Though Philemon has been described as “one of the most charming letters ever written,”1 some have seen it as disturbing since Paul seems to deal with the issue of slavery without voicing any explicit critique of such an oppressive institution. Others have dismissed it as insignificant, not only because of its size, but also because its subject matter (dealing with a personal matter between two private individuals). Moreover, Paul seems less than clear about what he wishes to accomplish with this letter. Finally, to the contemporary audience, this letter, which deals neither with significant doctrinal matters nor with prominent Christian spiritual practices, seems at best an archaic note limited in value.
This commentary attempts to correct such misunderstandings while drawing attention to the power embedded in the letter. Philemon is not an exclusively private letter, and it promises to bring about fundamental changes in our understanding of the power of the gospel as well as in ways that such an understanding can be practiced on both a personal and corporate level. Behind the paucity of theological formulations lies a profound conviction of Paul, who insists on the paradigmatic significance of Christ’s redemptive death on the cross and its effect on the community of God’s people. Through the application of the gospel message to one historical audience, we can appreciate how this same gospel can be applied in our own contexts.
This letter begins with the self-identification: “Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus.”2 In the early church, there is almost a universal acceptance of Paul’s authorship for this letter, as testified even by Marcion’s critical hands. Despite the challenges from a few nineteenth-century German scholars,3 most modern scholars also accept the authenticity of this letter. Although closely related to Colossians, even those who doubt the authenticity of Colossians find no reason to ascribe this letter to anyone other than Paul.4 Moreover, some who doubt Paul’s authorship of other letters have argued for the authenticity of Colossians in light of its close affinity with this letter to Philemon.5
Most scholars rightly consider Philemon the primary recipient of this letter. Not to be missed is the title attached to this name: “our beloved and coworker” (v. 1). This identification points to his status in the gospel ministry and may suggest that this is not simply a private letter written to a personal friend. The list of names with their corresponding titles confirms this reading: “Apphia, our sister” and “Archippus, our fellow soldier” (v. 2). The final note in the opening greetings (“to the church in your house,” v. 2) demonstrates that Paul is writing to the entire church that meets at Philemon’s house.6
Reading Philemon as a public letter explains Paul’s emphasis on Philemon’s “partnership in the faith” (v. 6) and the relevance of his work “for all the saints” (v. 5). More importantly, this reading of the letter considers the issue addressed here and its corresponding requests to affect not simply one person and his family, but also the entire household of God. For the contemporary audience, to understand this as a public letter also highlights its significance and continued relevance for the community of God’s people.
In Col 4:9, Onesimus, apparently the slave of Philemon, is described as being “one of you [i.e., the Colossians].” Thus, it is likely that Philemon and his household reside at Colossae. The closing greetings of this letter (vv. 23–24) and that of Colossians (4:10–17), where one finds the names of Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, also point to the two letters as addressing the same community.
The place of origin is more difficult to determine, although clearly Paul is writing from prison (vv. 1, 9, 10, 13, 23). As with Colossians, major options include Caesarea,7 Ephesus,8 and Rome.9 The presence of Luke in Col 4:14 and Phlm 24 may suggest a Caesarean origin for both letters since Luke is with Paul in Caesarea as testified by the “we” in Acts 27:1–2. But none of Paul’s captivity letters mentions Caesarea, and a Caesarean origin receives little support from early Christian sources.
If we focus on Philemon itself, Ephesus is a favorite candidate primarily because of its proximity to Colossae, which would explain both the possibility of Onesimus fleeing to this nearby city and Paul’s own plan to return to Colossae soon after his release (cf. v. 22). But this assumes that Onesimus did “flee” from Philemon using his own limited resources10 and that Paul’s future plan was only limited to nearby areas. Moreover, there is no explicit evidence of an Ephesian imprisonment in the canonical writings. If we take Philemon and Colossians as originating from the same geographical and temporal location, Rome remains the best option.11 This also boasts the strongest support in subscriptions attached to relatively early manuscripts and versions.12 If a Roman provenance is accepted, Philemon can be dated to AD 60–62.
Most would agree that Paul is less than direct in stating the purpose of writing this letter. Perhaps equally unclear are the circumstances that led to its writing. Several interpretive options have been suggested.
