comment is substantially correct, though not exhibiting precisely the relation expressed by the genitive: ΧΡΙΣΤῸς ΤῸΝ ὙΠῈΡ Τῆς ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑς ΚΑΤΕΔΈΞΑΤΟ ΘΆΝΑΤΟΝ … ΚΑῚ ΤᾺ ἌΛΛΑ ὍΣΑ ὙΠΈΜΕΙΝΕ , ΚΑῚ Ὁ ΘΕῖΟς ἈΠΌΣΤΟΛΟς ὩΣΑΎΤΩς ὙΠῈΡ ΑὐΤῆς ὙΠΈΣΤΗ ΤᾺ ΠΟΙΚΊΛΑ ΠΑΘΉΜΑΤΑ . Ewald imports more, when he says that Paul designates his sufferings from the point of view of the continuation and further accomplishment of the divine aim in the sufferings of Christ. Quite erroneous, however, because at variance with the idea that Christ has exhausted the suffering appointed to Him in the decree of God for the redemption of the world (comp. also Joh_11:52; Joh_19:30; Luk_22:37; Luk_18:31; Rom_3:25; 2Co_5:21, et al.), is not only the view of Heinrichs: “qualia et Christus passurus fuisset, si diutius vixisset” (so substantially also Phot. Amphil. 143), but also that of Hofmann, who explains it to mean: the supplementary continuation of the afflictions which Christ suffered in His earthly life—a continuation which belonged to the apostle as apostle of the Gentiles, and consisted in a suffering which could not have affected Christ, because He was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel. As if Christ’s suffering were not, throughout the N. T., the one perfect and completely valid suffering for all mankind, but were rather to be viewed under the aspect of two quantitative halves, one of which He bore Himself as διάκονος περιτομῆς (Rom_15:8), leaving the other behind to be borne by Paul as the ΔΙΔΆΣΚΑΛΟς ἘΘΝῶΝ ; so that the first, namely, that which Jesus suffered, consisted in the fact that Israel brought Him to the cross, because they would not allow Him to be their Saviour; whilst the other, as the complement of the first, consisted in this, that Paul lay in captivity with his life at stake, because Israel would not permit him to proclaim that Saviour to the Gentiles. Every explanation, which involves the idea of the suffering endured by Christ in the days of His flesh having been incomplete and needing supplement, is an anomaly which offends against the analogy of faith of the N. T. And how incompatible with the deep humility of the apostle (Eph_3:8; 1Co_15:9) would be the thought of being supposed to supplement that, which the highly exalted One (Col_1:15 ff.) had suffered for the reconciliation of the universe (Col_1:20 ff.)! Only when misinterpreted in this fashion can the utterance be regarded as one perfectly foreign to Paul (as is asserted by Holtzmann, pp. 21 f., 152, 226); even Eph_1:22 affords no basis for such a view. As head of the Church, which is His body, and which He fills, He is in statu gloriae in virtue of His kingly office. Others, likewise, holding the genitive to be that of the subject, have discovered here the conception of the suffering of Christ in the Church, His body,[65] so that when the members suffer, the head suffers also. So Chrysostom and Theophylact (who compare the apostle with a lieutenant, who, when the general-in-chief is removed, takes the latter’s place and receives his wounds), Theodore of Mopsuestia, Augustine, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Melanchthon, Clarius, Cornelius a Lapide, Vitringa, Bengel, Michaelis, and others, including Steiger, Bähr, Olshausen, de Wette, Schenkel, Dalmer; comp. Grotius and Calovius, and even Bleek. But the idea of Christ suffering in the sufferings of His people (Olshausen: “Christ is the suffering God in the world’s history!”) is nowhere found in the N. T., not even in Act_9:4, where Christ, indeed, appears as the One against whom the persecution of Christians is directed, but not as affected by it in the sense of suffering. He lives in His people (Gal_2:20), speaks in them (2Co_13:3); His heart beats in them (Php_1:8); He is mighty in them (Col_1:29), when they are weak (2Co_12:9), their hope, their life, their victory; but nowhere is it said that He suffers in them. This idea, moreover—which, consistently carried out, would involve even the conception of the dying of Christ in the martyrs—would be entirely opposed to the victoriously reigning life of the Lord in glory, with whose death all His sufferings are at an end, Act_2:34 ff.; 1Co_15:24; Php_2:9 ff.; Luk_24:26; Joh_19:30. Crucified ἐξ ἀσθενείας , He lives ἘΚ ΔΥΝΆΜΕΩς ΘΕΟῦ , 2Co_13:4, at the right hand of God exalted above all the heavens and filling the universe (Eph_1:22 f., Col_4:10), ruling, conquering, and beyond the reach of further suffering (Heb_3:18 ff.). The application made by Cajetanus, Bellarmine, Salmeron, and others, of this explanation for the purpose of establishing the treasury of indulgences, which consists of the merits not merely of Christ but also of the apostles and saints, is a Jewish error (4Ma_6:26, and Grimm in loc.), historically hardly worthy of being noticed, though still defended, poorly enough, by Bisping.
ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου ] belongs to ἈΝΤΑΝΑΠΛ ., as to which it specifies the more precise mode; not to τῶν θλίψ . τ . Χ . (so Storr, Flatt, Bähr, Steiger, Böhmer, Huther), with which it might be combined so as to form one idea, but it would convey a more precise description of the Christ-sufferings experienced by the apostle, for which there was no motive, and which was evident of itself. Belonging to ἀνταναπλ ., it contains with ὙΠῈΡ ΤΟῦ ΣΏΜ . Ἀ . a pointed definition ( σάρξ … σῶμα ) of the mode and of the aim.[66] Paul accomplishes that ἈΝΤΑΝΑΠΛΗΡΟῦΝ in his flesh,[67] which in its natural weakness, exposed to suffering and death, receives the affliction from without and feels it psychically (comp. 2Co_4:11; Gal_4:14; 1Pe_4:1), for the benefit of the body of Christ, which is the church (comp. Col_1:18), for the confirmation, advancement, and glory of which (comp. above on ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ) he endures the Christ-sufferings. Comp. Eph_3:13. The significant purpose of the addition of ἘΝ Τῇ ΣΑΡΚῚ Κ . Τ . Λ . is to bring out more clearly and render palpable, in connection with the ἈΝΤΑΝΑΠΛΗΡῶ Κ . Τ . Λ ., what lofty happiness he experiences in this very ἀνταναπληροῦν . He is therein privileged to step in with his mortal ΣΆΡΞ for the benefit of the holy and eternal body of Christ, which is the church.
[61] See upon ver. 24, Lücke, Progr. 1833; Huther in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 189 ff.
[62] So also Bisping, who, however, explains it of the meritoriousness of good works availing for others.
[63] Many ideas are arbitrarily introduced by commentators, in order to bring out of the ἀντί in ἀνταναπλ . a reciprocal relation. See e.g. Clericus: “Ille ego, qui olim ecclesiam Christi vexaveram, nunc vicissim in ejus utilitatem pergo multa mala perpeti.” Others (see already Oecumenius) have found in it the meaning: for requital of that which Christ suffered for us; comp. also Grimm in his Lexicon. Wetstein remarks shortly and rightly: “ ἁντὶ ὑστερήματος succedit πλήρωμα ,”—or rather ἀναπλήρωμα .
[64] When de Wette describes our view of θλίψ . τ . Χ . as tame, and Schenkel as tautological, the incorrectness of this criticism arises from their not observing that the stress of the expression lies on ἀνταναπληρῶ , and not on τ . θλ . τ . Χ .
[65] Comp. also Sabatier, l’apôtre Paul, p. 213.
[66] Steiger rightly perceived that ἐν τ . σαρκί μ . and ὑπὲρ τ . σ . ἀ . belong together; but he erroneously coupled both with τῶν θλ . τ . Χ . (“the sufferings which Christ endures in my flesh for His body”), owing to his incorrect view of the θλίψεις τ . Χ
[67] Hofmann thinks, without reason, that, according to our explanation of ἀνταναπληρῶ κ . τ . λ ., we ought to join ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου with τῶν θλίψ . τ . Χ ., as the latter would otherwise be without any reference to the person of the apostle. It has, in fact, this reference through the very statement, that the ἀνταναπληροῦν κ . τ . λ . takes places in the flesh of the apostle.