Tuesday, September 8, 2015

Philemon help?


Philemon help?

Here is (from syllabus) the instructions on the Philemon paper. Read carefully, then read below for extra help. Remember, no research is required, but it may  help:





D


TASK


The summary paper for Biblical Perspectives is to be a 2000-2300 page paper that addresses the meaning of the New Testament book of Philemon. Using the skills developed in the course, develop a paper that combines an understanding of the historical, literary and contemporary worlds.


PURPOSE


The paper is meant to demonstrate the student’s own analysis and ability to work with a biblical text and as such need not to utilize other resources as in a traditional research paper.


FORM
Thesis:           The paper should include a clear thesis statement in the form of “the book of Philemon is about…”
Body:            The body of the paper should demonstrate a recognizable structure that articulates why the thesis is viable. The body of the paper may take the form of a verse by verse analysis, follow the categories of historical/literary/contemporary worlds, or use any thematic analysis that is most useful.
Conclusion:    The conclusion should restate the thesis and the support in summary fashion. The conclusion is also a place for reflection on the implications of Philemon for your life and work. NOTE: 350 words for his section
Symbol:         Throughout this course we have been using one guiding symbol for each night, corresponding to the theme of the evening.  Based on your study of the book of Philemon, develop your own symbol that you feel adequately conveys the message of the book and explain it in a paragraph.
GRADING


Grading is based upon how well the thesis is stated and supported, by the clarity of the structure, by the depth of thought and by the quality of mechanics (spelling, grammar).
Do not use "you"/"your" or conttactions.  If red marks in every pargraph for mechanics, teh paper should flunk.
----------------------------------
Don't forget your symbol/sign..many do.
Here is some help on how to draw a diagram in WORD.

Here's a video on how to do it in Microsoft PAINT.
.


PHILEMON HELP? It would help to start collecting notes for your final paper on Philemon as soon as possible, as in a sense the whole class is preparing you to apply your "Three Worlds" skills to it.  I would start by reading it over (click here to read it a a few different translations) and listening to it a few times (audio below) and then going through the questions in syllabus.



Take a look at the "HOW TO STUDY A TEXT VIA THREE WORLDS" tab on our website, and consider using it as the lens for studying and writing your paper

Come up with a working written definition of what the book seems to be about.  Then you might want to branch out and watch some of the videos and commentaries linked below, remembering that they may not all get it "right," and you will see some things that the "experts" don't.  The commentaries will be helpful in understanding "historical world" background.  Pay careful attention to the instructions on the syllabus.  You do not have to cite any sources, but if you do, be sure you attribute them in your paper.
--



>>>N.T. Wright's  sermon (video excerpt and complete audio  below  or  here or HERE) will be helpful, as are his comments about the letter here, and his study questions on pages 55-57 here). 







--------

Newer video
Here below is his complete Tyndale commentary on Philemon:










 



Here's a "word cloud" representation of word frequency in Philemon.  What do you notice?:

Philemon Word Cloud
Philemon  Word Cloud

(all New Testament word clouds here)



What's Philemon about?:



--
Three readings of the letter:



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





  • If, for your paper, you want to consider chiasm in Philemon, after searching out any such structures yourselves (which you are getting good at!)     consider:





 

 

>>Here is a simple and helpful online commentary on Philemon

>>Here is an excellent one from IVP

>>several advanced online ARTICLES AND COMMENTARIES








The first three pages below are from "The Bible Background Commentary"(very helpful) and the last page is the text and study notes from "The NIV Study Bible."  They both cover some good historical and literary world background, which you may quote in your paper (not required), and which may help you decide the theme of the book.  


 Click a page to enlarge and read.  Once you have a page open, you can click to magnify it.







-------------------
Kurt Willems, an FPU seminary student, has posted a helpful 5 part series on Philemon (text links below, audio here):

  1. Philemon: Forgiveness that Leads to Reconciliation, part one
  2. Philemon: Forgiveness that Leads to Reconciliation, part 2 (Business / Partnership Metaphors
  3. Philemon: Forgiveness that Leads to Reconciliation, part 3 (A Slave, a Master, and Forgiveness)
  4. Philemon: Forgiveness that Leads to Reconciliation, part 4 (Radical Reconciliation)
  5. Philemon: Forgiveness that Leads to Reconciliation, part 5 (New Possibilites!)


James Dennison:


Perhaps we should approach Philemon by first analyzing its structure. You will observe that the first three verses include the names of five persons: Paul, Timothy, Philemon, Apphia, Archippus. You will further observe that the last three verses (vv. 23-25) conclude with the names of five persons: Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke. Now observe also that the pattern of verses 1-3 is five names plus the phrase "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ." This is precisely mirrored in verses 23-25: five names plus the phrase "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ." The greeting or salutation of the epistle ends with the Lord Jesus Christ. The closing or conclusion of the epistle ends with the Lord Jesus Christ. A perfectly balanced inclusio structurally envelops the tender plea of the apostle on behalf of Onesimus. Paul, Timothy, Philemon, Apphia, Archippus—members of the church; Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke—members of the church. Within the church, something new is occurring!  LINK


Alternative views:

a)He might be a slave, but not a runaway.  He simply was asking Paul for help in being an advocate.  This view solves several problems with the traditional view, and this article  is helpful on Paul's style of persuasion/theme of the letter.  by Brian  Dodd: click here




  b)"This is not about a runaway slave at alll.  Paul and Onesimus are literal brothers.":






There are several problems with the interpretation that Onesimus is a runaway fugitive slave.  There are other examples of letters written in the period that Paul was writing that implore slaves to return to their masters and that implore masters to receive their slaves back graciously.  Paul’s letter to Philemon does not follow the same pattern.
In addition, the epistle itself never says that Onesimus is a runaway or a thief, this is simply a presumption.  Finally, the entire argument that Onesimus is a slave is based on verse 15 and 16 where Paul uses the greek word doulos to describe Onesimus.  Certainly the word can be interpreted as slave, however, the word is used many other times in scripture and does not always mean that the one called doulos is a literal slave.  Sometimes doulos refers to a son or a wife, not a slave.  That one word is not a definitive identification of Onesimus.
What if Callahan’s interpretation is correct?  Onesimus not just a Christian, he is actually a blood brother to Philemon.  This interpretation means that the book of Philemon is about reconciliation in families rather than an admonition for the slave to remain obedient and the master to treat the slave fairly.  LINK: Philemon...Slave Master?


..and then we encounter these verses which have caused many varied interpretations.  Verses 15-16.  Callahan translates them as, “For on this account he has left for the moment, so that you might have him back forever, no longer as though he were a slave, but, more than a slave, as a beloved brother very much so to me, but now much more so to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.”[1]
First, there is a grammatical question about how to translate this phrase which many have rendered “no longer as a slave.”  Callahan dissects the greek and he argues that the phrase is more accurately translated, “no longer as though he were a slave.”  Even with Callahan’s translation, the question remains:  Why did Paul choose to use the word slave if Onesimus wasn’t a slave?
The word used is doulos and according to Callahan’s research, it “was a term of both honor and opprobrium in the early Christian lexicon.”[2]
It was thought to be an honor to be called a doulos tou theou or a slave of God.  In fact, Paul calls himself a slave of Christ in several of his letters including Romans, Philippians, and Titus, as do other authors of the epistles of James and 2 Peter.
It is also true that the term slave signified subjugation, powerlessness, and dishonor, one who does not have liberty or agency on one’s own.
Callahan argues that Paul is using the term doulos to capture both dimensions of the human condition and is perhaps even making a connection with the Christ hymn in Philippians 2 where he quotes an ancient hymn that exalts the Christ who humbles himself to be nothing, powerless, and empty of the divine dimension, like a slave to the human condition.
Callahan argues that Paul is simply calling Onesimus a slave in the same way that he describes himself as a slave.  Onesimus is also a doulos tou theou, a slave of God.
If this is the case, then Paul uses language that indicates Onesimus and Philemon are related, in fact that they are brothers in the flesh.  Reconciliation and love between brothers was a special concern for several ancient writers and philosophers.  One Roman philosopher named Plutarch writes of the importance of repairing a breach between brothers, even if it comes through a mutual friend...

