Philemon 17–22
Living Up to Character
Introductory Matters
Having set the scene (vv. 1–3 and 8–16) and focused on Philemon’s exemplary character (vv. 4–7), Paul is now ready to get to the point of it all in verses 17–22. The point is spelled out in minimalistic terms. First comes a vaguely articulated request (v. 17). This is followed by an aside about recompense (vv. 18–19), an appeal to grant the request and outperform it (vv. 20–21), and a further request that looks unrelated but, even in that appearance, adds incentive for Philemon to grant the request (v. 22).
Having taken great care to set up the letter’s rhetorical and theological dynamics in earlier sections of the letter, this text unit flows smoothly and cleanly in presentation.
Tracing the Train of Thought
A Request (17)
17. Having prioritized Philemon’s relationship with Onesimus in the Lord (v. 16), Paul highlights again that Philemon’s actions toward Onesimus are to be guided by yet another consideration—Philemon’s relationship to Paul (v. 17). Paul writes to Philemon with these words: If then you regard me as your associate, receive him as you would receive me. Just as Philemon would not dream of mistreating Paul upon arrival (see v. 22), so he should not mistreat Onesimus upon his return to Philemon. This request is given greater poignancy from Paul’s depiction of himself as a (spiritual) father to Onesimus (v. 10), since the way one treats a son reflects how one regards the son’s father.
A Parenthetical Promise (18–19)
18–19. It is not clear what Paul means by the word “associate” (koinōnon, v. 17). Since the word often has strong economic nuances, it is possible that Paul and Philemon may have shared in a business venture at some point (see Dunn 1996). This would resonate well with what Paul says in verses 18 and 19—verses that read much like a parenthesis in thought, with verse 20 virtually picking up again where verse 17 left off. In the first of these parenthetical verses, Paul registers the fact that if he (Onesimus) has done you (Philemon) any injustice or if he owes you anything, charge that to me. The instruction may not be simply metaphorical (especially if Paul and Philemon had been, and perhaps continued to be, partners in an ongoing business venture of some sort). The same is true when Paul writes in verse 19, I will repay it. If these assurances are meant to have economic literalness, they demonstrate the extent to which Paul was willing to “invest” in the situation (see C. J. Martin 1991). To add credibility, Paul adds a note putting his own name to these assurances: I, Paul, have written this with my own hand (as discussed in the introduction to the commentary).
But it might also be that Paul’s “association” with Philemon is not economically configured but pertains to their mutual partnership in advancing the gospel. They are partners, sharing responsibility in the common goal of enhancing the community to which they both belonged. This would give the accounting imagery a metaphorical sense. Whatever costs Philemon might charge to Paul would be repaid in the currency in which Paul prefers to deal—that is, in prayers of thanksgiving to God for Philemon’s initiatives for the sake of the gospel (cf. vv. 4–7). This metaphorical sense of exchange plays directly into Paul’s final statement in verse 19, which is yet another highly charged rhetorical moment: I don’t need even to mention to you that you owe me in return—that is, you owe me your own self. Whereas in verse 8 Paul had no need to command what he commanded, here he has no need to mention what he mentions (see further Wendland 2010).
But what does Paul mean by “you owe me your own self”? Had Paul saved Philemon’s life at some point in the past? More likely, Paul is referring to the blessings that Philemon has enjoyed as a result of Paul’s ministry. Probably Philemon had become a Jesus-follower through Paul’s influence, having gone from spiritual impoverishment to spiritual riches and richness by means of Paul’s influence. If Philemon proves to be rather ornery in his attitude toward Onesimus, he will only be making himself look churlish in light of all that Paul has done for him.
An Appeal to Grant the Request (20)
20. Paul’s discourse has almost run its course. And so, before registering his concluding comments in verses 23–25, Paul makes it clear that he is asking Philemon to do something significant in relation to Onesimus. So he writes in verse 20, Yes brother, let me have this delight, in the Lord. (It is often noticed that the Greek verb onaimēn, translated here as “let me have this delight,” has strong convergence with the name Onesimus, so that Paul might yet again have constructed a play on words.) That delight will no doubt feed Paul’s thanks to God for Philemon (vv. 4–7), owing to the fact that what Philemon is being called to do is an action that derives from his identity “in the Lord”—a phrase that Paul last used in verse 16 when describing Onesimus as a brother “in the Lord.”
