|
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.. 2
2. Background & Occasion.. 2
3. Exposition of Philemon.. 4
3.1. Greeting (vv. 1-3). 5
3.2. Thanksgiving Prayer (vv. 4-7). 5
3.3. Paul’s Appeal for Onesimus (vv. 8-20). 5
3.3.1. Understanding Onesimus
Then and Now (vv. 8-16). 5
3.3.2. Paul’s Three
Requests (vv. 17-20). 7
3.4. Closing Remarks and Greetings (vv. 21-25). 10
4. Implications for the Church:
How Theology Informs Ethics 10
4.1. Paul’s Shaping of Perception.. 11
4.2. Paul’s Concept of Reception in Justification.. 11
4.3. Paul’s Observation of Philemon’s Character.. 12
4.4. Paul’s Intentional Ambiguity.. 13
5. Conclusion: Toward a Model for Interpersonal Ministry 14
6. Bibliography.. 15
Paul’s letter to
Philemon is so short that often it is passed over without notice. Moreover, the content of this letter is
so personal that few find relevance in it for their own lives. Most seem to view this letter in the
abstract—as an example of how Paul treated slavery in the Hellenistic
world. Few seem to grasp the deeply
personal nature of Paul’s appeal and its implications for
interpersonal ministry.
This misconception of
Philemon is not altogether surprising.
Much of Paul’s appeal and persuasive art is missed in English
translation. Paul resorts to the use
of word plays to make his appeal more subtle, even ambiguous. The subtlety of this letter notwithstanding,
few letters in the New Testament capture the art of persuasion as well as
the letter to Philemon. Yet this
letter is much more than a persuasive argument. This letter captures a glimpse of how
Paul applied his theology to ethical situations.
The letter to Philemon is
“carefully crafted” and “a masterpiece of suggestion.” This letter only indirectly addresses the
church; its main recipient is the person Philemon. Furthermore, Philemon does not appear to
be a pastor in a local congregation.
As such, this letter reveals for us Paul’s approach to
ministry to normal, average church members in the congregations with which
he interacted. Consequently, we
ought to see this letter as a valuable glimpse into Paul’s view of
interpersonal ministry.
Our approach in this
treatment of Paul’s letter will be threefold. We will first discuss the background and
occasion for Paul’s letter.
Then we will provide an exegetical overview of the letter’s
contents. We will then consider some
broad implications for interpersonal ministry based on what we found in the
exposition of the letter.
Paul wrote Philemon during
his first Roman imprisonment
to Philemon, who wasa member of
the Colossian church (v. 1). Onesimus,
Philemon’s former slave, robbed him in some way (v. 18) and somehow
met up with Paul in Rome and became a Christian (vv. 10-11) through
Paul’s ministry. Paul then
persuaded him to return to Colossae, but sent this letter with him “appealing to
Philemon to reinstate him as a ‘brother beloved’” (vv.
15-16). This letter was probably sent with Paul’s
letter to the Colossians. Tychicus and Onesimus
together traveled to Colossae to deliver the letter to the Colossians (Col. 4:7-9),
and it is reasonable to assume that they also traveled with the letter to
Philemon.
It is impossible to
determine why and how Onesimus left Philemon and
came to Rome with any degree of certainty. Several possibilities have been
suggested; however, the best explanation is that after Onesimus
had stolen from Philemon, he feared the punishment he would receive. Therefore, he fled to Paul to ask him to
be an amicus domini
(friend of the master), that Paul might appeal to Philemon on Onesimus’ behalf, always intending to return to
his master.
If Onesimus
sought out Paul to be an advocate—an amicus domini—to plead his case, he
would not be considered a fugitivus (fugitive)
under Roman law. In the first
century AD, Proculus stated that a slave is not a
fugitive “who, having in mind that his master wished physically to
chastise him, betook himself to a friend whom he induced to plead on his
behalf.” Rapske states
that in this case “neither time nor distance are considerations in
establishing whether a slave is a fugitivus or not… the intent of the slave is the all-important factor.” The slave is not a fugitivus if he flees his
master’s wrath, especially if the master is “threatening to rid
himself of the slave by selling him or having him killed.” In this way, Paul could not be charged
with harboring a fugitive under Roman law (cf. Rom. 13:1-7) or with
violating Deuteronomic law (Deut. 23:15-16). The following is a sample letter from an amicus domini,
Pliny the Younger:
Pliny the Younger (c. A.D. 62–c.
