Betsy said it

Her name is Betsy Kent, and she was a fixture in the University of Delaware’s Music Department while I was a grad student there.  Since she was a top-shelf accompanist, and a sweet person besides.  Everyone liked and appreciated her.  And once upon a time, she said something kind and affirming to me.

teacherBetsy said it, and I remember it.  She told me I “sounded like a teacher” when I spoke to the audience about the piece I was conducting.  I took it both as a compliment and as a sort of commission.  And I haven’t forgotten it.

Bill, a friend from different circles, also told me something like that once.  I gathered he thought it was unusual, and it was:  I tended to intersperse instructional comments while leading group worship.  He said my style was something like “didactic worship leading.”  I had mentioned that here more than 4 years ago and still haven’t forgotten it.  For better or worse, I was teaching while leading in worship.

A couple of days ago, matters in a college course I’m teaching degenerated to the point that I called this particular class the worst teaching assignment I’ve had in higher education.  To be fair to myself, most of the problem is attributable to the overall scenario, to the questionable raison d’etre for the course itself, and to certain students’ lack of experience and insight.  But I own some of it, too.  I could have done some things differently, and/or better.

I’m not that good a teacher, but I do think like one.

While a teaching orientation is ostensibly a good thing, it’s also a sort of hazard, and I feel I have to keep alert to see it and avoid it at times.  I can speak with some authority about musical pitch, driving on Interstate highways, some aspects of Christianity, salsa, and conducting (not the electrical kind).  On the other hand, I’m simply not knowledgeable enough to be holding forth on music of the Middle Ages, or Colossians, or Civil War history, or plumbing, or the possible, theological ties between the Hebrews’ esteemed Esther story and moral ethics or providence.  I have to watch it sometimes, because my gut feelings can sometimes come off like the authority of a knowledgeable teacher.  I am not alone in this — I’ve heard other teachers sound like they know something when they’re flat-wrong or just spouting opinions — but I had better think more about myself than about others.

It’s not enough to be a teacher at heart; one must have material worthy of imparting, and one must have students.  I ought to be alert to the fact that, much of the time, I don’t have much of a hearing, so I’d do well not to try to impart too much.

For the next two Sundays, I have the opportunity to teach, once again — on the tiny, frequently overlooked, almost-always- half-interpreted, chock-full-of-inspiration-and-meaning letter from Paul to Philemon.  Primarily because of the lead work of Greg Fay, I think I have something to offer with regard to Philemon.  But I have not learned it all, and I need to review it.  That will be the case with every subject I ever teach.  Always.

Forgive me for these somewhat disconnected musings, but I’m a little disconnected right now, in general.

Lord, be in my preparations and my understandings and my words and my heart.


Philemon wrap-up (8)

This post brings to a conclusion one of the more ostensibly imbalanced treatments of my 2.5-year blogging history.  By that I mean I’m not sure I’ve ever given anywhere near eight posts–more than 4,000 words–on any subject that originally amounted to only 335 words in its entirety.

Because it is impossible, as far as I know, to paste into WordPress a fully formatted, word-processor document, I’ll not be able to share my friend Greg Fay’s chiastic Philemon layout in all its clear, color-coded glory.  Instead, I’ll paste in each section in proximity with the other section to which it relates, adding my own comments in italics. In other words, instead of trying to show that vs. 4-5 relate to vs. 20-22 by formatting, I’ll simply put them next to each other, so the syntax will be “all messed up”–but in reality, it may be clarified!

~ ~ ~


1-3 Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus and Timothy the brother, To Philemon the beloved and our fellow-worker, and Aphia the sister, and Archippus our fellow-soldier, and to the church at your house.  Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

23 Epaphras, my fellow-prisoner in Christ Jesus greets you.  [And so do] Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow-workers. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.

Above, note the personal greetings, of course, and the bookends:  the repeated use of the words “grace” and “Lord Jesus Christ.”  In addition, a clue is found in the word “fellow.”  The Gk. here is not koinonia and does not even use the same prefix, yet the notion of “together” is seen in both these words.



I thank [euxaristo] my God always
  making mention of you in my prayers, hearing
    of the love
      and the faith
        which you have
      toward the Lord Jesus
    and for all the saints,
  [praying] that the fellowship of your faith might become active through the knowledge of every good [thing] which is in you for Christ.
For I had much joy and comfort in your love, because the hearts of the saints are refreshed by you, brother.


