Notes

1. John Knox, Philemon among the Letters of Paul (London: Collins, 1960), 9.

2. For the role of Timothy in this letter opening, see comments on v. 1.

3. See esp. Ferdinand Christian Baur, Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ: His Life and Works, His Epistles and Teachings. A Contribution to a Critical History of Primitive Christianity (London: Williams & Norgate, 1875), 2:84, who considers this letter as one that “contains nothing of importance either in relation to doctrine or to Church history.”

4. Cf. Raymond Brown, Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1977), 612.

5. Cf. W. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (rev. and enlarged; Nashville: Abingdon, 1986), 345.

6. It was common for ancient letters to mention multiple recipients even if it targeted one primary recipient; cf. Peter Arzt-Grabner, Philemon (Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament 1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), 111–14. The mentioning of “the church” that meets in Philemon’s house highlights the public nature of this letter.

7. For a defense of a Caesarean origin, see E. Earle Ellis, The Making of the New Testament Documents (BIS 39; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 266–75.

8. Eduard Lohse, Colossians and Philemon (trans. William R. Poehlmann and Robert J. Karris; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 188; Charles B. Cousar, Philippians and Philemon: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 187.

9. See esp. Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke, The Letter to Philemon (ECC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 122–26.

10. See Circumstances behind the Text (the next section below).

11. For further discussion on this issue, see the introduction to Colossians.

12. Cf. Bruce M. Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1994), 589–60.

13. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (trans. William Pringle; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 347–48.

14. Murray J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 241.

15. Noting Paul’s use of the metaphor of slavery elsewhere in his letters, some have even questioned whether Onesimus is really Philemon’s slave; Allen D. Callahan, “Paul’s Epistle to Philemon: Toward an Alternative Argumentum,” HTR 86 (1993): 357–76; idem, Embassy of Onesimus: The Letter of Paul to Philemon (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity International, 1997). This reading is, however, improbable; see comments on vv. 15–16.

16. See Sarah B. C. Winter, “Paul’s Letter to Philemon,” NTS 33 (1987): 1–15.

17. For the rhetorical function of this verse, see Clarice J. Martin, “The Rhetorical Function of Commercial Language in Paul’s Letter to Philemon (Verse 18),” in Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy (ed. Duane F. Watson; JSNTSup 50; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991), 321–37.

18. I. Howard Marshall, “The Theology of Philemon,” in The Theology of the Shorter Pauline Letters (ed. Karl P. Donfried and I. Howard Marshall; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993), 178. For the various places to which a runaway slave could escape, see Peter Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an Philemon (4th ed.; EKKNT 18; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener and Düsseldorf: Banziger, 2004), 22–23.

19. Brian M. Rapske, “The Prisoner Paul in the Eyes of Onesimus,” NTS 37 (1991): 189–90.

20. Craig S. Wansink, Chained in Christ: The Experience and Rhetoric of Paul’s Imprisonments (JSNTSup 130; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 176. Equally important is the difference in “tone” between these two groups of letters; see J. A. Harrill, “Paul and Slavery,” in Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook (ed. J. Paul Sampley; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity International, 2003), 590. Some consider, however, such lack of explicit requests in this letter as emerging from Paul’s own predicament as he found himself harboring a fugitive; David M. Russell, “The Strategy of a First-Century Appeals Letter: A Discourse Reading of Paul’s Epistle to Philemon,” JOTT 11 (1998): 1–25. Others who likewise hold to the traditional interpretation suggest that Paul’s intention is not to settle a private matter, but to promote “love and brotherhood” among those within the church; F. Forrester Church, “Rhetorical Structure and Design in Paul’s Letter to Philemon,” HTR 71 (1978): 32. These proposals do not provide sufficient defense of the traditional interpretation, although they do point to the problems of reading Philemon in light of the letters of Pliny the Younger.

