Introduction to Philemon

LIGHTFOOT VOICES THE OPINION of many who delight in this brief letter: “As an expression of simple dignity, of refined courtesy, of large sympathy, and of warm personal affection, the Epistle to Philemon stands unrivalled.”1 Knox lauds it as “one of the most charming letters ever written.”2 Guthrie says that it “breathes the great-hearted tenderness of the apostle,”3 and Jewett calls it “one of the most subtle letters in world history, an expression of Paul’s ambassadorial style.”4

As heartwarming as Philemon is, it does have its frustrations for the interpreter. It leaves us in the dark about several things we would like to know to understand more fully the circumstances behind this letter. Reading Philemon is like coming into the middle of a movie and having to catch up on who the characters are and what has already happened in the plot, and then having to leave before the end. Paul does not tell us where he is imprisoned, what the conditions are like, or, more to the point, how it happened that Onesimus came under his influence long enough for him to be converted. He also does not tell us why Onesimus fled his master, if indeed he did flee. Because of the letter’s ambiguity on this point, some have argued that Onesimus had been sent to Paul by his master on some errand and had only overstayed his leave. Paul also does not state precisely what he wants Onesimus’s master to do with him except to regard him now as a brother in Christ. A student of ancient papyrus letters observes that he knows of no parallel in the papyri that is as long as this one or “so oblique, so faltering, that one has difficulty in determining what it is, precisely, Paul requests.”5

From the letter we only know for sure that Onesimus had been converted by Paul during his confinement (v. 10), but there is no hint that Onesimus was a fellow prisoner. We also learn that Onesimus had been useful to Paul and served him (vv. 11, 13) and that before he had been “useless” to his owner (v. 11) and may have “done [him] … wrong” in some way (v. 18). Paul sends him back (v. 12) in hopes that Philemon will do a good thing (v. 14) and will receive him graciously as a brother in Christ (vv. 12, 17). But he also expresses the confidence that he will do even more than he asks (v. 21). When we interpret the letter, we have to fill in the gaps and make some assumptions about the situation. Two important questions need answers: What brought Onesimus to Paul? and, What was Paul requesting Philemon to do?

What Brought Onesimus to Paul?

A RUNAWAY SLAVE. The traditional view is that Onesimus was a runaway slave.6 As slaves were wont to do from time immemorial (see 1 Sam. 25:10), Onesimus fled from his master, Philemon, and somehow, voluntarily or accidentally, fell in with the apostle Paul, who was able to win him to the faith; he now sends Onesimus back to his master. Scholars in this century have challenged this traditional scenario. They call attention to the absence of any explicit mention in the letter that Onesimus had run away, of his subsequent penitence, or of the need for his master to forgive his slave’s offense. They also note that it would have been an astounding coincidence for a fugitive slave to meet Paul, the one person who knew his master, during his imprisonment.

For a slave to run away was a grave crime that the authorities treated seriously. As a Roman citizen, Paul would have been subjected to a looser form of confinement. A captured runaway slave would have been clapped in irons and kept under guard in a slave prison and would not have been allowed free contact with Paul.7 How then could he have been of much service to Paul (v. 13)?

If Onesimus were not a prisoner and had freedom of movement, he could have done much for Paul. But how and why would he have had contact with the imprisoned Paul? Lightfoot strains his imagination trying to explain what could have drawn Onesimus to Paul’s side:

Given what we know of human nature, these guesses are possible; but Caird argues that we should not “attempt to conjecture by what chance Onesimus in Rome fell in with Paul.”9 The problem is not so easily dismissed, and it has led others to offer quite different sketches of the situation. Something other than happenstance brought Onesimus to Paul.

