www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings colossians 1:24

NIV Colossians 1:24
"..I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions.."
What is your take on this?
What do the Fathers say?
How does Paul fill up?
What does Paul fill up?
How can anything be lacking?
What is lacking?

Per Haydock Commentary...

Ver. 24. And fill up those things....in my flesh for his body, which is the church.[5] Nothing was wanting in the sufferings or merits of Christ, for a sufficient and superabundant redemption of mankind, and therefore he adds, for his body, which is the church, that his sufferings were wanting, and are to be endured by the example of Christ by the faithful, who are members of a crucified head. See St. Chrysostom and St. Augustine. (Witham) --- Wanting. There is no want in the sufferings of Christ himself as head; but many sufferings are still wanting, or are still to come in his body, the Church, and his members, the faithful. (Challoner) --- St. Chrysostom here observes that Jesus Christ loves us so much, that he is not content merely to suffer in his own person, but he wishes also to suffer in his members; and thus we fill up what is wanting of the sufferings of Christ. (St. Chrysostom) --- The wisdom, the will, the justice of Jesus Christ, requireth and ordaineth that his body and members should be companions of his sufferings, as they expect to be companions of his glory; that so suffering with him, and after his example, they may apply to their own wants and to the necessities of others the merits and satisfaction of Jesus Christ, which application is what is wanting, and what we are permitted to supply by the sacraments and sacrifice of the new law.


james

http://realserver.goarch.org/en/readings/daily/09152006.mp3

Alexandr

Another translation has it that "I fill up in my flesh that which is lacking in the sufferings of Christ."

Since we are "baptizein"--literally in Greek, "plunged" into the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ in our Baptism, we are also plunged into His sufferings on the Cross. This gives the suffering that we do in this life, in our pilgrimage, eternal value because it links us with Christ, our Head, as we are members of His Body, the Church.

It might be that the word "lacking" is a stumbling block if one focuses on the perfect offering of Christ tath by itself bridged the gap between God and man that existed prior to the Incarnation that lead to His Passion. But the intent is to show that we have a very real participation in His Saving Act by being conformed to Him by our Baptism and Chrismation. We also particpate in His Suffering when we commune in the holy Myteries--we are nourished to be able to continue the struggle and to persevere to the end of our pilgrimage. Liturgically we are plunged into this same once-for-all Mystery each and every time we participate in the Divine Liturgy. That's why we place so many intentions on the diskos and bring so many prayers both publicly and privately when we participate in the Divine Liturgy: we make all the good, the struggle, the hurts, etc. have an eternal value because we bring them to Christ, our Head, as members of His Body. We take on His attitude of compassion for all of his creatures, even those who do not know Him.

In Christ,

BOB

I feel that the sentence in bold says it all...



(St. Chrysostom) --- The wisdom, the will, the justice of Jesus Christ, requireth and ordaineth that his body and members should be companions of his sufferings, as they expect to be companions of his glory; that so suffering with him, [b]and after his example, [/b]they may apply to their own wants and to the necessities of others the merits and satisfaction of Jesus Christ, which application is what is wanting, and what we are permitted to supply by the sacraments and sacrifice of the new law.

james

James:

Precisely. Therein is the core of the explanation.

BOB

This is very good but I am still concerned about the expression of Paul "what is lacking in the sufferings (afflictions) of Christ" What is lacking then? and why?

My understanding is that we were lacking then; I mean all those Christians (sons in the Son) who would live in time for the rest of history. The suffering of the Son being eternal, as well as temporal, because it was the Divine Son who suffered in His Humanity.

But that still begs the question, "Why is anything lacking in the sufferings of Christ?" Aren't the sufferings of Christ sufficient for whatever purpose?

Melkite Man,

Perhaps the translators writing for King James had that very question in mind. I would consider the KJV to be more clear than the NIV in this case. "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church."

Perhaps it is good to consider that Christ, being human, suffered temporally but, being God, also suffered eternally. That his sufferings are as real now, as then. So when we follow God's will in a ministry, as Paul did, and we suffer, we touch on a bit of the suffering on the Cross. I like to think that the passage, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me" is relevant to understanding what Paul meant.

Terry

I don't understand what you mean by "why"?

Can Christ suffer in the poor and the sick? Do I, as a Christian, fall short in love? Is Christ suffering thereby?

I could ask "why" of all these, and many more.

We don't use the vocabulary of the KJV these days. All meanings of the word indicate something is lacking, missing, wanting, deficient. I don't think you can get around it.

