PHILEMON AMONG THE LETTERS OF PAUL:

THEOLOGICAL AND CANONICAL

CONSIDERATIONS
TODD D. STILL
George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University

Introduction
Although Paul's 335-word letter to Philemon written near the middle of the
first century A D had long escaped the scrutiny of technical scholarly study, this
all began to change m the 1930s with the publication of John Knox's University
of Chicago doctoral dissertation entitled Philemon among the Letters of Paulx
In this volume, which was republished in a revised edition in 1959, Knox set
forth a number of provocative proposals about the letter 2 In addition to his iden­
tification of Archippus as Onesimus's master and his contention that the letter we
call Philemon was the letter from Laodicea referred to m Col 4 16,3 Knox posited
that Onesimus was in fact released from slavery in order to offer Paul additional
help in his ministry Furthermore, Knox proposed that Onesimus became the
bishop of Ephesus, the preserver of Paul's letter on his behalf, and the framer of
a primitive Pauline letter corpus 4 Subsequent scholarship on Philemon has fre­
quently disagreed with the particulars of Knox's study,5 however, serious com­
mentators upon the letter have neither been willing nor able to dismiss it out of
hand 6

1
John Knox, Philemon among the Letters of Paul A New View of Its Place and
Importance (Chicago University of Chicago Press, 1935)
2
John Knox, Philemon among the Letters of Paul A New View of Its Place and
Importance (rev ed , Nashville Abingdon, 1959) References to Knox's work in this
essay are from the revised edition
3
Knox, Philemon, 69
4
Knox, Philemon, 103, 107
3
Be that as it may, a number of interpreters have embraced various aspects of
Knox's study See esp Lamar Cope, "On Rethinking the Philemon-Colossians
Connection," £#30(1985) 45-50, and Sara Β C Winter, "Paul's Letter to Philemon,"
ATS (1987) 1-15
6
See the recent summary of, and response to, Knox's Philemon by John G Nordhng,
Philemon (Concordia Commentary, St Louis Concordia, 2004), 9-19
134 RESTORATION QUARTERLY

What one can say with respect to Philemon one may also say of Knox's
study of the letter—relative to its length, it has generated a gargantuan response.
In fact, over the course of the last twenty-five years in particular, Pauline inter-
preters have expended tremendous amounts of time and energy in an attempt to
understand Philemon more fully. Of late, a spate of articles probing various
aspects of Philemon, particularly the letter's occasion and purpose, has appeared
in scholarly journals.7 Additionally, in recent years this smallest of Paul's extant
letters has stimulated two substantive monographs by Norman R. Petersen and
James T. Burtchaell, respectively,8 not to mention a number of stand-alone com-
mentaries, including those written by Alfred Suhl, Joachim Gnilka, Jean-François
Collange, Peter Stuhlmacher, Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke, Joseph A.
Fitzmyer, Peter Artz-Grabner, and John G. Nordling.9 To this ever-burgeoning
list one would be remiss to omit the innovative reading of Philemon set forth by
Allen D. Callahan, who maintains that John Chrysostom bears exegetical respon-
sibility for leading generations of interpreters down the wrong alley, for in
actuality Onesimus was Philemon's brother, not his slave.10

