The epistle for Trinity 12 in Year C is Paul’s letter to Philemon about his runaway slave Onesimus.
Why is this letter so interesting? What is the significance of it being a public rather than private letter? What rhetorical strategy does Paul use to make his point? And how do the ideas of reconciliation and fellowship apply both to the question of slavery and to modern life?
Come and join Ian and James as they explore all these issues.
Tom Wright famously compares Paul’s letter to Philemon with the letter of Pliny to Sabinianus. You can read the letter (Letter 9.21) in English here, and in Latin here.
You can read about the Vindolanda tablets, including the invitation of Claudia Severa with a section written in her own hand, here.
You can follow the Colossae excavations on Twitter here.
For my argument why we should not be using the word ‘church’ in translating the New Testament, see here.
For discussion of the gospel reading for Trinity 12, Luke 14.25–33 see here.
Buy me a Coffee
Here is a great opportunity to speak of those paradoxes that Chesterton speaks of. Slavery and Freedom.
The slavery motif occurs throughout Scripture. In the OT slavery is a form of contract to repay a debt and a release in the year of Jubilee.
Jewish wars tended to be “take no prisoners “and extracted tribute.
In the NT there is a strong slavery motif, especially in Paul’s theology.
Paul saw himself as “a prisoner and a slave”
Indeed we are considered to be “debtors” (another motif of Paul)
We are not our own “we are bought with a price” we are not our own masters as some think.
In Christ we are not Slave OR Free we are Free AND Slave, not in relationship but in the binding of Union. How we deal with that is central to Christian praxis.
Slavery is and has always been a great evil and Christians were instrumental in seeking it’s abolishing, however it still is with us in many forms (think of that when you buy a T-Shirt or new technology)
We are liberated in and through Christ but under a new law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus.
Christ was voluntarily in subjection. “Let this mind be in you
which was in Christ Jesus,” “ I am meek and lowly,”
“Put on …. meekness and humility”
There are two very good thesis papers on line to dive in deeper @
jeffblock.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/slavery.jpg
Understanding Paul’s Approach to Slavery in Ephesians 6:5 – 9
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1861&context=masters
‘In the OT slavery is a form of contract to repay a debt and a release in the year of Jubilee.’
Some Christians like to tell themselves that but it’s rather downplaying the reality –
“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”
In most people’s book, that’s pretty awful.
‘Slavery is and has always been a great evil’
If so why didnt God just say ‘Thou shalt have no slaves’? He condemned many things as ‘evil’ but not slavery. Instead He gave instructions like those above.
Some, like Paul Copan, have tried to argue ‘slave’ should often be translated ‘servant’ but that is unconvincing even if sometimes in certain circumstances a slave is more like a servant. I dont see how you can apply that to the instructions above, as an example. Presumably the slaves from other nations were generally not just servants but viewed as property, to be sold as their masters wished. And per above even if an Israelite bought one, they could be passed on to their kids as property just as you and I pass on our property to family.
Again, pretty awful.
In terms of preaching on Philemon (which I have done, at least once) it strikes me that a useful way in may be to consider three questions:
(1) What was in Paul’s mind as he wrote this letter (with the delicate pastoral challenges of eliciting the best response from the recipient)?
(2) What was in Onesimus’ mind as he carried this letter (with the uncertainties of what would happen to him when he arrived back at Philemon’s house)?
(3) What was in Philemon’s mind as he read this letter (with his runaway slave unexpectedly and perhaps rather timidly standing in front of him)?
Thank you Ian and James for your discussion of this fascinating letter.
It’s interesting, Martin, to ask those same three questions about the letter to Colossae (and Laodicea), but to replace Philemon in your third question with the hearers in those gatherings.
If we remove all prior study and the verses, and read the letter as a stand alone, what are the key emphases.
All those names are known personally to each other, all are believers, all are for the gospel, Paul is personally writing as a prisoner: it is a matter of gospel importance, a matter of reconciliation, where a bondservant has/ may have caused a detriment, a debt, a financial loss to the bondaster. Paul, although seemingly not able to pay the debt (he’s a prisoner) will pay it. Paul exhorts as a gospel praxis/principle a remission of the debt, though pointing out the gospel debt owed to him by Phileom. .t
This mirrors the substitutionary atonement and reconciliation execute by Jesus and the consequent replication by and in faith fellowships. Not to do so is an impediment to the reality of the gospel and its spread.
Geoff, I’m not sure what you are meaning in your first sentence. Could you please develop it a little bit. Thanks
Agreed Bruce, I should have been clearer and I was aware of that, even as I wrote it.
Simply, it was emphasize to restrict the understanding, the emphasis on what was written in the one page of Philemon, with verse numbers removed, and nothing more such as may be found in a study Bible or commentary.
Clearly that may more difficult for those who are steeped in biblical background.
My contribution was little more of a remembrance more than a day after reading Philemon, once, in the ESV reader’s Bible, which removes verse numbers.
Thanks for the query.
Thanks Geoff. Yes, I do agree that we should read especially the NT letters on the basis of what the letters themselves say. I wonder though if Colossians and Philemon are a special case since we have a number of literary links between the two. Not least that Onesimus is the subject of Philemon and referred to in Colossians (4:9) as (1) ‘co-carrier’? of that letter, (2) ‘the faithful and beloved brother’ and (3) ‘who is from you’.
As you said, ‘[a]ll those names are known personally to each other’. So we might ask why did Paul think he needed to add (3) if the Christians in Colossae (and Laodicea) knew that already? Could it be that there were some in Colossae (and Laodicea) who no longer thought of Onesimus as ‘one of us’? And especially not as (2) above. (Calvin even suggested it couldn’t be the same Onesimus). So relating to (1) above we can think of the same three questions that Martin asked for a sermon on Philemon (Sept 2, 8.50am), but ask them about Colossians.
Speculative? maybe. But we need to read closely what the actual letters say. And we need to ask does Philemon (that one page letter! yet canonical) give us *the* context for understanding Colossians?