Let The Reader Understand: Hard Sayings of Paul Expounded

Rarely does one author of an epistle or book of the canonical Bible comment on the writings of another, but it does happen now and again. When it does, the reader ought to pay more strict attention than usual to what he (the inspired commentator) says. For the Lord, knowing that not all passages present themselves with equal degree of clarity, nor are they alike equally clear to each reader -- has provided this help for us to enlighten our understanding.

If we didn't need it, it wouldn't be there. It is there, so we need to listen up. It's the right thing to do.

Todays passage for consideration is Colossians 1: 24. It reads (in context),

" ... I Paul am made a minister; 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: Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God ... "

I am fully persuaded that this sort of passage recalls just the sort of thing the apostle Peter had in mind when he said (2 Pet. 3:15-16),

" ... even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

Here we learn some very helpful information for tackling the difficult passage we aim to explain today for the benefit of the saints (Col. 1:24 above). First, it is very interesting to note that Peter has read ALL of Paul's mail, which he sent to the saints and was read among them. Peter says, as also in ALL his epistles .... Recall that Paul had occasion to rebuke Peter publicly for siding with the circumcision group, saying you must be circumcised of Moses or you cannot be saved. Paul had to shake loose from Peter some old habits which do not dissipate easily.

Apparently, this impressed Peter as the proverb says that a rebuke to a listening ear is the ear of a wise man. And this Peter was. He took it to heart and we see the fruit of it in his epistles. Peter calls Paul "beloved apostle," a man rebuked who is wise, Solomon says, will love you for it. Solomon also was called "beloved" of the Lord ("Jedidah"). But that is another story for another time. Now Peter read and (obviously) studied all Paul's letters to learn wisdom -- which Peter knew Paul had from God. Every good and perfect gift cometh down from the Father of heavenly lights. And such is wisdom.

Second, Peter plainly admits even he -- an apostle -- finds it difficult at times to grasp the sense of Paul's wisdom. Note that Peter under the inspiration of the Spirit calls it 'wisdom,' and yet admits that it cannot always be easily understood. This should encourage the brethren. But note Peter did NOT say that some of Paul's writings prove IMPOSSIBLE to understand, as though God cannot speak through a man and make the sense objectively clear. The passage -- wisdom from God -- is NOT the problem here. Our lack of diligence in study is.

The remedy is found in James. 'If any lack wisdom [which is what you need to understand wisdom] let him ask God who giveth freely without finding fault .....' Now the Bible self-interprets objectively, and we may always know its sense when properly understood in light of other passages, for this is what it means, "The law of the Lord is PERFECT, restoring [i.e. converting] the soul (Pslam 19:7).

To understand the Bible you must attune your own mind to its sensibilities, thinking God's thoughts after Him. Much more is this the case with some things hard to understand, but not impossible to understand. With God all things are possible. Let the reader also notice that the UNLEARNED have a problem. They aren't properly catechized. They haven't learned the prerequisite knowledge -- the things easier to understand -- before pursuing the harder ones. This makes them hermeneutically unsure, and they vaciliate in their understanding, now holding this interpretation and that one. And they cannot tell which for they lack the required reading prior to their attempts to tackle the harder sayings.

So they "wrest" (distort) these by insufficiently regarding their context -- either local or remote -- seeing in them what they wish (according to the traditions of men), according to their own first principles, rather than those most relevant found in the word of Christ.

This is not a victimless crime. It brings destruction both to him who "wrests" (wrestles the texts from their proper context, informing them by first principles other than those of the word), and those who continue in false teaching. Held consistently - insofar as this is possible (eventually it is not), this will lead one away from the biblical worldview altogether. Heresy in its infancy is mere heterodoxy. Heterodoxy plus consistency and time leads to heresy -- which generates a host of dialectical tensions -- and even oddball beliefs which everyone (even the pagans at times) recognize as folly.

Now to the passage in question (Colossians 1:24). This has perplexed both scholar and layman alike over many centuries and has remained one of the more difficult passages of which Peter surely had in mind. Here is the "offending" portion of what Paul has to say here:

"and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake." This phrase presents a problem because it seems to imply (especially in other translations, i.e. the NIV) that Christ's sufferings for His people leave something undone, which the apostle must take care of himself. In other words, it seems -- at first blush - to weigh in against what Christians know from other passages which clearly say that Christ accomplished redemption "to the uttermost" for His people, leaving nothing whatever undone or incomplete in this regard.

Now unlearned and unstable persons surely seize upon this passage - for many have -- to make the case that "It is finished" means "It is not quite finished." For the Lord said of redemption on the cross and John tells us -- his final words -- or word in Greek, "Tetelestai!" It is complete. This has its root in the Greek verb teleo, to finish or complete. The sense is clear enough in the Johannine passage: Jesus left nothing undone needful for the redemption of his people.

Luke plainly affirmed, "You shall call his Name "Jesus," for He [not He and a large group of disciples] shall save His people from their sin." This satisfactorily, I believe highlights the problem then generated by unlearned and unstable persons, who seize upon this passage to say otherwise.

One of the first rules in hermeneutics is this: local context is king. One must to understand any passage properly FIRST overturn the nearby stones, looking for clues (i.e. look for similar passages elsewhere in Paul's epistles to help before you run off to Leviticus or Revelation for the kind of "help" you don' t really want. The only exception to this rule comes with -- and when --someone else authoritatively QUOTES the passage under consideration. This is not the case with our passage for consideration. You cannot find it quoted anywhere in the NT.

Can we find a similar passage written by Paul to help us read Paul well and according to wisdom? Yes we can. Here it is (2 Cor. 1:3-7):

"Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort; Who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God. For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ. And whether we be afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer: or whether we be comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation. And our hope of you is stedfast, knowing, that as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so shall ye be also of the consolation."

Let the reader notice that several times, Paul uses here the same sort of puzzling -- but less puzzling here since -- here is the main point -- he elaborates on the sense of what we wish to know at much greater length. In technical hermeneutics this is called, "hitting the jackpot." Paul views his own sufferings as resulting in his ability to more greatly help the saints. In other words, the Bible views salvation much more like the view held by the Puritans than by most Evangelicals today, who see justification as its sole goal (Grk. "soteria" also means "deliverance" in some contexts).

This is the beginning of salvation in the Bible, not the end. The Word of Christ adopts a much more "wholistic" view of salvation, not merely "deliverance from," but deliverance TO something -- which something is called the "Kingdom of God" or alternately the Kingdom of Christ the Son [of God], God's appointed and anointed vicergent or "acting Agent" on His behalf.

Paul emphasizes not that his sufferings and those of the apostles contribute in any way to the JUSTIFICATION of the saints -- once for all finished by Christ at golgotha and in leaving his tomb -- but in functioning as a tool for their further growth in Christ -- sanctification. Put only a little differently for John Murray fans, Paul has in mind redemption applied -- not redemption accomplished -- to which he and the apostles contribute.

How do they contribute? In their sufferings, God enables them better to sympathize with like sufferings of others -- the poor, those who go to bed hungry at night, who lack sleep , who are persecuted by others for well-doing and the like. IN the case of the apostles the list is extensive so far as suffering goes -- to the point of including lashes and shipwrecks (not your run of the mill kinda personal catastrophes).

Sympathy is the basis of mercy, the most fundamental rule of Christian faith for relating to others. The better part of charity -- the greatest of virtues -- is mercy. And mercy begins with sympathy. Sympathy moves one to console and remove the source of injury to the one shown mercy. Paul often mentions "consolation" in this context. Note the phrase,

"the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ."

Paul means that the sufferings Christ brings upon the apostles during the course of their ministry -- and they were many -- brought sanctification to the apostles and enabled them to bear the burdens of the saints more faithfully, helping the weaker along in their salvation as they worked it out in "fear and trembling." The passage above best reveals the sense of Colossians 1:24. The afflictions of Christ do not refer to his suffering on the cross, but to those inflicted upon the apostles as discipline from the Lord. For Paul prayed three times to the Lord, asking him to remove such a source of discipline -- called a thorn in HIS flesh (not Christ's flesh) -- and the Lord refused him -- saying (paraphrastically), "No, but this is for your own good. This thorn you must bear and keep." Paul recognized that God was by this enabling him better to minister to the saints, "filling up" -- note the progressive sense of ongoing affliction -- in his flesh (thorn in HIS FLESH) -- what was "still lacking" (as one translation has it) "of the afflictions of Christ" in my flesh for his body's sake.

The proper translation reads, Christ is not done bringing affliction to the apostles (in their flesh) for the body's (the Church of Christ) sake. Because by their continuing afflictions from Christ (who would not remove them) they were better enabled to tend the sheep -- spurring them on by consolation in their own afflictions -- to grow in Him rooted and established in the faith, not led away by the several traditions of men, which are not according to Christ, but according to he basic principles of the world.

Though I will not argue for it here, the best argument I have seen to date for determining just what Paul's thorn in the flesh was, came by a New Testament professor who thorougly impressed me -- David Alan Black. I believe he continues to teach the more difficult Greek exegesis courses at Talbot Theological seminary (but am not sure of this). I can recommend almost anything written by him.

He argued that Paul refered here to a fairly large group of Judaizing persecutors (whom he bitterly castigates in Philippians 3 calling them "dogs" etc.) who followed him from town to town, stirring up the populace against both himself and the gospel. It is clear that Paul had a kind of righteous hatred for these murderers and steadfast haters of Christ and the gospel. And it was mutual.

Paul was experiencing Lex Talionis -- just what he had done to the church and her ministers also God brought upon Paul. Remember from the very first (Paul says) that Jesus said to one Ananias that Paul must learn "how much he must suffer for my name's sake." These sufferings were both foreordained by Christ specially for Paul and well suited to the needs of the saints for whom Paul had to bring consolation.

Paul's way of describing this was that Christ was "filling up in Paul's flesh" just what the church needed Paul to suffer, in order for Paul to be able to enhance their sanctification (i.e. salvation in the wholistic sense). Paul's ministry required extreme suffering on his part and Christ had prophesied this from the outset of it.

This suffering was no way gratuitous or some mere punishment upon Paul for his former deeds. It enabled him specially to carry out with great patience all that the Body of Christ needed -- together with those sufferings of the other apostles to the same end. They were not redemptive in the sense of justification. They were "ministerially necessary" and "ecclesiastically beneficial," for the building up of the body of Christ.

So in an ironic sense, Paul's sufferings were for the salvation (edification) of the church. The more Paul suffered, the more they were consoled. Not that they in any way took joy in his sufferings. Quite the contrary. Nevertheless, the result turned out that the more beatings Paul took for the gospel, the more the Church grew. The same was true of the other apostles (and an occasional deacon like Stephen) as one can see in the book of Acts.

Let not the unlearned and unstable wrest from any man the clear sense -- from many passages which might be multiplied at length (Don't tempt me) - which teach -- from Jesus and the several apostles (and not a few Psalms) -- the full and final sufficiency of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ the Lord both, on the cross and in his resurrection and ascension to the right hand of the Father. Redemption is, as we say, a package deal. It does not come in several sections, but consists in all the words and works of the Lord Jesus as taught in all the Word (tota scriptura), not merely in the Gospels.

Salvation comes both accomplished in Jesus, and applied by His Spirit through his appointed means (called means of grace ordinarily). It is more than justification and calls men to run a long and patient race, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author (justification) and perfecter (sanctification unto glory) of our faith.

And God used the afflictions of special ministers called apostles and prophets (Evangelists were also prophets) to carry out the building and growth of his Church in a special - foundational -- manner not to be repeated in following generations. So the foundation had to be very solid. One does not lay a foundation twice. It was therefore especially needful for the apostles to suffer in order to console the saints with great consolation and mercy.

By the way, as a final note I have already implied, one would do well to notice that Paul (by way of Colossians 1:24) has answered the question (I know I wondered, so I can only imagine that you have) "Why did God say no to poor Paul when he pleaded with the Lord earnestly, "Please take this thorn away from me three times -- as Christ similarly prayed three times, "Father if it be possible take this cup from me."

The parallel is striking. In the first case (that regarding Christ's prayer), it was not possible, for that the saints needed redemption to be fully accomplished. And in the second case, they needed redemption applied to them in sanctification, with the help of the apostolic apointees to lead and guide them in their faith as "the pillar and ground of truth."

In both cases, salvation is of the Lord. Praise the Lord for he is good. His mercy endures forever.