7
E.g., Peter Lampe, "Keine 'Sklavenflucht' des Onesimus," ZNW 76 (1985):
135-37; Winter, "Philemon"; John M. G. Barclay, "Paul, Philemon and the Dilemma of
Christian Slave-Ownership," NTS 37 (1991): 161-86; John G. Nordling, "Onesimus
Fugitivus A Defense of the Runaway Slave Hypothesis in Philemon," JSNT4Ì (1991):
97-119; Brian M. Rapske, "The Prisoner Paul in the Eyes of Onesimus," NTS 37 (1991):
187-203; J. Albert Harrill, "Using the Roman Jurists to Interpret Philemon: A Response
to Peter Lampe," ZNW90 (1999): 135-38; John Paul Heil, "The Chiastic Structure and
Meaning of Paul's Letter to Philemon," Bib 82 (2001): 178-206; Peter Artz-Grabner,
"The Case of Onesimos: An Interpretation of Paul's Letter to Philemon Based on
Documentary Papyri and Ostraca," Annali di storia dell 'esegesi 18 (2001 ): 589-614; and
Craig S. de Vos, "Once a Slave, Always a Slave? Slavery, Manumission and Relational
Patterns in Paul's Letter to Philemon," JSNTS2 (2001): 89-105.
8
Norman R. Petersen, Rediscovering Paul: Philemon and the Sociology of Paul's
Narrative World (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), and James T. Burtchaell, Philemon's
Problem: A Theology of Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).
9
Alfred Suhl, Der Philemonbrief(ZBK; Zurich: Benziger, 1981); Joachim Gnilka,
Der Philemonbrief (ΗΎΚΝΎ 10/4; Freiburg: Herder, 1982); Jean-François Collange,
L 'Epitre de Paul à Philemon (CNT; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1987); Peter Stuhlmacher,
Der Briefan Philemon (3d ed.; EKKNT 18; Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1989); Markus Barth
and Helmut Blanke, The Letter to Philemon (Eerdmans Critical Commentary; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000); Joseph Α. Fitzmyer, Philemon (AB 34C; New York:
Doubleday, 2000); Peter Artz-Grabner, Philemon (Papyrologische Kommentare zum
Neuen Testament; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 2003), and Nordling, Philemon.
10
See Allen D. Callahan, "Paul's Epistle to Philemon: Toward an Alternative
Argument," HTR 86 (1993): 357-76. Cf. similarly his Embassy of Onesimus: The Letter
ofPaul to Philemon (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997). For a critique
of Callahan's claims, see Margaret M. Mitchell, "John Chrysostom on Philemon: A
Second Look," HTR 88 (1995): 135-56. Note also Callahan's rebuttal of Mitchell's
article: "John Chrysostom on Philemon: A Response to Margaret M. Mitchell," HTR 88
(1995): 149-56.
STILL/PHILEMON AMONG THE LETTERS OF PAUL 135

It is with good reason, then, Carolyn Osiek writes in her recent commentary
on Philemon, that the letter "is receiving more attention today than at any other
time in the history of biblical interpretation, with the possible exception of the
antebellum abolitionist era in the United States."11 As it happens, pre-American
Civil War interpretations of Philemon also feature in recent studies of the letter
and the related topics of slavery and Haustafeln ("household codes") in the NT
world.12
The purpose of this paper is not to review the secondary literature regarding
Philemon, nor do I have an innovative interpretation of the letter to offer as Knox
did some seventy years ago. Rather, the modest aim of this essay is to examine
the theological contents of Philemon as well as its eventual inclusion in, and
ostensible contributions to, the extant Pauline corpus.
Farfrombeing self-evident, Joseph A. Fitzmyer maintains, "Chief among
[the problematic aspects surrounding the interpretation of Philemon] is why such
a letter, addressed to an individual whom Paul knew, ever found its way into the
Christian biblical canon."13 Furthermore, scholars have paid little attention to the
letter's theology.14 What is more, a number of Pauline interpreters have suggested
that there is little theology in Philemon to which one may pay attention!15 The
pervasiveness of this perspective among Pauline scholars prompted Marion L.
Soards to write: "Few ideas in New Testament studies produce higher levels of
agreement than the notion that Paul's letter to Philemon has little or no

