Timothy J. Robinson
H. Chad Hillier
Prison Epistles
18 March, 2001
An Exegesis of Paul's Rhetorical Appeal to Philemon in Philem. 8-16
Philemon, one of the smallest Epistles of the Bible, is an often forgotten book that seems to have lost its ability to speak prophetically into the modern context. Throughout history many have misused Philemon to support their racist slavery policies, and others have pondered why such a small letter was bothered to be included into the canon alongside other great theological or narrative works. Philemon, however, has a great deal to offer the modern theological context, ethics, and our world. This paper is a brief exegesis of Paul's appeal to Philemon (8-16) through analysing the historical and literary contexts which occasioned the letter, then 'exegesis proper' will be applied to the text with notable use of redaction criticism, and finally comments will be made regarding the application and theological significance of the text for the modern context.
Philemon is considered to be one of the 'undisputed letters' and it's Pauline authorship is rarely doubted (Rupprecht 453). In addition, the textual integrity has been efficiently preserved and there is little difference between the Greek manuscripts, perhaps due to its size, being only 335 words in the original Greek. With regards to form criticism, almost all scholars agree that it reflects the style and theology of the other undisputed letters (Felder 883).
Due to the mentioning of the same names in Paul's greetings in both Philemon and Colossians, it is presumed that he wrote these letters at approximately the same time and place, which is believed to be Rome in 58-61CE (Col. 4:7-17) (O'Brien 269). It is also understood from verse 1 that Philemon was written while Paul was in prison, as was Colossians. Some, following an older traditional view, still hold that Philemon's church was in Lycus Valley in Asia Minor. However, with the above mentioned textual evidence in regards to the characters involved, most accept that Philemon resided in Colosse (Rupprecht 454).
The recipients of this letter have become a matter of debate in the latter half the twentieth century. The traditional view is that the letter is written to Philemon, who owned a runaway slave named Onesimus, who comes across Paul in his escape to Rome. Paul sends a letter to Philemon on Onesimus' behalf asking him to accept Philemon back and now as a Christian brother. However, some scholars, such as John Knox, Allen D. Callahan, and now, most notably the detailed work of Sara C. Winter, are contending with that interpretation. Knox believes that Archippus, (mentioned in Paul's opening greetings) is the actual owner of the slave and Paul is writing to Philemon to enjoin him to add pressure on Archippus regarding Paul's request for permission to have Onesimus' continued full time labour (91-108) (Nordling 98). This position has been championed by Winter in which she argues that Onesimus did not run away at all. Winter maintains that Philemon is a letter to the community of which Philemon is a part, and Onesimus was sent by the Church to assist Paul and bring financial help. She argues that this is why there is more than one name in the opening greetings. Paul then replies with this letter to the church kindly asking them if they would allow Onesimus to stay (Winter 1). Thus Knox and Winter believe that he is not literally sending Onesimus back, rather, he is simply "referring his case to the proper higher authority," that being Philemon and his Church (Nordling 108). Callahan reinterprets the letter in an entirely different manner. He believes that Philemon and Onesimus were actually estranged blood brothers (derived from the mentioning of " " with regards to "" in verse 16) and Paul writes this letter to encourage them to reconcile (Callahan 358).
Many scholars have responded to these ideas and have defended the traditional understanding which dates back to John Chrysostom in 398C.E. (Mitchell 135). Some have pointed out how it appears that Onesimus was saved under Paul's ministry, which makes him an unlikely candidate to be sent to help the greatest apostle during his prison stay. In addition to him being unsaved, why would Philemon send a "useless" slave to do such an important task (v.11) (Barclay 164)? In response to Knox's view, Peter T. O'Brien questions why Paul would have used such tactful words and rhetoric (as will be examined later) if he is only requesting permission to keep Onesimus as a full time labourer (267-268). Furthermore, if Knox's view is accurate, why would Paul write to the Church and not just to Philemon? There is also little credence to the argument that they are brothers, as it is based on a literal interpretation of one verse and views the rest of the passage through the lens of that understanding. John G. Nordling, in his paper, "Onesimus Fugitivus: A Defence of the Runaway Slave Hypothesis in Philemon", asks if Knox and Winter are correct why would this simple scrap of business transaction be included in the canon (119)?