(1) The traditional interpretation is best represented by the concise statement of Calvin: “Sending back a runaway slave and thief, he [i.e., Paul] supplicates pardon for him.”13 An expanded version points to several statements made by Paul that appear to support this reading:
Onesimus was a slave of Philemon in Colossae (cf. Col. 4:9) who had not only run away from his master (Phlm. 15–16) but had also absconded with some of Philemon’s money or possessions (vv. 18–19). Attracted by the anonymity and excitement of a large metropolis, he traveled furtively to Rome … where somehow he met the imprisoned Paul.”14
Although this interpretation enjoys the support of many commentators throughout history, a growing number of interpreters have pointed to its weaknesses. First, the thesis that Onesimus was a runaway slave15 is never explicitly stated in the text itself.16 The conjecture that he is a “thief” comes from reading the conditional clause in v. 18 (“if he has wronged you in any way, or owes you anything”) as an indicative statement that affirms the reality of such an act.17
Moving from the text to the historical reality of the first-century Roman world:
the runaway theory on its own does not explain adequately how Onesimus came to be in prison with Paul, or how Paul had the authority to send him back. Nor does it explain the remarkable coincidence that Onesimus came into contact with—of all people—the one person in prison who knew his master and was in a position to intercede on his behalf.18
More specifically, a slave would not be kept in the same prison with a Roman citizen, and Paul would not be allowed to harbor a runaway slave even if he was not a prisoner. Furthermore, by receiving a runaway slave, Paul would have put his entire ministry and his coworkers at risk.19
Coupled with these historical observations is the lack of support from the literary parallels in the Greco-Roman letters that make explicit appeals for runaway slaves. The alleged parallels in Pliny the Younger (Ep. 9.21; 9.24) only highlight the lack of a description of Onesimus’s repentant attitude or an explicit call for Philemon to forgive and have mercy on Onesimus.20
(2) While the problems with the traditional interpretation are apparent, the choice among the other alternative interpretations is less than clear. Accepting that Philemon and Onesimus were not on good terms, some suggest that Onesimus fled to Paul to seek asylum from his own master.21 In the first century, temples could be used as places of asylum for runaway slaves, and houses with a dominant family cult could conceivably be considered as such a sanctuary.22 With Paul in prison (or in house arrest), however, it is difficult to consider such a temporary place of residence as a sanctuary, not to mention the improbability that Paul would reside in such a sanctuary for a pagan god.
(3) More plausible is the hypothesis that Onesimus purposefully approached a friend of his master in the hope that, through mediation, he might be restored.23 In the first-century Roman world, an alienated slave could approach such a mediator and would not be considered a runaway. Paul would qualify as such a friend because “his religious power outweighs the potential drawback of his being a prisoner in the enterprise of pleading as an amicus domini.”24 This interpretation also accommodates the absence of any reference to Onesimus as a runaway slave. Moreover, in such a scenario, one does not have to assume the slave is the only party at fault; the absence of any reference to Onesimus’s repentance can therefore be explained.25
Despite its explanatory power, this hypothesis is not without problems. First, there is no evidence that Onesimus himself is seeking to be restored to his master, Philemon. Instead, his return seems closely tied to Paul’s own desire for Onesimus to follow the implications of the gospel (vv. 10–14).26 Second, Paul does not speak primarily as the friend of the master; instead, he speaks as the friend of the slave. This reversal of role may argue against this understanding of Onesimus’s meeting with Paul in the first place.27 Third, as with the traditional interpretation, the lack of any explicit plea on behalf of Onesimus is striking.28 Even if the slave does not bear a substantial responsibility for the strained relationship with his master, such appeals are to be expected. Finally, this hypothesis fails to explain the purpose of this letter, at least in a way consistent with the data contained in the text.