-LINK: Philemon...Brother?

NOTE also: metaphorical terminology by Paul re: slavery in Galatians 4:7:
"So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir"... actually a verse quite similar to Philemon 16 (first clause the same, second clause family language)
"no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother."
OR MAYBE THE TWO ARE LITERAL BROTHERS AND ONESIMUS IS A SLAVE

See:

Philemon and Onesimus as (half) bothers AND slave/master



PHILEMON
When looking at "alternative" readings of Philemon, it is amazing how few even deal with the reality that the most obvious way to read  vv 15-16-- "a dearly loved brother, both in the flesh and in the Lord" --as
both a literal and spiritual brother.


Tim Gombis is so right:

My main contention in these posts is that commentators must take Paul’s reference to Philemon and Onesimus as adelphoi en sarki with greater seriousness.  It is highly unlikely that Paul regards the two as sharing in a common humanity.  It is far more likely that they are actual brothers.  This may demand a re-consideration of the scenario that eventuates in Paul’s letter, even though any modification to the consensus view need not be as dramatic as the view advanced by Callahan.  link

Even N.T. Wright, who specializes in Philemon; even making it the key to his new magnum opus on Paul,
acknowledges the "literal brother" interpretation, but does not even consider it or discuss it (in 1700 pages) other than to say:



"one writer [Callahan] has even suggested that Philemon and Onesimus were not master and slave, but actual brothers who have fallen out, but, this too, has not found support."  (p. 8)



Just because Callahan may have gone too far, must we throw interpretations out with bathwater?
Is Wright (surely!) aware that they could be master/slave and literal brothers, as Gombis develops (here) and suggests "this is the most natural reading."   Wright's work is indeed brilliant and seminal, but perhaps Moo has a point about him being too sure of his interpretations...to the degree that, though he is the nicest guy, he can seem dismissive:


I won’t list other instances, but Paul and the Faithfulness of Godcontains too many of these kinds of rhetorically effective but exaggerated or overly generalized claims. A related problem is Wright’s tendency to set himself against the world—and then wonder why the world is so blind as to fail to see what he sees. A key thread, for instance, is Wright’s insistence that the basic story Paul’s working with has to do with God’s fulfillment of his covenant promises to Abraham—a vital focus that “almost all exegetes miss” and that has been “screened out from the official traditions of the church from at least the time of the great creeds” (494). This problem is sometimes compounded by a caricature of the tradition with which he disagrees   Moo, full review

Don't get me wrong, I'm still getting the T-shirt...just saying (:

Another post from Gombis:
Several years ago I was teaching Bible study methods to undergrads and we were doing an exercise with the text of Paul’s letter to Philemon.  A student raised his hand and noted that according to the text it appeared that Onesimus was the brother of Philemon.
This sounded outrageous and obviously wrong, so I asked how he could possibly have arrived at that notion.  He directed my attention to vv. 15-16.  We were looking at the NASB:
For perhaps he was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.
I hadn’t studied this letter all that closely previously, so I assumed that Paul’s indication that they were brothers “both in the flesh and in the Lord” must mean something else.  Other translations make this very assumption:
Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever—no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord (NIV).
Maybe this is the reason that Onesimus was separated from you for a while so that you might have him back forever— 16 no longer as a slave but more than a slave—that is, as a dearly loved brother. He is especially a dearly loved brother to me. How much more can he become a brother to you, personally and spiritually in the Lord (CEB)!
I told him that I’d need to look at that a bit more closely and get back to him at a later point (one of those unfortunate classroom moments when you don’t have a ready answer–ugh!).
As I dipped into commentaries over the subsequent weeks and months, I was increasingly disappointed by how commentators treated Paul’s expression.  The NIV’s and CEB’s renderings represent how nearly every major commentary I’ve looked at handles Paul’s expression...link

I have had similar experiences in college classes.  Often in  a class of fifteen, where most are reading the text for the first time, I ask "How many of you assumed Onesimus was a slave?"  Often, no hands go up.
I need to ask : "How many of you assumed Onesimus was a Philemon's literal brother?"


Interesting that a far more popular (in the sense of "speaking to laypeople" and not in the academic journal world) writer than Wright, assumes the literal brother view, without even acknowledging the "traditional" view (emphases mine):
  Philemon is a marvelous example of the strongest force in the universe to affect control over someone -- grace. It takes up one of the most difficult problems we ever encounter, that of resolving quarrels between family members. We can ignore something a stranger does to hurt us, but it is very hard to forgive a member of our own family or someone close to us.
The key to this little letter is in the 16th verse. Paul says to Philemon that he is sending back Onesimus:
...no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. (Philemon 1:16 RSV)

The background of this story is very interesting. This letter was written when the Apostle Paul was a prisoner in the city of Rome for the first time. It was sent to Philemon, a friend Paul had won to Christ, who lived in Colossae. Evidently Philemon had a young brother whose name was Onesimus, who took Bib 438 at FPU.
Some way or another, we do not know how, Onesimus got into trouble -- maybe he was a gambling man -- and became the slave of his own brother, Philemon. In those days, if a man got into trouble, he could get somebody to redeem him by selling himself to that person as a slave. Perhaps Onesimus got into debt, and went to his brother, Philemon, and said, "Philemon, would you mind going to bat here for me? I'm in trouble and I need some money."
Philemon would say, "Well, Onesimus, what can you give me for security?"
Onesimus would say, "I haven't got a thing but myself, but I'll become your slave if you'll pay off this debt." Now that may or may not have been how it occurred, but the picture we get from this little letter is that Philemon is the brother of Onesimus, and his slave as well.  -Ray Stedman, link
 ---------------------------------


So glad Tim Gombis (fantastic writer)  posted this series on Philemon.  Most folks have never even heard the interpretation that Philemon and Onesimus are literal bothers, even though   "this is the most natural reading"  (Gonbis):

 

--


 c)Allegory:

Philemon, an allegory?

Consider the following passage (Philemon 8-18) with these analogies in mind:

  • Paul (the advocate) : Jesus
  • Onesmus (the guilty slave) : us (sinners)
  • Philemon (the slave owner) : God the Father

Martin Luther:  "Even as Christ did for us with God the Father, thus also St. Paul does for Onesimus with Philemon"
Accordingly, though I (Paul) am bold enough in Christ to command you (Philemon) to do what is required, yet for love's sake I prefer to appeal to you—I, Paul, an old man and now a prisoner also for Christ Jesus— I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I became in my imprisonment. (Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed useful to you and to me.) I am sending him back to you, sending my very heart. I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel, but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own free will. For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother—especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.
So if you consider me your partner, receive him as you would receive me. If he has wronged you at all, or owes you anything, charge that to my account. I, Paul, write this with my own hand: I will repay it—to say nothing of your owing me even your own self.   LINK: Philemon, an allegory?



