I appreciate that, in this week sandwiched between Simpson Week and Study Week our reading and blog topic is Paul’s Letter to Philemon, “the shortest and most personal of all Paul’s letters.” (pg. 668) As such, de Silva writes, it “might easily be overlooked.” (Ibid.) However, he notes that Philemon merits attention because it offers insight into the affairs of a house church, into Paul’s pastoral finesse, and into the transformation of human relationships that occurs in the community of believers.
This is the last of Paul’s letters that is almost universally acknowledged to be from Paul himself, rather than perhaps being “deutero-Pauline” or a pseudepigraph. It is in the form of a friendly letter and a commendatory letter, written by Paul and Timothy and addressed to Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus and the entire church that met in their home (which suggests to me that the named recipients were family members). It is another of Paul’s “prison letters;” but there is no indication of the place or date the letter was written. The usual suspects are trotted out, and de Silva concludes that it may well have been written during a short imprisonment in Ephesus. De Silva feels that a Caesarean or Roman provenance is unlikely because of the distance it would have required Onesimus to travel to meet with Paul.
Paul had apparently converted Philemon, although he had not proselytized in his city, which was almost certainly Colosse. De Silva suggests that Philemon may have become acquainted with Paul in Ephesus, while Colosse was one of three nearby towns where the churches were most likely founded by Epaphras.
Wherever Paul and Timothy are located, Onesimus, one of Philemon’s slaves, is with them. De Silva notes that he may have fled to Paul as a friend of Philemon’s. In such a case, the slave would not have been considered a runaway once he was received by the friend. In such a case, the slave could ask the friend to plead his case with his owner. That, indeed, is what seems to be occurring in the brief letter to Philemon.
After the formalities, the salutation and prayer of thanksgiving, Paul gets to his point. He refers to himself as an old man in chains. He states that he could order Philemon to do as he wishes Philemon to do, but rather than that, he appeals to Philemon on the basis of love. (v. 8-9) He calls Onesimus his son (v. 10) and says that formerly Onesimus was useless to Philemon but now has become useful to both of them. (v. 11) He states that he would liked to have kept Onesimus with him, but he didn’t want to do anything without Philemon’s consent, so he is sending him back. He refers to him as “my very heart.” (v. 12) He says that perhaps the reason that Onesimus and Philemon were separated for a little while was so that Philemon could have him back as more than a slave, as a “dear brother.” (v. 16)
He tells Philemon that, if he regards Paul as a partner, he should welcome Onesimus as he would welcome Paul. If Philemon feels that Onesimus has wronged him or owes him anything, he should charge that to Paul’s account. Paul states, I’ll pay you back – but on the other hand, “you owe me your very self.” (v.19)
We have seen that Paul frequently utilized the concepts of patronage, clientage, and brokerage, and honour and shame language, both as illustrations of the mediation by Christ Jesus on behalf of believers before his Heavenly Father, and also in Paul’s earthly relations with believers and the churches. In the case of the letter to Philemon, Paul says that if Philemon feels that if Onesimus has wronged him or owes him anything (de Silva suggests he might have taken a small amount of money to make the trip to Paul), Paul will make good for it – although Paul reminds him that Philemon is already in his deep debt. Onesimus has come to him in prison – perhaps to offer assistance that Paul would have liked to get from Philemon himself. Paul was able to convert Onesimus, and now he is more than a slave, he is a “dear brother” and will prove useful from now on to both Paul and Philemon. Therefore, Paul relies on Philemon’s good will and generosity to “do the right thing.” The fact that what would have been a private letter is addressed to the whole church shows that there was some subtle – or not so subtle – pressure being applied.
De Silva states that this letter may usefully explain the attitude in some letters (e.g. Ephesians and Colossians) in which Paul seems to be upholding the “household codes,” encouraging the submissiveness of women and subservience of slaves. A scrutiny of Philemon suggests that Paul may have intended to encourage individuals to do the right thing on their own initiative rather than by way of command.
