Philemon, a Pauline letter reflecting the social norms of the first century Greco-Roman culture, has often been used in various debates surrounding the question of whether Paul supported slavery. Such a focus, however, misses the profundity of what Paul was asking Philemon to do within his cultural and social framework. In fact, because identification and adherence to one’s own ethnic identity and social norms seems intrinsic to our human nature, this article will explore the current significance of the theological themes in Philemon, highlighting its tension between cultural values and identification with Christ.
Historical context
Written while Paul was in prison, Philemon is intensely personal but very short. Most scholars consider it as representative of a letter of mediation or intercession, a common genre with other letters found in the same historical time frame. In order for us to understand the letter’s significance within its cultural milieu, we must first summarize a brief historical picture regarding slavery in the Greco-Roman world.
Slavery was inextricably interwoven within the strictly stratified Greco-Roman culture. The classes ranged from the upper echelon Romans, who governed the provinces militarily or politically, to near the bottom, which included the freedman or freedwoman, named thus after being released from slavery. At the very bottom, of course, were slaves.1
Benjamin Isaac traces some of the attitudes toward slavery during the time period of Greco-Roman prominence. Although variance in thought existed, the social framework of the Greeks seemed to have been woven around what Aristotle called “natural slavery,” that is, asserting that those conquered or in slavery were actually inferior by nature. This was the natural and good order of things, therefore, that society honored these differences by having masters (or people groups) fulfill their role, while slaves performed their own roles. Because of this, both the Greeks and Romans saw those who were “born for slavery” as essentially immovable in their social context, even through the generations.2
Craig DeVos highlights this idea in relation to Philemon by asserting that “behavior is linked to background, form, or function,” and therefore even freedmen or freedwomen would experience very little difference in relationships.3 In short, simply demanding freedom from slavery for Onesimus would most likely have made little impact or difference, practically, for its present context. Within this framework, the themes of Philemon can be discussed.
The primacy of relationships
This short and succinct letter bursts with a multiplicity of relationships, both explicit and implied. The multiple layers of relationships that connect the three men are constantly in tension; a tension that arises between the social and cultural norms of the day and the evolving transformation that arises from Paul’s understanding of what being a “new creation” in Christ really means.4 In exploring these points of tension, one can gain an understanding of what is actually being birthed through the relationships.
One such tension includes Paul’s relationship with Philemon. He speaks of Philemon as an equal, using terms such as brother, coworker, friend, and partner—all names that seem to be in reference to the gospel and ministry (Philemon 1, 7, 17). However, underlying these relationship markers are Paul’s subtle references to his authority, which would reflect the cultural norms. Paul was well within his rights of authority as a suffering prisoner for Christ, a teacher and a mentor, and old man worthy of respect, all of which would command Philemon’s obedience. For instance, he uses the phrase “command you to do your duty,” which speaks of his rightful power and authority that culture would bequeath him as an elder and teacher. Yet, in the same sentence, he refuses to abide by these “rules” for the sake of Philemon’s voluntary acquiescence on the basis of love (vv. 8, 9). Paul also holds the dual role of creditor and redeemer in tension. He mentions the debt that Philemon owes him (v.19), most probably referring to his spiritual influence in Philemon’s life. Yet he chooses to not demand repayment, but rather appeals to something different. He also acts as a kind of redeemer to Onesimus by insisting on repaying any debt or harm that Onesimus has brought upon Philemon (v. 18).
Socially and culturally, the relationship existing between Onesimus and Philemon is that of slave and slaveholder. Although Paul had been radically changed through his encounter with Christ, he was still working out the gospel from within his culture. Since Onesimus was a slave, most likely Paul, at least initially, viewed him as such. And yet, he calls Onesimus his child and positions himself as his father, as well as also referring to him as a brother (vv. 10, 16). He acknowledges the cultural relationship Philemon and Onesimus have, but asks Philemon to redefine this relationship into a familial one, not necessarily affecting Onesimus’s standing and position in society, but rather fundamentally changing the way Philemon and Onesimus see themselves and each other. This radical proposition was possibly much more personally transformative than had Paul directly asked Philemon to free Onesimus. If Philemon had merely changed Onesimus’s outward social status, Philemon would still be free to think of Onesimus as inferior and a slave.