A.D. 113)
To Sabinianus
YOUR
freedman, whom you lately mentioned to me with displeasure, has been with
me, and threw himself at my feet with as much submission as he could have
fallen at yours. He earnestly requested me with many tears, and even with
all the eloquence of silent sorrow, to intercede for him; in short, he
convinced me by his whole behaviour that he
sincerely repents of his fault. I am persuaded he is thoroughly reformed,
because he seems deeply sensible of his guilt. I know you are angry with
him, and I know, too, it is not without reason; but clemency can never
exert itself more laudably than when there is the most cause for
resentment. You once had an affection for this man, and, I hope, will have
again; meanwhile, let me only prevail with you to pardon him. If he should
incur your displeasure hereafter, you will have so much the stronger plea
in excuse for your anger as you shew yourself
more merciful to him now. Concede something to his youth, to his tears, and
to your own natural mildness of temper: do not make him uneasy any longer,
and I will add, too, do not make yourself so; for a man of your kindness of
heart cannot be angry without feeling great uneasiness. I am afraid, were I
to join my entreaties with his, I should seem rather to compel than request
you to forgive him. Yet I will not scruple even to write mine with his; and
in so much the stronger terms as I have very sharply and severely reproved
him, positively threatening never to interpose again in his behalf. But
though it was proper to say this to him, in order to make him more fearful
of offending, I do not say so to you. I may perhaps, again have occasion to
entreat you upon his account, and again obtain your forgiveness; supposing,
I mean, his fault should be such as may become me to intercede for, and you
to pardon. Farewell.
While this letter was
written as an advocacy letter for a freedman rather than a slave, it is
easy to see parallels between the letters of Pliny and Paul.
It is easy for Americans to
import their own ideas of slavery from American history to that which this
letter addresses. While there are
similarities, Carolyn Osiek writes,
The major differences are that
ancient slavery was neither race-specific nor racist (which is not to deny
that racism existed in the culture); there was no necessary assumption of
natural inferiority; and manumission or the acquisition of freedom was
quite common.
Paul Achtemeier
notes as well that “most urban and domestic slaves could look forward
to freedom by the time they turned thirty, at which time they were
frequently awarded Roman citizenship.” Still, slaves were considered to be the property
of their masters; any benefits extended to them were “at the complete
discretion of [their masters] and could be withdrawn at any moment.” These slaves performed a variety of
tasks, “ranging from farm labour to
business management, cooking to teaching.
In short, any normal occupation could be filled by a slave.”
If a slave were freed, he
would not have the same status as a free-born man. He was considered a libertinus (a freedman) and
still owed certain duties to either the former slave owner or the
benefactor who freed him. This
included, (1) an inheritance of half the freedman’s property, (2) obsequium or
due respect, and (3) operae—a
number of days of work. For a slave to become a fugitive was a
serious crime since it usually caused financial loss on the part of the
master. If a runaway slave were caught, he might
receive as punishment “a branding on the face” or a permanent
bronze slave collar with the owner’s name inscribed on it. Harboring a fugitive slave was considered
to be theft and was therefore a punishable offense.
In comparison to the genre
the other Pauline epistles, this letter “stands closest to the
ancient private letter.” We may outline the contents of this
letter as follows:
I.
Greetings (1-3)
II.
Introduction:
Thanksgiving Prayer (4-7)
III.
Main Body: Appeal
for Onesimus (8-20)
A. Understanding Onesimus
“Then and Now” (8-16)
B. Paul’s Three Requests (17-20)
IV.
Closing Remarks
(21-25)
There are no major textual
variants in this letter. It is
reasonable to assume that we have this passage “substantially as Paul
wrote it.”
From the beginning of this
letter Paul identifies himself as a prisoner of Christ Jesus. No doubt he did so not only because he was
in prison when he wrote the letter, but because he wanted identify himself
as being in a similar situation to that of Onesimus. He addressed Philemon along with the two
other individuals in the house-church and the church congregation. He greets them warmly with his customary
“grace to you” formula (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor.
1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; Phil. 1:2;
Col. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess.
1:2). However, this should not be
seen as a trite, formulaic greeting.
This greeting would be understood as a benediction or blessing that
would communicate “the grace of God in which they stand and the
relationship of peace that God has established with them in his Son, Jesus
Christ.”
From this point on, Paul
addresses Philemon directly. Paul shares his prayer for Philemon and
commends him for his love and faith.
Verse 5 is a chiasm:
…for I hear of your (A) love and (B) faith,
which you have (B’) toward the Lord Jesus and (A’) for all the
saints.
This may be translated,
“for I hear of your love, which you have for all the saints, and your
faith, which you have toward the Lord Jesus.” The use of chiasm here seems to highlight
the two main themes in Philemon’s character that Paul will develop
throughout the letter. Paul’s prayer
in v. 6 expounds on the faith that is found in Philemon and expresses his
desire that the fellowship of his faith “might become effective in
the knowledge of every good thing.”
In v. 7 Paul commends his love, and in particular, the way Philemon
has refreshed the hearts of the saints.
Paul’s prayer
anticipates the main themes of Paul’s appeal for Onesimus
as Philemon’s amicus domini,
and in fact, forms the grounds for it.
Paul was Philemon’s friend, and so he knew something about
Philemon’s character. In
particular, he knew that this “beloved fellow worker” had both
faith in Christ and love for others.
Throughout the main body of the appeal, Paul will make subtle
references to these qualities of Philemon.
