"For My Child, Onesimus": Paul and Domestic Power in Philemon

Author(s): Chris Frilingos

Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 119, No. 1 (Spring, 2000), pp. 91-104
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3267970
Accessed: 13-07-2018 20:56 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3267970?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Journal of Biblical Literature

This content downloaded from 129.234.0.68 on Fri, 13 Jul 2018 20:56:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
JBL 119/1 (2000) 91-104

"FOR MY CHILD, ONESIMUS":

PAUL AND DOMESTIC POWER
IN PHILEMON

CHRIS FRILINGOS
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599

I. Philemon's Family Language

Early in the second century CE, the younger Pliny wrote a letter
friend Sabinianus on behalf of an errant freedman:

I know you are angry with him, and I know, too, it is not without reason; b
clemency can never exert itself more laudably than when there is more cau
for resentment. You once had an affection for this man, and, I hope, will ha
again. ... do not make himself uneasy any longer, and I will add too, do n
make yourself so; for a man of your benevolence of heart cannot be ang
without feeling great uneasiness. (Ep. 9.21)

Here a free Roman intervenes for another party as an amicus domini ("a
of the master"). Paul's letter to Philemon also exemplifies this type of in
sion.1 Both epistles flatter and appeal to the emotions of the addressees,

A version of this article was presented at the 1998 Southeast Regional Meeting of the
Knoxville, Tennessee. I am especially grateful to two audience members, Rollin Ramsa
Sharyn Dowd, for their remarks about the paper. I also wish to thank Bart Ehrman, Andre
Dale Martin, and Amy DeRogatis for reading and commenting on earlier drafts. Finally
appreciate the suggestions made by the anonymous readers forJBL.
I Apparently, Pliny's efforts were successful; see Ep. 9.24. See also Cassius Dio's ac
Augustus's intervention for the slave of Vedius Pollio (54.23.2). For Roman legal eviden
cus domini, see Peter Lampe, "Keine 'Sklavenflucht' des Onesimus," ZNW 76 (198
Commentators have long noted a resemblance between Pliny's epistle and Paul's letter
mon. Albert Dwight Callahan observes (following Marion Soards, "Some Neglected Th
Dimensions of Paul's Letter to Philemon," Perspectives in Religious Studies 17/3 [1990]
that Joachim Camerarius first suggested the parallel in the sixteenth century (Embassy
imus: The Letter of Paul to Philemon [New Testament in Context; Valley Forge, PA: Trinit
7); Callahan, though, is dubious about the comparison. See also John Knox, Philemon A
Letters of Paul: A New View of Its Place and Importance (New York/Nashville: Abingdon,
and John M. G. Barclay, "Paul, Philemon, and the Dilemma of Christian Slave-Ownersh
37 (1991) 175.

91

This content downloaded from 129.234.0.68 on Fri, 13 Jul 2018 20:56:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
92 Journal of Biblical Literature

tone of the apostle's letter differs from Pliny's composition.2 Kinship ima
which Pliny's letter lacks, imbues Paul's letter with a familial intimacy;
metaphors draw Philemon, Onesimus, and the apostle himself into a liter
consanguinity.3
In this article I situate Paul's letter to Philemon within the ancient cul
fields that enlivened its contents. The methodology I employ attends to
complex ideologies informing the Pauline corpus and reveals the "con
tional" character of these epistles.4 Just as "power is a quality that inher
social relationships," so meaning is a product of communities of readers
writers).5 Paul's symbolic universe, then, does not solely determine the sig
cance of his epistolary language; by ascribing meaning to this languag
readers play a crucial role in the formation of Pauline discourse. Recent
arship on Philemon disregards this audience factor, however.6 Here I see
discover how the epistle's metaphors worked within the Greco-Roman co
shared by Paul and Philemon's household. Specifically, I will investiga
myriad ways that this letter simultaneously expresses and counters claim
authority.7 Dale B. Martin's Slavery as Salvation, which examines Paul's se
designation as "a slave of Christ," models my approach to the epistle. His
demonstrates that the slave metaphor conveyed a variety of denotations
Paul's readers: "In some contexts it could carry meanings of humility; at

2 See J. Albert Harrill, The Manumission of Slaves in Early Christianity (Tiibingen:

Siebeck, 1995) 164 n. 22.
3 See Norman R. Petersen's discussion of the multiple roles played by the letter's a
(Rediscovering Paul: Philemon and the Sociology of Paul's Narrative World [Philadelphia:
minster, 1985] 2-3).
4 A good introductory essay to this interpretive practice is The Bible and Culture Collec
"Ideological Criticism," in The Postmodern Bible (New Haven/London: Yale University
1995) 272-308. Recent examples of this approach applied to Pauline literature include Eli
Castelli, Imitating Paul: A Discourse of Power (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991);
Martin, Slavery as Salvation (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1990); and idem
Corinthian Body (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1995).
5 Elizabeth A. Castelli, "Interpretations of Power in 1 Corinthians," Semeia 54 (1991)
6 See, e.g., Petersen: ". .. we will be concerned only with the narrative world of the Let
Philemon and the narrative world of Paul, as represented in his letters" (Rediscovering, 15).
an author-driven hermeneutics, but see Castelli's instructive observation: "His [Paul's] o
course . . invites, indeed demands, the presence of interpreters" ("Interpretations," 198).
7See Frederic Jameson's remarks on the difference between reading for a text's meanin
reading for a text's function or effects (The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Sym
Act [Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981] 108). See also Castelli, "Interpretations," 1
and Martin, Slavery, xx-xxiii, 136. Treatments that employ sociological methods and models
sent a different approach to this topic; see, e.g., Bengt Holmberg, Paul and Power: The Struc
Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles (ConBNT 11; Phila
Fortress, 1980); and John Howard Schtitz, Paul and the Anatomy ofApostolic Authority (
26; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975).

