Philemon Paper

The book of Philemon is unique among the books of the New Testament. In the first place, it is one of the few letters directly addressed to a single individual. For that matter, James Dunn states that Philemon is “the only genuinely personal letter” in the New Testament.[1] In the second place, it is unique because it reveals a more tender side of the apostle Paul that is often obscured by the more typical theological and legislative prowess displayed in his letters. The compassionate and pleading nature of his appeal in this letter as one brother in Christ to another stands in sharp contrast to books like Galatians or First Corinthians. In their “Introduction to the New Testament”, Carson, Moo, & Morris state that, it is good to see Paul set in a different light from his normal self as a “hard-liner, intolerant of those who differed from him and rigorous in enforcing conformity to his arbitrary standards… it is good to see a glimpse of a compassionate man, pleading for a runaway slave, ready to pay the cost (he may owe).”[2] In the third place, this letter is unique because it deals exclusively with a major social issue of Paul’s day, slavery. The book of Philemon might also be described as the oldest petition for the abolition of slavery. But in fact Paul does not decry slavery as an institution, merely his young brother Onesimus and his cause before his earthly master, Philemon.

In this paper, my aim is to merely scratch the surface of what Paul’s attitude was toward the moral issue of slavery, to discuss the nature of slavery in New Testament times – including manumission and freedmanship- and to conclude with the application of the small letter both in its context, and in our time.

F.F. Bruce believed that Philemon had an application so strong for the Christian that it “brings us into an atmosphere in which the institution (slavery) could only wilt and die.”[3] Peter O’Brien adds that at least in the Christian culture, if not also the reigning social strata, Bruce’s comment will ring true, that slavery will be set up to “wilt and die.”[4]

Some have commented and raised objection at Paul’s theological position about slavery, or rather the lack of Paul’s position against it. In Philemon, why is there no blatant condemnation of the institution of slavery? Why does Paul not address the institution as wicked? What was the role of slavery in this Roman world in which the New Testament was written? Surely an apostle and teacher as qualified as Paul would demand justice for each brother and sister in Christ, apart from such an oppressive practice of slavery! While important to discuss, this topic is something that we modern exegetes simply cannot easily comprehend because of our historical perspective. After all, we only see slavery through the eyes of 17^th – 19^th century slavery in America.[5]

Everett Ferguson wisely observes that Christianity gave instruction to the Christian’s character in the “existing social structure” of the day, and did not provide a political platform on which to make such stands as one against slavery.[6] So what are we to make of the address to Philemon about this runaway slave, Onesimus? What of its place in the New Testament? The context of this little book has never truly been opposed by any credible source, but has always been considered a book that deserved its place in the New Testament canon. What is the occasion of Paul’s address to Philemon?

The occasion for the letter is that Philemon – as is assumed by all major commentators – is the owner of a runaway slave, Onesimus. Perry Kea holds the position that Onesimus was not in fact a “runaway” for traditional reasons, but that Paul’s text denotes he had ceased to be “useful” to Philemon as a slave. And perhaps it is true that Onesimus left under some sort of guilt at his own misappropriation or mismanagement of funds in Philemon’s budget or estate, or some other type of financial responsibility.[7] At any rate, he is still a runaway if he leaves without permission of his master. Aside from the obvious modern ideas about why one would desire freedom, in that day there were many options for a runaway.[8]

Paul has come in contact with Onesimus as a slave. Whether in the marketplace, or in prison where Paul is presently housed at the writing of the letter, Paul comes to know Onesimus and undoubtedly teaches him the gospel. He becomes very valuable to Paul and so close to Paul’s work that he addresses Philemon explaining that very fact. He refers to Onesimus as he “who is my very heart…” (v. 12). If Paul came in contact as a fellow prisoner with Onesimus, he would have been obligated to return him to his master, and this may be the occasion for the letter.[9] Dunn puts is like this:

“At all events it is clear that Onesimus had been converted by Paul during his imprisonment and had become very close to Paul, attending to Paul’s varied needs while in prison.”[10]

The role Onesimus played in the relationship with Paul is not clear. Chrysostom writes that Paul is so proud of his imprisonment for the cause of Christ that, “A king is not so proud of his diadem as was Paul, who gloried in his chains.”[11] Although Paul “gloried” in his imprisonment for the sake of Christ, his work undoubtedly had been hindered to some degree by this sentence, but Onesimus may have indeed provided the help Paul needed while in that condition. Paul is writing Philemon to accept his slave back now, not only as a slave returning from being a fugitive, but also as a brother in Christ. “Welcome him as you would welcome me” (v. 17). In effect, now, in Christ, Philemon has an obligation to, his slave to treat him differently, as a brother; and while disobedient, incompetent, or a runaway, the Christian love ethic is deeper now than his desire should be to censure his slave. Barth & Blanke make mention of the fact that Godly love for the slave is a concept that is not foreign from the Lord’s people, even in Deuteronomy 15:12-18, that justice, equity, and livelihood are “secured for them” as slaves, and they are treated as brothers.[12]

It is certainly possible that Onesimus already knew Paul or had come in contact with him some way prior to Paul’s imprisonment. In the Greco/Roman society, a counter-system was already in place to keep slavery from becoming to deeply harsh or unfair, and that seemed to address it ethically. A patron/client relationship between slaves and their masters was something that has shed a great deal of light on the status of freedmen and the manumission of slaves. Joseph Fitzmyer gives the closest documented example to that of the context of Philemon; Pliny is writing Sabinianus from the position of patron to master. He writes on the behalf of a slave who is a fugitive, but now the slave will return.[13] Still other examples are delineated in John Nordling’s article on the topic of the fugitive Onesimus. He documents the Pliny example, as well as an example from about 150 B.C. Two slaves, Neilos and Bion, are considered “runaways” and the master advertises a complicated reward formula for the bounty of their return.[14] The patron/client relationship was a complicated one in Roman law. While a slave may have reached the appropriate age for his freedom, or perhaps repaid his debt, he would almost never truly achieve idealized freedom.[15] The patron would maintain power over the life and belongings of the manumitted slave, and only in some cases were slaves truly granted full citizenship.[16] Fitzmyer does an outstanding job of presenting this in the example of Pliny and others, showing that a runaway slave might go to a “patron” or friend of his master, and as a fugitive - would plea with his master’s friend to write or contact the master on his behalf, intervening for his safety or freedom. The patron might in fact, be his old master that granted manumission, and yet the runaway has fallen into disfavor with a new master or new patron.

In some cases, the patron might write a letter indicating his own love or affection for the loyal slave. In the Philemon context, the slave is the client, and the patron is the friend of the master. This sheds more light on the possible situation between Onesimus and Paul, however, Paul seems to not be “provoked” or convinced to do this writing (by Onesimus), but writes to Philemon out of an “appeal to love” rather than to sternly convince Philemon of how to receive his fugitive Onesimus whom Paul is returning to him.

It is difficult to address the specific nature of Onesimus’offense without looking into the cultural norms of the day.

In this New Testament Epistle, Paul is addressing Philemon, Onesimus’ master, as a brother in Christ. Paul addresses Philemon as a brother of whom he has heard about his great faith (v. 5). Fitzmyer notes that Paul means not that he has simply learned that Philemon is a Christian, but that his faith is vital for all those sharing in the local Christian community around him.[17] Perhaps he intends that Philemon is a man of such high standing and moral character as a douloV Cristou, or slave of Christ, that he clearly demonstrates this himself in his own character.[18] He continues that Onesimus should not be addressed now merely as a slave, but as a brother, both as a fellow human being and in the Lord.[19] One must be careful, though, not to mistakenly address New Testament slavery, as an institution of humane treatment, for it was not.

David Garland warns about romanticizing the imagery of human slavery of that period, and the danger that the modern reader will concoct in his mind an erroneous idea about slavery compared to the New Testament world in which Onesimus lived. Our modern eyes see the institution of slavery as cotton fields, plantation homes and brutal human treatment and oppression – slavery as was present in the United States in the 18^th & 19^th centuries. Garland mentions that we should not view the New Testament slavery customs in this light.[20] Although not the type of slave trading that the modern reader would conjure up in his mind, the old world’s slavery system was still oppressive and bound individuals without total regard for each one’s personal human rights. And in some cases, the slaves were treated so harshly, and regarded as property so much that an owner might kill the slave brutally… because he could. And, while slavery in the New World conjures a particular image that leads to its own set of stereotypes and prejudices, slavery in the Ancient world was almost never about racial differences. There were many stereotypes and prejudices toward slaves, not the least of them were that slaves were often “lazy, negligent, willful, cowardly, and criminal”[21]

A master, if particularly displeased with a slave might even “reward” the slave manumission or complete freedom so that he became his own heir. The problem with his reward and newfound “freedom” is that now he was liable for all his master’s debts.[22] Such might be the motivation for a slave to “flee” or runaway, and yet he may become another man’s slave because of his dept he now has acquired.

Paul’s attitude toward slavery generally would not have been against slavery. It is important to note, however, that were he to view the system as we do, undoubtedly he would address human rights issues and take a more modern view towards the administration of that slavery. But as far as Paul is concerned, abolishing slavery altogether might be as unrealistic in practicality as our modern view of “abolishing” abortion. Society allows certain things and the Christian is to act in certain character in response to or prevention of it. In fact, it is difficult to illustrate something we might view in this light, because sins such as abortion or homosexuality are clearly against God, yet God regulated slavery in the Law of Moses. It might even been said that slavery is as “un-ideal” in God’s sight as class-distinction, yet it is a matter of fact in a fallen world.

James Dunn points out several major points that are valuable to remember.[23] A few of his highlights are listed below: (1) Ancient world slavery was accepted as an integral part of society and its economics, (2) that treatment of slaves was certainly an ethical concern, however the ownership and slavery as a system was not revolting in that day, (3) modern democracy would not have been present to prevent slavery as a system. There would not have been a thought of abolishing slavery in that time.[24] It was far too engrained in society at large, and the average Roman would not have thought anything of it. Other information on the backgrounds of slavery in theological thought is that slavery in itself was not a hindrance to the man of Christian faith. It had nothing to say against the man’s environment, social status, income, or authority, but in fact encouraged a man to avoid anything that promoted “deadly conflict with the cultivation of Christian character.”[25]

Truly, the Christian faith was to be integrated into the character of each believer where he was in the social order. Onesimus was no doubt instructed by Paul to remain in his condition of slavery, “wherein he was called”, as he instructed the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 7. But it is important to note that Paul would not possibly have encouraged Onesimus to revolt against his status as a slave, now that he has become a Christian. William Barclay mentions that to do such a thing would have left itself “branded as revolutionary and conversionary,” which was indeed against the very teachings of Christ.[26]

Nothing could be further from the truth, than to assume this letter to Philemon was implying freedom for Onesimus. In the letter of a humble Apostle Paul - in shackles of prison – as opposed to his former proud and self-righteous Pharisaic character, Paul truly leaves the decision over Onesimus in the lap of his master. However, it is safe to assume that Paul may have implied freedom for Onesimus, but he would not have imposed it in the writing of the letter.

In any case, this is the background through which Onesimus and his flight from his master, Philemon, should be viewed and read. It is clear that in the book of Philemon, Onesimus is now a Christian. Paul says that he “could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, yet I appeal to you on the basis of love.” (vss. 8-9) Paul addresses his brother, Philemon, asking him to take Onesimus back and forgive him for his wrong. No mention is made as to what this violation might have been, and there has been much speculation and treatment of that topic by O’Brien and Barth & Blanke, & Lohse.[27] The historian, Petronius, documents that “if a slave had a particular propensity for running away, the regular way to deter him from doing so again was to brand him on the forehead so that everyone would immediately recognize him as a fugitive.”[28]

Although the New Testament does not reveal the outcome of the request of Paul to Philemon, it is the opinion of some that the mere evidence of its place in the New Testament canon is enough evidence to show Philemon honored Paul’s request. Ernest Knight, in a 1918 article stated, “Can we not argue this - our possession of the letter is proof of the favourable reception and treatment of Onesimus by Philemon?”[29]

What would compel Philemon to reinstate his servant Onesimus? Several reasons would naturally come to mind with the newness of the Christian way of thinking: “Christianity set up a new order of relations that did not recognize class-distinctions. Master and slave sat together at the Agape, received the sacred elements together, and joined together in public worship.”[30] Another explanation is that Onesimus is not at all the man he once was. As Paul himself states, “Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me” (vs. 11). The man who once had been a thief (perhaps) is no longer a thief, nor slacker, nor sluggard, but a man baptized by Paul and a new man to his master, Philemon.[31]

There is no way to know exactly how Philemon would respond to Paul’s request. We can however, discuss the possibilities for how Philemon would accept Paul’s letter, as a newborn believer himself. Philemon was a man who certainly was a man of social clout, and Paul addressed him respectfully. Paul even eludes to his Apostleship and his authority to command things, yet his acquiescence to Philemon’s jurisdiction as the master. Philemon could grant manumission to Onesimus out of his will, which would grant true citizenship and he would legally have the same status as his brother in the faith.[32] Although the outcome will never be known about Onesimus and his reunion with his master – whether pleasant or punitive - the customs of the days of the New Testament shed considerable light on the concept of slavery in general, and on Paul’s attitude towards slavery as an institution.

WORKS CITED

Barclay, William. The Letters to Timothy, Titus, and

Philemon, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975.

Bartchy, S. Scott. “Slavery (Greco-Roman),” The Anchor Bible

Dictionary 5, ed. David Noel Freedman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.

Barth, Markus & Helmut Blanke. The Letter to Philemon, Grand

Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000.

Bruce, F.F. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand

Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 1977.

Buckland, W. W. The Roman Law of Slavery: the Condition of

the Slave in Private Law from Augustus to Justinian, New York: AMS Press 1969.

Carson, D.A. Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An

Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992.

Clemens, J.S. “Slavery.” Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

vol. II, ed. by James Hastings. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973.

de Vos, Craig S. “Once a Slave, Always a Slave? Slavery,

manumission and Relational Patterns in Paul’s Letter to Philemon,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 82, June 2001.

Daube, David. “Onesimos.” Harvard Theological Review 79,

1986.

Dunn, James D.G. New International Greek Testament

Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 1996.

Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity, (Grand

Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3^rd Edition. 2003.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Anchor Bible, “The Letter to

Philemon,” New York: Doubleday, 2000.

Garland, David. Colossians/Philemon, NIV Application

Commentary, Nashville: Zondervan, 1998.

Gorday, Peter. “Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy,

Titus, Philemon.” Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture IX. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2000.

Kea, Perry V. “Paul’s Letter to Philemon; a Short Analysis

of its Values.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 23.2, Summer 1996.

Knight, Ernest F. “The Reception of Onesimus by Philemon.”

Expository Times, 1916.

Nordling, John G. “Onesimus Fugitivus: A Defense of the

Runaway Slave Hypothesis in Philemon,” in Journal for the Study of the New Testament 41.1, February 1991.

Nordling, John G. Philemon. Concordia Commentary (Concordia

Publishing House: St. Louis, MO. 2004.

O’Brien, Peter T. Colossians, Philemon, Word Biblical

Commentary 44 Waco, TX: Word, 1982.

Vogt, Joseph. Ancient Slavery and the Ideal of Man,

Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975.

Watson, Alan. Roman Slave Law. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins

Press, 1987.

Wiedemann, Thomas. Greek and Roman Slavery. The Johns

Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, 1981.

[1] James D.G. Dunn, New International Greek Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 299.

[2] D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 390.

[3] F.F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977), 401.

[4] Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary 44, (Waco, TX: Word, 1982), 270.

[5] There were 2 major significant differences in slavery in the New world and slavery in the Ancient world. First, unlike slavery in the Western hemisphere, slavery had almost nothing to do with race in the Ancient world. Second, almost no “higher forms” of slavery existed in the ancient society. It might also be added that in the Ancient world, there were clear legal requirements for slave owners and manumission and freeing of slaves. In America, no such laws existed (at large) until the abolition of slavery. John G. Nordling, Philemon, Concordia Commentary, (Concordia Publishing House: St. Louis, MO, 2004), 69-70.

[6] Ferguson addresses a great deal of the cultural context of slavery including the rights of slaves, the rights of their owners, and the ethical obligations of those who came in contact with slaves in public. For more details, consult Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3^rd Edition, 2003), 61.

[7] Perry V. Kea, “Paul’s Letter to Philemon; a Short Analysis of its Values,” in Perspectives in Religious Studies 23.2, Summer 1996, 224.

[8] Runaway slaves had numerous options at their disposal. Barth & Blanke address several in detail, such as (1) joining a robber gang (2) disappearing and merging among great harbor towns or large cities and (3) separating themselves by large distances from the master. There would undoubtedly be many more reasons that are not mentioned here, but would fall into those larger categories. Those who found and returned slaves to their owners were richly rewarded according to Roman law. While the risks of becoming a fugitive were great, the reward of freedom was in most cases worth the attempt to escape. Markus Barth & Helmut Blanke, The Letter to Philemon, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 26-31.

[9] O’Brien, 266.

[10] Dunn, 305.

[11] Chrysostom had many opinions on the nature of Paul’s address to Philemon as are mentioned by Peter Gorday, “Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon”, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture IX, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2000), 310.

[12] Barth & Blanke, 432-433.

[13] Joseph Fitzmyer’s research in this regard is exceptional. One example is in documenting and displaying the writings of Pliny to Sabinianus, in regards to his freedman who has displeased Sabinianus. Pliny to Sabinianus; “He cried much, begged constantly, even with much silence; in short, he has convinced me that he repents of what he did. I truly believe that he is reformed, because he recognized that he has been delinquent… I fear that, in joining my entreaties to his, I may seem rather to compel than to request (you to forgive him)…” For more detail, see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Anchor Bible, “The Letter to Philemon,” Doubleday: New York, 2000, 18-22.

[14] John G. Nordling, “Onesimus Fugitivus: A Defense of the Runaway Slave Hypothesis in Philemon,” in Journal for the Study of the New Testament 41.1, February 1991, 101-102.

[15] Slaves were being granted manumission (see note 17) so often by owners that Augustus Caesar put into effect laws to regulate the age and circumstances under which a person could receive manumission. Bartchy is the author of several great works on slavery in the ancient world. S. Scott Bartchy, “Slavery (Greco-Roman),” The Anchor Bible Dictionary 5, ed. David Noel Freedman; (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 70.

[16] Manumission was an act originating with the owner removing the man from the class of slavery by the authority of Roman law. There were 3 major methods of granting manumission (during the NT times, and 5 types during the reign of the Empire, later on), 1) Manumission by Census – which was almost entirely done away with by the time of the New Testament (or effectively done away with), 2) Manumission by Vindication – which often involved the laying of a hand, wand or other object on the slave to demonstrate along with words, that this slave has been censured, and is now being released, and 3) Manumission by Testament – which was the most common form of granting status as a “person” to the slave. Buckland’s work is deeply “legal” and details the Latin titles for each aspect of this discussion. W. W. Buckland, The Roman Law of Slavery: the Condition of the Slave in Private Law from Augustus to Justinian, (New York: AMS Press 1969), 437-438.

[17] Fitzmyer also makes valuable cultural observations relating to the practice of slavery in the New Testament period, and wisely observes the connection between Philemon as an individual and his place in that local Christian community. Fitzmyer, 39.

[18] While Vogt does not mention Philemon here, the principles he refer to are echoed by Paul’s theology and Paul’s own attitude as well. Joseph Vogt reminds the reader that “by divesting himself of his own nature, the Lord imposes on his disciples an obligation of selflessness, humility and gentleness, of tapeinoyrosunh and prauthV; these qualities were not recognized as virtues in the ancient world.” Joseph Vogt, Ancient Slavery and the Ideal of Man, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 152.

[19] Fitzmyer, 40.

[20] David Garland, Colossians/Philemon, NIV Application Commentary, (Nashville: Zondervan, 1998), 348-349.

[21] Craig de Vos explores the curses of manumission and freedmanship in his 2001 article. Manumission could be a great blessing or a curse, depending on the nature of the owner. Craig S. de Vos, “Once a Slave, Always a Slave? Slavery, manumission and Relational Patterns in Paul’s Letter to Philemon,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 82, (June 2001), 95.

[22] Nordling, 45-46.

[23] James D.G. Dunn, 306-307.

[24] Carson, Moo, and Morris, 390.

[25] J.S. Clemens, “Slavery,” Dictionary of the Apostolic Church vol. II, ed. by James Hastings, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973), 511.

[26] William Barclay, the Letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975), 271.

[27] The topic, “what was Onesimus’ sin?” is deeply discussed in these three great commentaries. Barth & Blanke delve into the cultural context a great deal, and expose a number of things that possibly could have been the cause of Onesimus’ flight from Philemon (Barth & Blanke, 480-482). O’Brien also mentions either thievery or the wrongful taking of funds for his lack of work performed (299-300). Lohse discusses the fact that Paul does not imply that he has taken anything or done wrong, but if he has, Paul will repay it (Lohse, 203-204).

[28] Wiedemann documents numerous quotations from historians and leaders regarding slavery and laws and practices of it, in his book. Thomas Wiedemann, Greek and Roman Slavery, the Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1981, 193.

[29] Knight continues that “If he had refused the Apostle’s request, would he have made known that request? If Philemon did as Paul wished, then he would have been willing for others to see the letter from the beloved Apostle.” Ernest F. Knight, “The Reception of Onesimus by Philemon”, Expository Times, 1916, 92.

[30] Clemens, 511.

[31] David Daube, “Onesimos,” (Harvard Theological Review 79, 1986), 40.

[32] As discussed in footnote 17, there were numerous methods of manumission that were options for the owner. Watson discusses in a very condensed form what some of these 3 forms were. Alan Watson, Roman Slave Law, (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1987), 25.