Paul’s appeal takes up
two paragraphs. The first paragraph
describes Onesimus’ situation and
Paul’s involvement in it. The
second paragraph constitutes Paul’s actual requests of Philemon.
Understanding Onesimus Then and Now (vv. 8-16)
The
first paragraph describes Onesimus’
situation in such a way as (1) to avoid appeals to authority and (2) to
reshape Philemon’s perceptions of Onesimus
based on Paul’s friendship with Onesimus. Paul is deliberately and explicitly
seeking to avoid appeals that are rooted in authority, commands or
control. He mentions his own
authority to command him, yet his desire is to exhort instead (vv.
8-9). Paul was willing to express
his desire to keep Onesimus with him in service
to the gospel ministry (v. 13), but he sent him back so that Philemon could
do the right thing willingly instead of under compulsion (vv. 12, 14). This is not to say that Paul never
believed it correct to make appeals based on authority, as he has done so
on various occasions (1 Cor. 5:3; 9:1; 2 Cor. 10:13-14; 12:12).
Paul also describes Onesimus (and his relationship with him) in such a way
as to reshape Philemon’s perceptions of his “runaway”
slave. In v. 11, Paul employed a
word play on Onesimus’ name (which means
“useful”), making use of a contrast between the
“once” and the “now”—that is, a contrast
between our lives before and after salvation in Christ. Paul has made much use of this
“once-now” contrast in his other letters. Here, Paul describes Onesimus’
former life as “useless” and his present character as
“useful.” Onesimus was a
Phrygian slave, and Peter O’Brien writes that “Phrygian slaves
were proverbial for being unreliable and unfaithful.” Onesimus
“once” lived up to the popular stereotype of Phrygian slaves,
but “now” Onesimus would live up to
his name “useful.”
In fact it can be said that
the Onesimus that had left Philemon was not the
same Onesimus who was returning. The Onesimus
who left was a thief; the Onesimus who returned
was Paul’s heart and even his “son” (v. 10). In considering the providence of God as
the reason Onesimus had left him, he suggests
that Onesimus was separated so that Philemon
could have him back eternally as a “beloved brother” in the
Lord instead of as a mere slave (vv. 15-16). Paul’s language in this paragraph
creates a new perspective of Onesimus as
Paul’s “son” and “heart,” and
Philemon’s “beloved brother,” that Philemon would see his
former slave in a new light.
At the same time, there is a
great deal of ambiguity surrounding what Paul wants Philemon to do. In verse 13, Paul expresses his wish to
have Onesimus serve him in the chains of the
gospel; yet this request did not require that Philemon free Onesimus. Onesimus could have served Paul as a slave or a
freedman. In verse 16, Paul
considers the possibility Philemon could have Onesimus
back eternally, “no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a
beloved brother.” Yet John
Barclay considers even this statement to be vague. He asks,
Should this [“as”]
be interpreted to mean that ‘though he might remain a slave, he
should no longer be as a
slave? And what exactly is implied
by saying that, as a beloved brother, Onesimus
will be more than/above… a slave?
Does it imply that the new status of brother supersedes the old
status of a slave, or could it mean simply that the new status is
superimposed on the old?
Despite wide spread opinion
to the contrary,
these questions cannot be fully answered.
In fact, at this point in the letter, it is still unclear exactly
what Paul wants Philemon to do.
Paul’s three requests
form the climax of Paul’s letter to Philemon. Each is expressed in the imperative mood;
however, in light of vv. 8-9, the imperatives should be seen not be seen as
commands but as requests. These requests are: (1) that Philemon
would receive Onesimus as he would Paul (v. 17),
(2) that Philemon would charge Paul with any debt owed to Philemon by Onesimus (vv. 18-19), and (3) that Philemon would
refresh Paul’s heart by letting Paul profit from him in the Lord.
Until this paragraph, Paul
has not explicitly asked anything of Philemon. One would expect that this ambiguity
would be cleared up here. Yet even
here, it is unclear what precisely Paul was asking of Philemon. It cannot be assumed that Paul was asking
Philemon to manumit his slave. While
certainly Paul wanted Philemon to accept Onesimus
as a brother in Christ, there is no statement in these verses that Onesimus should be freed.
First Request: If you have me as a partner, receive him
as you would me.
This first request is rooted
in the faith that Paul had perceived to be in Philemon (v. 5). In the protasis
of this condition, Paul hopes that Philemon considers him to be a koinonos (partner),
meaning “one who takes part in something with someone.” Murray Harris has said, “In a Christian context this term implies more
than mere friendship or similarity of outlook. It betokens spiritual unity in Christ and
common loyalty to Christ, partnership in believing and working for the
gospel.” Paul uses a related word koinonia (fellowship) in verse 6 the fellowship of faith which existed in Philemon. Paul desired that “the fellowship
of [Philemon’s] faith might become effective in the knowledge of
every good thing in us for Christ” (v. 6). The particular “good thing”
(see also v. 14) which Paul desired for Philemon was that he would receive Onesimus as a beloved brother (v. 16) and as if he were
Paul himself.