Yes, brother, I want some benefit from you in the Lord.
Refresh my heart in Christ.
    Confident of your obedience, I have written to you, knowing that you will do even more than what I say.
And, at the same time, also prepare for me the guest room.
For I hope that through your prayers, I will be freely given [xaristhasomai] to you.

The emboldened words show the bookends here: xaristhasomai and eucharisto.  Precise, literal translation is often difficult, and these words are no exceptions, which is why English-readers almost never perceive this connection.

Looking at v. 5 now, in the first indented set, the (implied) praying is a connection.  As mentioned in a prior post, the construction of this mini-chiasm in v. 5 introduces ambiguity:  love is typically thought of as horizontal, i.e., toward other saints/Christians, while faith is held in the Lord Jesus. Here, the converse may also be a possibility.

The “benefit” Paul desires in 20 relates to the refreshing of hearts in 7; further on this point, the hearts of the saints become connected to the refreshing of Paul’s heart in 20.  Also, note the connection to v. 12–Onesimus is Paul’s heart.



Therefore, having much boldness in Christ to order you to do what is proper,
   on account of love,
   I rather appeal to you,
being as I am, Paul, an old man, and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus.


If, therefore, you consider [have] me as a partner, receive him as [if he were] me.

   And if he’s done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me.
   I, Paul, am writing with my own hand, “I will pay it back”—
lest I remind you that you owe me your very self

These parallel sections begin with “therefore” (Gk. “inferential particles” –G.F.).  Here, Paul has emphasized personal aspects—his age, his captivity, his own hand, and his name.  There also seems to be a sort of financial connection—“on account of love” (8) being related structurally to what Onesimus may or may not owe to Philemon, and what Philemon “owes” to Paul (18-19).

The nature of the appeal Paul makes is in evidence here, as well:  it is based primarily on relationship and not on authority, although an apostolic “authority clause” is also present (8).



I appeal to you for my child
who was born to me while I was in chains, Onesimus—
      the one formerly useless to you
      but now useful to you and to me—
   whom I am sending to you,
this one, he is my heart,


no longer as a slave, but above a slave,
      a beloved brother,
especially to me, but how much more to you,
both in the flesh and in the Lord.

These passages are exceedingly significant!  As I’ve indicated previously, the delay tactic is clearly seen in v. 10 as Paul “waits” before finally mentioning Onesimus’s name.  The connection between 10 and 12 is clear:  Onesimus is Paul’s spiritual child and is also his “heart,” both depictions pointing up a rather extreme personal attachment.  The attachment is further borne out in the last phrase of 16:  both physical/human and spiritual relationship are referenced.

Back to 10-12 now . . . moving inward, the next sections show a kind of physical direction—Onesimus’s having come to Paul, so he could be spiritually begotten, and then his being sent away from Paul to Philemon.  This travel appears to me to foreshadow the overall thrust of the letter, which will be seen even more clearly in the next section.

The pun on Onesimus’s name (11) is more than a play on words; it hints at a spiritual directive, which, again, will hence be seen.  That Onesimus would to this point be seen as useless to Philemon is no surprise; after all, the slave Onesimus ran away and probably stole.  Yet despite his earlier wrongs, Onesimus has a new identity and is now useful, which is the meaning of his name.  This new identity is seen in the related passage (center of 16):  put plainly, he is now a brother.  The expression “beloved brother” seems to cap the commendation of the “new” Onesimus to Philemon, in case there could be any doubt at this point.

One more item in this marvelous pairing . . . note the chiastic relationship of the concept of chains, both for Paul (10) and in Onesimus’s former slave relationship (16a).

And now we move to the final section.  Considered in a western, linear fashion, this whole presentation would be assumed to be messed up; I’m ending with the center.  But seen as Paul (and the Spirit of God!) intended, this coming “center” is really the end of the line. . . .



whom I would like to have kept [to have] for myself,
so that he might minister to me for you in the chains of the gospel.
But without your consent, I did not want to do anything,
      so that not according to constraint your good thing might be but according to free-will.
For perhaps for this reason he was separated from you for an hour, 
so that you might have him back forever,

There is more than one way to delineate and organize these verses, but the differences are not ultimately all that significant, in my estimation.  I have chosen 14b as the center of the letter’s overall structure; one other possibility has vss. 13-14 forming a longer center.

