Abstract
This carefully researched and fascinating study is a revision of a PhD thesis written at the University of Cambridge under the supervision of Simon Gathercole. The book provides a fresh reading of one of the most theologically contested verses in the entire New Testament. The author of Colossians portrays Paul as stating, ‘Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church’ (Col. 1:24, RSV). Clark probes what the author means when referring to something lacking ‘in Christ’s afflictions’, and also the way in which Paul might be understood to fill up that apparent deficit.
The study is arranged in seven chapters. In the first Clark discusses a number of preliminary issues and presents his methodology. The approach is a careful lexical and grammatical study of the verse. The second chapter devotes considerable attention to determining the meaning of the key Greek term, ἀνταναπληρόω, ‘I fill up’. The initial lexical analysis suggests that ‘the action of ἀνταναπληρόω in Col. 1.24 is an addition similar/identical to the former contribution, “fullness” is readily in view’ (p. 49). In this sense Paul is envisaged ‘as the alternative source of a second θλίψεις contribution of’ (p. 50). Chapter Three examines the other elements of the verse (pp. 51–71). Chapter Four then undertakes a vital contextual reading of Col. 1:24 in relation to understanding how Christ is portrayed. That contextual reading presents Christ as ‘the cosmically pre-eminent one’ whose death serves the divine purpose ‘to reconcile all things’ (p. 99). The next chapter considers Paul’s role, and argues that the primary characterization is of Paul as ‘servant’. Thus Clark states, ‘Paul in Col. 1:24 suffers as a unique, redemptive historical Weltapostel, or Weltdiener’ (p. 126). The final two chapters explore the way this reading fits within the wider Pauline corpus, and then draws some overall conclusions.
Clark’s proposal shows that the reading that understanding the afflictions as an apocalyptic scheme referring to ‘messianic woes’ is not convincing within the context of the train of thought developed in Colossians. His proposal has the advantage of offering a reading that makes better sense contextually, even if it causes theological disquiet for some.