Interpretation: Ajournai of

Between Text and Sermon Bible and Theology

66(4) 440-442
© T h e Author(s) 2012
Epistle to Philemon Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10 .1177/00209643124514 18
int.sagepub.com
Sarah W. Wiles
Bethany Presbyterian Church, Tacoma, Washington
Email: pastor.wiles@gmail.com

PHILEMON IS ONE OF THOSE BOOKS most of us have trouble finding. Just 25 verses long, it
is tucked in right before the Epistle to the Hebrews. It appears only once in the three-year Revised
Common Lectionary cycle, on the 16th Sunday after Pentecost in year C, which will fall next on
September 8, 2013.

In spite of its seeming insignificance, it is a letter worthy of reflection from the pulpit. The letter
to Philemon provides an opportunity for the preacher to address interpretive strategies, power
dynamics, and the role of love in shaping an ethical Christian life.

Before all that, however, a congregation will need context. The lectionary advises reading
only through v. 21, but it seems a shame not to complete the next four verses. It is rare that we
consider a complete text from beginning to end in public worship, but Philemon gives us that
opportunity.

The text is a letter from Paul to Philemon. Paul is writing from prison, perhaps during the same
imprisonment in which he wrote the letter to the Philippians. The letter is written in second person
singular, and thus intended primarily as instructions to and requests of Philemon.

Two other individuals are named in the address in v. 2, Apphia and Archippus, along with
the entire church that met in Philemon’s house. The result is to situate this personal letter
within a public audience. The requests that Paul will make of Philemon are not private mat-
ters. The letter concerns Onesimus, a slave owned by Philemon, whom Paul has met while in
prison.

At this point, we reach interpretive difficulties with the letter. It is not entirely clear why
Onesimus is with Paul, but many interpreters concur that Onesimus has stolen from Philemon
(v. 18) and run away to Paul. On the surface, it would seem unwise for Onesimus to have run to
Paul, one of his owner’s close associates, but Bart Ehrman reminds us that “[i]t was a legally rec-
ognized practice for a slave who had incurred his or her master’s wrath to flee to one of the master’s
trusted associates to plea for intervention and protection” (Bart D. Ehrman, A BriefIntroduction to
the New Testament, Oxford University Press, 2004, 238). Onesimus, then, may well be dependent
on Paul’s mercy and kindness.
Between Text and Sermon 441

It is even less clear what precisely Paul is asking Philemon to do in response to Onesimus’
return. The letter can be, and has been, interpreted as a request for Philemon to free Onesimus
(v. 16), as a request for Philemon to give Onesimus to Paul as a companion in prison (w. 13, 20),
and as a request for Philemon to accept Onesimus’ return and be merciful (w. 11, 12, 15).

From Onesimus’ perspective, one would assume, these differences of interpretation are a
serious matter. And, indeed, this letter was used both by slave holders and abolitionists in ante-
bellum discussions of the morality of slavery in the United States. It seems that Paul assumed
Philemon would know what he meant, and used his subtlety rhetorically to make his argument
more appealing to Philemon. Regardless of Onesimus’ understanding of Paul’s words to
Philemon, the preacher faces a daunting task in interpreting this letter for her or his contempo-
raries today.

That very challenge, however, provides an opportunity for honest wrestling with the difficulties
of biblical interpretation and Christian ethics. The truth is that slavery is an accepted practice
throughout the Bible, in both Old and New Testaments. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 counsels slaves to
remain slaves, and the later household codes in Colossians 3, Ephesians 6, Titus 2, and 1 Peter 2 all
counsel slaves to be submissive to their earthly masters.

It is entirely possible that Paul was not asking Philemon to free Onesimus—a scandal to our
modem sensibilities. A wise preacher will use this scandal as an opportunity to remind the com-
munity that Paul’s understanding was shaped by his context, as is our understanding in our context.
Thus, even if Paul was sending Onesimus back to Philemon to remain enslaved, that would not be
a faithful course of action for us today in a similar situation.

On the other hand, the preacher may conclude that when Paul asks Philemon to consider
Onesimus as a brother in the flesh, as well as a brother in the Lord, he is indeed asking him to free
Onesimus. This possibly provides a more straightforward homiletic approach, but will still require
the interpreter to wrestle with Paul’s overall relationship with slavery. Even if Paul advocates
Onesimus’ release, he does not explicitly argue that slavery is wrong or that Christians should not
own slaves.

Setting aside the question of the specific course of action that Paul advises, there is much to be
explored in Paul’s overarching ethic in the letter. Consistently, from beginning to end, Paul insists
that he, Onesimus, and Philemon are all brothers in Christ, bound together in love. This is their
primary and most essential identity—not wealth, nor status as slave or slaveholder, nor even apos-
tleship—but rather, their kinship to each other in Christ.

Paul chooses not to command Philemon, but to ask, giving up authority that he could claim as
the one who converted both Philemon and Onesimus (w. 8, 9, 19). And he rejects any notion that
there is any difference between himself and Onesimus—a runaway slave. He calls Onesimus “my
child” (v. 10), “my own heart” (v. 12), and “beloved brother” (v. 16), and asks Philemon to “wel-
come him as you would welcome me” (v. 17). Paul considers Onesimus a spiritual equal and asks
442 Interpretation: A Journal o f Bible and Theology 66(4)

Philemon as well to treat him as such, both in spirit and in “the flesh,” and to give up some of his
power in relation to Onesimus.

In all of this, Paul is demonstrating the new shape of relationship to which we are called in
Christ. No longer are we slave, slaveholder, or apostle. Power is given up, and love is taken on as
the defining ethic.

Paul’s broader ethic of power is nuanced. Though he declares us all to be the same in Christ (Gal
3:28), in 1 Corinthians 7 he explicitly argues against taking action to change one’s social standing.
Paul believed that God would imminently intervene to bring about the completion of the new crea-
tion begun in Christ. Making the external reality of our relationships match the internal reality (all
are one in Christ), is finally God’s task, not ours. The question for Paul was how we should receive
and live out that divine purpose as fully as possible in the interim.

That is still our question, but it looks different from this side of two millennia. If one needs a
good, Christian explanation of how different it looks, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Why
We Can’t Wait (Beacon, 2011) will suffice powerfully.

While the question looks different, and faithful discipleship today would counsel freeing slaves,
among other things, Paul’s nuanced ethic of freedom and equality within larger power structures is
still a valuable and compelling witness, especially as we see it take shape in the letter to Philemon.

We are, all of us, entwined in power relationships throughout our lives. And virtually all of us,
except perhaps the very young, hold power over others at some time or in some area of our lives.
Not all of these relationships of power can be erased, or even necessarily should they be. A preacher
might consider all of the forms of power that congregants experience in an average week: parent-
ing; coaching kids’ sports; managing other employees at work; teaching and grading students’
assignments; or being a consumer who is served by waiters, salespeople, and checkers at the gro-
eery store—the list could go on and on. Some of these forms of power are healthy and productive.
Others are less so. All can be abused, even if not to the level of the horrors and destruction of
slavery. A preacher might wonder aloud with the congregation about how power in relationships
would be transformed if we took Paul’s ethic seriously, if we thought of all those over whom we
have power as our sisters or brothers, as being no different from “our own heart.”

This text undoubtedly presents difficulties. Slavery is wrong, as are all forms of power that seek
to deny the full image of God in another. We can hope that Paul was indeed asking Philemon to free
Onesimus. Regardless, this text can provide an opportunity to search our hearts for the opportunity
to forgive, to give up power that we could claim, to see the one we might ignore as the image of
God, and consider others’ hearts to be the same as our own.