Rethinking the Engagement of Philemon's Partnership (vv. 1–7)

From the very outset of the letter, the reader is confronted with patron–client language. Paul extends greetings to ‘the assembly associated with’ the recipient's (σοῦ) house—a nod toward Philemon's patronage of the assembly. His patronage emerges again in the term ‘refresh’ (ἀναπαύω) in v. 7, and yet again in v. 22, where Paul requests the preparation of a guest room. While these terms are not necessarily uncommon in Paul's letters, their political and socio-economic implications should not be overlooked in favor of explicitly theological understandings. Reading this letter from within its position as a canonical document has tended to mute the prevailing tone in which these loaded terms would have been heard and understood in their original setting.Footnote ¹² Given that prevailing tone, we may assume a socio-political relationship between Paul and his addressee, one that unfolds throughout the letter and is tied to the question of who the patron is and who the client.Footnote ¹³

Paul's apparent discomfort with patronage in the Corinthian correspondence supports the impression that a similar concern may be at work in his letter to Philemon. That Paul refused to accept financial support from those in Corinth is clear from 1 Cor 9 and re-emerges as a point of contention in 2 Cor 10–13.Footnote ¹⁴ While Paul's motives for rejecting the Corinthians' support are not clear from his remarks in the extant letters, his willingness to accept support from some (see Phil 4.10–20) but not others (Phil 4.15–16; 1 Cor 9.11–18) suggests that Paul was wary of the obligations that financial support inevitably entailed.Footnote ¹⁵ Evidently, Paul regarded the Corinthians as ‘immature’ in matters of status (see 1 Cor 1.26–29; 3.1–4); accepting financial assistance from them may well have given the appearance of obligations that Paul deemed far from desirable.Footnote ¹⁶ As Peter Lampe puts it, ‘By refusing support, Paul…avoided any dependencies on local donors that could be misunderstood as patron–client relationships’.Footnote ¹⁷ At the very least, we can see from various points in his letters that Paul exercised discrimination in his policy of accepting gifts, and this discrimination is a plausible background to Paul's interactions with Philemon, the (relatively) wealthy patron of a local assembly.

Although the opening and closing greetings are addressed to three prominent individuals and ‘the assembly in your house’, as is well known the body of the letter is addressed to a single individual, traditionally Philemon.Footnote ¹⁸ As noted above, I contend that two conversations are simultaneously taking place within the letter: the assembly hears one thing, while Philemon hears another. To achieve this dual conversation Paul must exercise ingenuity in his persuasive strategy—above all, through the use of hints and ambiguity. My goal is to trace the possibilities of this ambiguity (inherent, I contend, in Paul's terminological choices) and to demonstrate its persuasive force within the historical scenario I have posited.

This ambiguity can be glimpsed already in Paul's ‘thanksgiving’. For example, from the assumption of Philemon's act of would-be patronage, Paul's remarks in v. 7 may take on an ambiguous quality. That Paul has had ‘plenty’ (πολύς) of joy and encouragement from Philemon may mean that Philemon is doing ‘enough’ (i.e., by hosting the gathering in his house), and should not presume to extend his patronage to the apostle himself, especially since this hosting of the assembly is precisely why Paul says he has received so much ‘joy and encouragement’ from him—not because Philemon presumed to send the slave (see v. 7).

At this point, Philemon might take pause and second guess the meaning of what Paul had said at the outset. Paul's first statement directly to Philemon is that he thanks God when he mentions him in his prayers (v. 4). What Paul thanks God for is not as telling as why he does so: he hopes that the partnership of Philemon's faithfulness will be engaged (v. 6). But why, if Philemon really has brought Paul so much joy, and the hearts of the saints have been refreshed by him (v. 7), would Paul hope for this? Perhaps Paul perceives Philemon's efforts as misguided in some way. Uncertain of Paul's tone, Philemon (and we) may begin to suspect irony or even a back-handed compliment. Does Paul directly praise Philemon for his kindness and generosity? Or does Paul hint instead that Philemon's efforts are deficient in spite of their apparent virtues?

The Politics of Paul's Request (vv. 8–14)

