Seminary Library Essentials: Pauline Chronology & Life

Last time I went over the various primary sources for Second Temple Judaism, and the benefits of each individual book. This time, I am offering a select bibliography of various writings that I have found to be valuable and worthy of your time. There are other elements of various aspects of this, such as volumes on Pauline theology as a whole, and individual commentaries. But, these works function to highlight the issues within the timing of events in Paul. 

Pauline Chronology & Life.

Pauline chronology is a highly disputed issue in New Testament studies, especially since this affects some significant aspects of Pauline theology (e.g., where does Ephesians or the Pastoral Epistles fit into the life of Paul?). Whether or not one thinks Paul wrote a specific epistle has some implication for Pauline theology. Douglas Campbell hints at this issue in his work.

And we’re off!

·      Douglas Campbell, Framing Paul. $26.

This is most recent work to delve into the intricacies of Paul’s life and the chronology of his epistles. Campbell’s work has been criticized and praised across the board within the scholarly realm, and I suspect it will be a few years until scholars have felt the full weight of his arguments. For instance, he argues that Paul wrote all of the epistles attributed to him except for the Pastoral Epistles.

Campbell also thinks the epistle to “Ephesians” is not the epistle to Ephesus, but is rather to Laodicea—a hypothesis that I think has some serious traction. All in all, Campbell leaves few stones unturned, and he has shown himself willing to accept few scholarly conventions at face value. Whether or not he is successful will be seen in the next few years.

·      Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life. $35.

Written in the mid-1990s, this was one of two books Allison allowed me to bring on our honeymoon to Hawaii. As I sat in a Romanesque bathhouse, I was struck by O’Connor’s work. I was new to the theology realm, and hadn’t been accepted to seminary yet, so all of this was new. Unlike Campbell, who tends to stay away from the historical backdrop of Paul’s world, O’Connor delves deeply into the Mediterranean realm in order to situate Paul in his own social context.

Like Campbell, O’Connor challenges several conventions, excluded Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles as being Pauline. However, he argues passionately for Pauline authorship of Colossians and 2 Thessalonians, even suggesting that the Thessalonian correspondence contains several partition theories. All in all, a fascinating book that eschews theology in favor of historical placement.

·      F.F. Bruce, Paul: An Apostle of the Heart Set Free. $20.

Bruce’s book is considered a classic, though it is now outdated. It is long and a bit of a slog to get through, as opposed to Campbell and O’Connor, who write with verve and wit. Bruce’s book is similar to O’Connor in vision, focusing on the various Mediterranean elements, and even does a bit of theology, especially regarding anthropology. A critical-evangelical classic.

·      Anthony Thiselton, The Living Paul. $18.

Thiselton’s work is short, barely under 200 pages. In this little work, however, is a wealth of information. The introductory nature of this book is not hindered by Thiselton’s ability to capture major scholarly debates within a short span of pages. Thiselton covers issues of justification, resurrection, baptism, and even postmodernity. A wealth of information is in here, and it is well worth your time.

Total: $99. Woo hoo! Made it. I wish I could add more in here, but rest assured, I included these works beneath.

Recommended Works:

·      Richard Pervo, The Making of Paul. $29.

Pervo is a maximalist in the Pauline world. Paul only wrote 7 epistles and even then, there are many possible interpolations within these epistles. Pervo surveys the undisputed Pauline epistles, and spends much of the book showing the “making of Paul” throughout the first few hundred years. Tidbits include Matthew as an “anti-Paulinist,” the “Acts of Paul,” and the “gnostic” interpreters of Paul. As critical and liberal as one can get, but Pervo’s writing is witty, sly, and filled with subtle insights and wisecracks. For a “liberal” reading of Paul, this is simply my favorite.

·      David Horrell, An Introduction to the Study of Paul. $24.

Similar in format to Thiselton, but more structured and less theological. Horrell survey’s Paul’s life, his main debates (Judaism, for example), and the legacy of Paul within the New Testament (c.f. Ephesians and the rest of the Deutero-Pauline corpus). Horrell is critical but humble, allowing tensions to stand without dismissing them.

·      Jouette Bassler, Navigating Paul. $13.

Billed more as an “introduction to key theological concepts,” Bassler’s book was one of the first works on Paul to put a pebble in my shoe. She surveys several main issues in this work, including Paul and the Law, the mystical reality of Christ, the future of Israel and the Parousia.

·      Amy-Jill Levine, ed. A Feminist Companion to Paul. Used $14. Available Third-Party Sellers.

As someone who enjoys reading feminist criticism of Paul (who else, after all, inspires such responses?), this book is a treasure trove of insights. Another volume is A Feminist Companion to Deutero-Paul. While I rarely agree with these interrupters, I find myself challenged to further explore the depths of Paul’s impact on the Western world.

I hope this all helps!

In Christ,

NQ

Why Paul and Not Jesus? A Brief Reflection

As I sip grapefruit from a wineglass, I recall a question someone asked me a long time ago. Well, long ago in the sense that I do not remember the specific time. In between the insanity at work, the joy of marriage, and the pressing of seminary, I can now think about this unmentioned comment in more detail

"Why Paul and not Jesus?"

