The aim of this contribution is to illustrate the way in which the interpretation of Scripture is influenced by one’s presuppositions by investigating the different ways in which two well-known Reformers, Luther and Calvin, depicted God, Christ and the Spirit in their commentaries on the Letter to Philemon. It is shown how their own views influenced the way in which they interpreted the letter and appropriated it for their own times. The most striking difference between the two commentaries is that Luther’s interpretation of the letter was dominated by a Christocentric view (he even often read Christ – and sometimes also Satan – in between the lines of the letter where Paul did not explicitly mention him), whereas an opposite tendency may be noted in Calvin’s interpretation of the letter (he tended to bring God – and sometimes even certain dogmatic concepts regarding God – into the picture when Paul did not explicitly refer to God).
The article illustrates the importance of historical perspectives for Biblical Studies, in particular for the interpretation of Biblical texts.
The importance of the God question for our theological endeavours can hardly be overstated. One of the interesting developments in this regard is the growing interest in the way in which theologians of the past viewed God. As Rian Venter (
One feature of the new enthusiasm is a historical interest, a return to major minds in Christian theology, for example, the Cappadocian fathers, Augustine, Thomas, Calvin and Edwards, and a re-evaluation of their theo-contributions. (p. 1)
As a New Testament scholar, one of the issues that interests me greatly is the way in which our interpretation of Scripture is influenced by our presuppositions, often without our even being aware of them. This is the issue that I wish to illustrate in this study. I will look at the ways in which two Reformers interpreted the Letter to Philemon and, in particular, the different ways in which they depicted God, Christ and the Spirit in their commentaries on this letter. I hope to show how their views in this regard influenced the ways in which they interpreted the letter and appropriated it for their own times.
Let us first have a look at the occasion of Paul’s correspondence with Philemon. From the brief letter, one can gain the following: according to 1:1–2, while he was imprisoned, Paul (and Timothy) wrote the letter (the place and nature of his imprisonment are not indicated) to Philemon, Apphia, Archippus and the church regularly meeting in Philemon’s house. From the fact that Paul switches to the singular (1:4), it is clear that the letter was directed primarily to Philemon. The issue that dominates the letter is the situation of Onesimus, who had been a slave in Philemon’s household but had left his household (he was not a believer at that stage; 1:10, 16), ending up with Paul. The letter does not provide any information about the type of slave that Onesimus was (e.g. a household slave or not), his place of origin or how long he had been a slave at that stage. That Onesimus belonged to Philemon is clear from the fact that Paul appeals directly to him (1:10) and also indicates his willingness to compensate him for any damage that Onesimus might have caused him (1:18–19). The letter does not refer to the reason why Onesimus had left nor how it had happened that he ended up with Paul. However, it is clear that Onesimus was converted by Paul, that he served Paul in some way while Paul was imprisoned and that Paul has a deep affection for him. Scholars interpret these details in various ways to arrive with a more detailed picture.
God is mentioned twice explicitly in the letter, in 1:3 (in the salutation; ‘God our Father’) and 4 (in the thanksgiving; ‘my God’) and twice implicitly in what may be interpreted as divine passives, in 1:15 (‘he was separated from you’) and 1:22 (‘that I will be granted to you’).