11
Carolyn Osiek, Philippians, Philemon (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2000), 125.
Other recent volumes that pair Philemon with another Pauline letter include James D. G.
Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon (NIGNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1996); John M. G. Barclay, Colossians and Philemon (NTG; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1997); David E. Garland, Colossians and Philemon (NIV Application
Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998); and Bonnie B. Thurston and Judith M.
Ryan, Philippians and Philemon (SP 10; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004).
12
E.g., Lloyd L. Lewis, "An African American Appraisal of the Philemon-Paul-
Onesimus Triangle," in Stony the Road We Trod: African American Biblical Interpre-
tation (ed. Cain Hope Felder; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 232-46; Kevin Giles, "The
Biblical Argument for Slavery: Can the Bible Mislead? A Case in Hermeneutics," EvQ
66 (1994): 3-17; and Wayne A. Meeks, "The 'Haustafeln' and American Slavery: A
Hermeneutical Challenge," in Theology and Ethics in Paul and His Interpreters: Essays
in Honor of Victor Paul Furnish (ed. Eugene H. Lovering Jr. and Jerry L. Sumney;
Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 232-53.
13
Fitzmyer, Philemon, ix.
14
Also noted, e.g., by Brooks W. R. Pearson, "Assumptions in the Criticism and
Translation of Philemon," in Translating the Bible: Problems and Prospects (ed. Stanley
E. Porter and Richard S. Hess; JSNTSup 173 ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999),
253-80 (on 253).
13
See, e.g., F. C. Baur, Paul the Apostle ofJesus Christ: His Life and Works, His
Epistles and Teachings (trans. Allen Menzies; 2 vols.; 1875-76; repr., Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 2003), 2:81.
136 RESTORATION QUARTERLY

theological substance."16 The fact that Philemon hardly merits mention in the four
volumes of essays published in conjunction with the Society of Biblical
Literature Pauline Theology Group that metfromthe late 1980s through the early
1990s17 as well as in James D. G. Dunn's 808-page Pauline theology published
in 1998 lends credence to Soards's contention.18
Theological Contents
Although Philemon is frequently thought to be bereft of theology, due
primarily to its brevity and purpose, this decidedly negative verdict does not take
into full account the evidence to hand. To be sure, Philemon is not a protracted
theological treatise; moreover, it would be foolhardy to suggest that it plays
anything other than a minor role in the overall study of Paul's theology. Never-
theless, in this eminently practical letter in which Paul carefully addresses a
master on behalf of a slave, various aspects of the apostle's convictional world
come to light.
To begin with theology proper, we may note Paul's depiction of God as "our
Father" (v. 3) and as "my God" (v. 4). Paul's employment of the theological, or
divine, passive is also applicable here (see vv. 15, 22). In Paul's thinking God
might well have been providentially working for the good in Onesimus's sepa-
rationfromPhilemon (v. 15; cf. Rom 8:28). In addition, Paulframeshis desired
reunion with Philemon in terms of a divine response to human prayers (v. 22).
Such observations prompt Soards to suggest in his study of the theological
dimensions within Philemon that throughout the letter Paul perceives and
portrays God as actively involved in the realm of human relations—initiating,
intervening, transforming, and redirecting.19
Interpreters of Philemon should also take note of how frequently Paul
mentions Christ in the letter.20 In the course of a mere twenty-five verses, Paul
refers to Christ (or closely related titles) no less than eleven times ("Christ" [vv.
6, 8,20], "Lord" [vv. 16,20], "Christ Jesus" [vv. 1, 9,23], "Jesus Christ" [v. 3],
"Lord Jesus" [v. 6], "Lord Jesus Christ" [v. 25]). It was not, I would contend,
primarily for rhetorical effect that Paul grounds his appeal to Philemon in Christ.
Rather, as Paul's other letters attest, Christ was part and parcel of his theology.21

16
Marion L. Soards, "Some Neglected Theological Dimensions of Paul's Letter to
Philemon," PRS 17 (1990): 209-19. To support this claim Soards cites statements made
by John Knox and George A. Buttrick, "The Epistle to Philemon" (12 vols.; IB; New
York: Abingdon, 1955), 11:553-73, and Petersen, Rediscovering Paul, 200.
17
See in particular Jouette M. Bassler, ed., Pauline Theology. I. Thessalonians,
Philippians, Galatians, Philemon (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1991).
18
James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1998).
19
Soards, "Theological Dimensions," 219.
20
Nigel Watson, "Paul, Philemon and Onesimus: Feeling One's Way into a Bible
Story," Pacifica 12 (1999): 333-40.
21
So rightly, Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York:
STILL/PHILEMON AMONG THE LETTERS OF PAUL 137

