PHILEMON: INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERARY STRUCTURE

The complete version of the following analysis will be sent to anyone requesting it at elmerphd21@hotmail.com.

Nature of the Letter

The first question to ask in approaching this unique NT document is whether one should properly expect an elaborate literary structure in what is obviously a private letter between two individuals. This particular issue has been debated for years. Even those who hold that it is a genuinely personal letter of Paul’s would not have trouble agreeing with Dunn that “the wider community is also in view.”

There is little doubt regarding the literary skill exercised by Paul in drafting this note. Brown remarks on the extreme subtlety of the writing with “almost every verse hinting at something more than is stated.”  Other commentators have pronounced:

“ It is no mere casual note, but a carefully crafted and sensitively worded piece, employing tact and irony.” (N. T. Wright)

“The personal and informal nature of Philemon...may distract attention from its extremely careful composition and observance of literary forms.” (Walls)

Armed with these opinions, we may confidently approach Philemon with the expectation that it will exhibit all the attention to organization exhibited by Paul’s other letters.

Divisions into Units

There is universal agreement in the demarcation points for the first two sections of this letter: vv. 1-3 constitute the introduction and 4-7 comprise the thanksgiving. However, commentators seem to be divided into several camps regarding the point at which the body of the letter, commencing with v. 8, concludes: at Phm. 20, 21 or 22. Dunn rehearses some of the arguments for each division and adds that others would even begin the Epilogue at 17 or 19.  Attempts to divide the body of the letter into its component parts have similarly met with little consensus.

This letter lends itself very easily to division into three sets of paired literary units as shown in Fig. 1. The first two units agree with prior scholarly analysis. The body of the letter (sections C and C') is divided in agreement with several versions and commentaries, as is the closing section, A'. The presence of the short Section B' is inferred by its parallel unit. The only major point that needs defense is the exact position of the break between C' and B'. There is a minority opinion opting for the start of a new literary unit at v. 20, but a transition point between 20 and 21 has much wider support in the scholarly literature. A detailed examination of the evidence supporting each position appears to favor this latter division, though it is not a point on which to be dogmatic.

Figure 1: The Structure of Philemon

A. Opening Greetings and Blessing (vv. 1-3)

B. Expression of Confidence (vv. 4-7)

                                                C. “I am sending him back to you” (vv. 8-14)

                                                C'. “Receive him as you would receive me” (vv. 15-19)

B'. Expression of Confidence (vv. 20-22)

A'. Closing Greetings and Blessing (vv. 23-25)

Sections A (Phm.1-3) and A' (Phm. 23-25)

These two short units should not be dismissed as mere bookkeeping since the above structure shows they are very prominent in the overall scheme of the letter. The parallels between the two are quite obvious. They are structured identically in that a greeting involving five proper names is followed by a blessing of “grace...the Lord Jesus Christ...” In each case Paul identifies himself directly or indirectly as a prisoner (different Greek word used in each case) “of / in Christ Jesus.”

Finally, there is a type of chiasm present when one considers the descriptions given to Paul’s fellow Christians in these two sections:

Fellow worker (v. 1)

Fellow soldier (v. 2)

                                        ------------------------

                                                Fellow prisoner (v. 23)

Fellow worker (v. 24)

The center elements of this chiastic construction are more closely related than they first appear to be since the term in vs. 23 should better be translated “fellow prisoner of war.” This designation and that in v. 2 thus represent two of the extremely rare examples in Paul’s writings of military metaphors applied to the Christian life. Another implication to be derived from this chiasm is a possible literary reason behind the strange shifts in designations for Paul’s coworkers found in the conclusions of his letters to the Colossians and to Philemon. Without such a simple explanation, the apparent contradictions give rise to theories such as Dunn’s that Epaphras and Aristarchus traded places as voluntary prisoners with Paul in between the time of the writing of the two epistles.

Sections B (Phm. 4-7) and B' (Phm. 20-22)

Melick remarks that (a) in vv. 20-21 Paul “called for Philemon to live up to his character” described in 4-7 and (b) in Phm. 22 “the letter closes where it began [i.e. vv. 4-5] – with a warm touch of friendship between two who shared in a partnership in the gospel.”

The two most debated points in this brief appeal of Paul’s are (a) the thought behind his prayer in v. 6 and (b) the true nature of the “benefit” he expects from Philemon in v. 21. Both obscure passages seem to expect an action out of the recipient Philemon and both occur in these parallel literary units B and B'. Therefore, it could reasonably inferred that they refer to the same request by Paul. This request has, at least in the latter verse, been reduced down to two likely candidates: the freeing of Onesimus or releasing him for a time to serve Paul. Most scholarly opinion of late has sided with the first view for a variety of reasons. This is too large an issue to deal with in this post. However, others may wish to take up the challenge to investigate whether the probable literary parallel between these two passages opens the way for their better mutual interpretation.

Sections C (Phm. 8-14) and C' (Phm. 15-19)

Section C constitutes one long Greek sentence outlining Paul’s actions in relation to the runaway slave Onesimus and is characterized by its use of “my imprisonment / prisoner” (vv. 9, 10, 13). This section begins and ends with a reference to Paul’s right to command Philemon, but his unwillingness to do so. Barth and Blanke detect a “ring structure” to this section in which the introduction (vv. 8-9) is balanced by a conclusion (v. 14).  Section C' turns to Paul’s expectations of Philemon in regard to Onesimus and contains the repeated word “owe” (vv. 18, 19).

Some verbal parallels uniting these paired units include: “love / beloved” (vv. 9, 16) and “I, Paul” (vv. 9, 19). Another subtle connection between these two sections is the presence of financial terminology at their respective conclusions (vv. 10-14 and 17-19), the latter passage being called “a sustained commercial metaphor” (Dunn). In these two sections Paul subliminally sets up the argument that it is his place as spiritual father to both Onesimus (v. 10) and Philemon (v. 19) to effect a reconciliation between his two sons.

Overall Structure

This letter, as diagrammed in Fig. 1, falls into two halves. This is significant in highlighting Martin’s observation that Paul’s description of Philemon as “beloved” in v. 1 “is paving the way for a later description of Onesimus as he should be treated in that community (v. 16: 'a beloved brother').”  These two designations usher in their respective halves of the letter.

The chiastic form of this composition, as usual, underscores its main points. The two-part body of the letter (sections C and C') demonstrates that one basis of Paul’s appeal to Philemon is Paul’s close relationship to Onesimus. B and B' base the same appeal on Paul’s confidence in Philemon’s character as a Christian. And finally, A and A', with their emphasis on Christian titles, stress the equality and interdependence of all Christian brothers and sisters. One may have wished that Paul were more forthright in stating his exact wishes regarding Onesimus’ fate, but as F. F. Bruce says, “What this epistle does is to bring us into an atmosphere in which the institution [slavery] could only wilt and die.”