This content downloaded from 129.234.0.68 on Fri, 13 Jul 2018 20:56:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Frilingos: "For My Child, Onesimus" 93

times it implied power."8 Martin concludes provocatively that Paul used the
complex of meaning produced by the slave metaphor to privilege his position
vis-a-vis his readers.9 Similarly, family imagery held potential for advancing
Paul's concerns.

The present analysis focuses on the effects of family metaphors in the let-
ter to Philemon.10 Within a first-century, Mediterranean environment, this
household imagery signaled an assortment of notions-not only intimacy and
affection but also economics and paternal authority." I suggest that the epistle's
family language constructs a rhetorical household that rivals Philemon's actual
household. In this new setting Onesimus becomes the apostle's mechanism,
technology, or what I term Paul's zTicvo(v)-ology of power.

II. The Roman Domus

The study of metaphor and representation sharpens the difficulty of con-

necting language (i.e., linguistic signifiers) to social reality (i.e., actual signified
things).2" The case of the ancient family is particularly problematic, for "neither
ancient Greek nor Hebrew nor Latin had words that directly translate what
modern Western English means by 'family' or 'house.'"13 The inexact corre-
spondence between the English term and the ancient societal unit reflects the

8 Martin, Slavery, 147.

9 "One powerful weapon in Paul's rhetorical arsenal was his surprising self-portrayal as a
slave of Christ and a slave to all" (Martin, Slavery, 146); but see Harrill's reservations about Mar-
tin's assessment of slave language (Manumission, 9 n. 11 and 29 n. 64).
10 Examples of family metaphors pervade the Pauline corpus; see, e.g., Gal 4:19; 1 Thess
2:11; and Phil 2:22. Interest in the early Christian "family" remains high; see Andrew S. Jacobs, "A
Family Affair: Marriage, Class, and Ethics in the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles," Journal of Early
Christian Studies 7/1 (1999) 105-38. A good introduction and bibliography can be found in Con-
structing Early Christian Families: Family as Social Reality and Metaphor (ed. Halvor Moxnes;
London/New York: Routledge, 1997). See also Carolyn Osiek and David L. Balch, Families in the
New Testament World: Households and House Churches (The Family, Religion, and Culture;
Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997).
11 1 Cor 4:15 indicates the paternal metaphor's force: "For though you might have ten thou-
sand guardians (nat8aywyouS;) in Christ, you do not have many fathers (xtaTpa;). Indeed, in Christ
Jesus I became your father (6yvvroca) through the gospel." See O. Larry Yarbrough, "Parents and
Children in the Letters of Paul," in The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of
Wayne A. Meeks (ed. L. Michael White and 0. Larry Yarbrough; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995)
131-32.

12 See the essays in The New Cultural History (ed. Lynn Hunt; Berkeley: University of Cali-
fornia Press, 1989), especially the discussion of mentalitis within the Annales school of economic
and social history ("Introduction: History, Culture, and Text," 1-22).
13 Osiek and Balch, Families in the New Testament World, 6. For a full discussion of method-
ological issues, see Halvor Moxnes, "What Is Family? Problems in Constructing Early Christian
Families," in Constructing Early Christian Families: Family as Social Reality and Metaphor (ed.
Halvor Moxnes; London/New York: Routledge, 1997) 13-41.

This content downloaded from 129.234.0.68 on Fri, 13 Jul 2018 20:56:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
94 Journal of Biblical Literature

substantial differences that exist between modern and ancient family str
tures. It should also caution scholars against assuming a transcendent or "
ral" status for family language. Just as kinship patterns vary according to
and place, so terms such as "child" evoke different sentiments in different
texts.14 To ascertain what family language may have connoted for the ap
and his readers, I begin with a survey of Roman household roles and disc
Following recent NT scholarship, I often adopt Latin household terminolo
this discussion even though Paul and his readers communicated in Gr
Imperial Rome, as recent studies demonstrate, constructed socially the As
urban environments in which Paul and his audience lived.15 Latin terms,
prove extremely useful for representing the first-century Mediterranean f
and household.
What was the Roman family?16 Roman vocabulary for the kinship gr
included familia, domus (literally, "house" or "household") and poss
adjectives such as mei or tui ("my people" or "your people"; see 1 Cor 1:11
No certain conclusions have been reached about the basic anthropol
organization of the Roman family. An influential analysis of funerary insc
tions contends that the average Roman family looked like the modemrn "n
family," constituted by the father-mother-child triad.8i Recently, however

A4 See Lloyd DeMause, "The Evolution of Childhood," in The History of Childhood (