In Philemon, Christ is not only a part of the letter's warp and woof, but he is also
the one who binds Paul to both Philemon and Onesimus. Paul was persuaded that
Christ could bring believers together, even a slave and a master.
Closely related to, and clearly predicated upon, Philemon's christological
22
orientation are the letter's ecclesial dimensions. Although Paul addresses the
letter to Philemon (v. 1) and speaks to him directly from verse 4 through verse
24, in the letter opening Apphia and Archippus are also addressed, as is the
assembly that gathers in Philemon's house (v. 2). Moreover, in verse 3 Paul
extends grace and peacefromGod the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ to all of
the addressees. (Paul employs a second person plural personal pronoun [ύμίν,
humin] in v. 3). Paul also includes the whole church in the circle of those who are
praying for his release from captivity (v. 23). It is also likely that the entire
congregation is in view in the letter closing when Paul writes, "The grace of the
Lord Jesus Christ [be] with your [plural] spirit" (v. 25). Therefore, while clearly
a letter of a personal nature, Philemon also has a communal character.23
Additionally, the letter is replete with what one might label "fictive kinship
language."24 Paul, an "old man" (v. 9), refers to both Philemon (vv. 7,16,20) and
Onesimus (v. 16) with the affectionate appellation "brother." He speaks of
Timothy likewise (v. 1). Paul also describes Apphia as "our sister" (v. 2).
Furthermore, the apostle depicts Onesimus as his "child" whom he has fathered
in his chains (v. 10). Communal connections are also made when Paul speaks of
Philemon (v. 1), Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke (v. 24) as his fellow
workers and of Philemon, Archippus, and Epaphras as his partner (v. 17), fellow
soldier (v. 2), and fellow prisoner (v. 23), respectively. Ecclesial links are further
established when Paul mentions Philemon1 s love and faith toward all the saints
(v. 5) and how he has refreshed the hearts of the saints (v. 7). Upon closer exami­
nation, then, one discovers that Paul's appeal to Philemon on Onesimus's behalf

Doubleday, 1997).
22
See esp. Mary Ann Getty, "The Theology of Philemon," in SBL Seminar Papers,
1987 (ed. Kent H. Richards; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 503-8.
23
So also Sabine Bieberstein, "Disrupting the Normal Reality of Slavery : A Feminist
Reading of the Letter to Philemon," JSNT 79 (2000): 105-16. Cf. Dunn (Colossians and
Philemon, 299), who describes Philemon as a "person-to-person" letter that always has
a "wider community" in view. Contra Martin Luther ("Lectures on Philemon," in
Luther's Works [ed. and trans. Jaroslav Pelikan; 55 vols.; St. Louis: Concordia, 1968],
29:93 [Weimar ed. 25.70]): "This epistle is indeed a purely private and domestic one, and
Baur, Paul, 2:81, who reckons that the letter addresses a "purely private affair."
24
On such, see in particular the studies of Karl Olav Sandnes, "Equality within
Patriarchal Structures: Some New Testament Perspectives on the Christian Fellowship as
a Brother- or Sisterhood and a Family," in Constructing Early Christian Families: Family
as a Social Reality and Metaphor (ed. Halvor Moxnes; London/New York: Routledge,
1997), 150-65; Chris Frilingos, "Tor My Child, Onesimus': Paul and Domestic Power
in Philemon," JBL 119 (2000): 91-104; and Reidar Aasgaard, "My Beloved Brothers and
Sisters! ": Christian Siblingship in Paul (JSNTSup 265; London/New York: Τ & Τ Clark
International, 2004), 246-49.
138 RESTORATION QUARTERLY