The central portion of the letter, vv. 8–14, is a single, highly complex sentence, arguably one of the most convoluted in the Pauline corpus. The traditional reading, assuming that Paul is interceding for a runaway slave, renders the main clause rather freely: ‘I appeal to you on behalf of my child’ (v. 10).Footnote ¹⁹ The Greek expression here, παρακαλῶ σɛ πɛρὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ τέκνου, has been the subject of much investigation. BAGD asserts that πɛρί can introduce ‘the pers. or thing in whose interest the petition is made’, in the process taking ‘the place of ὑπέρ’.Footnote ²⁰ In this sense, it can be translated ‘for’.Footnote ²¹ LSJ likewise lists some rare examples where πɛρί with the genitive denotes ‘on behalf of’. But Carl J. Bjerkelund in his monograph on παρακαλέω concludes that linguistic evidence favors ‘with regard to’ or ‘with reference to’ in this case.Footnote ²² Bjerkelund offers an excellent papyrus testimony, dating from about fifty years prior to Paul's letter, of this very expression—‘I appeal to you concerning my sons’ (παρακαλῶ σɛ πɛρὶ υἱῶν μου)—where the substance of the request comes only later (in an aorist imperative verbal construction).Footnote ²³ Apparently the phrase, ‘I appeal to you concerning my child’ has not seemed explicit enough for some interpreters, pressing for clarity in every Pauline expression. But ambiguity can be a rhetorical tool as well, and in many cases it may serve the orator's/writer's interests better than clarity.

As Eduard Lohse already pointed out, then, in this sentence, there is no request.Footnote ²⁴ Paul embarks on his lengthy sentence with the claim that he has plenty of frankness to order Philemon to do what is fitting. Exactly ‘what is fitting’ is not stated, however. Philemon, in his turn, had done what he had thought was appropriate: namely, he had attempted to adopt the role of Paul's patron by offering his slave, Onesimus, for Paul's service. However, whether Paul deemed Philemon's actions appropriate remains to be seen. In sending Onesimus back, Paul implies that something inappropriate was done. Moreover, by hinting that he could (but will not) order Philemon to rectify it, Paul raises the question of what exactly he wants Philemon to do now.Footnote ²⁵

Perhaps for the benefit of the larger audience of this letter, but especially and more importantly for the sake of his own endeavors at persuasion, Paul says that he will refrain from commanding Philemon in this unstated course of action, as he (of course) could (v. 8), and instead will opt to make a request. Then, Paul exhibits a puzzling timidity about introducing the topic of his request. He interrupts the main clause by characterizing himself as an ‘elder’ and a ‘captive’, terms that make his posture of request even more unassuming. Such feigned humility, however, feels out of place, juxtaposed to his pointed references to status elsewhere in the letter. It must, therefore, serve some other purpose.Footnote ²⁶

When he finally begins to introduce the request, Paul utilizes a circumlocution— ‘I make a request of you regarding my child’ (v. 10)—and then proceeds to unfold a series of qualifying statements that describe the topic he has finally broached. The topic of Paul's request, the ‘child’, turns out to be none other than Onesimus, the slave that (I am positing) Philemon had sent to Paul to serve him in his confinement. As I noted above, Paul introduces Onesimus and his involvement with Paul as something already well known; naturally, he does not provide Philemon with the information we need to reconstruct the situation. All of that is assumed. Instead, we find here fully engaged rhetoric that seeks to set up Philemon for a specific course of action.

Two crucial questions emerge from the series of qualifiers and descriptions of Onesimus that follow: first, what does Paul imply about the slave's worth? Second, what does Paul imply about his own relationship with Philemon? I will take these up in turn.

In v. 11, the first question arises: why, if Onesimus was sent to Paul, was he at one time ἄχρηστος to Philemon? This word is typically translated ‘useless’.Footnote ²⁷ If we assume a degree of ambiguity in Paul's rhetoric, however, other possibilities within this word's semantic range, such as ‘unprofitable’ or ‘ineffective’, re-emerge for consideration. If we take the term in the sense of ‘unprofitable’, ἄχρηστος would suggest that Onesimus was not really worth anything to Philemon—that is, it did not really cost Philemon anything to give him away. If we take it to mean ‘ineffective’, the idea would be that Onesimus failed in what he was sent to do. He was not successful in becoming the sign of Philemon's patronage toward Paul. The parallel term, ɛὔχρηστος, could then be read as ‘serviceable’. In other words, Onesimus will provide some service both to Philemon and (perhaps especially) to Paul. This serviceability stems from his having become ‘more than a slave’ (v. 16). At the very least he is serving as Paul's letter-carrier, and, once in Philemon's house, he can resume his slave duties in the household—from Paul's perspective perhaps his ‘proper’ (and most useful) sphere of activity.Footnote ²⁸ Finally, a third possibility regarding Onesimus's designation as ἄχρηστος emerges: Onesimus was ‘useless’ because he was not a Christian, and now he returns as ‘more than a slave’, with more value than ever before—thanks to Paul, Onesimus's newfound ‘father’ (v. 10).

What, then, does Paul imply about his relationship to Philemon in this portion of the letter? For example, why does Paul say that he wanted to keep Onesimus? And for what specifically does Paul need Philemon's ‘opinion’ (γνώμη)? Finally, what is ‘the good’ (τὸ ἀγαθόν) that Paul says he does not want to extort, but instead wants Philemon to volunteer freely?