What is it that Paul is calling on Philemon to do? He says it this way: Refresh my heart, in Christ. This is the third time that Paul has used the word “heart” (splanchna) in his letter, and it is a word that he uses to great rhetorical effect. In the first instance, Paul praises Philemon for having refreshed the hearts of the holy ones of God (v. 7); in the second instance, Paul identifies Onesimus as his own heart, whom he is sending back to Philemon (v. 12). In verse 20, then, when encouraging Philemon to refresh Paul’s heart, Paul is doing two interconnected things:
- He has established a subtle but appreciable double entendre. Philemon is to act in such a fashion that both Paul and Onesimus (Paul’s “own heart”) are benefited. The rhetorical pressure is considerable.
- He is asking Philemon to live up to his established character. Philemon is already well-known for having refreshed the hearts of Jesus-followers; Paul hopes that Philemon will act on that honorable reputation once again, this time in relation to Onesimus.
An Appeal to Go beyond the Request (21)
21. Because this character is lived out in the realm of those “in Christ” rather than in accordance with the standards of “the world,” Paul writes in verse 21 of his confidence in Philemon: I am writing this to you in the confidence that you will be obedient. At the end of verse 21, Paul articulates not only his full confidence in Philemon’s obedience but also his certainty that Philemon will do even more than I am suggesting.
This is a key rhetorical moment in the reading of the letter. The wider audience hears of Paul’s confidence that Philemon will perform in such a way as to outstrip Paul’s implied suggestions. Seeing the pressure that Philemon is coming under, the wider audience also recognizes that if Philemon chooses to act along the lines that Paul has been hinting at, whatever he does should be seen in a positive light, in direct proportion to the extent that he complies with Paul’s expectations. As a result, Philemon will not lose face (as might have been the case in the eyes of those beyond this Jesus-group) but will, instead, accumulate honor. In highlighting that Philemon is sure to do even more than Paul articulates, Paul simultaneously heaps up the rhetorical pressure while “envisioning” Philemon (albeit implicitly) with a course of action whereby he will not be dishonored but will, instead, be seen as a critical player in a beneficial move for all involved.
Paul has crafted a way of looking at the situation that fosters a win-win situation for all parties—certainly for Philemon (who gains in honor), for Paul (whose heart is refreshed), and for Onesimus (whose situation is rectified in some fashion).
Incentivizing Philemon (22)
22. Although verse 22 is often linked to the verses that follow it, the way Paul begins the verse suggests that he imagines it linking most strongly to what precedes it. Two simple connectives (de kai) appear in conjunction with an adverb denoting temporal simultaneity (hama), resulting in a sentence that begins by signaling its dependency on what came previously: And also at the same time . . .
This backward link makes perfect sense when the verse is seen not as an outline of Paul’s intended travel plans (in which case it might link better with the letter’s closure in vv. 23–25) but, instead, as furthering his interest in Onesimus’s situation. Paul writes: prepare a place where I can stay, for I hope that through your prayers I will be restored to you all. Having already stated his confidence in Philemon’s extravagant obedience with regard to Onesimus (v. 21), Paul mentions the prospect of his arrival (his “restoration” among them) as a way of adding urgency to Philemon’s decision to comply. Paul implies that, with God’s help, he might be arriving among them at any point (a strategy Paul uses also in Phil. 2:24; cf. 1 Tim. 3:14). If Philemon delays in making an acceptable decision in favor of Onesimus, he might have to explain himself to Paul directly, face to face, after Paul’s release from prison. This somewhat ominous prospect is not explicitly mentioned, of course; Paul has more tact than that (although he found himself resorting to that strategy in 1 Cor. 4:18–21 and 2 Cor. 13:1–2). But the verse serves as a further incentive for Philemon to undertake his voluntary “good deed” (v. 14) and to do it without delay. As such, it is not so much an outline of Paul’s travel plans as it is a rhetorical feature in his case on Onesimus’s behalf.