is reinforced by ecclesial commitments and concerns. In fact, Mary Ann Getty

regards Philemon as a letter of "significant theological import" precisely because
25
of its ecclesiology.
26
Although eschatology is integral to Paul's theology, future eschatology
does not feature in Philemon. To be sure, the eschatological already is pre­
supposed in the apostle's theologicalframework.Well known is Paul's assertion,
"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation; the old things have
passed away, behold, new things have come" (2 Cor 5:17). Because they have
embraced the gospel of grace in Christ (v. 13), Paul, Philemon, and Onesimus
have experienced a spiritual rebirth (v. 10) and, differences notwithstanding, have
27
been joined together as "brothers" in Christ along with other "saints." Along
with other believers, they are now marked by faith and love (vv. 5-7). But where
is the third member of the familiar Pauline triad in this letter? What about hope
(in v. 22, hope [έλπΐδζω, elpidzô\ does not carry the full-orbed theological
meaning found elsewhere in Paul)? It is understandable that the apostle would
not want to emphasize the imminent coming of Christ and the subsequent judg-
ment in a diplomatic letter in which he is appealing to Philemon to receive his
returning slave "with love in a spirit of gentleness" and not with a rod (1 Cor
4:21).28

Canonical Concerns
An interpreter of Philemon must also attempt to ascertain more fully what
Paul is asking on Onesimus's behalf. While not a few scholars are convinced that
Paul was desirous of Onesimus's manumission and further service, this is not
explicitly stated, though as much might be intimated in verses 13-14 and
20-21 }9 Determining exactly what Paul was asking Philemon to do with respect
to Onesimus is no straightforward matter, and I cannot help but wonder if a
number of contemporary Pauline interpreters have anachronistically imposed
their moral certitude about slavery onto the letter. Stated otherwise, in the inter-
pretation of Philemon it would appear that exegesis and hermeneutics are at times
conflated.
Even if Paul is asking Philemon to manumit Onesimus, the apostle stops far
short of condemning the institution of slavery en toto. In retrospect, this is clearly
a tragedy, and we may now express our moral disappointment for his failure to

25
Getty, "Philemon," 503.
26
See my "Eschatology in Colossians: How Realized Is It?" NTS 50 (2004): 125-38.
27
So also Sandnes, "Equality," 157.
28
1 dofindsurprising, however, the absence of pneumatology in this letter.
29
So, e.g., Andrew Wilson, "The Pragmatics of Politeness and Pauline Epis-
tolography: A Case Study of the Letter to Philemon," JSNT4S (1992): 107-20 (on 112);
I. Howard Marshall, "The Theology of Philemon," in The Theology ofthe Shorter Pauline
Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 175-91 (on 188); and Heil,
"Philemon."
STILL/PHILEMON AMONG THE LETTERS OF PAUL 139

do so.30 (In fairness to Paul, he possessed little cultural clout. Indeed, he was a
prisoner when he wrote Philemon. Moreover, he did advocate for slaves in those
circles in which he wielded influence.31) Be that as it may, ethical hindsight is
frequently twenty-twenty. Furthermore, if unequivocal denunciation of slavery
were a prerequisite for a document's inclusion in the NT canon, then there would
be no such collection. To acknowledge that slavery and its close companion
patriarchy were inherent to the world in which Paul lived and moved and had his
being, however, does not signal approval of the same. Indeed, one may lament
that in the history of interpretation Philemon has more often than not been used
to reinforce the deplorable evil that is slavery. Nonetheless, lest we get knocked
off of our ethical high horses, we must hasten to add that subsequent generations
of Christians will most assuredly have ample reasons to call the clarity of our
own moral vision into question.
To the best of my knowledge, the issue of slavery per se neither helped nor
hindered Philemon's reception as Scripture. The robust defense of the letter by
John Chrysostom, Jerome, and Theodore of Mopsuestia in the fourth century,
however, strongly suggests its intrinsic and abiding value was not evident to all
and that its inclusion in the NT canon was anything but a foregone conclusion32
despite its appearance in Marcion's collection, the Muratorian Canon, and
Eusebius's homologoumena.33 Among modern interpreters, F. C. Baur is one of
the few to raise questions as to whether Philemon was actually written by Paul.
Baur wondered if the letter were not best read as a post-Pauline "Christian
romance serving to convey a genuine Christian idea," that is, "what one loses in
the world, one recovers in Christianity, and that for ever."34
While Baur's exegetical heirs have rightly rejected his unjustified skepticism
regarding the letter's authenticity, the Tübingen gadfly raised afresh the impor-
tant question of Philemon's place among the letters of Paul. To be sure, Philemon
distinguishes itself within the Pauline corpus as a semi-personal letter that
addresses a singular domestic issue. What is more, this intensely occasional
document showcases the apostle's literary and diplomatic skill. While the Haupt-
briefe ("head or chief letters," i.e., Rom, 1-2 Cor, and Gal) convincingly demon-
strate Paul's Corinthian critics' claim that his letters can be "severe and strong"
(2 Cor 10:10), Philemon in particular evinces that the apostle can exercise
remarkable rhetorical subtlety and pastoral tact. Paul's generous praise of
Philemon (esp. vv. 4-7) and his thinly veiled pressure upon Philemon (note vv.

