I. 24]
[← ] ἀνταναπληρῶ τὰ ὑστερήματα τῶν θλίψεων τοῦ Χριστοῦ [ →]
ἀνταναπληρῶ] ‘I fill up on my part’, ‘I supplement.’ The single compound ἀναπληροῦν occurs several times (e.g. 1 Cor. xiv. 16, xvi. 17, Gal. vi. 2); another double compound προσαναπληροῦν twice (2 Cor. ix. 12, xi. 9; comp. Wisd. xix. 4, v.l.); but ἀνταναπληροῦν only here in the LXX or New Testament. For this verb compare Demosth. de Symm. p. 182 τούτων τῶν συμμοριῶν ἑκάστην διελεῖν κελεύω πέντε μέρη κατὰ δώδεκα ἄνδρας, ἀνταναπληροῦντας πρὸς τὸν εὐπορώτατον ἀεὶ τοὺς ἀπορωτάτους (where τοὺς ἀπορωτάτους should be taken as the subject to ἀνταναπληροῦντας), Dion Cass. xliv. 48 ἵν’ ὅσον ... ἐνέδει, τοῦτο ἐκ τῆς παρὰ τῶν ἄλλων συντελείας ἀνταναπληρωθῇ, Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. 12 p. 878 οὗτος ... τὴν ἀποστολικὴν ἀπουσίαν ἀνταναπληροῖ, Apollon. Constr. Or. i. 3 (p. 13 sq.) ἡ ἀντωνυμία ἀνταναπληροῦσα καὶ τὴν θέσιν τοῦ ὀνόματος καὶ τὴν τάξιν τοῦ ῥήματος, Ptol. Math. Comp. vi. 9 (I. p. 435 ed. Halma) ἐπεὶ δ’ ἡ μὲν ἐλλείπειν ἐποίει τὴν ἀποκατάστασιν ἡ δὲ πλεονάζειν κατά τινα συντυχίαν ἣν ἴσως καὶ ὁ Ἵππαρχος ἀνταναπληρουμένην πως κατανενοήκει κ.τ.λ. The substantive ἀνταναπλήρωσις occurs in Diog. Laert. x. 48. So too ἀνταναπλήθειν Xen. Hell. ii. 4. 11, 12 ξυνετάξαντο, ὥστε ἑμπλῆσαι τὴν ὁδόν ... οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς φυλῆς ἀντανέπλησαν ... τὴν ὁδόν. Compare also ἀντανισοῦν Themist. Paraphr. Arist. 43 B οὐδὲν κωλύει κατὰ ταὐτὸν ἄλλοθί που μεταβάλλειν ἀέρα εἰς ὕδωρ καὶ ἀντανισοῦσθαι τὸν σύμπαντα ὄγκον, and ἀντανίσωμα Joseph. Ant. xviii. 9. 7. The meaning of ἀντὶ in this compound will be plain from the passages quoted. It signifies that the supply comes from an opposite quarter to the deficiency. This idea is more or less definitely expressed in the context of all the passages, in the words which are spaced. The force of ἀνταναπληροῦν in St Paul is often explained as denoting simply that the supply corresponds in extent to the deficiency. This interpretation practically deprives ἀντί of any meaning, for ἀναπληροῦν alone would denote as much. If indeed the supply had been the subject of the verb, and the sentence had run τὰ παθήματά μου ἀνταναπληροῖ τὰ ὑστηρήματα κ.τ.λ., this idea might perhaps be reached without sacrificing the sense of ἀντί; but in such a passage as this, where one personal agent is mentioned in connexion with the supply and another in connexion with the deficiency, the one forming the subject and the other being involved in the object of the verb, the ἀντὶ can only describe the correspondence of these personal agents. So interpreted, it is eminently expressive here. The point of the Apostle’s boast is that Christ the sinless Master should have left something for Paul the unworthy servant to suffer. The right idea has been seized and is well expressed by Photius Amphil. 121 (I. p. 709 Migne) οὐ γὰρ ἁπλῶς φησιν Ἀναπληρῶ, ἀλλ’ Ἀνταναπληρῶ, τουτέστιν, Ἀντὶ δεσπότου καὶ διδασκάλου ὁ δοῦλος ἐγὼ καὶ μαθητὴς κ.τ.λ. Similar in meaning, though not identical, is the expression in 2 Cor. i. 5, where the sufferings of Christ are said to ‘overflow’ (περισσεύειν) upon the Apostle. The theological difficulty which this plain and natural interpretation of ἀνταναπληροῦν is supposed to involve will be considered in the note on τῶν θλίψεων.
τὰ ὑστερήματα] ‘the things lacking.’ This same word ὑστέρημα ‘deficiency’ occurs with ἀναπληροῦν 1 Cor. xvi. 17, Phil. ii. 30, and with προσαναπληροῦν 2 Cor. ix. 12, xi. 9. Its direct opposite is περίσσευμα ‘abundance, superfluity,’ 2 Cor. viii. 13, 14; comp. Luke xxi. 4. Another interpretation, which makes ὑστέρημα an antithesis to προτέρημα, explaining it as ‘the later’ as opposed to the earlier ‘sufferings of Christ,’ is neither supported by the usage of the word nor consistent with ἀνταναπληρῶ.
τῶν θλίψεων τοῦ Χριστοῦ] ‘of the afflictions of Christ,’ i.e. which Christ endured. This seems to be the only natural interpretation of the words. Others have explained them as meaning ‘the afflictions imposed by Christ,’ or ‘the afflictions endured for Christ’s sake,’ or ‘the afflictions which resemble those of Christ.’ All such interpretations put a more or less forced meaning on the genitive. All alike ignore the meaning of ἀντὶ in ἀνταναπληρῶ which points to a distinction of persons suffering. Others again suppose the words to describe St Paul’s own afflictions regarded as Christ’s, because Christ suffers in His suffering Church; e.g. Augustine in Psalm. cxlii. § 3 (IV. p. 1590) ‘Patitur, inquit, adhuc Christus pressuram, non in carne sua in qua ascendit in cælum, sed in carne mea quæ adhuc laborat in terra,’ quoting Gal. ii. 20. This last is a very favourite explanation, and has much to recommend it. It cannot be charged with wresting the meaning of αἱ θλίψεις τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Moreover it harmonizes with St Paul’s mode of speaking elsewhere. But, like the others, it is open to the fatal objection that it empties the first preposition in ἀνταναπληρῶ of any force. The central idea in this interpretation is the identification of the suffering Apostle with the suffering Christ, whereas ἀνταναπληρῶ emphasizes the distinction between the two. It is therefore inconsistent with this context, however important may be the truth which it expresses.
The theological difficulty, which these and similar explanations are intended to remove, is imaginary and not real. There is a sense in which it is quite legitimate to speak of Christ’s afflictions as incomplete, a sense in which they may be, and indeed must be, supplemented. For the sufferings of Christ may be considered from two different points of view. They are either satisfactoriæ or ædificatoriæ. They have their sacrificial efficacy, and they have their ministerial utility. (1) From the former point of view the Passion of Christ was the one full perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. In this sense there could be no ὑστέρημα of Christ’s sufferings; for, Christ’s sufferings being different in kind from those of His servants, the two are incommensurable. But in this sense the Apostle would surely have used some other expression such as τοῦ σταυροῦ (i. 20, Eph. ii. 16 etc.), or τοῦ θανάτου (i. 22, Rom. v. 10, Heb. ii. 14, etc.), but hardly τῶν θλίψεων. Indeed θλίψις, ‘affliction,’ is not elsewhere applied in the New Testament in any sense to Christ’s sufferings, and certainly would not suggest a sacrificial act. (2) From the latter point of view it is a simple matter of fact that the afflictions of every saint and martyr do supplement the afflictions of Christ. The Church is built up by repeated acts of self-denial in successive individuals and successive generations. They continue the work which Christ began. They bear their part in the sufferings of Christ (2 Cor. i. 7 κοινωνοὶ τῶν παθημάτων, Phil. iii. 10 κοινωνίαν τῶν παθημάτων); but St Paul would have been the last to say that they bear their part in the atoning sacrifice of Christ. This being so, St Paul does not mean to say that his own sufferings filled up all the ὑστερήματα, but only that they went towards filling them up. The present tense ἀνταναπληρῶ denotes an inchoate, and not a complete act. These ὑστερήματα will never be fully supplemented, until the struggle of the Church with sin and unbelief is brought to a close.
Thus the idea of expiation or satisfaction is wholly absent from this passage; and with it is removed the twofold temptation which has beset theologians of opposite schools. (1) On the one hand Protestant commentators, rightly feeling that any interpretation which infringed the completeness of the work wrought by Christ’s death must be wrong, because it would make St Paul contradict himself on a cardinal point of his teaching, have been tempted to wrest the sense of the words. They have emptied ἀνταναπληρῶ of its proper force; or they have assigned a false meaning to ὑστερήματα; or they have attached a non-natural sense to the genitive τοῦ Χριστοῦ. (2) On the other hand Romanist commentators, while protesting (as they had a right to do) against these methods of interpretation, have fallen into the opposite error. They have found in this passage an assertion of the merits of the saints, and (as a necessary consequence) of the doctrine of indulgences. They have not observed that, if the idea of vicarious satisfaction comes into the passage at all, the satisfaction of St Paul is represented here as the same in kind with the satisfaction of Christ, however different it may be in degree; and thus they have truly exposed themselves to the reproach which Estius indignantly repudiates on their behalf, ‘quasi Christus non satis passus sit ad redemptionem nostram, ideoque supplemento martyrum opus habeat; quod impium est sentire, quodque Catholicos dicere non minus impie calumniantur hæretici.’ It is no part of a commentator here to enquire generally whether the Roman doctrine of the satisfaction of the saints can in any way be reconciled with St Paul’s doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ. It is sufficient to say that, so far as regards this particular passage, the Roman doctrine can only be imported into it at the cost of a contradiction to the Pauline doctrine. It is only fair to add however that Estius himself says, ‘quæ quidem doctrina, etsi Catholica et Apostolica sit, atque aliunde satis probetur, ex hoc tamen Apostoli loco nobis non videtur admodum solide statui posse.’ But Roman Catholic commentators generally find this meaning in the text, as may be seen from the notes of à Lapide.
I. 25]
[← ] ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου ὑπὲρ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ, ὅ ἐστιν ἡ ἐκκλησία· 25ἧς ἐγενόμην ἐγὼ διάκονος κατὰ τὴν [ →]