However, the questions that these interpreters ask are still valid. It is true, as Callahan explains, that "the exegetical consensus holds that Onesimus is a fugitive, yet there are no verbs of flight in the entire epistle"(358). Due to the small size of the letter there is little actual data regarding the circumstances available. Scholars, then, must approach any detailed interpretations of this epistle with trepidation. Nevertheless, an interpreter needs to work with some assumption regarding this text, and as John M.G. Barclay contends, the runaway slave theory is still the most likely explanation (164). It is from this explanation that this paper will base its following exegetical work.
Before moving into exegesis proper, the above mentioned runaway slave explanation must be further developed. Unfortunately, this background story can only be briefly outlined here, any further work would be beyond the scope of this paper. Onesimus was a slave, which meant he was lowest in the ancient world (Rupprecht 460). He worked for Philemon's household, which included Apphia, most likely his wife, and Archippus (assumed to be his son, and also the Pastor of the local assembly) (O'Brien 266). Philemon hosted the Colossian church in his home. Something happened between Philemon and Onesimus which caused trouble in their relationship. Some assume that Onesimus was a fugitive (from verse 18), but, as Cain H.Felder, argues, "nothing in the letter provides warrant for the notion that Onesimus was a criminal fugitive who had stolen something from his master"(885). Onesimus left Philemon's household and met up with Paul in Rome. Here, under Paul's ministry, he received salvation and assisted Paul in his work (Paul was permitted to receive visitors, c.f. Acts 28:30) (Barnes ccxcii). Later, for the purposes of reconciliation between Philemon and Onesimus, Paul writes Philemon to inform him that Onesimus is coming home and that he is now a Christian brother, and should be treated accordingly.
This background information is the product of logical deduction from the text but certain areas are lacking. It cannot be known exactly why Onesimus left, why he went to Paul, or what the nature of their dispute was. Was it because Onesimus was a lazy servant (v.11)? Was it perhaps something on Philemon's part and Onesimus was being treated poorly, or was falsely accused? These are important questions, but we cannot know the answer for certain (Barclay 165). However, some ideas can be accepted. For instance, runaway slaves were not protected by Roman law, and "were subject to all manners of abuse" (Rupprecht 460). One theory, purposed by Peter T. O'Brien, is that perhaps Onesimus learned of Paul and his relationship to Philemon while in Colosse, so when he was in trouble with his master he hastened to Paul for help (266). Though this cannot be certain, it is vital for a possible application of this text that will be discussed later in this paper. Attention will now be turned to a verse by verse exegesis of Philemon 8-16.
This letter is beautifully crafted using a rhetorical art, not by lying or hyperbole, but by using words that persuade and lead the reader and their emotions to the intended message, even without blatantly saying it. Paul begins his plea to Philemon with a rather lengthy and tumultuous sentence in the Greek. "Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, yet I appeal to you on the basis of love. I then, as Paul - an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus- appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains" (Philem. 8-10 NIV). By now Paul is talking to Philemon alone evidenced by is use of the singular "you" (). This long sentence is an excellent example of Paul's use of rhetoric in order to persuade Philemon (Melick 358). J. Dwight Pentecost agrees that Paul uses several rhetorical methods to give credence to his request. These areas will now be examined.
Paul's use of , which means "one's ethical duty," or "befitting," is interesting for he begins his appeal by saying, "I could order you to do what you know you are supposed to do" (Vine 99) (author's paraphrase). Paul does not allow much room for Philemon to disagree with him, he makes clear that what he is about to say is his Philemon's duty.
It is also interesting to note that in the Greek word order of the sentence, Onesimus' name comes last. Peter T. O'Brien suggests an interesting reason. "This was probably the first news Philemon had received of his slave since he ran away and he might be expected to react negatively to the mention of his name. So with delicate tact Paul first establishes the central fact that Onesimus has become a Christian"(290). A runaway slave would have caused a great deal of trouble and financial ruin upon a master and it was common that a recovered slave would have been punished severely (Nordling 118). So Paul carefully defuses the potential anger of Philemon.
