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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------