(4) The alternative hypothesis favored by this commentary does reject the traditional interpretation that Onesimus is a runaway slave, but rather argues that Onesimus was sent by Philemon to help Paul. Championing this reading, Winter argues that “Onesimus was with Paul in prison because the former had been sent by the congregation in Colossae.”29 Winter’s detailed analysis of the thanksgiving section with her particular emphasis on phrases and clauses like “I hear” (v. 5), “your love and faith in the Lord Jesus and for all the saints” (v. 5), “your partnership in the faith” (v. 6), and “the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you” (v. 7) adds considerable strength to this argument since it points to the prior act of kindness on the part of Philemon as the basis of Paul’s further appeal in this letter.30
Moreover, one has to agree with Winter when she adds that “under a loose house arrest visitors were not only allowed, they were necessary to provide food and services for the imprisonment,” and “this construction of the circumstances agrees with what is known about the situation portrayed in Philippians, where Epaphroditus is sent to Paul in prison.”31 Perhaps the reference to Paul’s being “refreshed” (v. 7) by Philemon was precisely through his sending of Onesimus to help him during his time of need.32 This reading not only provides a plausible background, but it also explains its public nature as Paul is concerned with the involvement of Philemon and the church that meets at his house in the gospel ministry.33
Instead of the letters of Pliny that supposedly provide appropriate parallels to Paul’s letter to Philemon, a closer parallel is Ignatius’s letter to the Ephesians, where one finds the request for the continued service of the slave sent for the refreshment of a servant of the gospel (cf. Eph. 2.1–2).34 Some have further suggested that the occasion of Paul’s writing is his delayed return of this dispatched slave, an occasion that is also paralleled by other ancient letters (Cicero, Fam., 9.3; Att. 11.2–3).35
Those who object to this reading often point to the unlikelihood of Philemon sending a “useless” slave to serve Paul on his behalf (cf. v. 11).36 It should be noted, however, that the word “useless” is a wordplay on Onesimus37 and should not be taken as an absolute statement concerning the value of Onesimus.38 As to whether Philemon should have sent a non-Christian slave to serve Paul, one must reconsider the reading of v. 10 in light of the social reality among first-century converts to Christianity. When the head of the household was converted to Christianity, it is likely that his entire household was also “converted” at least in name. The description of Onesimus as becoming Paul’s son should therefore be understood as a rededication of his commitment to the gospel.39 If so, it is entirely conceivable for Philemon to have sent this slave to Paul and for Onesimus to gain a more personal and profound experience of the power of the gospel during his stay with Paul.
Although the evidence may appear to favor this emissary hypothesis, the data in the text itself fail to prove that this is indeed the occasion behind Onesimus’s meeting with Paul. Moreover, one can also imagine a combination of any two of these readings, such as the possibility of Onesimus being sent by Philemon only to confess later that he had stolen from his master.40 The presence of these various possibilities only points to the tentative nature of any hypothesis concerning the situation behind the text.
Regardless of what circumstances occasioned the writing of Philemon, the question of purpose still needs to be raised: What is Paul asking for in this letter? This general question embraces two more specific ones: Did Paul desire Onesimus to be manumitted? And is there an underlying purpose other than Philemon’s acceptance of Onesimus?
Concerning Onesimus’s legal status, attention has been focused on vv. 15–16: “so that you may have him back forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother.” While some have argued that Paul is clearly suggesting here that Philemon should manumit his slave,41 it is more likely that Paul is not at all concerned with the question of Onesimus’s legal status.42 Paul’s primary concern is to have Onesimus welcomed back as a Christian brother and be treated as Paul himself. “No longer as a slave” does not necessarily mean that Philemon is to receive Onesimus back as a freedman, or that he is to free him immediately. Rather, “as” (ὡς) expresses the idea that Philemon should accept Onesimus as a brother in spite of his physical status. In other words, “whether Onesimus remained a slave or not, he could no longer be regarded as a slave.”43 In the next section we will return to the issue of manumission in the ancient world.
In requesting that Philemon receive Onesimus back as a beloved brother, Paul is altering the social system by which characters relate to each other. Under the framework of God as “Father” and Jesus as “Lord” (v. 3), Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus are to be related as siblings and coworkers within this household of God. As a “brother,” Onesimus is addressed in the same way as Philemon (vv. 7, 20); he too has been incorporated into the body of Christ, and this new framework becomes the primary reference as far as the interrelationships among the characters are concerned.44
Within this new framework, Paul hints at the underlying purpose of this letter. In v. 21 he writes, “I write to you, because I know that you will do even more than what I say.” Paul has already expressed his wish to have Philemon receive Onesimus as he would himself (v. 17); Paul seems more concerned, therefore, with more than simply the legal release of Onesimus. Earlier (v. 13) Paul expressed his desire to keep Onesimus so he could serve Paul in the gospel ministry. Reading between the lines, it seems possible to consider this “more” in v. 21 as a desire for Onesimus to be returned to Paul for the service of the gospel.45 If so, Paul’s note of Philemon’s indebtedness to him in v. 19 may pave the way for this implicit request.