In the spirit of New Testament scholarship, one could write a few dissertations about this very question, and I'm quite confident at least someone has. For me, Paul remains the singular apex of frustration and inspiration. In between being an iconoclast and an impeachable brick wall, Paul has shown himself to be a remarkably profound and infuriating dead man.

A key difference for me, in terms of my love for Paul, is that we have so much diverse material about him. Thirteen epistles in the New Testament are attributed to him, which roughly equates to 25% of the entirety of the New Testament, and so he is the second most prolific author we have in the canon. However, in terms of influence, Paul is second to none here in the Western world. Justification, gender, sexuality, the rapture: all of this is largely filtered through a Pauline lens (and this is a good thing in many ways), and so it is not unheard of as to why I prefer studying Paul over the Gospels.

Another possible answer is that Paul explicitly (and implicitly) challenges his congregations in the midst of immense ethical turmoil, and the reconstructions behind this-through the blessing of historical criticism-are particularly fascinating.

Finally, Paul haunts me. The man is our first interpreter of the sayings and significance of Jesus, and the fact that he is so culturally removed from myself (I say this while typing on a computer, after all!) makes him uniquely fascinating insofar as his writings continue to influence a large portion of humanity. It is easier to study Paul simply because he often just tells us what he feels. Anger. Joy. Sorrow.

Part of me wonders if Paul ever considered that his epistles to his dysfunctional and often bonkers churches would end up all collected and put between two covers and recited on Sunday mornings everywhere. I like to hope he would be flattered, but part of me thinks his reaction would be more earthy than that.

NQ

The Place and Priority of Single Women in Pauline Theology

A post I recently wrote for the Junia Project (you can read that here) has me thinking more about a claim I made therein:

Indeed, the marital status of most of the women and men who assisted in Paul’s extensive missionary activities (Rom. 16; Phil. 4:2-3) is rarely mentioned.

Now I fully stand by my statement (because I think it is largely correct), but it begs for more explanation and data, which I aim to provide.

It is quite common to see married couples within Paul doing missionary work. The famous couple Prisca and Aquila is most probably a married couple because they are mentioned together in multiple epistles and in various other writings in the New Testament. The fact that both Paul[1] and Luke[2] place Prisca’s name before Aquila is most often thought to be because of her status. 2 out of 3 references in Paul concerning Prisca place her before her husband (Rom. 16:3; 2 Tim. 4:19) – a fairly uncommon practice as many have pointed out.[3]

Andronicus and Junia are thought to be a married couple, but I think it is somewhat ambiguous. We have no record of them outside of this one reference, though if Bauckham and others are correct, we do have multiple references to her in Luke (8:3; 24:10).[4] The references in Luke specify she was married to “Herod’s steward.” If they are married, they were still missionaries together: same as Prisca and Aquila.

Paul, however, was unmarried for what seems to be most of his epistles. We see this most clearly in 1 Cor. 7: “I wish that everyone was as I am” (θέλω δὲ πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἶναι ὡς καὶ ἐμαυτόν). The most likely implication is that Paul is single and probably celibate. He did not consider it to be a problem for an unmarried man or woman: most likely, it was due to the call of the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 12). One’s status was not a problem for participation and fellowship within the body (Gal. 3:26-29), and Paul did not want even slaves to fear their exclusion, and encouraged them to gain their freedom (1 Cor. 7:21).[5]

In Romans 16:1-2 we have Phoebe (Φοίβην), who is “our sister” (τὴν ἀδελφὴν ἡμῶν).[6] It would be common for a husband to be named, but none are in this text. Paul specifies that Phoebe herself was “a patroness of many, and especially to me” (αὐτὴ προστάτις πολλῶν ἐγενήθη καὶ ἐμοῦ αὐτοῦ). Her status as διάκονον was no hindrance to her as a single sister in Christ.

The text in Romans 16:6 speaks of this “Mary, who has worked very hard (ἐκοπίασεν) among you.” The same aorist active verb is applied also in Romans 16:12 to three other women who exercised work ἐν Κυρίῳ: Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis. Persis is even called “the beloved” (τὴν ἀγαπητήν), illustrating Paul’s awareness and love for her. These women worked within a world that did not value them nearly to the extent that Paul did. It is likely that Tryphaena and Tryphosa were still working at the time Paul was writing, as he uses a present active participle (κοπιώσας) to indicate their continued involvement in the church at Rome. All of these women mentioned in Romans 16 are not mentioned as married except for someone’s mother (16:13) and Paul even mentions this unnamed mother! A strong showing of active women in the church of God, and others send their love because Paul writes “All the churches of Christ greet you” (αἱ ἐκκλησίαι πᾶσαι τοῦ Χριστοῦ): it is possible that other men in these churches would have been aware of these women and their activity.