Critics have noticed the vague quality of Paul's statements here, and this vagueness has contributed to the widely diverging interpretations given to Paul's request.Footnote ²⁹ Again, however, vagueness and ambiguity can have their own persuasive function. Moreover, Paul is not nearly so vague in the remainder of the letter. Why, then, should we press for explicit meaning here when it is readily available in the following sentences? There, Paul expresses four imperatives for Philemon: ‘take him as if he were me’ (v. 17), ‘put this to my account’ (v. 18), ‘refresh my heart in Christ’ (v. 20), and ‘prepare me a guest room’ (v. 22). Why suppose that Paul wants anything more than this?

Paul's very vagueness in vv. 13–14 can be seen, then, to serve his rhetorical purposes. Since Paul is returning a gift of patronage to his would-be patron, his expressions of reluctance and the wish that he could keep Onesimus for himself can be read as a rather clever way of saying, ‘Thanks, but no thanks’. It is a tactful refusal: ‘You know I'd really love to keep him, but I just can't’.

One might ask, if Paul does not in fact want to keep Onesimus at all, why he even bothers to raise the possibility. Could not Philemon misunderstand and return Onesimus voluntarily? It is my contention that Philemon has already misread his relationship to Paul by sending Onesimus in the first place. Seeing Onesimus standing before him once again, and reading Paul's letter aloud to the assembly, Philemon would understand precisely what Paul wanted. Paul's tactful rhetoric acts to salvage Philemon's honor (the public conversation) while making clear that Paul will not submit to being Philemon's client (the private one).

I read the matter of Philemon's ‘opinion’ in the same vein. Paul says that he cannot do anything ‘independently of [Philemon's] γνώμη’ (v. 14). The word is again quite fluid in its meaning. Translation options include ‘judgment’, ‘opinion’, ‘intention’, ‘consent’, ‘resolution’, and ‘vote’, to list just a few.Footnote ³⁰ The nrsv renders it ‘consent’, and traditional readings have largely accepted, even required, this sense, inferring that Paul did not want to keep Onesimus from his rightful owner without his approval. But such a reading is far from necessary. For Paul to appeal to Philemon's ‘opinion’ and his ‘free will’ can as well be a polite gesture that pretends, to the larger audience, that an important decision rests with Philemon, when in fact it does not. It allows Philemon to ‘save face’ by complying ‘freely’. Paul ends his lengthy sentence where he began, with an insistence that his (still unstated) request will not be a demand.

In my reading, then, Philemon has attempted to undertake a role of power vis-à-vis Paul—and Paul is unwilling to adopt the subservient position. Therefore, Paul adopts an ironic posture: he claims that he wanted to keep Onesimus, the gift of his would-be patron, when in fact he did not want to do so. He becomes coy, offering the excuse that to keep the slave would have been like forcing Philemon to do something noble, when in fact this gift was exactly what Philemon wanted to confer. Thus, Paul's tactful rhetoric, in all its vagueness, carries its own persuasive force: if Paul's rhetoric persuades Philemon, under the ‘watchful eye’ of the assembly, then Philemon will be submitting to the pressure of Paul's demands.Footnote ³¹

In light of these considerations, then, ‘the good’ Paul wants Philemon to do ‘freely’ is deliberately ambiguous, and refers not simply to the course of action that will result if Philemon agrees to Paul's terms (as yet unstated), but especially to the very act of complying itself. The whole sentence utilizes a sophisticated rhetorical dodge that, if successful, will set Philemon up to behave in the ways that Paul is about to articulate, framing Paul's coming demands in a rhetoric of voluntary compliance, ‘through love’ (v. 9).

Paul's Demands (vv. 15–22)

Thus, Paul only begins to state his demands in v. 15, where he gradually abandons the rhetorical posture of tactful persuasion, shifting to a tone of command. So, for example, in v. 15, Paul introduces his primary demand as if it were only a remote possibility: ‘perhaps…you could keep him forever’.Footnote ³² In v. 17, a conditional clause introduces a direct restatement of this demand: ‘if you have common cause with me, take him as if he were me’. In v. 20, Paul introduces the demand with an oath: (literally) ‘Yea, brother, I would profit from you in the Lord: set my heart at ease in Christ’. Since Onesimus is Paul's heart (v. 12), the thrust of this metaphor is clear enough. Immediately after this oath-command, Paul expresses his confidence in Philemon's obedience (ὑπακοή, v. 21). Paul has now left the rhetoric of voluntary behavior far behind.Footnote ³³

On the way to this important shift in tone Paul has employed several persuasive strategies. First, note the emphatic language he uses to explain how the arrangement will benefit Philemon: Paul has sent him back a ‘super-slave’, of value to Philemon both as a slave and as a ‘beloved brother’ (v. 16). Second, Paul adopts the posture of patron himself, suddenly taking financial responsibility for Philemon's slave (v. 18).Footnote ³⁴ At the same time, he pointedly prods Philemon with a piercing reminder of the debt Philemon owes him—his very self!

