Colossians 1:24 comes at a critical juncture in the epistle, as Paul pivots from elevated prose (1:15–20) with an eschatological climax (1:21–23) into an apostolic apologia (1:24–2:3). This apologia, with its characteristic disclosure formula (Θέλω γὰρ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι, 2:1), serves as the shift to the body of the Colossian epistle and forms the starting point of its central argument and purpose (as stated in 2:2–3). Thus, to grasp or fail to grasp the meaning of Colossians 1:24 in all its difficulty and all its beauty sets the reader up to grasp or fail to grasp the thrust of the epistle’s opening argument. Even broader than Colossians studies, the verse provides a critical glimpse into how Paul was understood (whether by himself or by later Christians, as is argued by those who see Colossians as Deutero-Pauline). Moreover, within New Testament studies, Colossians 1:24 provides an essential building block in a theology of suffering. Whether for the sake of Colossians studies, Pauline studies, or New Testament studies, this verse with its crux interpretum is a matter of no little import. Yet, how does one begin the journey of interpreting this verse when the cartographers provide different maps for the verse’s interpretation?

Creating a taxonomy of interpretations for Colossians 1:24 has proven to be one of the most inconsistent efforts among commentators and scholars as numerous interpretations of the verse have been offered over the years. Because the methods used to group varying interpretations differ, the loss of distinctions and similarities between views becomes inevitable, creating more imprecision in the articulation of interpretations. For this reason (as well as the general difficulty of the verse itself), commentators are frequently misunderstood and interpreted in a different light than intended.1 The entire field of Colossians study will benefit by standardizing its taxonomy of interpretations of Colossians 1:24. To move toward a standardized taxonomy of interpretations, this article will survey various taxonomies, suggest a new approach which accounts for all major interpretations, and address some possible challenges or outliers.

1. Various Taxonomies

As interpretations of Colossians 1:24 have expanded and amalgamated over time, so have the attempts to categorize them. In order to move toward a standardized taxonomy, the following groupings of interpretations will be reviewed and evaluated.

1.1. List-Type Taxonomies

Many opt for extended lists of interpretations.2 Such an approach is helpful for its inclusion of every view but leaves later scholars to sort out the congruous from the incongruous. Why are some views closer to others? Which views are capable of amalgamation? For example, as Moule historically argued3 (and, more recently, Barry Smith),4 Paul could be primarily looking upward to the mystical union between Christ and his church while simultaneously and secondarily looking forward to the physical return and realization of that union when the Messianic Woes have worn down. Or, as Stettler argued,5 Paul could primarily be looking outward to the completion of his missionary work while simultaneously and secondarily looking forward to the effect of that completed task—the return of the Messiah. Merely listing an array of separate views without providing an organizing structure or map is certainly better than nothing, but such an approach fails to advance the conversation around the verse.

1.2. Genitive- and Linguistic-Type Taxonomies

Others try to map the alternate views via the genitive use of “the afflictions of Christ,”6 but the genitive here has only four or five possible options—few (or none) of which are (or is) mutually exclusive to any single view. To make matters worse, proponents of the same view frequently adopt differing genitive uses in this case. The most reasonable course of action seems to be that of Beale, who admits the nebulous nature of the genitive here.7

A variant approach is to sort interpretations using other linguistic arguments surrounding the verse.8 If, after centuries of careful attention from some of the greatest scholars of the Greek language, a simple linguistic move has yet to put the proverbial “nail in the coffin” on the interpretation of Colossians 1:24, then efforts to make sense of the wide range of views on the verse ought not fall simplistically along linguistic lines. Further McKnight observes that the selection of a genitive use flows from one’s overall disposition of the verse’s meaning and not the other way around. If McKnight is correct, then to define the approaches to the verse primarily around the use of the genitive—or any other linguistic element—likely inverts the logical process and makes the secondary thing primary.9

1.3. Confessional-Type Taxonomies

Noteworthy taxonomies of interpretations have foregrounded confessional stances.10 Reumann’s contributions on the matter of Catholic-Protestant dialogue concerning this verse are noteworthy and valuable on their own. Such a taxonomy is most helpful when focused squarely on ecumenical matters and falters when tasked with providing a larger perspective concerning the positions on the verse. An ecumenical perspective provides only a secondary criterion for determining the interpretation of the verse, namely, the universality of a particular interpretation.

1.4. Interpreter-Oriented Taxonomies

Another approach is to survey key thinkers, touching on the influence of major theologians such as Karl Barth in the overall approach to the verse.11 Such a narrative helpfully explains the history of thought because it avoids dealing with scholars who made little impact on the interpretation history, but it falls short of providing a matrix for sorting those views.

1.5. Binary-Type Taxonomies

Some approaches—although not, strictly speaking, “taxonomies”—evaluate the interpretations using a binary approach. For example, they may evaluate whether the application of the verse applies only to Paul or to the church as well,12 or they may evaluate the extent to which the interpretations include a sort of vicarious outlook.13 These sorts of binaries tend to function well when used to support a polemical approach to reception history. Either a view lands on one side, or it lands on another, and on that basis, the process of accepting and rejecting views becomes simpler.

1.6. Conceptual-Type Taxonomies

Still others attempt a slightly broader scope and select three categories.14 Kremer’s incomparable reception history presses all of the views into three categories: (1) those who read the verse as Paul’s reflections about Christ-like suffering that would need to happen in the realm of his own body, (2) those who read the verse as Paul’s reflections on Christ’s ongoing mystical sufferings with his body (the category into which the Messianic Woes are appendaged), and (3) those who read the verse as Paul’s reflections on Christ’s past sufferings being brought to fruition through Paul’s missionary endeavors. The categories derived by Kremer truly encompass a wide range of views, but the taxonomy’s greatest strength is also its greatest weakness. For example, Kremer’s taxonomy takes a unique view such as the Messianic Woes interpretation and forces it into the same category as the mystical union view. It does not easily handle amalgamated views such as that of Stettler, which intersects categories two and three. It poorly accommodates emerging “centrist” views such as the participation view of Davey or the rhetorical-mimetic view of Sumney.

A path forward is possible via the minimalist approach of Kremer and those who follow him. The awkwardness of Kremer’s tripartite matrix is avoidable by abstracting the three approaches one step further. Kremer’s first category takes a very literal view of what is lacking and connects it to a narrow internal goal, forming the bottom-right quadrant on a Cartesian plane. Kremer’s second category takes a very spiritual view of the lack and connects it to a broad ecclesial goal, forming the top-right quadrant. Kremer’s third category takes a very literal view of the lack and connects it to a broad ecclesial goal, forming the bottom-right quadrant. When subdivided in this way, the tripartite matrix of Kremer begins to form into four quadrants, providing a vast range of flexibility for plotting views in a way that seems far less forced than Kremer’s method. Quadrants also allow interpreters to visualize centrist and extreme views as well as views that are most susceptible to amalgamation. This shift from Kremer’s three buckets to the proposed matrix with two spectrums allows the interpreter to use these continuums to map positions more accurately and with greater precision.

2. Implementing a Quadrant-Based Conceptual Taxonomy

To determine the value of this quadrant-based taxonomy, three steps are necessary. First, four views of the passage should define the extreme corners of the taxonomy. Second, centrist views should exist toward the middle of the taxonomy. And third, a mix of views will exist within each quadrant and will perhaps be centered between halves. The following survey will examine these three locations and map the key interpretations of Colossians 1:24 along those lines.

