CHAPTER TWO

THANKSGIVING AND INTERCESSION FOR AN INDIVIDUAL: PHM.4-6

The thanksgiving passage of the letter to Philemon, vv. 4-6, as might be expected , is the shortest of a11 in the Pauline corpus. It comprises a mere forty-seven words, and is approximately one seventh of the letter. This thanksgiving period is short, not only because Philemon 1 is the briefest of a11 the Pauline letters, but also because it is forma11y and functiona11y more closely related 2 to the ordinary private and personalletters 3 of the time-related in a way that the other letters in the Pauline COrpUS,4 addresaed either to communities or groups of communities, are not.

1 B. Rigaux, The Leüer« 0/ St , Pmü (ET, Chioago, 1968), p. 118, on the basis of v, 19, considera the letter to Philemon to have been the only one penned by Paul himself, while W. G. Kümmel, Lniroduäion. to the New Te8tament (ET, London, 1966), p. 178, interprets the verse as a reference to the apostle's own autograph (cf. 1 Cor. 16:21; Gal. 6:11; Col. 4:18; 2 Thess. 3:17), which authentioated the letter, 2 The thanksgiving passages in the papyrus letters sre generally briefer than those in the Pauline letters. 3 Most acholers have recognized that Philemon stands near the ancient private letter; so P. Wendland, Die urchriBtlichen Literatur/armen(Tübingen, 2.31912), pp. 28Of.; note also J. L. White's work cited by Doty, Ledere, p. 22. This fact, however, doea not indioate that the letter is purely a piece of private correspondence; ef, O. Roller, DaB Formular der pauliniBchen Briefe (Stuttgart, 1933), P- 147. Kümmel, lntroduction, p. 176, states that Philemon is 'like Paul's longer eplatles, no private correspondence, but the fruits of early Christian missionary work'. See also A. Suhl, 'Der Philemonbrief als Beispiel paulinischer Peränese', Kairo« 15 (1973), pp. 267·279. 4 The precise nature of the letter to Philemon and the reasons for its inclusion in the canon have been the subject of dlscussion among scholars for some time-not least since 1935 when Professor John Knox published his important little book, Philemon among the Letter8 0/ Paul (Chicago). Knox considered that Philemon was included in the Pauline corpus by one who played a prominent part in its publioation-, the runaway slave mentioned in this letter who, according to tradition, later beoame bishop of Ephesus. The letter, according to KnOlI:, was addressed primarily to Archippus, Onesimus' owner. It is he rather than Philemon who is referred to in the seeond person singular from vv. 4 to 24 of the letter, for it was in Archippus' house that the church met. Philemon was overseer of the churches of the Lycus valley. He lived at Laodicea and 48 THANKSGIVING AND PETITIONARY PRAYER CONJOINED

Furthermore, this thanksgiving passage is most simple in form. It is not fully developed, having no pronominal phrase (such as tJ1T€P aov), while there is only one causal participial clause (aKOVWY aov T~Y dYcl7T1JY KTA.) , and but one object of intercessory prayer (v. 6). Most commentators treat the passage under review as extending from vv. 4-7,5 with Paul's request in connection with Onesimus

Paul arranged that the letter should reach Philemon first. The latter would then use his influence with Archippus to ensure that Onesimus be released from slavery and be free to assist Paul in his ministry. In spite of Kno x's many penetrating insights (esp. his comments concerning the reason for the 's inclusion in the canon, and whether or not Paul's request forjconcerning Onesimus was accepted), his thesis has not found general acceptance among scholars (partial agreement with Knox haa been expressed by H. Greeven, 'Prüfung der Thesen von J. Knox zum Philemonbrief', TLZ 79 (1954), ools. 373-378) and according to Kümmel, Introduction, p. 246, 'shatters on the natural exegesis of Phlm. 1,2 and Col. 4:17'. Philemon's name appeared first in v. 1, and this, together with the phrese KaT' olKOV ClOU (v. 2), teils against Archippus as being the one primarily addressed; so Moule, Oolossians and Phil emon, pp . 16f. (Even in the second edition (London, 21960), pp. 5lff., Knox has not effectively answered this) , The idea that the letter to Philemon (which aecording to Knox is the 'letter from Laodieea' of Col. 4:16) should be read aloud in the church of in order to put pressure on Archippus, Onesimus' owner is impossible. In his letter to Onesimus ' owner Paul haa exercised discretion and tact, graciously making his request, rather than exercising any authority by way of demand (U. Wickert, 'Der Philemonbrief-Privat­ brief oder apostolisches Schreiben 1', ZNW 52 (1961), pp. 230-238, correctly points out that Paul did not write as a private individual to Philemon, but aa an apostle , However, he eITS when he considers that Paul ssaerted his apostolio authority and made Philemon accede to his demands. This is the very thing Paul does not do), To suggest that such a letter now be read to the aasembled ehurch at Colossae would be entirely inconsistent with this exercise of tact (so Lightfoot, Colossians and Philemon, p. 279, who put the matter c1early : 'Why should a letter, containing such intimate confidences, be read publicly in the Church, not only at Laodicea but at Colossae, by the express order of the Apostle 1 The tact and delicacy of the Apostle's pleading for Onesimus would be nullified at one stroke by the demand for publlcation'. Cf. P. N. Harrison, 'Onesimus and Philemon', ATR 32 (1950), p. 280; and F . F. Bruce, 'St. Paul in Rome. 2. The ', BJRL 48 (1965), p. 95). Further, the inclusion of other Christians' names in the salutation (vv. lf.) snd benedictions (vv, 3 snd 25) is due to the apostle's courtesy. The body of the letter (vv. 4-22) is addresaed to a private individual. It is reasonable to infer from the preservation of the letter in the eanon that Paul's request to Philemon sbout Onesimus was granted, Otherwise, the letter would probably have been destroyed. The contents of vv. 4-22 may weil have been known to others, after Philemon received Onesimus back and possibly even released him for service with Psul (see below, p. 56). 5 So M. Dibelius, An die Kolosser, Epheser, an Philemon (Tübingen, 3rd edn , revised by H. Greeven, 1953), p. 101; Vincent, Philippians and Philemon, p. 177; G. Friedrich,