Paul connects God to this familial language at the beginning of the letter by calling God “our Father” (v. 1). Although this may be a standard salutation, it acts as a foundational force in these relationships, gives substance to Paul’s request of Philemon, and allows one to understand how Paul understood the believer’s familial relationship with God and, therefore, with a fellow believer. The importance of this point can be realized only when one sees Paul’s expansion of this idea in Galatians, as he declares that in Christ Jesus, “you are all children of God” (3:26). Curiously, in expanding this concept, Paul uses an analogy involving being enslaved and finishes his point by exclaiming, “So you are no longer a slave, but a child, and if a child, then also an heir, through God” (4:7). Although Paul does not refer to slavery in the social or cultural sense, his reference to the dichotomy between slave and child is poignant.
These relationship structures, fluctuating from the temporal to the eternal, from cultural norms to “new creation,” appear to be delineated by a central theme: the appeal for love— more than duty or obligation—to act as the transformational agent. Paul places himself in a somewhat vulnerable position; although he could command, he appeals. Although he could cancel Onesimus’s debt on the basis of his authority, he pays it. Paul desires that Philemon’s relational shift be from the heart, thus allowing Philemon the power to choose to be transformed. This vulnerability and appeal to love also shows evidence of a new relational ethic being lived out by Paul. Although he recognizes his social and cultural status, he chooses not to act upon it in traditional forms. Instead, he sets his power aside out of love in order that Philemon’s “good deed might be voluntary” (v. 14).
Thematic conclusions: Social manifestation of the new creation
From this analysis, certain conclusions can be drawn. First, although new kinship relationships created out of a familial relationship with God transcend social and cultural relationships, they are still lived out within the social and cultural context, thereby creating numerous tensions. Paul does not necessarily condemn the social institution of slavery, but he asks Philemon to put his identity as a slaveholder behind that of their kinship bond with each other through Christ. He capitulates to the social structure by sending Onesimus back in the first place, yet challenges that same structure by asking him to be welcomed back the same way Paul, Philemon’s spiritual father, would be welcomed—that is, in a position of high honor and respect.
Second, love, operating in its truest sense, becomes primary in facilitating this true relational change.5 Paul’s deliberate refusal to formally use duty or obligation to compel Philemon’s obedience significantly displays what he must have really believed about the power of love to transform and compel. The fact that Paul does not ask Onesimus to be freed likely indicates his cultural trappings but also, perhaps, shows evidence of something deeper: as Isaac and DuVos point out, a freed slave is still captive to their own views about themselves as well as society’s stereotypes. How difficult would it have been at that time to think and treat a slave as an equal and brother or sister? The multiple levels of relationship between Paul, Onesimus, and Philemon illustrate the tension found in applying the gospel’s new creation of relationships in the middle of a social structure, particularly when confronted with the power brokers within that societal structure.
Although Paul, most likely, was the initiator of transformation in Onesimus, it is significant that Paul writes a letter of intercession to the person who holds the power in the relationship. Likewise, although transformation is always necessary on both sides of a relationship equation, the person or group holding the power often has a more difficult role to bring about a change. In Philemon’s case, Paul asks for a relinquishment of social power in order to manifest a fundamental change in God’s new order of relationships. This relinquishment of power brings about a fundamental identity shift: Philemon will no longer exercise his legal right as a slaveholder in a way that exerts relational power over Onesimus.
Another important factor rests on Paul’s assumption of Philemon’s prior example of living by love. In other words, Philemon was, apparently, a faithful and mature follower of Christ as well as a leader of his house church; Paul seems impressed by his love for “all the saints” and even expresses personal encouragement from it (vv. 4, 7). This factor seems a crucial precursor for what Paul is asking. If Philemon had been less mature, would Paul have merely commanded instead of asked?
Would this have wrought a fundamental personal change between Onesimus and Philemon? One can only speculate, but it is essential to reflect on this component in the analogy. For an individual to purposefully relinquish power in a relationship, the groundwork of mature faith and love must already be fostered in order to withstand the intensity of walking against cultural norms.
The church’s prophetic role: Relationships that transform culture
As we have seen, Paul focused on transformation of relationships rather than on the social structure.
However, the social structure of any society is maintained and fostered by relationships. At this intersection, one can see the potency of Paul’s message. What are the sociocultural, economic, and/or political allegiances that prevent such a relational transformation today? Although this varies across nations and cultures, one of the current trends that significantly affects the church worldwide, both positively and negatively, is increasing global migration.6 One negative reality emerging from this phenomenon comprises significant social and political power differences within a given society, sometimes resulting in the overt and covert violence between the immigrant and native-born. The motivations behind these tensions are multivariate and interconnected: nationalism, issues of identity, economic fears, blaming others, religious differences, ethnic/ tribal conflict, and a generalized fear of “the other.”7
For example, in many Western countries, what kind of relationship should exist between an often affluent church and an immigrant church that has members without legal documentation? Similar to Philemon’s dilemma, how does one navigate one’s social norms and political governance with the transformed relationships that are essential to a fundamental change in identity found in Christ?