2.1. Extreme Views

A good quadrant-based taxonomy will account for the most extreme views at the outside corners of its periphery. The four corners of the proposed taxonomy of interpretations for Colossians 1:24 are enclosed within the following four views: Mystical Union, Christ Mysticism, Martyrdom (Perriman), and Gentile Mission.

2.1.1. Top-Right Quadrant: Mystical Union

Augustine of Hippo (354–430) developed a new perspective on Colossians 1:24 within his Expositions on the Psalms, where he says, “Unto this our common republic, as it were each of us according to our measure payeth that which we owe, and according to the powers which we have, as it were a quota [Latin: canonem] of sufferings we contribute.”15 Here Augustine takes the sufferings of Paul and moves them into a spiritual realm, visualizing them as all bound up in the Christian’s mystical union with Christ. For Augustine, there is a quota, yet it is not a general quota but a quota that each individual disciple must pay as a tax as part of a “common republic.”

John Calvin’s (1509–1564) understanding of what it means to “fill up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ” also hinges on the mystical union of believers with Christ. He explains, “As, therefore, Christ has suffered once in his own person, so he suffers daily in his members, and in this way there are filled up those sufferings which the Father hath appointed for his body by his decree.”16

Martin Luther took the same view17 and rolled back the clock to the Augustinian interpretation, opting for a Western interpretation of the passage over a lesser-known Eastern option. The next generation of Protestants carried forward what would become the standard Protestant interpretation of the verse for the next four centuries. For example, Melanchthon wrote, “The afflictions of the saints are Christ’s afflictions, therefore there is something lacking in the afflictions of Christ just for as long as there remain those who are afflicted.”18

To place the mystical union view into the suggested taxonomy, two simple questions are appropriate. First, what is the realm of the suffering? Although Paul is suffering in real space-time history, the realm where suffering is brought to completion is in the spiritual and mystical world, not the physical world. The locus of the suffering is found in the co-suffering of Christ in his church in the spiritual or mystical realm. Second, what is the goal of the suffering? The goal is for Christ to join with his church in suffering. No distinct quota must be completed, only the completion of the church as the church is united with Christ in suffering. This goal is not distinct to Paul but rather focused more broadly in God’s corporate work in his church.

This quadrant struggles with the challenge of concreteness, as does the next. Mystical sufferings that Christ experiences alongside his church have been occurring since the first century and continue unabated and exponentially increases in the twenty-first century. Paul’s sufferings pour into the sufferings of Christ, but no sense is possible where “completion” or arriving at a quota occurs. The grammar of Colossians 1:24 with its focus on a definite quota makes it difficult to sustain interpretations in this quadrant.

2.1.2. Top-Left Quadrant: Christ Mysticism

The Christ mysticism approach is frequently mistaken for or subsumed into the mystical union view; however, it should stand on its own, and it helpfully demarcates a particular realm of approach to the text and demonstrates the value of the proposed taxonomy. Adolf Deissmann articulated such a view in the early twentieth century:

In this Pauline passion-mysticism it is easy to recognise what I have called the undogmatic element in Paul. Dogmatic exegesis, which tortures itself over the problem of interpreting such passages and takes away from them their original simplicity by introducing into them an artificially forced “as it were,” cannot express in theological terms the intimacy of this mystical contemplation of the passion. But under the cross of Jesus a suffering man will be able even to-day to experience for himself the depth of meaning and the comfort implied by Paul’s sufferings of Christ.19

Deissman’s interpretation here bears remarkable similarities to that of John Paul II.20 Such an understanding shifts outward—to the experience that every Christian may have in the midst of suffering. These sufferers receive, by nature of their union with Christ, the ability to connect their personal suffering mystically with Christ himself. As John Paul II suggests, Christ has “opened his own redemptive suffering to all human suffering.”21 Such an interpretation differs from the traditional mystical union view in that Christ’s sufferings are not seen here as continuing within the whole church in a mystical sense, but believers, instead, must mystically bind their own sufferings back to their suffering Savior.

The twin evaluative questions will place the Christ mysticism view into the suggested taxonomy. First, what is the realm of the suffering? Although Paul is suffering in real space-time history, the realm where suffering is brought to completion is in the spiritual and mystical world, not the physical world. The locus of the suffering is found in the co-suffering of the crucified Christ and the contemplative Christian in the spiritual or mystical realm. Second, what is the goal of the suffering? The goal is for individual believers to join with Christ in his suffering. No distinct quota must be completed, only the completion and wholeness that occurs when people are united with Christ in suffering. This goal is not distinct to Paul, but it is similarly narrow as it involves the individual believer, not the church at large.

Both the mystical union and the Christ mysticism interpretations share the idea that the completion of suffering that Paul envisages in Colossians is something spiritual and mystical, a fullness of communion with Christ. But these two views are also markedly different. Although proponents use similar language, the two views find the key to Colossians 1:24 in different directions. The mystical union view finds the solution in Christ’s union with his entire church and his presence in and with them in suffering. The Christ mysticism view finds the solution in the believer’s individual entrance into the reality of their co-crucified, co-baptized, and co-resurrected state with Christ. The former finds answers in collective suffering, the latter in individual suffering. This same dynamic plays out in solutions that do not rely on a mystical or spiritual completion to the suffering.

The weakness of this quadrant is twofold. In Colossians 1:24, the afflictions of Christ are identifiable and quantifiable. The use of the articles in the verse drives this conclusion. The afflictions are something that Paul sees himself “completing” or “filling,” not “entering.” A mystical experience of the passion of Christ is inherently non-quantifiable, impossible to identify completely, and cannot receive completion or filling. In addition, Paul identifies his “completing” or “filling up” as an action done “for you.” The direction in which it moves is not toward an end of self-fulfillment but toward an ecclesial or missional end.

2.1.3. Bottom-Left Quadrant: Martyrdom (Perriman)

A specific and extremely literal view of imitation finds its home in Perriman’s influential 1991 article.22 Perriman argues precisely in line with Abbott’s imitation model;23 however, Perriman presses against the obscurity of “completion” within imitation-based interpretations of Colossians 1:24. The verse implies that Paul is “making up the deficiency,”24 and this is difficult to understand within a generalized typological or pattern/imitation model. So Perriman argues specifically toward Paul’s commitment to martyrdom within the framework of Philippians 3: “Paul is speaking not of the inward dying and rising with Christ which is the experience of every believer but of his own radical personal commitment to suffer, if he is allowed to do so, to the full extent of the pattern of Christ’s sufferings.”25 In other words, the pattern of Christ’s sufferings in view here by Paul could only be “completed” when it reached the terminus of martyrdom.

The twin evaluative questions will place Perriman’s martyrdom view into the suggested taxonomy. First, what is the realm of the suffering? The locus of the sufferings in view are about as tangible as one can possibly imagine. The realm is “in my flesh.” The suffering is found in Paul and Paul alone. Second, what is the goal of the suffering? The goal of the sufferings in view is also about as narrow as one can possibly imagine. According to Perriman the goal and completion of suffering is not found in Paul’s ministry sufferings or his imprisonments. Instead, the goal of suffering toward which Paul moves is found at the tip of the executioner’s sword in Rome. This will be the grand culminating event when the sufferings of Paul become like those of Christ.

The third quadrant struggles with the challenge of isolation. As the Christ mysticism view places Paul’s personal mystical encounter with the passions of Christ front and center, so the martyrdom view places Paul’s personal encounter with death at the hands of Rome as central to the meaning of Colossians 1:24. Again, the loss is a sense of benefit to the Colossians or the church at large. How can Paul portray a pursuit of martyrdom as “for you” (ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν)? In fact, in Philippians 1:21–26, Paul weighs a path that would lead him to a martyr’s death and a path that would leave him alive and still ministering in the church. In Philippians 1:24, he concludes that remaining alive would be the path that is better for the sake of the Philippian church (διʼ ὑμᾶς)—and perhaps his Gentile mission field more generally.

2.1.4. Bottom-Right Quadrant: Gentile Mission

Broadly speaking, this view begins from the premise that gospel advance does not occur apart from personal suffering within the church, of which the Apostle Paul was a prime exemplar.26 Suffering “inevitably [accompanies] mission”27 and is “an inherent part of Christian witness and ministry.”28 More narrowly, Paul’s specific commission involved a call directly to the Gentiles (Rom 11:13) but also to an extended range of suffering (Acts 9:16).29 As Schreiner states, drawing on the disclosure language of Colossians 1:26, “Paul through his sufferings, however, extends the message of Christ’s all-sufficient death to the Gentiles, for such a message was concealed from the Gentiles during the life of Jesus of Nazareth.”30 This “worldwide mission” is what is still “outstanding,”31 and the “fullness of the Gentiles” (Rom 11:1–24) is not yet complete.32 Thus, the afflictions of Colossians 1:24 are “not redemptive but missionary in character.”33

Although some proponents of this view skew in the direction of seeing it as a unique aspect of Paul’s ministry,34 others would suggest that it does secondarily extend to the church today.35 Some proponents of the Gentile-mission view ground the argument in an intertextual connection with the Isaianic Servant.36 Such a perspective can be seen as anticipated in Lincoln and McDonald.37 Yet another variation concerns the degree to which the Colossian church and the gospel’s impact in their city is in view. Foster particularizes toward Paul’s ministry for the Colossian church.38 These variants provide a sense of the flexibility of the Gentile-mission perspective.

To put this view into conversation with the previous three, the two evaluative questions provide help. First, what is the realm of the suffering? The locus of the sufferings in view are found in the real world—the Roman Empire of Paul’s day and, by extension, the unreached people of our own. Completion of suffering does not take place via mystical or spiritual or even eschatological means. Completion of suffering involves the carrying out of the missionary calling here and now. Second, what is the goal of the suffering? The goal of the suffering is not a personal or individual goal but a collective one. Paul intends the fullest extent of gospel proclamation, to the regions around Tarshish (Isa 60:9) and to the heart of the Empire itself. Such an ethno-geographic goal is necessarily accompanied by suffering.

Both the martyrdom and Gentile mission views share the idea that the completion of suffering that Paul envisages is tangible, physical, and this-worldly. Whether Paul’s physical death or his physical proclamation among the Gentiles, there was a culminating event for Paul that was not abstract or mystical in any sense. Such a tangible extent of suffering was clear to Paul (Acts 9:16), even if it remains somewhat fuzzy for interpreters today who seek to understand him. But while the two views share much in common, they are both separated by the end goal. Perriman places the goal of Paul’s suffering as a dash toward a personal aspiration toward martyrdom, when or where or how remains beside the point. The Gentile mission view places the goal of Paul’s suffering as a dash toward a wide dispersion among the Gentiles and establishment of the gospel within the heart of the Roman Empire; the when or where or how of his martyrdom remains assumed but not centered.

The weakness of this quadrant is its penchant for exclusivity. Interpreters in this quadrant are more often prone to see Paul’s statement in Colossians 1:24 as unique to his role in the cosmic work of divine reconciliation.39 A second and smaller weakness in this category is the difficulty in defining the specific horizon Paul had in mind. Is Paul looking to a quota of Gentile converts? Is he pushing toward particular geographic contours for his Gentile ministry? Interpreters in this quadrant must address these weaknesses in order to make the best case for their position.

2.2. Centrist Views

With the four extreme views established, four centrist views are worth noting: the noble death reading of Sumney, the vicarious view of Steedman, Gupta’s participation model, and Davey’s participation model. These views are challenging to plot using the proposed taxonomy and perhaps expose a weakness in its method.

2.2.1. Noble Death (Sumney)

Sumney’s “noble death” proposal is one of the better known of these moderating perspectives.40 In his 2006 article and his subsequent commentary,41 Sumney argues using largely second-century (AD) sources that a relatively clear category existed for those who could suffer in a non-redemptive vicarious manner. The suffering speaker could then employ those sufferings with polemical force in order to move an audience toward a new position and to urge them to mimic the speaker’s example.

2.2.2. Vicarious (Steedman)

Robin Steedman’s comprehensive 2014 dissertation on the verse—an essential starting point for exploring Colossians 1:24—suggests a general “vicarious” suffering as the correct path forward.42 By this, Steedman moves away from the Messianic Woes due to certain inconsistencies between the Jewish understanding of those woes and Paul’s argument in Colossians. Steedman also dials back the sort of mathematical quota language by suggesting that Paul may not have been quite so precise in his language. Instead, Steedman sees Paul as contributing substantially to the common lot of sufferings that the church must bear. As part of the Body of Christ, Paul could do this work vicariously—the one in place of the many.

2.2.3. Participation (Gupta)

In his 2013 commentary, Nijay Gupta remarks that Paul’s comments focus on two needs. First, there is the need for “his own bodily and fleshly participation.”43 Thus, Gupta emphasizes to some extent the literal and physical nature of the suffering. He then goes on to further explain, “The ‘need’ is for imitation of the weakness of Christ.”44 Such an assessment pulls Gupta toward a more internal/personal goal for the suffering. The imitation is loving and self-giving, but ultimately its success is measured mostly in terms of what happens within Paul and not what happens within the church.

2.2.4. Participation (Davey)

Another moderate interpretation is the “participation” model of Davey.45 Davey expands on the participation/cruciformity concept of Michael Gorman. Davey sees an externally oriented participation wherein Paul’s proclamation needed a presentation that would occur both in word and in deed. Similarly, all believers must—like Paul—respond to the cruciform call of Christ to suffer in such a participatory manner and pattern their living after the cross.

Davey’s approach has a wide range of affinities with Sumney’s (whose view Davey rejects) and a mystical connection with the passion of Christ that approaches that of the Christ mysticism view of John Paul II and Adolf Deissmann.46 Another similarity appears in R. McL. Wilson’s approach to the passage.47 Wilson sees both the interplay of Messianic Woes and a sense of participation and suggests that Hooker48 and Taylor49 support a participatory approach. Davey and Wilson differ in that Davey strongly rejects the inclusion of Messianic Woes in the understanding of the verse. In addition, Davey’s handling of participation differs somewhat from Gupta in that Gupta’s explanation includes language of “imitation”—language that leans more in the direction of those who interpret the verse as exclusively referring to Paul’s internal sufferings.50 The unique angle that Davey takes here has to do with an external presentation of the gospel message.

The centrist views of Sumney, Steedman, Gupta, and Davey force interpreters of this passage to look more closely, avoid simplistic reductions, and try to see how the views align and differ. The approach here has been to attempt to make distinctions where they appear to exist while admitting that these views are difficult to classify with immense precision within the proposed taxonomy.

2.3. Mediating Views

Alternative views exist along the spectrum in both directions. Generally, views that more narrowly focus on Paul’s own physical or spiritual goals in the completion of suffering (the left two quadrants) are less common. The views that focus on external physical and spiritual goals in the completion of suffering (the right quadrants) are more common.

2.3.1. Mediating Views in the Top-Left Quadrant: None

This quadrant has, in this writer’s estimation, no other views besides the extreme Christ mysticism view. On the one hand, a taxonomy with a lone view in a particular quadrant may raise some suspicions. But perhaps it exposes some challenges with interpreting the verse in an intensely individual and spiritualized direction, or perhaps it exposes a fruitful area of further investigation. In either case, it simply bears note that this quadrant remains relatively unpopulated for now.

2.3.2. Mediating Views in the Bottom-Left Quadrant: Imitation

Broadly speaking, all the interpreters in this category would posit that Paul is imitating the sufferings of Christ in his life and ministry. Some interpreters prefer to leave their summaries at this level of generality. One example of this kind of approach would be that of Trudinger.51 After disputing the mystical view of Yates, Trudinger argues for Christ’s sufferings in Colossians as a pattern to be imitated.52 He continues, “[Paul] indeed rejoices thus to suffer for such suffering brings him nearer to his goal of being made conformable to Christ in His dying, so that he and the Church may attain to the resurrection.”53 The uniqueness of broadly imitative views such as that of Trudinger is how proponents would distinguish it from a thoroughgoing mystical union view such as that of Yates. Here are Trudinger’s words: “‘the things lacking’ in no way apply to Christ, but to Paul.”54 This kind of general imitative interpretation, then, provides a category for other “pattern” views55 and arguments for imitation56 or even “inspiration”57 among devotional writers.58

2.3.3. Mediating Views in the Top-Right Quadrant

The top-right quadrant is where broad replacement, representative, and substitutionary views belong. In this quadrant, the interpreter should expect to find views where the Paul of history or the Paul of legend is seen as performing meritorious acts, eschatological acts, or generally substitutionary acts to draw-down, limit, or eliminate the need for others to suffer. Views that see Paul as standing as a special representative of Christ in the means or manner of his proclamation also belong in this category.

2.3.3.1. Salvific

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) serves as the most notable proponent of the salvific interpretive tradition of Colossians 1:24. He provides the following key biblical grounds to provide support to the Roman Catholic doctrine surrounding indulgences:

Now one man can satisfy for another, as we have explained above (Supplementum 13.2). And the saints in whom this super-abundance of satisfactions is found, did not perform their good works for this or that particular person, who needs the remission of his punishment (else he would have received this remission without any indulgence at all), but they performed them for the whole Church in general, even as the Apostle declares that he fills up “those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ … for His body, which is the Church” to whom he wrote (Colossians 1:24). These merits, then, are the common property of the whole Church. Now those things which are the common property of a number are distributed to the various individuals according to the judgment of him who rules them all. Hence, just as one man would obtain the remission of his punishment if another were to satisfy for him, so would he too if another’s satisfactions be applied to him by one who has the power to do so.59

The defense of the practice of indulgences rested partly on the claim that Colossians 1:24 teaches that the merits of the saints become “common property” of the church, providing the means of satisfaction offered in the indulgences.

2.3.3.2. Replacement

A view that functions as an outgrowth of Eastern interpretation is the general “replacement” view. Chrysostom’s argument in a missional direction contained the sense that Paul served as a battlefield replacement for Christ, absorbing suffering aimed at his Lord.60 This sense is largely represented by Gnilka’s assessment that Christ is no longer capable of suffering, so Paul needed to take his place.61 Similarly, Hendriksen says that “the apostle is undergoing these hardships in the place of Jesus since Jesus himself is no longer here to endure them.”62 Devotional writers such as Ironside and MacArthur use this approach as well.63 This variation differs significantly from the other missional variations and shares deeper affinities with the mystical union and Messianic Woes views.

A recent scholarly example of the replacement view is that of James A. Kelhoffer.64 In his 2010 monograph, Kelhoffer argues that the “lack” should be identified as Christ’s physical presence and that the goal of Paul’s suffering was “to preclude the necessity that the depicted addresses in their resurrected state would have to suffer as Christ and Paul did.”65 The goal of suffering, then, is something intangible to those outside such a spiritual state. Kelhoffer’s unique contribution to the replacement view leaves many questions unanswered and rests on four heavily contested claims: the Deutero-Pauline source of Colossians, the use of ὑπέρ as substitution (“in place of”), Colossians 1:24 as disjunctive with the Pauline corpus, and Colossians functioning with an entirely realized eschatology. Despite Kelhoffer’s tenuous position, he does represent a growing trend of interpreters who are exploring beyond the established options in search of more satisfying readings of the passage.

2.3.3.3. Mission-Presentation (Schweizer)

Another identifiable group of interpretations is that which argues for the mission-presentation view. Whereas the mission-appropriation view argues for a gap between the accomplishment of redemption and the appropriation of it in a wider sense, the mission-presentation view skews more individually to Paul and the way that he needed to present the gospel. Schweizer suggests that “it is only the suffering which the apostle takes upon himself that really allows his message to become credible.”66 Thus, Paul’s suffering for his gospel impinges upon the credibility of his gospel. Hence, Paul must, according to John Paul Heil, make Christ present to the Colossians via his suffering.67 Paul is making “Christ’s bodily presence”68 visible through his preaching, even by the proxy of Epaphras. Conzelmann is close to this approach when he identifies the two themes of this verse as representation and preaching.69 Hay leans in this direction as well but assigns this sort of lofty assessment of apostolic preaching to the sloppiness of a later writer.70 This view shares affinities with Sumney’s “noble death” proposal but with a less dogmatic assumption about the effect of Paul’s suffering and a more generalized view of its extent.

2.3.3.4. Empire

For Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat, writing in the post-9/11 milieu, the verse pushes back against imperial oppression and the subversive politics that put Jesus on the cross.71

2.3.3.5. Messianic Woes

The Messianic Woes interpretation grew and developed out of German Oriental studies in the early nineteenth century.72 For around a century, it remained relatively obscure and often amalgamated with the mystical union view. Not until the second half of the twentieth century did the view come into its own. It gained greater momentum as eschatologically oriented (re)understandings of Paul with renewed emphases on Second Temple texts surged to the fore.73 Extensive debates over the issue of Colossians 1:24 flared up, and the mystical union view received an ultimate knock-out punch.74 Meanwhile, the Messianic Woes view was reiterated with increasing force and precision by the leading NT scholars and the best commentaries on Colossians.

The Messianic Woes interpretation argues that “the afflictions of the Christ” in Colossians 1:24 is a variation on the technical Hebrew phrase, “the woes of the Messiah.” In this sense, Paul claims to be serving a broad ecclesial goal by spiritually absorbing unique eschatological suffering at a disproportionate rate, enabling him to rejoice in his sufferings and to anticipate an earlier return of the Messiah as a result.

The Messianic Woes interpretation is far-and-away the dominant view among English-language scholarship.75 But this view is losing ground in recent years to views in the bottom-right quadrant.76

2.3.4. Mediating Views in the Bottom-Right Quadrant

The bottom-right quadrant is one of the oldest categories of interpretation, finding its source in the Eastern commentators. Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350–428) writes as follows:

Since Christ, coming before, suffered to bring you benefit, so that he might proclaim you to be his body through the resurrection, I am filling up what was lacking in his afflictions by those that will be for you. What was it that was lacking? That by learning what are those things that have been accomplished for you, you may receive the promise of them. But this can by no means be done without toil and afflictions. Therefore, I suffer for this, going about and preaching to all, those things that have been accomplished, so that by believing with the soul’s affection you may gain familial intimacy with him. For it is of these things that I have taken my place as a minister.77

For Theodore, the lack was not on the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ but in the learning and receiving of it.78 This, then, drove Paul to extend that message “to all,” pushing through ethnic and geographical boundaries in the process.

Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393–c. 457) followed closely in the interpretational and theological vein of Theodore. Theodoret produced his commentary on the Pauline epistles late in his life and maintained a level of clarity and precision that at many points exceeds his Antiochene predecessors. In his commentary on Colossians, Theodoret writes, “But that which was being left was the preaching to the Gentiles, and the showing forth/exhibition/representation of salvation’s generous patron.”79

This significant Eastern interpretation casts additional light on the ministerial efforts of Paul. Theodoret sees the “lack” that Paul is “filling up” as Gentile proclamation and the revelation of Christ’s salvific generosity. As with Theodore, so with Theodoret—the deficiency is not in the sacrifice or in the wealth of Christ (visualized as a wealthy patron of the arts) but in the proclamation and response to that generous gift.

This broad stream of mission-oriented interpretations continues to hold sway and is increasing in popularity in recent years. Perhaps some of this influence, besides the historical depth of the view, comes from the fact that two of the most extensive monographs investigating Colossians 1:24—those of Kremer and Clark—endorse mission-oriented views. Particularly notable is Clark’s well-argued case for Paul’s unique ministry of reconciliation in view here in Colossians 1:24.80

2.3.4.1. Eschatological-Mission

Stettler argues for an eschatological-mission view that combines the Messianic Woes view with a missional view. She argues that “if we bear in mind that before the Parousia, the number of the Gentiles (Rom 11:25 or, as 4 Ezra 4:35–37 has it, of the righteous) must be filled up through the Gentile mission, it follows that there is a certain amount of suffering related to that number, which needs to be filled up and will be achieved one day.”81 Thus, for Stettler, the quota is neither an abstract amount of sufferings nor a quantity of martyrs but the somewhat less abstract sufferings tied specifically to the Gentile mission, to which Paul contributed a lion’s share. Yet Stettler argues that her interpretation could jettison the Messianic Woes view specifically and retain its overall thrust via an appeal to a general eschatological connection between the mission of Paul and the parousia.82

Stettler’s approach has made a distinct impact, and an identifiable strain of recent interpreters show the interplay between eschatology and mission in this verse.83 This view has a rich past, appearing in a simplified form in Masson84 and Kamlah85 as well as the thorough, little-known, and precise article by Gustafson.86 The difference between the view of Stettler and some others within this strain of interpreters is her primacy of a missional sense over an eschatological sense.

2.3.4.2. Missional-Christoformity (McKnight)

McKnight argues for a “missional-Christoformity” view. He suggests that Paul is “engaging in the same kind of intentionally shaped mission and suffering after the death of Jesus: he evangelizes the world in order to bring the gospel’s saving benefits to those in the world, knowing that the death sentence of Jesus was reversed in the resurrection.”87 It is easy to find deep similarities between McKnight’s view and Davey’s participation model, yet the former emphasizes the ecclesial mission somewhat more than the mystical participation in Christ while still retaining both. Thus, McKnight states, “Paul sees himself as en-fleshing the ministry of Christ in his apostolic mission for the em-bodied body of Christ…. This view, then, refocuses the suffering away from the eschatological tribulation toward a Christoformity in ecclesial mission.”88 McKnight also bears some similarities with mission-presentation views of Schweizer, Garland, and others. McKnight’s view, however, stands somewhat distinct in that it is not so much about Christoformity in proclamation as it is about Christoformity in all of life (body, soul, mission, church, and preaching). It might be possible to see McKnight’s proposal as a confluence between multiple mission-oriented and moderating views. One scholar who stands close to McKnight is Marianne Meye Thompson, who combines the ideas of participation, mission, and eschatological woes into a composite view that serves as a middle ground between McKnight and Stettler.89

2.3.4.3. Mission-Appropriation

Pokorný echoes Theodore of Mopsuestia to a degree when he argues for the mission-appropriation view. After linking the completion of Christ’s afflictions in verse 24 with “making fully known the word of God” in verse 25, Pokorný summarizes that “apostolic suffering is not a struggle for Christ in the form of the church as his spiritual body, but a struggle for the church in the power of Christ.”90 This comes at a point of tension between “the exaltation of Jesus [1:15–20] and the reconciliation of all things [1:21–23].”91 That exaltation is complete, but the reconciliation is in an already-not-yet state. Thus, for Pokorný, “what is still ‘lacking’ is the appropriation of the already complete salvation.”92 The goal, then, is external to Paul—a particular response to Paul’s gospel. The quota is substantially literal and physical—a realization of Christ’s reconciliatory work in the transformed lives of saints.

The view of Pokorný is close to that of Percy, whose influential treatise on the relationship between Ephesians and Colossians carefully addresses this passage. Percy argues that between the lack and the fullness—something that cannot be on Paul’s part but must refer in some way to Jesus’s earthly work—is a gap of maturity in the church,93 both internally and externally.94 As the unique mission of Paul is appropriated in the church, that gap begins to close.95 In a similar vein, Barclay uses the language of “the Church must be upbuilt and extended” in reference to the “lack” in Colossians 1:24.96

The mission-appropriation view abuts the imitative view in some respects. The difference is that the suffering is not found so much within Paul’s imitating the work of Christ (with a potential byproduct of imitation by the Colossians) but toward the church, and its purpose is entirely consumed not by whether Paul is successful in appropriating the example of Jesus but in whether the church is successful in appropriating the message of Jesus.

3. Unaccounted “Views”

The proposed taxonomy for Colossians 1:24 struggles to take into account a series of interpretive decisions that are not views themselves but are used to account for various views. Although proponents for these interpretive decisions often believe these views to be holistic solutions to the challenge of the verse, they do not in-and-of-themselves constitute a true interpretation of the passage. The following list accounts for some of these unaccounted outlooks.

3.1. Linguistic Decisions

In the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, efforts to solve the challenge of Colossians 1:24 by means of linguistics abounded. For the proponents of the following arguments, these linguistic moves have the effect of closing the interpretive case for their views of the verse. Four such interpretations are worthy of note.

First, Schweizer follows others suggesting an objective genitive for τῶν θλίψεων τοῦ Χριστοῦ.97 Schweizer thus sees this as a reference of Paul’s afflictions for Christ. This linguistic move has the effect of quickly simplifying the challenge of the verse and supporting Schweizer’s generally ministerial interpretation of the passage.

Second, Barth-Blanke98 along with Flemington99 and Perriman’s revised position100 order the sentence to make the prepositional phrase “in my flesh” to modify ὑστερήματα rather than the expected verbal modification. This linguistic move has a similar effect as the first. The realm or location of the “afflictions of Christ” moves to Paul’s flesh or his body. This sort of interpretation favors the heavily author-oriented interpretations of Colossians 1:24 (such as Perriman’s) but is also deployed by those who see a more apostolic or ministerial bent in the verse (such as Flemington and Barth-Blanke).

Third, Perriman’s original position101 along with others such as Abbott,102 Hoskyns and Davey,103 and Smiles104 deploy arguments surrounding the Greek word order and take τῶν θλίψεων τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου as a compound modifier of ὑστερήματα. This linguistic move has an effect very similar to the second. The partitive “lack” Paul is filling is defined as a sort of “Christ-affliction” within the realm of Paul’s flesh—or, as it is often phrased, “filling up what is lacking of the-afflictions-of-Christ-in-my-flesh.” This sort of interpretation works well for those who maintain a heavy author orientation in this passage.

Fourth, Kremer and Clark have done a great service for successive interpreters of Colossians 1:24 by reflecting substantially on the double-prefixed ἀνταναπληρῶ.105 They make two observations: (1) the double-prefixed form indicates “over against,” implying another source supplying something from another direction, and (2) the double-prefixed form more narrowly speaks to the “completing” of a thing rather than the general “filling” of it. Kremer applies this linguistic move to support a more mission-oriented interpretation of the verse, while Clark uses it to support his own unique (but still mission-oriented) interpretation that focuses on the cosmic reign of Christ.

In summary, these four linguistic arguments add to the overall debate surrounding the verse, and future interpreters of the passage must respond to each. Many of the recent studies106 on Colossians 1:24 spend additional time addressing these claims, and clearer counterpoints and adaptations have developed. Overall, none of these arguments seems to have won the day for any particular interpretation. The arguments are either brushed aside or adapted to fit another interpretation of the verse.

3.2. Contextual Decisions

Another refreshing shift in recent years has been the pressure by Clark and Cahill to better integrate the interpretation of Colossians 1:24 with its context—whether that be the elevated language of cosmic Christology in 1:15–20107 or the mission-oriented language of “fulfilling” in 1:25,108 the effort to integrate the text more carefully with its context has added significantly to the scholarly discourse surrounding the verse. Rather than the generalized surveys of the immediate context or omission of the immediate context in favor of broader Pauline or Second Temple contexts that have been offered in the past,109 recent scholarship has begun to think more deeply about the effect of their interpretations on the immediate literary context and on the original readers.110 The largest impact of these contextual efforts has been to underscore the weakness of the Messianic Woes interpretation.

3.3. Intertextual Decisions

A final area of research that is impacting the interpretation of Colossians 1:24 is the effort to engage in robust intertextual dialogue with the Old Testament to ascertain Paul’s use of “servant” and “suffering” language. Recent works by White111 and Stettler112 have underscored connections between Paul’s language here in Colossians 1:24 and particularly the second Servant Song of Isaiah 49:1–13. These approaches come to Colossians with a robust portrait of Paul’s interplay with Isaiah 49 in the background and read the verse through that lens. Although far from definitive, modern interpreters must engage these intertextual arguments and may do well to posit their own.

In short, all these decisions are areas that demand exploration on their own. It may even be said that efforts to interpret Colossians 1:24 without considering issues of linguistics, context, and intertext are fundamentally flawed. But, for the most part, these insights are observations in search of a cohesive interpretation. Each decision may lend weight to one of the previously evaluated views, but they can remain outside the taxonomy as a broader matrix of questions that should be asked and answered for each view.

4. Conclusion

Below is a quadrant-based taxonomy that places all the major interpretations of Colossians 1:24 on two spectrums. The x axis ranges from a lack that is grounded in literal and historical sufferings of Paul and/or Christ on the left to grounded in spiritual and ongoing sufferings of Paul and/or Christ and/or the church on the right. The y axis ranges from suffering intended to complete a narrow goal connected internally to Paul himself at the bottom to suffering intended to complete a broad goal connected externally to the church or the world at the top. Such a system allows for the Christ mysticism view to be differentiated properly from the mystical union view, despite certain surface-level similarities.

In favor of this quadrant method are several noteworthy observations. First, the selection of the x axis of internal/personal versus external/corporate and the y axis of literal/historical and spiritual/ongoing functionally plots all the major views of Colossians 1:24 without much difficulty. None of these views seems arbitrarily placed or forced. Second, the four quadrants are not immediately inferior or superior to each other; no clear polemical “low ground” exists in any one quadrant because each area is supported by other passages in the Pauline corpus. Each quadrant has its share of strengths and weaknesses, allowing proponents of each view to adopt and adapt the model more easily. In short, this taxonomy properly functions as a classification tool (i.e., asking, “How do these relate?”) rather than as an evaluation tool (i.e., asking, “Which of these is broken?”). Third, this taxonomy provides clarity for the existence of certain kinds of amalgamating views. For example, it would make sense for a Messianic Woes view to amalgamate either toward a mystical union view or toward a mission-oriented view. Views that bridge between the martyrdom view and the mission views are also likely. Fourth, the closer the views are to the center (i.e., the “centrist” views), the more difficult they are to map with precision. The square in the center of the taxonomy demarcates such centrist views.

This taxonomy should be seen as tentatively offering the first effort to create a conceptual map of the swath of interpretations of the verse, aimed at capturing what seem to be the primary emphases of the views. Any preliminary cartography will need correction. Future scholars may need to refine and adjust this paradigm or fine-tune the placement of the views on the map, but it represents a substantial step toward clarity and precision in the interpretation of what may be one of the most fascinating and heavily studied verses in the book of Colossians.

---

1 This is often due to ambiguity on the original source’s position, such as the back-and-forth observations of Douglas J. Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 149–53; the tentative conclusions of F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, rev. ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 81–84; and the rambling and chaotic commentary of Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke, Colossians, trans. Astrid B. Beck, AB 34B (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), 289–95.
2 Such is the default for commentators when addressing interpretational difficulties, as in Scot McKnight, The Letter to the Colossians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 187–89.
3 C. F. D. Moule, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, CGTC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957), 76.
4 Barry D. Smith, Paul’s Seven Explanations of the Suffering of the Righteous, StBibLit 47 (New York: Lang, 2002), 182.
5 Hanna Stettler, “An Interpretation of Colossians 1:24 in the Framework of Paul’s Mission Theology,” in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles, ed. Jostein Ådna and Hans Kvalbein, WUNT 127 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 205–8.
6 John Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Colossians (Glasgow: Griffin, 1855), 88–89; Eduard Schweizer, The Letter to the Colossians: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1982), 101–6; Petr Pokorný, Colossians: A Commentary, trans. Siegfried S. Schatzmann (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990), 96–98; Lukas Bormann, Der Brief des Paulus an die Kolosser, THKNT 10/1 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012), 112–13.
7 G. K. Beale, Colossians and Philemon, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019), 138–39 n. 10.
8 For a two-part taxonomy built upon various senses of “lack,” see Barth and Blanke, Colossians, 292–95.
9 McKnight, The Letter to the Colossians, 187 n. 491.
10 John Henry Paul Reumann, “Colossians 1:24 (‘What Is Lacking in the Afflictions of Christ’): History of Exegesis and Ecumenical Advance,” CurTM 17 (1990): 454–61.
11 G. de Ru, Heeft Het Lijden van Christus Aanvulling Nodig? Onderzoek Naar de Interpretatie van Colossenzen 1:24 (Amsterdam: Uitgeverij ton Bolland, 1981), 39–71.
12 Wesley Thomas Davey, Suffering as Participation with Christ in the Pauline Corpus (Lanham, MD: Fortress Academic, 2019), 107–17.
13 Robin Anthony Steedman, “Colossians 1:24 and Vicarious Suffering in the Church” (PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, 2013), 65–141.
14 Most notably, Jacob Kremer, Was an den Leiden Christi noch mangelt: Eine interpretationgeschichtliche und exegetische Untersuchung zu Kol. 1,24b (Bonn: Hanstein, 1956), 5–153.
15 Augustine, Expositions on the Book of Psalms 62.2 (NPNF 8:251–52).
16 John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, ed. John Pringle, reprint ed. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 164.
17 Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians, reprint ed. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Classics, 2006), 558. “By the Cross of Christ is not to be understood here the two pieces of wood to which He was nailed, but all the afflictions of the believers whose sufferings are Christ’s sufferings.” Luther goes on to cite Colossians 1:24.
18 Philipp Melanchthon, Philipp Melanchthon’s Werke: In einer auf dem allgemeinen Gebrauch berechneten Auswahl, 6 vols. (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1830), 4:228.
19 Adolf Deissmann, St. Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History, trans. Lionel Richard Mortimer Strachan (New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1912), 182.
20 John Paul II, “Salvifici Doloris,” 11 February 1984, https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1984/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris.html.
21 John Paul II, “Salvifici Doloris.”
22 Andrew Perriman, “The Pattern of Christ’s Sufferings: Colossians 1:24 and Philippians 3:10–11,” TynB 42 (1991): 62–79.
23 Perriman, “The Pattern of Christ’s Sufferings,” 63, 67.
24 Perriman, “The Pattern of Christ’s Sufferings,” 68.
25 Perriman, “The Pattern of Christ’s Sufferings,” 73.
26 John Piper, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist, 3rd ed. (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2003), 267.
27 M. Dennis Hamm, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 185.
28 Steven W. Spivey, “Colossians 1:24 and the Suffering Church,” Journal of Spiritual Formation and Soul Care 4.1 (2011): 51.
29 The semantic range of ὅσος is of interest here, indicative of quantity or even space/geography.
30 Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001), 102.
31 Bormann, Kolosser, 114.
32 Robert W. Wall, Colossians and Philemon, IVP New Testament Commentary Series 12 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 88.
33 Andrew T. Lincoln, “Colossians,” in 2 Corinthians to Philemon, ed. Leander E. Keck, NIB 11 (Nashville: Abingdon, 2000), 614.
34 Beale, Colossians and Philemon, 143; M. Cahill, “Neglected Parallelism in Colossians 1,24–25,” ETL 68 (1992): 144.
35 Kremer, Was an den Leiden Christi noch mangelt, 146; Spivey, “Colossians 1:24 and the Suffering Church,” 53.
36 Joel White, “Paul Completes the Servant’s Sufferings (Colossians 1:24),” Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 6.2 (2016): 197–98.
37 Lincoln, “Colossians,” 614; H. D. McDonald, Commentary on Colossians and Philemon (Waco, TX: Word, 1980), 63–64.
38 Paul Foster, Colossians, BNTC (New York: Bloomsbury, 2016), 217–19.
39 See, for example, Bruce T. Clark, Completing Christ’s Afflictions: Christ, Paul, and the Reconciliation of All Things, WUNT 2/383 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 126–27.
40 Jerry L. Sumney, “‘I Fill Up What Is Lacking in the Afflictions of Christ’: Paul’s Vicarious Suffering in Colossians,” CBQ 68 (2006): 664–80.
41 Jerry L. Sumney, Colossians: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 99–101.
42 Steedman, “Colossians 1:24 and Vicarious Suffering in the Church.”
43 Nijay K. Gupta, Colossians, SHBC (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2013), 67.
44 Gupta, Colossians, 67.
45 Davey, Suffering as Participation with Christ in the Pauline Corpus.
46 John Paul II, “Salvifici Doloris”; Deissmann, St. Paul, 182–83.
47 R. McL. Wilson, Colossians and Philemon, ICC (London: Bloomsbury, 2005), 171–72.
48 Morna D. Hooker, “ΠIΣTIΣ XPIΣTOY,” NTS 35 (1989): 339.
49 Vincent Taylor, The Atonement in New Testament Teaching (London: Epworth, 1940), 104.
50 Gupta, Colossians, 67.
51 L. Paul Trudinger, “A Further Brief Note on Colossians 1:24,” EvQ 45 (1973): 36–38.
52 Trudinger, “A Further Brief Note on Colossians 1:24,” 37.
53 Trudinger, “A Further Brief Note on Colossians 1:24,” 38.
54 Trudinger, “A Further Brief Note on Colossians 1:24,” 38 (emphasis his).
55 George Johnston, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon, Century Bible (London: Nelson, 1967), 60.
56 W. H. Griffith Thomas, Studies in Colossians and Philemon (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1986), 60–61.
57 Roy L. Laurin, Colossians: Where Life Is Established (Findlay, OH: Dunham, 1948), 68.
58 See also Everett F. Harrison, Colossians: Christ All-Sufficient (Chicago: Moody, 1971), 42.
59 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the Dominican Province (Notre Dame: Ave Maria, 1920), III q.25 a.1.
60 Chrysostom, Homilies on Colossians, 4 (NPNF 13:276).
61 Joachim Gnilka, Der Kolosserbrief, HThKNT 10 (Basel: Herder, 1980), 98.
62 William Hendriksen, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 86.
63 H. A. Ironside, Lectures on the Epistle to the Colossians (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1929), 56; John MacArthur, Colossians and Philemon, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 76.
64 James A. Kelhoffer, Persecution, Persuasion & Power: Readiness to Withstand Hardship as a Corroboration of Legitimacy in the New Testament, WUNT 270 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 70–78.
65 Kelhoffer, Persecution, Persuasion & Power, 77.
66 Schweizer, The Letter to the Colossians, 105.
67 John Paul Heil, Colossians: Encouragement to Walk in All Wisdom as Holy Ones in Christ, ECL 4 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010), 85.
68 David E. Garland, Colossians and Philemon, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 122.
69 Hans Conzelmann, “Der Brief an die Kolosser,” in Die Briefe and die Galater, Epheser, Philipper, Kolosser, Thessalonicher und Philemon, NTD 8 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976), 187–88 (“vertritt … Predigt”).
70 David M. Hay, Colossians, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 2000), 73–74.
71 Brian J. Walsh and Sylvia C. Keesmaat, Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2004), 228–29.
72 The first connection between Colossians 1:24 and the Messianic Woes appears to be Eadie, Colossians, 87. This interpretation, however, remained unexplored by other English commentators until the view was fully developed by German scholars. See, in particular, Albert Klöpper, Der brief an die Colosser: kritisch untersucht und in seinem verhältnisse zum paulinischen lehrbegriff exegetisch und biblisch-theologisch erörtert (Berlin: Reimer, 1882), 309; Wilhelm Lueken, “Der Briefe an Philemon, and Die Kolosser Und an Die Epheser,” in Die Schriften Des Neuen Testaments, ed. Johannes Weiss (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1908), 339; Martin Dibelius, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament: An die Kolosser Epheser an Philemon (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1927), 16; Ernst Lohmeyer, Die Briefe an die Philipper, an die Kolosser und an Philemon (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956), 78; Hans Windisch, Paulus und Christus: Ein biblisch-religionsgeschichtlicher vergleich (Leipzig: Hindrichs, 1934), 246.
73 See, e.g., E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).
74 The following series of back-and-forth articles in The Evangelical Quarterly proved the inability of a “corporate personality” interpretation of the passage to withstand sustained critique: Roy Yates, “A Note on Colossians 1:24,” EvQ 42 (1970): 88–92; Trudinger, “A Further Brief Note on Colossians 1:24,” 36–38; Richard J. Bauckham, “Colossians 1:24 Again: The Apocalyptic Motif,” EvQ 47 (1975): 168–70.
75 Wilfred L. Knox, St Paul and the Church of the Gentiles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939), 134–36; C. K. Barrett, “The Apostles in and after the New Testament,” SEÅ 21 (1956): 42–43; Moule, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, 76; George H. P. Thompson, “Ephesians 3:13 and 2 Timothy 2:10 in the Light of Colossians 1:24,” ExpTim 71 (1960): 187–89; George H. P. Thompson, The Letters of Paul to the Ephesians to the Colossians and to Philemon, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 139; Stephen Neill, Paul to the Colossians, World Christian Books 50 (New York: Association, 1964), 35; John Austin Baker, The Foolishness of God (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970), 239n2; Ralph P. Martin, Colossians and Philemon, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 70; Ralph P. Martin, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, Int (Atlanta: John Knox, 1991), 112; Bauckham, “Colossians 1:24 Again”; James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 113; Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 114–16; James Houlden, Paul’s Letters from Prison: Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians, Pelican (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 181; Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon (Waco, TX: Word, 1982), 75–80; John Henry Paul Reumann, “Colossians,” in Ephesians and Colossians, ACNT (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985), 133; John Henry Paul Reumann, “Colossians 1:24 (‘What Is Lacking in the Afflictions of Christ’): History of Exegesis and Ecumenical Advance,” CurTM 17 (1990): 454–61; N. T. Wright, The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 88–90; Murray J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 60; Richard Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, NAC 32 (Nashville: Broadman, 1991), 239–40; Thomas J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae, JSNTSup 53 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 189; Robert G. Bratcher and Eugene Albert Nida, A Handbook on Paul’s Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993), 37; Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 572; Clinton E. Arnold, “Colossians,” in Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 83–84; Ben Witherington III, The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 144–45; Michael F. Bird, Colossians and Philemon (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2009), 64–66; David W. Pao, Colossians and Philemon, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 124–26; John A. Kitchen, Colossians and Philemon for Pastors (The Woodlands, TX: Kress Biblical Resources, 2012), 136–37; Richard Chin, Captivated by Christ (Sydney: Matthias Media, 2019), 51.
76 Without attempting to be nearly as exhaustive, the following examples of recent Colossians commentaries taking a missional approach is worthy of note, especially as this uptick compares to the drop in commentators holding the Messianic Woes interpretation during the same period: Bormann, Kolosser, 114; McKnight, The Letter to the Colossians, 188–89; G. K. Beale, Colossians and Philemon, 136; Alan J. Thompson, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC 12 (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2022), 78–80.
77 Theodore of Mopsuestia, On Colossians 1.24–25a (Rowan A. Greer, trans., Theodore of Mopsuestia: The Commentaries on the Minor Epistles of Paul [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010], 397).
78 Theodore of Mopsuestia, On Colossians 1.24–25a. τὸ μαθόντας ὑμᾶς τίνα ἐστὶν τὰ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν κατορθωθέντα παρʼ αὐτοῦ, δέξασθαι τὴν περὶ αὐτῶν ἐπαγγελίαν // ut discentes, quae sunt illa quae correcta sunt pro uobis, suscipiatis de illis promissionem.
79 Theodoret of Cyrus, On Colossians 1.24 (Robert C. Hill, trans., Commentary on The Letters of St Paul, 2nd ed. [Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2007], 2:90). Ἐλείπετο δὲ τὸ κηρύξαι τοῖς ἔθνεσι, καὶ δεῖξαι τῆς σωτερίας τὸν μεγαλόδωρον χορηγόν.
80 For example, see Clark, Completing Christ’s Afflictions, 162.
81 Stettler, “An Interpretation of Colossians 1:24,” 205.
82 Stettler, “An Interpretation of Colossians 1:24,” 203.
83 Lewis R. Donelson, Colossians, Ephesians, First and Second Timothy, and Titus, Westminster Bible Companion (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 34; Todd D. Still, “Colossians,” in Ephesians–Philemon, , ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland, rev. ed., EBC 12 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 299; Christopher R. Seitz, Colossians, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2014), 108; Anthony C. Thiselton, Colossians: A Short Exegetical and Pastoral Commentary (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2020), 48–49.
84 Charles Masson, “L’Épitre de Saint Paul aux Colossiens,” in Commentaire du Nouveau Testament (Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1950), 10:111.
85 E. Kamlah, “Wie Beurteilt Paulus sein Leiden? Ein Beitrag zur Untersuchung seiner Denkstruktur,” ZNW 54 (1963): 229 n. 55.
86 Henry Gustafson, “The Afflictions of Christ: What Is Lacking?” BR 8 (1963): 28–42.
87 McKnight, The Letter to the Colossians, 190.
88 McKnight, The Letter to the Colossians, 190–91.
89 Marianne Meye Thompson, Colossians and Philemon, Two Horizons (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 79.
90 Pokorný, Colossians, 99.
91 Pokorný, Colossians, 99.
92 Pokorný, Colossians, 99–100.
93 Ernst Percy, Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe (Lund: Gleerup, 1946), 130.
94 Percy, Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe, 132.
95 Percy, Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe, 132–34.
96 William Barclay, The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, rev. ed., Daily Study Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 126–27.
97 Schweizer, The Letter to the Colossians, 101–6.
98 Barth and Blanke, Colossians, 295.
99 W. F. Flemington, “On the Interpretation of Colossians 1:24,” in Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament: Studies Presented to G. M. Styler by the Cambridge New Testament Seminar, ed. William Horbury and Brian McNeil (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 87.
100 Andrew Perriman, “The Shortfall in Christ’s Sufferings: Mystical Union, Messianic Woes, the Hardships of Evangelism, or None of the Above?” P.OSTOST, 11 October 11 2020, https://tinyurl.com/5n6rkam7.
101 Perriman, “The Pattern of Christ’s Sufferings.”
102 T. K. Abbott, Ephesians and Colossians, ICC (London: Bloomsbury, 1909), 232.
103 Sir Edwyn Hoskyns and Noel Davey, The Riddle of the New Testament (London: Faber & Faber, 1968), 158.
104 Vincent M. Smiles, First Thessalonians, Philippians, Second Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, New Collegeville Bible Commentary (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2005), 78.
105 Kremer, Was an den Leiden Christi noch mangelt, 156–63; Clark, Completing Christ’s Afflictions, 13–50.
106 See, e.g., Davey, Suffering as Participation with Christ in the Pauline Corpus, 109; White, “Paul Completes the Servant’s Sufferings,” 189–91.
107 Clark, Completing Christ’s Afflictions, 72–99.
108 Cahill, “Neglected Parallelism in Colossians 1,24–25.”
109 See, e.g., the lack of any discernible connection to the surrounding context of the verse in Wright, The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon, 87–90.
110 Gupta, Colossians, 66–67; Thompson, Colossians and Philemon, 79.
111 White, “Paul Completes the Servant’s Sufferings,” 194–98.
112 Stettler, “An Interpretation of Colossians 1:24,” 194.

---