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.]