Eric D. Barreto
The twenty-five verses of Philemon have had an outsized influence on our culture and history. Curiously, its influence has been perhaps most resonant beyond the walls of the church rather than within, as this diminutive correspondence became a site of contestation over the morality of slavery in the United States. Philemon has unfortunately been too frequently and tragically misread. At the same time, this correspondence is a powerful witness of the ways the gospel demands we reimagine how we relate to one another, especially in light of wider societal pressures to embrace destructive hierarchies.
The shortest of Paul’s letters, Philemon appears to be full of practical and personal matters but not much theological reflection, especially in comparison to a letter like Romans. Such initial impressions are incorrect, for in this short letter we discover the epitome of Paul’s pastoral and theological work. The letter is a vivid illustration of the careful cultural negotiations people of faith must grapple with in a complex world. Most importantly, however, this letter revolves around a critical theological question. If God has drawn people together into communities of faith, how then are we to relate to one another when the dictates of the wider culture lead us toward division and social stratification rather than toward unity and equality?
The letter deals with a seemingly personal matter, which nonetheless evokes deep theological and communal questions. Somehow, Philemon’s slave Onesimus has come to be in Paul’s presence and provided succor to him in his time in prison. The letter itself does not make clear how Onesimus and Philemon came to be separated. Most interpreters have theorized that Onesimus escaped his master’s house and yet somehow ended up becoming a Christian under the tutelage of Paul, Philemon’s friend. Perhaps more likely is that Philemon himself sent Onesimus to Paul as a helper during his imprisonment. Prisoners in antiquity relied on the kindness of the free—whether friends or family—to provide for their daily needs. There was no cafeteria or commissary in an ancient prison. One’s provisions came from those faithful friends who deigned to visit one in prison (see Matt. 25:36).
In light of Onesimus’s kind service to Paul as well as Paul’s deep affection for him as a believer (v. 10), Paul sends Onesimus back to his master’s household with this letter. What does Paul hope for his dear “child” Onesimus?
The whole letter will be explored as one sense unit, though the section on the letter’s “ancient context” does provide an outline based on sections of the letter.
THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT
No exegetical question about Philemon is more important than determining what precipitating event led Paul to write this letter. What are the relational dynamics among Paul, Philemon, and Onesimus? How this question is answered often predetermines a great deal of the conclusions interpreters will reach about the import of this letter for contemporary Christians.
The difficulty is that the letter itself provides few solid clues about the nature of the conflict Paul seeks to address. Key to the background of this letter are four verses, though they each prove difficult to interpret: verses 11, 15, 16, and 18.
First, verse 11 notes that Onesimus appeared to Philemon to be “useless,” while he has now proven “useful” to Paul and thus to Philemon too. That is, Paul intimates that Onesimus’s utility has shifted in Philemon’s eyes. But how exactly has this shift occurred? Second, Paul recounts in verse 15 that some separation has grown between Philemon and Onesimus, a separation Paul now hopes to help heal. However, what is the nature of this separation? Third, Paul seems to allude to Onesimus’s status as a slave (doulos) in verse 17. Despite the importance of Onesimus’s identification as a slave in the history of this letter’s interpretation, this is the only time that the word is used in the whole letter. Why? Last, verse 18 seems to allude to some debt Onesimus may owe Philemon. And yet, what exactly is the nature of this debt?
From these few strands of data, interpreters have long sought to reconstruct the background to this letter. Most common has been the conclusion that Onesimus was a runaway slave who somehow came into Paul’s circle of influence. Onesimus thus became a Christian, but Paul is now sending him back to his owner, Philemon. Paul seeks to reconcile these conflicted individuals who are now brothers in Jesus. This interpretation can be found throughout Christian tradition, starting with John Chrysostom and continuing through Reformers like Luther and Calvin and the majority of modern study Bibles and commentaries.
Challenges to this regnant conclusion have emerged. For instance, Allen Dwight Callahan has contended that Philemon and Onesimus were actually brothers caught in a bitter rivalry. Moreover, Philemon is now being reexamined by a growing number of African American scholars in particular (see Johnson, Noel, and Williams). These are important critiques of the traditional interpretation, though the view that Onesimus was a runaway slave remains influential.