DeMause; New York: Harper & Row, 1974) 1-73.
15 For a discussion of the "Augustan cultural revolution," see Stanley K. Stowers, A Rere
of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994) 52-59. M
observes: ". .. even though many people in the countryside may have been relatively untouche
Roman ideas and practices, people in those cities, including all the earliest Christians
scarcely have avoided such influence" (Slavery, xviii). See also W. K. Lacey, "Patria Potest
The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives (ed. Beryl Rawson; London/Sydney: Croom
1986) 121-44. Many scholars have paralleled the hierarchical concerns of the NT Haustafel
ancient descriptions of Augustan patriarchy. See Cassius Dio 50.28.3, cited by David L. Balc
Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter (SBLMS 26; Chico, CA: Scholars Press,
71; and Osiek and Balch, Families in the New Testament World, 118-21.
16 I restrict this survey of the Roman household to the paterfamilias and the child;
aspects of Roman family life, however, have attracted much scholarly attention. For exam
large body of secondary literature about marriage relations and the paterfamilias exists;
Veyne's controversial treatment of this subject remains the starting point for most discussio
Roman family life ("The Roman Empire," in A History of Private Life, vol. 1 [ed. Paul Veyne;
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987] 5-205); see also his earlier essay, "La Fam
l'Amour sous le Haut-Empire Roman," Annales ESC 23 (1978) 35-63.
17 Keith R. Bradley, Discovering the Roman Family (New York/Oxford: Oxford Univ
Press, 1991) 4. Kate Cooper's chapter "Private Lives, Public Meaning" describes the R
domus's public character and cultural significance (The Virgin and the Bride [Cambridge
London: Harvard University Press, 1996] 3-20).
18 Richard P. Sailer and Brian D. Shaw, "Tombstones and Roman Family Relations in
Principate: Civilians, Soldiers, and Slaves,"JRS 74 (1984) 124-56. Literary support for their
found in Lucretius 3.894. and Cicero Off 1.58.

This content downloaded from 129.234.0.68 on Fri, 13 Jul 2018 20:56:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Frilingos: "For My Child, Onesimus" 95

study has been challenged on statistical and methodological grounds.19 The

nuclear family model is misleading because it insinuates a sharp distinction
between private and public realms to which Romans probably did not adhere.
As Keith R. Bradley notes, "the Roman household was multifunctional, a place
of constant social, economic, and political intercourse, not simply a place of
habitation."20 Moreover, the model does not account for the role played by
slaves within the Roman domus.21 Slaves generally played a significant role in
households throughout the Roman Empire, and certain slaves occupied impor-
tant and powerful positions within the domus.22 This latter group includes
those who served in "the role of slave agents as indisputable, authoritative rep-
resentatives of the powerful owner."23 Household slaves, then, extended the
activity and influence of the ancient domus well beyond that of the modem
nuclear family.
Romans also held expectations about roles within the domus that contrast
sharply with modem sensibilities. The difference is particularly apparent with
respect to the Roman child; literary and epigraphic evidence attests to the eco-
nomics of childhood and the authority of the paterfamilias (i.e., "the head of
the household"). The physician Soranus's criteria for determining whether or
not a child is worth raising, for example, reveal the material concerns of parents
(Gyn. 2.79).24 But the child was not viewed simply as a burden on family
finances. Apprenticeship documents from Roman Egypt indicate that most
Roman children faced the prospect of labor early in life, and literary sources
confirm that the child was an important contributor to the household. To cite

19 Dale B. Martin, "The Construction of the Ancient Family: Methodological Considera-

tions,"JRS 86 (1996) 40-60.
20 Bradley, Discovering, 8-9. Bradley cites Cicero's description of a Roman noble who
advises visitors to his house on a variety of public matters (De or. 3.133).
21 On ancient slavery, see Moses I. Finley, Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology (New York:
Viking, 1980); and Keith Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves (Sociological Studies in Roman History
1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978). For slavery and the NT, see the works of Harrill

and Martin mentioned above and the older study by S. Scott Bartchy, MAAAONXPI-TAI: First-
Century Slavery and the Interpretation of First Corinthians 7:21 (SBLDS 11; Missoula, MT: Soci-
ety of Biblical Literature, 1973).
22 Wayne Meeks observes that the "most mobile category" of slaves belonged to thefamilia
caesaris (i.e., "the household of Caesar"), which functioned as the "civil service of the empire" (The
First Urban Christians [New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1983] 21). See also Dimitris J.
Kyrtatas's discussion of the familia caesaris (The Social Structure of the Early Christian Communi-
ties [London/New York: Verso, 1987] 75-86).
23 Martin, Slavery, 60.
24 In a sympathy letter Plutarch (or someone writing pseudonymously) observes that the
deaths of infants and children are "the deaths which we can bear easily and cheerfully" (Cons. ad
Apoll., Mor. 113D). Infanticide in the Roman Empire was common; see Hopkins's brief discussion
(Death and Renewal [Sociological Studies in Roman History 2; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1983] 225-26); and Beryl Rawson, "Adult-Child Relationships in Roman Society," in Mar-
riage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome (ed. Beryl Rawson; Oxford: Clarendon, 1991) 5-30.

This content downloaded from 129.234.0.68 on Fri, 13 Jul 2018 20:56:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 96 Journal of Biblical Literature

one example, Plutarch's argument in On Affection towards Children

prolis, Mor 493-97) that affection is the true basis for procreation pr
that "parents did indeed look to their children for material return."25
ble sense of loss sublimates an anxiety about family finances in this c
epitaph: "Those who ought to have made a tomb for their parents die
here duly honored by their afflicted fathers."26 The child's death disru
the emotional stability and the material expectations of the parents.27
The paterfamilias dominated Roman discourse about the family. E
with patria potestas ("paternal power"), the paterfamilias exercised au
over all members of the domus. This right "excluded any possibility t
paterfamilias's capacity to manage the household as an economic unit
challenged." 28 The ubiquitous idealization of potestas, which wa
described as a distinctly Roman innovation, indicates how highly Rom
ued this promise of power. The second-century CE jurist Gaius st
potestas is a "right peculiar to Roman citizens, for there are virtually
peoples who have such power over their children as we have" (Inst. 1.5
historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus locates the emergence of potestas
origins of Rome: "the founder of the Roman constitution gave the fath
stricted power over his sons" (Ant. Rom. 2.26.1). Scholars point out, t
that practical and legal considerations mitigated the paterfamilias'
authority (i.e., ius vitae necisque, or the power over life and death).29 M
Fronto's touching account of his toddler's first word ("da" or "give") is
of Roman parental affection (i.e., pietas) and indulgence (Ep. ad
1.12).30 Even in literature that valorizes potestas, cross-currents exist
century CE pseudonymous advice attributed to Plutarch suggests that

