Perrydox.com is devoted to the pursuit of truth, whether plain or paradoxical, whether simple or sublime, or simply absurd yet absolute.
Philemon – Introduction
INTRODUCTION
Canonicity
The first question a student of the Bible should always ask is, “Should this book be in the Bible?” Or, “Is this book inspired?” That is a question that students in earlier centuries were forced to ask, because there was not a universal set and received canon of Scriptures. Today we are blessed with the situation of accepting, without needing to question. However, there is a benefit to asking the question since it forces one to study even more.
The two earliest extant lists of Paul’s letters include Philemon as part of the canon of Scripture. These two lists are Marcion’s Canon and the Muratorian Fragment. As stated, they both contain Philemon, yet interestingly enough, they both omit the other Pastoral Epistles.
Usually a book’s worthiness to be considered was based upon its authorship: Was the author inspired? For example, all the writers of the N.T. were either apostles (i.e., Matthew, John, Peter, Paul,), associates of apostles (i.e., Mark-Peter; Luke-Paul), or directly related to Jesus (i.e., James and Jude). Curiously, Philemon’s place in the Canon was disputed in the 4th century AD; however, its authenticity as Pauline was not doubted, but it was condemned for being frivolous and inconsequential. But such a low opinion of Philemon did not prevail:
“Most scholars, however, have placed a high value on the tact, grace, delicacy of feeling, and Christian affection which adorn this letter, and have regarded it worthy of canonicity in the highest sense.” [Unger, Merrill F., Survey of the Bible; page 335.]
Author
There is no reason to doubt the Pauline authorship, and very few scholars do. G.G. Findlay observed,
“In every line and syllable this note betrays Paul’s personality. Nothing more genuine was ever written.” (J. Sidlow Baxter, Explore the Book, p.249).
The apostle Paul exhibits a wonderful example in that he was very close to many of his converted friends and would undoubtedly write personal letters aside from his doctrinal epistles. This is actually a good lesson for us, as none of us are as busy as Paul and he could take the time to help two brothers solve their problems. Such is the letter to Philemon.
Philemon, even though formally addressed to many (i.e., Apphia, Archippus, and the church), was a letter without any doctrinal instructions to the church, although by implication it teaches subjection. What makes the approach not considered doctrinal is that Paul does not appeal to his apostleship, but rather to Philemon’s heart (vv.8-9). This makes it a personal letter about a personal situation: the only one in the Bible.
Concerning the authorship, the Pauline tradition is accepted as authentic for several reasons:
1) The first verse asserts the author as “Paul.” Nothing in the letter leads us to believe otherwise.
2) Paul was allowed free access to people wanting to meet with him while imprisoned at Rome (Acts 28:30‑31). Therefore Onesimus could have easily been taught even under Paul’s legal duress.
3) Certain phrases (vv.4,10) are found among other Pauline writings.
4) There is little reason why anyone would want to forge a letter that does not claim apostolic authority, deal with doctrinal matters, or make a direct statement against a social evil such as slavery.
Date
The date of writing is between A.D.61‑63, during the imprisonment after Paul’s appeal to Caesar (Nero; Acts 25) making Philemon one of the “Prison Epistles”: Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians are the others.
Audience
The letter is addressed to many (vv.1‑2), but is written to one (Philemon). For the most part, the letter is private (although as will be seen later, it is read publicly), personal and singular in address (c.f. v.6). Some have raised the question, “Was the letter read before the whole church?” This would be possible and likely for the salutation includes, the church in your house (v.2), and closes with your (plural) spirit (v.25). This author’s personal viewpoint is that it was read before all because Paul’s whole didactical method is psychological and persuasive. If the whole church heard, having confidence in your obedience…I know that you will do even more than what I say, this would give Paul the psychological advantage of godly peer pressure. However, who heard it is not as important as to whom it was directed, its content, and its practical lessons.
Destination
The location of Philemon’s home is thought to be Colossae or Laodicea.
- The Colossian theory is based on Col.4:9 where Onesimus is called one of your number. This seems to point directly to Colossae.
- The Laodicean theory uses Col.4:17 which gives Archippus an indirect message, as if coming from Laodicea (Col.4:15‑17); but in PHILEMON he is directly addressed. The question would then be, “Why was Archippus addressed in the Laodicean salutation (Col.4:15-17) if he is already at Colossae?” [Colossians and Philemon were delivered at the same time ‑ Col.4:7‑9; Phile.12.] The assumption is that he was not at Colossae, but at Laodicea ‑ with Philemon. It is also argued that Colossae, Laodicea and Hierapolis were so close (walking range) as to be considered essentially as one community. This is how Col.4:9 is countered.
Either theory could be correct, and the author does not have a preference; neither is forming a conclusion essential to interpretation.
Table of Contents
The Table of Content is a neglected source of information. Although uninspired, that does not mean there is nothing to be learned. For more information on using the Table of Contents as a sign of “more-than-supervision” (p.61), please see The Strategic Grasp of the Bible, by J. Sidlow Baxter. Because the order that the Old and New Testament books are in today, does not mean they have also been in that same order.