Behind all these interpretive questions lies an ethical query. Did Paul hope that Philemon would liberate Onesimus? Did Paul in this letter question slavery at its core? Did Paul take the gospel to its liberative end and declare—even if subtly—that the ownership of humans has no place in the church? Often, interpreters have highlighted Paul’s willingness to abide by the status quo of antiquity. There were laws regulating slavery, and Paul fully abided by them, these interpreters insist, even sending a runaway slave back to his owner. His submission to the status quo is often seen as commendable, something Christians should imitate. This view depends in significant part on the view that passages enjoining slaves’ subordination to masters in other letters (Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Timothy, Titus) are genuine epistles of Paul, a judgment seriously challenged today (see the introductions to those letters and the essay “Situating the Apostle Paul in His Day and Engaging His Legacy in Our Own”). Others, however, have argued that a more robust rejection of slavery resides in Paul’s rhetoric. How then do we make sense of these disparate possibilities?
In the end, the best interpretation of Philemon may lean on an ancient tradition of interpretation as more recent scholarship has questioned and reframed it. That is, Onesimus probably was Philemon’s slave. He was likely sent to Paul by Philemon to care for Paul’s needs in prison; Paul now sends Philemon back to Onesimus. In his letter, however, Paul develops a subtle but no less powerful rationale for reconfiguring how Christian community is conceived. He thus forwards a theological argument that could, if embraced, collapse the all-too-frequent oppressions that mar our world still today. Onesimus returns to Philemon no longer as a slave but a sibling, no longer a piece of property but a beloved brother. Their relationship has been irretrievably changed by the gospel.
Also critical to the interpretation of Philemon is the very practice of owning another person for economic gain. It would be incorrect simply to equate the practice of slavery in antiquity with its many modern forms today and in the recent past. The commodification of human bodies has taken a wide number of forms throughout history. Two errors ought to be avoided. Modern slavery does not coincide precisely with ancient slavery. Neither is it true that these forms of slavery are wholly distinct.
Several key differences are evident when studying slavery in antiquity and in the history of the United States. First, slavery in antiquity was not based on phenotype, skin color, or other visible identity markers. Peoples were not lumped together as slaves simply because of their cultural attachments or their race. Instead, a variety of misfortunes such as debt or defeat in military conflict could imprison individuals in long-term though not necessarily lifetime servitude. Second, therefore, slavery was not an inevitable and inescapable condition of a particular people. Emancipation was possible, and slavery was not necessarily seen as an inheritance passed from generation to generation.
At the same time, there are some commonalities that ought to be noted. First, both systems converted people into commodities, products that could be owned and used for the benefit of an owner. The dehumanization present in such economic systems is inescapable, no matter the other rationales tied into these systems of slavery. Second, both systems lean on the stratification of a hierarchical society in which some are owners and others are slaves. Some are inherently superior, and others must defer to them. Such hierarchy is antithetical to the gospel as enunciated by Paul in Philemon.
Ancient and modern practices of slavery are not identical. Despite differing practices and assumptions governing and justifying it, slavery remains a theological and ethical scandal. Thus interpretations of Philemon cannot dwell solely on Paul’s character or matters of abstract dogma about freedom. At its core, this letter is about how we structure our relationships to one another and how the gospel must shape and reshape these webs of belonging.
Introductory Matters (vv. 1–7)
Like many of Paul’s letters, the opening provides a number of interpretive clues for hearers. First is Paul’s self-identification as “a prisoner of Christ Jesus” (v. 1). In this way, Paul casts his lot with the broken and despised of the world and thus approaches Philemon not as a spiritual superior but as a dedicated servant of Christ and a friend. Rhetorically, Paul is establishing his equality with Philemon, a sense of equality he will nonetheless use as leverage in the body of the letter.
Moving from the sender to the recipient of the letter, we discover that this epistle is misnamed. Though Philemon was certainly the primary recipient, the addressees include a certain Apphia and Archippus (who may have been the wife and son of Philemon) but also the whole church that gathers in his home. That is, this is not just a personal but a communal letter. Paul makes a request of Philemon but calls on the witness of the whole community to ensure the proper result. The contents of this letter do not include only matters of personal business between the apostle Paul and Philemon the head of his household but a mutual discourse among all of God’s children in this congregation.