That verse 22 plays a part in Paul’s concerns for Onesimus is further evidenced by the use of second-person references in the verse. Paul initially instructs Philemon in the second-person singular (“prepare a place”) but then shifts into the second-person plural when speaking of prayers for Paul (“your prayers”) and of his return to them (“restored to you”). In this way, Philemon is singled out as having responsibility for organizing hospitality for Paul, and the wider audience is implicitly aligned with Paul as a group that prays for his welcomed return. If Philemon fails to comply with Paul’s expectations regarding Onesimus, an eventual visit from Paul would not reap the benefits of joy for the community that it otherwise would. Philemon would, in effect, be letting down all those who are gathered around him. Instead of refreshing the hearts of the people of God, he will have been an impediment. But that is not the Philemon depicted by Paul in this letter—Philemon the “coworker” in the gospel, the one who refreshes the hearts of others, through whom good work flows to others.
The choice is Philemon’s to make, of course, but Paul has stacked the rhetorical and theological deck to such an extent that Philemon would simply be foolish to act against Paul’s unarticulated yet clear request—foolish, that is, to act in a fashion that undermines his already established character.
Theological Issues
It is intriguing to note the virtual absence of theological themes and argumentation in this text unit of the letter. Paul has engaged theological motifs at every point along the way, with each of the preceding text units being interwoven with theological strands of thought to help Philemon consider the situation with theological clarity. But in this text unit, the big rhetorical moment, Paul’s discourse has almost none of that. The request itself is virtually unadorned theologically. Having already established the theological context of the situation, Paul enters the moment of request with theological minimalism marking out his discourse. Even though Paul makes very clear the direction he wants Philemon to take in the matter, there is little theological hand-holding or arm-twisting to guide Philemon in his decision; it is simply decision time for Philemon (cf. Petersen 1985, 73–78).
There are, of course, two notable exceptions to this depiction—that is, the two heavily loaded theological phrases that complement each other in adjoining clauses (v. 20): “in the Lord” and “in Christ.” It is as if Paul is saying to Philemon, “Be who you are, and who you are primarily is a person in the Lord, a person in Christ. So, Philemon, act accordingly.”
There were various ways in which Philemon could subsequently choose to play the situation, depending on what values he prioritized in the decision-making process. But prioritizing values is done in relation to the character of the person doing the valuing. So the question that ultimately faced Philemon is “Who are you? On what basis will you make your decision? How will the formation of your character in the past impact your decision in the present?” (Or, to quote Steely Dan [2000], what is the “architecture of your soul”?)
This might be why Paul strips his theological discourse down to the two simple phrases that identify Philemon as one who is “in the Lord” and “in Christ.” It is Paul’s way of framing the ultimate question that Philemon must determine—the question of who he ultimately is. Is he someone whose ultimate concern is to maximize the economic efficiency of his household? Is he someone whose ultimate concern is to protect the honor of his name against potential criticism or mockery, for failing to keep his household affairs in order? Or is he someone whose identity is fundamentally shaped by being “in the Lord” and “in Christ,” where values are transformed in conformity with the gospel?
We will never know for sure what Philemon decided to do. Or, better, we will never know for sure who Philemon decided he was. We will never know what aspect of his identity informed his decision regarding Onesimus. There is reason for thinking that Philemon may have acted in compliance with Paul’s request, since the letter was cherished by early Jesus-followers rather than being lost through embarrassment or contempt (as noted in the introduction), and there is just a chance that the Onesimus who was the bishop of Ephesus a few decades later is the same Onesimus whose case Paul defends in this letter (see Ign. Eph. 1.3; this scenario works better if Paul’s imprisonment was in Rome sometime in the 60s rather than in Ephesus in the mid-50s).
But it is also worth considering what would have happened if Philemon chose to prioritize economic efficiency or social honor over his identity “in the Lord” and if Paul were then to visit Philemon after that (as proposed in v. 22). In that encounter, perhaps Paul would have interacted with Philemon not so much in confrontation with him or with contempt for him but simply out of concern for him, in the same manner he had already shown for Onesimus.