Family Business (Philemon 1:2)

Who, in addition to Philemon, was that letter written to? Apphia and Archippus (Philemon 1:2)

Paul’s Epistle to Philemon is the shortest of the apostle’s letters preserved in the Bible. It is comprised of just one chapter which spans 25 verses. Written from a prison in Rome, it broaches a very sensitive subject: the delicate case of Philemon’s runaway slave, Onesimus (Philemon 1:10-21).

Despite the epistle’s title, Paul addresses the letter not only to Philemon but to three individuals and their church (Philemon 1:1-2).

Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother,
To Philemon our beloved brother and fellow worker, and to Apphia our sister, and to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house. (Philemon 1:1-2 NASB)

This marks the last reference to a house church in the New Testament.

Philemon’s co-recipients, Apphia and Archippus, are obscure (Philemon 1:2). Mitzi J. Smith (b. 1957) speculates:

Archippus and Apphia may function as two witnesses (as freed or freeborn persons) to the reconciliation that Paul proposes and signs (Philemon 1:19). Slaves could function as witnesses only under torture. (Carol A. Newsom [b. 1950], Sharon H. Ringe [b. 1946] and Jacqueline E. Lapsley [b. 1965], Women’s Bible Commentary: Revised and Updated, 606)

Though it is not stated in the text, traditionally Apphia and Archippus are thought of as Philemon’s wife and son respectively. Paul’s silence on the matter has led to much speculation. As countless situations comedies have demonstrated, the number of possible connections between two guys and a girl is virtually limitless.

Carolyn Osiek (b. 1940) surveys:

It is possible that Apphia is Philemon’s wife and Archippus his brother, or that all three are unmarried siblings in the same household, or if married, their spouses do not share the faith. It is less likely that Apphia is the wife of Archippus, since wives would not normally be named before their husbands (but see Prisca and Aquila in Acts 18:26; Romans 16:23; II Timothy 4:19 in contrast to I Corinthians 16:19). Of course, it is also possible that only one of the three hosts the house-church and the other two are the only other members of it that Paul knows. If Onesimus is Philemon’s brother as Allen Dwight Callahan [b. 1957]...argues, the addressees would be aware that his name is conspicuously missing from the list. Perhaps the two men, Philemon and Archippus, have a history of apostolic work known to Paul that Apphia does not share for Paul is not reluctant to name women who have worked in ministerial roles (e.g., Romans 16:3, 6, 12; Philippians 4:2-3), and his title for her is the simple way he would address any female believer. What we can say for certain is that the house is in the name of one person, most likely Philemon, since the house is referred to in Philemon 1:2 as “your (singular) house.” (Osiek, Philippians & Philemon (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 134)

The tradition that Philemon and Apphia are husband and wife has persisted for centuries. In his first homily on Philemon, John Chrysostom (347-407) preaches:

It seems to me that she [Apphia] was his [Philemon’s] partner in life. Observe the humility of Paul; he both joins Timothy with him in his request, and asks not only the husband, but the wife also, and some one else, perhaps a friend. (Chysostom, “Homily I”, Saint Chrysostom’s Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus and Philemon (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Volume 13), 547)

The traditional explanation that Philemon and Apphia are married is unsubstantiated but is a natural reading of the text. As such, the majority of contemporary commentators accept it and none can refute it. If this interpretation is correct, like Aquila and Priscilla, Philemon and Apphia are co-hosts of a house church (Romans 16:3-5; I Corinthians 16:19).

Apphia appears only here in the Bible (Philemon 1:2) making her one of only two women to be directly addressed in a New Testament epistle (Philemon 1:2; II John 1:1).

Richard R. Melick, Jr. (b. 1944) introduces:

The second addressee is Apphia, “our sister.” The name occurs often in extra-biblical sources and was a distinctively Phrygian name. She obviously had a Christian commitment since Paul called her a “sister.” From the way he addressed her, apparently she was well-known to him also. Could she have served with Philemon and Paul? Apphia was probably Philemon’s wife. Two factors suggest that: the warm, personal tone of the letter, which addresses house matters, and the close contextual connection with Philemon. (Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon (The New American Commentary), 350)

The name Apphia is Phrygian (present-day Turkey) in origin and is found frequently in western Asia Minor, including Colossae, where tradition holds that Philemon resided.