For example, because Martin Luther concluded that the books of James was a “strawy epistle,” in his hand made N.T. (this was prior to being able to buy books easily), he placed James last! In reference to Philemon, “A Canon Of Uncertain Date And Provenance Inserted in Codex Claromontanus,” Philemon is placed after Colossians. That is a logical place due to the destination.
So what can we learn from our Table of Contents? Philemon is placed with the Pauline epistles (Romans through Philemon – Hebrews not included) due to their common authorship. Philemon, though, is not placed behind Colossians, in our Bibles, but rather behind 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus. Why? What does Philemon have in common with them? All four books are written to individuals. J. Sidlow Baxter errs in his reason as to why they are grouped together based upon his common misunderstanding of congregational leadership: “Is it not by an intended relationship that the nine Christian church Epistles are immediately followed by the four Pastoral Epistles, with their counsels to pastors (emphasis J.S.B) of those churches?” (ibid.)
And finally, why might it be placed last among the Pauline epistles? While only conjecture, it might be due to the nature of the book – personal, not doctrinal. Both the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Alexandrinus, Philemon is placed directly after the so-called “Pastoral Epistles.” In the Codex Alexandrinus it is also the next to last book in the list, right before Revelation.
Theme
The main theme is forgiveness. Onesimus, a slave of Philemon, had run away and possibly even absconded with a portion of Philemon’s money (vv.18-19). Paul writes in behalf of Onesimus who had since become a believer. Paul sends Onesimus back and asks that Philemon forgive him. Tenney [NEW TESTAMENT SURVEY, Merril C. Tenney, p.317.] shows that every element of forgiveness is evident:
- The offense (vv.11,18);
- Compassion (v.10);
- Intercession (vv.10,18,19);
- Substitution (vv.18,19);
- Restoration to favor (v.15);
- Elevation to a new relationship (v.16).
The major underlying theme is the relationship of Christianity and slavery.
Slavery And Christianity
What was the position of Onesimus within Roman society?
- “Onesimus represented the least respectable type of the least respectable class in the social state.” [NT. PAUL’S EPISTLES TO THE COLOSSIANS AND TO PHILEMON, J.B. Lightfoot, p.311.]
- Vincent says, “the attitude of the law toward the slave was expressed in the formula…, `the slave has no right’.”[WORD STUDIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, Marvin R.. Vincent, v.III, p.519.]
- The owner had all authority over his human chattel.
- Roman legislature pronounced death on one who killed a plough‑ox, but none for murdering a slave. [ibid.]
- Augustus, after a slave ate his favorite quail, crucified the malefactor on the mast of a ship. [ibid.]
- Cutting out slaves’ tongues, throwing slaves into a pond of voracious lampreys, branding run‑away slaves, and throwing them to the beasts were all practices not unheard of. [ibid.]
After seeing Onesimus’ position as a run-away slave, it is important to emphasize why Paul sent him back to Philemon.
- Believers are to bear fruit in keeping with repentance (Mt.3:8).
- Believers are to be in subjection to the governing authorities (Rom.13:1).
In the Roman and Grecian world, unlike that of the Hebrews, slaves out‑numbered the free citizens. A wealthy man could own 20,000 slaves or even more. [ibid.] One estimate has at least 60 millions slaves in the Roman Empire. Strict laws were a necessity.
Slavery in the Roman Empire was an economic necessity – slaves ran the schools and businesses. “Debtors prison” (Mt.18: 25) contributed to the slave population, as did war. The losers became slaves. Philosophy, a hobby not unheard of in Greece or Rome, was a friend of bondage, giving credence to such an establishment. Aristotle (384‑322 B.C.) taught the law of natural slavery (i.e. some men were born unqualified for freedom). Christianity comes into a world of “natural” inferiority and claims slaves and masters are equal in Christ (Gal.3:28). Some have discredited Paul for not condemning slavery. They fail to see the teaching of the New Testament. In Christ’s religion, worth is not determined by rank; subjection does not equate inferiority.
This definition of worth was contrary to both pagan and Jewish thought. The pagans followed an Aristotelian philosophy and the Jews were religious egotists.
There are at least four basic reasons why the N.T. does not have a specific law forbidding slavery, plus a fifth why, specifically Jesus did not explicitly condemn slavery:
1) In the Bible there is a greater concern for spiritual freedom than physical.
2) An insurrection would have resulted from such a position which is contrary to the Biblical concept of subjection.
3) Christ’s new law is basically principles to be applied by the Christian to particular situations as they mature spiritually.
4) Christianity is not a social movement, although it has been used as such.
5) Jesus would have broken Roman law, and therefore would not have been a sinless sacrifice.