25 See Bradley's discussion of this epigraphic and literary evidence (Discovering,

26 Greek text and analysis in R. B. Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin Epigraphs
University of Illinois Press, 1942) 184-91.
27 See Suzanne Dixon's comments on the topic (The Roman Family [Baltimore: Jo
kins University Press, 1992] 102-16); and Hopkins, Death, 217-26.
28 The Roman Household: A Sourcebook (ed. Jane F. Gardner and Thomas Wi
London/New York: Routledge, 1991) 5. See also Osiek and Balch, who note thatfam
refers to "all persons and objects under the legal power (patria potestas) of the male
family" (Families in the New Testament World, 6).
29 See Eve Maria Lassen, "The Roman Family: Ideal and Metaphor," in Construct
Christian Families: Family as Social Reality and Metaphor (ed. Halvor Moxnes; Lo
York: Routledge, 1997) 106-7; and Osiek and Balch, Families in the New Testament Wo
also Richard P. Saller's comments on the gap between Roman ideals and everyday life
Property, and Death in the Roman Family [Cambridge: Cambridge University P
102-32).
30 See Thomas Wiedemann's discussion of Fronto's correspondence (Adults and Children in
the Roman Empire [London: Routledge, 1989] 93-99). For a full discussion of Roman parental
affection toward children, see Emiel Eyben, "Fathers and Sons," in Marriage, Divorce, and Chil-
dren in Ancient Rome (ed. Beryl Rawson; Oxford: Clarendon, 1991) 114-43.

This content downloaded from 129.234.0.68 on Fri, 13 Jul 2018 20:56:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Frilingos: "For My Child, Onesimus" 97

should not be "utterly harsh and austere in their nature, but they should, in
many cases, concede some shortcomings to the younger persons, and remind
themselves that they once were young" (De liberis educandis, Mor. 13D). Still
the Roman Empire invested heavily in an omnipotent paternal image by cast-
ing its authoritarian leading citizen, the emperor, as "a sort of paterfamilias with
very wide discretionary powers."31 This macrocosmic domus manifested itself
in imperial public imagery (e.g., the Ara Pacis altar) and in honorific titles (e.g.,
Pater Patriae).32 All Romans belonged to a "benevolent patriarchy."33
Roman society attached a range of values to family terminology. For exam-
ple, material concerns permeate much ancient discussion of children. This is
not to say that Romans only construed childhood in economic terms; on the
contrary, this issue seems always to be enmeshed in a web of notions (including
intimacy and authority) about the child's cultural significance. Paul draws on
this network of meanings when he introduces family metaphors into his epis-
tles. On one occasion Paul invokes family language to express affection (1 Thess
2:11-12); at other times this imagery emphasizes the household's economic
functions and hierarchical structure (see Gal 4:1-7; 1 Cor 4:14-21; and the
Deutero-Pauline Haustafeln). To aver that Paul's "fatherhood is ... a transpar-
ent mask for his apostolic role" is to ignore the depth of meaning that family
language held for Paul's audience.34 This language must have resonated imme-
diately with readers whose social identities were defined in large measure by
their household roles.35 In a world saturated with family imagery, the house-
hold was both a convenient meeting place and an epistolary leitmotif for the
apostle. As O. Larry Yarbrough notes, Paul's family metaphors were "rooted in
the day to day lives of the people to whom he proclaimed his gospel."36 Paul's
epistle to Philemon illustrates the manifold rhetorical possibilities that house-
hold language held for the skillful letter writer.37

31 Lacey, "Patria Potestas," 125; see also Lassen, "Ideal and Metaphor," 113-14.
32 Lassen, "Ideal and Metaphor," 112-14. In 2 BCE, Augustus accepted the title Pater Patriae
(see Res Gestae 35; this title was first given to the legendary Romulus [Cicero Rep. 1.64]). On the
Ara Pacis and Augustus's family, see Paul Zanker, The Power ofImages in the Age ofAugustus (Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1988) 101-66.
33 For "benevolent patriarchalism" and the irony suggested by this phrase, see Martin,
Corinthian, 42-49.
34 Petersen, Rediscovering, 131. Petersen's discussion of father imagery in Pauline literature
is brief but'insightful (pp. 128-31).
35 The issuance of the Augustan family laws (e.g., Lex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus and Lex
Papia Poppea, often called Lex Iulia et Poppea; also Lex lulia de adulteriis coercendis), which
bestowed economic and social privileges upon married couples with children, probably reinforced
this mode of self-definition. For a discussion of the legislation's social impact, see Dixon, Roman
Family, 78-80; see also Lassen's brief comments ("Ideal and Metaphor," 108).
36 Yarbrough, "Parents," 140. Yarbrough notes that Jewish traditions probably shaped much
of Paul's parent-child imagery.
37 There is broad scholarly agreement that the rhetorical and literary conventions of Paul's