Another rhetorical device Paul uses is by using the word "therefore" (), connecting the second thought with the one that he previously established. His former thought was with regards to praising Philemon for his great love (Muller 179). "You are a really loving person Philemon, and because you're such a loving person ..." (author's paraphrase). Paul is, in a sense, setting Philemon up for an appropriate response, appealing to Philemon's love; but he is not finished yet.
Second, though many commentators take Paul at face value and accept that Paul is not using his Apostolic authority, this author is not convinced. If he was really appealing only on the basis of love, he would not have mentioned his authority at all (Hendriksen 216). It appears to be a subtle hint saying, "Remember, I do have the power to order you" (author's paraphrase).
Paul ads in a phrase, "toioutoV wn wV pauloV presbuthV, nuni de kai desmioV cristou ihsou" translated in the NIV as, "an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus"(v.9b). There is a small textual problem with this phrase for the word presbuthV can also be translated "ambassador," as the RSV does (Carson 108). W.E. Vine points out that the two meanings have a close connection in that elderly men were chosen as ambassadors, or "elders" (45). Whatever the case may be, he is obviously referring, again to his authority, and also perhaps his age in contrast with his imprisonment. Paul also appeals to his suffering, though he has already mentioned it in verse 1, he mentions his chains at the end of verse 10. He uses his own sufferings as leverage over Philemon. As commentator Albert Barnes, aptly notes, "Philemon would not refuse the request of one who was suffering in prison on account of their common religion"(301).
Finally in verse 10 he actually mentions what he is writing about. This author's own translation from the Greek reads, "I beg you concerning my child whom I begat in my bonds, Onesimus." It appears that Onesimus was converted to Christianity under Paul's ministry in Rome and Paul uses the language of spiritual parenthood, as he often does (Rupprecht 261). However, here it has a distinct use. Barnes points out that he seems to be applying his own character in reference for Onesimus, a theme that he will continue to refer to throughout the remainder of the epistle (301). Paul is also informing Philemon that Onesimus has been converted to Christianity, and directly under the auspices of the Apostle Paul so much so that Paul calls him "my son." Perhaps Philemon himself was converted in a similar manner and now this lowly slave has been elevated to his own level (Getty 85). So Paul's final appeal before mentioning Onesimus' name is to his conversion, it is this appeal that Paul continues to explicate. One can imagine the response of Philemon to such a letter regarding the slave whom he was angry with; certainly Paul's tactfully chosen words and praise of Onesimus would have deflated his anger. If he were to remain angry with Onesimus it would be as if he were angry with Paul.
Now that Paul has established who is he talking about, he proceeds to defend Onesimus from Philemon's prior negative associations with him. Paul says, "Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful to both you and me" (v.11 NIV). Paul invokes a play-on-words, for Onesimus means "useful" (Vincent 185). It is unclear whether Paul is referring to a slothful nature of Onesimus as a servant, or as Cain H. Felder suggests, he could have been referring to the time while Onesimus was away as a runaway slave. Certainly an absent slave is a 'useless' slave (898). Or, if he is indeed referring to Onesimus' poor work habits, he boasts that now Onesimus is of incredible value, which aptly sets the stage for what he is about to say.
"I am sending him - who is my very heart - back to you" (v.12). With this highly loaded statement, Paul informs Philemon that Onesimus is coming home. It is reminiscent of the extraordinary friendship between Jonathan and David (Getty 85). Paul now is, as the colloquial saying has it, "laying it on pretty thick," by suggesting that to send Onesimus is to send is own heart (literally splagcna, used here, is "bowels," but it is in reference to extreme emotions, so "heart" is the most fitting translation) (Melick 361). Certainly, Onesimus has become a dear friend of Paul's and Paul uses this as one more rhetorical device to convince Philemon that Onesimus is, in fact, changed.
