Parallel Texts

Jesus told his disciples to “take up their crosses” and follow him. [1] In the Roman Empire, in first century Palestine, the cross was not a piece of jewelry, nor was it art to cover a bare living room wall. The cross was a tool used to inflict torture, suffering, and death. It was a brutal method of execution that carried a message all its own. Whether “take up your cross” is an authentic saying or not is unimportant. Someone once said, “Not everything in the Bible is accurate, but all of it is true.” I am not sure that Jesus told his followers to pick up their crosses, but I am sure that the meaning of that command is intensely applicable to the lives of Christians then and now. Christians certainly suffer and make personal sacrifices for their faith. Some Christians, though, suffer for something greater. They take the place of a condemned man, die defending their people, or give up everything they have to serve the endless masses who never stop dying despite all efforts on their behalf. Some Christians sacrifice themselves.

In his Epistle to the Colossians, Chapter 1, verse 24, Paul writes, “I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church.” It is a weighty claim and one that can be interpreted in more than one way. As I researched, I read the phrase “much ink has been spilled” dozens of times, frequently followed by a mere repetition of an already tired idea. Colossians 1:24 is fascinating to me, particularly because I greet with some distaste the entire idea of self-sacrifice. I am unashamedly selfish and narcissistic and would bear no ill on behalf of others, especially people I do not know. Paul, though, apparently views his own suffering as a sort of sacrifice on behalf of the Church, and this in his letter to Colossae, a church he had never visited full of people he had never met.

I have a lot of questions. I do not know what is “lacking in Christ’s afflictions.” I am certainly curious about how Paul, who is not—regardless of rumor—the only begotten son of God, can possibly “complete what is lacking” in what he certainly considers the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Paul’s humility is frequently underwhelming, but this… Paul perceives himself as a sacrifice on behalf of the Church in relationship to Christ’s own sacrifice on behalf of humanity. I think I have enough information to substantiate that claim, but I want more out of this project. I want to explain how Paul can be a sacrifice, why he was one, what good it did, and what it means. It is an ambitious goal, but I strive for it with the same audacity Paul expresses in his epistle.

Paul was an unusual apostle but probably the most important one, particularly for modern Christians. Peter may have been the pope, but Paul has a deeper legacy. He wrote. He wrote, and people remembered. In his own time, however, he was not always greeted with such enthusiasm, was not always respected as an authority.

I tend to think of Paul as The Apostle, as though there were no others. Jerome Murphy- O’Connor calls him the “universal, unique apostle.” [2] That is remarkable, since Paul never even met Jesus before his crucifixion. By the standards of the early Jesus movement, Paul was not even qualified to be an apostle, let alone the greatest among them. He was, by description, an unimpressive figure: short, with crooked legs, hooked nose, and possibly sickly or disabled. Who he was, though, was a man with a gift. He could craft a sentence deep in theological impact with the skill of a poet, touching people with his words thousands of years after his own death. I do not doubt that each word of his letters is intentional and deliberate. The letters are precise and direct, and I believe he meant them as he wrote (or rather, dictated) them. I take Colossians as authentically Pauline, and I will therefore consider each word of Chapter 1, verse 24 with the weight I think Paul gave it. First, though, I have to give it biographical context.

Paul gives some autobiographical information in his Epistle to the Galatians and his Second Epistle to the Corinthians. He was, in the course of his ministry, subject to some abuse. He was subject to “countless floggings, and often near death.” He writes,

There is no doubt that Paul suffered, no doubt that he endured in his body tortures for the sake of his gospel. He spent years in various prisons or under house arrest. Many people saw Paul’s torments as he did, as the true marks of his apostleship. “His imprisonment dramatized his commitment to Christ, which both impressed pagans and fortified believers.” [4] That is, of course, not true for everyone. Even apostles and other Christians doubted him. Paul has to defend himself over and over in his letters to the churches. He is “unfavorably compared with more eloquent men among the apostles,” [5] which gives them an advantage over his spoken message. Paul does not hesitate, though, to reply to their preaching if he does not agree with it, and no one can doubt his eloquence on paper, though it is in a vernacular kind of Greek. It is clear that Paul was a bit possessive with his churches and resented others coming in with messages of their own. Knox writes, “Paul’s indignation was stirred deeply by only two things: one of these was any effort to bring his converts into what he called bondage to the Jewish law, and the other was any effort to undermine his own position in the regard of his churches.” [6] Either way, Paul’s authority was challenged. Paul taught that Gentile Christians were not obligated to Jewish law, that Jesus’ sacrifice had set them free from the law entirely. Jesus’ sacrifice is the source of justification; justification is, basically, righteousness. Because Jesus’ death justifies entirely, Paul argues, there is no reason Gentiles should submit to the law. This is but one issue Paul stressed, one that placed him in much opposition to the Jerusalem Christians.

Because Paul was so vigorously opposed, he felt the need constantly to reiterate the authenticity of his apostleship. Paul knew how important he was and knew that he was correct in his theology. “He always regarded his preaching of [his gospel] as the quintessential feature of his apostleship,” [7] but the marks on his body were its proof. Galatians 6:17 reads, “From now on, let no one make trouble for me; for I carry the marks of Jesus branded on my body.” It is a reiteration of his oft-repeated claim that he is a slave to Jesus. It was not uncommon for slaves at that time to be tattooed or branded to mark ownership, and Paul says that he carried these marks, these stigmata, on his body. He may be speaking metaphorically, but I think, given his list of punishments, he is speaking literally of the scars of his persecution. The whippings alone add up to almost two hundred lashes. That makes Rambo’s scars pale in comparison. Only a powerful message could be considered threat enough to so condemn a man. His scars are evidence, “additional irrefutable testimony of his loyalty to Jesus.” [8] They show not only his loyalty, though. They are proof of the sacrifices he is willing to make for his message and for Christ.

There is much more to Paul’s language of self-sacrifice. He recognizes his own “weakness,” [9] identifying it with Christ’s on the cross. Krister Stendahl writes, “weakness…makes him one with the Lord,” [10] especially since Paul emphasizes “Christ crucified,” [11] or, roughly, Christ as the victim.

Paul teaches that God uses the apostle’s weakness and refuses to remove the “thorn” [12] from Paul’s flesh because it reveals God’s power, and that makes Paul much more as an apostle than those he opposes. It is his weakness that makes him strong. “Paul places this view of weakness in which God’s power manifests itself, over against the ‘super-apostles’…with whom he is in such serious controversy.” [13] Christ died in weakness, and Paul lives in weakness. “Paul’s ministry in its weakness, its martyrological suffering, is seen as having the same nature as the afflictions of Christ,” [14] and it is from that similarity that Paul can make the claims he does in his Epistle to the Colossians. Also, “he thought of the people…as being in a very peculiar sense his own. If he took a selfish pride in them, he was also willing to accept any sacrifice which their welfare demanded of him.” [15]

It is a remarkable verse. My first remark, then, is: “Huh?” Every piece of it makes me wonder what Paul means. Why would anyone rejoice in suffering, their own or otherwise? What is lacking in Christ’s afflictions? How can Paul complete what is lacking, especially in his “flesh,” unless he means his body, and how can he do it on behalf of anyone else? How is Christ’s body in need of Paul’s sufferings? How can he ascribe a more universal meaning to his own, individual pain? Was there something incomplete about Christ’s sacrifice that Paul would need to supplement? Is there some sort of quota of suffering that must be endured before the Second Coming of Christ? The Greek reads, “afflictions of Christ,” so I question also the type of genitive used there. I have some answers to these questions, but I do not know if I have the right ones. Before I get into the theology, though, I want to look at the text alone.

“I am now rejoicing” is an interesting thing to say in regard to suffering. There must be something powerful and good in that suffering to give Paul the joy of enduring it. The Greek says “sufferings,” not “what was suffered.” The sufferings are present, perhaps persistent, and the history of Paul’s sufferings is only part of his pain. Many of Paul’s wounds healed, but perhaps not all of them. Maybe he had crooked legs because of the abuses he endured rather than because he was born with them. Maybe he had a preexisting medical condition, but maybe it only started with his ministry. Either way, Paul suffered and was suffering when he wrote this letter to the Colossians. And in that suffering, he is “rejoicing.” He is “filled with joy, gladdened, delighted.” [17] I cannot know what it is about his suffering that would produce that kind of emotion. I have never been joyful in suffering. I am decidedly grouchy, indignant, and whiny. I would like to know what good can come of pain, and I wonder if it is only Paul’s pain or that of all Christians that produces a positive result, for instance, for the “sake” of others.

Paul says, twice, that his sufferings are for the sake of another. In the first part of the verse, it is “for your sake,” or for the sake of the people in Colossae. The second is “for the sake of [Christ’s] body, which is the church.” David Stanley wrote, “the two most important relationships in [Paul’s] apostolic career [were] that to Christ and that to his communities.” [18] That seems consistent with his theology, especially in this verse. Paul’s sufferings are not for the sake of his message, here. They are for the sake of his people, God’s people. His pain is for Christians and for God. The Greek translates “on behalf of,” which is an interesting grammatical problem in English. “In behalf of,” in English, means something like “for the benefit of” or “for the sake of,” which is how scholars have interpreted the verse. “On behalf of,” though, implies a sort of agency, as though Paul suffers not “for the sake of” but instead of those people. What does it mean if Paul suffers in their stead? Can he do that?

“In my flesh” carries a whole world of meanings in Paul’s writing. The flesh (sarx), for Paul, is not the body but that part of people which is essentially sinful. The flesh opposes the spirit. It is his flesh, in this verse, in which he completes what is lacking. It is not his flesh itself that completes what is lacking, but it is “in” his flesh that he does it. His flesh, the part of him that fails God, that keeps him from conforming himself to God’s will, is the place where Paul can complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions. Reaching for interpretation, I suggest that God is using the part of Paul that does not belong to God, the part that sins, the part that is entirely against him. God is making use of what I would otherwise believe useless. How, though, I cannot identify. Is the flesh the only place afflictions of this nature can take place? If so, what kind of afflictions are they? If they do not take place in the body, they are not the remaining mutilations that resulted from persecutions. They are not his scars, his wounds received in battle for God. Once again, what is lacking?

My interpretation regarding God’s use of Paul’s flesh leaves something behind. The verse does not say, “in my flesh God is completing what is lacking,” it says, “I am completing what is lacking.” Paul does it, not God. There must be something that gives Paul the ability to fill the void, and that power must be his own. I know much of his power is in his letters, his ability to communicate his theology. He also has all of the individual powers every person possesses. Something remains, though, and Paul does not explain it. What is clear, though, is that Paul’s ability to fill up what is lacking is a power of his own.

There is a translation problem with “Christ’s afflictions” in the NRSV and NIV, and even the NKJV’s “afflictions of Christ” misses the distinction. The Greek transliterates “the things lacking of the afflictions of Christ in the flesh of me.” The genitive is a possessive case, no matter what its form (as “the flesh of me” clearly means “my flesh,” a subjective genitive), but the genitive “of Christ” could be either subjective or objective. That is, it is a possessive, “Christ’s afflictions,” but is Christ the object or the subject of those afflictions? “Christ’s afflictions” could mean either the afflictions that Christ experienced himself or the afflictions that Paul experiences because of Christ. That changes entirely the meaning of the verse, depending on which genitive is understood. Paul can easily complete his own afflictions in his own flesh for whatever reason he chooses. It is more difficult, however, for him to complete Christ’s personal afflictions in Christ’s own body. There are ways it can be done, or perceived, so I cannot throw the objective case away entirely.

“For the sake of his body, that is, the church” is a whole world of interpretive problems. Paul completes these afflictions for the sake of Christ’s body. Christ’s body is the Church, and Christ is the head of that body. Both Christ’s body as its own entity and Christ’s body as the Church are implied in this verse. Paul could have said “for the sake of the Church,” but he did not, and I think it prudent to accept the phrasing in the verse as intentional and deliberate. If he speaks only of the Church, the meaning is simple. Paul’s sacrifice is on behalf of the Church. As Christ’s own body, the verse could mean that Paul is completing in his flesh what was started in Christ’s body (for the sake of the Church). That could make sense. Still, the question remains: what is lacking? To answer that and my other questions, I have to confront the history of the exegesis of this verse.

John Reumann wrote “Colossians 1:24 (“What is Lacking in the Afflictions of Christ”): History of Exegesis and Ecumenical Advance,” [19] which covers some of the history of thought on this verse. Reumann writes about John Chrysostom, who proposed that Jesus may continue to experience afflictions vicariously through his apostles. He also suggests that the sufferings of Christians exceed the sufferings Christ experienced on the cross, and that is one of the “greater works” [20] that Christians perform after Christ’s death. Chrysostom says that which is “lacking” is “proclamation,” [21] that the Church has not yet spread its bounds far enough.

Photius (nin^th-century patriarch of Constantinople) also tentatively wrote about vicarious suffering, but put it in the context of the Greek word antanaplhrv. I should say at this point that almost everything I have read that used the original Greek for interpretation has demonstrated a conflict over this word, translated “fill up” or “complete.” The problem is with the prefix, anti, which is apparently not supposed to be attached to anaplhrv. It is a big deal, and people are very upset about it, but really, it is all Greek to me. [22]

Ambrosiaster thought Paul was completing “what was still lacking in the apostle’s own sufferings as a disciple,” [23] and that idea is well-represented in years following. It is partially supported by the subjective genitive case discussed earlier. Scholars tend to agree that Paul does not think Christ’s sufferings were insufficient, as many other scriptures indicate a once-for-allness to Christ’s sacrifice. Paul definitely thought of the crucifixion as an atoning sacrifice that justified Christians entirely. It makes sense, then, that Paul would think of his own sufferings as needing completion more than Christ’s, since Christ’s sacrifice was complete.

Augustine has his own idea, also heavily supported by later scholarship. He thought that “because all members of the body of Christ form one person with Christ, their sufferings are Christ’s.” That returns us to the idea of the body of Christ. Since Christians make up Christ’s body, he must feel the pains of his body. Paul, as a Christian, completes his own sufferings, which Christ feels in his metaphorical body.

The other commonly discussed aspect of Christ’s feeling the pain of his people is that of mystical union. Paul was something of a mystic, though not the typical sort. Mystical unity would include, for Paul, suffering, “experiencing” death, and rising again to a new life in Christ. Paul’s sufferings, then, bring him nearer to that unity, “a life completely conformed to Christ.” [24]

Dietrich Bonhoeffer offers at least a more eloquent version of the Church’s sufferings. He returns to the idea of the body: “They live and suffer in bodily communion with him. That is why they must bear the burden of the cross.” [25] He explains further,

That is an interesting reverse of everything I learned in Sunday school. I always heard that Christ bore on the cross all of our sufferings and sins. Christ’s death is not eternal. It is his life that goes on, the life of Christ that Christians experience, not the suffering and death.

Bruno (founder of the Carthusian Order) thought that “Paul offers his own flesh as an expiation, for multiplying the church.” I take issue with much of that. First, because Paul believed in the atoning death of Christ, the members of the Church would need no expiation. The Church itself is only a category used to define the people in it, and it therefore needs no expiation. Also, as I said before, the flesh is sinful and therefore not an appropriate sacrifice in any sense. Paul could be a sacrifice (even for multiplying the Church), [27] since he is made righteous through Christ, but the problem of expiation remains.

“Luther understood the verse to mean not that Christ’s own sufferings were deficient but that Paul (or the Church) supplements still-lacking sufferings in the fellowship of Christ.” [28] This idea points to another thought from (maybe) the Old Testament and (definitely) apocalyptic rabbinical literature about the “Messianic woes.”

The “Messianic woes,” the “birth pangs of a new era,” are a bizarre little twist for this verse. Apparently, the idea was prevalent at the time, though I had heard nothing of it until I did the research for this project. The early Christians expected the Parousia within their lifetimes. That is clear not only from the writings of the New Testament but also from other noncanonical works of that time. It was supposed to happen then, and before it could happen, the Messianic community had to endure a certain quota of suffering. The more Christians suffered, the faster they could usher in the Second Coming. Or, the more they suffered, the less other Christians would have to suffer to usher in the Second Coming. Either way, they wanted the Parousia then, and there was little to dissuade many from a path of intentional, perhaps self-inflicted, suffering. It is one of the reasons Christians were so happy to be martyred. They thought they were pushing the date of Christ’s return forward a week. The community is “the corporate Christ,” his body, working together as one to produce sufferings in themselves to bring Paradise just a little closer. Some thought:

The problem, though, returns to Christ’s sacrifice. “If there is one thing central and determinative in Pauline theology it is the finished and decisive character of what God through Christ effected by means of the Cross.” [30] That means no “Messianic woes” to usher in the new era. No birth pangs, no suffering to push the Second Coming forward. What it means, no matter how many people propound this theory, is that Paul did not think of his sufferings as contributing to the predetermined quota. He was not suffering so that others did not have to, and he was not suffering to bring Christ sooner. He may have thought that the Parousia would take place in his lifetime, but that does not mean he wished it to happen any sooner.

Bonhoeffer postulated something similar to “Messianic woes,” though he did not use that terminology.

A similar interpretation from The Moffatt New Testament Commentaries reads, “The Cross did not stand by itself as the symbol of what had been achieved once and for all, but was the example of how all true work for humanity must be accomplished.” [31] Christ’s death should serve as an example of the endless and undying love we should have for humanity, but it is not only a symbol of what needs to happen. It was the actual tool used to kill Jesus, and in Paul’s theology, that death has redeemed all of humanity. Though Christ’s death represents to us a model, there is more to that death than just that, especially for Paul.

W. F. Flemington returns to the Greek and its original word order for his interpretation of the verse.

That idea has its ground. Unfortunately, Flemington does not reach far enough and explain how that applies to what follows, “for the sake of his body, that is, the church.” He does not explain why Paul’s afflictions will be an adequate sacrifice for God and for Christians.

Roy Yates begins a discussion about Colossians 1:24 in Evangelical Quarterly. [32] He describes the theory of Armitage Robinson:

That is a good argument until he falls again into this idea of a quota. There are no sufferings “to be completed,” but it makes some sense that Christ could continue to suffer in ways because of the suffering of his people. My problem with the quoted sentence is that it still sounds like vicarious suffering, which I do not think is an adequate theory. Still, if Christ loves people, he must hurt when they hurt. He does not feel their pain directly, but feels compassion for us. That makes sense. But that does not follow from Colossians 1:24 because it does not speak of a lack.

What Yates does bring up is the old antanaplhrv argument, interpreting it (because of the prefix) “to fill up, complete for someone else.” [33] He then moves on to usterhma as an interpretive problem. Its translation varies from scripture to scripture, meaning at various points “need, want, deficiency,” “to supply the need,” “to make up for or represent a person in his absence,” “a lack or shortcoming,” or “lack or deficiency.” [34] Some of those create interesting problems for interpretation. Even more fun, Yates points out that qliyews is never used, anywhere in the New Testament, to refer to Jesus’ sufferings. Unfortunately, Yates only points out the interpretive problems; he does not do any real analysis of the issues he brings up. His final exegetical remark is that

Trudinger says that the Church suffers for its own completion. That leaves much of Colossians 1:24 behind. It says nothing of Paul’s individual sufferings completing what is lacking. Trudinger’s remark says the Church suffers, which it undoubtedly does, but this verse does not speak to that idea. The verse is about what Paul is doing on behalf of the Church. The Church’s sufferings for itself are not at issue.

Colossians 1:24 is not entirely alone in its claims. Paul often writes about his suffering in this and other contexts. In 2 Corinthians 1:3-7, Paul’s sufferings are described as paired with consolation:

In some ways, this verse reflects the same attitudes as Colossians. The emphasis is on the consolation of the Corinthians and on Paul’s part in it. If he is afflicted, it is on their behalf. His consolation is also for their consolation, and where they may suffer, that also is for their consolation. It is the same sort of language as the “for your sake” and “for the sake of…the church” from Colossians. The Corinthians also benefit from Paul’s sufferings, and his afflictions are so that they might be in a better position. This text is the closest to any suggestion of the “Messianic woes,” since Paul’s afflictions for their consolations could very well mean he suffers in their stead. He says nothing of the coming Parousia, but the idea may have been clearly enough implied for a group whose theology might include that apocalyptic thought. If Paul is writing here about the “Messianic woes,” it makes perfect sense that all sufferings are for the consolation of the sufferers and the whole Church. Paul does not speak here of his own sufferings as he does in Colossians, so it is not the same sort of sacrificial language. It is language about shared suffering and shared consolation. Though he speaks of his own affliction, it is not affliction that completes what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions. “The sufferings of Christ are abundant” for him and his party, the same idea as in Colossians, but the follow-through is so different that the text is not a perfect parallel. Unfortunately, none of the verses that use some of the same language as Colossians 1:24 is a perfect parallel, but they are close enough to compare.

Paul’s language here is certainly self-sacrificial. He speaks, I think, of himself as a clay jar, since his bodily weaknesses leave him physically unimpressive. Still, as he writes, there is a treasure within. That is his mind and his ability to communicate his gospel, as well as something even greater. Paul has been “afflicted in every way, but not crushed;” he is a living martyr for the sake of the Church. The “Christ’s afflictions” live in his flesh, but it is so that others may have life abundant in God. Paul wants his message to reach as many people as possible, so he continues to spread his message as far as he can. Death works in Paul so that God can spread life through him. “A sacrificial life is needed to enable his hearers to share in the ‘life abundant’ which Jesus came to bring.” [39]

Galatians has two verses that parallel Colossians in very different ways. The first is 2:20, “and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” It has little of the language from Colossians, but the idea of sacrifice remains. “Paul declares the ‘I’ to be dead,” [40] certainly a self-sacrifice. But, “the old self must die if the new self is to live,” [41] since the old and the new are entirely incompatible. They cannot both exist within Paul. There is much conflict in a Christian; the flesh and the spirit are at war in them after their conversion, but the “old self” dies at the moment of conversion. We cannot remain ourselves when we become Christians. We convert for a reason, and what we leave behind stays there. “Believers’ faith, like [Paul’s], is the way of death…and ‘new creation.’” [42] We are forever changed. Just as we do not remain our old selves, neither do we remain our own.

It is this of which Paul speaks in 6:17, where he writes, “From now on, let no one make trouble for me; for I carry the marks of Jesus branded on my body.” I wrote of this verse already, but there is more that needs to be said. Paul is marked, branded, tattooed as belonging to Christ; he has said before that he is a slave to Christ. But Paul is more than a slave in the sense I know it; he is a delegate, an official “representative of the crucified Christ.” [43] His brands may be entirely metaphorical, but I know that his body is covered in scars from the punishment he has received for preaching his gospel. I argue, then, that those marks are the proof, Paul’s credentials as an apostle, the brands Jesus has placed on his skin. The verse is

Though Paul’s pain in this verse is for the sake of his message, the idea is the same. His message is for the benefit of the people. He is for the benefit of the people.

Philippians 3:10 says, “I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death.” The Greek translates “fellowship of this sufferings,” [45] a similar but important difference. Fellowship implies something more than just sharing, it is a bond, a connection between people. One can share with anyone, but fellowship is more than that. Fellowship means they share all of it, not just the sufferings themselves. They share the emotions that go with suffering, the history of their own individual pains, and they know each other as something more than just friends. It is the sufferings that allow Paul “to enter into closer personal fellowship with” Christ. [46]

The final verse on which I wish to comment in connection with Colossians is 2 Timothy 2:10, where Paul writes to his companion, “Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, so that they may also obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.” Paul repeats a concept from Colossians, that his pain is “for the sake of” others. The elect, the Church, the Body of Christ. Everything Paul does is for God and for them. It is his mission as an apostle. He endures his sufferings because of his gospel and for the sake of his people. The writer of the New Century Bible Commentary for this epistle says “he encourages them by his example to live the life of Christ,” [47] but I do not think that is quite right. Paul carries in his body the death of Jesus, the suffering Jesus, “Christ’s afflictions.” His example would lead people not to live the life of Christ; rather, following his example would lead them to live the death of Christ. It would be more appropriate to say that Paul’s sacrifice allows them to lead a life in Christ. Paul’s sacrifice is his own. He does not need it to be an example for anyone to follow. In fact, Paul is an adequate sacrificial victim where others may not be.

Sacrifice

Paul definitely thought of himself as a sacrifice and wrote about his role in those terms. Whether or not he was an appropriate victim for sacrifice, though, has yet to be proven.

In The Scapegoat, René Girard describes his third stereotype, “the universal signs for the selection of victims.” [48] Girard’s theory considers only what he calls “persecutions texts,” works written by the persecutors themselves about their victims. Paul’s letters are not persecution texts for more reasons than the fact that he wrote them. Paul may have been persecuted, but that was not the tone of his letters. His persecutions were for the sake of God, and he apparently viewed them as worthwhile for the benefit of others. Paul saw himself as a sacrifice. He rejoices in his suffering. He is not writing about the suffering itself; he writes about the benefits of that suffering. Still, Girard’s analysis is applicable in part because it describes some requirements for the selection of victims.

Girard talks about “difference that exists outside the system,” [49] or people who are not different enough or not different in the ways they are supposed to be. Paul certainly fits a description of someone different in a different way. He has some the physical criteria Girard describes, the sickness and deformity. He is also a social abnormality, a “marginal insider” [50] as a Roman citizen who proclaims Christ. Christianity was not an approved religion for the Roman Empire until much after Paul’s time. As a citizen of Rome, he certainly should not have been a Christian, especially one who actively proselytized. Paul was certainly a man of “extreme characteristics,” [51] which made him a valid scapegoat for persecution. If he could be a scapegoat, it only makes sense that he could be an adequate sacrificial victim.

Another of Girard’s descriptions of persecution texts is the “inversion of the global situation and the individual transgression,” [52] which, in terms of Paul’s description of his own role, is certainly the case. Paul sees himself as important, his role as integral to the growth and shaping of the early Christian Church. He is the light shining on the Gentiles. He certainly believes that his individual role has universal application and consequences. His persecutors may think the same in terms of the crimes they think Christians commit, but that is irrelevant to the text. It is Paul, in Girard’s sense, who persecutes himself.

Carole Straw writes about Christian martyrdom, which applies to Paul in only a special way. Paul does not die in these letters, though he probably was eventually executed in Rome. Paul is not yet dead when he writes Colossians. In some sense, though, Paul is a living martyr, experiencing his sacrifice as continuous. Straw writes, “the martyr’s heroic death recapitulated Christ’s paradoxical victory on the Cross,” [53] and something very similar can be said of Paul. His heroic life recapitulates “Christ’s paradoxical victory on the Cross.” Paul frequently speaks of life and death in paradox, particularly in reference to himself. It is the death of Christ that he carries with him so that others might experience the life of Christ. Part of him is dead so that others might live. His own understanding of his life and pain is in paradox, the same sort that Straw is talking about in relation to Jesus’ death.

Straw also writes that “A Christian gloried in suffering for its own sake, for this sacrifice imitated the passion of Christ.” That, I think, is totally wrong. “Suffering for its own sake” has nothing to do with what Christ did on the cross. Christ did not suffer just to suffer, nor did most Christians. Even those who pursued death did not die just to die; they thought they had valid reasons for their efforts. Paul does not suffer just to suffer. He suffers for the sake of the Body of Christ, for the Church. That is how Paul experience a sort of “sanctity of suffering.” [54]

Hubert and Mauss contribute the most to the effort of identifying Paul as a sacrificial victim, but even their analysis often leaves Paul as inadequate. In their terminology, Paul is the sacrificed victim, the Church is the sacrifier that benefits from his sacrifice, and his sacrificer is Jesus (though much could be argued for Paul as the sacrificer in addition to the sacrificed). It is the nature of Paul’s sacrifice, his “sufferings,” that they are ongoing, so much of Hubert and Mauss cannot be accurately reapplied. Paul does not experience death or an “exit ritual.” Nor, really, is he dying—rather, suffering. That is his sacrifice.

Paul is indeed endowed with some sort of “sacred character” as a chosen apostle and whatever else he is. He writes somewhere that he is chosen ahead of time for his mission by God, what Hubert and Mauss call “marked out long before.” [55] Paul certainly believes in the divine plan for his life, that he is destined by God to follow his path. He also intends for the sacrifier, the Church, to become endowed with some sacred quality from his act of sacrifice, the result inevitable in a true sacrifice, according to Hubert and Mauss.

The sacrifice also has to be preceded by a period of purification, which, for Paul, I identify as his conversion experience. It is a definite and marked moment in his life, one that changes him from a persecutor to a Christian (and a sacrifice). His suffering does not count as a period of purification because it is itself the sacrifice. His sufferings may continuously purify him, but there must be some initial purifying moment, since the first sufferings are the first part of the sacrifice and must be preceded by a purifying act. The sacrifier also has to go through entry rites, purifying them enough to receive a sacrifice. The only thing I can identify as the purifying ritual is their acceptance of Jesus as their Savior, which justifies them and makes them righteous. It seems like that would be enough to purify them for receiving a sacrifice. So, in both cases, conversion is the purifying agent.

Though Paul in some ways sacrifices himself, I think that Christ himself must technically fill the role of sacrificer. The sacrificer must be a “visible agent of consecration in the sacrifice. In short, he stands on the threshold of the sacred and the profane world and represents them both at one and the same time. They are linked in him.” [56] Jesus, as all man and all God, is a perfect meshing of the sacred and the profane. It is his death that puts people in communion with God, his life that teaches Christians how to live. He lived among us, in the profane, in the “likeness of sinful flesh,” [57] even though he was God, perfectly sacred. He is the invisible “visible agent;” Paul makes an invisible God visible because Paul always points beyond himself to Jesus. Christ can be an agent of consecration because he is himself entirely holy. If he consecrates Paul’s sufferings, those sufferings are holy, the sacrifice on behalf of the Church.

Hubert and Mauss stress that perfect continuity must be maintained in the sacrifice, from its beginning to its end. The continuity in Paul’s sacrifice may be more than they meant, however, since his sacrifice is itself continuous. There are more problems with Paul’s continuous sacrifice in terms of Hubert and Mauss’s analysis than I have room or interest to explore, but this is one. How, in a continuous sacrifice, perfect continuity is maintained is beyond me. Paul has to live his daily life. Unless he is horribly depressed, there is no way he can be constantly aware of his sufferings, constantly “experiencing” them. Though they are a constant part of his life, his consciousness of them has to play some role in his sacrificial act. Also, there is much in daily life that interrupts sanctity and purity; we sin even if we do not want to. That part of Paul’s sacrifice, then, disturbs Hubert and Mauss’s perfect continuity.

There is another giant problem with applying their analysis to Paul’s situation: “There must also be a like constancy in the mental sate of sacrifier and sacrificer… They must have unshakable confidence in the automatic result of the sacrifice.” [58] No matter how wonderful these people at Colossae were, there is no possible way they could have had a “like constancy” of “mental state” with God. They just cannot. Besides, who can say how the recipients of the letter felt or thought about Paul’s sacrifice? They probably did not have even remote confidence in the automatic result of his sacrifice, let alone absolute or unshakable confidence. I certainly would not, were I in their place. This entire idea, then, is out of place in terms of this verse and all of Paul’s efforts. It just does not fit.

Hubert and Mauss also talk about the victim being “without defect.” [59] That is not the case with Paul, by any stretch of the imagination. The great thing about Paul is that it is his weakness that makes him the sacrifice. Those without defect are the “super-apostles” he opposes and who are, in the context Paul sets up, totally ill suited for the sacrifice. The Church needs a victim, not a hero. Effectively, Paul’s defects make him without defect.

Hubert and Mauss’s victim has to “allow itself to be sacrificed peaceably.” [60] This is the case with Paul. Not only is he sacrificed peaceably, he is sacrificed voluntarily. He is willing to be whatever God needs him to be.

Because there is no exit ritual, the last part of Hubert and Mauss’s model for sacrifice is God’s gain. God “must have received [his] share.” [61] Paul’s sacrifice is for the sake of God’s Church, and the evidence of the worth of the sacrifice is the growth of the Church and the power of Paul’s message. Paul’s words remain with us thousands of years later, and the Church has certainly grown in the Gentile world since he began his efforts on its behalf. I would say that God definitely received his share of Paul’s sacrifice.

I did not answer all of my questions, but I did get a lot of new ones, which is more fun anyway. Paul is a sacrifice on behalf of the Church, just as he wrote, even if he does not fit perfectly all of the models described by Girard or Hubert and Mauss. I know that Paul was a sacrifice, and a good one, because I can see the results of his efforts, his sufferings. After all, that is the true measure of the efficacy of a sacrifice. It did what it was supposed to do.

Ack! I can feel my professor’s pen converging on his newest victim! Argh! Wait! I am not at all an adequate sacrifice! I am not a willing victim, I am thoroughly impure (and enjoying the hell out of it), and I refuse to take any part in this barbaric ritual. Any man who puts less than an “A” on this paper, let him be anathema (thanks Katherine). Get thee from my sight!

[1] Matthew 10:38-39, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23-24 (all scriptures are NRSV)

[2] Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Paul: A Critical Life. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. p 238.

[5] Knox, John. Chapters in a Life of Paul. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1950. p 92.

[7] Stanley, David M. “Imitations in Paul’s Letters: Its Significance for His Relationship to Jesus and to His Own Christian Foundations.” in From Jesus to Paul. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984. p 130.

[8] Klassen, William. “Galatians 6:17.” Expository Times 81, 1970. p 378.

[9] 1 Corinthians 2:3; 2 Corinthians 11:30, 12:9-10, 13:4

[10] Stendahl, Krister. Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976. p 44.

[16] The Greek-English New Testament. Washington, DC: Christianity Today, 1975. All Greek references and translations come from this text unless otherwise noted.

[17] The American Heritage Dictionary.

[19] Reumann, John. “Colossians 1:24 (“What is Lacking in the Afflictions of Christ”): History of Exegesis and Ecumenical Advance.” Currents in Theology and Mission 17, 1990. p 454-461.

[22] Har! I really did have to say this somewhere…

[24] Scott, E.F. The Moffatt New Testament Commentary: The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1930. p 31.

[25] Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1959. p 266.

[27] Though he does criticize the Corinthians for something to that effect (1 Corinthians 1:13)

[29] Flemington, W. F. “On the Interpretation of Colossians 1:24.” in Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament. London: Cambridge University Press, 1981. p 85.

[32] Yates, Roy. “A Note on Colossians 1:24.” Evangelical Quarterly. 42, 1970. p 88-92.

[36] Trudinger, L. Paul. “A Further Brief Note on Colossians 1:24.” Evangelical Quarterly 45, 1973. p 36-38.

[38] My footnotes, from here forward, are all just titles because I neglected to get the bibliographical information on all of my sources before I left town. So, for the most part, all I have are titles, and even some of those are partial. I will submit a corrected copy upon my return, as well as a full bibliography of works uncited, since I have several of those as well. My apologies.

[39] The Moffatt New Testament Commentary: 2 Corinthians. p 95.

[40] Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians. p 123.

[41] The Moffatt New Testament Commentary: Galatians. p 71.

[42] Williams, Sam K. The Abingdon New Testament Commentaries: Galatians. p 69.

[45] Martin, Ralph P. The New Century Bible Commentary: Philippians. p 134.

[46] Bruce, F. F. The New International Bible Commentary: Philippians. p 116.

[47] Hanson, A. T. The New Century Bible Commentary: The Pastoral Epistles. p 131.

[48] Girard, René. The Scapegoat. p 18.

[53] Straw, Carole. “’A Very Special Death’: Christian Martyrdom in its Classical Context.” in Sacrificing the Self: Perspectives on Martyrdom and Religion. ed. Margaret Cormack. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. p 39.

[55] Hubert and Mauss. Sacrifice. p 89.

Paul’s Cross: A Study of Colossians 1:24

Sacrifice

Paul’s Cross:
A Study of Colossians 1:24