Philemon 7-16

Philemon 7-16

Introduction: Read. Reread. Observe.

Verse 7:

Now Paul can pray in this way, and make the request that he is about to make (though it is an exceedingly difficult request to make) because of the character of the man to whom he writes. Philemon, whether in a single action or simply through his regular conduct, has been a source of joy and encouragement to Paul, and a source of rest for the believers in Colossae. When talking about the believers Paul says that their σπλάγχνον have been refreshed by Philemon. Do you remember what that term means? It’s the guts, bowels. Culturally, that was the seat of the emotions, and Paul only uses the term in emotion laden passages, like this one. Thus, Philemon was an encourager.

N.T. Wright notes that the verb translated “refreshed” is “in origin a military metaphor, signifying the rest that an army takes while on the march. The Colossian Christians, weary in their daily battles for the Lord, find in Philemon the refreshment and rest needed to regain strength for renewed warfare” (184). Now, this verse is somewhat pivotal since in it Paul has introduced several themes that will recur through the rest of the letter, but what I want to highlight is that term σπλάγχνον in this context of Philemon’s character and actions. He has refreshed the σπλάγχνον of the believers, so Paul is confident that Philemon will do the same for him in Philemon’s dealings with Onesimus, whom Paul will describe in verse 12 as “my σπλάγχνον.”

See the emotional affection that he has for both believers and the way in which he appeals for reconciliation. Primarily, his appeal is rooted in their sharing of Christ, secondarily his appeal is shaped by his own personal relationship to both individual’s (but only in so much as they are related to Paul by means of Christ and the Gospel through which they both, as he will show, became like his children). What do we learn from this strategy of reconciliation? Can you put it into practice today? How do we usually try to reconcile people? Why does it fail?

Verse 8:

The argumentation of Paul throughout Philemon is masterful and witty. Here’s what I mean: in verses 8-9 he makes the statement: “Therefore, having much boldness in Christ to command you to do what is fitting, but rather on the basis of love I appeal to you…” Paul mentions his authority, just to note how he will not be arguing based on his authority. N.T. Wright sums this up well: “(Paul) is indeed hinting that there is something which Philemon ‘ought to do,’ even while saying, in effect, ‘but I shan’t mention that’” (186).

This is a wonderful rhetorical flare in which Paul will house his entire appeal, not in his authority (though reminding Philemon that he has such authority), but in Philemon’s character of love that has been emphasized twice in the letter already (more on this in a moment). So, though Paul mentions his authority, he does so to emphasize that he does not desire Philemon to do what is right simply as an adherence to a command, but to do what is right as a continued expression of his Christian faith (for there is a conduct that is fitting for the Christian, and this is very practical, as will be made clear by Paul in how he appeals to Philemon to treat Onesimus).

Verse 9:

Paul’s appeal is made on the basis of love. Whose love is being appealed to here is not exactly clear; however, all of the references to love thus far have been to Philemon’s and it makes good sense to read it as such here, and thus Paul’s appeal is that Philemon’s love would (as Melick writes) “prove true in this case, as it had in so many others” (359). Paul does not want to command him to do what he ought, but rather reminds him of the love that Philemon has already demonstrated and entreats that he continue to do the same towards Onesimus now.

Paul then refers to himself in two ways. The first can be translated as either “ambassador” or “old man.” If it’s the first, then Paul is making an appeal to his own authority, which seems highly unlikely since he has just willingly forgone this kind of appeal. If he refers to himself as an old man here, then the question becomes if he does so to sort of elicit sympathy; however, this seems highly unlike Paul who never complains about his circumstances. In my estimation, it would be better to view this in light of the cultural understanding of an older man during the life of Paul. Keener writes: “Respect for age was important in his culture, so Paul appeals to his age” (635). Anthony Ash mentions this reading as well, stating: “‘Old man,’ if the proper meaning, was not necessarily a call for pity, but could indicate wisdom, experience, a man who had “paid his dues” and deserved therefore to be heard” (Phm 9).

We’ve already discussed his position as a prisoner, but just by way of reminder, remember that this is a recurring theme throughout the letter and that he has already framed this in the first verse as an “imprisonment” for the sake of Christ.