Lastly, de Silva notes that when Ignatius of Antioch was traveling to Rome to face execution, he met with several church leaders along the way. One of these, spoken of glowingly by him in his letter to the Ephesians, was the bishop of Ephesus, one Onesimus. De Silva notes that Onesimus was a common slave name, but that it would have been unusual to have another slave of that name rise to such prominence in the early church. If Onesimus was in his early teens at the time of Paul’s letter, he would have been in his 70’s at the time of Ignatius’ visit. The preservation of so personal and private a letter may be explained if indeed it was he whose cause had been so eloquently pleaded by Paul.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Part II, Week 4, Chapter 16 - Paul's Letter to the Philippians -
Paul’s (and Timothy’s) epistle to the “saints in Christ Jesus of Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons” (Phi 1:1) takes the form of a letter of friendship. De Silva lists a number of characteristics which indicate that this is the genre of the letter, including 1) the fact of absence, 2) the authors’ assurance of their interest in the recipients, 3) expressions of confidence in the interest of the recipients in the affairs of the authors, and 4) requests for assistance on the basis of mutual friendship. (pg. 653) This is the last major piece of correspondence (of the ones we have read about in de Silva’s text) whose Pauline authorship is almost universally accepted.
It is clear from Paul’s words that he is writing from prison, the question is “which prison,” as there is no clear evidence of either the place or the date of composition within the letter itself. But it appears that most scholars feel that it was probably written in Rome, near the end of Paul’s missionary career (ca 61-62 A.D.). I wasn’t so sure, thinking of his working in that part of the world in the early phases of his missionary career (one of the possibilities is that he wrote it when he was imprisoned in Ephesus about 48 A.D.). But Paul refers in the letter (at 4:15-16) to “the early days of your acquaintance with the gospel,” and says that it was only the Philippians who sent him aid when he set out from Macedonia and when he traveled to Thessalonica. That seems like Paul is writing some years later and reminding the believers of their history of giving him much needed assistance, even when other churches did not.
The overarching themes of the letter are proper conduct (“Only let us conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ” – 1:27) and the unity of the church, even more than we have seen in Paul’s other letters. In fact, de Silva notes at page 640 that this letter might be called “Paul’s charter for Christian unity.” Paul’s language can occasionally approach real poetry, at least judging from the English translations. Here, the language of the thanksgiving and prayer in 1:3-11, as well as the more renowned “Christ Hymn” in 2:6-11, positively soar, and I am sure Paul’s fondest expressed wishes in 1:10-11 that the believers will be “pure and blameless” and “filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ – to the glory and praise of God,” must have been truly inspiring to them.
Besides, expressing his deep concern and constant prayers for the believers in Philippi, Paul recommends Timothy as one who takes genuine interest in their welfare (2:20) and Epaphroditus who “. . . almost died for the work of Christ, risking his life to make up for the help you could not give me.” (2:30), exhorts them to remain unified and live for service and suffering as Christ Jesus and Paul himself have done, and expresses his thanks for the assistance which the believers have given him, both in the past and more recently, when he received the gifts they sent with Epaphroditus to him in prison. He indicates that he does not need any more – and mentions that he has “learned to be content whatever the circumstances.” (4: 11) Yet, reading between the lines, I think Paul is inviting if not actually encouraging them to make further efforts, without actually coming out and asking, by making it clear that he is offering them his prayers, counseling, and the assistance of Timothy, which expresses the mutuality of the deep friendship that de Silva made reference to.
There are certain themes (e.g. Judaizers, false teachers) that recur in Paul’s letters, but there are certain features that make each one distinct. Here an interesting feature is that most of the believers in Philippi appear to have been female, and Paul attempts a tactful mediation of a dispute (the details of which he does not outline) between Euodia and Syntyche, two women who were apparently leaders of the church. The note to this verse in the NIV Study Bible indicates that it is significant that the dispute was serious enough for Paul to mention it in a letter which was intended to be read publicly. I am inclined to think (a rebuttable presumption) that Paul was a bit of a misogynist but also that his refusal to lay out the details of the dispute may have been a very canny way of avoiding the appearance of taking sides with one or the other. He simply pleads that they “agree with each other in the Lord,” and that one or more of the other followers (my NIV Study Bible says “yokefellow,” which sounds like he was addressing it to one person, but it’s not clear who) “help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers whose names are in the book of life.”