21. E. R. Goodenough, “Paul and Onesimus,” HTR 22 (1929): 181–82.

22. Cf. Barth and Blanke, Letter to Philemon, 28–30.

23. Peter Lampe, “Keine ‘Sklavenflucht’ des Onesimus,” ZNW 76 (1985): 135–37. See also C. F. D. Moule, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1957), 20; Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 187; Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 177; James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 303–5; J. M. G. Barclay, Colossians and Philemon (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 101; Reidar Aasgaard, “My Beloved Brothers and Sisters!” Christian Siblingship in Paul (JSNTSup 265; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 242.

24. Rapske, “The Prisoner Paul in the Eyes of Onesimus,” 202.

25. Max Turner, “Human Reconciliation in the New Testament with Special Reference to Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians,” EuroJTh 16 (2006): 39.

26. See also Neil Elliott, Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1994), 51; Harrill, “Paul and Slavery,” 590; idem, “Using the Roman Jurists to Interpret Philemon: A Response to Peter Lampe,” ZNW 90 (1999): 135–38.

27. See Donald M. Steele, “Releasing the Captives—Release the Captors: The Letter to Philemon and the Relationship of North American Christians and the Peoples of the Two-Thirds World” (PhD.diss., Graduate Theological Union, 1994), 92–93.

28. Cf. Wansink, Chained in Christ, 188: “If Paul is interceding on Onesimus’s behalf, his subtlety is overwhelming.”

29. Winter, “Paul’s Letter to Philemon,” 3. See also idem, “Methodological Observations on a New Interpretation of Paul’s Letter to Philemon,” USQR 39 (1984): 203–12. See also Wolfgang Schenk, “Der Brief des Paulus an Philemon in der neueren Forschung,” ANRW II.25.4 (1987): 3439–95. John Knox offers an early version of this in Philemon among the Letters of Paul, 18–27, when he suggests this letter was actually addressed to Archippus, whom he considers the owner of Onesimus. For Knox, the purpose of this letter is to have Archippus free Onesimus so that he can serve together with Paul in his future ministries.

30. For a more detailed reading of this entire letter that supports this hypothesis, see Brook W. R. Pearson, “Assumptions in the Criticism and Translation of Philemon,” in Translating the Bible: Problems and Prospect (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Richard S. Hess; JSNTSup 173; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 253–80.

31. Winter, “Paul’s Letter to Philemon,” 3. On this, see also Brian M. Rapske, “The Importance of Helpers to the Imprisoned Paul in the Book of Acts,” TynBul 42 (1991): 3–30.

32. In two letters of Ignatius (Trall. 12.1; Mag. 15.1), the same word group was used regarding those who had served him during his imprisonment (Wansink, Chained in Christ, 195).

33. This reading points to the significant ecclesiological as well as missiological significance of this letter, one that reflects Paul’s passion and conviction.

34. Wansink, Chained in Christ, 196.

35. Harrill, “Paul and Slavery,” 591.

36. Thus, e.g., Barclay, Colossians and Philemon, 100; Douglas J. Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 166.

37. See comments on v. 11.

38. See also a similar wordplay on the words “useful” (χρηστός) and “Christ” (Χριστός) in 1 Cor 15:31–33; cf. Steele, “Releasing the Captives,” 93–103.

39. Thus N. H. Taylor, “Onesimus: A Case Study of Slave Conversion in Early Christianity,” R&T 3 (1996): 259–81.

40. Gary Wills, What Paul Meant (New York: Viking, 2006), 112–13.

41. F. F. Bruce, Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 217; Norman R. Petersen, Rediscovering Paul: Philemon and the Sociology of Paul’s Narrative World (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 97; Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an Philemon, 54.

42. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 203; J. M. G. Barclay, “Paul, Philemon and the Dilemma of Christian Slave Ownership,” NTS 37 (1991): 170; Dunn, Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, 334–35; Barth and Blanke, Letter to Philemon, 414–16.

43. Peter O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon (WBC 44; Waco, TX: Word, 1982), 287.

44. For a further discussion of this restructuring of human relationships, see the Theology of Philemon section.

45. This understanding of the purpose of this letter is consistent with, but not necessarily tied to, our understanding of the occasion behind Onesimus’s initial meeting with Paul; cf. Marshall, “Theology of Philemon,” 179; S. H. Polaski, Paul and the Discourse of Power (Biblical Seminar 62; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 66.