--

humor in Philemon?
One book on Philemon says:
"Humor is, according to Wilhelm Busch, 'where one laughs, in spite of it,' even in the face of grave situations...The dreadfully serious issue [of Philemon]...Obviously, bitterness is neither the only nor the best way of reacting to grave issues.  Indeed, Philemon has a hard choice to make, but the decision-making process is sweetened as much as possible--by humor."  

click here, and read the short section giving examples  of humor/jokes in Philemon..read pp, 118-119






From Paul Copan:

THE SILENCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY


Though critics claim New Testament writers keep quiet about slavery, we see a subtle opposition to it in various ways. We can confidently say that Paul would have considered antebellum slavery with its slave trade to be an abomination — an utter violation of human dignity and an act of human theft. In Paul’s vice list in 1 Timothy 1:9,10, he expounds on the fifth through the ninth commandments (Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5). There Paul condemns “slave traders” who steal what is not rightfully theirs.4


Critics wonder why Paul or New Testament writers (cp. 1 Peter 2:18–20) did not condemn slavery and tell masters to release their slaves. We need to first separate this question from other considerations. New Testament writers’ position on the negative status of slavery was clear on various points: (a) they repudiated slave trading; (b) they affirmed the full human dignity and equal spiritual status of slaves; (c) they encouraged slaves to acquire their freedom whenever possible (1 Corinthians 7:20–22); (d) their revolutionary Christian affirmations, if taken seriously, would help tear apart the fabric of the institution of slavery, which is what took full effect several centuries later — in the eventual eradication of slavery in Europe; and (e) in Revelation 18:11–13, doomed Babylon (the world of God-opposers) stands condemned because she had treated humans as “cargo,” having trafficked in “slaves [literally ‘bodies’] and human lives” (verse 13, NASB). This repudiation of treating humans as cargo assumes the doctrine of the image of God in all human beings.


Paul, along with Peter, did not call for an uprising to overthrow slavery in Rome. On the one hand, they did not want people to perceive the Christian faith as opposed to social order and harmony. Hence, New Testament writers told Christian slaves to do what is right. Even if they were mistreated, their conscience would be clear (1 Peter 2:18–20). Yes, obligations fell to these slaves without their prior agreement. So the path for early Christians to take was tricky — very much unlike the situation of voluntary servitude in Mosaic Law.

A slave uprising would do the gospel a disservice — and prove a direct threat to an oppressive Roman establishment (e.g., “Masters, release your slaves”; or, “Slaves, throw off your chains.”). Rome would quash flagrant opposition with speedy, lethal force. So Peter’s admonition to unjustly treated slaves implies a suffering endured without retaliation. Suffering in itself is not good; but the right response in the midst of suffering is commendable.

Early Christians undermined slavery indirectly, rejecting many common Greco-Roman assumptions about it (e.g., Aristotle’s) and acknowledging the intrinsic, equal worth of slaves. Since the New Testament leveled all distinctions at the foot of the cross, the Christian faith — being countercultural, revolutionary, and anti-status quo — was particularly attractive to slaves and lower classes. Thus, like yeast, Christlike living can have a gradual leavening effect on society so oppressive institutions such as slavery could finally fall away. This is, in fact, what took place throughout Europe: Slavery fizzled since “Christianized” Europeans clearly saw that owning another human being was contrary to creation and the new creation in Christ.5

President Abraham Lincoln, who despised slavery but approached it shrewdly, took this incremental strategy. Being an exceptional student of human nature, he recognized that political realities and predictable reactions to abolition required an incremental approach. The radical abolitionist route of John Brown and William Lloyd Garrison would (and did) simply create a social backlash against hard-core abolitionists and make emancipation more difficult.6


RETURNING ONESIMUS: A THROWBACK TO HAMMURABI?


Was Paul’s sending Onesimus back to his alleged owner Philemon a moral step backward? Was it more like the oppressive Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, which insisted on returning fugitive slaves to their masters — something prohibited in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 23:15,16)? Some charge that Paul was siding with Hammurabi against the Old Testament.


Reading a New Testament epistle such as Philemon is like listening to only one party in a phone conversation. We only hear Paul’s voice, but plenty of gaps exist that we would like to have filled in. What was Paul’s relation to Philemon (“dear friend and fellow worker” and “partner” Philemon 1,17)? What debt did Philemon owe Paul? How had Onesimus wronged Philemon (if he even did)?7


Many interpreters have taken the liberty to help us fill in the gaps. The typical result? They read too much into the text. The common fugitive-slave hypothesis (that Onesimus was a runaway slave of Philemon’s) is quite late, dating back to the church father John Chrysostom (347–407 A.D.). However, genuine scholarly disagreement exists about this interpretation. For one thing, the epistle contains no “flight” verbs, as though Onesimus had suddenly gone AWOL. And Paul revealed no hint of fear that Philemon would brutally treat a returning Onesimus, as Roman masters typically did when they caught their runaway slaves.


Some have plausibly suggested that Onesimus and Philemon were estranged Christian (perhaps biological) brothers.8 Paul exhorted Philemon not to receive Onesimus as a slave (whose status in Roman society meant alienation and dishonor); rather he was to welcome Onesimus as a beloved brother: “that you might have him back for good —no longer as a slave, butbetter than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord” (Philemon 15,16, emphasis added).

Notice the similar sounding language in Galatians 4:7: “Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God” (NASB, emphasis added). This may shed further light on how to interpret the epistle of Philemon. Paul wanted to help heal the rift so Philemon would receive Onesimus (not a slave) back as a beloved brother in the Lord — not even simply a biological brother. To do so would follow God’s own example in receiving us as sons and daughters rather than slaves.


Even if Onesimus were a slave, this still did not mean he was a fugitive. If a disagreement or misunderstanding had occurred between Onesimus and Philemon, and Onesimus had sought out Paul to intervene or arbitrate the dispute, this would not have rendered Onesimus an official fugitive. And given Paul’s knowledge of Philemon’s character and track record of Christian dedication, the suggestion that Onesimus’s coming back was Hammurabi revisited is off the mark. Again, if Onesimus were a slave in Onesimus’s household, Paul’s strategy was this: Instead of forbidding slavery, impose fellowship.9

In summary, Jesus and New Testament writers opposed oppression, slave trade, and treating humans as cargo. The earliest Christians were a revolutionary, new community united by Christ — a people transcending racial, social, and sexual barriers — which eventually led to a slavery-free Europe a few centuries later.  link
--

can Wright be wrong? Philemon and Onesimus as (half) bothers AND slave/master

When looking at "alternative" readings of Philemon, it is amazing how few even deal with the reality that the most obvious way to read  vv 15-16-- "a dearly loved brother, both in the flesh and in the Lord" --as
both a literal and spiritual brother.


