PHILEMON, EPISTLE A. One of the epistles of Saint Paul that now stands as the 18th book of the NT (between Titus and Hebrews).
—
A. Orientation to the letter and its interpretation
B. Authorship and rhetoric
C. Legal context and obligations
D. The history of the letter
—
A. Orientation to the letter and its interpretation.
While in detention for his activities as a Christian, Paul of Tarsus with his “brother” Timothy wrote a personal, but not private, letter to his “beloved collaborator” Philemon, to Apphia and Archippus (family members?) and to the congregation meeting. at Philemon’s house. The letter has a single theme: the future of relations between at least three people: Paul, who identified himself as -prisoner of Christ Jesus- and as -brother-; Philemon, a slave owner, who had become a Christian directly or indirectly in response to Paul’s work at some point before receiving this letter; and Onesimus, a slave owned by Philemon, who was with Paul at the time of this writing and who had become a Christian directly under Paul’s influence since he left Philemon’s house without permission.
The letter is correspondingly short: 335 words covering an occasionally specialized vocabulary of 143 words. As such, it is the shortest extant Pauline letter in the NT canon. In his form, Paul followed more closely than in any of his other writings the pattern of Hellenistic letters known to us, particularly letters of intercession (see Stowers 1986). See also LETTERS (GREEK AND LATIN). In the context of Greek rhetoric (see below), the book of Philemon (henceforth Plmn) is easily divided into five paragraphs:
vv
1-3
opening greetings
4-7
Thanksgiving, intercession and praise for Philemon (the exordium)
8-16
Appeal on behalf of Onesimus (the body or the proof)
17-22
Reiteration and expansion of the appeal (the spiel)
23-25
final greetings
This short document has attracted a great deal of scholarly attention over the past forty years (Schenk 1987), much of which has continued earlier efforts to explain the puzzling legal context and extraordinary rhetorical aspects of this succinct, engaging, but apparently light. Of particular importance is Petersen’s (1985) attempt to embrace and overcome these concerns in order to clarify the larger story (including “social structures” and the “symbolic universe”) within which Plmn first made sense. This story is based on deep theological convictions, yet Paul did not address in the letter itself any of the obvious doctrinal or ecclesiastical issues that characterize all of his other letters.
Certainly, even without focusing on the larger story as such, all Plmn scholars have felt compelled in some way to propose as a context for exegesis a reconstruction of at least some of the circumstances that prompted the writing and preservation of this letter. . The main question that has driven these reconstructions and explanations has been:
Why did Onesimus decide to leave Philemon’s house and, in doing so, become a runaway slave? So did Onesimus come into contact with Paul because he sought him out and found him under arrest, or rather as an inadvertent result of being arrested himself for breaking the law? Or had his owner sent him to help Paul (see Winter 1987)?
The prohibition of Deut 23:16-17 (- Eng 23:15-16: “You shall not deliver to his master a slave who has run away from his master to you. He will dwell with you…”) What role did Paul have in keeping Onesimus with him during the period in which he became a Christian? And did it influence his choice of words in vv 13-14?
To what extent was Paul bound by Roman law in his dealings with Philemon (not a Roman citizen) and Onesimus? In any case, was Paul urging Onesimus to return to Philemon (with Plmn as a “letter of introduction”) motivated primarily by his respect for Roman or local laws that applied to the refuge and return of fugitive slaves, or by his respect for the laws of Philemon? rights and sentiments (see Getty 1987), or by his theology which required it to encourage reconciliation among estranged Christians (see 1 Cor 6:7)?
Exactly what actions was Paul urging Philemon regarding Onesimus (vv 14, 16-18, 20-21)? For example, Philemon would have concluded from v.16 that Paul wanted him to change Onesimus’ social and legal status from slave to freedman (see SLAVERY) because of Onesimus’ new status as a Christian “brother” (see Daube 1986:41). ? Did Paul expect his new -father/son- relationship with Onesimus (with ownership implications, vv 10, 12) to appear to Philemon as a predominant counterweight to his own claims on his slave, leading to new perceptions of who was he the patron of whom (v 11, 13, 15-17)? In any case, was Paul appealing to Philemon’s honor (see verses 4-7) with the implication (verses 13-14,
Where and when was Paul imprisoned when he wrote (vv 1, 9-10, 13, 23)? Rome? Ephesus Caesarea And what is to be concluded about Plmn’s relation to the Letter to the Colossians which includes references to both Onesimus (4:9) and Archippus (4:17), and to an Epaphras (4:12 – see Plmn 23 ) whose house is Colossae? For example, could Plmn be the letter to nearby Laodicea mentioned in Col 4:16?
