Philemon is a short book in the New Testament and it is one that I think many preachers and teachers are unsure what to do with. It is a personal letter from St. Paul to a man named Philemon who lived (presumably) in Ephesis. Paul writes to address a personal issue with a run away slave who has come to faith. So does the book endorese slavery? Is it about freedom? I was once taught about fellowship from the book of Philemon.

Those themes are in there, but I don’t think it is what the book is about. I think it is about reconciliation. That is, after all, why Paul is writing to Philemon. Onesimus was a slave in Philemon’s home and had run away. Onesimus apparently met up with Paul, presumably in Rome during his imprisonment, and had been converted to Christ by him. Paul then sends him back to his former master with the letter that we have in the New Testament. Paul wants the two to be reconciled as now brothers in Christ.

God’s speech-act in Philemon was that the church is to be involved in reconciliation. This wasn’t a private action between Philemon and Onesimus, it was a corporate act that involved the body of Christ.This is where the speech-act part comes in. Kevin Vanhoozer, in his book Is There Meaning in the Text?, promotes the concept of a speech-act. The concept is a bit trickey to get a hold of but I think it is helpful. We focus a lot in Biblical studies on what God has said in the Bible. But beyond that, Vanhoozer asks what God accomplished in speaking. Look at it this way, if I yell “Watch out!” when someone is crossing the road, you could parse and analyze the words. “Watch” could be a timepiece but it is probably an imperative verb in this sentence and is commanding that someone look, observe, be aware. “Out” is the object of the verb. Be looking not inward but outward. Okay, the sentence means to be aware of one’s surroundings. That is what I said but why did I say it? What did I hope to accomplish in saying it when I did? Well, in this case, i was warning someone about an oncoming truck that was about to hit them. My speech-act was to make someone aware of the danger they were in. That is not just what I spoke, but why I spoke.

So back to Philemon. The books is about reconciling two Christian men, one of whom was legitimately wronged and the other who was at faul. But such a letter didn’t need to be a) inspired, b) addressed to anyone other than Philemon, and c) canonized. But it was. And the very fact that Philemon is in our New Testament canon says something about the lesson of the book. First, it was addressed not only to Philemon, but also to Apphia and Archippus ¹They were possibly Philemon’s wife and son or maybe Philemon and Apphia owned the home that the church Archippus pastored met in. It really isn’t that important to the message. As Paul sought to reconcile Philemon and Onesimus, he intentionally involved either Philemon’s family or possibly his church.

Some have taken that to mean that Paul felt Philemon might need to be pressed into reconciling with Onesimus, but I don’t think so. Paul says “though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do what is required, yet…” (vvs. 8-9). If Paul felt that Philemon need to be pressed into reconciliation, he could have done it on his own Apostolic authority, and he didn’t. Furthermore, that still doesn’t engage the fact that the book is part of the New Testament canon. For a book to be included in the New Testament canon, it had to have been used in the churches as well as have Apostolic origins and be recognized as inspired. The Book of Philemon was known not just to Philemon, not just to the church that met in his home, but it was shared amongst the churches and that is why the bishops included it in the canon. Had Philemon simply pitched the scroll in his sock drawer and then passed it on to his kids and grandkids, it would not have made it into the New Testament.

But God inspired it and it was used by the churches. God’s speach-act in Philemon was that the church is to be involved in reconciliation. This wasn’t a private action between Philemon and Onesimus, it was a corporate act that involved the body of Christ. As other churches received copies of this letter, it must have served as an example to them of what personal reconciliation looked like and a reminder that the church was to be involved in it. ² This is evident in other places in Paul’s writing as well. For example, “I entreat Euodia and I entreat Syntyche to agree in the Lord.” (Eph 4:2) Again, this is an example where the admonistion to reconcile is address in a public letter and one that is inspired and canonize at that.

And so for us, reading this personal letter nearly 2,000 years after the death of everyone in it, what does it mean to us? Why is it in our Bible? Why did God inspire and canonize it? This Divine speech-act tells the church that she should be involved in reconciliation without having the phrase in the text “and the rest of you, be involved in reconciling.” We have an example of what that looks like in the Book of Philemon and in implicit command to do it. (I think) Vanhoozer, in The Drama of Doctrine, said that if you have to ask how a text applies, you have not understood the text. As Christians have struggled to apply the Book of Philemon I think it may demonstrate that we have not understood it very well.

It should also be noted that this reconciliation is not just “be nice to each other now”, instead, it is Christian reconciliation. As such it is rooted in Jesus Christ. Or, as Paul says in Colossians 1:19-20 “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.” Jesus has reconciled all things to God though his cross. So as we Christians seek to be reconciled with each other and seek to reconcile others, it has to come through the cross of Christ.