78 JUAN M. GRANADOS ROJAS In summary, the rhetorical pattern in Col 1,24-29 shows that bringing to completion the word of God (plhro,w) includes its ethi- cal achievement, that is, making everyone mature in Christ. The re- sult of such plhro,w does not consist only in a human person being filled with the knowledge of the gospel or plenitude of God’s will, but in a creature transformed by the knowledge of the mystery of Christ. According to this reading, we prefer the passive and non- technical sense of the plh,rwma in Colossians: the divine fullness includes its effects upon Christ and all creatures in him. * * * By studying the rhetorical pattern in Col 1,24-29, in particular the techniques of accumulation and reversal, we have evinced the semantics of the section. We have focused on the meaning of plhro,w. However, the train of thought might also clarify other is- sues in Col 1,25. For example: (1) We do not really have two dif- ferent kinds of service here, because being dia,konoj of the universal church involves universal preaching, teaching, and ethical purpose, i.e. service to the gospel. (2) Here the meaning of oivkonomi,a is re- lated to the mystery of Christ; it is hardly about an institutional commission, but rather about the divine purpose of making every- body perfect or mature in Christ. Is the word of God incomplete? According Col 1,25 the word of God needs completion. Based on the parallel text of Rom 15,19 many commentators consider that the phrase plhrw/sai to.n lo,gon tou/ Qeou/ has spatial meaning, i.e. preaching the gospel to the gen- tiles47. We agree with other scholars that such a completion has not only spatial meaning but also a qualitative one. Yet, our research has gone further 48. What kind of quality is this? Our short answer See R. ASTING, Die Verkündigung des Wortes im Urchristentum: 47 dargestellt an den Begriffen “Wort Gottes”, “Evangelium” und “Zeugnis” (Stuttgart 1939) 138. Our study stays within the limits of its purpose. For this reason, we 48 leave other related questions for further studies, e.g. why limit the analysis to Col 1,24-29, excluding the following unit (2,1-5); or why omit the semantic analysis of plhro,w (and also plh,rwma) in Ephesians or even in the undisputed letters? These limits are imposed also by a methodological approach begin- ning with syntactical arrangement, rather than with semantic content. © Gregorian Biblical Press 2012 - Tutti i diritti riservati