I mentioned in the Junia Project post that Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 4:2-3) were not married. They labored (συνήθλησάν) together with Paul (μοι), and along with all of the other “co-workers” (συνεργῶν). Their status in Christ is assured, and they are not mentioned as being married, though an oblique reference to Clement could point to one of them being his wife or brother or fellow-worker. We simply do not know of their marital status.

Three other women deserve mentioning. Apphia (Philemon 1:2) is called “the sister” (τῇ ἀδελφῇ). Some translations believe that this is meant to convey “our sister” and some commentators believe that Apphia was Philemon’s wife. However, Paul does not refer to Apphia as γυναικὸς but as ἀδελφῇ. This likely means she was not his wife, but rather involved within the household in some form. She is not called a wife, a slave, or anything: ἀδελφῇ is the noun Paul uses and he leaves it at that. It is certainly likely that she is single and it is not uncommon for single women to live with their family, so maybe Philemon is her brother.

In Col. 4:15, Paul greets Nympha and also “the church that meets in her house” (καὶ τὴν κατ᾿ οἶκον αὐτῆς ἐκκλησίαν). It is curious that Paul does not mention her husband at all, either as “head” of the home, or as a “mutual partner.” It is possible that a wealthy single woman could own a home, so her singleness included facilitating a Christian atmosphere and the sharing of resources within the early community of Christians.

In 1 Cor. 1:11, Paul refers to a woman named Chloe, who is written in the genitive form (Χλόης), indicating a possessive genitive that indicates her oversight over these people who gave Paul some information. Again, her marital status is not mentioned or stated. It is ambiguous, but we can rest in the belief that Paul saw no reason to mention her husband, should she have had one.

Of course, all of my arguments do not hinge on new discoveries. It is certainly possible that these women were married, but is equally likely (more likely in my opinion) that their marital status was not an issue. The mere fact that Paul does not emphasize their status as married means that it was likely not largely relevant to him. Much more could be added, but in summation single and married women have a place in our churches and we ought not exclude single women from ministry.

Paul certainly didn't. 

NQ

[1] Rom. 16:3; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Tim. 4:19, if by Paul.
[2] Luke specifies that Aquila and Prisca are together (Acts 18:2) by the use of γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ. All of Luke’s reference to this couple is found in ch18. 2 out of 3 references place her first, the same ratio as in Paul.
[3] Sandra Hack Polaski, A Feminist Introduction to Paul (St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2005), 45: “It is unusual to see the woman’s name listed first. This practice implies that Prisca is the more prominent member of the couple, possibly because she is of higher social class but perhaps more likely because she is the more important church leader.”
[4] Richard Bauckham, Gospel Women (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 165-185.
[5] Philip Payne, “Twelve Reasons to Understand 1 Corinthians 7:21-23 as a Call to Gain Freedom,” manuscript. link  
[6] The use of the article τὴν specifies who Phoebe is: our sister.

Suffering and Triumph: An Analysis of Philippians 1:12-30

Paul’s words in Phil. 1:12-30 are often used as a reminder for Christians to “persevere” and “be faithful”; these words, though certainly helpful, are often chanted by brothers and sisters who believe they are in dire straits. Ancient suffering is viewed as superficially equivalent within a first century Western context, and this raises the concern of death in v.21-24. It has become necessary to revisit the paradoxical themes of triumph and suffering within Paul’s personal letter to Philippi.

The letter genre that seems to fit Philippians 1:12-30 is paranetical topoi and maybe gratitude. This is could be due to Paul’s emphasis on “joy” and “rejoicing” throughout this section. 1:12-30 is the follow-up from 1:1-11, beginning with “I want you to know.” This phrase implies a break between sections, moving us in a new direction and suggesting that Paul is intending to update his readers after assurances and prayers (V.8-11). The themes in v.12-30 (joy, love, goodwill) are hinted at in v.1-11 and are to be more fully developed in v.12-30.

Paul’s brief reference to his “imprisonment” (v.13-14) suggests that he was likely under the authority of “the whole imperial guard” (v.13).[1] Where would there be bases of operation for this “impartial guard? Paul speaks of πραιτωρίῳ and some other cognates (c.f. πραιτώριον) appear in Matthew (27:27), Mark (15:16) and John’s (18:28, 33; 19:9) gospels during the crucifixion narratives. Is this theological intentional and significant?

While Paul’s precise location is nebulous, his comments about the motivations of those who profess Christ (v.15-17) are clear and may push readers of Paul to carefully consider the motivations of those who preach the gospel, (“proclaiming from envy and rivalry vs. goodwill” and “love”) since it does not seem to concern Paul as of now (v.18; though see 3:2). Was this an ethnically diverse congregation? Paul ultimately believes that how “Christ is proclaimed in every way, whether out of false motives or true,” he will rejoice (v.18-19).