A commissioned servant. Winter argues that Onesimus had not run away. He was with Paul in prison because he was sent there by his owner (probably Archippus) on behalf of the church in Colosse.10 He had been commissioned to bring Paul practical and financial assistance. Winter’s suggestive thesis, however, fails to stand careful scrutiny. If Onesimus was not a Christian before he met Paul and was regarded as “useless” (v. 11), he would have been an unlikely candidate for the church to entrust with such a responsibility. Why let an undependable slave run loose across the countryside? Why charge a non-Christian with such an important spiritual mission? Was he the only one who could be spared?

True, the owner might have sent Paul a generally worthless slave as a cost-effective but miserly way, to help Paul or, more positively, in hope that contact with Paul might help to straighten him out. But both options seem most improbable. What rules against this view is Paul’s discreet mention of his willingness to reimburse the owner for any wrong that Onesimus may have done (vv. 18–19) and his diplomatic description of Onesimus’s separation from his master: “He was separated from you for a little while” (v. 15). If Onesimus had been sent by the church, Paul could simply say that he had been sent and describe him in the same glowing terms as he used for the Philippians’ Epaphroditus, “whom you sent to take care of my needs” (Phil. 2:25).

In the letter to Philemon, it sounds as if Paul is gingerly searching in verses 15–16 for some euphemism to describe a getaway rather than a commissioning. He only mentions it to hint that there may have been some divine reason behind Onesimus’s departure, “that you might have him back for good—no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother.” If Paul could find such a reason, it would help to absolve his guilt in keeping Onesimus so long.

Paul’s hesitation in expressing his wish in verse 13, “I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel,” is also inexplicable if the church had sent Onesimus to serve him. If Paul wants to keep him longer, why does he need to send Onesimus on a perilous journey home to obtain permission to keep his services only to have him turn around and head back if it is granted? Why not send Tychicus with a letter to make the request and keep his services a while longer while he waits for the reply? What is more important, why does Paul worry how Onesimus will be received (v. 17)? Paul does not seem anxious that his owner will allow Onesimus to continue to serve him but that he may not embrace his slave as a brother in Christ.11

The case is based on an argument from silence that fails to consider rhetorical reasons why Paul does not explicitly mention Onesimus’s wrongdoing. He employs extreme tact in this letter. Barclay observes: “Indeed, the extraordinarily tactful approach that Paul adopts throughout this letter is a clear indication that he recognises that he is dealing with a delicate situation in which Philemon could well react awkwardly.”12 Yet Paul does allude to past problems that presumably were a major obstacle to any future reconciliation. Onesimus has done something wrong to raise the ire of his master, and Paul must intercede.13

A prodigal brother. The letter’s ambiguity and our heightened sensitivity in this age to Paul’s tacit endorsement of slavery has prompted Callahan to propose another radically different story behind the letter.14 His arguments raise a contemporary issue we must address. Why is it that Paul does not apply the gospel in the case before him to attack the inherent injustice of slavery? Paul not only does not condemn slavery for Christians but speaks glowingly of a member of the slave-holding class and treats Onesimus’s flight as an injury to his master that requires restitution (v. 19).

Callahan notes how problematic this picture was for those African Americans who endured the tyranny and humiliation of slavery and how it remains a sensitive issue for their heirs today. He cites an example from the diary of Charles Colcock Jones, a white Presbyterian minister who preached on Philemon to slaves in Georgia and was startled by their bitter reaction to his sermon:

Callahan solves this moral dilemma by arguing that Onesimus was not a slave but Philemon’s estranged younger brother, who ran to Paul to have him intercede in a family dispute. He points out that nowhere in the letter does Paul identify Philemon (or Archippus) as a master.16 He argues that Paul’s plea to welcome Onesimus “no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother” (v. 16) does not refer to Onesimus’s actual status as a slave. Instead, it refers to his virtual status in Philemon’s eyes.17 “Slave” was an appropriate metaphor for one who was socially dead, who had “no formal, enforceable ties of blood.”18 Paul simply wants to effect domestic reconciliation, which explains the rich familial vocabulary in the letter. Callahan contends, “If Philemon is hospitable toward his brethren in the Lord, how much more incumbent upon him it is to be so toward one who is a member of his own family as well as the household of faith.” He should be able to forgive the foibles of his brother in the flesh. Paul’s plea in verse 16 is not that he accept Onesimus back as a brother, but as a beloved brother.