In fact, the tension of relationships exhibited by Paul, Onesimus, and Philemon demonstrate the difficulty of manifesting the horizontal consequences of being a new creation in Christ, if one’s nationalist, ethnic, or social identity conflicts with those of another believer. It seems that for true relationship transformation to take place, some kind of “identity dissonance” is required and, as Paul indicated, it must be voluntary. As Paul necessarily made his request to Philemon, the power broker, power relinquishment from the person(s) who holds greater societal power is necessary. Harris and Schaupp explore this concept in relation to the concept of “white privilege” in America.8 They argue that power can be relinquished by a voluntary identity displacement, or intentionally putting oneself in a minority position before one undergoes disintegration, in which an individual begins to form a new identity outside of the established norms.9
One can see a difference in the two situations here. Paul talked about returning Onesimus into his original context, albeit under a different identity. For the relational transformation to take place, it was necessary for Onesimus and Philemon to “rub shoulders,” living out their new relational identity in their day-to-day interactions. For a person to move beyond the bounds of their socio-economic, ethnic, or cultural identity, however, a transformation of relationships with other cultures becomes possible only if the individual or group leaves the original context. Leaving one’s comfortable perspective and placing oneself into a situation where one rates as a minority, means leaving some kind of power behind.
Perhaps one of the most powerful and prophetic voices the church can have in this age of tension and fear consists of purposively seeking and maintaining relationships that would require a laying down of power. How can a church truly partner with a church of another ethnicity in a way that does not promote the dominant’s power, but manifests a true equality, partnership, and love? For example, if there was an economic disparity between the two churches, one church might be inclined to take the beneficiary role, offering assistance in multiple ways. This in itself is not negative, of course. However, little or no transformation will have happened relationally, unless the dominant church allowed itself to be taught and ministered to by the other church. This may require the dominant church to adopt some of the other church’s cultural norms instead of assuming that the dominant power will set the standard.
In conclusion, the analysis of Philemon reveals that Paul does not talk about the concept of transformation or change in some remote context, but asks for it on a level that would affect both Philemon, and Onesimus’s day-to-day decisions and behavior. In fact, the relationship transformation apparent in Philemon seems to be a manifestation of Jesus’ prayer in John 17:23: “ ‘I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me, and have loved them.’ ” Only through such truly transformative relationships, lived within the tension of cultural and societal norms, can the church influence the structures of society as a whole, and, at this intersection, the church’s prophetic voice can be heard.
Notes:
1. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1996), 503.
2. Benjamin Isaac, The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2004), 187, 193.
3. Craig DeVos, “Once a Slave Always a Slave? Slavery, Manumission, and Relational Patterns in Paul’s Letter to Philemon,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 82 (2001): 94.
4. See 2 Corinthians 5:16, 17. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture references are from the New Revised Standard Version.
5. I actually mean Paul’s truest sense of which he expounds upon in 1 Corinthians 13. Particular definitions which are pertinent to this letter are: “It does not insist on its own way . . . it believes all things, hopes all things …” (vv. 5, 7).
6. Although sources cite the difficulty of obtaining infallible statistics due to substandard statistical methods in some areas, the UN’s Population Division listed 191 million migrants and 13 million refugees as of 2005. See World Migrant Stock: The 2005 Revision Population Database. Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, cited June 9, 2008, from http://esa.un.org/migration/p2k0data.asp
7. For example, consider the 2008 xenophobic violence in South Africa or the post 9/11 “Islamaphobia” in the United States and parts of western Europe.
8. White privilege, as found in the United States, can be defined as the social, political, and cultural norms that give power or advantage to an individual or group of people because of their white skin color. According to Karen Brodkin, through the institution of slavery, whiteness was continually defined in opposition against blacks and American Indians. As one consequence of this dichotomy, race became the way America organized labor (70, 75). Even after slavery was abolished, menial jobs were often associated with someone who was not white. In fact, Brodkin asserts that because of this history, capitalism itself is racially structured (151). In the present time, although much has changed, white privilege continues to be fostered, albeit sometimes more subtly. See Karen Brodkin, How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says About Race in America (New Brunswick: Rutgers
University Press, 2004).
9. Paula Harris and Doug Schaupp, Being White; Finding Our Place in a Multiethnic World (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 19.