This content downloaded from 129.234.0.68 on Fri, 13 Jul 2018 20:56:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
98 Journal of Biblical Literature

III. Paul's tivo(v)-ology of Power

A long list of scholarship trails behind Paul's brief epistle to Philemo

Some critical issues, such as the epistle's authenticity, remain unquestion
while others continue to inspire new theories and debate.38 Perhaps the
intriguing aspect of the letter is its narrative background.39 What serie
events precipitated the writing of this letter? Under what circumstance
Paul meet the slave Onesimus? Is the slave accused of malfeasance? Is One
imus a fugitive or an envoy dispatched to Paul?40 Unfortunately, neither t
ter itself nor other early Christian literature provides much data for answ

day influenced the apostle's letter writing. See Stanley K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-
Antiquity (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986); William G. Doty, Letters in Primitive Chri
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973); and David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary En
ment (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987) 158-225. A recent analysis is Margaret M. Mitch
and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composi
1 Corinthians (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991). F. Forrester Church's study of Phil
shows that it borrows Greco-Roman rhetorical conventions to make its point ("Rhetorical St
and Design in Paul's Letter to Philemon," HTR 71 [1978] 17-33). Church's detailed essay di
the letter according to the rhetorical structure (the exordium, vv. 4-7; the proof, vv. 8-16; a
peroration, vv. 17-22) outlined by Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian. Church engages with
John White's investigations of the ancient epistle ("The Structural Analysis of Philemon: a P
Departure in the Formal Analysis of the Pauline Letter" [SBLASP; Missoula, MT: Scholar
1971] 1-47; and The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter [SBLDS 2; Missou
Scholars Press, 1972]); see now idem, Light from Ancient Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1
38For an excellent overview of scholarship, see Wolfgang Schenk, "Der brief des Pau
Philemon in der neueren Forschung (1945-87)," ANRW 2.25.4 (1987) 3438-95. S. Scott Bar
article is a useful starting point ("Philemon, Epistle to," ABD, 5.105-10). The classic comm
on the Greek text is J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (Ly
Hendrickson, 1981 [first published in 1875]). Eduard Lohse, Colossians and Phil
(Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) is perhaps the best English commentary on Ph
available. In addition to Callahan, Embassy, recent commentaries include Ralph P. Martin
sians and Philemon (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1971); C. F. D. Moule, The Epistles of P
Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon (CGTC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres
Peter Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an Philemon (EKKNT; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
and James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon (NIGTC; Grand
Eerdmans; Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1996). A scholarly majority favors Philemon's authe
see Shenk, "Der Brief," 3142-45.
39 See Petersen, Rediscovering, 65-78.
40 While questions about the date, provenance, and intended audience of the letter cont
to attract attention, it is the mystery of how Onesimus met Paul that has emerged, most rece
the locus of debate. Sara C. Winter's provocative 1987 article, in which she argues that "O
was with Paul in prison because the former had been sent by the congregation in Colossa
generated much discussion ("Paul's Letter to Philemon," NTS 33 [1987] 3). Other scholars
adopted Winter's "not-a-runaway" theory with a variety of modifications; Peter Lampe, a
above, suggests that Onesimus was following Greco-Roman convention by seeking a third pa
amicus domini, to negotiate on his behalf ("Keine 'Sklavenflucht,"' 135-37). The discussion
ues, however, as other scholars have also used Roman legal texts to revive the traditional
standing of Onesimus as an escaped slave. See John G. Norling, "Onesimusfugitivus: A Def

This content downloaded from 129.234.0.68 on Fri, 13 Jul 2018 20:56:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Frilingos: "For My Child, Onesimus" 99

A few parts of the story, however, can be established to the satisfaction of

most commentators.41 First, Paul writes the letter from prison (Phlm 13) and
sends the epistle through Onesimus, a slave (Phlm 16), to Philemon, Ones-
imus's master (Phlm 12, 17).42 Second, Paul indicates a strained relationship
between slave and master when he writes, "If he has wronged you in any way, or
owes you anything, charge that to my account" (Phlm 18). Third, Paul and
Philemon appear to be on good terms with each other (Phlm 1, 7). Finally, a
request of the apostle occasions the letter: "Confident of your obedience, I am
writing to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say" (Phlm 21). It is
unclear, though, precisely what Paul expects the slaveholder to do.
The letter's charged setting deserves special attention. The first reading of
the epistle takes place within the public space of the domus.3 The letter does
not represent private correspondence between the apostle and Philemon;
rather, it is addressed to several people, including the church in Philemon's
house (Phlm 2).44 One can easily overlook the letter's multiple recipients (i.e.,
Philemon, Apphia, Archippus, and the household church), since the second
person pronoun remains singular throughout the body of the letter. The closing
request and benediction, though, employ the plural second person pronoun,
reminding the reader that this epistle was read aloud to Philemon and the
household cic?kota. Framed by the agonistic code of ancient Mediterranean
life, this public hearing raised the honor-shame stakes both for Paul and Phile-
mon. The stage is set: Will Philemon publicly deny the apostolic prisoner's
plea? Ronald F. Hock parallels the "rhetorical situation" of Philemon to the
public assemblies depicted in Greek romances; in Chaereas and Callirhoe
(1.1), for example, the people of Syracuse call an cic?kota to debate a poten-