Second Request: If he has wronged you in any way or
owes you anything, charge this to my account. I Paul am writing with my own hand, I
will repay—not to mention to you that you owe to me your very self as
well (vv. 18-19).
Whether Onesimus
had stolen from Philemon or simply mismanaged his funds cannot be
determined certainty.
However, Paul was willing to repay that debt. O’Brien notes, “As a father
for his son (cf. v. 10) Paul declares he is prepared to stand good for any
damages.” If the above explanation of the
circumstances surrounding Onesimus’
departure is correct, this condition should be considered as
“hypothetical only in form but which describes the actual offense of Onesimus.” Lightfoot remarks, “The case is
stated hypothetically but the words doubtless describe the actual offence
of Onesimus.” Paul would have determined that he had
wronged Philemon as Onesimus, now a useful
Christian, told Paul his story. In
fact, this offense would have been the reason for the letter itself.
Although Onesimus
probably was not a fugitive under Roman law, he certainly was in the eyes
of Philemon. For a slave to steal
from his master and run away was not entirely uncommon. For instance, Sarapias wrote a letter asking for help from the
administrator of the district in finding his runaway slave:
I have a slave, who formerly
belonged to my father, by the name of Sarapion,
… [who] had been entrusted by me with our household. (Nevertheless) he, … purloining
some items of clothing from our household with which I had provided him and
even other items which he also took possession of for himself from our
household, has secretly run away…
It is entirely possible that
Onesimus held a similar position to Sarapion and administered his master’s finances. Osiek has noted
that house slaves “were not only performers of menial tasks, but
often trusted agents and administrators in business affairs. Many were highly educated.” If this were the case with Onesimus, he would have had many opportunities to
either steal from Philemon or mismanage his funds.
After making this request,
Paul inserted his own signature to the letter. Ben Witherington
has noted that “Paul used scribes to write his letters… At the end of some of his letters Paul
indicates the point at which he takes up the pen to write a line himself
and perhaps to add a characteristic signature.” Paul probably added his signature here to
serve as a “legal promissory note…, undertaking to make
compensation for the damages.” This is a legal statement that bound Paul
to his pledge to repay Onesimus’ debt. As Harris states, this is Paul’s
“certificate of debt” (cf. Col. 2:14)—“a signed
statement of indebtedness by which he formally and legally assumes all the
indebtedness of Onesimus toward Philemon.”
In addition, however, Paul reminded
Philemon that he became a Christian through Paul’s ministry—a
debt far greater than Onesimus’ debt to
Philemon. One should be careful not
to interpret this statement by Paul as an act of coercion (he’s
already stated that he did not want to do this in vv. 8-9). Paul did intend to gain Philemon’s
consent, but only so that his “good deed might not be as under
compulsion, but freely” (v. 14).
Thus, it seems better to interpret this statement as a subtle
attempt by Paul to remind Philemon of the grace that he had received
through Paul’s ministry—especially salvation itself. Paul repeatedly reminds us of our sinful
past so that we can realize the greatness of the grace that has been
bestowed upon us (Eph. 2:1-10, Col. 1:21-23, 2:13, 14). Paul wanted Philemon to understand that
he also has a “once-now” contrast in his life. If he knew the amount of grace he has
received undeservedly, he would
realize that he had been in the same situation as Onesimus. Philemon has no right to claim
superiority over Onesimus, now his brother in
Christ. Thus, Philemon should show
the same kindness and forgiveness to others who have wronged him that he
has received. As Lohse
writes, “Philemon will understand that within this relationship one
can no longer balance debt against debt.
Onesimus has experienced the same mercy of
God by which Philemon first became a Christian.”
In his first two requests
Paul deliberately assumes theological language—especially language
from the doctrine of justification—and applied it to this
situation. The following chart
illustrates verbal parallels between Paul’s language in Philemon and
the rest of the Pauline corpus:
|
Language in Philemon
|
Language in Pauline Literature
|
|
v. 11—“Once” was useless;
“now” is useful.
|
Rom. 5:8-11; 7:5-6; 11:30-32; 1 Cor.
6:9-11; Gal. 1:23; 4:3-7, 8-10; Eph. 2:1-4, 11-13; Col. 2:13; 3:7-8
Col. 1:21, 22—“Once you were alienated from
God…. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body
through death….”
|
|
v. 17—Philemon should “receive” Onesimus as Paul
|
Rom. 14:1, 3—“Accept him whose faith is weak,
without passing judgment….
God has accepted him.”