In the outer phrasings of 13-15 there is a sense of ownership of Onesimus–first, Paul’s desire to have “kept” the new brother (hold that thought).  Then in 15, first there is the lack of ownership that resulted from Onesimus’s having run away . . . followed closely by a new proposition from Paul:  that Philemon could now newly, more deeply, possess relationship with Onesimus, their new brother.

Note also in 13-15 that there are three “so that” (Gk. ‘ina) clauses.  What seems apparent—and this is based as much on the whole of the letter’s message as on verses 13-15a in particular—is that the middle instance (the “so that” expression in 14b) stands at the epicenter of the letter’s single, overall chiastic structure.

Paul is asking not only for Philemon to accept Onesimus as a brother, but he is asking more.  He is asking that Philemon do the previously unthinkable.  He is asking that Philemon enable Onesimus to continue ministering to Paul for the sake of evangelization.[1]

Paul is asking, in 14b, that Philemon willingly (operative word!), lovingly release Onesimus back to Paul.  Onesimus is now a personified “good thing,” and Philemon’s “good thing” will be to release, of his own will, Onesimus to return to Paul.

~ ~ ~

At the time he wrote this letter, Paul could have been captive in such a city as Ephesus (not in Rome until his second imprisonment)[2].  A few years down the road, someone named Onesimus was a leader in the church in Ephesus.  I like to think that this was the case, and that Onesimus had in fact been released to live in Ephesus with Paul for a time, remaining there for the rest of his life.  Having come across the theory that Onesimus might have been influential in having the letter to Philemon included in subsequent collections of scripture, I might further theorize that if Onesimus lived out his days in just such a central city, where he clearly would have first- and second-hand knowledge of the letter to the Ephesians and the both letters to Timothy, not to mention the ones to Philemon, Colossians (and Laodiceans), it would be easy to believe that Onesimus was uniquely used by the Lord in the process of collection an ultimate canonization of many of Paul’s writings.

To close this study of Philemon, I will share a quotation from Greg Fay’s book-in-progress on reading scripture.  In the following, Greg does what I believe he has the right to do, having exegetically, soundly interpreted the scripture:  he applies it to current day.  I hope that I, together with all those I contact in the Kingdom, will be true to God’s scriptures–not applying them carelessly, but seeking earnestly to uncover their original contexts and intended messages.  Then we may apply the scripture to our current-day situations!

I want extreme community.  I want to participate in it, which means I want to know, respond to, and share the grace of God in Christ.  I want to have faith in the Lord Jesus and be a lover of all saints, regardless of skin-color, social-status, or savings account.  I want to treat those who have wronged me with the depth of refreshing faith and love that Paul asks of Philemon—an active sharing of my faith that will help them find real the extreme community of Christ that begins to share in Christ’s own love and com­munity with the Father.  I won’t always feel like it, and I will sometimes fail miserably.  But God’s word spoken to us through the book of Philemon envisions and calls for no less.

. . .

From Philemon—among other things—the word of God is

love beyond boundaries,

forgiveness beyond hurts,

community beyond differences, and

purpose beyond failures.

Now, read Philemon again, and seek to live it as you follow Christ.

– Gregory L. Fay, PhD, Inkblotitis:  How To Read the Bible to Miss Get God’s Point (manuscript)

[1] The only ambiguity for me in this choice resides in 15a, where the expression “might have him back forever” might be interpreted in more than one way.  My current choice is that this means “Philemon, even though you won’t have him physically forever, you now have a lasting, eternal relationship with Onesimus, and this will enable you to do, in good conscience and in love for me, what I am asking.”

[2] The likes of F.F. Bruce have written about such possibilities.  Caesarea has also been considered an option for the place of Paul’s captivity.  Scholars are divided on this question.

Philemon wrap-up (7)

You are explicitly, intentionally invited to save this non-copyrighted material, and/or to e-mail it to others you think might be interested.