the Runaway Slave Hypothesis," JSNT 41 (1991) 97-119; and J. D. M. Derrett, "The Function of
the Epistle to Philemon," ZNW 79 (1988) 63-91.
41 Callahan's recent commentary deviates dramatically from the traditional scholarly reading
of Philemon. Callahan locates the origin of thefugitivus scholarly hypothesis in John Chrysostom's
misguided exegesis and argues that Paul seeks to resolve a fraternal squabble between Onesimus
and Philemon. In other words, "slave" is the metaphor here, while the family language reflects an
actual biological kinship between the parties (Embassy, esp. 15-19). For criticism of Callahan's
theory (first proposed in "Paul's Epistle to Philemon: Toward an Alternative Argumentum," HTR
86 [1993] 357-76), see Margaret M. Mitchell, "John Chrysostom on Philemon: A Second Look,"
HTR 88 (1995) 135-48, esp. 147 n. 47; for Callahan's response to Mitchell, see HTR 88 (1995)
49-56. I remain convinced that Onesimus was indeed a slave (v. 16).
42 Following Lohse (Philemon, 186-88), I see no reason to subscribe to John Knox's view
(Philemon Among the Letters of Paul, 60-70), recently revived by Winter, that Archippus was
Onesimus's owner.

43 Winter gives reasons for construing the letter as a "public" epistle ("Paul's Letter," 1).
44 F. F. Bruce appears to be one of the first scholars to recognize the significance of this pub-
lic situation; he suggests that Paul, by making the dialogue public, intends to put Philemon "on the
spot" ("St. Paul in Rome II: The Epistle to Philemon," BJRL 48 [1966] 95); see also Petersen,
Rediscovering, 268-69.

This content downloaded from 129.234.0.68 on Fri, 13 Jul 2018 20:56:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
100 Journal of Biblical Literature

tial marriage.45 Similarly, the issues raised by Paul's letter to Philemon are su
ject to the rules governing public discourse. According to these rules, Philemo
would receive Paul's "appeal" as a challenge to his honor. Paul prepares for th
contest with the approval that typifies his epistolary thanksgivings: "I have
indeed received much joy and encouragement from your love, because
hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you, brother" (Phlm 7). Th
conventional approbation reminds Philemon of his past allegiance to the apo
tle and also contains the first example of Paul's strategic use of family image
by calling Philemon "brother" (the vocative 68ek here), the letter inven
relationship that places the apostle and the household paterfamilias on
equal footing.
At this point Paul alludes to the impetus for this epistle: "For this reason
though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do your duty, y
would rather appeal to you on the basis of love-and I, Paul, do this as an old
man, and now also as a prisoner of Christ Jesus" (Phlm 8-9). F. Forrest
Church observes that this passage is an example of avtitpaat;-"the ope
abandonment of an apparently strong line of argument.'"46 This rhetorical te
nique allows the letter at once to demand and to beg some action of Philemo

A second device, Paul's ndco;-filled self-portrayal as an old man, is als

designed to sway the audience in favor of the beleaguered apostle.47 Surpris
ingly, the letter never directly expresses what the apostle hopes to gain fro
these elaborate moves; the epistle has style, but where is the substance?48 Phl
10 intimates that the apostle's plea relates somehow to Onesimus: "I appeal t
you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become during my imprison
ment." Still the letter's purpose remains obscure. Does the apostle desire One
mus's manumission, Philemon's forgiveness of the slave, or the slave himself?
The family imagery found in the epistle suggests that these househo
metaphors constitute a strategy for challenging and displacing Philemo
authority and his claim to the slave Onesimus.49 Paul commences the plan b

45 Ronald F. Hock, "A Support for His Old Age: Paul's Place on Behalf of Onesimus," in T
Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks (ed. L. Michael Wh
and 0. Larry Yarbrough; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 76-77. Bradley also notes parallels betw
public assemblies and the Roman domus (Discovering, 9).
46 Church writes: "This has the effect of establishing an afortiori argument, reinforci
everything that follows" ("Rhetorical," 25).
47 See Hock, "Support," 77.
48 Cf. Pliny's explicit statement: "I am afraid, were I to join my entreaties with his, I shou
seem rather to compel, than request you to forgive him" (Ep. 9.21)
49 Contra Lloyd A. Lewis's essay, "An African American Appraisal of the Paul-Onesimu
Philemon Triangle," in Stony the Road We Trod: African American Biblical Interpretation (
Cain Hope Felder; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 232-46. Lewis also focuses on Philemon's fami
language, but argues that its ultimate effect was to establish "a pseudo-familial relationship amo
peers" (p. 236). For a similar perspective, see J. Paul Sampley, Pauline Partnership in Ch

This content downloaded from 129.234.0.68 on Fri, 13 Jul 2018 20:56:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Frilingos: "For My Child, Onesimus" 101

