Welcome back to my study/review of The Epistle to Philemon. If you missed the previous parts of this study, you can find them HERE.
Philemon 8-16
8 Accordingly, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do what is required, 9 yet for love’s sake I prefer to appeal to you—I, Paul, an old man and now a prisoner also for Christ Jesus— 10 I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I became in my imprisonment. 11 (Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed useful to you and to me.) 12 I am sending him back to you, sending my very heart. 13 I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel, 14 but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own accord. 15 For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, 16 no longer as a bondservant but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother—especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.
Paul asks Philemon to pardon Onesimus, his former bondservant. It is not stated explicitly why Onesimus has been with Paul, but it is implied that Onesimus ran away from Philemon. We can assume, based on the fact that this Letter is in the New Testament, that Philemon did as Paul asked. Can we assume from these verses that Paul (and through him Christianity) approves of slavery? I do not believe so, for reasons that will be discussed below. But let’s look at the commentaries, starting with The Pulpit Commentaries:
Render: Although I have abundant freedom [boldness, or. even license] in Christ to enjoin upon thee that which is fitting. It was only in Christ, and by his authority as an apostle, that he could claim to come between a slave and his master. Secular warrant for doing so he had none. Such authority and license, however, he would not use on this occasion. He prefers to rely wholly on the respect and personal attachment felt towards him by Philemon, for the granting of his request, which he now proceeds to state.
Paul reminds Philemon that he does have Church authority to require him to release Onesimus (though as the note states he lacks secular authority), but he does not wish to use that authority in this instance. Continuing:
Being such a one as Paul the aged; a veteran. Theodoret comments thus: “For he who hears Paul, hears the preacher of the whole world, the traverser of land and sea, the chosen vessel, and other things besides he is …. He adds also ‘the aged,’ showing the gray hairs which have grown during his labors.” “Non aetatem, sed offieium” (Calvin). Presbutēs may mean “an ambassador”—”the ambassador of Christ Jesus, and now also his prisoner,” as in Ephesians 6:20 (and see Ephesians 3:1 and Ephesians 4:1 of the same Epistle. A prisoner of Jesus Christ; i.e. for his cause. The apostle was in custody at Rome, owing to a long suspension of his trial, for causes not known to us. “Have regard for Paul; have regard for my bonds, which I wear as a preacher of the truth” (Theodoret). “Great reverence is due to these who endure sufferings for the most honorable causes” (Grotius).
Paul makes an appeal of love. It’s notable that in addition to reminding Philemon of his agedness, Paul also likens his own situation to that of Onesimus, by describing himself as a prisoner.
prisoner = δέσμιος désmios, des’-mee-os; from G1199; a captive (as bound):—in bonds, prisoner.
After finishing the preamble, he makes the request directly. From Ellicott’s Bible Commentary:
(10) My son.—Properly, my own child, whom I have begotten in my bonds, Onesimus. The name is withheld, till Philemon’s interest is doubly engaged, for one who is the Apostle’s “own child” (a name of endearment given elsewhere only to Timothy and Titus), and for one who was begotten under the hardships and hindrances of imprisonment. At last the name is given, and even then comes, in the same breath, the declaration of the change in him from past uselessness to present usefulness, both to the Apostle and to his former master.
Onesimus.—Of Onesimus we know absolutely nothing, except what we read here and in Colossians 4:9. Tradition, of course, is busy with his name, and makes him Bishop of Berœa, in Macedonia, or identifies him with the Onesimus, Bishop of Ephesus, mentioned in the Ignatian Epistle to the Ephesians (Ephesians 1:2-6). The name was a common one, especially among slaves.
For a longer sidetrack about the identity of Onesimus, we will now consult wiki:
Onesimus (Greek: Ὀνήσιμος, translit. Onēsimos, meaning “useful”; died c. 68 AD, according to Catholic tradition), also called Onesimus of Byzantium and The Holy Apostle Onesimus in the Eastern Orthodox Church, was a slave to Philemon of Colossae, a man of Christian faith. He may also be the same Onesimus named by Ignatius of Antioch (died c. 107) as bishop in Ephesus which would put Onesimus’s death closer to 95. If so, Onesimus went from slave to brother to bishop.
