The Fullness - An Exegetical Study of Colossians 1:24

One of the most problematic passages in the letters of Paul the Apostle is Colossians 1:24. Most Bibles translate as:

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake and in my flesh I fill up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions on behalf of his body, the church.

From this verse the medieval Roman Church found the justification for its heinous practices of works righteousness and justified the sale of indulgences, teaching that Christ's afflictions on the cross were not sufficient for salvation.

Nothing could be further from Paul's intent. He has just concluded the great hymn to the sufficiency of Christ in Colossians 1:15-20. Verse 19 affirms that"in him (Christ) all the Fullness (in Greek playromai) was pleased to dwell." The Fullness is everything that God is.

It may be difficult to see in English, but the concept of playromai is the organizing concept in Paul's mind for this entire first chapter. The Greek word shows up first in verse 9: Paul's prayer is that the Christians at Colossi be filled (playromai) with the knowledge of God's will. Then notice the superlatives in verses 10-11: all wisdom, all pleasing, every work, full knowledge, all power, all endurance. In verse 19, Christ is the playromai of God's Fullness and there follows the superlative description of his reconciling all things. In verse 24 Paul's sufferings are said to function as filling up (in Greek antanaplayro). In verse 25 the word appears still again; Paul has been called to minister to them the word of God in its Fullness. Finally comes the ultimate insight, the mystery hidden from the ages and from generations but now revealed to the believers. It's the ultimate Fullness -- the mystery of Christ in you, the hope of glory.

Can you see how Paul's mind works? He grabs this concept of God's Fullness and then examines it from different perspectives, like looking at a beautiful diamond from its many facets. It seems ridiculous, then, to interpret verse 24 as though suddenly Paul's focus should shift to what is lacking in the work of Christ, especially since he's gone to such lengths in the context of this chapter to detail the all-sufficient Fullness of Christ.

Most commentators attempt to deal with the problem by trying to explain the metaphor. This is unnecessarily obtuse and difficult. The easiest explanation is to re-translate the Greek word, hustermata, usually rendered as translated "things lacking." The word comes from a root that means "that which is behind," or "following." The notion was that if you were "behind" on wine, you were running out of wine. But the word can be used of time in which it simply denotes something that is later than, that which comes after something else.

The context surely recommends this translation. The Church is Christ's body. Christ himself has triumphed in his death and resurrection and is in heaven. But the sufferings Christ endure, continue, in Paul's own sufferings. His sufferings "come along behind" the sufferings of Christ. Christ's sufferings aren't deficient. Paul can't add anything to the Fullness of Christ's saving act. But the Apostle's sufferings and those of the saints are not random and meaningless. We are not victims. Our suffering is part of the Fullness and carries on the redeeming acts of God in Jesus. Paul is a suffering servant as was Jesus as is every believer who endures rebuke for the sake of Christ.

So, a better translation in light of a study of the context of the entire passage might be:

I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and share in the Fullness of Christ's afflictions now taking place in my body on behalf of his body, the Church."

I Have a Problem with Lent

Lent has traditionally been about commemorating the 40 days Jesus spent in the wilderness preparing for his ministry. This season was used in the early church to prepare new converts for baptism on Easter. So, Lent is supposed to be about learning and preparing for discipleship.
No problem with that.

As Jesus fasted and prayed for 40 days, the idea was that his Church would share that time of self-denial and resisting demonic temptation. But at some point in history various pagan and superstitious practices attached to Lent so that it became, particularly in the Roman Catholic and Orthdox communities, a time for horrible self-abasement and self-flagellation. Aquinas said that any food that was good for you should be avoided during Lent. I've got problems with self-flagellation. You know it must have gotten bad when in the 14th century the Roman Catholic Church outlawed people physically whipping themselves to prove their devotion (although on Good Friday we still see this bizarre behavior in many places around the world).

Then there's the curious practice in some churches of veiling the cross. Now this I have real problems with. In Monsignor Peter Elliott's "Celebrations of the Liturgical Year" published by Ignatius Press in 2002, the author states: "The custom of veiling crosses and images ... has much to commend it in terms of religious psychology, because it helps us to concentrate on the great essentials of Christ's work of Redemption."

Wait -- if I cover up the crucifix (the icon of Redemption) that's supposed to help me concentrate better on redemption? I don't know what kind of psychology that is, but it's not good. Veiling the cross goes back to a practice in the early middle ages when everyone in the church was encouraged to enter the order of penitents by taking the mark of the cross on Ash Wednesday. The priests could then prescribe all kinds of dos and don'ts to whip people into shape, if not literally at least psychologically. In ninth century Germany the practice of veiling began by covering the the whole altar as a way of saying to the church, you're cut off from God until Easter.

What kind of play-acting is this? Actually it's a form of operant conditioning (brain washing). The Church wanted you to know they could open or close heaven to you at will. The message was the church controls your spiritual destiny. I will not be taking ashes this year as I do not see my pilgrimage of faith in terms of some 12th century passion play, pretending I'm not saved and pleading on my knees for reconciliation with Mother Church.