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) reviews:

The name Apphia (not to be confused with the Roman Appia) is well attested in Phrygia and elsewhere in Western Anatolia: one Apphia of Colossae is commemorated on a tombstone set up by her husband Hermas. (Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 206)

Paul distinguishes Apphia as “our sister” (Philemon 1:2). James D.G. Dunn (b. 1939) analyzes:

She is called literally “the sister” (as Timothy was called “the brother”). This presumably means that she also was a Christian, “our sister”...In contrast to the masculine ἀδελφος [“brother”]...the feminine is rarely used for members of religious associations. This is surprising, since women were active in religious cults of the time, particularly that of Isis. Nevertheless, the designation of a woman who also believed in Christ as “sister” seems to have been particularly characteristic of Christianity (Romans 16:1; I Corinthians 7:15, 9:5; James 2:15; Ignatius, Polycarp 5:1; II Clement 12:5, 19:1, 20:2; The Shepherd of Hermas, Visions 2.2.3, 2.3.1). Although the masculine still predominates in the New Testament and is often used in the plural when a congregation made up of both sexes is addressed (as in Colossians 1:2), the fact that the feminine is used, as here, does suggest that a serious attempt was made (and not least within the Pauline circle) to treat women as individuals and Christians in their own right. (Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (New International Greek Testament Commentary, 311-12)

Bonnie B. Thurston (b. 1952) and Judith M. Ryan (1952-2010) add:

She, like “the brother” Timothy (Philemon 1:1) is similarly introduced as tē adelphē, best translated as “our sister” as it is modified by the possessive pronoun hēmōn (“our”) that also modifies “our fellow soldier.”...Even if Apphia had been Philemon’s wife with management over the household, the use of tē adelphē could serve to focus attention on Apphia’s role as a Christian of influence within the local church that is to welcome Onesimus back home. Deliberate placement of “the sister” in tandem with “the brother” for Timothy could suggest some parity with respect to the importance and/or influence within the community. Like Phoebe, who is also described as adelphē (Romans 16:1), Apphia is thought to be among Paul’s coworkers...A few manuscripts such as D, and a number of miniscules either replace “sister” with “beloved” or, like manuscript 629, add beloved to sister adelphē tē agapētē. Such changes could reflect assimilation to “beloved” in the previous verse...“Brother” and “sister” are the forms of expressions Paul normally employs to describe both his own coworkers and Christians in general (e.g, Romans 8:29; I Corinthians 3:1). With already existing roots in the Old Testament tradition (Deuteronomy 15:3) and especially given Jesus’ own emphasis (Mark 3:34)...such familial terms are likely to be the earliest ones used by Christians in distinguishing themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. This is certainly a traditional understanding Paul builds upon in forming such close-knit communities (Romans 8:14-16; Galatians 4:5-7). (Thurston and Ryan, Philippians and Philemon (Sacra Pagina), 212)

As Thurston and Ryan allude, some manuscripts identify Apphia as “beloved sister” which would parallel “beloved brother” Philemon (Philemon 1:1, 2).

Conjecture has derived from Apphia’s designation as “our sister” (Philemon 1:2). Ross S. Kraemer (b. 1948) shares:

Mary Rose D’Angelo [b. 1946] has suggested that “sister” may sometimes designate the female partner of a female-male missionary team. Read from this perspective, Apphia might have been part of such a team, perhaps with Philemon, affiliated with the church in Archippus’s house. (Carol L. Meyers [b. 1942], Toni Craven [b. 1944] and Kraemer, Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, and the New Testament, 53)

The one conclusive fact that can be drawn from Paul’s use of “sister” is that Apphia is a believer.

The most common status given Apphia is the traditional belief that she is Philemon’s wife. As the epistle speaks to a domestic matter, if Apphia is indeed Philemon’s wife, Paul addresses her not only as a matter of courtesy but also practicality.

