Colossians and Philemon. Michael F. Bird
Читать онлайн книгу.
of partnership/fellowship (koinōnon) with Paul (v. 17), which elsewhere means becoming partners in ministry by sharing material needs (see Acts 2:42; Phil 1:5; 2:1). Paul also says that Philemon owes him his very own self, perhaps suggesting that Paul was significant in Philemon’s conversion and now the apostle seeks a mutual benefit from this relationship (v. 20). Onesimus is known from Colossians as “one of yourselves” and he later travelled with Tychicus to Colossae (Col 4:7–9). He was a slave who had come to Paul, or perhaps he sought out Epaphras and Paul together because they were esteemed by his master and could mediate between them. Or else maybe one of Paul’s associates found him hiding somewhere in want of food and shelter. Sometime during Onesimus’s period of respite and sanctuary with Paul, he was converted to Christian faith (v. 10). Why he had not converted earlier as part of Philemon’s household is a good question but one we cannot answer.
What is the situation behind the letter? There are several options to consider.91 First, there is the traditional view that Onesimus had simply run away from Philemon most probably because he had damaged goods or stolen something leaving his master Philemon out of pocket (vv. 11, 18). Onesimus then sought shelter with Paul, a respected friend of the master, and Paul pleads to Philemon to forgive Onesimus his transgression and hopefully allow him to remain in Paul’s retinue. But there are further factors for consideration that might count against this proposal, such as the observation that Paul never uses the words phygas, draptēs, or fugitivus as terms to describe Onesimus as a slave taken to flight. Nor does he ever refer to the dire punishments that await a returned fugitive slave. Normally runaways try to vanish, so why would a runaway slave flee to his master’s friend and run the risk of being turned over to authorities? Maybe Onesimus had a change of mind or knew that his capture was imminent, but these are speculations to account for the fact that a runaway slave is now in the company of a friend of his master. Moreover, nowhere in the letter is the precise reason for Onesimus’s sudden departure ever given, and running away is only one possibility, which is more ordinarily assumed than proven.
A second option is that Onesimus is not a runaway slave, but is rather a slave who is in some measure of domestic trouble with his master and seeks the intervention of an amicus domini (friend of the master) to intercede for him in hope of being restored back to favored status in Philemon’s household. In this sense, the letter to Philemon is roughly analogous to the letter that Pliny the Younger sent to Sabinus to intercede on behalf of a freedman to his master.92
A third view is that the slave Onesimus was sent to Paul by the church of Colossae to provide provisions for the apostle, but Paul writes back asking that Onesimus be permanently released to his team of coworkers to assist in evangelization. Sarah Winter bases this largely on the high frequency of commercial terminology in the letter as Paul seeks to have Onesimus break all formal and legal ties with Philemon’s household.93
Finally, a fourth perspective is that Onesimus was not a slave at all, but only a brother of Philemon, and Paul seeks to reconcile two estranged brothers. Key to this position is understanding “as a slave” metaphorically, whereas “as a beloved brother” is not metaphorical (v. 16). Paul refers to the physical kinship of Onesimus and Philemon “in the flesh” as well as a fictive kinship “in the Lord” as the basis of their reconciliation. A. D. Callahan writes: “When Paul exhorted Philemon to receive Onesimus no longer as a slave, he was there commanding the former to desist in treating the latter as though he were beyond the pale of fraternal entitlements to love, honor, and respect . . . In this short, diplomatic epistle Paul attempted deftly to heal a rift not between errant slave and irate master, but between estranged Christian brothers.”94 In light of this I conclude:
(a) Against option four that Onesimus and Philemon are brothers is that the letter has far too much gravity and pathos for Paul simply to be urging Philemon to treat Onesimus as a beloved brother. Fraternal love is a major theme, but it exists between the two now only in light of Onesimus’s conversion. Paul seems to use a different form of exhortation when he seeks reconciliation of equal persons within a community (e.g., Phil 4:2; 2 Cor 2:5–11). It is the social inequality between the two, deliberately complicated by Onesimus’s conversion,95 that is the problem in the reconciliation.
(b) Against option three that Paul seeks to have Onesimus released to his service is that this view lacks any reasonable explanation of the disruption between Onesimus and Philemon that is apparent in verses 15–19, and particularly the fact that the separation could have implied that Philemon might never receive Onesimus back at all (v. 15). Did Philemon or Archippus think that by sending Onesimus to Paul on an errand or with supplies that they were thereby running the risk of never seeing him again? I would doubt it.
(c) The first option, the view that Onesimus was a runaway slave, explains the language of being “separated” (v. 15), “wronged,” and “owed” (v. 18). The reference to “as a slave” is probably real (v. 16); that Paul needs Philemon’s consent before enlisting Onesimus among his cohort of coworkers implies a slave-master relationship between the two (vv. 13–14). Yet this view lacks the expected references to fugitive status, there is no mention of the severity of punishment that could await a runaway slave, it begs the question of why Onesimus went to Paul at all rather than vanish entirely, and finally, no explicit circumstance for Onesimus’s flight is given, which must give cause for thought.
(d) I conclude that the second option is the most probable, and that Onesimus journeyed to Ephesus from Colossae to have Paul mediate between him and his master over some matter that is now public before the Colossian church. Onesimus has become a believer as a result of the encounter, which, in tandem with Paul’s religious authority, adds further reason for Philemon to respond favorably to Onesimus and to heed Paul’s request. The urgent qualification that needs to be made here is that Philemon’s perception of Onesimus’s absence may not accord with Onesimus’s actual intentions in going to Paul. The technical legal distinction between a runaway slave and a slave absent from duty and absconded to his master’s superior, may not exist in the mind of an irate slave owner.96 Either way, Paul agrees to be an advocate for Onesimus to Philemon in order to effect reconciliation between them and to secure a better future for them beyond the normal slave-master relationship.
Paul and Slavery
More sensitively we have to ask: did Paul endorse slavery or was he at least complicit to its continuing operation?97 The mere mention of slavery conjures up feelings and thoughts that are so clearly an affront to our modern moral sensibilities. We desperately want Paul to speak out directly against it and we are scandalized that he did not do so. Space prohibits us from entering into a lengthy discussion of slavery in antiquity. By one definition a slave was a person who did not have the right of refusal. Some people voluntarily sold themselves into slavery in order to avoid a deathly poverty, and many slaves enjoyed good living conditions during their service and were even rewarded with emancipation. Yet in the ancient world a slave was regarded as a piece of human property and susceptible to manifold forms of abuse and exploitation (particularly vulnerable were women and children). Many were forced into slavery as a result of capture from war—both combatants and civilians—and some were born into slavery. In major urban centers up to one third of the population were slaves. Four points need to be mentioned:98 (1) Slavery was indelibly part of the social structure, welfare system, and economic activity of the ancient world and no one seems to have envisaged the operation of society without the institution of slavery. While the moral treatment of slaves was discussed on a philosophical plane, the fact of slavery was never debated and its necessity was simply assumed. (2) In the absence of a modern democracy and libertarian ethics it would have been impossible to lodge an effective and successful political protest against slavery. (3) The most