1. Marion L. Soards, “Some Neglected Theological Dimensions of Paul’s Letter to Philemon,” PRSt 17 (1990): 209.
2. This is best illustrated by the treatment in Bassler, ed. Pauline Theology, vol. 1, which ignores Philemon.
3. Cf. James D. G. Dunn, “Prolegomena to a Theology of Paul,” NTS 40 (1994): 407–32.
4. Ben Witherington III, Paul’s Narrative Thought World: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 1–5.
5. For the relationship between the opening thanksgiving sections in Paul’s letters and his theology of thanksgiving, see David W. Pao, “Gospel within the Constraints of an Epistolary Form: Pauline Introductory Thanksgivings and Paul’s Theology of Thanksgiving,” in Paul and the Ancient Letter Form (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Sean A. Adams; Pauline Studies 6; Boston/Leiden: Brill, 2010), 101–28.
6. See also Soards, “Some Neglected Theological Dimensions,” 215, who considers the content of Paul’s prayer, “so that your partnership in the faith may become effective” (v. 6), as reflecting the belief in the active work of God (see comments on v. 6).
7. Burtchaell, Philemon’s Problem: A Theology of Grace, 48–49, rightly draws attention to the God embedded in this letter as the God of love, one who “loves us as he must” because “He is love.” His claim, however, that this God is “a Father who has no wrath” goes beyond the biblical evidence.
8. See S. Scott Bartchy, “Undermining Ancient Patriarchy: The Apostle Paul’s Vision of a Society of Siblings,” BTB 29 (1999): 76, who draws attention to the fact that “Christians were to ‘call no man father on earth’—not even the emperor—and many of them were forced to pay with their lives for this radical redefining of family values.”
9. The close identification of Christ with his gospel is illustrated by the coexistence of the title “prisoner of Christ Jesus” (vv. 1, 9; cf. v. 23) and the description “imprisonment for the gospel” (v. 13) in this letter.
10. Another marker that frames this main body is the phrase “in Christ,” which is found at the beginning (v. 8) and end (v. 20) of this section.
11. Thus Still, “Philemon among the Letters of Paul,” 137: “In Philemon, Christ is not only a part of the letter’s warp and woof, but he is also the one who binds Paul to both Philemon and Onesimus. Paul was persuaded that Christ could bring believers together, even a slave and a master.”
12. For a more detailed discussion, see Theology in Application on vv. 17–20.
13. See also v. 22, where Paul presents his own reception by Philemon as comparable to Philemon’s own reception of Onesimus; cf. Polaski, Paul and the Discourse of Power, 70.
14. See Lyons, “Paul’s Confrontation with Class,” 125–26, who further considers Paul’s self-portrayal as following Christ’s incarnation: self-abnegation, challenge of existing hierarchical social structure, redemptive sacrifice, and an anticipated parousia.
15. For a discussion of the theological significance of Paul’s collection, see esp. Dieter Georgi, Remembering the Poor: The History of Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem (Nashville: Abingdon, 1992).
16. This is confirmed by the appearance of four OT quotations in Rom 15:9–12 that forms the climax of Paul’s preceding discussion.
17. Vanhoozer, “Imprisoned or Free?” 85.
18. For the further discussion of the labels of “old man” (v. 9) and “child” (v. 10) in Philemon, see comments on vv. 9–10.
19. See esp. Stephen C. Barton, “The Relativisation of Family Ties in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman Traditions,” in Constructing Early Christian Families: Family as Social Reality and Metaphor (ed. H. Moxnes; London/New York: Routledge, 1997), 81–100.
20. See, e.g., Sabine Bieberstein, “Disrupting the Normal Reality of Slavery: A Feminist Reading of the Letter to Philemon,” JSNT 79 (2000): 115: “Precisely here, where social normality is broken open, the letter to Philemon summons a woman, Apphia, as witness. She brings before our eyes the relational structure of the early communities of believers in Christ, where a new relationship to the slave Onesimus is now being sought.” Assuming that Archippus is Philemon’s son, others have considered him as a symbol of the marginal member of the household; cf. Mary Ann Getty, “The Theology of Philemon,” SBLSP 26 (1987): 506.
21. Only when “eschatology” is limited to the final culmination of God’s work in Christ can one argue for the absence of “eschatology” in this letter; cf. Still, “Philemon among the Letters of Paul,” 138.
22. Some have further suggested that this new humanity is to fulfill the role of Israel as the true Adam, God’s true humanity; cf. N. T. Wright, “Putting Paul Together Again: Toward a Synthesis of Pauline Theology,” in Pauline Theology, vol. 1: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon, 204.
23. See also the explicit mentioning of “the church in your [Philemon’s] house” (v. 2).
24. See Steele, “Releasing the Captives,” 81.
25. Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, 348.
26. Thus also Bieberstein, “Disrupting the Normal Reality of Slavery,” 112: “This public dimension of the community functions as a counterweight not only to the private sphere between Paul and Philemon, but also vis-à-vis the public dimension of state and society, which not merely accepted slavery as the normal state of affairs, but in fact required for its own maintenance a system that divided the population into free and unfree persons.”
27. I assume Philemon received the gospel from the evangelistic activities of Epaphras when he first brought the gospel to the city of Colossae (cf. Col 1:7); this also explains the mention of Epaphras at the end of this letter (v. 23). Nevertheless, according to v. 19, Paul also seems to have played a part in Philemon’s conversion, and thus Philemon is indebted to him.
28. See also Paul’s description of his own conversion/call account in Gal 1:13–17.
29. For Paul’s view of slavery, see introduction to Philemon.
30. Cf. Marshall, “Theology of Philemon,” 186. For a general discussion of the ethical import of this letter, see William J. Richardson, “Principle and Context in the Ethics of the Epistle to Philemon,” Int 22 (1968): 301–16.
31. Such liturgical language points to community worship as the proper setting of the reading of this letter, thus transforming this discussion into one that concerns the life of worship of the entire community; cf. Getty, “Theology of Philemon,” 504.
32. The identification of Onesimus as his own son is also a power claim since Philemon is to receive him as he would Paul. For a discussion of the consideration of a son as a mirror image of his father, see Cassius Dio 56.3.4; cf. Chris Frilingos, “ ‘For my Child, Onesimus’: Paul and Domestic Power in Philemon,” JBL 119 (2000): 100–101.