A Companion to Philemon

Lewis Brogdon

• Publisher: Cascade Books
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781498290999, 9781498291019
• eBook ISBN: 9781498291002
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Commentary

When is the last time you heard a sermon, Bible study, or even read the Letter to Philemon? For some the answer is "recently" but for too many the answer is "it has been a long time" or worse yet "never." Why is it that Philemon, though included in the Christian canon, is not read and studied as a text with theological depth that is helpful for serious study and preaching? In A Companion to Philemon, Lewis Brogdon insists that a part of the reason is the interpretation that Paul is sending a thieving runaway slave back to his good master. This interpretation is not only problematic, it is also theologically limiting and offers the church very little to reflect on as we face mammoth issues of inclusion and fellowship such as racism, sexism, and classism. A Companion to Philemon challenges the church to reimagine the interpretation of Philemon by focusing on the role exclusion had in the events that led to his departure from Philemon. Using the issue of exclusion, Brogdon takes the interpretation of Philemon in new directions that not only invite the church to read Philemon but also challenge us to examine both our understanding and practice of Christian fellowship today.

Chapter 1

Challenging the Slave Flight Interpretation of Philemon

An important first step in offering a new interpretation of this New Testament text is to examine the dominant and prevailing interpretation and attempt to illumine its limitations and problems. It is only after this that one can see the need to reimagine this letter’s message. The slave flight interpretation is the dominant theory of the letter’s historical occasion and has been utilized by prominent figures in the Christian tradition, such as John Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrosiaster, Theodore of Mopsuesta, and Thomas Aquinas. Reformation figures, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, also held to the slave flight hypothesis. This interpretation has dominated the church since the fourth century. Most New Testament introductions, as well as English, French, German, and even African commentaries, use the slave flight hypothesis as the basis of their interpretations.

The slave flight hypothesis is an interpretation of the letter to Philemon arguing the following: Philemon was a Christian leader and likely an owner of slaves and one of his slaves was named Onesimus. Onesimus was not a good slave. Scholars suggest that he was a useless and unprofitable slave (v. 11) who wronged Philemon, most likely by robbing his master (v. 18) and fleeing his house (v. 15a). Afterwards, Onesimus found his way to Paul who was in prison in Rome, became a Christian (v. 10), and proved to be very useful to Paul (vv. 11–12), who sent the slave back to his master. In the letter, Paul requests that Philemon forgive Onesimus instead of punishing him and accept him as a brother in the Lord now that he was a believer (v. 16). He even promises to repay Philemon for whatever Onesimus took from Philemon (v. 18), and he was confident that Philemon would heed Paul’s request (vv. 16, 21). He promised to visit the church after his release and follow up on the matter (v. 22).

There are many scholars who believe this story line makes the most sense, mainly because it fits the common narrative of runaway slaves seeking freedom. Scholars such as John G. Nordling argue that there is evidence in the ancient world of “uniform pattern of runaway slave behavior, which Onesimus may well have adopted before he met Paul and departed from his former manner of life.”1 Nordling and many other scholars often refer to a letter from Pliny the Younger to Sabinianus. In this letter, Pliny tried to reconcile a runaway slave with his master.

Your freedman, whom you had mentioned as having displeased you, has come to me; he threw himself at my feet and clung to them as he could have to yours. He cried much, begged constantly, even with much silence; in short, he has convinced me that he repents of what he did. I truly believe that he is reformed, because he recognizes that he has been delinquent. You are angry, I know, and rightly so, as I also recognize; but clemency wins the highest praise when the reason for anger is most righteous. You once had affection for (this) human being, and, I hope, you will have it again. Meanwhile it suffices that you let me prevail upon you. Should he again incur your displeasure, you will have so much more reason to be angry, as you give in now. Allow somewhat for his youth, for his tears, and for your own indulgent conduct. Do not antagonize him, lest you antagonize yourself at the same time; for when a man of your mildness is angry, you will be antagonizing yourself. I fear that, in joining my entreaties to his, I may seem rather to compel than to request (you to forgive him). Nevertheless, I shall join them so much more fully and unreservedly, because I have sharply and severely reproved him, positively threatening never to entreat again on his behalf. Although I said this to him, who should become more fearful (of offending), I do not say it to you. I may perhaps have occasion to entreat you again and obtain your forgiveness, but may it be such that it will be proper for me to intercede and you to pardon. Farewell.2

Pliny’s letter resembles the situation of the letter to Philemon. It provides a historical point of contact between the situation in Philemon’s house to situations others faced with slaves. Using Pliny’s letter to interpret Paul’s letter provides viable answers to issues like the exact nature of the relationship between Philemon and Onesimus and the reason for Onesimus’s departure. If the two letters are seen as parallel, this would mean that Paul, like Pliny, was writing the letter to smooth things over with Philemon, now that Onesimus has changed his ways. Paul not only wanted Philemon to forgive his wayward slave but also to do something radical that reflected the depth of Christian bonds. Paul wanted Philemon to accept him back, no longer as a slave but as a brother, and he promised to pay for the damage caused by Onesimus’s theft.

This interpretation provides answers for three of the four pressing questions: (1) What was the exact nature of the relationship between Philemon and Onesimus? (2) Why was Onesimus with Paul, who was in prison? (3) Why was Onesimus converted to the faith in prison by Paul and not in the household of Philemon? and (4) What was Paul asking Philemon to do about Onesimus? This standard interpretation maintains that Philemon was the master of his slave Onesimus, who was in prison with Paul because he fled the house of his master. It also asserts that Paul was asking Philemon to forgive his slave’s theft and flight and also was asking Philemon to receive his slave back as a brother in the flesh and in the Lord. However, this interpretation does not address the issue of Onesimus’s conversion outside of the house of Philemon. The slave flight hypothesis offers a compelling backstory that fits the first century practice of some slaves running away from their masters, but there are some gaps and problems with this hypothesis. Slave flight interpretation has a web of exegetical, historical, cultural, and theological problems that should cause both scholars and Christian readers to reevaluate its use for the church today.

Exegetical Problems with the Slave Flight Interpretation

The first exegetical problem with this interpretation is inferred. Paul did not state that Onesimus ran away from the house of Philemon in any of the twenty-five verses of this letter. Why do scholars and interpreters believe Onesimus ran away? They make three arguments to defend the slave flight hypothesis. First, some interpret the phrase “he was separated” in v. 15 as a euphemism for flight.3 Second, when scholars account for the absence of any reference to flight in the letter, they reason that Paul intended to divert attention from the fault of the slave.4 In this case, the failure to refer to any fault improved Paul’s chances of effecting forgiveness and reconciliation. Third, scholars turn to Greco-Roman culture and argue that slaves often ran away from masters. For example, John Nordling examined extrabiblical texts that mention runaway slaves and Roman law, which gave precedent and context for what was allegedly being reported in the letter. In varying ways, these arguments were deployed to support the slave flight hypothesis. While the flight of Onesimus provides a story that makes some sense of statements in Philemon, it is a stretch to conclude Onesimus robbed his master and ran away based on statements made by Paul in vv. 10–18. As Callahan rightly comments, there are no verbs for flight in the letter, no rationale offered for his flight, nor motive for his flight in the letter.5 Scholars have inferred flight based on evidence outside the letter itself and understandings of the behavior of slaves that are more...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Foreword
• Introduction: Is Philemon in the Bible?
• Chapter 1: Challenging the Slave Flight Interpretation of Philemon
• Chapter 2: Reimagining the Interpretation of Philemon
• Chapter 3: Exclusionary Koinonia: A New Interpretation of Philemon
• Chapter 4: Theology and the Letter to Philemon
• Bibliography