This carefully argued thesis helpfully raises issues that must be addressed and shows how the issue of forgiveness lies at the heart of the letter, even though it is unstated. Nevertheless, it is a case of special pleading to avoid the unpleasant fact that Paul regarded running away as more wrong than slavery. Paul does not specifically identify Philemon as Onesimus’s master because he does not want to reinforce the master/slave relationship when he asks him to accept Onesimus as his brother in the Lord. We should therefore read verse 16 literally to mean that Onesimus was a slave.19

A slave seeking Paul’s intercession. A fourth option offers a cogent explanation for how Onesimus joined up with Paul and why the latter said nothing of his running away. Onesimus had deliberately sought Paul out, looking for a sympathetic, influential friend of his master to intercede on his behalf. Because of the slave’s low estate, it would have been considered impudent for him to plead clemency for himself. Veyne points out that pardon was a free act:

Roman law, recorded in The Digest of Justinian 21.1.17.1–16, consistently argued over the years that the slave’s attitude of mind decided whether he was a fugitive or not.21 A slave who had no intention of running away but absented himself to ask a friend of his master to intervene was not regarded as a fugitive.22 Onesimus, according to this theory, had provoked Philemon in some way and was due punishment. He hurried to the apostle, his master’s spiritual patron, to entreat him to intercede with his Christian master and assuage his wrath. This story behind the letter may explain why Paul thinks his intercession has such a good chance for success.

In other words, the apostle does not make the case for a fugitive slave but for a slave in hot water, who was seeking Paul’s mediation with the master. Verses 10–13 imply that Onesimus has been with Paul long enough for Paul to convert him and to become tenderly devoted to his welfare. Harboring a runaway slave was a serious offense.23 Paul would not have won Philemon’s favor if he had been sheltering his runaway slave during this time.

If Onesimus were not making a daring bid for freedom, what prompted his flight is impossible to know. One can guess that he may have been involved in a business deal for his master that somehow went wrong (see Luke 16:1–8). Or, he may have done something that caused Philemon to renege on an agreement to manumit Onesimus—a reward for loyal service—and he wanted Paul to mediate. We have no evidence.

Conclusion. The best options for explaining the situation behind the letter are the first and the last. Either Onesimus tried to escape the bonds of slavery and by some quirk ended up with Paul, or he deliberately set out to find Paul in hopes that this influential friend would assuage his master’s anger with him.24 It is hard to decide between the two. Slaves frequently ran away but usually because they had been mistreated in some way, had done something to make their masters angry, were about to be sold,25 or had no prospects of manumission.

We can assume that mistreatment could have occurred even in a Christian household, just as sexual molestation and violence can occur in Christian families today. But Paul’s praise for Philemon’s love and compassion (vv. 4–6) and his confidence that he will accede to his request (v. 21) leave the impression that Philemon was not some cruel tyrant who would drive a slave to the desperate act of stealing away.

On the other hand, if one argues that Paul’s place of imprisonment is Rome, it seems unlikely that a slave would travel 1,300 miles from Colosse to seek a mediator to smooth over some dispute with his master. If this was what led Onesimus to Paul, then Ephesus, one hundred miles distant, is far more likely as the place of Paul’s imprisonment.