The literary technique of “delay”–not a technique to which I’ve ever given much thought as a writer–figures in to this letter prominently.  I understand that Shakespeare did it with Hamlet, and this excerpt from a commentary on Revelation finds the technique employed by John in Rev.  11:1-13.  In Philemon, delay is seen, first, as Paul gives some details and background information before making his formal Request.  One reads a full third of the letter, for example, and Onesimus has not yet been mentioned!  The Request itself doesn’t come until verse 17.

Moreover, identifiable elements of the Request are actually separated by quite a few words, and even by verses/paragraphs—a fact that doesn’t often surface in English renderings.  As Greg Fay has proposed, this “delay” gives Paul time “to prepare Philemon’s heart and soften his reaction.”

The delay in the wording of verse 10—as significant, it seems to me, as the larger-scale delay mentioned above—is rarely seen.  Note, for instance, the inadequate RSV:

I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment.

And the equally inadequate, although more verbose, NLT:

My plea is that you show kindness to Onesimus. I think of him as my own son because he became a believer as a result of my ministry here in prison.

Neither is the original delay technique seen in the more refined, but no more true, NIV:

I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains.

Delay does, however, come across in Young’s Literal Translation and in the 1901 American Standard Version.  These are more true to the original Greek:

I entreat thee concerning my child—whom I did beget in my bonds—Onesimus (YLT)

I beseech thee for my child, whom I have begotten in my bonds, Onesimus (ASV)

Being a fan of the dash in English writing, I’m partial to Young’s translation.  The dash effectively sets up the eventual mention of Onesimus’s name.  This delay in mentioning his name might seem to be a minor point, but when one considers the psychological and spiritual significance of the moment—that first moment—when Philemon read the sentence in Greek, it would be difficult to overestimate the impact of the wording.

The phrase “every good thing” in v. 6 is not insignificant.  Since an important textual relationship is not immediately seen, I would draw attention to the connection between “good thing” in v. 6 and the same phrase in v. 14.  The latter instance, as will be seen in tomorrow’s post, is smack-dab in the center of the letter’s chiastic structure, which makes it a key hermeneutical point.

Is there know­ledge of some new good thing (“every” in v. 6 seems to imply that there might be something still lacking in Philemon’s knowledge) in Christ that might help or motivate Philemon’s fellowship of faith to become active?  Paul has yet to explain what the specific good thing is, remember.  But he soon does share:  it is the knowledge of a new child of God—one who formerly was useless, but not anymore.  It’s good for the community of Christ.  It’s good for Philemon.  It has been very good for Paul.

A wonderful pun–again, not seen in English–jumps out of the Greek text of v. 20:  ONAIMEN is the word for “benefit,” and the spelling of Onesimus’s name is ONESIMON–a sort of etymological 1st cousin!  The meaning of the man’s name, by the way, is “useful”–see v. 11, and perhaps begin to consider the chiasm formed by verses 10-12, which has both “useless” and “useful” in the center.

Tomorrow’s blogpost, which is already in progress, should be my final one on Philemon.  Eight posts on a short letter matches the number of small-group sessions we enjoyed in studying it communally!  The final installment will present the text with respect to the chiastic arrangement:  not in “verse” order, but with the related sections shown in immediate succession . . . and with a few more comments that I hope will help to exegete and elucidate.

Philemon wrap-up (6)

You are explicitly, intentionally invited to save this non-copyrighted material, and/or to e-mail it to others you think might be interested.

. . . continued . . .

Because I don’t have much time today, but because I want to stay on track with this wrap-up study, I’m going to offer here only a few words and questions (not intended as an exhaustive list) that I/we find to merit further inquiry.  The following words seem to be especially significant:

  • saint
  • koinonia
  • adelphon, agapeton
  • heart and bowels opposite love (consider the implications of 1) Philemon’s having refreshed Paul’s heart, and 2) Onesimus’s now being now Paul’s heart
  • the historical (Greek) textual variant—“in you” vs. “in us” v. 6

And now, a few questions, in addition to the ones posed in previous blogposts:

  • Who is said to be a “beloved brother”?
  • Do you think this is more an individual or community letter?  Of whom does Paul expect something?
  • How does Paul’s captivity affect relate to purpose of letter?  (And, as a side note, where do you think Paul was held or imprisoned at this time?  Quite a few scholars do not assume this was one of the Roman imprisonments at the time of this writing.)
  • What is the relationship of Philemon’s faith and the Request Paul makes?
  • Would implicit elements of this letter have been as implicit to the first reader(s)?