Chris Frilingos has helpfully demonstrated that Paul adopts the master-role in Philemon. He argues that Paul's use of household metaphors constitutes ‘a strategy for challenging and displacing Philemon's authority and his claim to the slave Onesimus’. Onesimus is now Paul's child, and as such belongs more to Paul than to his master Philemon. Consequently, he can be sent back to the household ‘as Paul's agent’ (i.e., as the letter carrier). Onesimus is thus transferred ‘from Philemon's control to Paul's service’.Footnote ³⁵ The strongest evidence to this effect, in my view, is the central ‘request’ of the letter itself: ‘receive him as if he were me’ (v. 17). No higher commendation of a ‘messenger’ could be given. It sounds, to me, not like a request to take an erring slave back without punishing him, but rather like a command to accept Onesimus with honor.Footnote ³⁶

Paul's central command, that Philemon ‘accept’ Onesimus as if he were Paul, is itself a fine example of the ambiguity that pervades this tactful letter. The verb, προσλαμβάνω, suggests both an act and a mental posture. While the nrsv translates the word ‘welcome’, Callahan argues that it should be read more strongly to indicate that Paul wants Philemon ‘not only to put Onesimus up, but to put up with him’.Footnote ³⁷ I am attracted to this suggestion because it allows for the possibility of hearing Paul speak in a manner that is tactful but cunning and far from deferential. Philemon, who sent the unwelcome gift, is being told to ‘take it back’. At the same time, thanks to the new status of Onesimus as not only a slave but also a ‘beloved brother’, he is to be ‘received’ or ‘accepted’ on those terms. The return of Onesimus is at once the return of a gift and Paul's own gift of a more useful super-slave.

Frilingos's point can thus be pushed still further: Paul's command to ‘take’ Onesimus as if he were Paul makes Onesimus Paul's representative, the very authority and presence of Paul embodied in someone who was once thought to be the property of Philemon and thus his representative. In this sense, Paul has co-opted the role of the patron who sends a gift to his client. Onesimus is now Paul's representative stationed at Philemon's house. Onesimus can now serve as Paul's eyes and ears, so to speak, keeping watch on Philemon and ensuring that he complies with Paul's wishes.Footnote ³⁸ Onesimus has become the guarantor of Paul's command. This, then, may be ultimately what Paul hints at when he says that Onesimus is ‘serviceable both to you and to me’ (v. 11).

It is in the context of such power-negotiations that Paul's famous ‘promissory note’ should be understood: ‘If he has wronged you in some way or owes you, put this on my account’ (v. 18). Paul here claims fiscal responsibility for Onesimus, presumably for the time of his absence from Philemon. He does this, however, not because Onesimus has stolen something or because he has run away, but rather to cancel out any expense Philemon has incurred in sending the unwelcome gift and getting it back unused.Footnote ³⁹ The only ‘wrong’ Onesimus has done is in failing to function successfully as an indicator of Paul's liability to Philemon's (attempted) act of patronage. Thus, Paul warns Philemon against holding Onesimus responsible, and promises to pay off the slave's account, if there is one. Though Paul makes clear enough that Onesimus has done nothing wrong, and that Paul's pledge does not involve any real obligation. After all, Philemon owes him his life, and Paul expects to extract some advantage (ἐγώ σου ὀναίμην) from him instead (v. 20). In this way, Paul ultimately avoids any appearance of being indebted to Philemon (the public conversation).

Paul's final demand comes in v. 22: ‘prepare a guest room for me’. I have argued throughout this article that Paul wants Philemon to stay within his own bounds, and not try to overstep those bounds by presuming to be a patron to Paul. This point is vividly illustrated by the request for a guest room. Philemon can serve as Paul's patron after all, but in the limited fashion of host—the very role he is already playing by hosting an assembly in his house. This delimiting of Philemon's influence can be seen to run throughout the letter: Paul believes that Philemon's hosting of the church is more than sufficient (v. 7), he demands that Philemon extend the same hospitality to ‘his’ slave Onesimus (v. 20), and he insists on the same hospitality for himself (v. 22). Granted, the guest room may be simply another tactful gesture (e.g., ‘Since you are more than willing to help…’). On the other hand, however, it could represent something else altogether: namely, one last maneuver on Paul's part to ensure Philemon's obedience, by threatening an imminent visit.Footnote ⁴⁰ The end result is the same in either case: Paul is intent on putting Philemon in his place. Consequently, when Paul says that he is certain Philemon will do more than he has explicitly required, we can hardly take this as an expression of praise.