Rom. 15:7—“Accept one another, then, just as
Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God”
|
|
v. 18—If he has “wronged” you…
|
Col. 3:25—“Anyone who does wrong will be repaid
for his wrong, and there is no favoritism.”
|
|
v. 18—If he “owes” you…
|
Rom. 13:8—“Owe no one anything, except to love
each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.”
|
|
v. 18—“charge” [impute] it to my account.
|
Rom. 5:13—“But sin is not charged to an account
when there is no law.”
|
|
v. 19—Paul signs the letter to legally bind himself to
Onesimus’ debt.
|
Col. 2:14—The “certificate of debt” owed
to God is nailed to the cross.
|
The case for intentional use
of theological language becomes stronger when one considers related
cognates to the vocabulary Paul employs here. The specific word of
“imputation” used in Philemon only appears elsewhere in Rom.
5:13. However, a related word is
used frequently to refer to the imputation of righteousness (Rom. 4:3-6,
9-11, 22-23; Gal 3:6). Paul used a
word “to wrong” here that is the opposite of another word Paul
uses to speak of God’s act of justifying those who believe by faith
(Romans 2:13; 3:20, 24, 28; 4:2; 5:1, 9; Galatians 2:16, 3:11, 24;
5:4). It seems clear that Paul was
in a very real sense treating this broken relationship as a
“redemptive analogy” to the gospel message. He entered into this broken relationship
between Philemon and Onesimus in the same manner
that Christ entered into the broken relationship between God and man.
Third Request: Indeed,
brother, may I have profit from you in the Lord. Refresh my heart in Christ (v. 20)
Paul uses two word plays in
this request. In the first word
play, he uses the word for “profit” (onaimen) that shares the same
root word as Onesimus. Lohse states that “Paul employs an expression that is
almost a fixed formula.
Consequently, a wordplay on the name of Onesimus
cannot be read”
here. However, this word never occurs elsewhere
in the writings of Paul (or in the entire New Testament). Thus, it seems that this is an unusual
expression for Paul to use.
Furthermore, Paul has already once made a play on Onesimus’ name when he claims in v. 11 that Onesimus was “formerly useless to you but now useful
both to you and to me.” It would be a large coincidence if in
fact this is not a play on Onesimus’
name. Whatever the case, the intent
of this request is to say that, now that Onesimus
has become a brother in Christ, he is a profitable person, such that even
Paul could benefit by “Philemon’s warm reception of Onesimus back into his household (v. 17)” and
forgiveness of his offense.
The second word play is
contained in Paul’s request to Philemon that he would refresh
Paul’s “heart” (splangchnon). This is not
the typical word for heart. In fact,
it literally refers to “the inner
parts of the body, especially the intestines”[50] (“bowels” in
the KJV). Yet this noun is used in this letter as a
technical term, and Paul’s use of it constitutes a powerful yet
subtle argument for the proper treatment of Onesimus. In verse 7, Paul commended Philemon
because the “hearts” of the saints have been refreshed through
him—that is, Philemon was known to be a loving person who refreshed
the hearts of the saints. In verse
12, Paul identifies Onesimus with his own
“heart.” In verse 20,
the climax of the letter, Paul, one of the saints, asks Philemon to refresh
his “heart.” Of course, in 12, Paul has already identified his
own “heart” with Onesimus
himself. Paul appealed to the
Philemon’s “love for all the saints” (v. 5), which
expresses itself in “refreshing the
hearts” of the saints (v. 7).
Yet for Philemon to love Paul as he does the other saints, he must
refresh his heart, and his heart is Onesimus.
Once again, however,
Paul’s appeal, though both emotional and passionate, is also
ambiguous. How exactly is Paul to
profit from Philemon, and how is Paul’s heart (Onesimus)
to be refreshed? All that can be
said with certainty is that Paul wanted Onesimus
to be with him (v. 13), that Onesimus should be
considered a beloved brother (either instead of or as well as a slave), (v.
16), that Onesimus should be received in the same
way Philemon would receive Paul (v. 17), and that Paul would pay for that
which Onesimus had stolen from Philemon (v.
18-19). Whether Paul intended for Onesimus to be released cannot be determined from this
letter.
It is interesting to note
Paul’s statement that he is confident in Philemon’s
“obedience” when nothing has been commanded of him. Paul was not tossing out obligation as a
result of his rhetorical technique.
There was a “right thing” that he “ought” to
do, but Paul was not going to command him to do it. He was going to leave that to the Holy
Spirit’s work in Him and rather counsel him. The confidence that Paul had in the Holy
Spirit’s work allowed him to be confident that Philemon would do even
more than what he asked (v. 21).
Bruce Metzger eloquently
writes that this letter “illustrates the way in which ordinary human
relationships may be made the means of expressing Christian love.”
While Philemon was wealthy enough to
own both a slave and a house for the church to meet in (v. 2), it does not
appear that he was in an official leadership position in the church. He was in that sense an ordinary member
of the congregation in Colossae. This letter, then, gives us a glimpse in
to Paul’s ministry to people with ordinary problems of interpersonal
relationships. Great attention,
therefore, ought to be given towards understanding the manner in which Paul
sought to minister in the midst of this broken relationship between
Philemon and Onesimus.