To be continued . . . in two more installments, I think! . . .

Philemon wrap-up (5)

You are explicitly, intentionally invited to save this non-copyrighted material, and/or to e-mail it to others you think might be interested.

. . . continued . . .

Here are more textual discoveries, notables, and inquiries into the fascinating text of Philemon.

Note the use of the word “brother” in both v. 7 and v. 20.  Further on the relationship between these two verses:  the joy, comfort, and refreshing of the hearts (all in 7) may be related to the benefit Paul desires from Philemon and the refreshing of his heart (20).

The relationship between Paul and Philemon, whom he refers to as “beloved one,” is the basis for Paul’s logic, his request, and his expectation.  Philemon is beloved (1) and Onesimus is beloved (16), too.  Remember how shocking this would all be to Philemon as he read the letter.  The very idea that a runaway slave who had likely stolen was deemed “beloved”!

Note further the “love” theme:

  1. Philemon loves the saints (5).
  2. Paul has experienced Philemon’s love (7).
  3. As Paul is now “elderly” and a prisoner, he is in a position to receive love—“ images that amplify the application of love and present Paul as someone who should be respected, listened to, and perhaps ministered to or helped” (G. Fay).

We might ask why the latter portion of v. 9? Why might Paul express himself & describe himself in this way? As Greg has suggested, “Perhaps there’s more to the intentions of the letter than meets the eye at this point.”

The thanksgiving and petition in 4 and 9, respectively, are common Pauline markers, delineating text sections and/or showing points of emphasis.

Referring again to yesterday’s sermonette on v. 6–could the expression “fellowship of faith” be intentionally ambiguous?  Remember the possible, subtextual ambiguity in the the chiasm of v. 5 (love for others and faith toward Jesus / faith toward others and love of Jesus).  Might one of the thrusts here be that the community of Philemon’s faith and love must become energized/activated toward Onesimus?  Must koinonia extend to Onesimus as it does to Paul, since Onesimus is Paul’s “heart” (12)?

What a rich, inspired letter!  More to come. . . .

Philemon wrap-up (4)

. . . continued

You are explicitly, intentionally invited to save this non-copyrighted material, and/or to e-mail it to others you think might be interested.

Anyone who doubts that a small group could spend eight weekly sessions studying Philemon would also logically doubt that someone could “wrap up” this study in more than a few paragraphs.  Believe it or not, the fourth installment of this “wrap-up” will not be the last!  I’m only calling this whole thing “wrap-up” because for me, it is wrapping up a more personal series of studies with friends.  In the blogosphere, this is becoming more of a bona fide (although largely by proxy) exegetical study than a wrap-up, I suppose.

In the following textual discoveries and notables in the text of Philemon–for which I am again indebted, almost entirely, to my friend Dr. Greg Fay–chiastic structural relationships are assumed.  Let anyone who doubts the significance of the presence of such structures be convinced!

  1. In v. 4 — “thank” is eucharisto.  In v. 22 — “freely given” is “charisthasomai.”  This connection is not often evident in English renderings.  This pairing of verses also both employs the word “prayers.”
  2. I haven’t yet seen a clear, chiastic connection between v. 5 and v. 21 or anything down there toward the end of the letter.  However, v. 5 itself may involve implicit concepts as well as what’s on the surface:  love is structurally tied to “all the saints,” and faith is tied to “the Lord Jesus.”  Yet, note Greg’s inquiry related to the possible ambiguity in the ordering of the words:  “So could the circular shape intentionally blur the lines?  Either way, the implication is telling.”  By this he means that we may also consider that we have love toward the Lord Jesus and, in a sense, faith in our fellow saints. This latter possibility may be seen to connect to the overall message of the letter, as Paul is expressing an implicit faith in Philemon and, by extension, in the house-church community–faith that they will do what he asks with regard to Onesimus.
  3. Further etymological connections include the expression “in Christ,” found both in v. 6 and v. 20.