In addition to holding fast in unity of faith and trust in the face of hostility from the community, Paul holds out Christ Jesus’ example – and his own – of suffering and obedience as the evidence that they will eventually be resurrected in an immortal body as Jesus was resurrected. Again, in poetic hyperbole, Paul writes, “But even if I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service coming from your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you. So you too should be glad and rejoice with me.” (2:17-18)
It is clear from Paul’s words that he is writing from prison, the question is “which prison,” as there is no clear evidence of either the place or the date of composition within the letter itself. But it appears that most scholars feel that it was probably written in Rome, near the end of Paul’s missionary career (ca 61-62 A.D.). I wasn’t so sure, thinking of his working in that part of the world in the early phases of his missionary career (one of the possibilities is that he wrote it when he was imprisoned in Ephesus about 48 A.D.). But Paul refers in the letter (at 4:15-16) to “the early days of your acquaintance with the gospel,” and says that it was only the Philippians who sent him aid when he set out from Macedonia and when he traveled to Thessalonica. That seems like Paul is writing some years later and reminding the believers of their history of giving him much needed assistance, even when other churches did not.
The overarching themes of the letter are proper conduct (“Only let us conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ” – 1:27) and the unity of the church, even more than we have seen in Paul’s other letters. In fact, de Silva notes at page 640 that this letter might be called “Paul’s charter for Christian unity.” Paul’s language can occasionally approach real poetry, at least judging from the English translations. Here, the language of the thanksgiving and prayer in 1:3-11, as well as the more renowned “Christ Hymn” in 2:6-11, positively soar, and I am sure Paul’s fondest expressed wishes in 1:10-11 that the believers will be “pure and blameless” and “filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ – to the glory and praise of God,” must have been truly inspiring to them.
Besides, expressing his deep concern and constant prayers for the believers in Philippi, Paul recommends Timothy as one who takes genuine interest in their welfare (2:20) and Epaphroditus who “. . . almost died for the work of Christ, risking his life to make up for the help you could not give me.” (2:30), exhorts them to remain unified and live for service and suffering as Christ Jesus and Paul himself have done, and expresses his thanks for the assistance which the believers have given him, both in the past and more recently, when he received the gifts they sent with Epaphroditus to him in prison. He indicates that he does not need any more – and mentions that he has “learned to be content whatever the circumstances.” (4: 11) Yet, reading between the lines, I think Paul is inviting if not actually encouraging them to make further efforts, without actually coming out and asking, by making it clear that he is offering them his prayers, counseling, and the assistance of Timothy, which expresses the mutuality of the deep friendship that de Silva made reference to.
There are certain themes (e.g. Judaizers, false teachers) that recur in Paul’s letters, but there are certain features that make each one distinct. Here an interesting feature is that most of the believers in Philippi appear to have been female, and Paul attempts a tactful mediation of a dispute (the details of which he does not outline) between Euodia and Syntyche, two women who were apparently leaders of the church. The note to this verse in the NIV Study Bible indicates that it is significant that the dispute was serious enough for Paul to mention it in a letter which was intended to be read publicly. I am inclined to think (a rebuttable presumption) that Paul was a bit of a misogynist but also that his refusal to lay out the details of the dispute may have been a very canny way of avoiding the appearance of taking sides with one or the other. He simply pleads that they “agree with each other in the Lord,” and that one or more of the other followers (my NIV Study Bible says “yokefellow,” which sounds like he was addressing it to one person, but it’s not clear who) “help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers whose names are in the book of life.”
In addition to holding fast in unity of faith and trust in the face of hostility from the community, Paul holds out Christ Jesus’ example – and his own – of suffering and obedience as the evidence that they will eventually be resurrected in an immortal body as Jesus was resurrected. Again, in poetic hyperbole, Paul writes, “But even if I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service coming from your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you. So you too should be glad and rejoice with me.” (2:17-18)
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Part II, Week 3 - Chapter 15 - Paul's Letter to the Romans
Some people more knowledgeable than I have said that Paul invented Christianity. If there is some truth to that statement, then Paul’s Letter to the Romans has to be his blueprint, because in it he lays out his theological concepts in the greatest detail.