Tim Gombis is so right:

My main contention in these posts is that commentators must take Paul’s reference to Philemon and Onesimus as adelphoi en sarki with greater seriousness.  It is highly unlikely that Paul regards the two as sharing in a common humanity.  It is far more likely that they are actual brothers.  This may demand a re-consideration of the scenario that eventuates in Paul’s letter, even though any modification to the consensus view need not be as dramatic as the view advanced by Callahan.  link

Even N.T. Wright, who specializes in Philemon; even making it the key to his new magnum opus on Paul,
acknowledges the "literal brother" interpretation, but does not even consider it or discuss it (in 1700 pages) other than to say:

"one writer [Callahan] has even suggested that Philemon and Onesimus were not master and slave, but actual brothers who have fallen out, but, this too, has not found support."  (p. 8)



Just because Callahan may have gone too far, must we throw interpretations out with bathwater?
Is Wright (surely!) aware that they could be master/slave and literal brothers, as Gombid develops (here) and suggests "this is the most natural reading."   Wright's work is indeed brilliant and seminal, but perhaps Moo has a point about him being too sure of his interpretations...to the degree that, though he is the nicest guy, he can seem dismissive:

I won’t list other instances, but Paul and the Faithfulness of God contains too many of these kinds of rhetorically effective but exaggerated or overly generalized claims. A related problem is Wright’s tendency to set himself against the world—and then wonder why the world is so blind as to fail to see what he sees. A key thread, for instance, is Wright’s insistence that the basic story Paul’s working with has to do with God’s fulfillment of his covenant promises to Abraham—a vital focus that “almost all exegetes miss” and that has been “screened out from the official traditions of the church from at least the time of the great creeds” (494). This problem is sometimes compounded by a caricature of the tradition with which he disagrees   Moo, full review

Don't get me wrong, I'm still getting the T-shirt...just saying (:

Another post from Gombis:


Several years ago I was teaching Bible study methods to undergrads and we were doing an exercise with the text of Paul’s letter to Philemon.  A student raised his hand and noted that according to the text it appeared that Onesimus was the brother of Philemon.'


This sounded outrageous and obviously wrong, so I asked how he could possibly have arrived at that notion.  He directed my attention to vv. 15-16.  We were looking at the NASB:
For perhaps he was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.
I hadn’t studied this letter all that closely previously, so I assumed that Paul’s indication that they were brothers “both in the flesh and in the Lord” must mean something else.  Other translations make this very assumption:
Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever—no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord (NIV).
Maybe this is the reason that Onesimus was separated from you for a while so that you might have him back forever— 16 no longer as a slave but more than a slave—that is, as a dearly loved brother. He is especially a dearly loved brother to me. How much more can he become a brother to you, personally and spiritually in the Lord (CEB)!
I told him that I’d need to look at that a bit more closely and get back to him at a later point (one of those unfortunate classroom moments when you don’t have a ready answer–ugh!).
As I dipped into commentaries over the subsequent weeks and months, I was increasingly disappointed by how commentators treated Paul’s expression.  The NIV’s and CEB’s renderings represent how nearly every major commentary I’ve looked at handles Paul’s expression...link

I  (Dave )have had similar experiences in college classes.  Often in  a class of fifteen, where most are reading the text for the first time, I ask "How many of you assumed Onesimus was a slave?"  Often, no hands go up.
I need to ask : "How many of you assumed Onesimus was a Philemon's literal brother?"


Interesting that a far more popular (in the sense of "speaking to laypeople" and not in the academic journal world) writer than Wright, assumes the literal brother view, without even acknowledging the "traditional" view (emphases mine):
  Philemon is a marvelous example of the strongest force in the universe to affect control over someone -- grace. It takes up one of the most difficult problems we ever encounter, that of resolving quarrels between family members. We can ignore something a stranger does to hurt us, but it is very hard to forgive a member of our own family or someone close to us.
The key to this little letter is in the 16th verse. Paul says to Philemon that he is sending back Onesimus:
...no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. (Philemon 1:16 RSV)

The background of this story is very interesting. This letter was written when the Apostle Paul was a prisoner in the city of Rome for the first time. It was sent to Philemon, a friend Paul had won to Christ, who lived in Colossae. Evidently Philemon had a young brother whose name was Onesimus.
Some way or another, we do not know how, Onesimus got into trouble -- maybe he was a gambling man -- and became the slave of his own brother, Philemon. In those days, if a man got into trouble, he could get somebody to redeem him by selling himself to that person as a slave. Perhaps Onesimus got into debt, and went to his brother, Philemon, and said, "Philemon, would you mind going to bat here for me? I'm in trouble and I need some money."
Philemon would say, "Well, Onesimus, what can you give me for security?"
Onesimus would say, "I haven't got a thing but myself, but I'll become your slave if you'll pay off this debt." Now that may or may not have been how it occurred, but the picture we get from this little letter is that Philemon is the brother of Onesimus, and his slave as well.  -Ray Stedman, link
--
From FPU HANDBOOK:

A=Superior. The student has demonstrated a quality of work and accomplishment far beyond the formal requirements and shown originality of thought and mastery of material.

B=Above Average.
The student’s achievement exceeds the usual accomplishment, showing a clear
indication of initiative and grasp of subject.

C=Average. The student has met the formal requirements and has demonstrated good comprehension of the subject and reasonable ability to handle ideas.

D=Below Average. The student’s accomplishment leaves much to be desired. Minimum requirements have been met but were inadequate.

---



x
If Paul was in prison, and Onesimus came to him, where do you think he was?
Rome is 1,200 miles away , and would be a grueling journey on foot and by sea ( 1,200 miles on land, plus daring sea voyages which would  themselves take 5-6 days)
Ephesus is about 100 miles away, a common walk in ancient world (3-4 days) .
map