In my estimation, it seems more probable that Onesimus was a runaway slave who providentially came under Paul’s influence. This means that Paul writes on behalf of a runaway slave—something unheard of in the ancient world.26 This extraordinary situation required the greatest delicacy and best explains why Paul’s appeal differs so much from Pliny’s more forthright intercession for a friend’s freedman who had offended his patron.27

Paul uses euphemisms in his appeal and is careful not to overstep any legal bounds (“without your consent,” v. 14).28 His letter is presumably the first word that Philemon has heard about Onesimus since his departure. Understandably, he would want to avoid mentioning the unmentionable—Onesimus’s desertion—which brought shame and also economic loss to his master.29 He uses a pun to describe Onesimus (a name that means “useful”) as being formerly “useless” (v. 11). Instead of plainly saying that Onesimus ran away, Paul describes his absence with a passive voice, suggesting that God’s hand was involved: “He was separated from you for a little while” (v. 15). He broaches the subject of Onesimus’s past misdeeds with a conditional sentence, “If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything” (v. 18). Paul does not explicitly ask Philemon to forgive his slave, but the general tone of the letter assumes that he should adopt a forgiving attitude.

Dunn suggests that Paul’s tentative and restrained appeal may be attributable to the necessity of getting the letter past the prison censor. Paul did not want to arouse suspicion among unfriendly officials that he was sympathetic to fugitive slaves or condoned such behavior, and so he avoids any reference to his crime by using “Christian code language.”30

Wilson, however, offers a more likely explanation for the letter’s indirectness.31 Americans culturally are more accustomed to coming directly to the point and not beating around the bush. We might think that if Paul wants his friend to do something, he should ask him outright. After all, he is an apostle. But social mores required him to use politeness strategies to lessen the perceived cost of Philemon’s forgiveness of Onesimus.32 This conciliatory approach required him to maneuver delicately around Philemon’s feelings of anger and betrayal, to establish a level of mutual comfort that will not cause Philemon to lose face publicly, and to promote rapport.33 Granted, Paul’s request to forgive Onesimus may “be regarded as pious by either Christian or Stoic principles,” but it would have been costly to Philemon because “it may also be construed as weakness both by society and by the other slaves who may perceive the risk in running away to be diminished.”34

Using the framework of Geoffrey Leech’s interpersonal rhetoric and politeness theory, Wilson maintains that the way Paul expresses his thoughts and makes his request is heavily motivated by the following politeness strategies:

Paul employs these strategies to pour balm on resentment and to dissolve resistance. He recognizes that one does not go about passing judgments on another’s slave; “to his own master he stands or falls” (Rom. 14:4). Most parents today would resent someone else, including a close friend, offering unsolicited advice on the discipline of their children. In the first century, everyone accepted as inalienable the right of masters to do as they pleased with their property, their slaves.35 They would naturally bristle if anyone else tried to meddle in that relationship. Paul’s politeness strategy eases the tension and diminishes the cost of yielding to his wishes. There is no disgrace in giving way to a friend who serves God at such cost to himself.

Paul is not simply using clever tactics to defuse a volatile situation and to get Philemon to see things his way. His purpose is swaddled in a basic theological conviction about what it means for us to be in Christ. The key phrase in Philemon is “in Christ” (vv. 8, 20, 23); “in the Lord” appears in verses 16 and 20, and “unto Christ” (“in Christ,” NIV) appears in verse 6. This letter shows how Paul applies this abstract, mystical concept concretely to the real world of personal relationships.36 The caste and honor system that regulated social relations was inimical to Christian ethics. If Philemon yields to Paul’s request and does more than he asks, it shows how the truth of the gospel breaks down social barriers and dethrones cultural indoctrination.

What Did Paul Want Philemon to Do?

THE NEXT QUESTION is, What does Paul want Philemon to do? Rather than throwing his apostolic weight around to bend Philemon’s will to his own, Paul makes his appeal based on his new relationship with Onesimus, his old relationship with Philemon, and the potentially redefined relationship between Philemon and Onesimus. Philemon is free to do what his conscience dictates, but it is informed by the gospel and his relationship to Paul.