De Silva provides a masterful analysis of the theological complexity of Romans. He encapsulates the significance of the letter in his introductory paragraph:
“. . . Christians have repeatedly broken off fellowship with other Christians over the interpretation of minute aspects of this letter, for example, the question of predestination versus free will, the degree of human depravity, the nature of “saving” faith and so forth. A tragic irony emerges when we consider that in Romans, Paul provides his fullest treatment of the way God has brought together people of diverse heritage and practice into the one body of the church, and he also gives several chapters of practical advice for preserving unity in the midst of this diversity.” (pg. 598)
The letter is presumed to have been written between 55 and 58 A.D. from Corinth or its port Cenchreae, toward the end of Paul’s third missionary journey in Asia Minor, Macedonia and Greece. The letter was written because, as Paul states, he would have wished to travel to Rome at that point but was unable to do so, because he had to deliver the collection (presumably the same one that we have read about in earlier letters) to Jerusalem.
I note a difference in style between Romans and the other Pauline letters we have covered in our readings. Coincidentally or not, I believe this is the first letter in which the salutation does not include the name of one or more co-authors, and I cannot help wondering if this letter reflects more of the pure “Pauline” style as well as his theological concerns. The text in my view provides a bit of heavy slogging and some tendentiousness, especially in 1:24, 26, and 28, where Paul repeats the refrain that God “gave them over” (in effect, as he expresses it, God has allowed men to degrade themselves with sexual profligacy, the worship of created idols, lust and other acts of depravity, disobedience of parents, slander, gossip etc. etc.). While technically Paul may be right, it would sound less harsh if it were expressed in the form of God allowing us, his sinful creatures, free will – to act for good or ill. Jesus memorably said, “Judge not lest you be judged.” And although in 2:1 Paul expresses the same thought as Jesus, his words, “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things” sound, well, more judgmental.
I love reading de Silva’s analyses, and in the case of Romans, I have enjoyed reading the chapter in the text considerably more than the letter itself. For one thing, I think de Silva has spent more time trying to understand Paul’s words than I have, and for another, his explanations have a more charitable aspect than a first glance at the letter itself indicates – although I think reading and maybe re-reading de Silva may help me to understand better what Paul was doing. As an example, on a positive light, de Silva notes that Paul has worked out in more detail than ever before the concept – and the theological underpinnings – for both Jews and Christians being joined through Jesus Christ in the worship of the one God – with neither able to justifiably lord it over the other. As de Silva notes, he repeats several themes from his earlier epistles, including the issue of eating meats (which may have been slaughtered improperly or sacrificed to idols), the distinctions of the “strong” in faith versus the “weak,” which he interprets differently than I would think – as he seems to class those who are more observant of the law, dietary rules and holy days as “weak.” He reiterates that some of the traditional beliefs are not binding – however he proposes that the “strong,” who don’t feel bound to follow them, continue to refrain from eating meat and doing other things which their “weaker” brethren might find problematical, as an aid to the continuing belief of the “weak,” whose consciences will be stricken if they follow the behaviour of their “strong” brothers. I find these very interesting concepts. De Silva also notes that Paul tackles the difficult issue of why the Jews, who have the advantage of the long-standing covenant with the Lord, have in the majority rejected the message of Jesus’ salvation. His reasoning is that by their holding back, they have enabled the Gentiles to be converted, and that at some point when all the Gentiles are converted “all Israel” will be united in the acceptance of Jesus.