Verse 10:

Moving to verse 10, your textbook makes an excellent note concerning the word order in this verse. Onesimus’s name is not mentioned until the very end of this verse, which means, as your textbook notes: “When Philemon first read the name…it was conditioned by Christian brotherhood” (Phm 10). Culturally speaking, this is not a little thing that Paul has done in casting his relationship with Onesimus in the form of a father/son relationship (which he is known to do when discussing those he led to Christ). For starters, we have to recognize that in the culture the father and the son are not equals as concerns hierarchy. The metaphor of a father then always implies a sense of superiority, but this is not the only element of it (otherwise Paul would merely be reasserting his authority, which is not the basis of his appeal).

Affection was a defining characteristic in the parent-child relationship in both the Jewish and the Graeco-Roman. Trevor Burke has done great work in this area, and he writes about how Paul’s use of this language would very much be shaped by the historical circumstances. When Paul speaks of himself as a father with his son, the Greco-Roman world is going to think in terms of their own fathers or sons. Roman fathers operated under the principle of pietas “a bond of ‘reciprocal, dutiful affection’ with love being a major part of this affection” (Lassen 107). Aristotle writes how the parents’ love for their children is greater than the children’s love for their parents. Seneca noted that both parents love their children, though they express this love in different ways. He writes: “Do you not see how fathers show their love in one way, and mothers in another? The father orders his children to be aroused from their sleep in order that they may start early upon their pursuits, even on holidays he does not permit them to be idle, and he draws from them sweat and sometimes tears.”

The reason I’m going deeper here is because I want us to think through these familial metaphors through the lens of how the original audience would hear them, not how we would generally hear them. When Philemon hears these words, he no doubt has these concepts in mind and thus he recognizes the affection that Paul has for Onesimus. This is not a mere slave that is being addressed, this is Paul’s child who Paul “begat” (the Gk term here can mean “give birth to, be born of”) while Paul was in chains. We should not miss the affection in Paul’s voice here as he writes, for Philemon could hardly have missed it.

Verse 11:

In verse 11 we see more of the rhetorical skill of Paul in a play on words with the name “Onesimus.” As the EDNT points out, the name means “the useful one” “and is a frequently attested slave name” (Vol 2 Page 518). Paul notes that Onesimus had previously failed to live up to his name, being ἄχρηστος (useless, worthless). Now this could refer to his former conduct as a slave. Keener notes that “The well-to-do had a stereotype that slaves—explicitly including Phrygian slaves—were lazy and ill-disciplined” (635). If this is what is meant, then the transformational impact of the gospel will be readily apparent to Philemon when Onesimus returns, for he will have gone from being a “useless, worthless” slave to being a εὔχρηστος (useful) slave (now living up to his name) (HIBC 1336).

It is worth noting, however, that such a statement is a perfectly apt description (as Paul sees it) for the former conduct of all before coming to Christ (think of Romans 1). Melick writes: “The terminology is appropriate for referring to anyone before and after conversion to Christ” (361). Whichever one may be in view (and I’m not sure we have to choose one over the other), the Onesimus that returns to Philemon will be found to be useful.

What does this tell us about the freedom that Christ brings us (Onesimus was still a slave, after all)? Free from uselessness. We can be a benefit to others.

Verse 12:

The affectionate language is in full force in verse 12 as Paul refers to Onesimus (not by name) but as ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα that means “my inward parts.” Now clearly, as we’ve discussed earlier, this makes very little sense in our culture. The bowels were the seat of the emotions, thus the term is frequently translated “compassion, affection.” It is close to our imagery of the “heart,” thus this is how it is frequently translated. It is really worth considering this statement though. Again, I’ll repeat it, Onesimus is not just some slave to Paul, he is the seat of Paul’s affection (his very “heart”).

I like what the EDNT notes about the development of this term. The author writes: “ Older Greek literature viewed the σπλάγχνα particularly as the seat of violent, aggressive feelings. Only in the Hellenistic period were the σπλάγχνα considered the place where one “becomes weak, soft” (so Sir 30:7; Wis 10:5c; Jos. As. 6:1) or experiences dejection (Pss. Sol. 2:14); they are also the seat of natural maternal love (4 Macc 14:13; 15:23, 29), as well as of affection in the larger sense” (266). There’s a deep affection in this phrase that, again, Philemon could hardly miss.

We can see how the argument is progressing based on Paul’s usage of this term alone. Paul commended Philemon for refreshing the σπλάγχνα of all the saints in verse 7 and now he describes Onesimus has his own σπλάγχνα. This will lead Paul to say in verse 20 “refresh my σπλάγχνα.” “That which you have so characteristically done for others, please do for me.”

