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 Dangers of the Checklist Church

Q: I am a convert of 9 years, and in that time, I have noticed something that bothers me. In particular, I've seen this happen to a couple friends, to two of my own cousins, and even my husband.

They grow up totally devout Mormons, learning to go to primary, young men/women's, serve a mission, get married, go to the temple, etc. But then sometimes people hit a snag. The church says "you must do A,B,C,D and then you get to go to heaven.”  But I've seen some people get to "C" and because of something beyond their control, they can't do that thing. (For example, not qualifying to go on a mission for medical reasons)

For example, one person had a hard time finding a wife. He's only 27 and he acts like his life is over because he's not married yet. My cousin didn't go on her mission and the guy she was with left her, and now she's lost like she has no purpose.

It's like they suddenly don't know what to do with themselves. Like their life just ended. Like they had a map of what to do and the map is messed up so they fall into this really sad and really pathetic depression.

Personally, I don't want my kids exposed to that!  I don't want my son to be depressed and feel like a failure because he didn't follow the A,B,C,D plan to a T.  Watching what this stuff is doing to my friends and family is so sad. My cousin literally just sits in her room crying and feeling sorry for herself because she didn't qualify for a mission. AND ITS NOT EVEN HER FAULT! She's even becoming apostate over it!

I'm so close to pulling my kids out of church and just teaching them at home. I don't want my kids mentally screwed up because of this church and the ridiculous pressure and expectations put on these kids.

Am I wrong? Does anyone else see this?

A:  You are not wrong to be concerned and repelled when you see your friends and family suffering from feelings of inadequacy, depression, and guilt at what they perceive to be their failure to adequately live up to gospel requirements.

Your friends are not alone.  Many Mormons who are doing their best to follow God’s commandments can sometimes feel overwhelmed by the sheer weight and number of things they have been asked to do as members of the church. Some, like your friends, may wrestle with feelings of inadequacy and failure when they don’t manage to measure up.

“Around the Church I hear many who struggle with this issue: “I am just not good enough.” “I fall so far short.” “I will never measure up.” I hear this from teenagers. I hear it from missionaries. I hear it from new converts. I hear it from lifelong members…. Satan has somehow managed to make covenants and commandments seem like curses and condemnations. For some he has turned the ideals and inspiration of the gospel into self-loathing and misery-making” (Jeffrey R. Holland, “Be Ye Therefore Perfect—Eventually,” Ensign, Nov. 2017).

This is unfortunate, because your friends and many others like them don’t need to feel like failures who cannot hope to measure up.  They don’t have to feel like they are stuck, or like their life is over when something doesn’t happen the way they think it is supposed to happen.  Your friends are laboring under some misconceptions about how the gospel is meant to be lived, and this wrong thinking is making them miserable for nothing.

From where I’m standing, there are two problems: First, they (and you) seem to be proceeding from the assumption that there is a checklist (A, B, C…) that we have to follow to a tee if we are going to go to heaven.  Second, they also assume that getting into heaven is the whole point.  Also, as you may have noticed, the problem with this checklist mentality is that it almost immediately starts to fall apart when things in life don’t go according to plan.

Serving a mission, marrying in the temple, paying your tithing, and so forth are all important things, but none of these things is the ultimate goal of gospel discipleship.  Accordingly, the church does not teach that you have to follow a rote list of A, B, C, and D to get into heaven.  What the church does teach is simultaneously simpler and also more complex and elegant than that.

How Gospel Legalism is Holding Latter-day Saints Back

WARNING:  This post contains several mentions of a word and subject which is probably unsuitable for children.

I spend a great deal of time writing, speaking, and answering questions about religion, so I tend to encounter the whole spectrum of doubts and problems (as well as the best that we have to offer) as I get to know people across the world and the church.  As I have interacted with other Latter-day Saints on questions of religion, I have noticed a certain tendency that I find especially disturbing.  Specifically, I have noticed that some Latter-day Saints like to ask some variation of the “Is [blank] a sin?” question, which is usually accompanied by phrases like “It isn’t expressly forbidden by the general authorities,” or, “it isn’t spelled out in the scriptures (or the policy or manuals of the Church),” with the implication that unless it is spelled out explicitly as a sin, then it must be OK to do.  I have also noticed that the same people often also ask about what the minimum requirements are for any given commandment in order to get into heaven, or avoid hell. These individuals tend to be preoccupied with what exactly constitutes a sin in the eyes of God and the church. This attitude can only be called legalism, and it can be very dangerous.

“Legalism:  Noun.  usage: strict conformity to the letter of the law rather than its spirit.”  (http://thesaurus.infoplease.com/legalism, n. d.)

Case in point, the following question was posted in a Facebook discussion group for Latter-day Saints in order to solicit responses for a podcast:

“I got into a downright weird conversation with someone on whether or not the LDS Church teaches masturbation as breaking the Law of Chastity.

His defense was that there isn't a section in the Aaronic Priesthood Manual or some such work (you know - the Fifth Standard Work) about masturbation and so it isn't a sin” (Joe Rawlins, Facebook post, April 9, 2015).

In response, one person stated that she has never viewed a proscription against masturbation to be part of the law growing up, and that she still doesn’t, and then she posted a link to the Wikipedia definition of the Law of Chastity (as taught by the LDS church).

Another person posted a talk from President Spencer W. Kimball which specifically stated that the law of chastity forbids “all sexual relations outside marriage,” including masturbation, to which the first person replied that she did not see anything expressly forbidding the practice in the youth booklet.

Several individuals argued back and forth about whether or not pornography addiction is an actual or fictional condition, and others made statements criticizing the church’s stance on the subject as being a relic of Victorian era hang-ups about sex, and/or misconceptions about the sin of Onan (as it is often referred to) in the Bible, even going so far as to post a link to an article from Wiktionary defining onanism (see Genesis chapter 38 if you really care to know more).  There was also a protracted argument among several individuals concerning the severity of the sin, and its ranking in comparison to the severity of certain other sins.  Of course the crux of the entire argument had to do with the fact that teachings forbidding the practice of masturbation are not clearly spelled out in scripture.

This whole argument is an example of the irritating legalism that has crept into the attitude of many church members:  "If it isn't specifically spelled out, then I don't have to do it, and if it isn't expressly forbidden then I can do as I please."  Or, more subtly, ranking or defining sins so that some seem less severe than others, or finding ways to fulfill the bare letter of the law without concern for the spirit of the law.  Legalism is a problem for members of the church because it can cause us to miss the whole point of the gospel (and commandment keeping) and the atonement of Jesus Christ, and cause us to become lost in a maze of petty bickering over tiny points of the law. Worse, "by looking beyond the mark" (see Jacob 4:14) we may cause ourselves (and others) to "stumble" and "fall" because of confusion over what is and isn't sin.

The Hidden Atonement Allegory in Philemon

A Verse-by-Verse Break-down of the Atonement Symbolism in Paul's Epistle to Philemon

al·le·go·ry/ˈaləˌgôrē/
Noun:  1) A story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.
            2)  The genre to which such works belong.

The epistle of Paul to Philemon contains an incredibly rich allegory concerning the power of Christ to reconcile man to God through his atonement.  I feel that applying an allegorical interpretation to this letter reveals a particularly significant insight into the apostle Paul’s fully developed understanding of and teachings about the gospel (and the atonement) of Jesus Christ.

I present here a breakdown of Paul’s epistle to Philemon, with all 25 verses broken down verse-by-verse and presented in bold type.  Many (but not all) of these verses are also accompanied by scriptures that support and expound on the principle being taught in Philemon as well as by my own commentary (in italics).  I have provided all of this in order to make plain the allegorical meaning behind the text.

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO

PHILEMON

1  PAUL, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer,

The Zondervan NIV study bible has this to say in its introduction to the epistle to Philemon:

    “Paul wrote this letter to Philemon, a believer in Colosse who, along with others, was a slave owner...One of his slaves, Onesimus, had apparently stolen from him (cf. v. 18) and then run away, which under Roman law was punishable by death.  But Onesimus met Paul [apparently during Paul’s incarceration in Rome] and through his ministry became a Christian (see v. 10).  Now he was willing to return to his master, and Paul writes this appeal to ask that he [Onesimus] be accepted as a Christian brother ( v.17).”

2  And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:

2 Corinthians 5:20  Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

Understand that from this point on Paul is speaking in the person of Christ-that is, he represents Christ-both in the sense that as an apostle Paul is an actual representative of Christ, and more particularly that Paul figuratively represents Christ for the purposes of this allegory.  Philemon in turn represents God, the injured party who has the right (according to justice) to seek redress for Onesimus’ transgressions, which in this case (and for the sake of the allegory) means death.  Onesimus represents fallen man, or in other words, you and I.  He (and we) has become estranged from the Master through transgression, and without intervention (to wit: mediation) from another Onesimus (and we) have no hope of reconciliation with his (our) estranged master and therefore must face death as the rightful penalty for his (our) crimes.  Fortunately for Onesimus (and us), Paul does intercede and (in his role as Christ) pleads for mercy on behalf of Onesimus and beseeches Philemon to accept him back into his household once again on the condition that Paul will pay Onesimus’ debt.  Paul cites the debt which he merits from Philemon in order to incite him to have mercy on Onesimus.  Rome represents the fallen world, and Philemon’s home represents heaven (specifically God’s throne).

Remember:

Paul: Christ
Philemon: God
Onesimus: You and I
Rome: The fallen world
Philemon’s household: Heaven/God’s household and throne
Death: Hell/consequences of sin

"If You're So Righteous Why Aren't You Rich?" and other dumb ideas about how God's blessings work.

This post is divided into three parts, each one dealing with a common misconception about how prayer and blessings work, and about our relationship with God.  The one dealing with riches and righteousness is number two, however I recommend that you read each part in order, as I intended each point to build off of each preceding principle.

1) God owes me blessings because I earned them through my own obedience.

This one is tricky because it arises out of a true statement made in D&C 130:20-21 which says:

There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

This scripture is a fairly straightforward statement that says that if you want to experience the blessings that come from living the law of tithing, or the Word of Wisdom, or Temple worship or any other law of God then you have to be willing to obey that particular principle before you can enjoy said blessing. What this statement DOES NOT say is that God owes us blessings for obedience, whether that be obedience in general or obedience to a particular principle.

The Atonement Defined I: Justification

It is common to hear religious people marvel at the "incomprehensible" nature of the atonement and suffering of Christ.  This can be attributed to many true statements made by the general authorities along those lines:

"How One could bear the sins for all is beyond the comprehension of mortal man" (Ezra Taft Benson, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Ezra Taft Benson, (2014), 89–101).

"In some incredible way that none of us can fully comprehend, the Savior took upon Himself the sins of the world" (M. Russell Ballard, "The Atonement and the Value of One Soul," Ensign, May 2004).

"We can’t fully understand how Jesus suffered for our sins" (Mormon.org).

“While we do not fully understand how the Atonement of Christ was made, we can experience 'the peace of God, which passeth all understanding.'” (Boyd K. Packer, “The Touch of the Master’s Hand,” Ensign, May 2001, lds.org).

However, while there are clearly aspects of the atonement which defy mortal understanding, or which have not yet been revealed to us, there is much that has been taught in the scriptures and by latter-day prophets concerning the atonement which is plain and easy to understand.  Furthermore, the fact that there are are some incomprehensible aspects of the atonement is not an excuse for members of the church to remain ignorant of the workings of the atonement when there is so much we do (or can) understand if we will only apply ourselves to study and reflection.

To fail to grasp the plain and simple truths to which we, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, have been granted unprecedented access, is to waste one of the most precious gifts which has been given to man.  Moreover, if we fail to fully comprehend what is comprehensible about the atonement, we may keep ourselves from fully enjoying the blessings and the peace which Christ offers to each one of us.  In fact, I daresay that much of the personal suffering and anxiety among the individual members of the church can be traced back to an imperfect (or downright incomplete) understanding of the blessings and power of the atonement.  Worse, as a  missionary church, we try to communicate to others the blessings of a greater light and knowledge regarding the gospel which Christ taught, and which is supposed to bring us closer to Him; however, if we ourselves do not have a correct understanding of Christ's atoning sacrifice and its meaning in our own lives, then how can we expect to be able to convert others to the truth?  How can we expect others to represent our beliefs correctly if we ourselves do not possess a correct understanding of the very foundation of our faith?

"We need to understand the Atonement more fully than we do, both because outsiders may misperceive our doctrine and because we may view the Atonement too narrowly in our own lives. For example, Newsweek magazine has stated: “Unlike orthodox Christians, Mormons believe that men are born free of sin and earn their way to godhood by the proper exercise of free will, rather than through the grace of Jesus Christ. Thus Jesus’ suffering and death in the Mormon view … do not atone for the sins of others.” (Newsweek, 1 Sept. 1980, p. 68.)

It disturbs me that Newsweek would miss the point of our core doctrine, even though the article purported not to summarize our theology but to report what Latter-day Saints actually believe. It is unfortunate when we convey incorrect ideas to others; but it is worse when we, by our limited doctrinal understanding, deny ourselves the reassurance and guidance we may desperately need at pivotal moments in our lives" (Bruce C. Hafen, "Beauty for Ashes: The Atonement of Jesus Christ," Ensign, May 1990, lds.org).

To the end that we might more fully understand the power and blessings (and the basic workings) of the atonement, I have begun a series in which I will define certain basic terms which are commonly used in scripture to describe certain aspects of the atonement and how or why it was made.  The terms include words and phrases such as, justification, sanctification, and propitiation.  It is my hope that a more complete understanding of the terms used in the scriptures to communicate the power and meaning of the atonement will provide a jumping off point whereby those who read these articles might enabled to make discoveries and gain insights of their own as they study the scriptures to learn more about the atonement.  Hopefully, they might be taught more fully by the Holy Ghost as they revisit the scriptures with new eyes, and with the aid of an increased understanding.

Justification: Being accounted righteous by God through faith in Him. This is essentially a purely legal term that does not in fact deal with one’s inner nature in any way. It is the declaration by God that

Are We Saved by Grace, or by Works?

In the centuries that have passed between the death of the Apostles and our modern age there has been much debate and disputation over the precise nature and means of our individual and collective salvation. Since the Reformation, this debate has largely taken the form of a question of whether faith (or grace) alone will bring salvation, or if works are necessary as well (or instead), and if so, to what degree? Most often, this has been couched in a sort of Faith VERSUS Works argument in which opposing camps put forward one or the other as competing and opposing routes to salvation.

This argument often centers on the idea that we are saved by the grace of God regardless of our personal actions, and that any notion that we must complete a checklist of works in order to gain admittance to heaven is the worst kind of human arrogance, and a relic of the long-abandoned Law of Moses. This doctrine was a natural reaction by the Protestants of the Reformation to the Catholic assertion that one must receive certain rites, and complete certain performances under the exclusive auspices of the Church in order to gain salvation. The Protestants referred to Paul’s writings as they denounced the notion that salvation depends on empty performances (or as Paul puts it, dead works). Some even went so far as to say that it does not matter what we as individuals do, salvation through the grace of Christ is a free gift to all, saints and sinners alike, regardless of any action or lack thereof on our part. They claimed that, due to our mortal weakness, we are incapable of keeping the commandments, and that keeping them is no longer necessary in any case, because we are all saved through the atonement of Christ. In another view, John Calvin, in his doctrine of predestination and total election, claimed that God has already determined who is saved, and who is not, and that we have no choice in the matter.

As a missionary I talked to many people who tried to draw me into an argument over whether salvation is through faith or through our own works. These people often proceeded from the false assumption that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a “works church” (as opposed to a church that teaches that salvation comes only through the grace of Christ), and that it was their task to instruct me and my companion on the non-biblical fallacy of our doctrine.

The fact is that the LDS Church is not a “works church,” nor is it entirely a “grace church” in the sense that many evangelical Protestants define both terms today. My answer to the question of which of the competing doctrines of Salvation by Faith alone and Salvation by Works alone (as the world understands them) is the true one is a resounding “neither!"