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

Paul on Slavery (Part V)

PAUL: The Pastorals

Titus 2:9-10

The author (questions of authorship aside) begins this section by telling Titus to “teach what is consistent with sound [healthy] doctrine”(2:1). He goes with gender (2:3-5),[1] younger men (2:6-8),[2] and then to slaves.[3] The slaves are told not to give satisfaction by “not talking back and “pilfering.”[4] Tellingly, the institution of slavery isn’t rooted in creation or a divine ordinance. Instead, they are to be ‘attractive’ (κοσμῶσιν, adornment, ornate) to their masters for the doctrine of God our Savior.

The follow up shows an impartial salvation that has appeared to all,[5] training them to renounce the world and live in ways that please God (v11-14). No one is to look down on us (v15).

1 Timothy 1:10

In this vice list (which begins in v9 and ends in v11), the author implicates many people as a result of their actions. This is in conjunction with the 10 Commandments. The ‘murderers’ (6th Commandment), ‘adulterers and sodomites’ (7th Commandment), and ‘slave traders’ (8th Commandment).[6] Paul lists these as “contrary to sound doctrine” (v10). What is curious in this brief analysis is that Paul has in mind Exodus 21:16, for which the penalty for “anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him…”[7] is death. This is coordinate with Paul’s Jewish unease with slavery, and indicates that he does consider some form of ‘slave-dealing’ as contrary to healthy doctrine.[8] Paul most probably still has false teachers in mind with this list.[9] While not entirely conclusive, this brief indictment shows that Paul viewed the trading of human beings as incompatible to “sound doctrine.”

1 Timothy 6:1-2

Why are slaves who are under the “yoke of slavery”[10] their masters[11] regard them as “worthy of all honor?” Simply stated, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed.[12] While it is difficult to swallow this admonition, it is still important to realize that Paul is concerned with the church’s standing in society[13] (1 Tim 2:2 3:7). That is, if those in Christ haul off their yokes, this would be seen as a rebellion within the Greco-Roman context.[14]

Instead of a rebellion, Christian slaves are told to serve their Christian masters “all the more.”[15] Paul’s side comment[16] about all being “members of the church” implies a desire for unity within the community.

SUMMATION: Paul & Slavery

Paul - and his predecessors - in some sense significantly undermined the institution of slavery during his time. His influence upon subsequent traditions, who ransomed slaves, cannot be ignored. The terrible tragedy is that people would misuse Paul to shame the honor and dignity of African-Americans, especially in the name of God. While Paul can certainly be misused, we must remember that for his time, Paul was doing his best with an old world. While it is not enough for some of us, I do think it meant the world to people like Onesimus.

NQ

[1] This “submission” is not grounded in creation, respect or the husband’s authority. Rather, they are told to submit so that “the word of God may not be discredited.” This pattern of not bringing dishonor to God is a repeated emphasis throughout 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus.
[2] Again, the reason is that an opponent “will be put to shame, having nothing evil to say of us” (v8).
[3] As with 1 Timothy 1:10, masters are given no exhortation.
[4] Gordon D. Fee, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 190, notes that “slaves were often entrusted with buying goods and also often had a degree of private ownership.” This shows that if slaves had a degree of freedom that they were not to use it against their owners. Or, even, if they had no freedom, to still not steal.
[5] Notably, women and slaves are included in this.
[6] Fee, 46.
[7] “ἀνδραποδισταῖς”; see BDAG 76, LSJ 127-8. Philip Payne pointed this in out. Man and Woman, One in Christ, 274. Gordon Fee points out that many early rabbis considered the 8th Commandment to be opposing slave dealing. 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 49 additional notes 1:9-10.
[8] Much could be be said about the ἀρσενοκοίταις but that will have to wait.
[9] The notation of sexual improprieties and murderers could be a hint towards the activities of the various cults in the area. It is very likely that prostitutes and priests were close in the temples. While this does not excuse homosexual practice, it does show that Paul has such things in mind as a reason to indict them.
[10] Galatians 5:1.
[11] This would be Christian slaves and Christian owners, though the owner may not be a Christian. Christian slaves would likely be told to submit to their masters, regardless of religious affiliation.
[12] Fee suggests that slaves are still viewed as still “in the old social order.” 137.
[13] Indeed, that may be a key hermeneutical device to understand these household codes, especially in regards to slavery. Perhaps these are viewed as ad hoc. A key argument against this is that Paul is already an ad hoc theologian. While certainly true, an ad hoc admonition can still be applicable to a relevant modern situation.
[14] If history is any indication, the failed slave rebellion of Spartacus shows that a slave uprising would be crushed, and anyone who associated with it would likely suffer the same fate.
[15] Most probably, the masters here are Christians. The shift to the specific would indicate this, especially if masters in v1 are said to be “worthy of honor” so that God may not be blasphemed. If a Christian slave was disobedient or acting in a dishonorable way, it would follow that such slave masters would not view their religion in the highest opinion.
[16] Fee, 138, calls 6:2a an “ad hoc reason for this short section.”

Paul & Slavery (Part IV)

Note. I am less convinced of my arguments regarding Colossians and Ephesians, so take them with a grain of salt and the knowledge that I'm not settled on my opinions. When Titus and 1 & 2 Timothy come up, this will be abundantly clear.

PAUL: Colossians 3:22-4:1

²² Slaves, obey your earthly masters^[a] in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord.^{[b] 23} Whatever your task, put yourselves into it, as done for the Lord and not for your masters,^{[c] 24} since you know that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you serve^[d] the Lord Christ. ²⁵ For the wrongdoer will be paid back for whatever wrong has been done, and there is no partiality. 4 ¹ Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, for you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

While some manuscripts[1] omit ‘in everything’ (kata panta) in v22, the verse orders slaves to obey their ‘earthly’ masters. The reasons given are “in order to please them” and because they “fear the Lord.” Given that slaves are addressed first,[2] the first four verses are written directly to slaves, with the one verses dedicated to masters appears more as an exception clause. V23 confirms that slaves are to “put themselves into [their task]” but for the Lord and not their masters. In honoring Christ, slaves were honoring their secondary masters.[3] Here, Paul is less interested in manumission—though I doubt he would oppose the idea—and more with regulating an existing social norm. The adage of “turning the other cheek” comes to mind. The fact that there appears to be a mutual respect throughout Col. 3 would temper this apparently one-sided submission, and a call to look forward to the future for rewards.[4] God will simply and impartially repay whatever wrong has been done to the slave.[5] This is more likely a reminder to the slaves (“since you know…” v4) who are beneath their masters to endure suffering because of reverence for Christ. For (explanatory/giving reasons “gar”) there is no partiality with God; this segues nicely into the one verse on masters. Any master would hear these injunctions given to slaves, and then be granted a general directive: to “treat [their] slaves justly and fairly, for you know that you also have a Master in heaven”(4:1). This is a subclause of 3:25, with the theme of no partiality in view.

There is a clear distinction in view here, with Christ over the master, and the master over the slave. The alternative reading of 1 Cor. 7:21 (instead of taking freedom, stay a slave) seems to be the main theological thrust of this passage. There is no call for manumission, or even a reference to liberation or freedom. Because you have reverence for Christ, be a slave of him. Because you are a master over man, you are to treat them justly and fairly. While this is certainly preferable to encouraging abuse or even the status quo, this does seem to be a recognition in Paul’s mind of the social norm of slavery. However, a description of circumstances doesn’t endear itself to equality with the institution of slavery; nor does it necessitate that slaves couldn’t be preachers or “in Christ.” Given the use of “no partiality” and “no…slave and free; but Christ is all and in all!”(3:11). At best, Paul’s words can be seen as an awareness of the culture of his time.

Paul hardly affirmed the institution of slavery.[6] Christians today should recognize the times of the ancient world; remember what was sacrificed, and where we’ve come. While not in the same vein as 1 Cor. 7:21-22 and Philemon, Colossians 3:22-4:1 does indicate a less one-sided view of master/slave relations that many assume.[7] Paul had to bring New Creation to an old world, and sometimes compromises (unfortunately) have to happen when an unstoppable force meets a very slow moving object.[8]

PAUL: Ephesians 6:5-9

⁵ Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; ⁶ not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. ⁷ Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women, ⁸ knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are slaves or free.

⁹ And, masters, do the same to them. Stop threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and with him there is no partiality.

The author of Ephesians most probably used Colossians as its primary source.[9] The amount of attention given to marriage is dissimilar, but the amount directed towards slaves and masters is roughly the same. This is a pivotal text used by Southern church leaders who supported slavery.[10] To them, slavery was an “institution of God.”[11] The fact that slaves are mentioned (as well as in Col. 3:22-4:1) could indicate a mixed congregation between slave and free.[12] What is most important to recognize is that marriage is shown to ‘set in place’ in creation, whereas slavery is institutionalized only after the collapse of Eden. Authority of humans over other humans, it seems, is a product of the Fall, and should be interpreted accordingly.

Again, we have the majority of data addressed to slaves, echoing Colossians 3:22-4:1. Slaves are called to “obey their earthly masters…as they would obey Christ” (5), with the heart of a servant, doing the will of God (v6), as they work for the Lord, and not humans (7), and that their reward is given by God, no matter their socio-economic status (8). Paul’s comment doesn’t stress the authority of the master, but instead focuses on Christ, and the servant’s love for him. Again, Paul has little ‘legal’ authority over his congregations.[13]

However, in specific instances (Philemon), Paul did put stress on the slave owner to free Onesimus. In contrast to Greco-Roman standards where slave owners were kind generally out of self-interest or out of a concern for status, Paul usurps this understanding. “In this same way” indicates a sense of reciprocity, as does the Colossians parallel in 4:1, though it is more pronounced here. Paul is concerned with correct action, and his sense of personal liberation is at work. Uniquely, he urges them to stop ‘threatening their slaves’ and suggests that both “have the same Master in heaven.” While v21’s call to mutual submission is grammatically connected to v22[14] and it doesn’t necessarily apply to the following sections (fathers/children, slaves/masters), there is a sense of reciprocity within the larger confines of the texts.[15] Several writers did exhibit a sense of compassion towards slaves, but by and large Paul was within this minority.[16]

If Christ is the Master, and both slave owner and slave are beneath him, then in some sense there is now a shared sense of identity. While social status is not completely abolished, the character of both figures is renewed towards the image of Christ. As F.F. Bruce states so well, “there is no word of abolishing the institution of slavery, but where masters and slaves are fellow-members of a Christian household their relationship should be mutually helpful.”[17] I would only add that if Paul were given the final say over such matters, maybe slavery as an institution would cease to exist.[18] 

--Nick

---

[1] P46 81.

[2] Mentioned already that the subordinate parties weren’t addressed first.

[3] F.F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 168-9.

[4] For slaves, future eschatology hasn’t been fully realized. Yet Christ has already reconciled us all to God (1:20), and one wonders to what extent the stanza to Christ in 1:15-20 exerts any influence on these admonitions.

[5] “It is uncertain why the emphasis here should be on requital for the wrongdoer.” Pace Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 169.

[6] Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 443-449, 448.

[7] To assume a social norm doesn’t necessarily imply an acceptance of said norm. Instead, it simply recognizes that society has a grand investment in certain systemic injustices, and by transforming the relationship; perhaps Paul hopes to render the slave system as irreconcilable.

[8] If you notice any conflicting emotions in the writing of this section, then you are observant.

[9] F.F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 231. Bruce notes that 1 Corinthians and Romans have marked similarities to this ‘Paulinist’ epistle. Also of note is that much of what will be discussed has been mentioned in the Colossians section.

[10] Image in Michael O. Emerson and Christian Smith, Divided by Faith, 35. The Southern leaders advocated that since, “…women are called to play a subordinate role (Eph. 5:22; 1 Tim. 2:11-15), so slaves are stationed by God in their place.” Therefore, the analogy between slaves and women drawn by egalitarians is valid, as it is consistent with the complaints of patriarchalists in the 50s.

[11] Ibid, 35. I find this completely in contradiction to Paul’s clear unease with slavery in 1 Cor. 7:21-22 and Philemon, and to a less extent in the later epistles. Their misuse of Philemon indicates an astonishingly simplistic reading of Paul’s most rhetorically persuasive epistle. As mentioned above, such a reading merits no serious attention.

[12] Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women & Wives, 205.

[13] Especially if Ephesians is a general circulated epistle. If this is true, then it would make the most sense that Paul wouldn’t have the same type of authority in a general letter. However, in a specific instance (Philemon), it makes sense that he would wield his authority with a heavier hand.

[14] V21 supplying the verb “submit” to v22’s “wives submit to your husbands.”

[15] Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women & Wives, 206 states, “Although much of the rest of what [Paul] says is within the conceptual bounds of the other progressive writers in antiquity, the principle of mutuality on which he bases this exhortation calls for more than a measured application of authority.”

[16] Pliny the Younger’s Ep. 9.21 and 9.24 are considered monumental.

[17] F.F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 402.

[18] Craig S. Keener agrees, arguing that Paul would’ve been an abolitionist had he been alive in the 18^th and 19^th centuries. Paul, Women & Wives, 205-6.

[19] Some complementarians (George Knight III as a good example; see the brief discussion in Keener, Paul, Women & Wives, 208. I arrived at a similar – independent – conclusion) chafe at this, arguing that God didn’t ordain slavery, but he ordained marriage. This begs a special question: was marriage inherently subordinationist before the destruction of Eden? Genesis 1-2 gives no evidence for this.

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.