Very fine teaching Joseph and a fine letter and entry to ministry for Leann. As I thought about your letter and read Philemon this struck me, ' 18 But if he has wronged you or owes anything, put that on my account. 19 I, Paul, am writing with my own hand. I will repay—not to mention to you that you owe me even your own self besides.'
If Paul had been looking for a legal emancipation, then surely he would have offered to pay the price for freedom. The letter is not about him coyly hinting at emancipation, nor should we expect the Apostle who advised all to 'serve as they are called' and if bound to not seek freedom, to do such a thing. To Paul, Roman civilization is simply the canvas on which he is painting a picture. He works with the texture of the canvas and really makes no effort to change it. He could paint his picture on a different society but accepts the one that he has been given. Onesimus is sent back to the plantation. Paul sends him back to pick the cotton as it were, because Christian freedom doesn't consist of a change in circumstance. And Philemon and Onesimus are left to contemplate the mystery of an equality and a freedom which has no material representation. A heavy handed artist would have sought to create a tangible equality between them and so destroyed the mystery, would have painted Onesimus white(in reductionist terms). But Paul's God is not the god of the Enlightenment, or of Equality and Egalitarianism. He is the God who made the men unequal to begin with. And so Onesimus is left to exult in an invisible freedom and Philemon is left to pour contempt on his pride and his wealth.
Thanks for your comment, Jon. I agree with you that Paul wasn't exactly fighting for legal emancipation, but I would add that's only because he had bigger fish to fry. He was advocating for ontological emancipation (so to speak), of which legal emancipation would be a logical corollary. The reason he doesn't argue for legal emancipation is because you can't achieve lasting legal emancipation if the Roman Empire thinks that's all that you're about. But to say "the slave is now your brother" is so absurd legally speaking, who would believe it? Evidently Paul expected Philemon and Onesimus to, precisely because he did.
What is even more shocking though is that Paul says, 'The slave is your brother.' and send him back out to the fields.
'17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. 18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. 20 Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. 21 Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. 22 For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called.' 1 Corinthians 7
I have been thinking a lot lately, that we rush past the negations in scripture too easily. 'I desire mercy and NOT sacrifice.' doesn't mean I prefer mercy to sacrifice but sacrifice is ok too. 'Walk by faith not by sight.' doesn't imply complementarity but incompatibility. Treasure on earth and treasure in Heaven are mutually exclusive. What I am trying to say, is that this isn't an issue of frying bigger fish first and smaller fish when the bigger fish are done. It is an issue of some fish not being part of his calling to fry at all. I am not arguing for bond slavery but for its irrelevance to Paul. All institutions and causes are 'weak and beggarly elements' of this world and it is these that he doesn't wish for us to be in bondage to, by becoming activists for or placing hope in anything other than the Gospel of Grace.
I look around me and I am cynical that abolition accomplished anything at all. I am more and more doubtful of all of our moral crusades. Changing the form of a thing without changing its content is a very dubious improvement. The institutions of our society are like port-a-potties and our moral crusades are reasonable complaints about the stink. But if we think that knocking them over will get rid of what's inside we are in for a very sad surprise.
Your dissatisfaction with moral crusades really resonates with me. But I still feel compelled to prophetically knock over a few port-a-potties every once in a while to show where the stink is coming from and to point to the habitable structure with nothing impure or putrid in it (I mean the kingdom). Thanks again for your thoughts.
Very fine teaching Joseph and a fine letter and entry to ministry for Leann. As I thought about your letter and read Philemon this struck me, ' 18 But if he has wronged you or owes anything, put that on my account. 19 I, Paul, am writing with my own hand. I will repay—not to mention to you that you owe me even your own self besides.'
If Paul had been looking for a legal emancipation, then surely he would have offered to pay the price for freedom. The letter is not about him coyly hinting at emancipation, nor should we expect the Apostle who advised all to 'serve as they are called' and if bound to not seek freedom, to do such a thing. To Paul, Roman civilization is simply the canvas on which he is painting a picture. He works with the texture of the canvas and really makes no effort to change it. He could paint his picture on a different society but accepts the one that he has been given. Onesimus is sent back to the plantation. Paul sends him back to pick the cotton as it were, because Christian freedom doesn't consist of a change in circumstance. And Philemon and Onesimus are left to contemplate the mystery of an equality and a freedom which has no material representation. A heavy handed artist would have sought to create a tangible equality between them and so destroyed the mystery, would have painted Onesimus white(in reductionist terms). But Paul's God is not the god of the Enlightenment, or of Equality and Egalitarianism. He is the God who made the men unequal to begin with. And so Onesimus is left to exult in an invisible freedom and Philemon is left to pour contempt on his pride and his wealth.
Thanks for your comment, Jon. I agree with you that Paul wasn't exactly fighting for legal emancipation, but I would add that's only because he had bigger fish to fry. He was advocating for ontological emancipation (so to speak), of which legal emancipation would be a logical corollary. The reason he doesn't argue for legal emancipation is because you can't achieve lasting legal emancipation if the Roman Empire thinks that's all that you're about. But to say "the slave is now your brother" is so absurd legally speaking, who would believe it? Evidently Paul expected Philemon and Onesimus to, precisely because he did.
What is even more shocking though is that Paul says, 'The slave is your brother.' and send him back out to the fields.
'17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. 18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. 20 Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. 21 Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. 22 For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called.' 1 Corinthians 7
I have been thinking a lot lately, that we rush past the negations in scripture too easily. 'I desire mercy and NOT sacrifice.' doesn't mean I prefer mercy to sacrifice but sacrifice is ok too. 'Walk by faith not by sight.' doesn't imply complementarity but incompatibility. Treasure on earth and treasure in Heaven are mutually exclusive. What I am trying to say, is that this isn't an issue of frying bigger fish first and smaller fish when the bigger fish are done. It is an issue of some fish not being part of his calling to fry at all. I am not arguing for bond slavery but for its irrelevance to Paul. All institutions and causes are 'weak and beggarly elements' of this world and it is these that he doesn't wish for us to be in bondage to, by becoming activists for or placing hope in anything other than the Gospel of Grace.
I look around me and I am cynical that abolition accomplished anything at all. I am more and more doubtful of all of our moral crusades. Changing the form of a thing without changing its content is a very dubious improvement. The institutions of our society are like port-a-potties and our moral crusades are reasonable complaints about the stink. But if we think that knocking them over will get rid of what's inside we are in for a very sad surprise.
Your dissatisfaction with moral crusades really resonates with me. But I still feel compelled to prophetically knock over a few port-a-potties every once in a while to show where the stink is coming from and to point to the habitable structure with nothing impure or putrid in it (I mean the kingdom). Thanks again for your thoughts.
Very much! We are in total agreement brother.
10/10 assignment! That’s great practice theology by your student. Also, highly agree with the Barclay recommendation!
Thanks :) It is so pleasing when students rise a challenge and seem to enjoy themselves while doing so.