In tradition
Though this is questioned by authorities such as Joseph Fitzmyer, it may be the case that this Onesimus was the same one consecrated a bishop by the Apostles, and who accepted the episcopal throne in Ephesus following Timothy. Whether in the reign of Roman emperor Domitian or the persecution of Trajan, Onesimus was imprisoned in Rome. He may have been martyred by stoning (some sources claim he was beheaded). However, since the reign of Domitian was from 81 AD to 96 AD, and that of Trajan lasted to 117, Onesimus’ death would have to fall within these years and not in 68, as above.
Veneration
Onesimus is regarded as a saint by many Christian denominations. The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod commemorates him and Philemon on February 15.
Eastern Churches remember Onesimus on 15 February. The traditional Western commemoration of Onesimus is on 16 February. But in the 2004 edition of the Roman Martyrology, Onesimus is listed under 15 February. There, he is described as “[a] runaway slave, whom the apostle Paul received to the faith of Christ while in prison, regarding him as a son of whom he had become father, as he himself wrote to Philemon, Onesimus’s master”.
Continuing to verse 11 in Ellicott:
(11) In time past . . . unprofitable, but now profitable.—The name Onesimus means “useful,” or “profitable,” though derived from a different root from the words here used. It is hardly possible not to see in this passage a play on words, though (curiously enough) this is not noticed by the old Greek commentators. St. Paul seems to say, “He belied his name in days past; he will more than deserve it now.”
To thee and to me.—St. Paul says “to thee,” for he was sending back Onesimus. He adds “to me,” in affectionate notice of his kindly ministrations already rendered to his spiritual father.
We notice a couple of things so far:
- Paul does not condemn the institution of slavery.
- He does encourage one brother in Christ to recognize his former slave as a brother. In that way, Paul encourages reconciliation between slaver and enslaved, through love.
We might ask why Paul does not condemn slavery as an institution. We are not told, though there are some speculative guesses we can entertain. First, slavery was useful to the growth of the early Church throughout the Roman Empire. Many in the early Church were slaves. As slaves, they were able to travel the Empire spreading the Gospel. Second, condemning slavery would have been politically provocative, and as such, it could have hindered the sharing the Gospel by creating more overt effort from the Romans to hinder it. Sharing the Gospel was more important than present circumstances. Third, as slavery was an institution as old as human civilization so it simply may not have occurred to Paul that he should condemn slavery.
For an article on slavery in the Early Church, I will direct you HERE, with an excerpt provided below:
The first missionaries of the Gospel, men of Jewish origin, came from a country where slavery existed. But it existed in Judea under a form very different from the Roman form. The Mosaic Law was merciful to the slave (Exodus 21; Leviticus 25;Deuteronomy 15:21) and carefully secured his fair wage to the labourer (Deuteronomy 24:15). In Jewish society the slave was not an object of contempt, because labour was not despised as it was elsewhere. No man thought it beneath him to ply a manual trade. These ideas and habits of life the Apostles brought into the new society which so rapidly grew up as the effect of their preaching. As this society included, from the first, faithful of all conditions — rich and poor, slaves and freemen — the Apostles were obliged to utter their beliefs as to the social inequalities which so profoundly divided the Roman world. “For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:27-28; cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13). From this principle St. Paul draws no political conclusions. It was not his wish, as it was not in his power, to realize Christian equality either by force or by revolt. Such revolutions are not effected of a sudden. Christianity accepts society as it is, influencing it for its transformation through, and only through, individual souls. What it demands in the first place from masters and from slaves is, to live as brethren — commanding with equity, without threatening, remembering that God is the master of all – obeying with fear, but without servile flattery, in simplicity of heart, as they would obey Christ(cf. Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:22-4; 4:1).