Luther lectured on the Letter to Philemon in Wittenberg in 1527, at a time when a plague raged in the city and many people had moved to Jena. Nevertheless, he stayed on in the city, lecturing on 1 John, Titus, Philemon and 1 Timothy (Lull
Luther begins his lectures on Philemon by describing the letter as a private and domestic letter (WA 25, 69.27
The way in which Luther ends his lectures on the letter brings us to a second interesting characteristic of his exegesis, namely the way in which he introduces Satan in his reception of the letter. Although Paul never refers to Satan in the letter, Luther regularly mentions him in his comments (as he does in the case of the Spirit, too; see the discussion further on). Luther’s emphasis on the role of Satan is one of the characteristics of his theology. As Batka (
A third characteristic of Luther’s interpretation of the letter that should be noted briefly is the extent to which it was influenced by his own struggles with – primarily – the Catholic Church and, to a minor extent, with people he calls ‘heretics’ or ‘fanatics’. He refers to the Catholic Church three times. The first occurrence is found in his explanation of 1:2, where Paul refers to Archippus (who, according to Luther, was a bishop) as a
Luther also twice attacks other people whom he refers to as ‘heretics’ and ‘fanatics’. In his discussion of 1:4–5, he mentions that Paul experienced problems with false prophets, believers who forsook their faith and started heresies and sects, adding ‘just as we do’ (WA 25, 72.2–4). In his comments on 1:6, he refers in negative terms to two other groups. He offers a eucharistic interpretation of the concept ‘sharing of your faith’, namely that it refers to the body shared in the bread of the eucharist. He then refers to people who reject such an interpretation as
Luther does not provide more information, but it is clear that he has in mind people whose views of the eucharist differ from his. Further on in his comments on 1:6, he refers disapprovingly to another group of people. Emphasising that good doctrine should be based on knowledge, he berates ‘fanatics’ (he uses the German word
Let us now turn to what we can gain from Luther’s lectures on Philemon on his views of God, Christ and the Spirit.
Luther does not spend much time on God in his two lectures on the letter, most likely because of the Christological emphasis that has already been pointed out above. Strangely, he does not even spend any time on God in the four instances in which Paul directly or indirectly refers to God in the letter (as pointed out at the beginning of this study: 1:3, 4, 15 and 22). Of these, the absence of any reference to God’s providence in Luther’s discussion of 1:15 seems particularly strange, as at this stage there already existed a long exegetical tradition (going back to Jerome and Chrysostom) interpreting this verse as indicating that God used evil to bring about good things.
However, in his discussion of the letter, Luther introduces God on two other occasions where Paul does not explicitly refer to God. First, Paul’s statement in 1:11 that Onesimus was once useless to Philemon but has now become useful to both Philemon and Paul is interpreted as Onesimus’s running away having a fortunate outcome: one evil deed giving rise to a double good one (i.e. to Philemon and to Paul, respectively). Luther continues: a single sin led to double justice, that is, towards God
The second instance (1:14) has already been discussed above when Luther’s polemics against the Catholic Church were highlighted, but let us now look specifically at the way in which he pictures God
Earlier on, the strong Christological emphasis in Luther’s exposition of the letter was noted, as well as the fact that he views Paul’s appeal for Onesimus as an event in terms of which Paul was ‘justifying’ Onesimus to Philemon. Such a Christological emphasis is also found elsewhere in the letter. For example, in his comments on the expression ‘in Christ’ in 1:6, he emphasises the importance of knowledge for Christian doctrine (
Firstly, he links our relationship to Christ to our care for fellow-believers. He already mentions this at the outset, during the discussion of the
Secondly, Luther quite often highlights what he believes to be attempts on Paul’s part to promote his own authority by referring to Christ. He interprets Paul’s self-description in 1:1 (‘Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus’) as an attempt by Paul to convey his authority to Philemon: Paul refers to Christ so that it should be clear to Philemon that he is not making the request in the letter on his own. Luther adds that we are not prone to use force in such a way, but that it is sometimes necessary (WA 25 71.24–27). In 1:7, Paul praises Philemon for the way in which he had refreshed the entrails of the saints. Luther explains Paul’s rhetorical strategy as follows: Philemon’s faith, love and everything that he has in Christ make Paul confident that their friendship is of such a nature that he may command Philemon and that Philemon will obey him. Luther calls this ‘good flattery’ (
Thirdly, Luther also refers to Christ in his explanation of the concept ‘chains of the gospel’ in 1:13 (‘in order that on your behalf he [i.e. Onesimus] might serve me in the gospel’), but in this case he does not emphasise the notion of authority. He points out that it is a fine expression and notes that it does not mean that the gospel and Christ were imprisoned. He moves on to another idea, namely that Christians may boast (in such a situation as Paul finds himself), as imprisonment is not for one’s own sake but for the glory of the gospel. Thus, if imprisonment is caused by Christ, one has cause for joy (WA 25, 76.5–13).
As I indicated in the introduction, Paul does not mention the Spirit explicitly in the letter. Nevertheless, Luther refers to it four times in his exposition of the letter. The first of these has already been mentioned above, namely the berating remark about ‘fanatics’ (in the comments on 1:6) who listen to the Word and then wrongly assume that they know everything as if they have been filled with the Spirit. In the other three instances, Luther introduces the Spirit when discussing some of the positive remarks that Paul makes in the letter. The first is found in the comments on 1:4–5 (the thanksgiving of the letter). Luther notes that such a feeling of thanksgiving (as expressed by Paul here) comes from the Spirit; we are so used to hearing of evil that it is truly a cause for thanksgiving if we hear of somebody who stays faithful to the Word, as Philemon did. Such thankfulness comes from the gospel or the Spirit (WA 25, 72.1–5). The second instance occurs in the comments on 1:6, in which case Luther links the concept ‘knowledge of the good’ to the Spirit. He stresses the importance of solid knowledge for our faith, adding that we need the Spirit for this; the Spirit helps us to know what we have received: salvation, justification, redemption from every evil, eternal life, brotherhood of Christ, being fellow-heirs of Christ and heirs of God. The Spirit is the one who helps such knowledge grow (WA 25, 73.20–24). The third occurrence is found towards the end of the second lecture, in the comments on 1:15. As indicated above, Luther does not interpret Paul’s words ‘for perhaps for this reason he was separated from you for a while’ as a reference to God’s action. Instead, he focuses on the way in which Paul tries to mitigate Onesimus’s misdeed by this statement: Paul confesses that running away was a sin, but he also does his best to extenuate Onesimus’s sin. This is linked to the work of the Spirit: extenuating sin is the work of the Spirit. Whereas the devil does exactly the opposite (making sin even worse), the Spirit extenuates sin; as there is forgiveness of sin, the Spirit takes sin away fully (WA 25, 76.21–23).
To summarise the first part of this investigation: in Luther’s reception of the letter, a strong Christological emphasis is noticed, to such an extent that he even views the letter as an attempt by Paul to justify Onesimus to Philemon. Apart from this, he also refers to Christ quite often in his explanation of the letter, in three contexts: that our relationship to Christ determines our relationship to our fellow-believers, that Paul made use of his authority in Christ (an aspect that he interprets theologically and not merely as a rhetorical strategy) and that one should rejoice if Christ is the cause for one’s imprisonment. God receives much less attention: Luther does not even discuss God in the four cases in which Paul directly or indirectly refers to God; however, he introduces references to God in two instances when Paul does not mention God, and in both cases the emphasis falls on ethics (for slaves to run away from their masters is a sin, and God does not want believers to serve under compulsion). We have also seen that Luther introduces the Spirit several times in his exposition of the letter (as he does with Satan), even though Paul does not refer to the Spirit. In all instances, he stresses the role that the Spirit plays in generating spiritual benefits: enabling believers to thank God, deepening the knowledge of all the good things that they have in Christ and extenuating sin.
Calvin’s commentary on the Letter to Philemon was published in 1551, that is, more than two decades after that of Luther. The Latin version of the commentary was published as part of a set, but the French translation that appeared in the same year was published as a separate volume (Holder
Equity calls believers to show the same love, compassion and self-sacrifice to others that God has shown to them in Christ. It is integrally related to union with Christ, for in this union the Holy Spirit imparts to believers the new way of life that they already have in Christ. Christ is the source, foundation, and power for the transformed life that moves believers to deal with their neighbours in love. (p. 123)
Furthermore, Calvin also views the Letter to Philemon as an excellent example of Paul’s modesty, humility and gentleness; in fact, Calvin suggests that this letter is the best expression of Paul’s gentleness (
Unlike Luther, Calvin does not spend any time in his commentary on people or groups who do not share his views. Instead, the impression one receives is of somebody thoughtfully interpreting the letter for pastors and believers of his time. I briefly mention two examples. In his discussion of 1:8–9, he draws the attention of pastors to the fact that Paul does not command Philemon but rather appeals to him; accordingly, Calvin stresses that pastors should follow Paul’s example by treating their members gently rather than trying to force them (CO 52.444.34–35). And in the comments on 1:13 (Paul’s request that Onesimus should continue serving him while he is imprisoned), Calvin appeals to all believers to support fellow-believers suffering for the gospel (CO 52.445.53–446.4).
In Luther’s lectures, we witnessed a strong Christological emphasis. In Calvin’s commentary, the emphasis is clearly on God and not on Christ. As was noted at the beginning of this study, Paul mentions God only four times directly and indirectly in the letter. In his commentary, Calvin introduces God much more often when he explains Paul’s letter. This is already seen in the introduction to the commentary, where he notes that Paul uses the letter to raise an insignificant matter in a sublime manner to God
In his explanation of 1:4–5 (part of the thanksgiving of the letter), he begins by pointing out that Paul does not only praise Philemon, but he also prays for him. From this, he deduces that one even has to pray for the most exemplary believers so that God can help them to persevere and to make spiritual progress every day (CO 52.442.19–24). In his final comment in the letter, on Demas (in 1:24), Calvin uses Demas’s (later) desertion of Paul to highlight the same idea: we should never rely too much on our own zeal; we should rather ask God for perseverance (
In his comments on the expression ‘all the good that is in you in Christ [εἰς Χριστόν] (1:6), Calvin remarks that the words εἰς Χριστόν could be interpreted as meaning ‘towards Christ’, but that he prefers to understand it as meaning ἐν Χριστῷ (‘in Christ’) explaining that God’s gifts are given to us only if we are ‘in Christ’ (CO 52.443.38–42).
In the discussion of 1:10, he again introduces the concept ‘image of God’, but with a slightly different emphasis from the way in which it was used in 1:4. In 1:4, he focused on the fact that we should love ourselves and other humans, because the image of God is inscribed into us. Now the emphasis falls on God as the One who spiritually regenerates us. The point of departure is Paul’s statement that he ‘begot’ Onesimus. Calvin explains that this was not something that happened by Paul’s own power, as it is only God who can reshape and reform (
In his exposition of Paul’s reference to goodness done voluntarily in 1:14, Calvin elucidates that Paul is giving a particular application of a general rule (
As indicated in the introduction to this study, the passive in 1:15 (‘he was separated from you’) may be interpreted as a divine passive. In his comments on this verse, Luther does not refer to God’s actions or purpose. In Calvin’s case, the opposite happens; in fact, he offers a lengthy discussion of the way in which God sometimes uses evil for his own purpose, among others employing the concept ‘providence’ (
In his discussion of 1:22 – the other passive in the letter that may be interpreted as a divine passive (‘that I may be graciously granted to you’) – Calvin again refers to God’s actions. In this instance, he does not use the concept ‘providence of God’ but refers to God’s will (
As already pointed out above, Calvin does not refer to Christ as often as he does to God. He refers to Christ four times in the commentary. Two of these have already been discussed above: in his discussion of the expression ‘love and faith towards the Lord Jesus and towards all the saints’ in 1:5, he notes that having faith in Christ is the only way to attain knowledge about God the Father (CO 52.442.26–33). Furthermore, in discussing the expression εἰς Χριστόν in 1:6, Calvin remarks that God’s gifts are given to us only if we are ‘in Christ’ (CO 52.443.38–42). The other two instances have to do with the way in which Paul and believers are described:
The first one relates to Paul’s self-description in 1:1 as ‘a prisoner of Christ Jesus’. In the discussion of the way in which Luther interprets this expression, it has been noted that he regards it as an attempt by Paul to convey his authority to Philemon. Interestingly, Calvin has a different view: he explicitly notes that it should not be seen as an attempt by Paul to strengthen his authority. According to him, Paul mentions that he is a prisoner because he regards his chains as ‘signs or tokens’ (
The second instance relates to Paul’s description of believers in his comments on 1:13. Calvin interprets this as a request to Philemon to send Onesimus back to Paul and appropriates it as follows for his readers: this shows us that we should support ‘Christ’s martyrs’ in all possible ways when they suffer for the gospel. Those who refuse to suffer for the gospel separate themselves from Christ; therefore, we should view believers suffering for the gospel as representing the entire church (CO 52.445.46–446.4).
Calvin refers to the Spirit twice in his commentary, in both instances only briefly. In his discussion of 1:10, he notes that it is only God who can regenerate humans and that this happens through the power of the Spirit (CO 52.445.16–19). Furthermore, in explaining Paul’s description of Onesimus as a beloved brother ‘in the flesh and in the Lord’ in 1:16, Calvin adds a reference to the Spirit: Paul and Philemon had the same relationship to Onesimus ‘in the Lord according to the Spirit’, but according to the flesh, he formed part of Philemon’s family (CO 52.447.1–5).
To summarise: the most striking feature of Calvin’s interpretation of Paul’s letter for our investigation is the almost constant emphasis on God. Two aspects in particular should be highlighted. Firstly, Calvin regularly introduces theological concepts in describing God’s activity. Some of these that are mentioned in the discussion above are ‘image of God’ (1:10, 14), ‘word of God’ (1:10), ‘God’s elect’ (1:15), ‘providence’, ‘hidden providence’ (1:15) and ‘God’s will’ (1:22). He also uses concepts such as
It was the aim of this study to illustrate how our presuppositions often influence our interpretation of Scripture. I trust that this overview of the way in which God, Christ and the Spirit are depicted in the commentaries of two theologians who, broadly speaking, followed the same theological tradition, showed how their reception of Paul’s letter was influenced by certain views they had about these issues. I am not going to summarise the detailed findings again but will conclude with what seems to be the most striking difference between the two commentaries: Luther’s interpretation of the letter is dominated by a Christocentric view, and it is evident that he often read Christ (and sometimes also Satan) in between the lines of the letter where Paul does not explicitly mention him. In Calvin’s case, an opposite tendency is noticed: he tended to bring God – and sometimes even certain dogmatic concepts regarding God – into the picture where Paul does not explicitly refer to God. To put it as succinctly as possible: Luther read Paul’s letter primarily through Christ; Calvin read it through God.
The author would like to dedicate this article to his colleague at the University of the Free State, Prof. Rian Venter – an excellent theologian and a wonderful friend.
The author declares that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
D.F.T. is the sole author of this research article.
This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the author.
For an overview of proposals, see Tolmie (
In 1:16 and 1:20, κύριος most likely refers to Christ and not to God. See Barth and Blanke (
References are to the
Wolter (
For more details, see Tolmie (
From the context it is not clear whether Luther is referring to the triune God or God the Father.
It seems as if Luther has God the Father in mind in this instance, but it is not entirely sure.
Earlier on, Luther also used the expression ‘holy flattery’ when he explained the rhetorical effect of Archippus being called ‘a fellow-soldier’ in 1:2 (WA 25.71.13–20). Take note that the same expression is used by Erasmus in his
References are to the edition of Baum, Cunitz and Reuss (eds.
From the context, it is not clear whether Calvin is referring to the triune God or God the Father. This is also true of the other instances discussed in this section.
In his discussion of 1:21, Calvin again refers to Paul’s apostleship: Onesimus would have been humbled by seeing such an illustrious ‘apostle of Christ’ pleading his cause (CO 52.448.43–46).