We have already noted
Paul’s attempts at reshaping Philemon’s perception of Onesimus in the body of his appeal. In the first paragraph, Paul also used
the “once-now” contrast in v. 11 and other characterizations of
Onesimus to transform Philemon’s perception
of Onesimus from a useless Phrygian slave and
thief (vv. 11, 16, 18) into Paul’s “son,” a “dear
brother in the Lord” and a man who lived up to his name (vv. 10, 11,
16). In the second paragraph, Paul
uses the splangchnon
(“heart, intestines”) word play to transform Onesimus into Paul’s “heart.” It is thus impossible for Philemon to
treat Onesimus harshly without damaging
Paul’s heart. Yet Paul knew
that Philemon was the kind of person who “refreshes the hearts of the
saints,” (v. 7) so he did not have reason to worry. He could be confident that Philemon would
do even more than what he asked (v. 21).
Paul’s use of
perception change is valuable for the church today. A major aspect of Christian counsel is
entering into broken relationships and creating new perceptions for the
characters involved. Paul’s
most powerful means of doing this is through using the language of
justification. It is to this that we
must now turn.
As has already been
discussed, Paul adopted the very language of justification when he entered
into this broken relationship between Onesimus
and Philemon. All people have
wronged God and consequently owe a debt to Him that they cannot repay (Rom.
4). Yet He justified us through
faith (Rom. 5:1) and forgave our sins, “having canceled out the
certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us” (Col. 2:14). Christ served as a mediator by which our
debt was imputed to him and his righteousness was imputed to us (Rom. 5, 2 Cor. 5:21). In
this letter, it is clear that what Christ did in the spiritual realm to
secure our salvation, Paul imitated in the personal arena to bring
reconciliation between these two Christians. Though Onesimus
wronged Philemon and owed him a debt he presumably could not repay, Paul
assumed a mediatorial role and asked that
Philemon’s debt be imputed to
him. Paul signed this letter as a
certificate of debt to legally bind himself to pay what Onesimus
owed. Paul was willing to follow the
example of Christ even at the possibility of a considerable financial
loss. Not only that, but Paul
requested that Philemon receive Onesimus as he
would receive Paul himself. He was
asking that Philemon would impute the friendship that Philemon had with him
to Onesimus.
In other words, Paul saw
this broken relationship as a “redemptive analogy” for the
gospel message. He applied the
gospel as a model for entering into broken relationships and bringing about
true redemption and restoration. In
fact, Paul viewed all relationships in this manner. In both Ephesians and Colossians, Paul
calls us to view the three major types of relationships we
have—husband/wife, parent/child, master/slave (or employer/employee)—as
redemptive analogies, or object lessons for the gospel. His example frees us up to be creative in
our relationships with others. It
causes us to consider how we might bring the gospel to bear in any and
every one of our relationships.
One avenue to follow is
Paul’s approach to “reception” and
“perception.” While Paul
and Philemon both knew that Onesimus had sinned
and wronged Philemon, Paul still wanted Philemon to look at Onesimus, to see Paul’s heart and to receive him
as would receive Paul himself. There
was no denial of Onesimus’ sin, and
certainly that sin was not ignored.
Paul’s investment in this relationship would cost him the full
price of Onesimus’ debt.
In Martin Luther’s
terms, Paul encourages us to see each other as “at the same time
righteous and sinner.” We
receive and accept each other because in our justification God looks at us
in a new way—a child of God clothed in the righteousness of Christ. A converted thief should not be thought
of as a thief, but as a human being who is deeply loved by his Savior. Even though others may wrong us and hurt
us deeply, we understand that their actions do not define them as
persons. They are defined by their
relationship to their Savior, and all human beings are created in His
image. There ought to be a baseline
of acceptance and reception in all of our relationships. Once that relationship of reception is
established, then people will feel more comfortable sharing their lives,
sin and all, and be turned to the gospel in the midst of it. After all, Paul tells us that it is
“the kindness of God that leads us to repentance” (Rom. 2:4).
On the other hand, we
don’t pretend that sin does not exist in the lives of others. We must always understand that all human
beings by their human nature are “totally depraved” except by
the grace of God. Even regenerate
Christians can exclaim with Paul, “I know that nothing good lives in me, that is,
in my sinful nature….What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me
from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus
Christ our Lord!” (Rom. 7:18, 24-25 ). Paul is not calling us here to simply
excuse, ignore or enable the sinful behavior of others. Such approaches seek peace through
“getting along” rather than through redemption. Genuinely Christian engagement in
relationship with others therefore causes us to deal squarely with the sin
both in us and in each other, seeking repentance that forgiveness might
bring genuine reconciliation.
Of course approaching
Christian relationships in such a paradoxical way will lead to relational
questions that have no easy answers.
How do we genuinely love others, accepting them as human beings
created in God’s image, without excusing or enabling sin? How do we discipline our children for
their disobedience and misbehavior and at the same time demonstrate the
grace of God who pardons all our sins?