Verse 6 merits special consideration since it has often been misused and poorly translated.  Let it be clear that this verse has nothing directly to do with evangelistic efforts.  Paul is not here suggesting that Philemon, or anyone else among the Colossian saints, “share his faith” with an unbeliever.  The intended import of this passage becomes more clear as the reader becomes more familiar with the thrusts of the letter; it seems to me that Paul is hinting here at what he will later suggest more strongly, if not explicitly:  that Philemon’s faith-partnership with Paul would become active in a very specific way regarding Onesimus.  I have wondered, then, whether this “activeness” (root word is energes, and the expression in v. 6 might well be rendered “that your faith-partnership will become energized …”) relates to the strong, influential request for active response in v. 21:  ” . . . knowing that you will do even more than I what I say.”

“Every good thing” in v. 6 appears to be a direct reference to Onesimus, as it is in v. 14.  Previously, Onesimus was a bad thing; now, in Christ, is not to be considered a good one!

To be continued. . . .

Philemon wrap-up (3)

You are explicitly, intentionally invited to save this non-copyrighted material, and/or to e-mail it to others you think might be interested.

. . . continued from yesterday . . .

This beautiful letter is of course about Philemon and Onesimus, but it is about more than the two of them. It is about grace, about Christian togetherness, about relationship and identity in Jesus, and more.  Its inclusion in the canon appears to be no accident!

Looking at the opening greeting can give us some important, initial clues as to the meaning and intent.  Paul does not just say “Paul to you, greetings.”  Adjectives and expansions of the basic form give us clues into the situation and purposes of the letter.  Paul’s letters are, by the way, not “epistles” in the truest sense.  They are letters, and by that I mean they were 1) occasional and 2) non-formal-literary in nature.  They were intended for a specific audience and not for broad publication.  The structure of the writing tends to indicate that they were personal letters and not carefully crafted orations that Paul thought would be widely read.  The occasional aspect, when phrased that way, may get some of our backs up, because the word seems to downplay the significance of the writing.  In using the word “occasional,” though, I in no way intend to denigrate the purpose–me gonoito! Rather, I am attempting to help myself and others to hone in on the specific situation–the historical context–that gave rise to, or occasioned, the letter.

The community dimension is implied in the address to Philemon, (his wife) Apphia, (his son) Archippus,¹ and their house church.

Greg Fay has pointed out these things regarding the introduction to the letter, which is found in verses 1-7.

  1. “A clear, repetitive emphasis on community and partnership in the cause of Christ thus fills the Address.”
  2. “Close scrutiny of the language of Philemon as a whole reveals the concept of Christian relationship or community to be the pivotal idea on which the theology of the letter depends.  Paul clearly and forcefully identifies Onesimus as having a new, spiritual son-like, useful, emotional, vital, beloved, serving relationship with himself—in other words, Onesimus is now a devoted Christian.  Paul shares a similar relationship with Philemon.”
  3. “As Paul will explain, Onesimus has been reborn and has become a child of Paul and, more importantly, a child of Christ—he is now a “saint.”  If Philemon loves all the saints, he will now also love Onesimus, necessarily.  The argument turns on Onesimus’s change of identity (“. . . my child Onesimus, whose father I became . . .  Formerly, he was useless to you, but now . . .”)  There is a then and a now, and they are not the same.  The implication is unassailable and unyielding.  But notice that Paul doesn’t draw the implication here; he simply builds the literary and theological context for the purposes of his letter. 

To be continued . . .


¹ That Apphia and Archippus had some special standing in the household is clear.  That they were wife and son, respectively, to Philemon is not explicit.  Archippus is also mentioned in the letter to the Colossians.

Philemon wrap-up (2)

(. . . continued)

You are explicitly, intentionally invited to save this non-copyrighted material, and/or to e-mail it to others you think might be interested.

Step Two in investigating a NC letter is to divide the Middle into sections.  As I tried to show yesterday, the Middle or Body of this short letter to Philemon is found in verses 8-20.

We may note that verses 8-9 and 20 appear to be transitional—moving into, and out of, the Middle.

V. 10 begins the official Request with introduction to the background information:

I am appealing to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become during my imprisonment.

The background information is found in 11-14, and the Request (there is almost always a Request in letters of this type) is completed in v. 17:

So if you consider me your partner, welcome him as you would welcome me.

