A Deeper Reading of Paul's Epistle to Philemon

          This article is a follow-up to an earlier one in which I argued for an allegorical reading of Philemon, which you can find HERE. In this piece I evaluate my earlier claim, and also consider alternate readings of Paul's Epistle.

Evaluating An Allegorical reading of Philemon

Several years ago, I applied my own allegorical reading to Paul’s Epistle to Philemon.  I did this without any real understanding that allegory is just one “sense” in which scripture can be read, and moreover that there are different types of allegory within the overall “spiritual” sense.  In order to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of my allegorical reading of Philemon, I will employ the four senses of scripture as outlined in classical (medieval) exegetical thought.  In the process, I will strive to answer the following three questions:  What other meanings have been (or can be) gleaned from the text? Do the other senses or readings of scripture play a meaningful role in the text? Finally, does my allegorical reading of Philemon lead me to neglect certain dimensions of the text?  In answer to these questions, I assert the following: First, that the most common meaning that has been gleaned from the text generally relies on a literal sense of the text.  Philemon is most often held to be exactly what it appears to be on the surface: a letter from an apostle to a Christian slaveholder, designed to persuade him to be reconciled to a runaway slave.  However, more recent interpretations point out that Paul may have intended a moral reading concerning the equality of Christian brotherhood.  Second, while the literal sense of the text has been accepted in the past, newer commentators have posited that the moral sense ought to be applied to the text instead (or at least as well) (as in the case mentioned above).  Third, an exclusively allegorical interpretation of Philemon has some drawbacks, including the fact that it may lead one to neglect or overlook the valuable moral sense of the text.

The four senses of scripture

In the classical approach to interpreting and understanding scripture, there are generally held to be four “senses” of scripture, which fall under two major headings.  There is the literal sense of scripture, which refers to the surface meaning conveyed by the actual words of the text. The literal sense of scripture deals with what is actually occurring in the narrative, or (in some more recent cases) with the meaning of the text as fully intended by the original author.  There is also the spiritual sense of scripture.  Under this heading are the remaining three senses of scripture, which include the allegorical sense, the moral sense, and the anagogical sense.

The moral sense seeks to derive ethical expectations from the text in order to lead readers to live justly.  In many cases, the great prophets and figures in the Bible are held up as exemplars of righteousness and faithfulness, upon whose examples readers are expected to pattern their lives.

The anagogical sense treats the eternal sense or meaning of the text.  It seeks to determine how the selected text relates to eschatological goals, aims, or concepts like salvation, or the life of the church (kingdom of God on Earth).  The anagogical sense seeks to show readers what the end or ultimate aim of life (and discipleship) ought to be.

The allegorical sense of scripture looks for the underlying meaning behind the narrative contained in the scripture.  Specifically, it looks beyond the surface meaning of a text in order to discover deeper spiritual significance (which may or may not have been intended by the original author).

Within the allegorical approach to scripture, there are two related and subordinate concepts which can be important in discovering and delineating the deeper significance of a text.  Sensus plenior refers to the concept that there is a deeper, or “fuller” sense behind the text, which the original (human) author may not (or could not) have intended.  The second concept is that of typology, in which a person, animal, object, action, or event in a sacred text is held to be a “type” or foreshadowing of some future person, event, action, animal, or object.  The corresponding future person, event, action, animal or object is typically referred to as an “anti-type.”  In the classical understanding, types were usually to be found in the Hebrew Bible (Christian Old Testament), and were generally held to foreshadow a corresponding “anti-type” which could be found in the Christian New Testament.

I have selected my own allegorical interpretation of Paul’s Epistle to Philemon as a case study through which we can examine the workings of the four senses of scripture in general, and also as a means to explain the nature of the allegorical interpretation in particular.

Ancient Roman slave collar

Background for Paul’s letter to Philemon

On the surface, Paul’s letter to Philemon does not appear to contain much of importance when compared the other epistles and gospel which are contained in the Christian New Testament. The letter is brief, and (when viewed in the literal sense) contains little in the way of doctrine, nor (when viewed in the moral sense) does it appear to contain much that might guide us toward a more just way of living. As such, its inclusion among the sacred texts of the New Testament may seem strange.

It may be thought strange that an short letter, written entirely on a private subject, without reference to the proof or defence [sic] of any doctrine of the Gospel, should, by the general consent of the Church of God, from the highest Christian antiquity, have been received into the sacred canon, not only as a genuine production of St. Paul, but as a piece designed by the Holy Spirit for the edification of the Church.  However, such is the fact; (Clarke, 1832, 660).

On the surface, Paul’s letter to Philemon seems to be nothing more than that: namely, a letter sent from Paul in Rome to a disciple named Philemon (and also to Apphia, who was probably Philemon’s wife) who resided in Colossae (Coogan & Metzger, 1993, 589).

Philemon was a Christian who was wealthy enough to own slaves.  One of his slaves, who (according to the letter) was named Onesimus, had apparently run away after stealing something from his master (it isn’t clear what, but it is possible that the property which Onesimus stole from his master was actually Onesimus’ own person).  Onesimus subsequently encountered Paul in Rome (presumably while Paul was under house arrest).  Under the influence of Paul, Onesimus converted to Christianity.

As a consequence of his conversion, it appears that Onesimus was now willing to risk punishment (and likely death) in order to return and be reconciled to his master Philemon.  Accordingly, Paul wrote his letter in order to appeal to Philemon on Onesimus’ behalf.  Paul entreated Philemon to allow Onesimus to return and also that he would accept Onesimus into Christian fellowship.

Traditional or typical readings of Philemon

Historically, practically all interpretations of the text of Paul’s letter to Philemon have relied on the literal sense (and more recently, and to a lesser degree, the moral sense) to glean the meaning and intent of the epistle.  In fact, in most older interpretations (such as in the commentaries made by Matthew Henry and Adam Clarke), Paul’s letter to Philemon is attributed little significance beyond the literal sense.  As Henry says, “The main business of the epistle…was to plead with Philemon on behalf of Onesimus” the runaway slave and thief (Henry, 1961 (1710), 1907).  In these older interpretations, it is asserted that nothing more is intended by the epistle than what appears on the surface of the text.

However, some newer commentators ascribe a moral interpretation to the relationships described in this brief letter.  In this interpretation, Paul writes to Philemon to inform him that his (Philemon’s) relationship with Onesimus has been transformed from one of master and slave to that of Christian brotherhood.  The moral sense of this epistle is often held (in more modern commentaries) to be that all Christians are equal as disciples and followers of Christ.  However, an older (and much less politically correct) interpretation would suggest that the moral sense of this text is that slaves have a Christian obligation to return to their masters.

Summary of my allegorical reading of Philemon

Applying an allegorical interpretation to Paul’s Epistle to Philemon is an unusual and unique approach to say the least.  However, I believe that there is a case to be made for the validity of an allegorical interpretation of Philemon.  By comparing Paul’s language and treatment of the relationship of the three men to elements of Christ’s atonement found throughout scripture, the deeper meaning and significance of the text becomes clear.

When read in the light of Paul’s theology of estrangement from God through sin and reconciliation through the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ, certain anagogical types emerge in the text of Philemon.  In addition, a model of Christ’s atonement, which resembles the one set forth in the satisfaction and penal substitution theories of atonement, begins to coalesce.

In this reading of the narrative, Philemon represents God who, as the injured party, has the right (according to justice) to seek redress for Onesimus’ transgressions (and our sins) against him. 

Onesimus represents our fallen and sinful nature. He has (and we have) become estranged from the Master through sin and transgression, and he lacks (and we lack) the power or the wherewithal to affect a reconciliation. Because of his crimes, Onesimus has become an unprofitable servant to Philemon (Philemon 1:11), just as our fallen and sinful nature makes us unprofitable servants to God (Romans 3:10-12).  Without intervention from another on his behalf, Onesimus (and we) must face the penalty for his (our) crimes.  Just as Onesimus could expect to face punishment and even death for his crimes, so too is fallen man subject to the penalty of death as the wages of sin (see Romans 6:23).

Paul represents Christ in his role as mediator between God and man (see 1 Timothy 2:5-6). Paul intercedes on Onesimus’ behalf, and (in his role as Christ) entreats Philemon to forgo his rights as master (and as the one injured by Onesimus’ actions).  Paul promises to pay Onesimus’ debt if Philemon will agree to accept his slave back into his household once again.

If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account; (Philemon 1:18).

Christ’s passion, especially his suffering and death, were necessary as a way to pay the required price for our sins.  Although he is sinless and innocent, Christ chose to suffer the penalty of our sins on our behalf, so that justice might be satisfied.  Christ gave his life because it was the only way to save mankind while satisfying the requirements of justice, which say that someone has to pay the penalty for sin.  Christ gave himself to pay that price, and as such he became the propitiation of our sins

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5).

By acting as the propitiation for our sins, Christ can intervene as an advocate or mediator on our behalf with God.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (1 Timothy 2:5-6).

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:1-2).

Just as Christ justifies those who believe in him by declaring “his righteousness for the remission of [our] sins that are past” (Romans 3:24-26), Paul cites the debt of obligation which he merits from Philemon in order to incite him to have mercy on Onesimus.  While he acknowledges that Onesimus departed from Philemon’s household “for a season,” he asks him to “receive him for ever,” just as Christ intervenes on our behalf so that we may gain entry into the kingdom of heaven through his righteousness.

After Onesimus encountered Paul in Rome, he appears to have undergone a dramatic conversion.  His very nature has been changed by the grace and redemption of Jesus Christ, as communicated to him through Paul’s gospel.  Onesimus’ conversion and resulting membership in the brotherhood of disciples also led to a transformation in status.

Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord? (Philemon 1:16).

Onesimus left Philemon’s household as (and because he was) a slave (or a servant) of sin.  He met Paul and learned the truth (the gospel)--which set him free.  Now he has been called to be a servant of the Lord (in the sense that we all have been called as saints to serve and obey God).  Now Onesimus can truly be called profitable, as in Philemon 1:11 (it is worth noting that Onesimus’ own name means “useful,” or “profitable”) (Coogan & Metzger, 1993, 589) (Henry, 1961 (1710), 1908).

Paul (in the person of Christ) also refers to Onesimus as his begotten son in Philemon 1:10:

I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:

Not only does service to God set you free, but faithful service enables God to exalt you in due time--so much so that you are no longer a servant in his household but are now born again (begotten) and adopted as a son and an heir of God.

Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. (Galatians 4:1-7)

If we are led by the spirit of God, and if we are willing to suffer with Christ as his faithful followers, we too can be glorified with Christ, as sons and heirs of God.

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. (Romans 8:14-17).

Like Onesimus, you and I can be redeemed through the merits, mercy, and grace of Jesus Christ.  Through the atonement of Jesus Christ we can be made profitable servants and so much more, through the timely intervention of one who has the power to bring about a reconciliation between us and God, by presenting us “holy and unblameable and unreprovable in his sight” (Colossians 1:14, 20-22).

Flaws in applying an allegorical reading to Philemon:

The anagogical approach outlined above has a certain appeal, however, it is not without its limitations and drawbacks. For example, focusing on a wholly anagogical reading of the epistle to Philemon can lead a reader to miss important moral significance which may also be read into the text.  Namely, it is the reading of the text that purports that Philemon was included in the New Testament collection in order to teach the scattered Christian disciples about the new reality of “The social and symbolic integrity of the new family of brothers and sisters, the church” (Blekinsopp & Mays, 2000, 1146).

In the new Christian reality, the master-slave relationship no longer applies.  In the moral reading of Paul’s letter to Philemon, both master and slave are equals, and brothers in the sight of God.  In this light, the moral interpretation of Paul’s letter to Philemon must surely play a significant role in our understanding of the text.

Another major limitation of this approach is that there is no evidence that an anagogical reading of this text was understood by Christians at any point, going back to antiquity.  While the concept of Sensus plenior helps to justify a “fuller” understanding of the text, it is nevertheless a fact that there is no corroborating interpretation in the history of official Christian exegesis which supports an anagogical reading of Philemon.

Strengths?

As attested in my limited summary above, the language used by Paul in his letter to Philemon corresponds well with language employed in other places in the Bible (notably by Paul himself) to describe the atonement of Jesus Christ, as well as its effects and conditions.  Nevertheless, this correlation may simply be a coincidence, and of itself does not prove that Paul intended any sort of allegorical meaning be attached to his short letter to Philemon.

However, an allegorical interpretation of Philemon may help explain why Paul’s entreaty of Philemon differs from his typical instructions regarding master-slave relations.  Paul gives plenty of advice elsewhere in the New Testament concerning the proper treatment of slaves by master, and the duty of slaves to obey their masters (see also Ephesians 6:5-9).

Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God; (Colossians 3:22).

Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 4:1).

However, Paul’s instructions to Philemon differ significantly from his other teachings on the subject of master-slave relations.  He instructs Philemon to treat Onesimus as a brother and an equal, even though Onesimus had been a disobedient servant.

Why would Paul appear to disregard his own counsel in this instance?  The literal reading of Philemon has a hard time accounting for this discrepancy.  However, it is possible that Paul intended to teach another lesson.  An allegorical (spiritual) sense of the text might explain why Paul would apparently change his mind.  In the moral reading, Paul is trying to make a larger point about the universal brotherhood of Christians.  In the anagogical reading, which I have developed, the relationship among Onesimus, Philemon, and Paul is meant to be a type or a figure of the relationship of fallen man to God, with Christ (Paul) as mediator.  It is possible that the relationship between Onesimus (with his convenient name) and Philemon was created by Paul as a rhetorical device in order that he might more fully explicate the workings of redemption and reconciliation through the atonement of Jesus Christ.

At any rate, it is true that an allegorical reading of Philemon, be it a moral one or an anagogical one, more fully accounts for this strange discrepancy in Paul’s teachings.

Conclusion

While Philemon is often overlooked by many lay readers, there is certainly much to be gained from a detailed analysis of Paul’s letter.  By understanding the different interpretations of Philemon we can gain unique insights into Paul’s mind, and also into the culture and practices of the primitive Christian church, as it related to the rest of the ancient world. To that end, it becomes important to answer the following questions: First, what other meanings have been (or can be) gleaned from the text? Most who approach Philemon do so either from the more traditional literal sense, or else they adopt the more recent moral sense.  In the literal sense, Philemon is exactly what it appears to be.  A private letter between A Christian leader and a fellow Christian, in which that leader intervenes on behalf of a runaway slave belonging to that leader.  In this reading, there is no deeper or greater meaning, beyond the business which is plainly transacted in the letter.

Second, do the other senses or readings of scripture play a meaningful role in the text? Yes, the other senses play a very important role in the text.  In addition to the literal sense adopted by older commentators, the moral sense has recently been applied to Philemon by modern commentators.

Third, and finally, does my allegorical reading of Philemon lead me to neglect certain dimensions of the text?  Yes, one of the major drawbacks of my allegorical approach to Philemon is that it leaves very little room for other applications.  Relying on this interpretation exclusively can lead me to overlook or neglect other meanings which are just as significant, including the moral sense in which the universal fraternity and equality of Christians. 
Despite its drawbacks, I find that my allegorical interpretation holds up well when compared to other interpretations.  This is especially true when my allegorical treatment is compared with the literal reading of Philemon.  In this reading, Philemon seems like a strange and almost pointless addition to the New Testament canon.  A spiritual reading, be it in the anagogical sense or the moral sense, helps to explain Philemon’s place in the canon, and imparts greater meaning than the literal sense.  For these reasons, I consider a spiritual or allegorical reading of Philemon to be a valid approach to understanding the full meaning of the Epistle of Paul to Philemon.

References

Mays, J., Blenkinsopp, Joseph, & Society of Biblical Literature. (2000). The HarperCollins Bible commentary (Rev. ed.). HarperSanFrancisco: San Francisco

Clarke, A. (1832). Clarke’s commentary. Nashville: Abingdon.

Coogan, M. D., Metzger, B. M. (1993). The Oxford companion to the bible. Oxford: New York.

Henry, M. (1960/1710). Matthew Henry’s Commentary. Zondervan: Grand Rapids.