These are questions that must be asked. The answers do not come easily. In the end, however, it seems that
Paul’s perspective on relationships moves us to engage in these
struggles with creativity. There are
many ways to bring the gospel to bear in the midst of relational trials,
and by God’s grace, He will lead us through them.
Paul’s rhetorical
strategy was centered on his understanding of Philemon’s
character. When Paul began his
appeal with “Therefore…” (v. 8), he was basing his appeal
on what he knew of Philemon’s character in vv. 4-7. He knew that the Spirit had produced in
him both love for others and faith in Christ (v. 5), and that this Holy
Spirit-induced character change could form the basis for his appeals. In other words, Paul knew Philemon well
as a “beloved fellow worker” (v. 2) and had confidence in the
Holy Spirit to complete in him that work that He had begun (Phil.
1:6). Paul was unable to go to Colossae and have a conversation with Philemon; he had
to base his appeal on what he knew of him.
Yet we see that the first thing he sought to accomplish was to know
Philemon and understand his character, so that the appeal he wrote would be
able to touch him where he was. When
we have the luxury of a conversation, following Paul’s lead would
cause us to first seek understanding of others before seeking to speak to
their situation.
In v. 21, Paul again drew on
his knowledge of Philemon’s character, stating his confidence that
Philemon would do even more that what he asked. In all likelihood, Philemon did more than
Paul asked, since this letter has survived; otherwise, Philemon would
likely have destroyed the letter. In fact, there has been much speculation
about a bishop named Onesimus known by Ignatius
in the early 2nd century.
Onesimus was a common slave name, so
nothing can be said with certainty, but many have speculated that this Onesimus was the same as the one spoken of in this
letter. It is also widely suggested
that Paul’s letters were first collected in Ephesus. It is easy to further speculate that
after Philemon granted Onesimus his freedom, Onesimus became the bishop of the church in Ephesus and
included this “charter of liberty” to Philemon as part of the
Pauline canon, which he himself collected in gratitude for Paul’s
advocacy on his behalf.
Throughout our discussion of
this letter, we have noted Paul’s intentional ambiguity. In fact, Paul’s writing style in
this letter constitutes what Anthony Thistleton
calls an “open” style of writing. He writes,
the
more “open” the text…, the more active the role of the
reader becomes, but at the price of permitting less clarity and wider
boundaries of possible meaning. Such
texts achieve greater force and greater engagement, but often at the price
of a degree of ambiguity or polyvalency.
Paul used a more open style
of writing to engage his reader in the relational conflict and to permit
enough ambiguity to allow him to make his own decisions.
Nowhere in this letter does
Paul explain exactly what the “good thing” (v. 8) is that
Philemon is to do; he left it to Philemon to figure that out. Paul knew that Philemon was a regenerate
believer, and so he left that to the work of the Holy Spirit in
Philemon’s life. Barclay
writes that Paul is intentionally ambiguous because “Philemon must be
left to work out what is demanded by love.
As Lohse writes, Philemon ‘is encouraged
to let love do his work, for love is resourceful enough to find the right
way in accomplishing the good.’” Paul did not write this appeal to
Philemon to prescribe for Philemon what he should do. He intended to exhort Philemon to decide
how he was going to receive Onesimus on the basis
of the love and faith which he had in Christ, rather than on the basis of
the compensation he was due.
Much of the legalism that we
face in contemporary Christianity is grounded in a lack of faith in the
work of the Holy Spirit in people’s lives. We have a hard time believing that if
Christians are allowed to live according to the freedom they have as
regenerate Christians they will in turn seek to “walk according to
the Spirit” (Rom. 8:4). We
therefore think that Christians need a good dose of law to motivate them to
“be good.” We forget
that the gospel turns standard “worldly” works-righteousness
upside down. It is not law that
motivates us to be good, it is the power of the gospel and the working of
the Spirit in the lives of those He has redeemed. Therefore, it should not scare us that
“all things are permissible for me” (1 Cor.
6:12). What should rather concern us
is whether or not we are being “mastered by anything” besides
the love of God.
One consequence of our
failure to give up on worldly works-righteousness is that we seek to speak
too soon to tell people what to do.
This is not to say that it is always wrong to tell others
“what to do.” Rather, we
do not take the time to listen and understand before we speak. Paul was not able to visit Philemon in Colossae; he was in prison. So, in his entire letter, he never told
him what to do. He left that work to
the Holy Spirit working in Philemon’s life. In this way, Paul obeyed James’
advice: “be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger”
(James 1:19).
This passage is an example
of the way in which Paul expected those in his congregations to relate to
each other. We are now at a place to
suggest an exegetical model for interpersonal ministry. This model will not be complete; after
all, this is merely a one page letter written by one person to one
relational situation. Furthermore,
this model will not be a “method”—that is, a step by step
operations manual for interpersonal relationships. It would seem that such a method would be
something that Paul himself would oppose.