David E. Garland (b. 1947) construes:

As the paterfamilias, the male head of the family, Philemon had absolute authority over all others in the household, and Paul need only deal with him. But since wives were charged with running the affairs of the household, Apphia would have a stake in the disposition of the case concerning their slave. Apphia must also be convinced that this is the right thing to do. (Garland, Colossians, Philemon (NIV Application Commentary), 317)

Sabine Bieberstein (b. 1962) finds the inference that Apphia is Philemon’s wife to be biased:

It is true that the text does not completely rule out this interpretation, but, on the other hand, neither does it give the interpretation any sign of support...The text...has no interest in identifying Apphia as Philemon’s wife. This interpretation is more in keeping with an androcentric way of characterizing women. It involves the danger of reducing women to the functions they perform in a patriarchal household, underestimating their independent role in the early churches and construing their significance as merely derivative. (Luise Schottroff [b. 1934] and Marie-Theres Wacker [b. 1952], “Philemon: A Reading under Apphia’s Critical Eyes”, Feminist Biblical Interpretation: A Compendium of Critical Commentary on the Books of the Bible and Related Literature, 849-50)

Archippus’ relationship to his fellow addressees is even more tenuous than is Apphia’s. In lieu of the presumed family context, some have assigned him the role of Philemon’s son.

Archippus’ name means “commander (or master) of the horse” and he is deemed a “fellow soldier” (Philemon 1:2). Isobel A.H. Combes prefaces:

Archippus is mentioned again in Colossians 4:17. Here he appears as a follower of Epaphras and some ancient authorities hold that he succeeded Epaphras as bishop—he is mentioned in the Apostolic Constitutions 7.46 as the bishop of Laodicea. The designation fellow soldier is unusual for Paul and only used by him in one other place (cf. Philippians 2:25). (Craig A. Evans [b. 1952], Acts-Philemon (Bible Knowledge Background Commentary), 693)

The appellation “fellow soldier” is unique. James D.G. Dunn (b. 1939) inspects:

We must assume at least that he [Archippus] is mentioned here either because he was a member of Philemon’s household or because he was the only other member of the church currently in Colossae to be active in ministry, at least so as to warrant the title “fellow soldier”...The designation “our [Paul’s and Timothy’s] fellow soldier” is applied only to Ephraphoditus elsewhere in the Pauline corpus (Philippians 2:25). Paul does not use military metaphors for Christian service as much as is sometimes assumed: only, strictly speaking, in II Corinthians 10:1-6, itself not particularly typical of Paul’s concept of mission (Otto Bauernfeind [1889-1972], TDNT 5.710-11). The image evoked by the use of συνστρατιώτης (“comrade-in-arms,” NEB/REB) here and in Philippians 2:15, therefore, is probably more that of dedication and discipline than of fierceness and warlike behavior. It probably indicates not that Archippus had been one of Paul’s mission team as such (“fellow worker”), but that he had, like Epaphroditus, served under the banner of the gospel in a more independent commission, perhaps in Laodicea...though in a cooperative and mutually supportive role with Paul. (Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (New International Greek Testament Commentary, 312-13)

Robert McLachlan Wilson (1916-2010) supplements:

Archippus is addressed in Philemon 1:2 as συνστρατιώτης [“fellow soldier”], and in Colossians 4:17 is charged to look to the διακονία [“ministry”] which he has received. This would seem to imply some degree of seniority, which in turn would mean, if he was Philemon’s son, that Philemon himself would be fairly well on in years. J.B. Lightfoot [1828-1899]...suggests that Archippus was a presbyter, or perhaps ‘belonged to the order of “evangelists”’, and locates his ministry at Laodicea; but this is inference, and...not explicitly stated in the text. (Wilson, Colossians and Philemon (International Critical Commentary), 319-20)

There are many traditions concerning Archippus’ identity. Marianne Meye Thompson (b. 1954) relays:

On the assumption that Philemon and Apphia are husband and wife, Archippus is sometimes identified as their son, an assumption wryly characterized by J.L. Houlden [b. 1929] as “an instance of legend active when history fails.” Other early commentators thought of Archippus as “one of the clergy” (Chrystostom [347-407])...the bishop of the church at Colossae (Jerome [347-420]) and a deacon of the church (Pelagius [354-420]). Archippus is surely the one to whom is given the cryptic instruction “See that you complete the task that you have received in the Lord” (Colossians 4:17). Paul’s further reference to him as “our fellow soldier,” a term used of Epaphroditus in Philippians 2:25, suggests a joint effort in the service of the gospel. So Archippus was apparently a coworker of Paul with some responsibility in the affairs of the house church in view here. (Thompson, Colossians and Philemon (Two Horizons New Testament Commentary), 209)

John Knox (1900-1990) provocatively propagated a theory that Archippus, not Philemon was the intended recipient of the Epistle to Philemon, which Knox argues is the lost letter from Laodicea (Colossians 4:16). Knox posits that Archippus leads the church in Colossae and is Onesimus’ master and that Paul is soliciting funds from Philemon and Apphia to influence Archippus. The theory has become widely known but largely discredited.