In making his case, Paul first stresses his deep affection for Onesimus. He is his child (v. 10), his heart (v. 12), and his beloved brother (v. 16). Onesimus has served him during a difficult time when he has been encumbered by chains (v. 11). Next, he appeals to his intimate relationship to Philemon. He too is a beloved brother as Onesimus is, but more. Paul describes him as a coworker (v. 1), a partner (v. 17), and one who owes Paul his very life (v. 19). Finally, he mentions the redefined relationship between master and slave created by Onesimus’s conversion. As his brother in Christ and equal before God, Onesimus now has eternal worth to Philemon (v. 15).

The only specific request Paul has is that Philemon welcome Onesimus as if he were Paul (v. 17). Paul wants Philemon to accept his formerly troublesome slave as he would his dear friend, who is now in chains for the gospel; the apostle only hints that Philemon should extend the same forgiving love to Onesimus that he had already received from God (see Col. 3:13). Their reconciliation is so important that it overrides Paul’s wish to keep the now invaluable Onesimus to help him. Paul appeals to the obligation that friends must reciprocate favors, framing it as a business deal: You owe me, but I will repay whatever is owed you (vv. 18–19). He knows, however, that as a Christian, Philemon’s favorable response will spring from his being in Christ and his knowing the fellowship of the Spirit (Phil. 2:1–2).

Does Paul only want Philemon to allow Onesimus to return to his household without punishment? Since Paul never explicitly mentions that Onesimus ran away or was filled with contrition and since he makes no pleas for indulgence and mercy on Philemon’s part, John Knox concludes that Paul does not simply want Onesimus’s reinstatement. Instead, Knox claims, Paul makes a roundabout request for the owner to give him Onesimus so that he can continue to assist him while in prison. He does not ask on behalf of Onesimus but for him (v. 10).37

In Knox’s reconstruction of the story, Archippus is the actual owner of Onesimus and the letter’s principal addressee.38 Paul brings Philemon into the picture because he did not personally know Archippus. As Paul’s beloved coworker, Philemon had possibly become the overseer of the churches in the Lycus valley after the departure of Epaphras and, according to Knox, was stationed in Laodicea.

The weakest link in Knox’s argument is his conclusion that the letter to Laodicea, mentioned in Colossians 4:16, is the letter to Philemon. He envisions that the letter first came to Philemon in Laodicea, who was then expected to exert his influence on Archippus in Colosse. Since it is a quasi-legal letter, the church is also addressed to increase the pressure on Archippus to consent to the request. Paul’s letter to the Colossians was sent at the same time, and it was partially designed to elicit further support for Paul’s request. According to Knox, the command to tell Archippus to see to it that he completes the work he has received in the Lord (Col. 4:17) refers to the request in the letter to Philemon.

Few have accepted Knox’s reconstruction. Most interpreters assume that the first person listed in the greeting, not the last, is the primary addressee. It is also unlikely that Paul would identify a semiprivate letter directed to Philemon in Laodicea as the letter to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16). His use of the second person singular throughout the letter, particularly in the thanksgiving (Philem. 4–7) and the climactic request (vv. 21–22a), indicates that he writes to a trusted friend who has the power to grant his extraordinary request.

But Knox does help us see that Philemon is a personal letter that the church is allowed to overhear.39 He also points us to a deeper purpose of this letter hidden between the lines. Paul’s cryptic statement in verse 21, “Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask,” invites us to ask what this “even more” is. Paul’s confidence suggests that he wants to accomplish more than reconcile a master and a slave who are out of sorts or to have a master embrace his prodigal slave as a brother in the Lord. Since Paul confesses how gladly he would have kept Onesimus by his side to serve him (v. 11), he allows Philemon to see how valuable Onesimus has become in the service of the gospel.

Possibly, Paul wants Onesimus to be allowed to return so he can continue to minister to his needs, as Knox argues.40 But Paul is never interested in how he might benefit materially (see Phil. 4:10–20) but how the gospel might benefit. This overarching concern for the mission cause of the gospel drives his request concerning Onesimus, and he never identifies the cause of the gospel with his personal needs.41 Paul wants Philemon to set Onesimus free for a greater service in the gospel whether he returns to Paul’s side to serve him or not. This is the “even more” (v. 21) and the “good thing” (v. 14; NIV “favor”) that Paul hopes for but does not dare ask.