The Body is bolstered by what Greg Fay calls “Paul’s personal voucher” in 18-19:

If he has wronged you in any way, or owes you anything, charge that to my account.  I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand: I will repay it.  I say nothing about your owing me even your own self.

The transitional v. 20, then, summarizes and transitions to a rather cryptic (to our eyes, anyway) bit of persuasion in v. 21: Summarizing Conclusion

Yes, brother, let me have this benefit from you in the Lord!  Refresh my heart in Christ.

Note that there is no formal Disclosure in Philemon, although this literary element is found in other letters.

The Petition verb is found in 10:  “appeal”

The Addressee is “you” (8) . . . although we will mention later that there may be additional understood addressees

The Background is given in 10-16.

“Divine authority” phrases are found in 8 and 9:  “bold enough in Christ to command you”; “as an old man and now a prisoner of Christ”

The explicit, desired action is a bit oddly syntactically separated by intervening material:

a.       “for Onesimus”  in 10

b.      “. . . welcome him as you would welcome me” in 17

This separation, I suspect, is quite intentional, and I’ll attempt to show the reason soon.

( to be continued . . .)

Philemon wrap-up

You are explicitly, intentionally invited to save this non-copyrighted material, and/or to e-mail it to others you think might be interested.

Sometimes, Christmas cookies get stale before they’re eaten or wrapped up sufficiently.  Sometimes, rewarding Bible studies run the risk of growing stale in our feeble minds before they’re wrapped up, too.

Our study of Paul’s letter to Philemon was concluded in early November.  I had planned to blog weekly on discoveries in this New Covenant gem, but that didn’t happen.  As we wrapped it up, I had planned to write a couple of posts—for cyber-readers, but more, for myself.  That didn’t happen in a timely fashion, either, but I need for it to happen now.  I was attempting to discuss Philemon with my parents while we visited a week ago, and I was struck with my poverty of memory . . . so this month-late wrap-up is an attempt to recover some of the worth of prior exegetical efforts, endowing myself with a sort of annuity account—something that will keep giving.

To start, here are the three most significant prior posts that relate, in some measure, to the text of Philemon:

Philemon 1: structural clues

Community in Philemon


Now, for some additional discoveries!  What you’ll find in the succeeding material, if you choose to read and digest it, is a) overall structure, followed by b) detailed textual relationships (chiastic), joined with specific points and notables.  These elements will be based approximately 75% on the scholarly work of my friend Greg Fay in this text, and 25% on the subsequent inquiry made by our study group on Sunday evenings.

Step One in investigating a NC letter can be finding the basic structure of the letter.  In the case of Philemon, we find, roughly, this:

a)      1-7 INTRO

b)      8-20 MIDDLE/BODY

c)       21-25 CONCLUSION

I say “roughly” because the transitions into and out of the main body are a bit—and possibly quite intentionally—ambiguous in terms of where they start and stop.

Please read the letter to Philemon now.  It takes all of three minutes.  I’ll continue with structural investigation tomorrow.

To be continued . . .

Sharing your faith

Some years ago, my friend Greg taught more than one week on Philemon.  I don’t think I’ve ever heard that much again on Philemon.  Even this brief (by Paul’s standards) letter, though, is subject to misinterpretation.

Not to bash the NIV, because it’s just one of the available English translations that shows itself careless on occasion, but because it’s the most widely read these days, I’ll use its version of v. 6 first:

I pray that you may be active in sharing your faith. . . .

The NASB’s rendering is better:

… [the word “pray” per se is not in the original here, although it appears to be implied] that the fellowship of your faith may become effective

The word rendered “sharing” in the NIV is the fairly familiar “koinonia,” which roughly translates “partnership/fellowship.”  In no way does this verse have anything directly to do with evangelism or witnessing or even being an ambassador for Jesus.  It is prefiguring what Paul will later ask Philemon to do: receive the formerly errant Onesimus back.  That is the partnership of faith made effective.

It’s not that “sharing your faith,” in the contemporary sense of the phrase, is inherently a bad idea.  It’s that Philemon 6 does not comment on that.  Yet those who depend on the NIV have been known to build Bible lessons and sermons and ministries around this.

Even Eugene Peterson’s version, The Message, is more apropos of the original, I believe:

And I keep praying that this faith we hold in common keeps showing up in the good things we do. . . .”