Markus Barth (1915-1994) and Helmut Blanke (b. 1955) summarily reject:

In the middle of the nineteenth century, and most vigorously since 1927, it has been proposed that Archippus rather than Philemon was the owner of Onesimus, and that Philemon lived in Laodicea, a major center with which the tiny and insignificant Colossae never could compare. Bold and interlocking reasons are proffered by John Knox in his book Philemon among the Letters of Paul, 1935...in favor of these two theories...It would be completely unusual to mention in Philemon 1:1-2 the real addressee only at the third place, after Philemon and Apphia. There is no solid evidence to demonstrate that Archippus was the main person addressed by Paul. (Barth, The Letter to Philemon (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), 127-28)

Those seeking to find family links between the three recipients of the Epistle to Philemon may be barking up the wrong family tree. The relationship that Paul accents is not their connection to each other but rather to the church. The broader Christian family is the family being emphasized.

David W. Pao (b. 1966) notes:

While the household setting may point to the possibility of a family relationship among these three persons, the way they are introduced focuses on their standing within the church...“Our sister”...highlights her [Apphia’s] independent standing as a Christian and possibly as a leader of the church. The fact that she is specifically mentioned may even point to her status as a patron of this Christian community (cf. Romans 16:1)...In this context...“fellow soldier” highlights Archippus’s involvement in the work of ministry...Moreover, the presence of the singular pronoun (“your house”, οἰκον σου) may argue against seeing Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus as family members since one would have expected a plural pronoun as is found in a papyrus letter: “Apollonios to Hippalos and Sarapion and Berenike and Pyrrhos and to all in their house, greetings.” (Pao, Colossians and Philemon (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 364-65)

Sandra Hack Polaski (b. 1964) concurs:

Apphia may...be related by marriage or blood to either Philemon or Archippus...but her familial or marital relationship is not what is of primary importance to Paul. Nor is there any indication that Onesimus was specifically a house-servant, such that her involvement as “lady of the house” would be necessary in determining Onesimus’s disposition. Rather, Paul addresses her as “our sister,” a title that strongly suggests...that she is being addressed as a member of the Christian community. Her leadership within that community, then, would be logically deduced from two facts. She is named along with one or two male leaders of the community (depending on whether the slaveowner is also church leader), and the rest of the church is mentioned without singling out individuals...Apphia’s inclusion in the salutation, then, indicates that she is a person of influence in that community, or, to put it briefly, a leader of the church. (Polaski, A Feminist Introduction to Paul, 44)

In this instance, a person’s inclusion in the Christian community is as significant as membership in her biological family.

Does it matter if Philemon, Apphia and Archippus are related; would it alter the interpretation of the epistle in any way? Do you consider your fellow church members to be family? Do you identify yourself most as a Christian or as a member of your family? Why does Paul include Apphia, Archippus and the church in a letter that is addressing a personal matter?

While the Epistle to Philemon is personal in nature, it is certainly not private as it is addressed not only to Philemon, Apphia and Archippus but also to their church (Philemon 1:2). Philip L. Tite (b. 1969) sees their inclusion as reflecting status:

The inclusion of Apphia and Archippus suggests that these two individuals were also prominent members of the community; but even they are secondary to Philemon. With the individuals included in the adscriptio, this letter takes on a more than private letter function; Philemon represents the community under his leadership, and is a person of authority worthy of Paul’s respect. This broader social dynamic for the letter (even though the letter is likely written for a single recipient) certainly suggests that Paul places Philemon in a position of high regard as a fellow Christian leader. (Stanley E. Porter [b. 1956] and Sean A. Adams, “How to Begin, and Why?: Diverse Functions of the Pauline Prescript Within a Greco-Roman Context”, Paul and the Ancient Letter Form, 71-72)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) asserts:

All the audience is addressed in Christian terms and Paul stresses the co-laborer aspect of his relationship with Philemon. As G.B. Caird [1917-1984] and others have rightly stressed, this is most certainly not a private letter, even though its message is directed at Philemon. Nor is it written simply to a family...The reference to the church at or in Philemon’s house rules out the notion that this is a letter written just to a family, and as Sara C. Winter [b. 1945] remarks this reference cannot be reduced to the idea of the household at worship. Non-household members are among the addressees of this letter. (Witherington, The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Captivity Epistles, 54)

There are advantages to broaching the subject publicly. Jeffrey A.D. Weima (b. 1960) poses that Paul is exerting social pressure:

While Apphia may well have been Philemon’s wife, there is no conclusive evidence that Archippus was his son and it can hardly be the case that everyone in the church that met in his house was related to him such that “courtesy demanded” their inclusion among the letter recipients. The more plausible explanation for Paul including all these people in the recipient formula is that he deliberately makes the letter’s request a public matter, thereby giving his correspondence greater persuasive power. As any recruiter or fundraiser today knows full well: A request made in public is harder to turn down that one made in private. (D. Francois Tolmie, “Paul’s Persuasive Prose: An Epistolary Analysis of the Letter to Philemon”, Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter, 38)

For Paul, Philemon’s treatment of Onesimus is a matter that concerns the entire church. Douglas J. Moo (b. 1950) evaluates:

The mention of Apphia and Archippus may have been little more than a courteous gesture, but the mention of the entire church cannot function in quite this way. Moreover, Paul gives indications in the letter that he has a larger audience in view. For while the bulk of the letter is addressed to the individual, with second-person singular forms, Paul also uses second-person plural forms [Philemon 1:3, 22, 25]...These references seem to imply that the whole community would have been present as the letter was publicly read. By making the issue of Onesimus a public one, Paul increases pressure on Philemon to respond as he wishes. But we should not view the public nature of the letter as simply a lawyer’s tactic to win his case; it rather reflects the corporate nature of early Christianity, in which no matter was “private” but inevitably affected, and was affected by, one’s brothers and sisters in the new family of God. The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon (Moo, Pillar New Testament Commentary), 383-84)

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) argues:

Paul is concerned that the whole community that gathers in prayer at Philemon’s house be involved in the way Onesimus is to be welcomed back by Philemon. This concern thus gives to the Letter to Philemon a dimension that transcends that of private correspondence...This has to be recognized even if, once the prescript comes to an end, one hears no more in the letter about the household church. For Paul is trying to get Philemon to recognize the symbolic integrity of that congregation, which is made up of brothers and sisters who go beyond the intimate family or household of Philemon. (Fitzmyer, The Letter to Philemon (Anchor Bible), 81)

Richard B. Hays (b. 1948) cites:

The letter to Philemon, confronting an issue that might have been considered a private personal matter, is addressed not just to Philemon but also to Apphia and Archippus and to “the church in your house” (Philemon 1:2). Paul insists on laying the decision-making process open to the community’s scrutiny. (Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation, A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics , 57)

Paul’s inclusion of Apphia, Archippus and their church implies that there are at least times when what a church member does in private is the entire congregation’s business.

Why does Paul take the case of Onesimus before the church? Does he triangulate? What makes Onesimus’ predicament a church issue? Do you think that Paul treats Philemon fairly or is the apostle airing dirty laundry in public? How does Paul’s handling of Philemon compare to Jesus’ strategy for church conflict resolution (Matthew 18:15-20)? When should a personal matter become a community issue?

“No man should advocate a course in private that he’s ashamed to admit in public.” - George McGovern, 1922-2012

The Cost of Treachery (Genesis 37:28)

How many pieces of silver was Joseph sold for? Twenty (Genesis 37:28)

Joseph’s receiving of his “coat of many colors” is a well-known story, one commonly told to children (Genesis 37:1-11). Before the chapter concludes, however, a dark shadow is cast on this bright story as Joseph is sold into slavery (Genesis 37:18-28). Having reached a breaking point with the pampered seventeen year old, Joseph’s ten older brothers resolved to eliminate him (Genesis 37:18). Seeing him approaching from a distance, they plot to throw him into a cistern and leave him for dead (Genesis 37:19-24).