Moreover, phrases like “in the Lord” and “in Christ” in v. 20 may also be understood as implying that Philemon’s returning Onesimus to Paul for the service of the gospel will truly be an act that will refresh Paul “in the Lord” and “in Christ.” Finally, the public nature of this letter with multiple destinations and the evocation of Paul’s coworker (v. 1)46 may further confirm that this letter is to deal with an issue that involves the wider Christian circle: Philemon and his church are to send Onesimus as a servant of the gospel ministry.
None of these observations is decisive, however. But if there is indeed an underlying purpose in this letter and no viable competing proposal, this one can function as a working hypothesis as we read the letter.
To understand further the situation behind the text, we must dig deeper into the institution of slavery in the ancient world. Not only does this provide a window for us into the world of Onesimus, but it also sheds light on the issue of manumission of slaves. In the Hellenistic world, Aristotle’s understanding of the slave as “an animate article of property” (Pol. 1253b) probably reflects the opinion of most. In Roman times, this understanding of the slave as a “thing” (res) continues at least in legal texts (cf. Justinian, Digest 21.1.23.3).47 Although the actual experience of slaves may vary according to individual circumstances and geographical locations, socially they were considered to be “natally alienated and generally dishonored persons.”48 Even reports of various degrees of “freedom” granted to slaves fail to contradict their clear legal status as those who fell outside of the protection of Roman law.
Slaves were generally divided into two types: (1) agricultural and industrial slaves, and (2) domestic slaves. The former often consisted of prisoners of wars and convicted criminals; their treatment was harsh and prospect of manumission low. Domestic slaves, however, performed a variety of functions throughout the household, and skilled laborers received considerably better treatment with the possibility of gaining upward social mobility.49 The distinction between the two types is by no means clearly demarcated, however, and they may reflect the historical development of the sources of slavery from periods of war and conquest to the more peaceful times of the early Imperial period.50 Moreover, in the early Imperial period, the fact that many sold themselves into slavery because of debt or the prospect of upward social mobility points to the diversity of such an institution and its related practice in the first century. For the contemporary (Western) readers, it is worth noting that unlike the more recent American experiences, race did not play a role in Greco-Roman slavery.
Being a domestic slave, Onesimus could be in charge of a number of household duties, from administrative to menial tasks. His absence from Philemon would have caused some problems in the operation of the household, but he was likely not the only slave in Philemon’s possession.51 If Onesimus were a runaway slave, a penalty would be imposed on anyone who might run into such a fugitive without reporting it within a period of twenty days.52 This seems to be an accepted understanding among the Romans:
A man who conceals a runaway is a thief. The senate has decreed that runaways should not be allowed into woodland nor protected by the bailiffs or procurators of the owners, and it has fixed a fine; but if within twenty days they either return the runaways to their owners or produce them before magistrates, the senate has granted them pardon for their previous conduct. (Justinian, Digest 11.4.1)53
For slaves ancient and modern, being freed is understood as the goal of one’s labor and life. This is testified by the numerous tomb inscriptions in Rome, where freedmen celebrated the event of their manumission as the most important event in their life.54 To many, however, manumission was not always desirable, nor did it automatically translate into an independent state of existence. First, when a slave was manumitted, he was legally freed, but socially and economically his obligation to his former master continued. Owing his former master operae (work days) and obsequium (loyalty), the freedman then entered into a patron-client relationship with his former master and continued to serve. Manumission should not be understood as emancipation, and freedom and slavery were but two poles on a continuum of a complicated picture of social and political relationship.55
Although manumitted slaves in Rome could become Roman citizens, they never ceased to be recognized as ex-slaves. Entering society without a network of support, these freedmen were “never wholly free.”56 They often found themselves in a less secure position since protection and sustenance could no longer be expected. Unless closely bound with his former master, now his patron, he would find himself “slave to several instead of one” (Epictetus, Disc. 4.1.35–37).57 Equally important was the recognition that manumission could easily reinforce the institution of slavery as masters imposed their will on their slaves so that the faint hope of manumission became the tool for control and manipulation.58 Any discussion of manumission must, therefore, be construed as a support of the institution of slavery.