Was Archippus, rather than Philemon, the true recipient of Paul’s appeals (see S. Winter 1986, following J. Knox)?
What role should Paul’s direct advice to Christians in bondage in 1 Corinthians 7:21 play in interpreting Paul’s letter to Philemon?
What circumstances in the later lives of Paul and Onesimus contributed to Plmn’s preservation in the NT canon?
B. Authorship and rhetoric
Although some scholars seriously questioned the Pauline authorship of Plmn in the fourth and fifth centuries (because the content seemed too light) and again in the nineteenth century (because the situation assumed by Plmn seemed too novelistic), the language, style and structure de The argumentation found in Plmn is unmistakably Paul’s (Schenk 1987: 3142-3145). Many exegetes have concluded that Paul did not dictate these words, but that he wrote the entire letter in his own hand (see Stuhlmacher 1975: 50).
Some of the many distinctively Pauline characteristics are his self-designations in combination with “Christ Jesus” in vv 1 and 9, his use in vv 1 and 24 of the term synergos (“collaborator”), the phrase in kyrio (“in the Lord -) without the definite article in Greek (vv 16, 20), participles as transitions to new clauses (vv 4, 5, 21), and the intensifying phrase hina mē lego (-to say nothing of -) in v. 19b , suggesting that he might certainly miss a point that his mention especially emphasizes (see 2 Cor 9:4).Even the sentence that has caused the greatest disagreement among translators (v. 6) contains characteristic Pauline features (see Riesenfeld 1982).
Paul’s artistry in crafting such a carefully woven plot and appeal has been widely recognized. Only recently, however, have scholars shown the strong influence of Greek rhetorical conventions on Paul’s masterful argumentation in Plmn, particularly the genre of deliberative rhetoric (Church 1978; see White 1971; Schenk 1987). Using skillful appeals to the reason, emotions, and character of their listeners, the rhetoricians sought to establish two motives for action: maintaining honor and gaining advantage (Quint. Inst. 3.8.1-15, 6.2.9- 14). According to Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian, such a deliberative statement was divided into three parts: (1) the exordium: to set the proper mood and win favor with the listener through praise, and then tie that praise to the subject at hand. ; (2) the main body or proof: to make the aforementioned appeals to honor and advantage; and (3) the spiel: to reaffirm the request, appeal again to the listener’s goodwill, expand the argument, and place the reader in an emotional frame of mind (Arist. Rh. 3.14-19).
Whether by training or observation, Paul used deliberative rhetoric when appealing to Philemon, adapting this genre to his particular style and structure of letter writing. Following his characteristic salutation format in vv 1-3, vv 4-7 function as Paul’s exordium. Tactfully and concisely, he first sought favor by praising Philemon for his love and faith (vv 4-5), then focused the praise on those practical qualities especially pertinent to Philemon’s positive response to the appeal (v 6), and then he touched on details (Philemon’s loving care for God’s people that resulted in Paul’s own joy and comfort) that he later developed in the body and underlined in the spiel (Church 1978: 20-24).
The body or proof is expressed in verses 8-16, beginning with a perfectly balanced appeal to Philemon’s character and feelings (verses 8-10a). Paul first applied the rhetorical convention of openly abandoning an apparently strong line of argument by referring to himself as an “ambassador” and a “prisoner” of Christ, and then, out of love, relinquishing that authority to make his first appeal to the free. . expression of Philemon’s honor and love. In a further rhetorical move focused on Philemon’s feelings, Paul doubled down on his calling (vv 9-10a) before finally mentioning his object, Onesimus, and effectively punning the meaning of the name: “beneficial / Useful”. In doing so, Paul appealed to the second motive for action: Philemon’s advantage.
In verses 12-14, Paul returned to the first motive: to maintain honor. Onesimus has not only become much more profitable to Philemon by becoming a Christian, but Philemon has also been presented with a new opportunity to express his true character, his “goodness of him.” Paul emphasized the decisiveness of this opportunity by emphasizing how important Onesimus was to him. While with Paul, Onesimus not only became his “son” but his “very heart” himself (v. 12). Therefore, Paul would view Philemon’s treatment of Onesimus as self-treatment (see v. 17). Furthermore, by urging Onesimus to return home and deprive himself of his—son’s—comfort and service, Paul set an example of selfless love for Philemon and laid the foundation for true reciprocity between the three men.
Paul concluded his proof with an argument that went beyond conventional rhetoric: it may have been necessary, that is, providential, for Philemon to lose Onesimus as a slave in order to gain him as a “beloved brother” (vv. 15-16).
Paul’s words in vv 17-22 fulfilled the four requirements of a…