In This Together

If then you regard me a partner, accept him as you would me. Philemon 1:17  NASB

Partner – Perhaps we need to add some additional synonyms to the English translation “partner.”  The Greek term is koinōnós, obviously connected to the familiar koinōnía, also from the root koinós.  This group of Greek words is all about sharing.  Whether it is a common fellowship, a common language, or participation in tasks, the general sense is about participation together.  Thus, we can add “participant” and “fellow (colleague)” to this term.  When Paul addresses Philemon as koinōnon, he brings all the interpersonal relationships found within the community to mind.  Philemon isn’t making a decision about Onesimus for himself.  He’s tied to the community.  What he does reflects on them.

Remembering that the smallest social unit in the ancient world is the family, not the individual, we shouldn’t be too surprised that Paul enlists a social relationship word (koinōnon) in this appeal.  Philemon is an important member of the community, but his identity is a group identity.  He reflects the community and they reflect him.  His actions will influence, perhaps determine, what the community’s ethics will become.  There is a lot more at stake here than the treatment of this particular slave.  Equality within the Kingdom is riding on Philemon’s shoulders.  That’s why Paul can make the audacious claim, “Treat him like you would treat me.”

Since our attitudes toward slavery are at polar opposites from first-century Romans, we might not appreciate what a radical change this would be.  Remember that Paul isn’t William Wilberforce.  He isn’t trying to change the legal culture or even the larger society.  He’s interested in the assembly of followers in Colossae.  And he’s interested in Philemon’s reputation.  In fact, we might even say that Onesimus is only a foil in this drama, the means by which Paul confronts social versus Kingdom identity.  Onesimus is the parallel of Hagar, running away from a master (mistress) only to be confronted by God and told to return without guarantees that the owner will make any changes.  In Hagar’s case, God makes some promises that she is expected to believe despite prior experience.  In the case of Onesimus, Paul doesn’t guarantee anything.  How could he?  Onesimus must return on the basis of trust that Paul’s letter will be convincing.  It’s a big step.

I wonder what we would do.  It’s easy to declare we trust God in our circumstances when there isn’t any real threat on the horizon.  In fact, it’s easy to say we trust God even when there is a general concern about life, like a pandemic.  But what if trusting God is far more specific?  What if trusting God means returning to an abusive environment, a failed relationship, a dangerous condition?  What if we are required to go back to something we already know is terrible, dreadful, appalling, abhorrent—where our very dignity is at stake?  Like Hagar.  Like Onesimus.  What would you do then?  And what would you do if you were the past perpetrator of these circumstances when the other party returns?  Well, Hagar went back and Sarah didn’t change.  There is no guarantee that Philemon will either.  The right action doesn’t always produce the right result.  It’s hard to remember that the result isn’t the goal.  Taking the step backward is.

Topical Index: partner, koinōnós, action, trust, Hagar, Philemon 1:17