Justice, Restitution, Reconciliation?

My second in a short series of bible commentaries on Paul’s Letters

The Letter to Philemon 

When I read scripture together with the little group that gathers on Thursdays at the "little church with a big mission" I'm often blown away by the amazing sequence of events that had to happen to make our gathering possible.  We're part of the big stream of Jesus followers that include all those house churches started and/or encouraged by Saul/Paul. Nearly two thousand years after Jesus', it's hard to know the details of his life and associations, but we can detect his passions in the letters he wrote, subsequently collected and preserved by the followers of Jesus. In the letter to Philemon, we can detect the passion that drove Paul to write.

What did Paul care about in writing this letter?

Try to do a close reading of text—what is the issue that Paul is concerned about?  Since the language is diplomatic, it’s difficult to say with precision. Paul is certainly proposing reconciliation of some kind between a person called Onesimus and Philemon, but what is the source of the break between Philemon and Onesimus?  Since Paul is writing to Philemon, we can assume that Philemon has the upper hand in the relationship, but still, the actual source of the break is never succinctly stated. The majority scholars' view is that Onesimus had been a slave of Philemon. Separated from his master somehow, Onesimus had become a Jesus follower and a helper of Paul. Paul uses a wonderful pun on the name 'Onesimus' to describe it: 'Onesimus' means 'useful' so Paul says that Onesimus is 'useless' to Philemon, but now 'useful' to Paul.

The traditional view of the issue that Paul cared about is the reconciliation between a runaway slave Onesimus and the slave-owner Philemon. This view can be traced back to 4^th century preacher John Chrysostom, who objected to the letter’s being used as an excuse for the violent disruption of the Roman slave economy, and therefore the slanderous accusation against Christians as violence proponents. So the view that Onesimus was a slave to Philemon has very early Christian attestation.

So was Paul a supporter of slavery, merely asking that Onesimus return to Philemon without Philemon exercising his legal right to kill Onesimus as a run-away slave?  Or was Paul asking Philemon to free Onesimus?  What does Paul imply?  What is the right thing that he is asking Philemon to do?  The text never says.  Paul appeals to his right to demand that Philemon do the right thing, but never says just what that is.

The history of interpretation of this short book is as interesting as its contents. 

In the 19^th century, the American slave-supporting culture saw book as biblical support for the institution of slavery, calling it the “Pauline mandate.” They also used it to support laws requiring the return of runaway slaves to their owners.

The slave-opposing public also cited Philemon as a support for the dissolution of the institution of slavery altogether.

What, then, can we say about biblical warrant?  Can we take caution from this tale of two interpretations? At the very least, whenever and wherever heated arguments erupt among Christians about what is supported or what is prohibited moral behavior, we should think and pray hard before claiming "the Bible says...[such and such]."

What can we say about Paul's passion?  Whatever his views on slavery (remembering that the institution of slavery in the Roman empire was very different that the one practiced by Americans up until the 19th century) Paul's passion seemed to move him toward the fundamental declaration of the Gospel--that reconciled human relationships are required for followers of Jesus. Followers of Jesus should practice justice, because humans are meant to live on behalf of one-another.

Whatever happened to Onesimus?  Here’s an intriguing way to look at the historical evidence—the very existence of the letter means that someone valued it enough to preserve it.  It’s not a public letter, in the sense of the other letters of Paul that we know about--Romans, etc.  At least one other biblegeek says that the very existence of the letter points to some kind of “happy ending” for Onesimus: 

"I think the evidence points toward there being a 'happy ending.'  What exactly that 'happy ending' is… well… that’s harder to tell.  Was he returned to Paul?  Was he granted freedom and stayed with Philemon and his household?  Was he kept on as a slave, albeit with an entirely different relationship to his master?  We’ll never know, but I’m betting he ended up with a far better result than if Paul had never written the letter to begin with.”

I like to picture the newly freed Onesimus asking for the original of the letter from his former master Philemon. Over the years, Onesimus keeps it, maybe safely tucked into his toga, treasuring the letter that gave him his freedom. Many years later, he becomes a leader of the church himself. A letter by Ignatius of Antioch, written in the early 2nd century, tells of a Bishop Onesimus of Ephesus who showed great hospitality to him during his travels. 
Jesus knew this, and told his followers how to be human--being light, leaven and salt to a world that is dark, flat, and bland. [Thanks to Wilson Gunn for this bit of wisdom.]