[…]
Absolute religiousequality, as proclaimed by Christianity, was therefore a novelty. The Church made no account of the social condition of thefaithful. Bond and free received the same sacraments. Clerics of servile origin were numerous (St. Jerome, Ep. lxxxii). The very Chair of St. Peter was occupied by men who had been slaves — Pius in the second century, Callistus in the third. So complete — one might almost say, so levelling — was this Christian equality that St. Paul (1 Timothy 6:2), and, later, St. Ignatius (Polyc., iv), are obliged to admonish the slave and the handmaid not to contemn their masters, “believers like them and sharing in the same benefits”. In giving them a place in religious society, the Church restored to slaves the family andmarriage. In Roman law, neither legitimate marriage, nor regular paternity, nor even impediment to the most unnatural unions had existed for the slave (Digest, XXXVIII, viii, i, (sect) 2; X, 10, (sect) 5). That slaves often endeavoured to override this abominable position is touchingly proved by innumerable mortuary inscriptions; but the name of uxor, which the slave woman takes in these inscriptions, is very precarious, for no law protects her honour, and with her there is noadultery (Digest, XLVIII, v, 6; Cod. Justin., IX, ix, 23). In the Church the marriage of slaves is a sacrament; it possesses”the solidity” of one (St. Basil, Ep. cxcix, 42). The Apostolic Constitutions impose upon the master the duty of making hisslave contract “a legitimate marriage” (III, iv; VIII, xxxii). St. John Chrysostom declares that slaves have the marital power over their wives and the paternal over their children (“In Ep. ad Ephes.”, Hom. xxii, 2). He says that “he who has immoralrelations with the wife of a slave is as culpable as he who has the like relations with the wife of the prince: both areadulterers, for it is not the condition of the parties that makes the crime” (“In I Thess.”, Hom. v, 2; “In II Thess.”, Hom. iii, 2).
[…]
The Christianity did not attack slavery directly; but it acted as though slavery did not exist. By inspiring the best of its children with this heroic charity, examples of which have been given above, it remotely prepared the way for the abolition ofslavery. To reproach the Church of the first ages with not having condemned slavery in principle, and with having toleratedit in fact, is to blame it for not having let loose a frightful revolution, in which, perhaps, all civilization would have perished with Roman society. But to say, with Ciccotti (Il tramonto della schiavitù, Fr. tr., 1910, pp. 18, 20), that primitive Christianityhad not even “an embryonic vision” of a society in which there should be no slavery, to say that the Fathers of the Churchdid not feel “the horror of slavery”, is to display either strange ignorance or singular unfairness.
Continuing once again from the text, with The Pulpit Commentaries and verse 12:
Whom I sent back [to thee, according to A, C, D*, E, )*] (aorist for present); but the decision reflects the struggle. It had not been altogether easy for the apostle to part with the youth, whom he might not see again. The whole Epistle is full of this strong and yearning affection. Thou therefore receive him. Do thou also act as becomes a Christian; receive him as my son. “Wonderfully efficacious this method for appeasing the anger of Philemon! For he was not able to rage or to do anything harshly against one whom Paul had called his own bowels” (Estius). A, F, G, and א omit “receive,” as also Tischendorf. The Revised Version omits this clause.
I was wishing; I would fain have kept (Revised Version). The story tells itself if we read between the lines. What steadfast adherence to principle on the part of the apostle, when the help of Onesimus would have been so welcome to him in his weak health, and his position as a prisoner! Philemon could hardly fail to think more favorably of Onesimus, when he saw how much importance the apostle attached to his services. In the bonds of the gospel. “Which I am enduring for the sake of the gospel” (see Philemon 1:9)—a variation of phrase from Philemon 1:9.
Both Paul and Onesimus understood that by returning to Philemon, Onesimus may have been returned to life as a bondservant. Philemon had no legal obligation to do as Paul asked. Further, the letter also makes clear – and Philemon could have used it in his own defense – that Paul did not place upon him any obligation to release Onesimus, on the basis of his authority as an Apostle of the Church. Sure, Philemon might have been grumbled about by other members of the Church, but if he were willing to endure that, he did not have to do as Paul asked. The letter is an appeal to the heart and we can assume from Church tradition that the appeal of Paul was heeded by Philemon.
Verses 14 and 15, from Ellicott:
(14) That thy benefit should not be . . .—The benefit derived from the service of Onesimus St. Paul acknowledges as coming from Philemon, because given with his consent. He will not keep Onesimus and ask that consent by letter, lest it should be “as it were of necessity:” i.e., lest it should wear even the semblance of constraint.
(15) For perhaps he therefore departed (or, was parted).—This is a further reason for sending Onesimus back. St. Paul now touches on Onesimus’ “being parted” from Philemon, using a phrase not only (as has been noted) euphemistic, but also one which suggested that his running away was, however unconsciously, overruled by a higher hand. God, in His wisdom, “parted” him from Philemon “for a season, that he might receive him for ever.” The phrase “for ever” is the word always used for “eternal.” The contrast with “for a season” might be satisfied here by the merely relative sense of “perpetual” or “life-long service;” but, considering that the phrase is used in direct reference to the brotherhood of the Communion of Saints, it is better to take it in its absolute sense, of fellowship in the life eternal.