Inspired by the sight of a caravan of Ishmaelites and reminding his brothers that Joseph “is our brother, our own flesh”, Judah convinces them that they would be better served to sell Joseph as a slave (Genesis 37:25-27 NASB).

John Goldingay (b. 1942) observes:

There is something mafia-like about the way the brothers throw Joseph into the empty cistern to die, then coolly settle down for dinner. It seems strange that Judah’s recognition that “he is our flesh and blood” does not extend to hesitation about selling him into slavery...And it seems strange that this recognition does not extend to hesitation over putting Jacob through his terrible grief, though perhaps the brothers were glad to get back at their father for making Joseph their favorite. The convenient coincidence is the fortuitous arrival of a camel caravan. (Goldingay, Genesis For Everyone, Part Two: Chapters 17-50, 132)

The brothers callously exchange their brother for silver (Genesis 37:28).

So when the Midianite merchants came by, his brothers pulled Joseph up out of the cistern and sold him for twenty shekels of silver to the Ishmaelites, who took him to Egypt. (Genesis 37:28 NASB)

The sale price is twenty “shekels” (ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV) or “pieces” (ASV, CEV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NLT, NRSV, RSV) of silver. There is actually no noun in the Hebrew text.

J.G. Vos (1903-1983) explains:

Note that the word “pieces” is in italics in the King James Version, indicating that it is not found in the Hebrew but was supplied by the translators. Coined money was not used at this period; the money was weighed. (Vos, Genesis, 457)

It has been suggested that the brothers charge an average slave price for the son that their father thought so exceptional. The Code of Hammurabi cites this same price (§§116, 214, 252).

Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) surveys:

Joseph is sold for twenty pieces of silver to these traders. This was the average price for a male slave in Old Babylonian times (early 2nd millennium B.C.). The price gradually goes higher. At Nuzi (mid-2nd millennium) it was thirty shekels (for both male and female). At Ugarit (mid- to late 2nd millennium) it was forty shekels. In Neo-Babylonian times (1st millennium) it was fifty shekels. In Persians times (late 1st millennium) the price was ninety to one hundred and twenty shekels. These are, of course, the generals standards from which there were many departures. Joseph’s sale for twenty shekels fits perfectly with the amount a man was to give to the sanctuary if he vows himself or one of his male relatives between the ages of five and twenty (Joseph is seventeen) to the Lord (Leviticus 27:5). (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 422)

Donald B. Redford (b. 1934) counters:

The price of twenty shekels of silver paid for Joseph is simply the rate stipulated by Leviticus 27:5 for a minor above five years of age. It is unnecessary and misleading to adduce “average” slave prices from Mesopotamia (so K.A. Kitchen [b. 1932], Ancient Orient and the Old Testament, [London, 1966], 52f.). The locale of the story is Palestine, not the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. Even so, it maybe pointed out that examples of the sale of sons of a family by other members of the same family in Neo-Babylonian times, range between sixteen and thirty shekels. (Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 37-50) (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Volume XX), 200)

In extrabiblical sources the fee for Joseph varies slightly. In the Qur’an, he is sold “for a reduced price - a few dirhams” (Qur’an 12:20). The noncanonical Testament of Gad reports that twenty is only the recorded sale price.

David A. deSilva (b. 1967) informs:

In Testament of Gad, Gad and Judah sell Joseph for thirty pieces of gold (Testament of Gad 5:6-11), whereas Joseph is sold for twenty silver coins in the original Hebrew text of Genesis 37:28. The change in value is not, however, the result of a Christian author’s or editor’s attempt to make of Joseph a precursor of Jesus, especially since Joseph is sold for thirty gold coins rather than thirty silver coins, as was Jesus. The change in currency from silver to gold coins is the result of the influence of the Septuagint version of Genesis 37:28, where Joseph was sold for twenty gold coins. The author of Testament of Gad increases this to thirty coins to allow for Judah and Gad’s embezzlement of ten coins before showing the twenty remaining coins (the official price in public knowledge, hence the Scriptural record, of the sale) to their brothers. (deSilva, The Jewish Teachers of Jesus, James, and Jude: What Earliest Christianity Learned from the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 214)

Joseph’s opportunistic brothers manage to profit from their jealousy. W. Sibley Towner (b. 1933) evaluates:

If the twenty pieces of silver were shekels (Genesis 37:28), the brothers got a good average price for Joseph...By modern silver prices, this sale would have netted the brothers $130-$150—and who can say what purchasing power that amount of money had in the Late Bronze Age! The resale to the Egyptians no doubt was profitable to the traders. Egyptian documents of the second millennium B.C. reveal that at that time a brisk trade in slaves went on between Egypt and “Asia,” that is, Syria and Canaan. (Towner, Genesis (Westminster Bible Companion), 248)

Gordon Wenham (b. 1943) compares:

For shepherds who might expect to earn, if employed by others, about eight shekels a year (cf. Laws of Hammurabi 261), the sale of Joseph represented a handy bonus! (Wenham, Genesis 16-50 (Word Biblical Commentary), 356)

The syntax demonstrates that the Bible does not take this incident lightly as in the Hebrew text Joseph’s name appears three times in the one verse (Genesis 37:28).

Robert E. Longacre (b. 1922) advances:

Certainly three occurrences of the name are hardly needed for participant identification; the repetition has some further function. Here it marks an extremely important and providential event in the family of Jacob and the history of the embryonic nation. (Longacre, Joseph, A Story of Divine Providence: A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37, 29)

As horrific as slavery is, Judah’s cruel proposal beats the alternative: death. In retrospect, Joyce G. Baldwin (1921-1995) recognizes:

Though he could not know it, Joseph was going through an experience which was to become a major theme of the Bible. The godly Servant was despised and rejected, only to become the rescuer of those who abused him (Isaiah 53:3-6); the Lord’s shepherd was underrated (Zechariah 11:12-13), was struck down and his sheep scattered, but the ‘sheep’ found they were the Lord’s people (Zechariah 13:7-9); the way of the cross involved for Jesus betrayal by a friend, as well as agony and death, but it was the way to life for all believers. (Baldwin, The Message of Genesis 12-50 (Bible Speaks Today), 160)

At the end of the day, Joseph is still alive. And as such, there is hope.

What motivates the brothers to sell Joseph? Is this transaction primarily about money? Why is this particular currency (silver) employed? How much money would it take for you to sell a family member into slavery? What is a life worth? What do Joseph’s brothers do with the silver?

Though Joseph will eventually land in Egypt (Genesis 39:1), there is debate as to the chain of events that transports him there. The trouble arises as Genesis attributes the sale to both Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28, 39:1) and Midianites (Genesis 37:28, 36). Some scholars see this as clear evidence of the book’s multiple sources.

Tremper Longman III (b. 1952) asks:

To whom did the brothers sell Joseph, the Ishmaelites or the Midianites? At first the passage, if read closely, is quite jarring. Those who believe that the book of Genesis is the construction of originally separate sources take this alternating between names as evidence that there were at least two stories of Joseph’s sale, one with the Ishmaelites and another with Midianites. (Longman, How to Read Genesis, 48)

Others see no discrepancy, claiming that Genesis simply uses the terms “Ishmaelite” and “Midianite” interchangeably. Still others pose that the Bible subtly hints that Joseph’s brothers get rooked.

Paul Borgman (b. 1940) posits:

“And they raised their eyes,” the text moves on, “and [they] saw and, look, a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming from Gilead...on their way to take down [goods] to Egypt” (Genesis 37:25). But then “Midianite merchantmen passed by and pulled Joseph up out of the pit and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver” (Genesis 37:27-28). If we accept the discordant mix of Midianite and Ishmaelite here, the outcome is a pointed irony: Judah’s plans for monetary gain are foiled by the Midianites, who manage to beat the avaricious brothers to the pit. (Borgman, Genesis: The Story We Haven’t Heard, 181-82)

Regardless of how the transactions played out, Joseph later attributes his sale to his brothers (Genesis 45:4). Jewish tradition asserts that the brothers receive and spend the money. Though Joseph’s brothers will later pay him for grain in Egypt (Genesis 42:5), this is not where tradition records that the silver is spent: They use the silver to buy shoes (Targum Yonatan to Genesis 37:28)!

David Stern (b. 1949) documents:

While Genesis 37:28 states merely that Joseph was sold to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver, the legend that the money was used to buy shoes is an ancient one, attested to both in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, the Palestinian Aramaic translation of the Bible, ad Genesis 37:28, and in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Zebulun 4, in both apparently on the basis of a traditional association of Amos 2:6, and possibly Amos 8:6, with the Joseph story. (Stern and Mark J. Mirsky [b. 1939], Rabbinic Fantasies: Imaginative Narratives from Classical Hebrew Literature, 161)

Regardless of what was gained from the silver involved in the sale of Joseph, the cost was far too high.

