(Editors Note: It is important to understand the nature of the New Testament and how it communicates to us. Please consider the article written by Nathan Williams and Gary Eubank's response)

Is Philemon a Useful Letter?

 by Nathan Williams

Posted Thu Jan 23, 2014 10:36 am (PST)

 

I'll tell you the problem with Philemon.

It's not that it's so short. After all, we don't mind brevity.

The problem is it contains nothing controversial or "doctrinal" or "church-related" (except that there were churches meeting in houses).

Paul wrote this note to his friend Philemon, who had served at his side in kingdom labors. Philemon had a church meeting in his house (2). Paul gave him kudos for his great love and faith (5), and Paul had derived much joy and comfort from the relationship he had with Philemon (7).

There was no problem in the church, no one was being ugly to anyone else, no one needed Paul's authoritative rod of correction. This letter doesn't deliver a list of elder or deacon qualifications or explain anything to do with the process of salvation.

Philemon's slave, Onesimus, was with Paul (having run away from his master?) and had become a Christian in the meantime. Paul was sending Onesimus back to Philemon and entreating the master to receive his slave back as more than a slave--as a brother in Christ.

So all the letter does is give us an illustration of how brethren should view one another and seek reconciliation in Christ. That's all.

So is this letter useful to you?

If you read your Bible for the sole purpose of figuring out God's rules for us in the church, Philemon will leave you a bit dry. It may seem like fluff...extra stuff.

But if you read your Bible to learn God's heart and discover the truly important things, Philemon will leap out as an indispensable how-to guide explaining how to speak to another brother, how to sensitively discuss difficult personal matters, and how to view brothers and sisters in Christ who belong to different social classes.

Read Philemon and tell me what you think. Useful? Not useful?

 __________________________________________

Is Philemon a Useful Letter? – A Response
by Gary Eubanks

 

I’m afraid I don’t understand what Nathan Williams means by reading the “Bible for the sole purpose of figuring out God’s rules for us in the church,” but I’m even more afraid that I do.  I don’t consciously read the Bible as if it were a stark list of rules, such as the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20), especially when reading a text like Philemon.  Yet, as I think more about it, whether I’m reading the Ten Commandments, some comparable New Testament list of “do’s and don’t’s” (e.g., Gal. 5:19-23), Old or New Testament stories, or Paul’s letter to Philemon, I do so to be instructed as to God’s will for me and with the knowledge that I will be held accountable for what I do with the information I have thus learned.  Now, it seems to me that the end result is the same, whether you call the information gleaned from such an effort guidelines, norms, standards, principles, maxims, proverbs, rules, commandments, laws, or by some other synonymous term.

For instance, while Nathan appears to eschew Philemon as a “rule book” and, instead, prefers to see it as a “how-to guide,” should it really make any difference?  Philemon is a wonderful book, for the reasons Nathan cites, but in the end, after we have learned what it has to teach us about how we should approach our brethren, especially in delicate situations, those teachings amount to “commandments, laws, or rules.”  Nathan may not like those terms, but swapping them for the label, “guidelines,” doesn’t change the fact that they’re obligatory, not optional.

To be specific, if you had been Philemon and had read what Paul had to say to you in this letter about how you ought to treat Onesimus, would you have felt free to throw Onesimus into prison, scourge him, and have him executed, or in any way punish or mistreat him?  No!  The fact is that, assuming Philemon had the modicum of intelligence necessary to understand what Paul was saying, he would have certainly felt compelled to treat Onesimus well, regardless of what his personal inclinations might otherwise have been.

Paul’s statement that he preferred to “appeal” to Philemon to treat Onesimus properly, rather than “order” him to do so (vss. 8,9), is really, then, about the form of what he was saying rather than its substance.  Call it an “appeal” or call it an “order,” who can doubt Philemon got the point that he had no choice but to do with Onesimus exactly what Paul said.  Yes, Paul went on to say he wanted Philemon to act in this matter according to his “free will” rather than by “compulsion” (vs. 14), but, again, that is simply to say that he preferred to get Philemon to show benevolence to Onesimus because he was persuaded by Paul that this was the best course of action, rather than begrudgingly yielding to Paul’s command.  Yes, God will “reason” with us (cf. Isa. 1:18; Jn. 7:17), but He does so to bring us to His side, not to say that we may ultimately go to the other side.  Lest anyone think this is simply my arbitrary, self-interested rationalizing, note that, toward of his letter, Paul said, “Having confidence in your obedience, I write to you, since I know that you will do even more than what I say” (vs. 21).  “Obedience,” did he say???  So, when all was said and done, Paul gave Philemon a “rule” he had to obey!

Therefore, we could hardly do better, after having condensed out of Philemon principles of brotherly interaction and reconciliation, than to title the letter something like “Rules on How to Treat Your Brethren.”  Granted, that may be a bit crude, but indulge me for the sake of simplicity. Changing “rules” to “a how-to guide” really makes no essential change in the ultimate outcome.  Or does Nathan think we’re free to treat our brethren in comparable situations in some other way than Paul wanted Philemon to treat Onesimus?  If so, I suppose he doesn’t really find the letter to Philemon so useful, after all!

While I’m at it, please allow me a final, broader observation.  It hardly requires the services of a cryptologist to discern that what Nathan is saying is “code” for “anti-legalism.”  Verbal finesse aside, rules are bad; they represent a legalistic approach to the Bible interpretation.  It’s better to see Biblical teachings as a “guide.”

Let alone that there may be no practical difference in the terms in this application and that a “guidebook” can be every bit as rigid and obligatory as a “rulebook,” connotations are important to people like Nathan.  The ultimate goal in getting people to see the Bible as a set of guidelines, rather than a rulebook, is to impart a sense of vagueness and subjectivity to its interpretation and, then, freedom, looseness, and personal judgment, in lieu of obligation and compulsion, to its implementation.  The ostensibly noble reason for this might be to supplant ritualism and routine with spirituality, but it also has the added benefit of relieving one of the need to judge others who happen to derive a different set of guidelines from the Bible.

For instance, and to bring matters back to the subject of this group, what “rules” are we supposed to derive from New Testament examples (and it’s arguable that Philemon is one big example)?  To be specific, can we learn from the example of the disciples in Troas “breaking bread” on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; et. al.) that this reflects God’s command for us to do so?  Now, bear in mind, that to deny this means that the Lord has left local churches free to choose when, and how often, they will assemble.  That may work well and may even contribute to a more satisfying sense of acting from spirituality, and there may not be any change in assembling and attendance (since people, wittingly or not, would probably use as something of a standard the “tradition” which they have so thoroughly trashed).  Yes, things may proceed unchanged for a while, maybe even for a generation or two.  There may even be an initial sense of elation which comes from the consciousness that they are doing what they always did but now from a nobler motive.  (I am reminded of the Baptists, who desperately rush to provide other incentives for faithfulness even as they struggle with the negative consequences of insisting that moral conduct is utterly unrelated to salvation.)  However, what will they say to their children and grandchildren who, by way of carrying their teaching into practice, might eventually decide to assemble once a month, once a year, and then never?  Whatever it is, and assuming they are alive and have managed to retain enough spirituality to care, I doubt it will be very much different from the admonitions and arguments of the “legalists” they now hear and decry.  After all, the Lord sometimes waits to visit the iniquity of the fathers on the third or fourth generation (Ex. 34:7).

(Additional Editors Note: Be sure to read the article By Gary Eubanks on: Talking Code)