For most normal people, Lent is about giving up something. Although self-discipline is commendable, the dourness of some Lenten worship is a modern invention. In fact, Lent wasn't originally supposed to touch Sundays at all. Count 'em up and you'll see the 40 days excludes Sundays. Sunday was your break from fasting and self-abasement, a time to eat and celebrate and enjoy the fellowship of God's people. After the Enlightenment, fewer and fewer Christians practiced the intense ascetism of a "holy Lent." That's when the priests decided to turn the Lord's Day into a more intense Lenten experience.

So as the priests beat their chests and drone on and on about our wretchedness, I wonder if God doesn't think we've lost our minds. Nothing has changed in God's love toward us from Shrove Tuesday to Ash Wednesday; we don't need to invent liturgical plays about getting serious about sin. Walking with Christ isn't play-acting the liturgical seasons of the church. God already knows the seriousness of our hearts. If you give up something for Lent only to pick it back up again on Easter, how does this benefit you? If we aren't careful, our Lenten discipline may become at best something akin to New Year's resolutions; at worst, a celebration of self-improvement that cares nothing for the Gospel.

The focus of Lent must be on God and his faithfulness, not on us and our sinning. The focus of Lent is always upon the cross of Jesus and the power of the cross for those who repent and believe. Fasting and prayer yes, but not pretending we've lost our salvation and need to plunge to the depths of false humility to beg and appease an angry God. The truth is because of Christ's imputed righteousness, we may sin, but we're not condemned as sinners (Romans 8:1). When God looks on us he sees only the righteousness of Christ. For the believer to grovel in our sins is to deny the Gospel.

Christmas doesn't mean Jesus is back in the cradle and Lent doesn't mean we have become less in God's eyes. But we may discover, as Jesus did in the desert, that God has given us the Scriptures as our best defense against the Devil and his wiles, not the least of which is our beguiled pride that we can impress God with our human will-power to resist a forty day itch.

The Ministry of Epaphras

Contrary to the command and control assumptions of Anglo-Catholics and others who demand a bishop-priest-deacon hierarchy of ministry stands the ministry of Epaphras. He emerges from the pages of history in Paul's letter to the Christians at Colossae (Colossians 1:7).

Paul did not establish the Colossian church. It appears to have been started by Epaphras. This brother appears to also have started two other churches in the Lycus Valley: Laodicea and Hierapolis (Col. 4:13). Epaphras may have been one of those first 3000 converts to Christianity in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. And/or, he may have been one of those who traveled to Ephesus to hear Paul preach as described in Acts 19:10. But he started three house churches in response to his faithfulness to the call of the Holy Spirit. He was a passionate evangelist.

Some Bibles translate Colossians 1:8 that Epaphras worked on our behalf," as though Paul had established him in his work. But the earliest manuscripts attest that the correct reading should be "on your behalf." He was not appointed by Paul or any other apostle. Epaphras taught "the word of truth, the gospel" (v.5). Paul commends him as a faithful "diakonos." This is not likely the office of deacon, but an acknowledgment of Epaphras' ministry.

So the ministry of Epaphros does not derive initially from any organizational hierarchy. He is not appointed by a bishop. Nor does he claim an office that separates himself from the people. Colossians 4:12 affirms that Epaphras is "one of you." His ministry arises from his identification with those God has given into his care. There is nothing here of the pernicious error of dividing the people of God into clergy and laity, as if ministers are separated from the common folk by dress and calling.

The ministry of Epaphras was first to Jesus Christ (Ephesians 4:12). Unlike many today who minister to the laity on behalf of Jesus, the Biblical understanding of pastoral ministry was that the under-shepherd ministered to Christ on behalf of his people. Paul writes that Epaphras struggles in prayer on behalf of Christ's people. The goal of his ministry is clear: that his congregation will stand, mature and fully assured in a complete knowledge of God's will. His role is to empower the Colossian Christians to endure despite problems from within and outside of the fellowship.

Epaphras comes to Paul because he needs help, not to do homage. Some ascetics have worked their way into the fellowship and are introducing practices that cause Epaphras concern. He comes to Paul for training and for additional resources.

But even though his church has problems, I love how Epaphras brags on his church. Paul speaks in glowing terms of the wonderful report he receives from Epaphras. How wonderful it is to belong to a fellowship on which one may boast in the Lord.

The ministry of Epaphras is a grass-roots ministry, springing up in the call and care of the Holy Spirit. It does not come to the wider church seeking legitimacy, but additional resources to assist in the accomplishment of a goal that is always before the eyes of this faithful pastor.

I see Epaphras as my model for ministry in these my later years. I attempted to serve Christ within the framework of someone else's top-down authority having been ordained first in the Presbyterian Church and later in the Southern Baptist church. But neither of those ever really bore long-term fruit. But I am comforted and encouraged by Epahras. He helps me to understand my calling, serving Christ as a fellow-struggler within a body of believers that has come together to learn Kingdom koinonia. At some time in the future, the need may arise for someone from our Gathering to seek out an overseer and align with a larger group to help us in our mission, but for now it is enough to experience the good news of the Gospel bearing fruit and growing in grace in a ministry like that of Epaphras.