Rather, this model ought to be seen as a way of conceptualizing what
ought to happen when we live in our interpersonal relationships in a way
that will exalt the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
First, Paul sought to be an
observer. Before he began writing
this letter, he met, befriended and loved Philemon as his own spiritual
son. He listened to him and sought
to understand him and his situation.
Paul also considered the character of his friend Philemon and
reflected on who he was before he lifted his pen. When he wrote, he demonstrated his own
understanding of Philemon and his character.
Second, Paul preferred exhorting
over demanding. He refused to
“lay down the law.”
Instead, he sought to counsel and exhort his friend. Paul’s exhortation was centered on
the gospel (1 Cor. 2:2). He sought to apply the gospel to
Philemon’s heart, and he gave him the means to apply the gospel to
the heart of Onesimus as well. He did not command Philemon to do
“the right thing.” He rather accepted him as a brother in the
Lord. Neither Paul’s life nor
the life he taught others to live were motivated by a desire to gain what
was due or what was deserved.
Rather, both his life and the life he taught others to live were
motivated by the desire to love and forgive others with the same love
Christ displayed for us on the cross (Eph. 4:32, Col. 3:13).
Such a model can be said
simply and succinctly: “Listen and understand before you speak, and
when you speak, speak the gospel.”
A good conversation centered on the gospel message applied to the
hearts of sinners is really all that matters in interpersonal
relationships.
Achtemeier, Paul J., Joel B. Green and Marianne Meye Thompson. Introducing
the New Testament: Its Literature and Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2001.
Barclay, John M. G. “Paul, Philemon, and the Dilemma of
Christian Slave Ownership.” New Testament Studies 37 (1991):
161-186.
Barclay, William. The
Letters to Timothy, Titus and Philemon.
The Daily Study Bible.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1957.
Bauer, Walter, F. Wilbur
Gingrich, and Fredrick W. Danker. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1979.
Brooks, James A. and
Carlton L. Winbery. Syntax
of New Testament Greek. Lanham,
MD: University Press of America, 1979.
Bruce, F.F. Paul:
An Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdans, 1977.
________. The
Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians. The New International Commentary on the
New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.
Carson, D.A., Douglas Moo,
and Leon Morris. An Introduction to
the New Testament. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1992.
Carson, Herbert M. The
Epistles of Paul to the
Colossians and Philemon. Tyndale New
Testament Commentaries. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960.
Guthrie, Donald. New
Testament Introduction. Ontario:
InterVarsity, 1970.
Harris, Murray. Colossians and Philemon. Exegetical Guide to the Greek New
Testament Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1991.
Horsley, G.H.R. New Documents Illustrating Early
Christianity, 1976. Macquarie University, Austrailia:
Ancient History Document Research Center, 1981.
Johnson, Luke T. The
Writings of the New Testament: An Introduction. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.
Kümmel, Werner Georg, Paul Feine, and Johannes Behn. Intro
to the New Testament. 14th
ed. Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1966.
Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament.
Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
Lightfoot, J.B. Saint Paul’s
Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon. London: Macmillan and Co., 1916.
Llewelyn, S.R. New Documents Illustrating Early
Christianity, Vol. 6: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri
Published in 1980-1981. Macquarie University, Austrailia:
Ancient History Document Research Center, 1992.
Lohse, Eduard. Colossians and Philemon: A Commentary on the
Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.
Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida.
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains.
New York: United Bible Societies, 1996, c1989.
Lucas, R. C. Fullness and Freedom: the Message of
Colossians and Philemon. The Bible Speaks Today. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
1980.
Lundin, Roger, Clarence Walhout and
Anthony Thiselton. The Promise of Hermeneutics.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
Lyall, F. “Roman
Law in the Writings of Paul—The Slave and the Freedman.” New Testament Studies 17 (1970):
73-9.
Metzger, Bruce M. The
New Testament: Its Background, Growth and Content. New York: Abingdon,
1965.
McDonald, H. Dermot. Commentary on Colossians and Philemon.
Waco, TX: Word, 1980.
Moule, C.F.D. Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: University Press, 1953.
O’Brien, Peter T. Colossians and Philemon. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 44.
Ed. Hubbard, David A. and Glenn W. Barker. Waco, TX: Word Books,
1982.
________. The Letter to the Ephesians, Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1999.
Osiek, Carolyn.
“Slavery in the Second Testament World.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 22
(1992): 174-9.
Pliny the Younger. Letters.
Trans. William Melmoth; rev. F. C. T. Bosanquet. Vol. IX, Part 4. The Harvard Classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Son,
1909–14; Bartleby.com, 2001. www.bartleby.com/9/4/.
Rapske, B.M.
“The Prisoner Paul in the Eyes of Onesimus.” New
Testament Studies 37 (1991): 187-203.
Witherington, Ben. Conflict and Community in Corinth: A
Socio-rhetorical Commentary on First and Second Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Carlisle, Cumbria
CA: The Pasternoster Press, 1995.
|