casting Philemon and himself as brothers (Phlm 7); now Phlm 10 introduces
another household member-Paul's child, Onesimus-and changes the previ-
ously egalitarian set of relations into a structure similar to the Roman domus.
The apostle adopts the paternal role (Ayivvrlaa) and restates this "father-child"
relationship by graphically identifying Onesimus as his own oinXdyva (Phlm
12, cf. Phlm 17).50 Here the letter incorporates a Greco-Roman trope in which
the writer identifies his or her offspring as the writer's mirror image. Cassius
Dio, for instance, writes: "How can it be anything but a pleasure to raise up
from the ground a child ... a physical and mental mirror of yourself, so that, as
it grows up another self is created?" (56.3.4). Inside the epistolary household
reside the paterfamilias Paul and his rivov Onesimus.
This rhetorical domus dramatically contradicts and challenges the set of
relations within Philemon's actual household. Specifically, this epistolary
household subverts Philemon's authority and his claim to Onesimus in two
ways. First, Paul replaces Philemon as the paterfamilias; this effectively pushes
Philemon's authority outside the epistle's margins. Second, the apostle's
parent-child relationship with Onesimus "supersedes any slavish role Onesi-
mus may have served in Philemon's household."51 In other words, the apostle
possesses a greater "right" to the slave than does the slaveholder. This particu-
lar metaphor establishes a link between the apostle and Onesimus that Phile-
mon cannot outdo. Elsewhere the epistle maintains the claim that Onesimus
"belongs" to the apostle. The letter introduces Onesimus as Paul's authoritative
representative, imploring Philemon to "welcome him as you would welcome
me" (Phlm 17). The re-scripting of Onesimus's role creates a complex sce-
nario.52 No longer under the master's control, Onesimus arrives at Philemon's
household as Paul's agent to deliver the apostle's letter, which announces: "I
appeal to you for [ntepi] my child, Onesimus" (Phlm 10). In view of these many
claims, v. 10 appears to be simultaneously an intervention on behalf of Onesi-
mus and a simple request for the slave.53 The irony, of course, is that Onesimus

(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980); and Petersen, Rediscovering, 131. I maintain that letter's family
metaphors assert the apostle's authority over against Philemon and Onesimus.
50 Perhaps the letter reinscribes this identification in v. 20: "Refresh my heart (jLov rd
orcXdyXva) in Christ." There is clearly a connection between this request and the earlier commen-
dation (v. 7) of Philemon for refreshing "the hearts of the saints." Dr. W. Barnes Tatum, in a semi-
nar on Pauline literature, first suggested to me the rhetorical force of orckdyXva in this letter.
51 Hock, "Support," 81.
52 See Karl Olav Sandnes's analysis of Philemon in which he views the request in v. 17 for a
"hospitable welcome" for Onesimus as a symbolic sign of unity within the household church
("Equality within Patriarchal Structures: Some New Testament Perspectives on the Christian Fel-
lowship as a Brother- or Sisterhood and a Family," in Constructing Early Christian Families: Fam-
ily as Social Reality and Metaphor [ed. Halvor Moxnes; London/New York: Routledge, 1977]
156-63).
53 The precise meaning of repi in this phrase has generated some scholarly discussion. Lohse

This content downloaded from 129.234.0.68 on Fri, 13 Jul 2018 20:56:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 102 Journal of Biblical Literature

comes to Philemon's door already as the apostle's servant (i.e., his lette
carrier), and the epistle's language confirms Onesimus's new role as Paul's m
senger before the eyes and ears of the domus (Phlm 17).54 This strate
representation of the slave defacto (if not de iure) transfers Onesimus from
Philemon's control to Paul's service.55
Other devices combine with these family metaphors to privilege Pau
position over against Philemon. A famous instance of Pauline wordplay occu
in the "useless/useful" pun on the name "Onesimus" (which means "useful")
v. 11: "Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed useful both to y
and me."56 This calculated ambiguity transforms the slave's name into a rhet

ical mechanism for the skilled d6pxtcrtov (1 Cor 3:10). Not only has P
forged a familial bond with Onesimus; he has also molded the slave into
industrious servant.57 The boost in Onesimus's productivity tempts Pau
keep Onesimus for himself (Phlm 13). The key detail is that the slave
improved under Paul's watch; this point would probably carry signific
weight in the typical Roman domus, which valued efficiency in children an
slaves. The apostle is superior to the slaveholder.
Onesimus, Paul's useful child, is a tool-a ricvo(v)-ology of power-th
the apostle employs to disassemble the structure of Philemon's domestic com
mand. A final example demonstrates how the apostle manipulates family lan
guage to shift power relationships. When Paul asks that Philemon rece
Onesimus "no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved broth
especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lor
(Phlm 16), he exerts enormous pressure on the actual social roles occupied b
Onesimus and Philemon. Paul first denies the validity of Onesimus's prior s

interprets it to mean "on behalf of' (Philemon, 199). Winter notes that "'apaicak& [tv't] nepi
is a formula [found in the papyri] in which the noun following the preposition is the object of
request" ("Paul's Letter," 6). Although most scholars follow Lohse, Winter's evidence suggests
the phrase may have possessed an ambiguous or double meaning. See also Schenk, "Der Brie
3466-67.
4 J. Duncan M. Derrett notes: "if Philemon should receive Onesimus as Paul, Paul (the non-
owner) has denominated and appointed... Onesimus as his agent" ("The Function of the Epistle
to Philemon" ZNW 79 [1988] 88; emphasis Derrett's). See also Margaret M. Mitchell, "New Testa-
ment Envoys in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplomatic and Epistolary Conventions: The Exam-
ple of Timothy and Titus,"JBL 111 (1992) 641-62.
5 It seems likely that Paul intends to ward off Philemon's objections to this arrangement with
his reminder in v. 19: "I say nothing about you owing me even your own self."
56 Lohse, Philemon, 201. The wordplay continues with Xptor6q embedded in the dXprlotov

(i.e., a-Xptot6q)/expirrov opposition (Winter, "Paul's Letter," 4); but see Derrett, "Functions,"
64.

57 Contra Lewis, who writes: "Surely Paul could not be speaking of the usefulness/useless-
ness of Onesimus as a slave. Otherwise we would have to read the latter half of verse 11 as a sign
that conversion's greatest effect on Onesimus was the power for greater diligence in his chores"
("Philemon-Paul-Onesimus," 245).