Paul's Journeys: May 14

Paul’s Journeys—A Thursday night Bible Study, and Sermon Series for Church of the Covenant

May—June 2015

Prolegomena and Cautions: Some chonologers of Paul’s missionary journeys try to integrate the time line of Acts with the letters of Paul, and many of the events do line up.  There’s a question as to whether or not the author of Luke/Acts had the Pauline letters at his disposal, and used those manuscripts to construct the time line in Acts. The influences back and forth are not clear at all, because there are at least a couple dozen time inconsistencies.  There is a “standard-view” workable time-line, and several minority held views. Lots of websites can give guidance [Google “Paul’s missionary journeys timeline” for some] but just be aware that anyone claiming absolute certainty about their version of the timeline of Paul’s journeys is probably not as credible as others expressing more humility.  Even those claiming absolute certainty that the whole book of Acts is a work of fiction are probably selling something, probably their own books.  If you are one of those people who needs absolute certainty to make bible study credible, you are probably going to feel frustrated with my comments. I wish you well in your journey, but my own faith doesn’t need bolstering with a history-certain reconstruction of the events narrated in Acts. I think we can do better. The God I worship wants us to us our brains as well as our hearts.  So here goes with the first installment of my comments for you.  Please leave me any comments below.

Thursday, May 14 (Ascension Day!) we began our survey of Paul with the first letter to the Thessalonians.  It is one of the undisputed letters of Paul. 

Acts 17 gives a version of the events (written many years after Paul’s visit) in Thessalonica, where it is narrated as part of Paul’s Second missionary journey. 

This is most likely the oldest written book of the New Testament, written somewhere around the year 50, so about 20 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus.  It gives us a clue to Paul’s earliest concerns for his community.  This Hellenistic style of letter incorporates the basic characteristics of a first century letter, in the Greek style.  Just as a modern letter can be analyzed by is format, so can an ancient one.  The letter contains:

·         A greeting

·         A thanksgiving for the prior association. 

·         a message

·         a closing

A Greek-type letter substitutes for the physical presence of the writer, as has been expressed in the popular paradox and play on words: apon-paron (absent-present): ‘For though absent in body I am present in spirit’ (1 Cor 5:3)

As you read Paul’s short letter, contemplate why he would feel the drive to be physically present with the Thessalonians--
The Greeting—Can you feel the affection that Paul had for these people? What effect does leadership affection have on leadership style? Do you feel more or less inclined to give credibility to someone in leadership who expresses affection for you? What can you deduce about Paul’s own motivations?
The Thanksgiving--Compare the thanksgiving in the book of Romans—where he has had no prior visit--with the thanksgiving in I Thessalonians. What are the differences? Do they matter?

The Message—What was Paul worried about that he had to write the letter so he could be present to the church he so obviously loved in Thessalonica?
If Acts characterizes the events in Thessalonica, there was trouble from the existing community about hearing Paul’s message of the gospel.  What was at stake?  I Thess. 2:3-8.  Existing entrenched power structures, Jewish and otherwise, felt threatened and so, we might deduce from Paul’s response, they accused Paul of impure motives and trickery.  He defends himself against these motives with an appeal to how he behaved when he was among them.  How do we feel and then how do we behave when someone attacks our credibility with attacks on our integrity? Can you think of a time when this happened among church people? How do we respond? How do you respond when someone attacks your credibility and your integrity in stating the Gospel?
What is the issue in Chapter 4?  [This chapter has a history, in the past 200 years or so, of being used to proof-text a movement in Christian interpretation sometimes called Millennialism or Post-Millennialism. It is the view that there are definite time periods in God’s history that, along with the Book of Revelation (where we get the reference to ‘1,000 years’ or a millenium) can be used to predict the end of time, and the specific events that will foreshadow the second coming of Jesus, most specifically in the 4^th chapter of Thessalonians “the Rapture,” which seems to be described by Paul. It is not so. Current scholarship is frankly embarrassed by this stream of interpretation and a lot of ink has been spilled debunking of this notion, still popular in the ‘Left Behind’ imagination. There is ample evidence that the “rapture” doctrine invented by John Nelson Darby in 1830 has done much damage to the credibility of Christian study and theology.  Several websites devoted to John Darby’s published commentary on Thessalonians don’t even publish his commentary on the 4^th chapter; they skip from the 3^rd to the 5^th chapter.]  
Paul’s concern is that people are unnecessarily worried about those who have already died. They think that if someone dies before Jesus returns they will miss out on the new life. Not so! Paul encourages them that time doesn’t make a difference to God (5:1-11), and he uses the joyful metaphor about the way in which a returning dignitary visits a town: people run outside of the town to meet the royal and then escort him back into town for his return.  Since Jesus will be “coming on the clouds” the picture is that all the people, dead and alive, will rise to meet him “in the clouds” and then escort him back to earth. There is no such thing as a “rapture” away from earth in this picture.

In communicating the Gospel, using the bible witness and all the thoughtfulness and care we can muster, it will still be the case that some people will not get it. Or perhaps they will get it, and be threatened by it. Or perhaps they will distort what we say. Paul’s other great gift to the church is his unflappable confidence in what he was proclaiming—that Jesus own life, death, and resurrection made all the difference in the world, this world and the world to come.