Paul’s “heart” will be refreshed in Christ when Philemon receives his recalcitrant slave as a brother in the Lord (v. 20b). But he will receive a benefit in the Lord only if Philemon sets Onesimus free for the service of the gospel.42 Given the social manners and customs of Paul’s day and the deferential way Paul must approach the whole problem, this aim is above and beyond anything that could ever be voiced aloud. No other examples of intercession for a runaway slave exist, which shows how remarkable it was for Paul to intervene.

Barclay argues that Paul intentionally leaves things open-ended because the situation was so awkward. If Philemon felt obligated to set free a slave who had run away and returned as a Christian, what would that say to other slaves? Would they not be encouraged to try to get their freedom by following suit? What about those slaves who may already have become Christians and remained slaves? Should not the fundamental incongruity between being a brother in Christ and living as master and slave mean that they should all be given their freedom?43 Barclay, however, concludes, “Caught in this dilemma, Paul can do little more than offer a variety of different suggestions, none with the certainty of a clear instruction and all leaving unresolved the central tension in the present status of Onesimus as both slave and brother to Philemon.”44 The dilemma is real because of the unavoidable social constraints, and Paul does everything possible to ease the perceived cost involved in forgiving a runaway slave.

Reading between the lines, I get the impression that Paul would like Onesimus to be more than a dear brother (v. 16) and a useful slave to Philemon (v. 11). He wants Onesimus to join the ranks of his coworkers (vv. 1, 23–24). In Colossians, Paul makes it clear that he has authorized Onesimus along with Tychicus to make known to the readers all that has happened to Paul (Col. 4:7–9). In other words, Onesimus has the same responsibility as Tychicus, who is identified as a “dear brother, a faithful minister [diakonos] and fellow servant [syndoulos, lit., fellow slave] in the Lord.” Onesimus is identified only as a “faithful and dear brother,” but we learn from the letter to Philemon that he has served (diakoneo) Paul faithfully (v. 11). Paul also says that Onesimus is to be received as his ambassador (“as … me,” v. 17). For Onesimus to become one of Paul’s coworkers he needs complete emancipation, not simply his manumission to serve Philemon as his freedman.45 It was possible to be a slave and a Christian; it was impossible to be a slave and a Christian missionary, who must speak boldly and move freely.46

Such a goal mitigates some of the social problems mentioned by Barclay that freeing Onesimus would create. But Paul cannot make such an unparalleled request except in coded language. The letter to Philemon reveals Paul’s tender, humanitarian concern for a brother in Christ and the premium he places on Christians’ reconciling with one another. It also reveals how his desire to spread the gospel to the world (see Col. 4:3–4) dominates his thinking, even in a semiprivate letter about a reformed and reclaimed slave.

What Happened Next?

WE CAN ONLY guess what happened next, but since this letter was included in our canon, we can assume that Philemon complied with Paul’s wishes. Had Philemon not acceded to Paul’s request, the letter probably would have been suppressed.

We would like to know more, however. Developing a theory first set forth by Goodspeed, Knox proposed the captivating hypothesis that the freed Onesimus eventually became the bishop of Ephesus mentioned by Ignatius in his letter to the Ephesians (1:3; 2:1; 6:1–2).47 Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch and had been arrested by the Romans, who hauled him off to Rome to be thrown to the wild beasts in the arena. The date is traditionally assigned as A.D. 110. On the way, his escorts allowed him to meet with other Christians. Christian emissaries from Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles gathered in Smyrna to meet with Ignatius, and he sent them back with letters to their respective churches. If Onesimus were twenty years old when Philemon was written, he could have been seventy at this time.