30
Note the poignant remarks of Barclay (Colossians and Philemon, 119-26) along
these lines.
31
See esp. Bieberstein, "Feminist Reading of Philemon," 109-10.
32
For untranslated remarks from the aforementioned writers on Philemon, see J. B.
Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon (1875; repr., Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1995), 317.
33
As noted by Marvin R. Vincent, The Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon
(ICC; Edinburgh: Τ & Τ Clark, 1897), 159.
34
Baur, Paul, 2:84.
140 RESTORATION QUARTERLY

8-9, 21-22) have not been lost on attentive readers. Neither has the apostle's
employment of pun (vv. 11, 20) and praeteritio (v. 19). For some interpreters,
including me, the result of Paul's successful employment of what Luther spoke
of as good, if holy, flattery35 is that a fair amount of ambiguity now cloaks the
letter.36 Should we reach an interpretive impasse when reading Philemon, we
would be in good company.
While contemporary Pauline scholars are right to applaud Paul's literary
achievement in Philemon and to pursue socio-historical issues arising from the
letter, the fact that the early church did not preserve other semi-private letters that
the apostle would have written over the course of his ministry strongly suggests
that the shapers of the Pauline and NT canons viewed Philemon as far more than
a fine literary achievement or intriguing cultural artifact.
What, though, was it about the contents of the letter that commended it to
them? Scholarly speculation notwithstanding, the answer is that we do not know
how the vast majority of early believers received and regarded this letter.
Furthermore, we cannot say precisely why early churches prized and preserved
Philemon. The remarks that have come down to us from the likes of Chrysostom,
Jerome, Theodore, Pelagius, and Theodoret tend to highlight the spiritual and
moral example set forth by the apostle in the circumstances surrounding the
writing of the letter.37 Sadly, Chrysostom and Theodore also utilized Philemon,
whether wittingly or otherwise, to perpetuate the institution of slavery among
Christians, even if the former also expressed misgivings about slavery.38 Ironi-
cally, the one who is frequently viewed as the apostle of liberty39 became for
these fourth-century interpreters a supporter of what was then the status quo and
what we now regard as an immoral practice.
Even Martin Luther, who discerned so clearly and articulated so con-
vincingly the theme of spiritual freedom in Paul, found nothing in Philemon that
would justify social upheaval on the part of those peasants or enthusiasts who
were his contemporaries.40 It was seemingly the reformer's "two kingdoms"

35
"Lectures on Philemon," 29:98-99 (Weimar ed. 25.73-74).
36
See esp. Barclay, "Christian Slave-Ownership." Cf. de Vos, "Relational Patterns."
De Vos contends that Paul is asking for something far more radical than manumission;
he propounds that the apostle expects Philemon to receive Onesimus as a Christian
brother and an honored guest and in so doing effectively undermines cultural norms.
37
For comments from these and other early interpreters of Philemon, see Peter
Gorday, ed., Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon (gen. ed.
Thomas C. Oden; Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament 9;
Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity, 2000), 309-18. ·
38
See Mitchell, "John Chrysostom," and Barth and Blanke, Philemon, 204.
39
Note, e.g., F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle ofthe Free Spirit (Exeter: Paternoster Press,
1977).
40
Note "Lectures on Philemon," 29:97, 100, 101, 103 (Weimar ed. 25.72, 75, 77).
STILL/PHILEMON AMONG THE LETTERS OF PAUL 141

theology that enabled him to differentiate between the social and the theological
spheres with no apparent pangs of conscience.41
As it happens, it was Luther's theological treatment of the letter that not a
few commentators who labor in his massive shadow have found to be both
penetrating and persuasive.42 Luther likened Paul's reconciliatory activity vis-à-
vis Onesimus with Christ's reconciling work on humanity's behalf.43 Subse-
quently, Philemon has been read as a tangible, earthly example of the apostle's
theological instruction on reconciliation contained in 2 Cor 5:16—21.44
Extending the basic insight of Luther, contemporary interpreters continue to
note the theme of reconciliation that features in Philemon. However, instead of
focusing upon reconciliation between God and humanity through Christ, as
Luther did, commentators now tend to highlight the reconciled relations that Paul
desires to transpire between Philemon and Onesimus.45 Exegetically, one is
clearly on firmer textual footing in suggesting that Paul's well-crafted note to
Philemon aims principally to affect reconciliation between a slave and a master.46
In fact, Philemon may be profitably read as a literary incarnation of the Pauline
declaration that in Christ there is neither slave nor free (see Gal 3:28; 1 Cor
12:13; Col 3:11).

Conclusion

In concluding, I would concur with Cain Hope Felder, who contends that a
"close study of the text makes clear that Paul's primary focus [in Philemon] is
not on the institution of slavery but on the power of the gospel to transform
human relationships and bring about reconciliation."47 One might want to extend
Felder's remarks further by observing that there can be no true transformation of
human relationships as long as one party is subjugated to another. That being
said, it would be difficult for a fair-minded interpreter to take umbrage with
Felder's contention that "the inclusion of the letter to Philemon in the New
Testament canon would be justified on the basis of its message about
reconciliation."48

41
See "Lectures on Philemon," 29:105 (Weimar ed. 25:78). Note also Barclay's
comments in Colossians and Philemon, 120.
42
See esp. Nordling, Philemon, 109-11.
43
For Luther's comments along these lines, see Barth and Blanke, Philemon, 167-68
n. 116 (Weimar ed. 7.292-93).
44
So N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1986), 168.
45
See, e.g., Callahan, Embassy, x.
46
Soards ("Theological Dimensions," 210) maintains that Luther's reading of
Philemon with respect to Christ's reconciling work is "better described as midrashic
theological allegorization than as a theological exposition of the text."
47
Cain Hope Felder, "The Letter to Philemon," ( 12 vols.; NIB; Nashville: Abingdon,
2000), 9:885.
48
Felder, "Philemon," 9:886.
142 RESTORATION QUARTERLY

Although all readers of Philemon, to one degree or another, look at the letter
through dim, interpretive lens (cf. 1 Cor 13:12), inhibited by their own pre-
suppositions and proclivities, it would in fact appear that reconciliation between
Christian believers is at the heart of the letter. It is now no real mystery why this
particular reading of Philemon did not always commend itself to earlier
generations of interpreters; rather, the real mystery is what future students of the
letter will see that we ourselves cannot. For the time being, however, we can at
least be confident about the following statement: If the value of a biblical
document can be determined, at least in part, by its ability to stimulate creative
interpretation, thoughtful conversation, and God-honoring action, then Philemon,
though clearly last in order among Paul's letters, is farfrombeing least in merit.
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.