posthac et caeteris relinquitur. oc facit communio sanctorum.” Cremer similarly says that the defect is not in what Christ suffered, but in the com- munion of the Church in His sufferings. Paul concentrates on himself the hate of the world against Christ and His Church, (5) The sufferings are the sufferings of
25---26.
τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, 26. τὸ μυστήριον τὸ " ἀποκεκρυμμένον ἀπὸ τῶν P Only here
and 1 Cor.
“ αἰώνων καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν γενεῶν, viv δὲ ἐφανερώθη τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ, [1.7; Eph. κ᾿ ’
in Ν.Τ,
Christ, not, however, those which He endured on earth, but those which He endures in Paul through their mystical union. The defect is not (as in 4) in the sufferings of the Church, but in Christ’s sufferings in Paul. ( must be set aside on the ground that θλίψις is not used of Christ’s atoning sufferings, for which Paul employs αἷμα, θάνατος, σταυρός. (3) must be rejected because the afflic- tions of Christ can hardly mean afflictions like those of Christ. (4) is to be rejected on similar grounds, the defect is in Christ’s own suffering, not in that of the Church. Besides there would be an un-
Pauline arrogance in the claim that he
was filling up the yet incomplete suffer- ings of the Church. We are thus left with (2) and (5), each of which takes ‘the afflictions of Christ” in the strict sense of afflictions endured by Christ Himself. We cannot, with Lightfoot, decide against (5) on the ground that ἀνταναπλ. excludes an identification be- tween the sufferings of Paul and Christ. Hofmann’s view is very attractive on account of the context, in which Paul is speaking of his Apostleship to the Gen- tiles. It is perhaps the best form of (2), and may be right. It, however, labours, with (2) generally, under the objection that it implies defect in Christ’s earthly sufferings, for ὑστέρημα means defect, and also that the claim thus made to fill up the defect left by Christ is strangely arrogant. Itis therefore best to accept (5). It is-urged that there is no N.T. parallel to the idea that Christ suffers in His members. But, apart from Acts ix. 4, Paul’s doctrine of union with Christ is such that we should almost be com- pelled to, infer that Christ suffered in His members, even if Paul had not here affirmed it. And there is no arrogance here. For Paul does not claim to fill up the defects in Christ’s earthly suffering or in the sufferings of the Church, but in the sufferings which he has to endure in his flesh, which are Christ’s sufferings, because he and Christ are one. We should accordingly take τ. θλ. τ. X. with ἐν τῇ σαρκί pov as a single idea, “ Christ’s sufferings in my flesh”.—év τῇ σαρκί pov. There is a delicate contrast be- tween the flesh of Paul and the body of Christ. If these words were con- nected with ἀνταναπλ. they would
es or Luke x. 21 41 Cor. ii. 7; Eph, iii. 11; cf. Rom. xvi. 25.
probably have immediately followed.— ὑπὲρ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ: ‘on behalf of His body”. This may simply mean that the sufferings of Paul advanced the interests of the Church (cf. Phil. i. 12-14). But, taking into account Paul’s strong feeling of the solidarity of the Church, he probably means that apart from any furthering of the Church’s interests which his imprisonment may bring about, the suffering of one of the members must benefit the whole body; just as in a higher and fuller sense the suffering of the Head had procured salvation for the Church. Paul rejoices, not, as Abbott says the view taken of τ. 6A. τ. X. would involve, ‘‘ because they went fo increase the afflictions of Christ,” but because his afflictions, which were those of Christ also in the necessity of the case, were a blessing to Christ’s Ροάγ.- ὅ ἐστιν ἡ ἐκκλησία : ‘that is, the Church,” per- haps added because σάρξ and σῶμα occur together here, and the readers might be confused as to the precise meaning of σώματος.