The question arises as to whether Onesimus wanted to go back to Philemon or not. Though we cannot know for sure, and Paul was fond of applying his apostolic authority in other Epistles, it is safe to assume that it was Onesimus' will to return. As far fetched as it may sound, Deut. 23:15-16, strictly forbids those who allow a slave to take refuge with them, to send that slave back to their master. Paul, educated in the law, would have been aware of this so it is doubtful that he felt obligated to send Onesimus back (Barclay 165). However, (and from v.14) it is possible that Paul respected the Roman law with regards to Philemon's ownership of Onesimus (Muller 183).
Paul continues his rhetorical persuasion in verse 13. "I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel" (v.13). Again he makes reference to Onesimus' value and his own suffering, but now adds a new twist. Onesimus has taken the place of Philemon. Not only has he become a Christian, and "son of Paul," moreover, he has replaced Philemon in helping this old man who is in "chains" on account of the gospel. Any ideas of superiority over Onesimus in Philemon's mind must have been deflated by this statement. So reluctantly, Paul sends Onesimus back to Colosse. It seems that regardless of whatever Paul needed, the reconciliation between these two Christians was the highest priority (Felder 899).
In verse 14 Paul relents authority to Philemon regarding the matter saying that it would be unethical for him to keep Onesimus on in Rome if it was against Philemon's will. "But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favour you do will be spontaneous and not forced" (v. 14). Here we can see where Winter and Knox arrive at their ideas, however, to assume that Paul was asking for further use of Onesimus is an unjustified hermeneutical leap. Paul is writing about sending him back, rather then requesting for Onesimus to stay. By saying, "I would have liked to keep him with me . . ." Paul is referring to the value of Onesimus, rather then a request for him to stay, and it certain fits the thrust of the rest of the passage (v. 13).
Paul finally, "pulls out the God card" in verse 15. "Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good . . ."(v.15 NIV). The NIV accurately shows the passive tense of the verb "", which is translated in an active tense in other translations like the KJV. The tense of this verb is important because blame is focussed away from Onesimus in a providential manner. Somehow "a higher guidance could [...] be detected in the deed" (Muller 185). This now defuses Philemon's blame that he places on Onesimus. He mentions that Philemon "might have him back for good" in a temporal manner, but then he refers to something that transcends the temporal and becomes the apex of his whole line of thought.
"No longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother - especially to me but much more to you...", "both as a man
and a brother in the Lord (v.16a NRSV) (v.16b NIV). Paul does not request that Philemon simply set Onesimus free; he
will not let him off that easy. The harder task that Paul asks of Philemon and the purpose of all his rhetorical persuasion, as
Jac J.Muller eloquently states, "was to love him, and to see in the converted slave his brother in Christ" (Muller 169). This
is where the proverbial 'rubber hit the road' for Philemon. The power of the gospel transcends the powers and rules of this
world. As mentioned earlier, runaway slaves were the lowest of Roman society, and here, a wealthy slave owner (evidenced
by the likelihood of his hosting the house church) is requested to love this slave as an equal (Muller 161). Raymond E.
Brown states it best.
What Paul was persuading Philemon to do, in all his rhetorical talk, was to step outside of the limitations of his world view and to apply the gospel to life.
Some question whether this passage warrants the justification of slavery. However, if one truly understands what Paul is requesting of Philemon by asking him to love Onesimus "as a brother," then it is clear that it would have been impossible for Philemon to continue to have him as a slave. The text "almost seems to have emancipation between the lines" (Rupprecht 462). As Paul said in Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (emphasis mine). Other passages also clearly point out that Paul is hardly a supporter of slavery (1Cor. 7:21; 2Cor.11:20-21) (Felder 887). Only a misunderstanding of this passage has caused the hardships throughout history, this passage makes no warrant for the institution of slavery.
This small letter tells the story of a desperate man who was at the bottom of the world and at wits end. He seeks out an advocate, someone who will stand up for him when he is accused and awaiting punishment. Paul takes Onesimus under his wing and leads him to salvation. Moreover, what is important is that Paul does not stop at spiritual salvation, but also sees in that same salvation a need for reconciliation with his present dilemma. For Onesimus it seems the axe head is about to fall, but Paul, the advocate stands up and defends him and presents Onesimus before Philemon as a new man.