This content downloaded from 129.234.0.68 on Fri, 13 Jul 2018 20:56:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Frilingos: "For My Child, Onesimus" 103

relationship with Philemon (ouxickt c; 80oov), then he quickly substitutes a

fraternal connection in its place (a6E9X6bv a"yainr6v).58 For a moment Paul,
Philemon, and Onesimus are equals. Yet Paul's hyperbole-"especially to me
but how much more to you"--excludes the apostle from the egalitarian rela-
tionship of Philemon and Onesimus. Philemon and Onesimus are not only
brothers but also children, and Paul fills the paternal role. By implication, then,
the letter depicts Onesimus and Philemon as gicva and Paul as the authorita-
tive paterfamilias.59 The epistle's rhetorical domus is now complete: Paul stands
at the pinnacle of this domestic triangle, and Philemon and Onesimus are the
two points that connect its base.

IV. "One Thing More": Paul's Gentle Compulsion

Philemon, as Paul's rivov, is subject to the will of the apostolic pater-

familias. The indirect annexation of Philemon in this parent-child imagery indi-
cates apprehension on the apostle's part. Perhaps Paul feels some trepidation
about his brazen challenge to Philemon's potestas and honor. In view of the
authority that the Roman household assigned to the paterfamilias, this is a rea-
sonable conjecture. I do not wish to understate, however, the force of the epis-
tle's formidable rhetoric. The letter's family imagery generates a complex
mixture of affectionate and authoritative claims.60 Moreover, the public nature
of the domus heightened the effect of such language. By emphasizing his total
control over the situation, Paul shames Philemon in his own house: "I wanted
to keep him with me ... but I preferred to do nothing without your consent, in
order that your good deed might be voluntary and not something forced" (Phlm
13-14). The apostle simultaneously subverts Philemon's "right" to the slave and
provides him with a "face-saving" response: Philemon's submission should be

58 The phrase "in the flesh and in the Lord" is particularly difficult to understand. It is unpar-

alleled in Pauline literature and makes little sense in connection with 6SeXl,5q. How is Philemon
supposed to view Onesimus as a brother "in the flesh"? Some commentators have suggested that
this indicates Onesimus will still be a slave "in the flesh" (e.g., Dunn, Philemon, 336; Martin, Phile-
mon, 166); others beg the question: "Both at work and in church the new and sanctified relation-
ship between master and servant, brother and brother, will assert itself' (William Hendrickson,
New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Philemon [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979] 17). Callahan
uses this verse to support his theory about the biological kinship between Philemon and Onesimus
(Embassy, 44-50).
59 Yarbrough makes a similar observation on the basis of Phlm 19, but fails to consider the
impact of such a move on the relations of power between the apostle and Philemon ("Parents,"
138).
60 See Castelli, Imitating Paul, 101. Castelli emphasizes the authority associated with the
father image, whereas other scholars stress the intimacy evoked by such metaphors (e.g., Holm-
berg, Paul and Power, 77-79); see Yarbrough: "intimacy is in fact the dominant motif in all of Paul's
metaphorical applications of parent-child imagery" ("Parents," 132). I contend that the reader can-
not separate out authority from intimacy in Philemon.

This content downloaded from 129.234.0.68 on Fri, 13 Jul 2018 20:56:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 104 Journal of Biblical Literature

viewed (by the household) as an honorable act of free will. The challe
remains shaming, nevertheless, for it publicly questions Philemon's ability
manage his own household.
Another example of epistolary audacity occurs in Philemon's final lines
The letter's conclusion, its "apostolic parousia," weaves together intimidatio
and tenderness: "One thing more-prepare a guest room for me, for I am ho
ing through your prayers to be restored to you" (Phlm 22). In other words
whether or not Philemon agrees to the apostle's conditions, Paul himself wi
soon return to set the record straight. The apostle also projects his own des
(i.e., to visit Philemon's household) onto his audience (tr6v tpoGEuXcv Upcv
The verse reminds Philemon of the apostle's divinely ordained mission and
authority, granted by the prayers of the domus itself, to interfere in Philem
household operations. Despite its threatening undercurrents, however,
travelogue maintains a warm and familiar tone. It does not command obedi-
ence but expresses the hope for a family reunion. This "gentle compuls
contrasts sharply with other, less subtle disciplinary moments within the Pau
corpus: '"What would you prefer? Am I to come to you with a stick, or with l
in a spirit of gentleness?" (1 Cor 4:21).61 Paul's epistle to Philemon is not mea
to frighten (see 2 Cor 10:9).
The letter, then, is concerned less with Onesimus's situation than w
Paul's own status.62 This assessment of the epistle resolves somewhat the te
sion between Paul's ostensible goal of helping Onesimus and his decision
send the slave back to an angry Philemon. If Philemon accepts Onesimu
accordance with the apostle's terms, then the slaveholder must also acknow
edge Paul's authoritative presence in his family affairs.63 Onesimus will rema
"forever" in Philemon's household as a sign of Paul's domestic power.

61 Lightfoot originated the "gentle compulsion" phrase vis-4-vis this epistle (Philemon, 345
Ralph Martin describes the Philemon travelogue as "a subtle incentive" (Philemon, 169).
62 Petersen reaches similar conclusions about the letter but sees Paul asserting his o
"translocal" authority over against Philemon's "local" authority (Rediscovering, 287-302). I sug
that Paul challenges Philemon's household position through the family discourse that constructs
63 See Mitchell, "New Testament Envoys," 649-51

This content downloaded from 129.234.0.68 on Fri, 13 Jul 2018 20:56:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms