PraiseNet.Org: Slave: Paul's Epistle To Philemon

Philemon is one of those books ultra-conservatives wish they could omit because, to preach from Philemon is to adjust your necktie and excuse Paul’s failure to condemn slavery on the grounds that he was simply speaking within the cultural norms of the day and that the world has changed a great deal since then. The minute a preacher allows that cat in the house, he must either admit Paul’s misogyny and homophobia are also cultural artifacts or slip into convulsive seizures of exegetical slaloms, caroming into the orange traffic cones as he tries and explain why we hold onto Paul’s unbridled oppression of women and gays while disavowing his acceptance of slavery. Can’t have it both ways, Bubba.

Philemon is one of two books most pastors

struggle to find ways to preach an uplifting, nurturing, good-for-all-time-zones message from, the other book being Song of Songs. What makes preaching difficult is our pastors’ presumption, told to them by the Easter Bunny, I suppose, that the bible is and must always be The Good Book and the stories it tells must be enriching morally. This is, of course, ridiculous as it presupposes the Holy Bible is some kind of G-rated children’s book rather than what it actually is: the progressive self-revelation of God. There is no promise whatsoever that every pericopae between its covers will be uplifting and inspiring or that the ending of these stories will be in any way moral or, for that matter, fair. This notion of a “good” book is more trifling nonsense handed down through generations and tattooed upon our collective DNA, creating false expectations from what is in many ways a dreary and oppressive tome. It is important the seeker see the bible for what it actually is and leave our kindly eight-grade Sunday School recollections in the parking lot. Fairness is not a quality of God. Justice implies fairness but the two are not one and the same. Cleaning up Philemon and Song of Songs in order to make these works more palatable for your Big Hat Church Ladies is sin. Distorting, abridging, rounding the corners off the Word of God is sin.

Paul’s letter to Philemon has almost nothing to do with the slave, whose name was not Philemon but Onesimus, and benignly accepts the practice of slavery, which violates every quality of God. A wealthy Christian and likely a bishop in the Church at Colosse, Philemon presumably owned several if not many slaves. But “slave owner” and “Christian” would seem at odds to one another. During America’s shameful legacy of slavery, many slave owners used this epistle and other passages to justify the barbaric and inhumane practice of slavery while having a clean conscience about it. What’s interesting about this letter is Paul imbues Onesimus with human dignity. There is nothing in the bible that supports the common ignorance among white Americans that slaves—and all blacks by extension—were somehow less human than whites. Skin color plays no noticeable role in Paul’s benign acceptance as slavery, in those times, was more a matter of circumstance than of biology. You could become enslaved to pay off a debt. You might be born into slavery, or be a criminal sentenced to indentured servitude. There was no suggestion that Onesimus was somehow less human than Philemon. More to that fact, Paul’s argument was that not only was Onesimus Philemon’s equal, he was Philemon’s brother, something many southern whites in America deny to this day as they cling to the ignorant belief that blacks are somehow less human than they.

Most of us do believe, however, that Paul was acting within the cultural norms and speaking with the understanding of his day. Which places the church at odds when we make cultural and moral adjustments for Paul where slavery is concerned while defending a plain-text reading of Paul’s misogynistic and homophobic rhetoric elsewhere. We become extremely selective in terms of what we choose to make allowances for and what we interpret as universal. If we’re banning women from the pulpit, we should also ban them from the classroom as Paul insisted on both. If we are granted free reign to hate LGBT persons, then we should also reinstate slavery. Systemic cherry-picking through the bible, deciding which deprecated cultural aspects to keep and which to scrub, is a lousy and hypocritical way to study God’s Word. It’s either all writ in stone or it is all subject to reasoned inquiry, which is the definition of theology: rational inquiry into spiritual matters. Philemon is one of those books ultra-conservatives wish they could omit because, to preach from Philemon is to adjust your necktie and excuse Paul’s failure to condemn slavery on the grounds that he was simply speaking within the cultural norms of the day and that the world has changed a great deal since then. The minute a preacher allows that cat in the house, he must either admit Paul’s misogyny and homophobia are also cultural artifacts or slip into convulsive seizures of exegetical slaloms, caroming into the orange traffic cones as he tries and explain why we hold onto Paul’s unbridled oppression of women and gays while disavowing his acceptance of slavery. Can’t have it both ways, Bubba.

Homecoming: an Amistad replica finally completes its voyage to Cuba.

Literalism

The major fault with literalists—those among us who embrace the bible as literal and universally applicable without placing the bible's eternal and infallible truths within the context in which those words were written and translated—is they miss God's truth by failing to properly interpret language and theme, understanding the speaker and the context in which those words were spoken. Literalists apply a universality and moral component the bible was never intended to have. God's word itself has no moral component, it simply reveals God to us. Morality is about our response to God's word. It a response that requires mature, sober examination of and rational inquiry into scripture, something literalist tend to dismiss as a "trick of the devil," a distortion of God's word. Only, the exact opposite is true: a direct and literalist application of scripture to modern life, with no context given to the times and situations in which scripture was written, grounds and therefore limits the universal application and meaning of scripture. If we cannot free scripture from the cultural accretions of the time it was given, we are all forced to practice a faith not unlike the Amish people, who see things like electricity and motorized vehicles as worldly. Modern life is subjective while God's Holy Word is not. Segregation was considered modern life in 1951 but is considered hateful and wrong now. What we consider modern life now will be considered quaint and antiquated fifty years from now. Liberating God's Word, His eternal truth, from the cultural mindset of the time it was given--properly and prayerfully in the context of those historical times, traditions and themes--provides an unchangeable, infallible and uncontradicted truth that is applicable to any age.

"Whatever he owes, I'll pay it." That's a broad statement, one rarely made. The words have power to heal those suffering under a crushing debt; those living with great anxiety and fear. The simple comfort of having that burden lifted, that pain unconditionally assuaged, represents the power to heal. In our culture, it is extremely rare for even well-off Church Folk to go in their pocket and help someone out without expecting something in return or without talking about them like a dog. The Bible paints borrowers as slaves [Proverbs 22:7] to the lenders, but here Paul isn't lending Onesimus anything. This is a gift. One that came with no strings attached and no conditions to meet. Precious few among us would do something like that. It was also a guarantee Paul didn't need to make. He says, in verse 8, that, as an elder in the Christian church, he could order Philemon, a believer, to treat Onesimus humanely. But, instead, he appealed to Philemon as a brother, as a fellow Christian who loves the Lord.

For his part, Onesimus didn't have to go back. Going back to his master meant a return to slavery and certain severe punishment. Onesimus' obedience to Paul was actually and act of faith to God: to trust God for his deliverance and to find peace even within his bondage. As Christians, Philemon and Onesimus were now more than merely master and slave: they were brothers in Christ, with certain obligations to each other. The runaway slave, now free but returning willingly to his master, and the master treating the returning slave as a brother in Christ, form a powerful testimony to the transformative power of Christ's love.

Christopher J. Priest
24 February 2013
editor@praisenet.org
TOP OF PAGE

No. 427 July 2015

I am sending him back. You therefore receive him, that is, my own heart, 13 whom I wished to keep with me, that on your behalf he might minister to me in my chains for the gospel. 14 But without your consent I wanted to do nothing, that your good deed might not be by compulsion, as it were, but voluntary. 15 For perhaps he departed for a while for this purpose, that you might receive him forever, 16 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. 17 If then you count me as a partner, receive him as you would me. —Philemon 12-17

The Ministry of Reconciliation

Paul's letter to Philemon is a personal one and can appear cryptic to outsiders. His tactful address to Philemon was labelled "holy flattery" by Martin Luther. Commending Philemon's Christian compassion, but at the same time subtly reminding Philemon of his apostolic authority over him, and the spiritual debt Philemon owes to him, Paul pleads with Philemon to take Onesimus back. Paul notes that because of his conversion, Onesimus is returned "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother" (v. 16). Several issues remain unclear about Paul's expectations for Philemon. Is he expected to forgive Onesimus or manumit him? Is he to consider Onesimus to be Philemon's "brother" as well as his "slave"? Does this new brotherhood supplant Onesimus's servitude or does the brotherhood confer only a spiritual equality between Onesimus and Philemon, while the temporal designation of slave remains? Furthermore, are there implications in the text (verses 14 and 20) that suggest Philemon is actually to return Onesimus to Paul, following forgiving and accepting him as a Christian brother? Some facets of Paul's societal expectations can be seen in these verses.

The German Protestant theologian Martin Luther saw a parallel between Paul and Christ in their work of reconciliation, which is also in fact contained within the concept of Christian Grace.

Still, Luther insisted that the letter upheld the social status quo: though not explicit, the text could be interpreted to indicate that Paul did nothing to change Onesimus's legal position as a slave and that Paul was complying with Roman law in returning him to Philemon. However, the text could also be interpreted as indicating that Paul was demanding the legal freedom of Onesimus and, as an act of both trust and reconciliation, holding Philemon accountable in the higher court of God to accomplish this change himself. That Onesimus was a runaway slave could be suggested by the pun Paul makes on his name (which means "useful"), stating that (up until the time of Philemon receiving the letter) Onesimus had been "useless" to Philemon. The fact that Paul enjoins Philemon to prepare a room for Paul's later visit – even though Paul is currently in prison without a stated commutation of sentence – could be read as a subtle threat: Paul would come to ensure his wish for Onesimus's freedom was in fact carried out by Philemon. Paul was so sure of his spiritual authority in issuing this only nominally "voluntary" request that he was convinced that his own imprisonment would be dissolved via Divine intervention. There is thus an ironic contrast between Paul's own temporal imprisonment and Philemon's temporal freedom (and mastery over Onesimus), balanced by the inversion of that relationship in what Paul sees as his own spiritual authority over Philemon and Philemon's spiritual subservience to Paul, who is claiming that Onesimus – temporally, a slave – is, spiritually speaking, not simply equal to his master but a brother of his. The fact that Paul makes the expectation of his own temporal freedom explicit by demanding that Philemon prepare for his literal return is thus a poetic reinforcement of the fact that he expects Onesimus' temporal freedom to be granted as well. The paradox is further extended when one considers that – despite his claims of spiritual authority over Philemon – Paul frames himself – and, by extension, both Philemon and Onesimus – as fellow bondservants of Christ, who being their spiritual master, is also their brother and equal. Even further, Christ is described by Paul elsewhere as a bondservant of the Father, though mysteriously coequal to the Father. Just as Paul expects Onesimus (and, at a later time, himself) to be freed literally from his yoke, as fellow servants of Christ, they expect to realize their status of brotherhood and thus equality with Christ (before the Father) in a literal, temporal fashion, upon Christ's return to earth.

Diarmaid MacCulloch, in his A History of Christianity, describes the epistle as "a Christian foundation document in the justification of slavery".[4] Due to its ambiguity, the letter was a cause of debate during the British and later American struggles over the abolition of slavery. Both sides cited Philemon for support.

No. 427 | July 2015 STUDY Faith 101 The Church Politics Legacy Life Sisters Keeping It Real Donate