46. Some have also considered Paul’s naming Onesimus as a “brother” (v. 16) as pointing to his intended position as his coworker in the gospel ministry (cf. Rom 16:1, 23; 1 Cor 1:1; 16:12; 2 Cor 1:1; 2:13; Phil 2:25; 1 Thess 3:2); Aasgaard, “My Beloved Brothers and Sisters,” 249–50, 296–97.

47. Other definitions include “chattel” (mancipium) and “mortal object” (res mortales); S. Scott Bartchy, First-Century Slavery and 1 Corinthians 7:21 (SBLDS 11; Atlanta: Scholars, 1973), 38.

48. Orlando Patterson, Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1982), 13.

49. This would only apply to male slaves since female slaves received less specific training and were exploited in numerous ways; cf. Lynn H. Cohick, Women in the World of the Earliest Christians: Illuminating Ancient Ways of Life (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009), 257–84.

50. Cf. Keith Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves (Sociological Studies in Roman History 1; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1978), 11.

51. In the ancient Greco-Roman world, it would be a sign of severe poverty not to own at least a few slaves (cf. Libanius, Oratio 31.11); Barclay, “Paul, Philemon and the Dilemma of Christian Slave Ownership,” 166 n. 19.

52. Apuleius, Metam. 6.4; William Linn Westermann, The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1955), 108.

53. Translation taken from Theodor Mommsen, Paul Krueger, and Alan Watson, eds., The Digest of Justinian (Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 1:344.

54. Orlando Patterson, Freedom, vol. 1: Freedom in the Making of Western Culture (New York: HarperCollins, 1991), 236.

55. See esp. Bartchy, First-Century Slavery, 40; Craig S. de Vos, “Once a Slave, Always a Slave? Slavery, Manumission and Relational Patterns in Paul’s Letter to Philemon,” JSNT 82 (2001): 99. It should be noted, however, that although urban slaves were often manumitted, this was not an automatic process, nor was there a definite time line through which they were to be manumitted; cf. Harrill, “Paul and Slavery,” 580–81.

56. R. Zelnick-Abramovitz, Not Wholly Free: The Concept of Manumission and the Status of Manumitted Slaves in the Ancient Greek World (Mnemosyne Supplementa 266; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005), 333.

57. K. R. Bradley, Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire: A Study in Social Control (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1987), 82.

58. Ibid., 83–112.

59. De Vos, “Once a Slave, Always a Slave?” 104.

60. J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (London: Macmillan, 1897), 322–23.

61. J. Duncan M. Derrett, “The Function of the Epistle to Philemon,” ZNW 79 (1988): 84–85.

62. For some, Paul’s failure to discuss the issue of manumission reflects his conviction of the imminent end of the present world; Marion L. Soards, “Benefitting from Philemon,” Journal of Theology 91 (1987): 49–50; Mark D. Chapman, “The Shortest Book in the Bible,” ExpTim 118 (2007): 546. This fails, however, to explain passages where social and political institutions are indeed addressed (e.g., Rom 13:1–7; Col 3:18–4:1; etc.).

63. Barclay, “Paul, Philemon and the Dilemma of Christian Slave Ownership,” 175.

64. Elliott, Liberating Paul, 44.

65. James Tunstead Burtchaell, Philemon’s Problem: A Theology of Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 28.

66. To some, this is the major contribution of this letter; Todd D. Still, “Philemon among the Letters of Paul: Theological and Canonical Considerations,” ResQ 47 (2005): 139–40.

67. Peter Lampe, “Affects and Emotions in the Rhetoric of Paul’s Letter to Philemon: A Rhetorical-Psychological Interpretation,” in Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter (ed. D. Francois Tolmie; BZNW 169; New York/Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 65–66.

68. Stanley E. Porter, “Is Critical Discourse Analysis Critical? An Evaluation Using Philemon as a Test Case,” in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed; JSNTSup 170; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 63.

69. Cf. Martin, “The Rhetorical Function of Commercial Language,” 321–37.

70. For the limitations of applying models found in ancient rhetorical handbooks to Paul’s letters, see the Introduction to Colossians.