Westernized Christians, today, cannot conceive of owning another person. We are socialized to hold individual freedom above all else. The Law of Christ was meant for all generations under all cultural restrictions and freedoms. Therefore, laws for master/slave relationships were not only given, but necessary and realistic. Think with me: The fundamental principle of human relationships has always been, and will always be, no matter the time or culture, one of rank and position. Christianity equalizes the people ‑ not the positions (1Cor.7:22; Gal.3:28; Col.3:11; Phile.16, 17).
Style Of Philemon
Paul is a mastermind of teaching. He adapted his style to fit his audience. In 2 Corinthians, Paul resorted to sarcasm because of the attitude there:
2 Corinthians 11
1 I wish that you would bear with me in a little foolishness; but indeed
you are bearing with me. [SARCASM]
2 For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to
one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin.
3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your
minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to
Christ.
4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or
you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different
gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully. [SARCASM]
5 For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent
apostles (or, “super apostles”). [SARCASM]
6 But even if I am unskilled in speech, yet I am not so in knowledge; in
fact, in every way we have made this evident to you in all things.
7 Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted,
because I preached the gospel of God to you without charge? [SARCASM]
8 I robbed other churches by taking wages from them to serve you; [SARCASM]
(NAS95)
Metaphors, such as running, were in his first letter to them picturing the Isthmian games (1 Cor.9:26), because he knew such an illustration would be understood readily and appreciated. Even a pagan poet was invoked to bridge Athenian thought to Judaic‑Christian (Acts 17:28) beliefs.
Therefore, the question becomes, what method did Philemon need? Philemon needed something subtle, based upon psychology and love. Often times, to the psyche, its not what you say, but what you don’t say; or, how you say it.
Paul asserted his apostolicity in all but four of his thirteen known epistles. Philippians, Thessalonians and Philemon comprise this small minority. Paul does mention his apostolicity in 1 Thess.2:6, but not in the introduction to this book. Philemon is centered not on authority but on love (v.5). Taken from a psychological viewpoint, an appeal based upon Paul’s imprisonment will touch a tenderer chord than his position of authority. Paul mentions his imprisonment five times (vv.1, 9, 10, 13) in only 25 verses. This number exceeds that of any other epistle, and this is the shortest of all his writings. Paul is searching for the heart of Philemon, not obligatory obedience.
Paul phrases his words very carefully. The result is twofold:
1) Euphemistic language;
2) Word plays.
An example of how he speaks euphemistically is v.15. There he chose the softer sounding parted instead of ran away. Paul also plays off the meaning of the slave’s name in v.20. More examples of each are in the commentary.
Structure of Philemon
The structure is chiastic (a small chiasmos is also found in v.5 – see Extended Notes). The Greeks called this form a chiasmos/chiasmus or chiaston because of its resemblance to a “X.” Chiasmus is that literary form in which ideas that have been presented in order (A, B, C, . . .) correspond to ideas that later occur in reverse order ( . . .C, B, A). In its simplest four member form, this structural device generates a crisscross pattern resembling the Greek letter chi (X), from which the term “chiasmus” is derived (similar to our English letter X). The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the world’s greatest dictionary, defines chiasmus as, “A grammatical figure by which the order of words in one of two of parallel clauses is inverted in the other.”
Some propose there is a little chiasmos in v.6 (see Extended Notes in commentary). It is also proposed that the entire letter is chiastic as shown by Dr. Bullinger’s presentation of the structure. The only deviation found in the epistolary and benediction would be due to the structure of correspondence.
A/ 1-3, Epistolary {a/ 1,2. Names of those with Philemon.
b/3. Benediction.
B/4-7. Prayers of St. Paul for Philemon. Philemon’s hospitality.
C/8. Authority.
D/9,10-. Supplication.
E/-10. Onesimus, a convert of St. Paul’s.
F/11,12-. Wrong done by Onesimus. Amends made by St. Paul.
G/-12. To receive Onesimus the same as receiving Paul.
H/13,14. Paul and Philemon.
I/15. Onesimus.
(This would represent the middle where the two lines of the “X” intersect)
I/16-. Onesimus.
H/-16. Paul and Onesimus.
G/17. To receive Onesimus the same as receiving Paul.
F/18,19-. Wrong done by Onesimus. Amends made by St. Paul.
E/-19. Philemon a convert of St. Paul’s.
D/20. Supplication.
C/21. Authority.
B/22. Philemon’s hospitality. Prayers of Philemon for Paul.
A/23-25. Epistolary. {a/23,24. Names of those with Paul.
b/25. Benediction. [4]
Why would Paul write this short letter in such a grand style? No one knows for sure, but here are a few thoughts:
- For Paul’s sake – Paul was a brilliant man and highly intelligent people often do things somewhat differently for their own interested sake.
- For Philemon’s sake – Knowing that Paul tailored his approach to his audience, it is possible he knew that Philemon would appreciate such a structure due to a possible interest in such things himself.
- For Onesimus’ sake – Such a complicated structure would be beyond the capability of man slaves (although some slaves were highly educated). If Onesimus was indeed less educated, this structure would be beyond him and prove that letter was not forged.
Comments