Once Paul has spoken of his hope in deliverance (v.19-20), he then turns to his desire “not to be put to shame.” This phrase echoes Psalm 119:6, where the Psalter proclaims that those look upon God’s commandments “will not be put to shame.” This phrase appears throughout Psalm 119 (c.f. v.31, 46, 80 and 116). Paul’s hope is to exalt Christ with his body, through life or death. In the backdrop of imprisonment, the πραιτωρίῳ, possible disunity amongst the believers (4:2-3), and the opponents in Philippi (1:27-28; 3:2), Paul’s joy is manifested in “boasting” only of Jesus Christ and—subsequently—not of Rome. This will lead to the Christ “hymn” in 2:6-11 where the exaltation of Christ is hinted at already in 1:20 where Jesus “will be exalted (μεγαλυνθήσεται)…whether by life or by death.” Paul will exalt Christ by his death by the manner of his life and by his sufferings (v.21-24). His desire to be “with Christ” may be a Christological claim, possibly echoing Hosea 11:12: “But Judah still walks with God and is faithful to the Holy One [my emphasis].” The echo may illustrate Paul’s relationship with Christ as a suffering one who was yet faithful.

The references to “flesh” (v.22, 24) and “body” (v.21) may illustrate that Paul does not believe that σὰρξ and σώμα may to be used interchangeably and I wonder if this reveals that Paul does not have an entirely negative view of σὰρξ. Rather, he views it as something preferable. The comparative adjective κρεῖσσον is translated as “better” (NRSV; CEB) and “is more necessary for your sake” (NASB). Is Paul thinking from a dualist or monist perspective here?

Suffering is dominant in the Old Testament (Ps. 4:2; 9:13 with its reference to “shame”). Paul may also be invoking the servant song in Deutero-Isaiah 52:13-15 as an intertext, where the servant “shall be exalted and lifted up.” In essence, the “suffering” of Deutero-Isaiah 53:3, together with Paul’s repeated emphasis on “boasting” and “joy” throughout Phil. 1:12-30, establish the paradox of gladness in suffering for the sake of Christ. This may also be a reference to martyrdom, as Paul intimates elsewhere that the dead in Christ will rise first (1 Thess. 4:17). Imitation is thus a primary point for Paul here, and Christ will be the ultimate example of imitation in ch.2. Because of Paul’s conviction of this (v.25-26), he participates with the Philippian community, sharing with them “abundantly” as they boast “in Christ Jesus.” The Old Testament backgrounds demand further research.

The use of the adverb Μόνον in v.27 may indicate that Paul has moved away from his circumstances and applies the previous section to the Philippians. The emphasis on unity (“one spirit”… “one mind”) illustrates the probable conflict brought by “opponents” in v.28. This is the first time Paul has said he’s heard of troublemakers in Philippi, and there is little indication about how he’s heard of these adversaries (c.f. 1 Cor. 1:11), though his co-worker Epaphroditus may have told him these things while in his presence (2:25; 4:18).

God has given believers the chance “to believe” (πιστεύειν) but also “to suffer” (πάσχειν). These two active infinitives suggest that Paul views them as a consequence of the other: belief, followed in conjunction (ἀλλὰ καὶ) by anguish. Paul’s conclusion asserts that modern Christians who have not suffered—unlike many of their ancient brothers and sisters—should reevaluate their lives in light of ancient tragedies. We do not come to Christ in order to have a safe reality; we come to Christ because He is the only King that saves. Paul brings his argument around with a bittersweet reminder that he is still in his previous condition (v.30).

Paul’s suffering has still not ceased, despite his continual joy.

NQ

[1] πραιτωρίῳ (imperial guard) is elsewhere used in its dative neuter singular form in Acts 23:35: Paul is to be placed in Herod’s headquarters, which may suggest Rome or Ephesus as a possible place of writing.

Love and Participation in Philemon: Reflections

A dominant theme is how a hierarchical structure can (or even if it should) exist within the body of Christ. The master/slave relationship was rarely seen as reciprocal though there may have been leeway as regards the rights of slaves (Gorman, 7-8). But, what I think we see is Paul’s pressing for Onesimus’s freedom. For instance, Paul’s strong and consistent use of “in Christ” applies here because Paul can claim that he is “bold enough in Christ to command you to do your duty,” thus seeming to imply that both master and slave are ‘in Christ’ and that Paul is as well: this is fitting as love is a grand Pauline theme (1 Cor. 13), and he consistently applies his principle here in a sensitive situation. Indeed, Paul’s claim for Philemon to “refresh my heart in Christ” may place the abolition of slavery directly within the freedom the Gospel offers (c.f. the “in Christ” language of Gal. 3:28). When there are no divisions within the body of Christ, we must then ask why the church attempts to perpetuate such division in—for example—excluding women from the pulpit, and why our individual churches do not include minorities in positions of equal standing in the Church. 

The character of the Church (and Paul is writing to a church here! See v.1-2) is one of participation in unity, where there is no slave or free in Christ. Paul’s advocacy for Onesimus seems to open up a seat at the table of fellowship.

NQ

The Challenge of Eagle and Empire

What are some similarities and differences between our context and Paul's context?

A strong similarity one could identify are the various power structures (government, military, mass brands) that still loom large and have a substantial grip upon the lives of many human beings. The Roman Eagle has, however, been replaced by a more tempered red, white, and blue flag. Coupled with this is the hierarchy of humanity, a division between the upper and lower classes with an economic context. Also of note are the various gods and religious centers within Paul’s own metropolitan context. Couple this with cultural idolatry (sex, consumerism, etc.), and it seems that this similar sociopolitical cocktail is blended to perfection.

In the areas of dissimilarity, the “corporate” versus “individual” mindset does seem to be reversed. Here in the States, the individual human is seen as autonomous and is able to function outside of the larger corporate body of people. An example would be the ‘unchurched’ Church, those who have left their faith communities. In the advent of technology, this is made possible. In Paul’s world, it seems that a human being was seen more in light of a proverb I once heard: “we are, therefore I am.” These days, it seems that the idiom is more “I am, therefore I am.” Some of the challenges the modern church must face include (and are not limited to!) our schismatic environment involving economics and race, notions of empire and imperialism, and assimilation by means of compromise. I suspect Paul could help guide us through his and our frame of reference.

NQ

Paul on Christian Spirituality

In thinking about spirituality from a modern context, one gets the strong sense that spirituality is divorced from physicality, or embodied living. It is seen as dissimilar from the mind, and is projected—in some sense—into the realm of metaphysics. Thus, for many Christians, it has little to with how one lives in any embodied sense. Rather, it is exercising the soul and reducing the body to a secondary tier. 



Outside the church I believe many people do view spirituality in a more holistic sense, ala yoga or meditation. Thus in the Church, spirituality is seen as something distinct from materiality.

For Paul, I suspect it is the opposite. I am reminded of Romans 8:23, “the redemption [or liberation] of our bodies.” Paul seemed to believe redemption, in some sense, affected the physical body, and thus did not view these things as opposed to one another; after all, we are not redeemed ‘from’ our bodies. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul spends half the chapter discussing ‘how’ the body will be transformed into a “spiritual body.” Spirituality is not a metaphysical abstraction, but something that touches the totality of a human person. Spirituality seems to be in a mutual dance with physicality, and Paul’s modus operandi does not appear to divorce the two. Rather, they are united, such as the church is united to one another (c.f. 1 Cor. 12). So we are quite different from Paul, and this is something in which we ought to tremble.

NQ

Paul & Slavery (Part III)

For the epistle to Philemon, enjoy it here. I don't post everything here simply because its a post that is already too long.

PAUL: The Epistle to Philemon[1]

Written to a house church (v2), this epistle is thought provoking and unique.[2] Beginning with Philemon, Paul recalls his prayers for this man (v4), his “sharing of faith”(v6) and his joy and encouragement from him (v7). This enforces that Paul has a close relationship with Philemon,[3] and is uniquely aware of his spiritual life; he also gives a hint of his own spiritual life, indicating his relationship with “my God.”[4] This reinforces Paul’s equalizing factor. Just as he has shown that Philemon[5] is ‘spiritual,’ he has indicated that he is as well.[6]

From v8-14,[7] we have a shift in focus, though not out of the blue.[8] Paul explains how “bold” he is ‘in Christ,’ enough to command Philemon to do his ‘duty,’ but would prefer to “appeal to [Philemon] on the basis of love”(v8).[9] Paul is free to command Philemon, and he presents himself as an “old man.”[10] What makes this remarkable is that Paul appears so confident that he can dispense with his ‘command.’ Orders are most likely to breed resentment,[11] so this reinforces the nature of “love” as Paul makes clear from the beginning. Paul is confident, yet aware of the nature of his request. The use of “child” with Onesimus as the subject (v10) now reveals why Paul has bothered writing such a letter; on behalf of his child,[12] Onesimus. Now Philemon is fully aware of this purpose.[13] Playing off Onesimus’ name[14] (useful, helpful), Paul appears to show that he finds Onesimus as ‘beneficial/useful’ to him, as well as Philemon. He affirms his own desire to have Onesimus with him, but doesn’t do so by denigrating his character. V12 shows that Paul has sent him Onesimus back, with his own heart.[15] While the Stoics argued that slaves have souls, Paul seems to indicate that Onesimus is his soul.[16] Paul has now identified with the slave much more than he has with the slave owner; in essence, he has shown that he loves Onesimus, and for Philemon to not return his slave to Paul would break Paul’s heart. V13 continues this, putting the emphasis back on Philemon, who would have to give consent to an imprisoned Paul, who views Onesimus’ return as ‘service.’[17] The Apostle is making it difficult for the slave owner.[18] Paul confirms the nature of this legal request by preferring that Philemon’s good deed would indeed be voluntary.[19] V15-16 appear to imply that Onesimus became a Christian while with Paul, indicating the inherent tension of slaves and slave owners in the New Creation. The parallel use of “in the flesh” and “in the Lord” exemplify life in this world, and in the church. F.F Bruce states, “if Philemon set Onesimus free as the spontaneous expression of the grace of God working in his heart, he would derive real joy from the act, and the joy would be shared by Onesimus [and Paul].”[20] Paul promises to repay any debt Onesimus may have gained. Paul puts himself in Onesimus’ shoes so Philemon sees Paul as well as his slave.

Short of forcing Philemon at gunpoint to manumit Onesimus, Paul goes as far to imply a potential breach in the friendship if Philemon doesn’t act appropriately.

Paul strips away the dichotomy [of slavery being of social value] in the same sentence by stating that Onesimus is a beloved brother of Philemon both in the material and the spiritual realm.[21] The entire letter is quite awkward to think about: since Paul intends to come and stay with Philemon in v22, Philemon can hardly be expected to have his slave greet Paul at the door. Talk about social faux pas. Instead, Paul recognizes the practical implications of his words in Galatians and works through the conventional means of his day to free a slave. Not only is he risking capital[22] but also his reputation. He is not insensitive to the needs of others, and it is likely that Onesimus gained his freedom and served in the church (Col 4:9).[23] Several factors make this very likely that Paul was able to secure Onesimus’ freedom:

1) Owing Paul a favor, likely due to his conversion at the hands of the Apostle, it makes considerable sense that Philemon acquiesced to Paul’s request and freed his slave.

2) The reference to “The Bishop Onesimus of Ephesus to whom Ignatius wrote four or five decades later was the same man.”[24]

3) The letter was preserved and canonized seemingly without dispute, maybe even by Onesimus as his ‘charter of freedom.’[25] This lends power to the second point.

The parallel passage in Galatians 4:7 indicates that "no longer a slave" should carry more than just "spiritual" equality. If a slave is equalized with his master, then any subordination is not only awkward but also seemingly contradictory. This is coming off the heels of Galatians 3:28. Paul also commands slaves to free themselves if possible (1 Cor 7:21), acting consistently with the presentation of Gamaliel in regards to slavery. YHWH’s ideal social order includes women’s equality as well as slaves, and by claiming that slaves and masters are equal before God, God seems to state that slavery is not part of YHWH’s purpose.[26] Allen Bevere states, “The manumission of slaves threatened the unity and very fabric of the empire. Thus, Paul’s implicit way of asking Philemon for Onesimus’s freedom was a way of avoiding trouble for Paul and Philemon with the imperial authorities precisely because his request was politically subversive.”[27]

NARRATIVE RECONSTRUCTION[28]

Onesimus returns, carrying the letter from Paul. Philemon sees him, and orders his men to watch him. Philemon unfurls the scroll, written in large letters and begins to read. Onesimus, trembling, sees his wife and children behind his master. Philemon chuckles a bit, getting through v4-7. Onesimus has spoken highly of him to Paul? Doubtful, but he enjoys the kind words. Then he gets to v8. Paul’s boldness strikes him between the eyes and his brow furrows. Nostrils flare. Hands grip the papyrus tightly. Onesimus stares at his wife, wishing to hold her once before his master gives an order.

When Philemon reads v12, he pauses. Paul, as a token of good will, has sent Onesimus back with the letter, with Onesimus like Paul’s own heart. Philemon takes a few steps to the left, sandals resting on cobbled stone. The guards shift, watching as intently as Onesimus, who doesn’t bother wiping the cold sweat forming on his neck. He shivers when he hears Philemon chuckle, almost lightly. Philemon looks up at Onesimus, meeting him eye to eye. “My voluntary consent…” Philemon murmurs, turning to a slave boy who offers him a goblet of wine. He takes a sip and nods at the boy, who leaves quickly. Turning back, Philemon stares at Onesimus, his jaw loosening.

“No longer as a slave…”

Onesimus avoids eye contact with his master, staring at the tops of his bare feet. The torn toe nails, the scabs, the pain that is rushing back as his body wishes to collapse. A guard steps up, eyes going cold, grabbing Onesimus by the collar. Philemon holds up a hand, and the guard steps back. Slowly, deliberately, Philemon approaches his trembling slave, swishing the wine around in his goblet. Takes a second sip, running his tongue over his teeth.

“Are you thirsty?”

SUMMATION: 1 Cor. 7:21-22 & the Epistle to Philemon

Robert Gagnon provides three reasons to understand both texts as preferring freedom over slavery:[29] first, for Paul, the status of slave was incompatible with the status of brother. Second, the status of slave was in tension with the liberating redemptive event of Christ’s death. Third, freedom gave believers greater latitude of unhinged devotion to Christ. Thus, there appears to be a distinct tension between 1 Cor. 7:21-22, Philemon and the ‘slave’ texts in Colossians, Ephesians, Titus and 1 & 2 Timothy.[30] To them we now turn.

--Nick

---

[1] We are never told why Onesimus came to Paul. Most seem to understand Onesimus as a runaway slave. This is possible, and Onesimus could be seeking a mediator in Paul (as some priests functioned this way), but we are simply never told. My own theory is that Onesimus separated himself from Philemon (v15), indicating that the initiative was taken by Onesimus. The reason being possibly that, since Onesimus was ‘useless’ to Philemon, maybe Onesimus was going to be sold. While nothing proves this, perhaps Onesimus had a family. That could inspire a husband/father to act rashly. Perhaps he stole from Philemon and was planning on running away with his family, but was caught and ran off on his own. Only God knows.

[2] For instance, he mentions Apphia and it is implied that she is involved high up in the church.

[3] Possibly due to him converting Philemon, or additionally the stories that Onesimus has told Paul.

[4] Barth and Blanke, The Letter to Philemon, 268.

[5] From this verse (4) on, Paul appears to be speaking only to Philemon. The use of the singular indicates this.

[6] Most profoundly, Paul has already begun to set up Philemon; not in a malicious way, but in that those “in Christ” relate to each other on the basis of being “in Christ.” Right now, its one to one, a most intimate conversation.

[7] One long sentence in the Greek.

[8] Paul has already presented Philemon’s character and reputation, establishing him as a “co-worker” and one who encourages Paul. Rhetorically, this is absolutely powerful. 

[9] Barth and Blanke note that Paul has “renounced a specific use of freedom of speech, [but] not his authority.” The Letter to Philemon, 309.

[10] Age is noted as having maturity and authority, and Paul’s use of this is indeed a socio-cultural move to present himself as having the acceptable power to demand something of Philemon. Since Philemon has already been told that he has “faith toward the Lord Jesus”(5), how much more is Paul’s faithfulness to Jesus? Murphy-O’Connor points out, “any male in his late fifties or early sixties would have been considered ‘elderly.’” Paul: A Critical Life, 4.

[11] F.F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians, 211.

[12] This isn’t the first time Paul calls his readers ‘children’: Titus 1:4; 1 Cor. 4:17.

[13] One wonders if Onesimus was the one to hand Philemon Paul’s letter. Imagine the tension in the room. See “Narrative Reconstruction.”

[14] See the discussion in Barth and Blanke, The Letter to Philemon, 338-342.

[15] Paul doesn’t cite any OT or social law. Legally, Philemon was under no obligation to manumit Onesimus. However, since Paul identifies Onesimus as “his own heart,” this strongly implies that Paul cannot function without his child. Thus Paul seemingly transfers the (heavy!) burden of action to Philemon.

[16] Barth and Blanke, The Letter to Philemon, 360.

[17] This ‘service’ is less likely domestic and more likely as ‘service in the gospel.’

[18] Paul has no legal right to retain Onesimus and he knows it. Priest and mediators could sell the slave elsewhere, but they most likely returned the slave, albeit with the understanding that the owner’s anger/honor was assuaged. Paul’s comment that he could “command Philemon” to free Onesimus must mean that he knows the process by which Onesimus would be freed.

[19] Paul’s view of Philemon’s free will is certainly compatible with Paul’s libertarianism.

[20] F.F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 217.

[21] Philip B. Payne, Paul Applies the Maximal Social Pressure to Free Onesimus, 1-2.

[22] Ibid. 3.

[23] It isn’t entirely certain that this is the same Onesimus, but Onesimus is a common slave name. If anything, this suggests that slaves served in leadership.

[24] Wayne A. Meeks and John T. Fitzgerald, The Writings of St. Paul, 96.

[25] F.F. Bruce, Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, 406.

[26] Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women and Wives, 205.

[27] Allen R. Bevere, “Colossians and the Rhetoric of Empire,” Jesus is Lord, Caesar is Not, ed. Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica, 194. In an otherwise marvelous essay, Bevere does unfortunately qualify his argument in that he casts doubt on whether or not Paul was indeed asking Philemon to free Onesimus. However, based on Paul’s inherent request to free Onesimus and the amount of social/theological pressure placed upon Philemon, Bevere’s doubts seem unnecessary.

[28] There are liberties taken here, but I see this as a consistent rendering of the epistle as a whole.

[29] Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 448.

[30] Many scholars chalk this up to the “real” Paul versus “deutero” Paul. While I don’t accept non-Pauline authorship for the disputed epistles, I can certainly understand why scholars argue thusly. See Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 448; Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians 2^nd Edition, 106. Meeks assumes a hierarchy in these texts.

Paul & Slavery (Part II)

PAUL: 1 Corinthians 7:21-22.

²⁰ Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called. ²¹ Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever.^{[c] 22} For whoever was called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging to the Lord, just as whoever was free when called is a slave of Christ.  
 

S. Scott Bartchy outlines[1] the varying interpretations of this text, using two ‘readings’ of the text: scholars, translations and theologians[2] who favor “take freedom” and those who favor “use [or stay in] slavery.” For those who accepted the first category “take freedom,” we have Origen of Alexandria,[3] Ephraem and Syrus,[4] Jerome,[5] the opponents of Chrysostom,[6] Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, C. Hodge, Lightfoot, C.H. Dodd, the RSV, C.F.D. Moule, NEB and TEV. Modern commentators include Gordon D. Fee,[7] Philip Payne,[8] Robert A. J. Gagnon[9] and Alan F. Johnson.[10]

For those who prefer the “use [stay in] slavery” opinion, we have Chrysostom,[11] Ambrosiaster, Cyril of Alexandria, Pelagius, John of Damascus, Sedulius Scotus,[12] Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, Bengal, Jonathan Edwards, Von Harnack, Goodspeed, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Kummel, Kasemann and Barrett.

So, the question comes to this: did Paul call for slaves to attain freedom, or to stay as a slave? The bigger historical question is could a slave refuse manumission (freedom)? Most plausibly, he/she couldn’t. Reasons for manumission are complex,[13] but usually derived from the generosity or personal interest of the owner. Social “generosity” included egoism and narcissism,[14] but one doubts that a freed slave would care much for the reasons of manumission. In regards to the slave’s options regarding their freedom, “Under both Greek and Roman law, a person in slavery could seek to bring nearer the day of his manumission by working hard and by conducting himself in a manner which pleased his owner.”[15] Financially, one could buy their manumission, as a slave once bragged “he paid 50,000 sesterces for his freedom.”[16] Most probably, since slaves were within the poverty line, hard labor and the good nature of their owner was their most likely method of freedom. The nature of Mark 10:45 “ransom for many” evocates the language not only of liberation from slavery (physical) but also that this is something that the Messiah sought to fulfill. To fulfill this, to some early Christians, was to be “in Christ.”

In short, it is historically implausible that a slave (still beneath his or her master) could refuse his manumission from the owner that still owns him. Since there is no evidence for this, the nature of “but if you are actually able to be free, take advantage of the opportunity” (CEB) is clear: do not be bothered if you are ‘called into Christ’ when you are in slavery. But since you cannot remain a slave when manumitted, ‘do not become [or stay] as a slave to people.’ Paul’s awareness of the historical nature of manumission (as well as his Judaism) supports the reading of “take freedom” since a slave simply didn’t have any alternative.

Bartchy notes that “as a first century Jew from Tarsus who had spent much time in Jerusalem, Paul was well-acquainted with the enslavement of both Jews and Gentiles…”[17] Paul was most likely not unsurprised by the institution of slavery, but was aware of the tension displayed in Galatians 3:28 as well as the fundamental equality for every human being.[18] Since the shift of the eschatological age, Paul was clearly not comfortable with slavery. As Gagnon suggests, “…1 Cor. 7:21 should be read as Paul’s attempts to support freedom from slavery as at least penultimate good.”[19] Slavery was a given in the ancient world, and it must be said that Paul wasn’t on a campaign to end the institution. However, since manumission was not an isolated occurrence in the first century, many slaves ‘in Christ’ could attain their freedom and be brought out of slavery [both physical and spiritual] to serve Christ; and Paul most certainly wouldn’t prevent them from fulfilling their “status of being the Lord’s free person” (CEB).

---

[1] S. Scott Bartchy, MALLON CHRESAI: First Century Slavery & 1 Corinthians 7:21, 6-7.

[2] The list apparently surprised Gordon D. Fee who calls the findings “impressive!” 1 Corinthians, 316 n41. In the following list, Bartchy’s opinion is of course the former reading.

[3] Who twisted the text to mean, “Go free from marriage.”

[4] Both who took it to mean, “go free to preach.” While arguably as convincing as Origen’s reading, this does display some hope that slaves could indeed be ‘preachers.’

[5] He read it as free “from marriage.”

[6] Unnamed as Chrysostom doesn’t give them (and us) the benefit of any recognition.

[7] Gordon D. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 317-320.

[8] Philip Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ, 91.

[9] Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 446-47. See especially n171.

[10] Alan F. Johnson, 1 Corinthians, 121-123.

[11] Who argues against the unnamed opponents in n359.

[12] Who took it as “stay in marriage,” a reading that suggests matrimony was anything but a picnic in those days.

[13] As opposed to Civil War slavery, the system wasn’t entirely predicated upon the skin color of the slave.

[14] “An owner usually based good treatment of slaves on the desire to gain a reputation for generosity rather than on insight into a slave’s inherent equality as a human being.” S. Scott Bartchy, “Slaves and Slavery in the Roman World,” The World of the New Testament, 176.

[15] S. Scott Bartchy, MALLON CHRESAI: First Century Slavery & 1 Corinthians 7:21, 97.

[16] Marleen B. Flory, “Family and Familia’: A Study of Social Relations in Slavery” Ph.D dissertation 1975, Yale. 112.

[17] S. Scott Bartchy, MALLON CHRESAI: First Century Slavery & 1 Corinthians 7:21, 116.

[18] Paul’s consistent use of ‘slave language’ to describe himself and others attests to this point. We were once “slaves of sin” (Rom 6:16-20); Paul has “made himself a slave to all…” (1 Cor. 9:19); “slaves for Jesus’ sake” (2 Cor. 11:20); “no longer a slave, but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God” (Gal. 4:7); “become slaves to one another” (Gal 5:13) and ultimately, Paul says this of Christ who “took the form of a slave” (Phil 2:7).

[19] Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 444. While he disagrees with some of Bartchy’s translational work, he supports the overall thesis.