Judas regretted selling Jesus for silver (Matthew 27:3-5), do you think that Joseph’s brothers ever regretted pawning their baby sibling? What did selling Joseph cost the brothers? What has your sin cost you?

“Money often costs too much.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882), The Conduct of Life, p. 107

Timothy’s Mama’s Family (II Timothy 1:5)

What was Timothy’s grandmother’s name? Lois.

At the outset of II Timothy, Paul gives thanks for his protégé and the letter’s recipient, Timothy (I Timothy 1:3-5). In fortifying Timothy, Paul is reminded him of Timothy’s spiritual heritage (II Timothy 1:5, 3:14-15). Timothy’s faithful mother, Eunice, and grandmother, Lois, are set apart for praise (II Timothy 1:5).

For I am mindful of the sincere faith within you, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am sure that it is in you as well. (II Timothy 1:5 NASB)

This verse marks the only time the word “grandmother” appears in the Bible. It is also the only time the names Lois and Eunice emerge in Scripture. Even so, many have found inspiration from their lives. Their names have appeared as commensurate characters in literature. For instance, Lois and Eunice are protagonists in Francine Rivers (b. 1947)’s And The Shofar Blew (2003) and side characters in Kirby Larson (b. 1954)’s The Friendship Doll (2011).

Timothy’s mother is also referenced when he is introduced in the book of Acts (Acts 16:1). Though not named in the passage, she is described as a Jewess and believer though she may have been a lax Jew as she married a Greek (Acts 16:1) and Timothy was uncircumcised (Acts 16:3). As such, her spiritual heritage may have been as much Christian as Jewish.

Paul attributes Timothy’s faith in part to his raising. This is not uncommon. Thomas C. Oden (b. 1931) comments, “Faith can be passed on through families. Religious instruction in the family unit is crucial to the transmission of the Christian tradition (Oden, First and Second Timothy and Titus (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 30).”

Centuries of believers have learned tenets of the faith from their families faith. In Timothy’s case, Paul points specifically his grandmother, Lois.

Donald Guthrie (1915-1992) explains:

The use of the word first (prōton) in this context has been supposed to indicate that Lois was a devout Jewess and was the first to inculcate religious faith in Timothy; in other words from his earliest days he had been surrounded by religious faith. Yet if Christian faith is intended, prōton, may mean that Lois was the first to become Christian, followed by Eunice and her son. (Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 137).

What are the biggest lessons your mother and grandmother have taught you? What women have influenced your spiritual journey? Which of your family members has impacted your faith the most?

Paul traces Timothy’s lineage through his maternal line. Conspicuous by his absence is Timothy’s father. He is not referenced in Paul’s letters and when he is mentioned in Acts he is described as a Greek (Acts 16:1). The way the text juxtaposes him with Timothy’s mother implies that he was a nonbeliever. Paul does not allude to him either because he was dead at the time of writing or more likely because he added little to Timothy’s spiritual life.

Paul, himself, stepped, into the vacuum. Raymond F. Collins (b. 1935) writes:

“Paul was Timothy’s father insofar as he had passed the faith along to him...in the absence of any mention of Timothy’s biological father, Paul and Eunice are Timothy’s parents in faith. They shared not only their Jewish ancestry (II Timothy 1:2; Acts 16:2) but also a common Christian faith (see Titus 1:4). (Collins, I &II Timothy and Titus: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 193)

Thankfully, Timothy took after his mother. Edith Deen (1905-1994) praises, “The sublime faith of the mother and grandmother seems to have prepared the son for that greatest of all compliments, which Paul later bestowed when he called him ‘my dearly beloved son (II Timothy 1:2). (Deen, All The Women of the Bible, 238).”

How do you trace your spiritual heritage? How much of your faith is your own and how much is your culture’s or parents’? Whose faith are you enriching? Who are your spiritual sons, daughters, grandsons and granddaughters?

“Everyone needs to have access both to grandparents and grandchildren in order to be a full human being.” - Margaret Mead (1901-1978)