There are three key applications in this text. First, is to see in Paul a reflection of that same love that Christ gave to humanity by being an advocate. The Christian meta-narrative tells of a lost humanity, guilty, awaiting punishment and estranged from their home. Yet when they run to Christ as their advocate, he will take them under his wing and stand for them and pronounce to their owner that they are indeed renewed.
Second, on an ethical level, this is an excellent example of how Christians are to be advocates for each other. They are to see in others their 'usefulness' even when they seem 'useless.' It is essential for the Christian to hear out one another's story and to listen and care. It is the responsibility of the Christian to 'stand in the gap' when it is needed, and to defend those who are defenceless.
Third, though the gospel transcends this world, it is not distant and abstract, it affects every aspect of life along the way. Philemon would have no longer been able to treat Onesimus as a slave, and no longer can the Christian today continue to just play the role that the world has deemed right for them. When Christ enters the situation, everything changes. In Paul's advocating this poor slave one can hear echoes of Gustavo Gutiérrez's liberation theology. For the communicator of the gospel the question, Gutiérrez explains, "is how to tell the nonperson, the nonhuman, that God is love, and that this love makes us all brothers and sisters" (193). Philemon could no longer see the world in terms of slaves and owners, he was forced to apply the gospel to life; all, in Christ, are brothers and sisters.
Having examined the historical and literary contexts of the epistle of Philemon, engaged in an exegesis of Philem. 8-16, and then musing over some applications, it is clear that this small letter has the power to speak prophetically into the modern context. Paul's rhetorical writing style was examined, and his attempts to persuade Philemon which shows his work as an advocate for Onesimus. Philemon is not a scrap of business transaction, it is a marvellous example of the work of an advocate, and of what Christ did for the world, and what those who follow him are to do for others.
Works Cited
Barclay, John, M.,G. "Paul, Philemon and he Dilemma of Christian Slave-Ownership." New Testament Studies. 37 Apr (1991): 161-186.
Barnes, Albert. Notes on the New Testament. "Philemon." Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1961.
Bible. New Revised Standard Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.
Bible. New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.
Brown, Raymond, E. An Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Double Day, 1997.
Callahan, Allen D. "Paul's Epistle to Philemon: Toward and Alternative Argumentum." Harvard Theological Review. (1993): 357-376.
Carson, Herbert, M., "The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries" Colossians and Philemon. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966.
Felder, Cain, Hope, The New Interpreter's Bible. "Letter to Philemon." 11 Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000.
Getty, Marry Ann. Phillipians and Philemon. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1980.
Gutiérrez, Gustavo, The Power of the Poor in History. Marynoll: Orbis, 1983.
Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary. "Exposition of Colossians and Philemon." Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1964.
Knox, John. Philemon Among the Letters of Paul. New York: Abington, 1959.
Marshall, Alfred. The Interlinear NRSV-NIV Parrallel New Testament in Greek and English. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.
Melick, Richard, R. Jr. The New American Commentary. "Philemon." Nashville: Broadman Press, 1991.
Mitchell, Margaret, M. "John Chrysostom on Philemon: A Second Look." Harvard Theological Review. (1995): 135-148.
Muller, Jac, J. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. "Philemon." Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955.
Nordling, John, G. "Onesimus Fugitivus: A Defence of the Runaway Slave Hypothesis in Philemon." Journal for the Study of the New Testament. 41 (1991): 97-119.
O'Brien, Peter, T. Word Biblical Commentary. "Colossians, Philemon." 44. Waco: Word Books, 1982.
Pentecost J. Dwight "Paul the Prisoner." Bibliothecasacra Apr-Jun 129. (1972): 134-141.
Rupprecht, Arthur, A. The Expositor's Bible Commentary. "Ephesians, Philemon." 11. Gen. ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.
Vincent, Marvin, R. Critical and Exegetical Commentary. "Epistles to the Phillipians and to Philemon." London: T & T Clark, 1979.
Vine, W.E. An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. Nashville:Thomas Nelson, 1952.
Winter, S.C. "Paul's Letter to Philemon." New Testament Studies. Jan 33 (1987): 1-15.