Abstract
This article provides an in-depth analysis of Heinrich Bullinger’s commentary on the Letter to Philemon, published in 1536, highlighting its pivotal role in the history of Biblical interpretation and its innovative application of classical rhetoric. Bullinger, who succeeded Huldrych Zwingli as the leader of the Zurich church in 1531, was a prolific and influential figure in the Reformation, authoring more works than Luther and Calvin combined. His life was marked by a humanist education at the Latin school in Emmerich and a formative period at the University of Cologne, where a spiritual crisis led him to accept the authority of Scripture and the Church Fathers over traditional scholasticism. By 1522, he had abandoned plans to join the Carthusians, having been convinced by Luther’s views on grace and justification. Throughout his forty-year leadership in Zurich, he established himself as a master of “covenant theology”, viewing the Reformed faith as a continuation of the eternal covenant between God and humanity.
The core of this study focuses on Bullinger’s 1536 commentary on the Letter to Philemon, which was the first of its kind to systematically apply classical rhetorical categories to the letter. Bullinger identified the letter’s genre as “deliberative”, a category used in classical rhetoric for speeches aimed at persuading an audience toward a specific future action. Bullinger’s approach to the rhetoric of the letter was innovative for its era; contemporary commentators like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Johannes Brenz did not utilise such rhetorical frameworks. Bullinger’s analysis was heavily influenced by the work of Philipp Melanchthon, although he adapted Melanchthon’s methods rather than adopting them uncritically.
Bullinger’s exegetical method was founded on three primary pillars: a heavy reliance on humanist linguistic skills (strongly influenced by Desiderius Erasmus), the use of loci (thematic main points) to structure Biblical information, and the principle of sola scriptura, specifically the idea that Scripture is its own best interpreter. In his commentary, Bullinger commented on the Latin translation of the New Testament provided by Erasmus rather than the Vulgate. He drew extensively from Erasmus’s Annotationes and Paraphrasis for historical background and linguistic nuances, such as identifying the etymology of the name Onesimus as meaning “useful”. He also relied on the authority of Jerome to support his views on the Colossian identity of Philemon and Archippus and to interpret the term “entrails” as a reference to deep, heartfelt emotion.
The article details Bullinger’s rhetorical division of the letter into eight distinct parts:
- Inscriptio (vv. 1–3): The formal greeting, which Bullinger uses to argue that Philemon was likely a bishop or preacher rather than a layman.
- Exordium (vv. 4–6): The introduction designed to gain goodwill, where Paul utilises arguments based on his own character (persona) and praises Philemon’s faith.
- Replacement of the narratio (v. 7): Bullinger notes that instead of a formal statement of facts, Paul weaves in his personal joy regarding Philemon’s love for the saints to further motivate him.
- Propositio (vv. 8–12a): The main theme. In this part, Bullinger highlights Paul’s gradual and tactful approach to his request.
- Confirmatio (vv. 12b–14): The presentation of proofs, where Paul praises Onesimus as his “own entrails” and explains that he would not keep the slave without Philemon’s consent.
- Confutatio (vv. 15–17): A brief refutation of possible objections, such as the fact that Onesimus was a runaway, a notion which Paul “tempers” by suggesting that God’s hidden plan led to a temporary departure for an eternal gain.
- Second refutation (vv. 18–19): Addressing the issue of theft, Paul acts as a guarantor for Onesimus’s debt, providing what Bullinger calls a chirographum (written financial guarantee).
- Epilogus (vv. 20–21): An emotional conclusion intended to evoke pity and compliance, where Paul expresses total confidence in Philemon’s obedience.
Bullinger’s commentary was the first work in which Melanchthon’s approach to Biblical rhetoric – albeit in a somewhat modified form – found expression. He was therefore also the first interpreter in the history of the interpretation of the letter to describe Paul’s rhetorical strategy thoroughly on the basis of insights drawn from classical rhetoric. This, however, was more than a merely formal exercise. Contrary to the practice that prevailed for many centuries, he did not focus only on the rhetoric of individual sentences or smaller phrases in the letter, but also demonstrated how it unfolds step by step through the way in which he structured Paul’s argument. Theologically, Bullinger used the commentary to bridge the gap between doctrina (teaching) and vita (life), viewing the letter as a “treasure of learning and piety”. He extracted four fundamental “hinges” of the Christian life from the text: persistent prayer, firm faith, love for the saints, and growth in good works. He also applied the text polemically against contemporary groups. He attacked the Anabaptists, arguing that Paul’s respect for Philemon’s legal ownership of a slave refuted Anabaptist views against property rights. He also used the letter to criticise Roman Catholic monasticism, comparing the “detestable kidnapping” of children into monasteries against their parents’ will to Paul’s refusal to keep another man’s servant without permission.
Despite these strengths, the article also offers a critical evaluation of Bullinger’s work, noting some weaknesses. A primary critique is that Bullinger’s rigid adherence to rhetorical structure caused him to lose focus of the letter’s central theme: reconciliation. While Bullinger correctly identified reconciliation as the letter’s purpose in the introduction to the commentary, he failed to discuss this issue thoroughly in his commentary, shifting instead to general examples of love and forgiveness. Furthermore, because he classified Paul’s request to Philemon to “receive” Onesimus (vv. 12, 15, and 17) as part of the propositio and the confutatio of the letter, its importance does not receive enough attention. It is also pointed out that Bullinger’s application of rhetorical categories was occasionally “forced”, such as his classification of Paul’s prayers as a persona (“character”) type of argument. Additionally, Bullinger missed the theological significance of Paul’s phrase “in the Lord” as the ultimate grounding for the transformed relationship between master and slave.
In terms of historical impact, the article concludes that Bullinger’s commentary had virtually no influence on subsequent generations of interpreters. Even though John Calvin respected Bullinger, his own commentary on Philemon shows no evidence of utilising Bullinger’s insights. The article suggests the lack of influence of this commentary on later interpreters is due to a historical focus on “major” figures like Luther and Calvin, which led to the marginalisation of Bullinger’s innovative contributions. Nonetheless, the study affirms that Bullinger’s work remains an important development in the history of interpretation of the letter for being the first to attempt a systematic rhetorical analysis of it based on insights from classical rhetoric.
Keywords: appropriation of texts; Heinrich Bullinger; exegesis; New Testament; Pauline letters; Letter to Philemon; rhetoric; theology
- This article’s featured image was created by Hans Esper and obtained from Wikipedia.