The thanksgiving section (vv. 4–7), however, returns to a second-person singular address. Paul turns to Philemon in particular, though the opening makes clear that there is a wider audience for this message. In these verses, Paul praises Philemon’s faithfulness and witness to the gospel and begins to suggest that there may be something that he might do in order to share in “all the good that we may do for Christ” (v. 6). This initially cryptic reference takes form in the body of the letter.
The Body of the Letter (vv. 8–21)
Paul continues to emphasize not his power over Philemon but the relationship they share. But notice that Paul continues to point glancingly to his power even as he says he is subsuming it. Thus, for example, Paul states that he could demand Philemon’s compliance (v. 8), and yet he appeals to a brother in the faith, not an inferior person (v. 9). We learn in verse 10 the primary concern of Paul’s letter: he is interceding on behalf of Onesimus, who has become like a son to Paul. As noted above, however, it is not immediately clear what the backstory is between Onesimus and Philemon. There is clearly a profound relational tie between Paul and both Onesimus and Philemon. His concern seems to be to align the relationship between the latter two.
In verse 11, a pun in the Greek is lost in English translation. When Paul distinguishes that Onesimus was “useless” but is now “useful” to Philemon, he plays on Onesimus’s name, which in Greek means “useful” or “beneficial.” In short, the rules by which Philemon relates to Onesimus have changed; his worth, as Paul will detail later, is not based on his utility but on the kinship these followers of Jesus now share. Paul follows this language of persuasion with language of adoption. This new relationship is embodied by Paul’s description of Onesimus as “my own heart.” Though he was certainly a help to Paul during his imprisonment (v. 13), Paul’s love for Onesimus extends beyond the service he provides. In subtle language, Paul is exhorting Philemon to receive Onesimus in the same spirit, to inhabit this “good deed” (see v. 6). After all, it was Onesimus who had stood in the gap for Philemon, serving an imprisoned Paul in his stead.
But why was Onesimus with Paul in the first place? In verse 15, Paul seems to allude to a period of separation between Philemon and Onesimus. Why were they separated? Was it because Onesimus happened to flee his captivity? Was it because Philemon and/or the church who met in his home sent Onesimus to care for Paul’s needs while in prison (see v. 13)?
It seems most likely that Onesimus was not a runaway slave. The encounter of a runaway Onesimus and an imprisoned Paul seems all too serendipitous. What are the chances that they would meet and develop a close relationship only to discover that Paul knew Onesimus’s aggrieved master? Such a striking coincidence would certainly need to be mentioned in the letter. Instead, Paul assumes that Philemon knew Onesimus was in his presence. Paul never explains how he came to know Onesimus. Thus it seems most likely that Onesimus was sent by Philemon to care for him in prison. During that time, Paul has to come see Onesimus in a new way. Now Paul invites Philemon to do the same.
Verses 15–16 mark the transformation of Onesimus and a reinvention of the relationship between him and Philemon. Paul theorizes in verse 15 that Onesimus’s separation from Philemon (whatever the reason) was a divine initiative so that their bonds would be extended but also transformed. Onesimus is much more than a slave now, Paul tells Philemon; he has become your brother, your kin, a part of you (v. 16).
Just as Onesimus previously stood in Philemon’s stead, Paul now asks Philemon to receive his erstwhile slave as if Paul himself were his guest (v. 17). When Philemon sees Onesimus, he ought to imagine the face of Paul. Paul offers to fulfill any debt he might have incurred, even taking the scribe’s pen in his own hand to state this (v. 19). And yet, the very next verse is an even more powerful rhetorical stroke: “I say nothing about your owing me even your own self.” In saying nothing of this indebtedness, Paul nonetheless raises it. In these renewed communities of faith, it seems, debt is ever present, never discharged, but its payment also never demanded.
Perhaps the debt Paul offers to repay in Onesimus’s place is not a straightforward offer. Previous interpreters have suggested that these debts may have been the reason for Onesimus’s slavery or that he incurred a debt in running away from his master. But what if the mention of the debt is rhetorical? Between brothers and sisters in faith, no such thing could exist. It may be that, in light of how verse 19 concludes, the debt Paul speaks about is figurative.