--

Pliny vs. Paul

15JANby 

Pompei House
N.T. Wright launches Paul and the Faithfulness of God in surprising fashion: by examining the NT story of Philemon in its context.
He thinks that Philemon reveals that “something very different, different from the way the rest of the world behaved” was taking place through the early Christians. Wright suggests that this account is not just an example of extraordinary kindness, but rather represents something truly new in the world, something related to the message of Christos that is woven throughout the epistle.
Wright compares Philemon with a letter from a Roman senator named Pliny the Younger. Pliny wrote to a friend named Sabinianus about a freed slave who had angered him and had come to Pliny for help, fearing his former master’s wrath. Pliny, persuaded that the freedman was penitent, gave the refugee a stern lecture and then wrote to Sabinianus on his behalf.
The way Pliny reasoned with his friend reveals the social rules of the day. Pliny is in a power position, Sabinianus in the middle, and the freed slave at the bottom of the social pile. The freed slave needs and seeks out a friend in high places. The senator uses his position and attempts to convince his friend to take the penitent one back. Using a bit of ancient psychology, Pliny assures Sabinianus that he was right to be angry, but reminds him that anger might be counterproductive for his gentle personality. He lets him know that he has scolded and warned the offender and won’t give him another chance if he fails Sabinianus again.
The letter worked, and Sabinianus took the man back. As Wright notes, the freed slave was lucky that he could return and not face serious reprisals. In the end, the social order was restored, and the offender had received a strong enough lesson and warning that he dare not step out of line again. Sabinianus restored him on the basis of his repentance and the promise of better behavior, as well as a measure of self-interest in showing himself properly submissive to a superior.
How does this compare with Paul’s letter to Philemon about a situation regarding one Onesimus?
First of all, Wright notes a striking dissimilarity right at the start: Paul, the author, rather than holding a high position in society like Pliny, is in prison! Yet there is an air of strange authority in his words, as though being a prisoner were a noble calling.
PFGBut the main impression, once we study the two letters side by side, is that they breathe a different air. They are a world apart. Indeed — and this is part of the point of beginning the present book at this somewhat unlikely spot — this letter, the shortest of all Paul’s writings that we possess, gives us a clear sharp little window onto a phenomenon that demands a historical explanation, which in turn, as we shall see, demands a theological explanation. It is stretching the point only a little to suggest that, if we had no other first-century evidence for the movement that came to be called Christianity, this letter ought to make us think: Something is going on here. Something is different. People don’t say this sort of thing. This isn’t how the world works. A new way of life is being attempted — by no means entirely discontinuous with what was there already, but looking at things in a new way, trying out a new path.
– p. 6
House_of_Julia_Felix_still_life_wine_and_fruitN.T. Wright suggests that the story behind this letter is likely that which the majority of commentators have surmised: that Onesimus was a slave of Philemon who had run away. Wright thinks Paul was in prison in Ephesus at this time, which makes the slave’s journey from nearby Colossae to see him entirely plausible. There had been some sort of trouble between Onesimus and his master and he came to Paul to appeal for help in the situation.
Paul’s answer takes a much different tack than Pliny the Younger’s did in similar circumstances. Pliny’s counsel was, “The offender has said he’s sorry and you should take him back and give him another chance.” The senator’s intervention in this dispute did nothing to challenge the social conventions, rules, and roles of the day. It simply restored things to the status quo and kept all accepted identities and distinctions in place.
Wright discusses various parts of the letter and shows how Paul likely had certain Exodus themes in his mind as he appealed to Philemon, and how he uses different evocative terms of Christian fellowship to describe his relationships with both Philemon and Onesimus. But the nature of Paul’s appeal is most specifically highlighted in two important passages from the epistle that Wright analyzes.
  • Paul’s prayer in v. 6 — Wright renders it: “that the partnership which goes with your faith may have its powerful effect, in realizing every good thing that is [at work] in us [to lead us] into the Messiah.” In particular, he wants us to see the final phrase: “into the Messiah.” Paul is praying that the dynamic gift of fellowship (koinonia) which accompanies Philemon’s faith will have the powerful effect of “bringing about Christos, Messiah-family, in Colossae.” As in Ephesians 4, where Paul envisions the church “growing up into Messiah,” so here he longs for the church in Colossae to know the full unity of life together in Christ.
  • Paul’s request in v. 17 — “So, if you count me as your partner, receive him as you would me.” Philemon is not just to welcome Onesimus back as a penitent slave. He is to welcome him on the same level as if it were Paul himself! Furthermore, Paul offers to pay any damages the slave may have incurred: “If he has wronged you or owes you anything, put it down on my account.” Far from acting as a superior ordering an inferior to do something, Paul is willing to become personally, actively, even sacrificially involved to promote reconciliation.
N.T. Wright summarizes:
Here, too, is the most outstanding contrast between Pliny’s worldview and Paul’s. Paul is not only urging and requesting but actually embodying what he elsewhere calls “the ministry of reconciliation.” God was in the Messiah, reconciling the world to himself, he says in 2 Corinthians 5:19; now, we dare to say, God was in Paul reconciling Onesimus and Philemon.
…The major difference between Pliny and Paul is that the heart of Paul’s argument is both a gently implicit Jewish story, the story of the exodus which we know from elsewhere to have been central in his thinking, and, still more importantly, the story of the Messiah who came to reconcile humans and God, Jews and gentiles and now slaves and masters. Paul’s worldview, and his theology, have been rethought around this centre. Hence the world of difference.
Pliny was concerned about resolving a problem in a way that maintained social order. Said social order was based on social distinctions and rules of propriety, as well as the rewards and punishments that kept it intact. Second chances were allowed up to a point; kindness and mercy had room to operate within limits. In the end, Pliny remained on top, Sabinianus was beholden to him, and the freedman was on the bottom of the pile.
Paul was concerned about two entirely different matters: reconciliation and unity in the Messiah. Paul was in prison because he advanced this agenda. From there he continued to promote these concerns to people like Philemon, by not only writing about them but also by offering to be the very bridge by which two parties at odds could become one again.
For Paul it was all about Jesus the Messiah, and this is what Jesus was all about. LINK
--------------------------------------------------- Re: video below:' 

Pro:
' 1)Only letter of Paul not mentioning death of Jesus.. Why?
 2)"extremely personal and never private"
 3)Balance: we don't know what O did wrong or where Paul is in prison '

Con 
1)Assumes he is slave and ran away..does it say that?
 2)Assumes he is to be released from slavery..great idea, but evidence? 

--
Christopher Scott was a student of mine who went to seminary, and his written on Philemon.
I've had him share in class.  Here's a pic of me congratulating him as he was graduating FPU

See this for some of his Philemon articles on Philemon and leadership.

Warning: this class may lead to a lifelong love for Philemon,









--Student Katie Carson did a mind map of Philemon.,  Try it.  Help here

----
Who was Apphia?
This link suggests it was not Philemon's wife

APPHIA OF COLOSSAE: PHILEMON’S WIFE OR ANOTHER PHOEBE?

see also:

APPHIA

Scripture Reference—Philemon 1:2
Name Meaning—That which is fruitful
This believer, belonging to Colossae, the ancient Phrygian city now a part of Turkey, is spoken of as our “dearly beloved” and “our sister” (rv, margin). It is likely that she lived out the significance of her name by being a fruitful branch of the Vine. Apphia is believed to have been the wife of Philemon and either the mother or sister of Archippus who was evidently a close member of the family. She must have been closely associated with Philemon, otherwise she would not have been mentioned in connection with a domestic matter (Philemon 1:2). Tradition has it that Philemon, Apphia, Archippus and Onesimus were stoned to death during the reign of Nero. It was Onesimus who went to Colossae with a message for the Philemon household.
© 1988 Zondervan. All Rights Reserved

--

Click for 
 a  helpful post:

 chapter in

Onesimus Our Brother: Reading Religion, Race, and Culture in Philemon. Click:


"No Longer as a Slave”L Reading the Interpretation Histor yof Paul’s Epistle to PhilemonDemetrius K. William
 by "illegally" welcoming Onesimus:

 "...we find that Paul offered a biting critique of power and a creative path of revolutionary love. We might remember Paul urging his friend Philemon to illegally welcome back home a fugitive slave, Onesimus, as a brother, instead of killing him for running away. This is a scandalous subversion of Roman hierarchy. Paul was just as radical as Jesus. Remember that the Paul who "be subject to the authorities" is the same Paul who was stoned, exiled, jailed, and beaten for subverting the authorities... Is it possible to submit and to subvert? Paul's life gives a clear yes, as does Jesus' crucifixion" (Jesus For President, 161).


Paul's letter to Philemon was written to urge a former slave owner to illegally welcome back a fugitive slave (Onesimus)—a crime punishable by death—not as a slave but as a brother-Follow Me to Freedom, p. 134 (hear Ken and I interview Shane about this book here)
-------

THESES ON PHILEMON: REDUCTION OF SEDUCTION

-Dave Wainscott
                     "They carried the word ‘brotherhood’ always in the mouth, while they founded terror regimes."
                                                                          - Hannah Arendt, Uber die Revolution, pp. 21; 318
PHILEMON REVISITED, PART ONE
THESES ON PHILEMON: REDUCTION OF SEDUCTION
“My theme is seduction, resistance, and the cultural consequences of both.”
That provocative opening line (p.1) of Henry Abelove’s monograph on John Wesley, The Evangelist of Desire, has always elicited from me a smile, as well as a healthy respect for its accurate prediction of the flow of his paper.
In a sense, Abelove’s salvo serves just as fittingly for the thematic intent of this current article, and in turn for the topic of the article itself: the biblical book of Philemon.
My working assumption is that Paul’s quietly subversive letter to Philemon--partly because its “theme is seduction, resistance, and the cultural consequences of both” --may well be the interpretive key and even  kerygma-in-microcosm  of the entire Pauline corpus, theology and worldview.
I do not view this claim as hyperbolic  hubris; though I certainly concede that it is quite a supposition for a book that  for most Christians is barely acknowledged and rarely read; and per many scholars is not  sufficiently lengthy, meaty, or  “theological’ (!)  to merit such a distinguished and distinctive role in the canon.
 If churchgoers have heard anything about this shortest letter of the New Testament, it is likely the “radio orthodoxy” (Brian McLaren’s delightful phrase) view that it is “about” Philemon’s runaway slave, and Paul’s encouragement that Philemon forgive said slave.
That party line may be partly right…and in the end, largely wrong. 


If congregants have seriously studied the text beyond downloaded sermons and popular literature, they may have even run into Callahan’s alternative view (Callahan, 1997) that Philemon’s supposed slave Onesimus was not a slave at all, but literal brother to Philemon.
That take may be half-right; perhaps even dead wrong.

Philemon:  Key and Keynote
Though it sounds counterintuitive to proffer that this tiny epistle holds the veritable key to all of Paul (among the more “obvious” candidates are the majestic narrative of Romans or the comprehensive compendium that is Ephesians), I am at least in good company:  F.F. Bruce (1983), Marcus Bath (2000), and N.T. Wright (2013), to varying degrees and from differing angles, unashamedly assert the same.

Philemon : A Tale of Two Brothers
Though it may appear contrarian and contrary to accepted logic to offer that this letter is actually about a call for two brothers-by-blood to reconcile,   there is no more obvious way to read verse 17 with grammatical and contextual integrity.  Some (Callahan et al) are convinced that in Philemon, the slavery is metaphorical (not the brotherhood, as almost universally assumed), and the brotherhood is literal (not the slavery, as usually assumed).  A surprisingly compelling case for this interpretation can be made; but more likely is the scenario that Philemon and Onesimus are both master/slave and brother/brother. Exegetes as astute as F.F .Bruce (not convinced) and Timothy Gombis (convinced) have weighed in here.

Philemon: Call to Manumission
Though it may feel a stretch for the historical milieu for Paul to be advocating release from slavery (manumission) for Onesimus, I make the case that Paul was prescient and prophetic enough to do just that…albeit between the lines… yet in a way clear and clamant for Philemon to decode and decide upon.

“Forgiveness, Radford Reuther suggests (in Pinnock, p, 205) “is not simply a transaction between God and the individual soul that has come to recognize its sinfulness. Politically interpreted, forgiveness means concrete acts of repentance expressed through social struggle to overcome oppression and to create a more just world.” 

As for the “seduction, resistance, cultural consequences of both”?
Paul’s cruciform-shaped approach to leadership, status and power issues necessitates that any correspondence by him inevitably both incarnates (especially in a delightfully intentional choice of literary style  and rhetorical genre) and advocates (via a surprisingly subtle-sneaky  narrative arc) a radically Christocentric and stubbornly kenotic refusal to submit to the seduction of seeing a brother or sister in Christ (let alone sister or brother “in the flesh”) as “the other” or  in any way less important than self.    The cultural consequences--not just for ecclesiology, but for sociological issues such as slavery—are thus significant and sweeping.  “History,” as Walter Wink would have it, “belongs to the intercessors.” 

Bottom line, then?  What is Philemon “about”?
 Paul is writing to Philemon, about Philemon’s fugitive slave Onesimus, who is also  Philemon’s half brother;  he is arguing for unconditional restoration of Onesimus , which includes the “even more than I ask”  release from slavery.  This is all embedded with profound implications for subversion of empire and dismantling of ecclesiological hierarchy. 
In this series of articles, we shall eventually weave all these theses into a tapestry and “contexture” with we believe is faithful to an informed hermeneutic.  We begin with the initially confounding issue of Paul’s literary approach.


-----------------------------------------
THE LITERARY APPROACH OF PAUL:  Humor, Holy Fool, Prosopeion, and ‘Paradigmatic I”
“I could command you, but I appeal to you out of love”? 
“Any decision you make will be spontaneous and not forced”? 
“Oh, by the way, you owe me your would” 
Paul’s language and literary approach have been much maligned, yet little understood.  He has been read as being (at best) disingenuous and passive-aggressive, or (at worst) sycophantic and manipulative to a degree that borders on messianic complex.   I believe a third way unpacks the dilemma and makes salient sense of the intuitive embarrassment and discomfort we feel overhearing Paul’s appeal.   In a word: humor.   In several words: a mosaic (and not at all prosaic) humor based loosely (?) on the “holy fool”  tradition and rhetorical device of prosopeion; a holy humor laced liberally with a playful but profound twist of (almost) irony and mimetic self-reference.   All of this is of course at great risk, and presupposes a deep, abiding and adamantine trust between sender and recipient.
Is Paul being authoritarian to a fault, all the while claiming the opposite?   No, St. Paul is smarter…and not smarmier… than that.  He is more humble than he has been given credit for; and decidedly not proud of his own humility.  Per McLuhan, his medium masterfully matches—even equals and incarnates—his message.
On humor in Philemon, consider Marcus Barth:
In contrast to the doctrinal style of Romans;  the irony and sarcasm found in Galatians; to the apologetic, wailing, and aggressive passages of Second Corinthians; and to other idiosyncrasies of other letters, in Philemon the use of contrasts is a sign and means of underlying good humor. Humor is, according to Wilhelm Busch, where one laughs, “in spite of it," even in the face of grave situations.
 The mighty apostle of the omnipotent Lord Christ is a prisoner in Roman hands (w. 1, 9-10) and chooses the role of a beggar before Philemon (vv. 8-9). The child Onesimus was created by a father in chains (v. 10), who was, according to some versions of verse 9, an old man! A pun is made on the name Onesimus ("Useful") in verse 11. God's purpose in permitting separation was to establish eternal union (v. 15). Paul and Philemon are business partners, and Onesimus can substitute for Paul by being the third man in the association (v.17) Philemon is much deeper in debt to Paul than the apostle eventually is to the slave  owner (vv 18-19). Paul hopes confidentially that he will benefit from Philemon — not only materially but by finding rest for his troubled heart (v 20)..... Overflowing obedience is the sum of complete voluntariness (v. 21.) A man whose chances for quick release from prison were less than certain invites himself to a private home for the near future (v. 22).  All or at least a part of these elements can be considered, or are, humorous.
It is not certain whether Paul intended this impression, and whether Philemon was capable and willing to appreciate jokes pertaining to his relationship to Onesimus and to Paul. But together with other earliest hearers and readers of PHM, modern readers are by no means prevented from responding with a smile or a chuckle. The dreadfully serious issue of the slave Onesimus's future is treated  lightly — a fact that reminds of the role of slaves in Greek and Latin comedies. Obviously bitterness is neither the only nor the best way of reacting to grave issues. Indeed, Philemon has a hard choice to make, but the decision-making process is sweetened as much as possible — by humor. (Barth and Blanke, 2000, pp. 118-19)



Paul is acting (literally) oddly, but not obsequiously.  He is flirting with a not-quite full-blown  prosopeion, a technique which is definitely in his repertoire and arsenal (see especially Romans 7); it is deployed here even more covertly than the infamous “I know a man..” of 2 Corinthians 13.
His persuasive approach seems   inspired in part by the prophetic tradition’s use of “holy fool, “which Paul directly affirms in   1 Corinthians 4:10.  Later Christian history finds Eastern Orthodoxy creatively adopting this approach, in  yurodivy , "which is caused neither by mistake nor by feeble-mindedness, but is deliberate, irritating, even provocative.” (Ivanov, 2006, p. 211)  St. Francis was clearly another practitioner, as are Malamattiya Sufis.    I make the case that in postmodern pop culture, persons (and personas) such a Stephen Colbert (“Is he a conservative playing a liberal playing a conservative?)” and U2’s Bono (as Screwtape/MacPhisto) have taken up this torch in ways that are in fact helpful in confirming Paul’s modus in Philemon.  These may be all too easily be discounted as leitmotif-lite, but the remarkable theological sentience and skill of both Colbert and Bono betray a wise and profoundly Christian (hence Pauline) mechanism of adapting “holy foolishness.” 




Brian J. Dodd, at length:
Paul uses large blocks of material containing self-portrayal to ground or add weight to his argument (e.g. 1 Corinthians 9; Gal. 1-2; Phil 3)…Occasionally, Paul’s self-portrayal verges on self-praise, creating a social need to employ accepted literary techniques to mitigate the odium and offence of his self-discussion…While Paul often portrays himself as a technique of argumentation, it is striking that he nowhere transgresses the stigma against self-praise except where he also offsets its offence…
 Against the backdrop of Philemon’s watching community, Paul develops a distinction between commanding and appealing, a feature that is not distinctive to Philemon.  He exploits his right ‘in Christ’ to command (8) only in order to contrast it with his loving appeal (9-10), while crediting Philemon with the sense to  do what is good and right  (14) .

How then do we understand the ambivalence of Paul’s request, since he repeatedly appeals to Philemon’s volition so he may freely choose the right thing (8-9, 14, 17, 20), all the while allowing the undercurrent of his authority to flow freely (21-22)?  The answer may lie in his implied paradigmatic strategy in the letter.  That is, Paul’s ambivalence itself may exemplify the attitude he wants Philemon to adopt in his reshaped relationship with his slave: as Paul refuses to assert the authority he clearly possesses, Philemon is coached in the responsibilities of his newly reformed relationship with Onesimus.  Paul wants to gain Philemon’s consent so that he will freely do what is good, not by compulsion (v.14). By this example, the seed is sown for a new phase of the master’s relationship with his slave. Paul does not compel Philemon to act, thus patterning for him a new style of interaction with his slave-become-brother Onesimus…

...In Philemon, Paul exhibits self-restraint of his authority by explicitly refusing to command as he appeals to Philemon to forgo freely his grievance with Onesimus.  This display of Paul’s self-limitation of his authority is combined with an example of love and generosity to demonstrate paradigmatically the manner in which Philemon is to treat his slave-who-has-become-a-brother.  Though Philemon has the legal right to be harsh with Onesimus, Paul asks Philemon to grant Onesimus the same loving and generous treatment that he would extend to this elder missionary….Paul’s status as an elder and as Christ’s metaphorical prisoner affirms Paul’s authority in the community in the strongest terms, and his repeated emphasis on his imprisonment creates an emotional receptivity to his appeal as a captatio benevolentiae.  Whether or not Philemon would have or should have taken the letter as a suggestion he manumit Onesimus cannot be ascertained, but it may be implies by v. 21: ‘I am confident of your obedience to the things I write, knowing that you will do more than the things I  have asked.’

Thus, by the time of Philemon Paul’s rhetorical use of self-portrayal has blossomed into a full and intricate flower, and the paradigmatic aspects are difficult to extract from their intrinsic relationship with the other aspects of his nuanced epistolary persuasion.  Philemon is the apex of a literary style that is already evident on Paul’s earliest letter.  (Dodd,
 --


Partial Bibliography
Abelove, Henry.   The Evangelist of Desire: John Wesley and the Methodists.  Palo Alto: Stanford, 1992.
Barth, Markus and Blanke, Helmut.  The Letter to Philemon (Eerdmans Critical Commentary).  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Bruce, F.F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (New International Commentary on the New Testament).  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Callahan, Allen Dwight. Embassy of Onesimus: The Letter of Paul to Philemon (Nt in Context Commentaries) .  Bloomsbury: T and T Clark, 1997

Dodd , Brian J.  Paul's Paradigmatic "I": Personal Example as Literary Strategy (Library of New Testament Studies)   Sheffield: Sheffield Acadmic Press, 1999.

Pinnock, Sarah K., ed. The Theology of Dorothee Soelle.  Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 2003.




--

Philemon doing more than Paul asks = ?

Ben Witheringtom on NT Wright's take on Philemon:
When I say that Tom is a global thinker, I also am referring to the fact that he wants to take a holistic approach when it comes to Pauline ethics as well as Pauline theology. The two need to be discussed together, indeed the two belong together and are co-entailed. In one sense ethics involves the living out of one’s theology, living out what God is working in the community to live and to do. Belief and behavior are two sides of one coin, in one sense. Or as Tom puts it in regard to Philemon, the reason it is necessary for Philemon to do what Paul is urging him to do is because of who Christ is— a God who is reconciling the world to himself, and wants reconciliation to be the signature of the relationships within his community.
Tom’s account of Philemon stresses that the main point of the letter is to get Onesimus and Philemon reconciled, back sharing koinonia, as it were. He takes it as possible secondary implications that: 1) Paul wants Philemon to manumit his slave, and 2) to perhaps send him back to Paul to work with him.
I actually think this does not go far enough. When Paul says quite literally in vs. 16 that Philemon should receive Onesimus back “no longer (ouketi) as a slave but above and beyond (hyper) the slave category as a beloved brother in Christ, especially so to me, and how much more to you even in the flesh and also in the Lord” he is indeed making an emancipation proclamation that comports with the implications of Gal. 3.28. In Christ there should be no slave or free (see the work of Scott Bartchy, especially his article published on this blog months ago).
While I agree with Tom that Paul is not like a modern Fredrick Douglas nor is he an ancient capitulator to the existing slave system. He is instituting reform within the context of the Christian community, not in society in general. And in this case the reform involves a fundamental principle– if one is a brother in Christ he should be treated as a person, and no longer as a piece of property, a slave. And Paul is insistent on this matter, speaking of Philemon’s obedience and threatening a coming visit. I take the ‘you will do even more’ to mean even more than manumit, namely sending him off to work with Paul.
What I especially find strange in the sublimating of Paul’s spinning out the social implications of reconciliation is that Tom is one of the big proponents of Paul’s anti-imperial rhetoric. Jesus is Lord and Caesar is not. Christ is the reality of which Caesar is the parody, and so on. But it is precisely that imperial ideology that had led to the enslaving of a huge portion of the population of the Roman Empire. Most slaves became slaves as fortunes, or better said misfortunes, of war.
Paul surely knows this, and since Paul was a global thinker he surely would have realized that opposing imperial ideology involves opposing the enslaving of much of the world. If Caesar is not the Christian’s lord, then Christians do not have to obey the dictates of Caesar when it comes to the slave trade. Paul is working for change within the context of the Christian community, not in society at large, but he is working at it, as Philemon shows, and as C.F. D. Moule was to say, Philemon provided the ammunition in early Christianity for a strong opposition to the contradiction in terms implied in having a Christian slave. Moule in fact suggests Paul provides here the depth charge which would eventually blow up the institution of slavery.
It is important however to end this post on a positive note, as there is so much to learn from Tom’s excellent reflections in his first major chapter (74 pages long). It is useful to remind ourselves of Tom’s helpful reiteration of his approach to texts and realia both ancient and modern– namely critical realism. Here is what he says it is, “a self-critical epistemology which in rejecting naive realism which simply imagines we are looking at the material with a God’s-eye view, rejects also the narcissistic reductionism of imagining that all apparent perception is in fact projection, that everything is really going on inside our own heads. Critical realism engages determinedly in a many-sided conversation, both with the data itself and with others (including scholars) who are also engaging with it. The conversation aims not at unatttainable objectivity, but at truth nonetheless, the truth in which the words we use and the stories we tell increasingly approximate to the reality of another world, in the historian’s case, the world of the past.” (p. 51)  link
----