Remember also that Onesimus returning to Philemon is not a little thing in the slightest. Paul and Onesimus are both trusting in the reconciliation work of God at work in Philemon. Carson notes: “If Onesimus was a fugitive slave, he could be subject to a variety of disciplinary actions meted out at his master’s discretion, from flogging to branding to manacles (shackles) to execution (perhaps by crucifixion HIBC)” (ZSB 2487).

I think it’s worth asking: “What would you do in Onesimus’s shoes?” Anthony Ash makes the relatively obvious true statement: “We also suppose Onesimus was willing to go (back to Philemon), a characteristic that would not be true of most escaped slaves” (Phm 12). Melick adds: “ The second statement Paul made refers to Onesimus’s desire to correct the wrong he had done. Paul said, “I am sending him to you.” Paul could not have forced Onesimus to return to Philemon. He had run away before; he could do it again easily. Why, then, did Paul say he sent Onesimus? The wording stresses the change Paul saw in him. The fact that Paul sent Onesimus suggests a sensitivity to Philemon’s property” (361).

Verse 13:

Paul’s desire was to continue to be helped by Onesimus, who in this verse is seen as standing in the gap for the help that Philemon would have wanted to give. That is the underlying presumption in the second half of the verse “so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel.” N.T. Wright notes: “Paul takes for granted two vital points. First, he (Philemon) would have wanted to help Paul while in prison, had not other duties made that impossible. Second, Onesimus will serve very nicely as Philemon’s representative and hence substitute” (189–190). In this way, Philemon can be accredited with the service that Onesimus has given Paul, and he (Philemon) can do that which he so desired to do.

This was Paul’s desire, but he would not act apart from Philemon’s consent (and thus the need for Onesimus to be willing to return to his slave master). But there is one tremendous point of commonality between the lot of them that Paul brings to the fore in this verse, as Anthony Ash notes: “‘For the gospel’ indicates the greater cause that enlisted both men (Paul and Onesimus)—both bound, yet free, and both slaves of Christ” (Phm 13). Philemon is a “participant” of the good things of Christ as well, thus all of their conduct is to be dictated by this uniting purpose, which expresses itself in love.

Verse 14:

I have translated verse 14 “but I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that your good might not be by compulsion, but by your freewill.” There are a few things to address here. First, Paul contrasts his desire with his desire. He was wanting Onesimus to stay with him, but he did not want to do anything without the consent of Philemon.

The follow up question to that would naturally be: “Why?” This leads us to the “so that” clause within this (the purpose clause). Paul did not want to act without Philemon’s consent for Philemon’s own benefit. While some translations use the term “favor” the Gk. term could just as easily be translated “good.” It’s the same term used in verse 6 in Paul’s prayer concerning Philemon’s participation in the faith, recognizing the good things in Christ, and becoming more like Christ in participating in these things. With that literary connection, it is clear that there is a choice before Philemon that is more in keeping with Christ than the alternative. There is a “good” thing available to him that Paul does not want to compel him to have to do, but that he (Paul) wants him to engage in on his own accord.

One of two things may be in view here: 1. He may be requesting that Philemon send Onesimus back to Paul. 2. He may be requesting that Philemon receive Onesimus in a manner fitting his Christianity. If it is the first, as seems most likely to me, there is a further question on if Paul is asking that Philemon free Onesimus and send him as a freedman, or if Philemon is to keep him as a slave yet sent him in his stead to attend the needs of Paul.

Verse 15:

The function of verse 15 is to place the entire situation into perspective for Philemon. He is not to regard the period of separation as entirely the result of a rebellious and worthless slave, though in part this is undeniably the case. Now he is to consider that through this rotten situation God has worked it for good. Anthony Ash writes: “How the hand of God had been working was not completely determinable. But Paul’s ‘perhaps’ conveys the sense that God had turned misfortune into victory” (Phm 15).

The passive voice that Paul uses here also points to God as the agent behind the events, as Carson notes: “Paul de-emphasizes the reason behind Onesimus’s absence by using the passive voice, which encourages Philemon to see God as the agent and to attribute the absence to God’s mysterious purposes. God intended this separation for good…so that they might be united forever” (ZSB 2487). This is the nature and power of the Gospel that each of these three believes and that Paul proclaims (with Philemon and Onesimus being fellow-workers in this). Through Christ there is no longer Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, slave nor free, for we are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28).

The duration of the separation Paul describes as only an “hour” while the duration of the reuniting he describes as “eternal.” Can you suffer a little for a much greater reward? Philemon lost a slave for a time, but when Onesimus comes back he will have gained a brother in Christ for eternity.

Verse 16:

(They are brothers, with responsibilities towards one another).