Paul sends Onesimus back to his former master, knowing that this was a risk if Philemon proved to be hard-hearted. Why? Knowing that Philemon is a brother in Christ, Paul has every reason to not want Philemon to feel as though he has been robbed financially. That feeling of aggrievement would hurt the Church and in particular, the relationships between Philemon and Onesimus, and Philemon and St. Paul. By sending Onesimus back to Philemon, Paul creates an opportunity for true reconciliation, both between the two men, and also between Philemon and Paul.
Closing this section of verses, we’ll look at The Pulpit Commentaries:
Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved. So great a difference had his Christian calling and profession made to him and to others. Both in the flesh and in the Lord. A hysteron proteron. The apostle is pleading on behalf of Onesimus this new bond of Christian relationship, which was in the Lord, that it should bring about a renewed fullness of personal relation. In the flesh, because “in the Lord.”
Paul brings an eternal perspective to present circumstances. Just as slavery and imprisonment can be endured for the cause of Christ, so too can financial loss. The eternal things outweigh the temporary things.
It should surprise nobody that slavery was often justified, by Christians, on the basis of the fact that Paul sent a runaway slave back to Philemon. As I hope I’ve covered, that reading of “justification of slavery” willfully missed a lot of the point of the Letter.
This topic is not easy. First, one must remember that not all slavery is the same. Evidence suggests that slaves in ancient Israel (for example) had rights and protections. Slaves in many other places did not. We should be careful not to view all of it as being the same. Second, Christianity’s primary concern is ending human slavery *to sin,* rather than slavery in general. To that end, it has been relatively successful. Christianity is the largest religion on Earth. During the early parts of Church history wherein the New Testament was being composed, the New Testament writers had valid reasons not to sidetrack their eternal concerns with earthly ones. As a result, we do not get any writing directly on point. Instead, writers like Paul approach the topic from the perspective of managing its existence rather than whether it should exist. With respect to the practice of slavery, you might argue that it took far too long to end it, but steps were taken toward that end much earlier than some might believe. The following chart provides a bit of history on the topic:
| Date | Jurisdiction | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 590–604 |  Rome | Pope Gregory I bans Jews from owning Christian slaves.[8] |
| 7th century | Francia | Queen Balthild, a former slave, and the Council of Chalon-sur-Saône (644–655) condemn the enslavement of Christians. Balthild purchases slaves, mostly Saxon, and manumits (frees) them.[9] |
| 741–752 | Rome | Pope Zachary bans the sale of Christian slaves to Muslims, purchases all slaves acquired in the city by Venetian traders, and sets them free. |
| 840 | Carolingian Empire Venice | Pactum Lotharii: Venice pledges to neither buy Christian slaves in the Empire, nor sell them to Muslims. Venetian slavers switch to trading Slavs from the East (Balkan slave trade). |
| 873 | Christendom | Pope John VIII declares the enslavement of fellow Christians a sin and commands their release.[10] |
| ~900 | Byzantine Empire | Emperor Leo VI the Wise prohibits voluntary self-enslavement and commands that such contracts shall be null and void and punishable by flagellation for both parties to the contract.[11] |
| 956 | Goryeo Dynasty (Korea) | Slaves were freed on a large scale in 956 by the Goryeo dynasty.[12] Gwangjong of Goryeo proclaimed the Slave and Land Act (노비안검법, 奴婢按檢法), an act that “deprived nobles of much of their manpower in the form of slaves and purged the old nobility, the meritorious subjects and their offspring and military lineages in great numbers”.[13] |
| 960 | Venice | Slave trade banned in the city under the rule of Doge Pietro IV Candiano. |
| 1080 |  Norman England | William the Conqueror prohibits the sale of any person to “heathens” (non-Christians) as slaves. |
| 1100 | Normandy | Serfdom no longer present.[14] |
| 1102 | Norman England | The Council of London bans the slave trade: “Let no one dare hereafter to engage in the infamous business, prevalent in England, of selling men like animals.”[15][16] |
| c. 1160 |  Norway | The Gulating bans the sale of house slaves out of the country.[citation needed] |
| 1171 |  Ireland | All English slaves in the island freed by the Council of Armagh.[16] |
| 1198 |  France | Trinitarian Order founded with the purpose of redeeming war captives. |
| 1214 | Korčula | The Statute of the Town abolishes slavery.[17][18][better source needed] |
| 1218 | Aragon | Mercedarians founded in Barcelona with the purpose of ransoming poor Christians enslaved by Muslims. |
| ~1220 |  Holy Roman Empire | The Sachsenspiegel, the most influential German code of law from the Middle Ages, condemns slavery as a violation of man’s likeness to God.[19] |
| 1245 | Aragon | James I bans Jews from owning Christian slaves, but allows them to own Muslims and Pagans.[20] |
| 1256 |  Bologna | Liber Paradisus promulgated. Slavery and serfdom abolished, all serfs in the commune are released. |
| 1315 | France | Louis X publishes a decree abolishing slavery and proclaiming that “France signifies freedom”, that any slave setting foot on French ground should be freed.[21] However some limited cases of slavery continued until the 17th century in some of France’s Mediterranean harbours in Provence, as well as until the 18th century in some of France’s overseas territories.[22] Most aspects of serfdom are also eliminated de facto between 1315 and 1318.[23] |
| 1318 | France | King Philip V abolishes serfdom in his domain.[24] |
| 1335 | Sweden | Slavery abolished (including Sweden’s territory in Finland). However, slaves are not banned entry into the country until 1813.[25] In the 18th and 19th centuries, slavery was practiced in the Swedish-ruled Caribbean island of Saint Barthélemy. Sweden never practiced serfdom, except in a few territories it later acquired which were ruled under a local legal code. |
| 1347 |  Poland | The Statutes of Casimir the Great issued in Wiślica emancipate all non-free people.[26] |
| 1368 | Ming Dynasty | Emperor Hongwu abolished most forms of slavery,[6] limiting even the highest ranks of household to less than 20 household slaves. Later in the dynasty saw a resurgence of debt servitude, primarily in the south, as a result of population growth against the dearth of arable lands, often taking euphemisms like “adoption” to circumvent its still outlawed status.[27] |
| 1416 |  Ragusa | Slavery and slave trade abolished. |
| 1423 | Poland | King orders to free all Christian slaves.[28] |
| 1435 |  Canary Islands | Pope Eugene IV‘s Sicut Dudum bans enslavement of baptised Christians, “or those freely seeking baptism” in the Canary Islands on pain of excommunication.[29] |
| 1477 | Castile | Isabella I bans slavery in newly conquered territories.[30] |
| 1480 | Galicia | Remnant serfdom abolished by the Catholic Monarchs.[31] |
| 1486 | Aragon | Ferdinand II promulgates the Sentence of Guadalupe, abolishing Carolingian-remnant serfdom (remença) in Old Catalonia. |
| 1490 | Castile | After a long court case, the Catholic Monarchs order that all La Gomera natives enslaved in the aftermath of the 1488 rebellion must be freed and returned to the island at Conquistador Pedro de Vera’s expense. De Vera is also relieved from his post as Governor of Gran Canaria in 1491.[32] |
| 1493 | Queen Isabella bans the enslavement of Native Americans unless they are hostile or cannibalistic.[30] Native Americans are ruled to be subjects of the Crown. Columbus is preempted from selling Indian captives in Seville and those already sold are tracked, purchased from their buyers and released. |
The list above reflects a persistent effort over centuries to limit or end slavery. It also reflects the reality that slavery continues to re-emerge even after limited or banned.
Unfortunately, that remains true today. Slavery – despite its ban in much of the world – is larger than ever in the present. The U.N. estimates that there are at least as many as 50M slaves worldwide. As that statistic continues to be revised upward, constantly, the real number is likely much higher. The estimated number of slaves in the United States, TODAY, is more than one million.
For a discussion on the Bible’s role in justifying / opposing slavery, I direct you to the following video, wherein evangelical Pastor Doug Wilson reacts to a debate on the issue between Ben Shapiro (Jewish) and Sam Harris (atheist.)
And from here, Paul wraps up the Letter to Philemon and I’ll cover that in the next post.
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