Strong's Number: 5303
Transliterated: husterema
Phonetic: hoos-ter'-ay-mah

Text: from 5302; a deficit; specifically, poverty: --that which is behind, (that which was) lack(-ing), penury, want.
Strong's Number: 5302
Transliterated: hustereo
Phonetic: hoos-ter-eh'-o

Text: from 5306; to be later, i.e. (by implication) to be inferior; generally, to fall short (be deficient): -- come behind (short), be destitute, fail, lack, suffer need, (be in) want, be the worse.

I understand that we are to join our sufferings with his. Take up your cross. What is the distinction being made?

Jesus opened the gates of heaven for us but we still have to join our sufferings to his to get in. It is not a slam dunk! And perhaps if we don't suffer enough here we get to do some more later.

But why was the word lacking used? I think it was Chrysostom suggested that we are the missing part which again begs the question why?
Why aren't the sufferings of Christ sufficient?

Why did Paul use that word lacking? What is he trying to tell us?
Jesus otherwise said take up your cross.
Why did Paul even hint that something was lacking in Christ. Why is that concept important?
Why isn't it just sufficient to say we need to suffer with Christ?
Why did Paul say something is lacking in Christ or his sufferings? What greater meaning does it have?

This passage seems to have given difficulty to the early Christians as well.

In Homilies on Colossians Chrysostom says, "It seems indeed to be a great thing Paul has said, but it is not based on arrogance, far be it. Rather Paul's words come from his deep love towards Christ. For he will not have the sufferings to be his own, but His, through the desire to reconcile these persons (the Trinity) to him. And what things I suffer, I suffer, he says, on His account. Therefore, don't thank me, but express your gratitude to Christ, for it is He Himself who suffers." (For clarity I added the 'H')

In Commentary on Colossians, Theodore of Mopsuestia explains what Paul means with, "For these reasons I, Paul, suffer in my traveling and in my preaching to all about what must be corrected . . . for these things I have functioned as a servant of the gospel."

Augustine, in Tractates on John says, "He did not say 'of the afflictions of me' but 'of Christ,' because he was a member of Christ and in his persecutions, such as it was necessary for Christ to suffer in His whole body, even Paul was filling up Christ's afflictions in Paul's own portion."

In his sermons, Augustine mentions the passage again, that Paul is "thus showing that what he was suffering was part and parcel of the afflictions of Christ. That can't be understood of the head, which is now in heaven is not suffering any such thing' but of the body, that is, the church' the body, which with its head is the one Christ."

Melkite Man,

My wife and I have been discussing this verse for the last several hours. By studying the Greek, Rachel determined that the RSV provides a solid translation of this confusing passage, "Now I rejoice in my suffering for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of His body, that is the Church."

The phrase is as hard to understand from the Greek as it is from the RSV translation.

The passage makes sense to me through the works of the mystics like St. John of the Cross. I was reminded of this when reading the latest issue of the National Catholic Register and the article by Rev. Father Raniero Cantalamessa, who is the Apostolic Preacher at Rome. In his article about Mother Teresa, he quotes her as she wrote of her desire to suffer with Christ. She says, "If my pain and suffering, my darkness and separation gives you a drop of consolation, my own Jesus, do with me as you wish. . . . Imprint on my soul and life the suffering of your heart. . . . I want to satiate your thirst with every single drop of blood that you can find in me. . . . Please do not take the trouble to return soon. I am ready to wait for you for all eternity."

In reflection of what Mother Teresa said, I began to find that passage of Colossians very understandable. I may be wrong in thinking that Paul would have meant that his own suffering, as he was under house arrest when he wrote the letter, was contributing to the suffering of Christ which were "lacking". But from the tone of his last letters, Paul seems to have been aware of the full consequences of his ministry.

If Paul had meant "lacking" merely to signify "suffering in Christ," then he very well could have used that phrase. But he said "lacking", that "in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's sufferings" for His Church. But maybe we are approaching this from the wrong angle.

It is right that there was nothing lacking in Christ, otherwise He could not be Christ. But when it is added that "lacking in Christ's afflictions," then there could be implied that the sufferings of the Church is what was lacking. It was for the Church that Christ suffered, so as Paul is suffering for Christ, he is contributing to Christ's work through his own "afflictions for the sake of His body".

Then, if there is such a distinction, then affliction for that sake did not stop with Christ. The Church was built on His blood and the affliction of the saints. It is very hard for me to understand the history of the redemption of man without suffering.

In Christ,

Terry