1. Concerning the debate surrounding the limit of the main body of this letter, see the discussion of Literary Context on vv. 8–16.
2. Cf. Chan-Hie Kim, Form and Structure of the Familiar Greek Letter of Recommendation (SBLDS 4; Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972), 124.
3. Allen “The Discourse Structure of Philemon,” 91.
4. See Theology in Application section for an allusion to Christ’s own example behind this verse within the wider context of Paul’s argument.
5. Church, “Rhetorical Structure and Design,” 28.
6. Russell, “Strategy of a First-Century Appeals Letter, JOTT 11 (1998): 20.
7. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 203; O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, 298.
8. Allen, “The Discourse Structure of Philemon,” 87.
9. Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.; BLG 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994), 256–57; Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 690–91.
10. Petersen, Rediscovering Paul, 105, italics his.
11. Cf. Arzt-Grabner, Philemon, 226–29. For a reading of this term in light of the Roman concept of societas that is rooted in the household unit, see also J. Paul Sampley, Pauline Partnership in Christ: Christian Community and Commitment in Light of Roman Law (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 11–20.
12. As such, it aims at pointing to a concrete way through which the prayer of v. 6 can be fulfilled; cf. Josef Zmijewski, “Der Philemonbrief: Ein Plädoyer für die christliche Brüderlichkeit,” TTZ 114 (2005): 222–42.
13. See esp. Pearson, “Assumptions in the Criticism and Translation of Philemon,” 273–74.
14. This would also mean that this partnership is the necessary basis for Paul’s identification of Philemon as his “beloved and coworker” (v. 1); cf. Polaski, Paul and the Discourse of Power, 66.
15. Cf. Fitzmyer, Letter to Philemon, 116; Wilson, Colossians and Philemon, 157.
16. In Greek, the phrase literally reads “as me” and is often translated simply as “as you would me” (NASB, NAB, NJB, NKJV, HCSB, NET).
17. See Barth and Blanke, Letter to Philemon, 475, who points to this use in Acts 18:26: “When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited [προσελάβοντο] him to their home.”
18. Bratcher and Nida, Translator’s Handbook, 129.
19. De Vos, “Once a Slave, Always a Slave?” 103.
20. Wright, Colossians and Philemon, 187; cf. Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an Philemon, 49.
21. Cf. Derrett, “The Function of the Epistle to Philemon,” 67.
22. Wilson, Colossians and Philemon, 358; cf. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, 343.
23. Fitzmyer, Letter to Philemon, 117: “Paul states the matter hypothetically, but he realizes it to be true absolutely: Onesimus, he knows, has wronged Philemon in some way.”
24. Nordling, “Onesimus Fugitivus,” 110.
25. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 690–91.
26. BDAG, 20. To translate this verb as having “defrauded” (NET) is to limit the semantic range unjustifiably.
27. BDAG, 742.
28. Ryan, “Philemon,” 248. For those who uphold the “runaway slave” hypothesis, this “loss” can also refer to Paul’s harboring a runaway slave, thus being responsible for such loss of service; cf. Ralph P. Martin, Colossians and Philemon (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1974), 167. The language used here, however, does not hint at any apology on Paul’s part.
29. The promise to repay a slave’s former master is often found in documents that negotiate the manumission of a slave; cf. Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World (trans. Lionel R. M. Strachan; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965), 330–32. See discussion below.
30. Anaximenes, Rhet. Alex. 36; cf. Martin, “The Rhetorical Function of Commercial Language,” 330.
31. Church, “Rhetorical Structure and Design,” 29–30.
32. MM, 204. See also NRSV: “charge that to my account.”
33. See, e.g., Fitzmyer, Letter to Philemon, 118–19; Moo, Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, 428.
34. Of course, one can also suggest that Paul can repay through nonmaterial means; cf. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 204.
35. Thus Marshall, “Theology of Philemon,” 179–80.
36. For the legal and financial role of the third party in the process of manumission, see Bartchy, First-Century Slavery, 121–25; Laura L. Sanders, “Equality and a Request for the Manumission of Onesimus,” ResQ 46 (2004): 113–14.
37. Cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 563. See also Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament (New York: Lang, 1989), 228–29.
38. Randolph Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition, and Collection (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 173. Richards also considers the presence of this postscript as a helpful way to explain the shift in tone in this final section, where Paul becomes more forthright: “in other Pauline postscripts (Philm 19–25; 1 Cor 16:22–24; Gal 6:12–18 and Col 4:18), there is a tendency for the language to be more abrupt and stern than that found in the body of the letter. It is quite possible that ‘pure Paul’ tended to be more blunt and that his coauthors (and secretaries) tended to moderate his tone” (175).
39. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, 344, draws this conclusion precisely in light of the appearance of Paul’s signature here.
40. Cf. Arzt-Grabner, Philemon, 240–43.
41. If so, one would expect another verb for “I will pay back” (ἀποδώσω).
42. Bratcher and Nida, Translator’s Handbook, 130.
43. P.Oxy. 2.275; Pearson, “Assumptions in the Criticism and Translation of Philemon,” 277–78.
44. A different way of punctuating this sentence is assumed: “charge it to me … so that I will not say, ‘to you, because you owe me your own self.’ ” Cf. BDF §495(1).
45. Rupprecht, “Philemon,” 641.
46. Many contemporary versions use a dash (NKJV, REB, NJB, HCSB, TNIV, ESV, NIV) or parenthesis (NASB, GNB) here.
47. Barclay, “Paul, Philemon and the Dilemma of Christian Slave Ownership,” 171–72.
48. Harris, Colossians and Philemon, 274. See also Cousar, Philippians and Philemon, 104, who considers vv. 19–21 as depicting the relationship between Paul and Philemon as that of a patron-client relationship. Equally possible is Paul’s intent to highlight the commonality between Philemon and his slave Onesimus, since both owe their new lives in Christ to his ministry; cf. Porter, “Is Critical Discourse Analysis Critical?” 60.
49. BDAG, 665; Barth and Blanke, Letter to Philemon, 485–86.
50. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, 344.
51. Moule, Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, 149.
52. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 481.
53. Wright, Colossians and Philemon, 188.
54. The fact that this verb appears only here in the NT increases the likelihood that a wordplay is intended; cf. Dunn, Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, 341; Barth and Blanke, Letter to Philemon, 486; Moo, Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, 432.
55. Polaski, Paul and the Discourse of Power, 67.
56. For a discussion of the repeated uses of the title “Lord” in the Colossian household code (Col 3:18, 20, 22, 23, 24; 4:1) in shifting attention to the Lord Christ as the final authority, see comments on Col 3:18–4:1.
57. Cf. NLT: “Give me this encouragement in Christ.”
58. See comments on v. 7.
59. Note too that neither Philemon’s nor Onesimus’s name appears in this section.
60. In the rhetorical world of this text, Paul’s imprisonment is not a sign of weakness but a sign of power, since Paul’s power ultimately rests on his call as an apostle of the gospel, and it is precisely for the sake of this gospel that he is in prison (cf. vv. 1, 9, 13).
61. Onesimus therefore becomes the basis of their partnership. See Polaski, Paul and the Discourse of Power, 66.
62. See Introduction to Philemon for discussion.
63. Henri J. M. Nouwen, Creative Ministry (New York: Doubleday, 1971), 65.
64. See, e.g., the helpful discussion in Martin Marty, “The Sunday School: Battered Survivor,” ChrCent 97 (1980): 634–36.
65. See, e.g., Jouette M. Bassler, ed., Pauline Theology, vol. 1: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991). Despite the title, chapters are devoted to 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Philippians, and Galatians, but not to Philemon. Behind this omission is apparently the assumption that “theology” cannot be found in this short letter.
66. Cf. Rom 3:24; 7:14; 8:12–13; Eph 4:30; Col 1:14. See also Martin, “The Rhetorical Function of Commercial Language,” 335–36. Though not referring specifically to v. 18, the metanarrative that frames this letter is considered to be nothing less than the drama of redemption: “Paul is saying to Philemon: keep on playing your part in the divine comedy of redemption as well as you have been playing it up to now” (Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Imprisoned or Free? Text, Status, and Theological Interpretation in the Master/Slave Discourse of Philemon,” in Reading Scripture with the Church: Toward a Hermeneutic for Theological Interpretation [ed. A. K. M. Adam et al.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006], 85).
67. For other possible allusions to the life of Christ in this letter, see also Kirk D. Lyons Sr., “Paul’s Confrontation with Class: The Letter to Philemon as Counter-Hegemonic Discourse,” Cross Currents 56 (2006): 125–26, who sees Paul’s reference to his own apostolic presence in v. 22 as a veiled reference to the parousia of Christ.
68. The phrase “in Christ” (ἐν Χριστῷ) in v. 20 and throughout Philemon (vv. 8, 23; cf. v. 6) serves as constant reminders of the significant christological basis of Paul’s argument.