Paul Louis Metzger on Philemon

Paul Louis Metzger:
....Given Paul’s and Philemon’s partnership, Paul requests that Philemon receive Onesimus as he would receive Paul (vs. 17). To receive him as an equal would entail receiving him as a free man. The idea that tends to float about in Evangelical circles that internal transformation does not involve a transformation of social status is seriously mistaken (it is as mistaken as the idea that the transformation in our spirits that leads to a transformation of social status arises from our own capacities and proclivities*). Paul appeals to Philemon to welcome Onesimus back on equal terms in the Lord and in the flesh. Onesimus is to be welcomed back like he would Paul, his partner in the faith (vs. 17). This follows from what Paul wrote one verse earlier: “no longer as a bondservant but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother—especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord” (vs. 16)..
..This reminds me of a statement that Dr. John M. Perkins once made. He said, “I have a debt of gratitude to pay to the Lord” based on God’s loving grace at work in his life. I, too, have a debt of gratitude to pay in view of God’s loving grace at work in my own life, just as Paul and Philemon and Onesimus did. This same Onesimus who had been useless, once saved, becomes useful; no doubt, like Paul the “Apostle of the heart set free,”** he too is freed from the heart and now serves willingly, freely out of a spirit of gratitude. Just as Onesimus serves Paul freely, Paul asks Philemon to give Onesimus his freedom. The give and take of mutual benefit that is communion (koinonia) stems from gratitude which flows from God’s loving grace at work in their lives in relation to one another.When God’s gracious love takes over, gratitude kicks in and gets one going. An ethic of gratitude that flows from God’s gracious love is not cheap, but very costly. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer writes, “Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, communion without confession…. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.” (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship, {Touchstone, 1995}, p. 44).  link
--

Philemon, Reconciliation and Slavery

From David at c512:


Runaway Slaves in the Greco Roman World In Relation to Paul’s Epistle to Philemon: Part 4


  • Posted by David in Uncategorized. Tagged: , , , . 
    Runaway Slaves Reasons for Flight There are three broad ways to categorize reasons a slave might have had for running away. A slave might run away to escape a dangerous or harmful situation, i.e. a slave might run away because he or she was being treated unfairly or was being beaten. Second, a slave might […]
    25FEB

Runaway Slaves in the Greco Roman World In Relation to Paul’s Epistle to Philemon: Part 2

--

 --

Philemon: key to "all of Paul"? apocalyptic? full of humor? -seeking comments on #3

Pictured here:  me...and  an amazing cohort of mine, the famous LA 68 gang of girls (missing Najwah)..who all wrote a paper on Philemon for me...because I predestined them to do it of their own free will
-------------------------------------
In one course we teach at FPU, the students have to write a paper on Philemon...
                  a  biblical book many of have never heard of, let alone read.

I sometimes ask if anyone's ever heard a sermon on Philemon.
I think I've had one taker.

Once they find out it's basically a one-page book, the questions are inevitably:


  • a 4-6 page paper on a  1 page book??  How can we do that?
But they soon discover that if one really wrestles with this book  it's hard to stop!

But first, I have to tease them by showing them this book from my collection:

Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke's "The Letter to Philemon" in the  Eerdmans Critical Commentary series.

It's basically a 559-page paper on a 1-page book of the Bible!(:


Here's a few thoughts from this (flawed) gem of a (big) book:

1)KEY TO PAUL?
They summarize  Norman Peterson's take (though they surely consider it exaggerated) that Philemon
'can be considered the key to the whole of Paul's theology'. (p. 214)

2)TEMPLE TANTRUM /APOCALYPTIC?
Also under the discussion of Peterson, a good discussion of (also under the section on) Peterson, "the church is the place where already at the present time a beginning is made of the replacement of divisions, enmities and all forms of oppression by a new order of communal life." (214)  Elsewhere they note that many traditions (some Reformed etc) have refused to believe the church should ever do anything about slavery/inequality because the task in this current age is supposedly  evangelism and not social justice.


3)HUMOR?
In a nice section (115-119) on rhetorical devices, they offer this:
"Humor is, according to Wilhelm Busch, 'where one laughs, in spite of it,' even in the face of grave situations...The dreadfully serious issue [of Philemon]...Obviously, bitterness is neither the only nor the best way of reacting to grave issues.  Indeed, Philemon has a hard choice to make, but the decision-making process is sweetened as much as possible--by humor."  (118-19)

I'll leave you guessing/discerning where the "jokes" are in this heavy short letter..
besides ...

I don't want to help any of my students write their paper (:

BUT if you are student of mine...or any reader around here..post in the comments section below (post as "anonymous" if you don't have one of the designated accounts) any holy humor you find in Philemon..






=============================
If Paul was in prison, and Onesimus came to him, where do you think he was?
Rome is 1,200 miles away , and would be a grueling journey on foot and by sea ( 1,200 miles on land, plus daring sea voyages which would  themselves take 5-6 days)
Ephesus is about 100 miles away, a common walk in ancient world (3-4 days) .
 
map




Posted by at  

No comments:

Post a Comment

-----------------------------

 MECHANICS
Sample signature paper excerpt.  Any mistakes?

Not since Moses’s day had there been a leader like Paul.  In a sense, Paul was the most important leader mentioned in the bible.  Not only was he an Apostle, but the most prominent  and clear headed one ever mentioned by God in his Word.   Maybe the most prominent character in Christianity’s history.  Due to his special calling, his ability to face prosecution and abuse, his status as an Elder and his great Faith, he ranks highly, even though he is not one of the original 12 Disciples, and wasn’t even mentioned in the Biblical texts that discuss Jesus’s earthly days.
In a way, you could compare him to today’s Pope, or the President of the United States—or more appropriately, the Senior Pastor of a large church or the Bishop of a denomination.  Think of him like a modern Saint, a person that has great Spiritual courage and skill.  A person that  loves God and His ways.  Which makes him all the more remarkeable in the way he treated Onesimus’s owner, Philemon.  Philemon was a humble man, that had a Church in his house, and that owned Philemon as a slave.    In its own unique way, the paradox of Paul the great leader being kind and compassionate to people of lower Economic status like Onesimus (a lowly Slave) shows that he was also a great sheperd not one who would Lord it over people.  He had no allusions of being the King.
Let's examine in detail the world of Paul, Philemon and Onesimus--the 3 key players in a story with abundent  lessons for our day.  In a funny verse, the Bible says "a dog returns to it's own vomit."     Thinking about an animal being attracted to there own vomit is a strong image and thought provoking. This remind's me of  the religous leaders Jesus confronted in the Temple.  One Sunday, my Pastor preached on this.  Matthew 11:15, " Jesus said, "My house shall be a House of prayer, but you have made it a den of robbers."  When people think they're more imporatnt then others based on Religion or Race,  the affect is  divine anger.  I have thought alot about why Followers of God would ever think they are holier then other people.   Or how they could justify hating a person that was innocent or poorer then them.  It's a mystery to me, and a headscratching one at that.   I sometimes literally loose my mind over things like these.

Think about someone that dessecrated the Alter of a Church, or think's it's alright to have a prejudist attitude.  What an extordinary embarassment for priviledged people to act that way; witholding grace from a person that is in need.  Our professor talked about this one day when we did a practise for this signature assignment.
"Thirteen commandments" common errors in signature paper:

 
This sample is presented  primarily for mechanics/typos to give an example of a paper that might;ve been an A, but would flunk due to mechanics/errors alone.  Review the syllabus and rubric carefully .  Paper is here 
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)