As the body of the letter draws to a close starting in verse 20, Paul once again alludes to Onesimus’s name by asking Philemon to provide him this “benefit” (onaimēn). And when he refers to having “his heart” refreshed, Paul must be pointing back to verse 12. Caring for Onesimus is caring for Paul himself. Here, a powerful model of mutual belonging is present. Paul concludes with words of confidence of Onesimus’s “obedience” (v. 21). Paul’s rhetoric of persuasion hits its peak here. Paul is not forcing Philemon’s hands, but neither is he leaving this critical matter to chance. The witness of the community and the clarity of the good news require a new form of community and belonging.
Final Greetings (vv. 22–25)
These closing words of greeting are not just appendages to the letter. Though we know little about the people Paul names in these closing verses, the rhetoric of persuasion is clearly still evident. The letter is bracketed both in its opening and closing with language of mutuality. Thus, for instance, Paul refers in verse 1 to Philemon as a coworker (synergos) and in verse 2 to Archippus as a “fellow soldier” (systratiōtēs). Both words share a common Greek prefix (syn). That same prefix reemerges again in these closing verses when he refers to Epaphras, “my fellow prisoner” (v. 23, synaichmalōtos) and a list of other companions as “fellow workers” (v. 24, synergos). Mutual belonging is thus the primary rhetorical stance of the letter of Philemon. There is a flattening of hierarchies. At the same time, Paul is more than willing to deploy the power he has over Philemon. After stating that he is “confident of [his] obedience,” Paul follows this note of surety with a not-so-subtle reminder in verse 22. When he asks Philemon to make his household ready for a visit, Paul is not just making necessary travel arrangements or being a polite guest. He is promising to visit this household of sisters and brothers to ensure their community reflects the gospel in all its fullness. Even in this brief letter, the rhetoric of persuasion is consistent and at the center of Paul’s argumentation.
THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION
Because of its brevity and the seemingly personal nature of the correspondence, Philemon has suffered from scholarly and exegetical neglect. As detailed above, most interpreters of Philemon have reconstructed the letter’s background around a runaway slave and his aggrieved owner. This interpretation was advocated as early as John Chrysostom in his Homilies on Philemon in the fourth century. Near unanimity has prevailed ever since. So, in nearly every study Bible and commentary available today, Onesimus is assumed to be a runaway slave whom Paul is returning to his proper master. In many cases, Paul’s decision is read as acquiescence to the status quo of his day. According to these interpreters, the letter does not contain a full embrace of ancient slavery, but neither does it seem to oppose it in a full-throated way.
Demetrius K. Williams (12) has argued that when scholars have paid attention to the letter, three primary interpretive questions have guided the tradition. First, interpreters posit what the letter reveals about Paul, not Philemon or Onesimus. In this way, Paul himself becomes an exemplar of humble and measured leadership.
Second, interpreters have had to grapple with the ethical and theological implications of slavery both in antiquity and today. Some found in Paul’s subtle rhetoric sanction to continue modern forms of slavery, while others read in the letter a call for liberation. Proponents of slavery saw in Philemon a commitment to a cultural status quo. If Paul did not explicitly condemn slavery, they averred, why should we? In fact, if Paul was willing to send back a fugitive slave to his owner, ought not good citizens to have done the same in the antebellum United States? In contrast, slavery’s detractors dwelled on the transformed status of Onesimus in the letter. As Paul himself concludes, Onesimus is “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother” (v. 16).
Last, Philemon has become embroiled in questions about Colossians and its authenticity as a composition of Paul himself because of the reference to Archippus in Col. 4:17 (see also Fitzmyer, 8–9).
Most recently, Philemon has reemerged as a critical instance of the destructive power that flawed exegesis can work and also of how readings from diverse social locations can reveal theological blind spots. Reading from the perspective of Onesimus and privileging the perspective of the enslaved reveal an entirely new way to understand this letter. In short, such a fresh reading can open up new possibilities. As a recent book concluded, “We are interested in hearing from Onesimus and reading from his marginalized position and find that the newer reading perspectives give him voice and agency. However, these newer readings and interpretations will not traverse the same worn and tired territory that has kept Onesimus enslaved and silent. To liberate Onesimus, Paul’s letter to Philemon must be read anew or reread from this totally different basis and perspective” (Johnson, Noel, and Williams, 7).
THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION
Reading Philemon in light of this interpretive history and today’s pressing questions requires that we reinterpret Paul’s rhetorical strategy in Philemon and its continued significance in theological reflection. Specifically, the composition and theology of Philemon ought to be set alongside the purported heights of Paul’s other correspondence. Philemon is likely an exemplar of the kind of pastoral work Paul engaged in on a daily basis. Such quotidian conflicts probably absorbed most of Paul’s attention. Philemon thus exemplifies the merging of a particular theology with a particular mode of belonging in community. If we have caught a glimpse of God’s character in Jesus, how then ought we live together in faith? This is the question that resonates in Philemon and Romans alike, and the response Philemon provides is no less vital in our world today.
We might begin by asking how we understand Onesimus’s role in this triangle of relationships. Interpreters have often focused largely on the relationship between Paul and Philemon, between the great apostle and the slave master, thus excluding from consideration the one individual whose life would be most affected by the outcome of this correspondence. Onesimus’s very life and identity are at stake in the rhetorical negotiation Paul outlines. Of course, we can know very little about Onesimus’s perspective on these matters. His voice is never directly heard in the letter.
But what we can glimpse are the difficult but necessary ways that Paul sought to stitch together communities composed of all kinds of people: poor and rich, powerful and weak, free and slave. In a hierarchical and highly structured culture, Paul sought to create small spaces of belonging, where these conventions might not hold absolute sway. Perhaps these small, largely powerless communities could not change the political status quo of the day. Perhaps they could not overturn the moral and cultural logics that ruled their society. Perhaps they could not even escape these basic assumptions about the functioning of human civilizations. However, in this letter, Paul invites Philemon and the church around him to imagine a new way to relate to one another. Thus Paul’s mode of instruction here is not primarily by dictate or merely listing a new set of rules for everyday life; instead, he posits a theological imagination around kinship and belonging, the implications of which he invites Philemon and the church to embody in their own community. In short, what does it mean to receive one another as beloved sisters and brothers? What effect does this mutual reception have on the ways in which our culture marks us as superior or inferior?
Key to such interpretive efforts will be questioning received assumptions about this letter. Though the notion that Onesimus was a runaway slave has long been sanctioned by interpreters of the letter, recent studies have demonstrated ably how critical it is to revisit even this seeming consensus. Such seeming unanimity often imports unquestioned assumptions into interpretations that too easily become destructive and discordant with the text itself. Onesimus’s story may have yet to be told because regnant assumptions have limited exegetical possibilities.
In short, Philemon is an exhortation to communities of faith to bond as kin, to embrace one another as children of God. The gospel reconstitutes our relationships and our communities at a fundamental level. The gospel also calls us, then, to give ear to those who are normally voiceless in our midst. Our communities must have wide boundaries and an eagerness to invite other voices to speak along with an equal yearning to listen carefully to these marginalized voices.
In light of these new relational ties, Philemon ought to propel its readers to rethink slavery again, both its historical legacies and contemporary iterations. Philemon’s history of interpretation should remind us of the great harm that can be wielded by the exegete. Today, we ought to remain humble about our own interpretations of Scripture but also prophetic as we strive to invite the liberating reign of God in our midst.
How then do we live in the light of this witness today? How do we resist the siren calls of our own highly structured and demarcated social structures? How do we develop new lines of kinship even as so much of the wider culture draws us toward isolation and homogeneity? The Letter to Philemon suggests that the gospel has reordered our societal structures even as we live within them. Even as we feel the constraints of the ways we relate to one another, God has declared a new order in which the primary way we relate to one another is not based on inferiority and superiority but kinship, sisters and brothers adopted by a loving and just God. This was true for Philemon and Onesimus, no matter their relationship and conflicts. The same remains true for us today.
Callahan, Allen Dwight. 1997. Embassy of Onesimus: The Letter of Paul to Philemon. The New Testament in Context. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 2000. The Letter to Philemon. AB 34C. New York: Doubleday.
Johnson, Matthew V., James A. Noel, and Demetrius K. Williams, eds. 2012. Onesimus Our Brother: Reading Religion, Race, and Culture in Philemon. Paul in Critical Contexts. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Williams, Demetrius K. 2012. “ ‘No Longer as a Slave’: Reading the Interpretation History of Paul’s Epistle to Philemon.” In Johnson, Noel, and Williams, 11–45.