Paul, near the beginning of the letter, notes that he is writing in part to counter “slanderous” misrepresentations of his gospel – namely that he was lax in his views of sin. I believe that his intention in Romans is partly to present the theological underpinning for a new code of ethical behaviour for Christians – to replace the law which he holds as no longer binding. Part of the problem in the letter is that words are of necessity an imperfect vehicle for conveying the ineffable. De Silva again memorably notes: “But the mystery of God is always more difficult to domesticate than our traditions tend to admit.” (pg. 598)
De Silva provides a masterful analysis of the theological complexity of Romans. He encapsulates the significance of the letter in his introductory paragraph:
“. . . Christians have repeatedly broken off fellowship with other Christians over the interpretation of minute aspects of this letter, for example, the question of predestination versus free will, the degree of human depravity, the nature of “saving” faith and so forth. A tragic irony emerges when we consider that in Romans, Paul provides his fullest treatment of the way God has brought together people of diverse heritage and practice into the one body of the church, and he also gives several chapters of practical advice for preserving unity in the midst of this diversity.” (pg. 598)
The letter is presumed to have been written between 55 and 58 A.D. from Corinth or its port Cenchreae, toward the end of Paul’s third missionary journey in Asia Minor, Macedonia and Greece. The letter was written because, as Paul states, he would have wished to travel to Rome at that point but was unable to do so, because he had to deliver the collection (presumably the same one that we have read about in earlier letters) to Jerusalem.
I note a difference in style between Romans and the other Pauline letters we have covered in our readings. Coincidentally or not, I believe this is the first letter in which the salutation does not include the name of one or more co-authors, and I cannot help wondering if this letter reflects more of the pure “Pauline” style as well as his theological concerns. The text in my view provides a bit of heavy slogging and some tendentiousness, especially in 1:24, 26, and 28, where Paul repeats the refrain that God “gave them over” (in effect, as he expresses it, God has allowed men to degrade themselves with sexual profligacy, the worship of created idols, lust and other acts of depravity, disobedience of parents, slander, gossip etc. etc.). While technically Paul may be right, it would sound less harsh if it were expressed in the form of God allowing us, his sinful creatures, free will – to act for good or ill. Jesus memorably said, “Judge not lest you be judged.” And although in 2:1 Paul expresses the same thought as Jesus, his words, “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things” sound, well, more judgmental.
I love reading de Silva’s analyses, and in the case of Romans, I have enjoyed reading the chapter in the text considerably more than the letter itself. For one thing, I think de Silva has spent more time trying to understand Paul’s words than I have, and for another, his explanations have a more charitable aspect than a first glance at the letter itself indicates – although I think reading and maybe re-reading de Silva may help me to understand better what Paul was doing. As an example, on a positive light, de Silva notes that Paul has worked out in more detail than ever before the concept – and the theological underpinnings – for both Jews and Christians being joined through Jesus Christ in the worship of the one God – with neither able to justifiably lord it over the other. As de Silva notes, he repeats several themes from his earlier epistles, including the issue of eating meats (which may have been slaughtered improperly or sacrificed to idols), the distinctions of the “strong” in faith versus the “weak,” which he interprets differently than I would think – as he seems to class those who are more observant of the law, dietary rules and holy days as “weak.” He reiterates that some of the traditional beliefs are not binding – however he proposes that the “strong,” who don’t feel bound to follow them, continue to refrain from eating meat and doing other things which their “weaker” brethren might find problematical, as an aid to the continuing belief of the “weak,” whose consciences will be stricken if they follow the behaviour of their “strong” brothers. I find these very interesting concepts. De Silva also notes that Paul tackles the difficult issue of why the Jews, who have the advantage of the long-standing covenant with the Lord, have in the majority rejected the message of Jesus’ salvation. His reasoning is that by their holding back, they have enabled the Gentiles to be converted, and that at some point when all the Gentiles are converted “all Israel” will be united in the acceptance of Jesus.
Paul, near the beginning of the letter, notes that he is writing in part to counter “slanderous” misrepresentations of his gospel – namely that he was lax in his views of sin. I believe that his intention in Romans is partly to present the theological underpinning for a new code of ethical behaviour for Christians – to replace the law which he holds as no longer binding. Part of the problem in the letter is that words are of necessity an imperfect vehicle for conveying the ineffable. De Silva again memorably notes: “But the mystery of God is always more difficult to domesticate than our traditions tend to admit.” (pg. 598)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)