To make his case, Knox spots many verbal parallels between Ignatius’s letter to the Ephesians and Paul’s letter to Philemon. He concludes that Ignatius knew the letter to Philemon and deliberately made allusions to it, although he never cites it verbatim. Knox infers that the former runaway slave had become bishop of one of the leading churches in Asia. Onesimus may have participated in the collection of Paul’s letters, and he included with them this small pearl, his treasured charter of liberty.48

We are naturally curious to know the rest of the story and want to believe that Paul’s intercession was not only wise and justified but turned out with glorious results. The touching story about a wayward slave begotten in chains, becoming a beloved leader in the church, and collecting and publishing the letters of Paul almost makes us wish it were true even if it is not. But we should guard against allowing an interesting theory from becoming a pious romance that persuades only because it brings tears to the eyes. Onesimus was a common name, particularly in Ephesus, and just because the bishop bears the same name as this slave does not necessarily indicate that the two are the same person.49 Martens has shown that the linguistic ties between the letter to Philemon and Ignatius’s letter to the Ephesians, which is the linchpin of Knox’s theory, fail on careful scrutiny. Ignatius never quotes directly from the letter, and the verbal links are purely happenstance since they reappear throughout the Ignatian corpus.50

What happened next, like so many things we would like to know in the New Testament, is lost in the mists of history. This brief appeal reveals something far more important: The power of the gospel transforms lives and relationships.

Provenance

THE QUESTION OF where Paul was confined when he sent this letter (Rome, Ephesus, or Caesarea) turns on two issues in Philemon: How far could Onesimus have ranged from his master’s home in Colosse, and Paul’s request for Philemon to prepare a guest room for him.51

Those who argue for Ephesus point out that it is only one hundred miles from Colosse and much easier for Onesimus to reach than Rome, thirteen hundred miles away, a costlier and riskier journey. It makes much more sense as a closer destination, particularly if Onesimus fled to Paul to beg him to intercede with his master. Paul also would not have scuttled his plans for a mission venture to Spain to return eastward to the Lycus valley (Rom. 15:23–29) if this letter comes from an earlier Ephesian imprisonment.

On the other hand, if Onesimus is a fugitive slave, Rome would provide the best place to hide and lose one’s past since it was teeming with people from all over the empire. Slaves were not distinguished from freedmen by their race, dress, or occupation, and they could have easily blended into the crowd. Justinian’s Digest (1.14.3) records a runaway slave who not only eluded recognition but won election as a magistrate of Rome before he was found out. If one links Philemon with Paul’s letters to the Colossians and to the Ephesians, Rome becomes far more likely as the place of writing.

What Philemon Means for Us Today

WE CAN BEGIN to approach this letter’s contemporary significance by asking why such a short letter consisting of only 335 words was preserved in our canon. Scholars have guessed that Paul wrote many other personal notes; why was this particular one saved?52 It provides no dividend for the development of dogma since it contains no grand theological teaching. Jerome and others defended its inclusion in the canon against those who considered its theme to be beneath the dignity of an apostle, but their defense was rather lukewarm.53 Lightfoot explains:

Preiss contends that the letter therefore was kept because of one or all three of the following reasons: (1) Church leaders so venerated the apostle that they wanted to conserve everything from his hand; (2) they recognized it to be “an incomparable model of spiritual direction, of tact, of love”; (3) they “relished the quite new and luminous way in which Paul approaches and decides a delicate matter arising between a Christian master and slave.”55 These last two alternatives are particularly suggestive for the letter’s contemporary significance.

Paul’s letter to Philemon serves as a model of Christian compassion. In many ways, it parallels Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son, which captures the gospel in a nutshell. The letter speaks of failure, the need for intercession, returning, forgiveness, and restoration. When we read it side by side with the letter to the Colossians, we learn that getting relationships straight is just as important as getting doctrine straight. If we are genuine disciples of Christ, we will relate to our fellow believers with grace, forgiveness, and encouragement.

The atrocities committed by Hutus and Tutsis against one another in Rwanda and neighboring countries during the last decade of the twentieth century are horrific and difficult to fathom. A surprising statistic makes the holocaust even harder to understand: “Ninety percent of Rwanda’s people are professed Christians.” John D. Roth shares that an InterVarsity leader in the region explained that “missionaries preached a gospel about having a right relationship with God but not necessarily right relationships with one another. ‘This is why we can be 90 percent Christian yet kill in the name of ethnicity,’ he says.”56 Philemon helps us put things in proper perspective with its extraordinary emphasis on right relationships based on love and forgiveness. Some people believe that Christianity only needs to change what we believe. This letter makes it clear that it also needs to change how we treat other people.

This wonderful but much neglected missive can also give us a new appreciation for Paul, the human being. It casts Paul in quite a different light from a prevailing view that he is a cantankerous, heavy-handed guardian of the truth of the gospel, who is always on the warpath against theological offenders. Vincent comments:

In this letter Paul is, as Johnson puts it, “unexpectedly diplomatic, urbane, even witty,” using several elegant puns.58 The bitter sarcasm in the pun in Galatians 5:12 differs drastically from the gentle compassion expressed in the pun in Philemon 11. Dodd therefore claims: “Its chief interest is in the light it throws on Paul himself at a moment when he is neither the preacher, the controversialist, the theologian, nor the ecclesiastical authority, but simply a man writing to a friend in the interests of another friend.”59

The image of Paul as fond of wrangling, determined to blast his opponents off the theological map, a bull in an ecclesiastical china shop, is distorted. In this letter we have a better glimpse of the real Paul, and certainly a Paul more congenial to American sensibilities. He does not project himself as the all-wise and overbearing apostle that people think him to be. He makes no demands and bends over backwards to help others do the right thing, without offending them.

Jewett goes so far as to argue that our picture of Paul as an intellectual warrior derives from a European legacy that has projected its own eristic style (the love of wrangling) on to Paul. He calls it “The Eurocentric Paul—Painted in Blood.”60 This attitude interprets all of Paul’s letters as “expressions of theological combat,” marked by a “take no prisoners” style. But that picture, which overlays the intense Galatians’ dispute on nearly all of Paul’s letters, diminishes or ignores evidence where Paul clearly tries to find common ground, is tolerant of differing points of view, is gentle as a nurse (1 Thess. 2:7; see 1 Cor. 4:20; Gal. 4:19–20), and is considered by some to be far too meek (2 Cor. 10:1).61 We meet in the letter to Philemon a Paul who sees the best in a runaway slave and an irate master and who knows that the gospel takes root and spreads when individuals are joined in Christ.

Appendix

BECAUSE OF ITS parallels to Paul’s letter to Philemon, it has become customary for commentaries on Philemon to include Pliny the Younger’s appeal to Sabinianus for a freedman who had fled to him to request his intervention. Pliny enjoyed a prosperous legal and administrative career during the reigns of Domitian, Nerva, and Trajan. He is famous for his carefully articulated personal letters, revealing the customs, perspectives, and activities of the Roman upper class.62

The response to this entreaty was favorable, and Pliny writes back to express his satisfaction.63

Pliny’s appeal differs from Paul’s first of all in that he makes it on behalf of a freedman who has incurred his patron’s wrath and not a slave. There are other differences. He places an emphasis on the patron’s justifiable anger with his freedman. He stresses the freedman’s penitence and abject appeal for forgiveness. He tells how he sharply rebuked the man and threatened him with future punishment. The freedman was put in his proper place in the caste system. Finally, Pliny makes an appeal for mercy and forgiveness.

Paul makes an unheard-of appeal for a slave who, in my opinion, has run away—a far greater offense. But he says nothing of anger, penitence, or threats. He does not say that Onesimus has learned his lesson and now accepts his servile station in life and will be properly subservient. He insists instead that he be received as a brother in Christ and as an equal to Paul. Both Pliny and Paul make humanitarian appeals. Christian values and motives, however, govern only one of these appeals.