WHY PHILEMON?

I'm sure that I am not the only one who has asked this question. On the surface, this small letter appears to be a strictly personal one with little or no meat in it. So it is not surprising that Mitchell states, “One of the most remarkable things about this letter is that it was preserved, and ultimately incorporated into the canonical collection of Paul's letters.” Guthrie similarly says, “It may be wondered why so brief a personal letter was preserved among the NT books.”

Despite this uncertainty, the early church had no problem in accepting it into the canon:

    As Raymond Brown astutely asks, “Why would someone bother to create Phlm, a note with such a narrow goal and attribute it to Paul?”

    Walls notes, “The earliest extant lists of the Pauline Corpus (Marcion's 'canon' and the Muratorian fragment) contain Philemon, even though they omit the Pastoral Epistles. In the 4^th century complaints appear not so much against its authenticity as of its alleged triviality...its authenticity has never been responsibly questioned.”

    “Concerning the authenticity of this most personal of Paul's epistles, there has been no question. John Knox wrote, 'The genuineness of the letter is so well established as to require little discussion.'” (Deibler)

    Despite that fact, Barth and Blanke point out: “PHM is not contained in some of the best and most complete ancient MSS of the NT, and small is the number of fragmentary tests providing its wording or parts of it.” But as a balancing consideration, they add, “The lines containing PHM may have been lost or destroyed incidentally, while contemporary canonical lists reveal its reception.”

    Tracing the NT books back to an apostolic author may have been one of the prime requirements in the early church for adding them to the canon. That issue appears to have caused no problem. However, there are other necessary considerations as well. Brevard Childs says, “There are two major canonical issues respecting the letter of Philemon which are closely related. Why was this letter which gives the initial impression of being a private note of the apostle ever assigned a canonical status within the Pauline corpus? How does the letter function canonically within the NT?”

But was this letter really designed to be a private one? Indications would appear to dictate an answer of “No.” In the first place, Paul utilizes the same letter format found in his longer epistles. Secondly, he addresses it in verse1 to two individuals in addition to Philemon as well as to the whole house-church. And then he concludes with greetings from a number of Paul's co-workers who are with him.

“Because previously the Christians in Colossae have learned by experience what a dear, cooperative, beneficial brother Philemon is, they have the right and duty to be eyewitnesses of the effects of Paul's letter. Actually, they are more than just Philemon's environment, and much more than mere observers or watchdogs.” (Barth and Blanke)

“One cannot help but feel that Paul's request and the issue of social relationships involves the entire Christian community and not just one person...This public nature may also account for its value in the collection and canon of Paul's letters.” (Patzia)

Martin states memorably that “this brief epistle is to be seen not so much as a private letter of Paul as an individual...but as an apostolic letter about a personal matter.”

M.J. Harris surmises that it “was included in the New Testament canon because of its distinctive contribution to several areas of Christian thought.” In the same vein, Patzia says, “Basically, it contains no explicit or ethical doctrines; it attacks no heresies in the church. Nevertheless, it presents a number of important truths that should not go unnoticed.”It is those “several areas of thought” and “important truths” that I would like to enumerate below.

“It is a masterpiece of pastoral diplomacy.” (Patzia)

As Harris puts it, “It shows a pastor skilfully shepherding his sheep.”

“The letter, designed to persuade, is astute, with almost every verse hinting at something more than is stated.” (R. Brown)

Childs points out that Paul “makes use of the term 'obedience' (v. 21), but then relinquishes his right to demand it in order to give Philemon the freedom to surrender his just claims on Onesimus.”

Ashby: “It is a model handling of a delicate situation, neither infringing the rights of others nor compromising his own convictions.”

“The essence of the gospel is reflected.” (Harris)

Barclay says that “here is one of the great romances of grace in the early Church.”

“Paul gave a brilliant cameo of gospel truth in the words, 'Charge that to my account' (Phile. 18. NASB).” (Deibler) To which, Harris adds, “What we owe God, Christ debited to his own account.”

“It provided an exquisite example of one Christian's petition for another.” (Guthrie)

“Paul diplomatically intercedes in a difficult concrete situation with Philemon on behalf of Onesimus...Paul's letter is a petition, one motivated by love for a fellow Christian.” (Fitzmyer)

“It demonstrates the power of the gospel to transform life.” (Harris)

Minear says, Nothing is known of the later history of the major characters...What is certain, however, is the radical character of conversion, not only of people but of their attitudes toward their own property, their rights, and their obligations.”

“The request is a dramatic example of Paul's way of thinking in fidelity to the change in values brought about by Christ.” (Brown)

Harris says: “The one who had previously been 'useless' had become, as a result of conversion (v. 10), '(really) useful.'”

“It opens a window on the nature of Paul's imprisonment and the personal relationship that he enjoyed with his friends and coworkers.” (Patzia)

Patzia is undoubtedly correct, but that alone would hardly be enough to ensure canonical status for this letter.

“He sets the master-slave relationship on a new footing.” (Harris)

Patzia says that “it provides a small commentary on slavery in the ancient world.”

“Paul's teaching regarding slaves and masters (I Cor. 7:17ff; Gal. 3:28) was now instanced by the apostle by means of a concrete example of the effect of Christ's transformation of human society in his image.” (Childs)

“His antinomy is not simply slave and free, but slave and new creation in Christ.” (Brown)

For those who might criticize Paul for not insisting on the institute of slavery in a frontal attack, Ashby points out that it “was not due to fear of opposition, but such a method might well have had prejudicial results then for the slaves themselves. More importantly still he demonstrates that the best way to prevent evil is to apply a positive principle, and brotherly love must, and ultimately did undermine slavery.”

“This letter contains a potent illustration of the breaking down of social and cultural barriers in Christ.” (Harris)

Harris goes on to say that it undermines “the discriminatory hierarchy of social relations that is at the heart of slavery.”

“It is specifically the circulation of love within the believing community (the koinonia of faith [v. 6]) that is on view here. Throughout, Paul uses kinship terms to describe the relationships that bind the members of this community together.” (Furnish)

For those who are curious as to the upshot of Paul's request, Brown remarks, “That Philemon reacted generously is almost certain, or the letter would not have been preserved.” In addition, it is known that around A.D. 110 a man named Onesimus became the bishop of Ephesus, a suggested city from which Paul's letter was sent. If this is the same Onesimus in the Letter to Philemon, then as Fitzmyer suggests, he “could ha

But Brown mentions another possibility: “The Onesimus of Ephesus in A.D. 110 may have taken that name to honor the slave who was converted there by the imprisoned Paul long before. There is no way to decide...” In either case, the character of Onesimus after Paul wrote his letter was obviously much admired in the early church.ve played a major role in collecting Paul's letters into a corpus.” However, he adds that “Onesimus became a bishop of Ephesus is a possibility – no more than that.”