Philemon 1-20
According to legal norms of his day, Philemon could have had Onesimus physically punished or killed for running away – Paul here is harboring and advocating for a fugitive. Part of later Christian embarrassment is that Paul – nor anyplace explicitly in Scripture – never condemns slavery as an institution, and early Christians held slaves, even as many early Christians were slaves. Please don’t think of slavery here as the particularly vicious, racial form that it took in the United States. Think of it more as someone today who works at an entry level service occupation, such as a barrister at Starbucks or hotel room service or bell boy – it’s still not very pleasant being looked down upon and receive little compensation. Onesimus was Philemon’s employee – he just didn’t have the opportunity to quit his job (as if anyone of us can!) and move to the next one. How, formed by such a cultural context, might Philemon have experienced Onesimus’ fleeing? What sort of emotions might he have toward Philemon?
A few years ago, I read an article about Paul’s use of language in this passage. It analyzed Paul’s use of imagery and language. What Paul wants Philemon to do is obvious; yet he refuses to use his authority to force the issue, but speaks in terms that surround himself and Philemon in the same network of friendship with a warmth and compassion. Read through the passage and see how Paul uses language to describe his relationships between himself and others in and around Philemon. What is the importance of Philemon making the decision to follow Christian rather than societal norms in his treatment of Onesimus? How else does Paul try to help Philemon do the “right thing”?

Deuteronomy 30:15-20
I was fascinated this summer in examining the Dead Sea Scrolls to see how the book of Deuteronomy was copied and read differently from the rest of the Torah. I think this passage is a reason why. Israel has been elected by God to be a blessing to the nations and receive the land. The reception of the land is at hand; God’s faithfulness is about to be manifested. The manifestation of God’s faithfulness to God’s Word now leads Israel to a choice. Choice does not lead to God’s faithfulness, but God’s faithfulness leads to choice. What is this choice? What implications does this choice have? For whom? How can Israel become “free”? What is the importance of Israel’s ‘heart’? Why is it that choosing obedience to God’s command is choosing “life”?
Luke 14:25-33
What is the cost to be counted in “coming to Jesus”? Why would loyalty (faith) in Jesus demand such words from him? Why does Jesus here demand this as a “choice”? What should the expectations of his followers be that makes one make this “rational choice”? How does the saying about hating family help us interpret the giving up all possessions in the two sayings of Jesus that frame the whole?
There is so much that are possible for discussion out of these passages. Perhaps we could discuss what the relationship between doing the right thing and doing it for the right reasons with the right emotions? In classical Christian thought, one cannot receive the right emotions/passions unless one does the right things. But the goal is never merely to do the right things, but do so with the right internal disposition and emotions. How does our Scriptures emphasis on “choice” an important connection between choosing to do and also to do so for the right reasons with the right underlying disposition/character/passions?