It is in light of this background that the omission of an explicit call for the manumission of Onesimus should be understood. In this letter, however, Paul appears to be moving beyond manumission in an attempt to reinstate Onesimus within the more significant network of the household of God. The call to consider Onesimus “no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother” (v. 16), is no longer simply a metaphorical way of speaking, but has significant implications as Paul considers not only his departure from his identity as a slave but also his entry into a new network of relationships. Thus, what Paul is advocating is “far more radical than manumission,” since “what he expected effectively undermined the collectivist, authoritarian and patriarchal values of Graeco-Roman society.”59
Beyond this significant consideration, one can also imagine various other reasons for Paul’s lack of an explicit call for manumission. First, within the political reality of the first-century Roman world, an explicit call to manumission would place the church in a politically dangerous position.60
Second, Paul’s concern with the ministry of the gospel probably eclipses that of his social program. Some put it bluntly: “The emancipation of Onesimus is as nothing compared with his being furnished to spread the gospel in Phrygia and elsewhere.”61 Understood in eschatological terms, this concern for missions can again explain Paul’s discussion of this issue apart from the context of the life of the household church.62
Third, some suggest that Paul’s omission reflects the fact that “he did not know what to recommend” because of the difficulties involved in both the call to manumission and the call to remain in the status quo.63 But this fails to take into account what Paul does advocate in his discussion of the new reality in Christ. Moreover, it fails to recognize the rhetorical force behind Paul’s mode of discourse.64
Finally, in light of Paul’s emphasis on a new social world for Onesimus that finds its basis on the power of the gospel, one can claim the call to manumission would have been an easier route, but Paul is more concerned with the deeper structure of reality.65 Instead of focusing on what the readers may have expected, we should focus on what is advocated in this letter. Only then can the power of this short letter be fully appreciated.
The above discussion has already pointed to the significance of this short letter. Instead of dealing exclusively with the private relationship between a slave and his master, Paul points to the power of the gospel in restructuring personal and social relationships with the goal of the ministry of God’s Word. If our reading of the purpose of this letter is correct, it also addresses the issue of how one house church can participate in the apostolic mission in fulfilling God’s salvific plan in history. The full implications of a seemingly private matter are explored in a skillful and pastorally sensitive way.
It is in this sense that the rhetorical art and tact of Paul in this short letter should be appreciated.66 The Paul of this letter has often been criticized for not making his request(s) explicit, but it is precisely in this respect that one can identify the power of this letter. Instead of issuing an explicit command, Paul provides a framework within which Philemon is compelled to be obedient to the authority of this apostle. The two pillars of this framework, faith and love, are introduced already in vv. 4–7, and these two pillars are grounded in Christ (v. 6), who is the basis of the partnership between Paul and Philemon (v. 17).
Beyond this theological foundation, Paul also appeals through his own relationship with Onesimus (vv. 8–16) and his relationship with Philemon (vv. 17–20). In doing so, Paul evokes a wide range of emotions to bolster the rhetorical power of his arguments: joy (v. 7), comfort (v. 7), sympathy (vv. 1, 9, 10, 13, 23), indebtedness (vv. 13, 19), respect (v. 19), and honor/shame (vv. 1–2, 23–24).67 Finally, Paul exerts his own apostolic authority by claiming not to exert such authority (v. 8) and by expressing confidence in Philemon’s obedient response (v. 21); these are further secured by the threat of his own presence (v. 22). In contrast to his letter to Colossians, where he is confronting an explicit form of a false gospel, Paul’s rhetorical strategy here demonstrates his skill and sensitivity in handling an issue that appears to be personal in nature but with profound theological ramifications.
We can recognize another contribution of this letter even when Paul does not make his request explicit. It provides the lengthiest and most nuanced discussion on the relationship between a slave and his master in the NT. Not only is Paul’s discussion important for the issue of liberty and equality within the Christian household, but the way he articulates the vision of the new reality introduced by the work of God through Christ also allows readers to move beyond the narrow discussion of slavery to the wider impact of the gospel in every level of human existence. This wider discussion informs readers as to how particular social issues are to be handled.
Finally, one is probably justified, inferring from the inclusion of this letter in the NT, in seeing the successful fulfillment of Paul’s demand in this letter.68 Such success should not, however, be considered the sole criterion by which this letter is to be judged.
As with Colossians, this letter has also been read as an example of deliberative rhetoric.69 This classification does not, however, control the way Paul develops his arguments.70 A detailed discussion of the development of Paul’s argument will be provided at the beginning of our discussion of its various sections. Here a general outline will suffice: