Name and Authorship

This letter, one of Paul’s undisputed writings, takes its name from its first-mentioned addressee, Philemon (v 1). Shortest of the Pauline letters (335 words in Greek), Philemon has been the subject of voluminous debate concerning its historical context and purpose.

Paul writes the letter from prison (vv 1,9–10,13,23), but he does not mention the location of his imprisonment. Possibilities include Rome (see Acts 28.16) and Caesarea Maritima (Acts 23.23,33). Today many favor Ephesus, given Paul’s lengthy stay and missionary activities there as well as the city’s relative proximity to Colossae, the likely location of the letter’s addressees. Colossae or its environs is suggested by the mention of Archippus (v 2), Onesimus (v 10), and the co-workers who send greetings (vv 23–24) in the later Letter to the Colossians (see Col 4.9–10,12,14,17). If written from Rome, the date of Philemon is ca. 61–63 ce; if from Ephesus, a date in the mid-50s is likely. Philemon has traditionally been grouped with two other letters, Philippians (a genuine Pauline letter) and Colossians (a letter attributed to Paul but probably not by him) into a group known as the “captivity epistles,” because they all claim to have been written from prison.

Structure and Contents

The broad structure of the letter is consistent with Pauline epistolary style, which follows that of other Greek letters. It begins with an introduction (vv 1–3), including senders, recipients, and an opening greeting. Then follow words of thanksgiving (vv 4–7) in which Paul expresses his gratitude to Philemon for his faith and his support of a community of early believers. The body of the letter (vv 8–22) appeals to Philemon concerning Onesimus. The section closes with an instruction to prepare for a visit from Paul. The letter concludes (vv 23–25) with final greetings and a benediction.

Interpretation

The letter was written after a man named Onesimus encountered Paul in prison. Paul converted him and is now sending him back to Philemon. Since the late fourth century, most commentators have interpreted v 16a, “no longer as a slave,” as indicating that Onesimus was Philemon’s escaped slave, but this conclusion is not certain. Were Onesimus a slave, it is possible that he had sought Paul, as his master’s friend, to act as a mediator between the two. It is also possible that Philemon had sent Onesimus to Paul to serve him while in prison, similar to the Philippian church’s sending Epaphroditus to Paul (Phil 2.25–30). Were Onesimus an escaped slave, flight to a prison would be unexpected at best. If Onesimus is not a slave, he may instead be Philemon’s actual brother, and Paul displays in the letter his concern that the brothers be reconciled.

Because the circumstances of Onesimus’s status cannot be precisely determined, neither can we determine Paul’s intent in writing. Is he seeking Onesimus’s continued service for himself (vv 13–14)? In seeking to ensure that Philemon receive his returned slave with welcome and forgiveness (vv 17–18), and perhaps “even more” (v 21), is he suggesting Philemon manumit Onesimus (release him from servitude), since he is now a “beloved brother” to both Paul and Philemon in the church (vv 16,21)? Or, is Onesimus not a slave but an estranged biological brother, on whose behalf Paul advocates?

Although the letter appeals directly to an individual, it is also a kind of public correspondence whose recipients include “the church in your house” (v 2). Its private and communal character is singular among Paul’s writings; it may have functioned not only to apply pressure to Philemon in the context of a specific situation involving him and Onesimus but also to impart to the entire community Paul’s conviction that all members of the church should be treated by one another with forgiveness and love.

What is known of Onesimus, except for a reference in Col 4.9, comes from the later letter of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, to the church at Ephesus, written probably in the year 107, when Ignatius, under arrest, was on his way to Rome to martyrdom. He refers (ch 1) to the bishop of the church at Ephesus, Onesimus, and tradition has held that this is the same Onesimus as in Philemon.

In the antebellum United States, both pro-slavery advocates and abolitionists appropriated Paul’s Letter to Philemon to support their views of slavery. Some of the former argued that Paul had indeed returned the slave Onesimus to Philemon, and that Philemon himself was both a Christian and a slaveholder. Conversely, some abolitionists argued that Paul, as a Jew, could not possibly have returned a fugitive slave to his owner. They cited Deut 23.15 with its injunction that “slaves who have escaped to you from their owners shall not be given back to them,” as well as other texts from the Tanakh (see “Slavery in the Roman Empire,” p. 457) which set limits on the duration of enslavement.

Roman law and practice, even if not directly pertinent to the situation described in Philemon, is valuable in contextualizing the letter. Throughout the centuries of the Roman Empire, many texts from a variety of locations evince great concern on the part of government as well as individual slaveholders that fugitive slaves be returned to their owners. Legislation also provided stipulations for the manumission of slaves. Thus both Paul’s return of Onesimus to Philemon and the possibility of Onesimus’s manumission would have been consistent with Roman practice.

Paul writes of slaves and slavery, both literally and metaphorically, in a number of his letters. For example, he signifies his obedience and submission to Christ in describing himself at the opening of Romans and Philippians as a slave of Christ (Rom 1.1; Phil 1.1). This is reminiscent of passages in the Tanakh wherein free Israelites are identified as “slaves” of God (see esp. Lev 25.55). Elsewhere, in attempting to prevent his Gentile congregants from following the commandments that distinguish Jews from Gentiles, Paul likens life under the law to slavery (Gal 4.8–11; 4.21–5.1). Although Paul does not seek the manumission of slaves, he envisions them as equal in their status as believers within the church (see 1 Cor 7.21–24; Gal 3.28).

In post-Pauline writings, the legitimacy of slavery as an institution is reinforced. The household codes (“Haustafeln”) of Colossians and Ephesians are rooted in the Graeco-Roman ideal of the household and its role as the foundation of the larger community. Lacking the ambiguity of Paul’s undisputed writings in their treatment of slavery (as well as marriage [see “Gender,” p. 611]), they are deeply hierarchical, demanding the obedience of wives to husbands and children to parents, as well as slaves to masters (Eph 6.1–9; Col 3.18–4.1). Similarly, 1 Timothy and Titus require that slaves serve their masters (1 Tim 6.1–2; Titus 2.9–10). Like Colossians and Ephesians, 1 Timothy and Titus, while attributed to Paul, are considered by most modern scholars to be non-Pauline in authorship and post-Pauline in date.

Many readers, past and present, have turned to Philemon to understand Paul’s view of slavery. However, the puzzling nature of the letter and its focus on a specific situation concerning Onesimus and Philemon are such that it does not yield any clear conclusions.