We are all Slaves - Some comments on Philemon

Although The Letter of Paul to Philemon is the shortest of the Pauline letters it has generated a significant amount of research due to the question as to how the letter depicts the Christian ethic in regard to slavery. The letter raises many questions. Who is the letter addressed to? Is Paul accepting the institution of slavery, or is he trying, in his own way, to surreptitiously destroy slavery? Who is Onesimus and how did he meet Paul? Was this letter merely an appeal from the author to its recipient or did the letter have any deeper purpose? Because of its brevity, there are not many details to answer these questions and we are required to look for insights where they may be none. The mere lack of evidence of course has never stopped anyone from drawing conclusions, including myself.

One question that is heavily debated in research relates to whom the letter is addressed to. Upon first and subsequent readings, it seemed natural to me that it was addressed to Philemon and was meant to be read aloud to the church in his house. There is much scholarly debate as to whether the letter is truly addressed to Archipus, and just delivered to Philemon to whom Paul knew. I think J Estill Jones makes a good point that the church meets in Archipus’ house due to the fact that the phrase “follows his name immediately and the pronoun would not jump over two names to take its reference back to Philemon”[1]. There is debate as to whether Apphia is Philemon’s wife and whether Archipus is Philemon’s and Apphia’s child. I really do not think this point is relevant. Whether Onesimus is Philemon’s slave or Archipus’ slave doesn’t change the content or meaning of the letter. For the remainder of this paper I will make the assumption the letter was written to Philemon. By including the names of all three individuals and “the church in your house” the letter was meant to be read to all in the church and thus it was meant to be a public letter. I think this last fact is quite important in relation to the purpose of the letter. If this letter is merely an appeal to the owner of Onesimus, its public nature was meant to insure compliance. If the letter had a deeper purpose, its public nature was meant as a teaching for the community.

I think a critical difference in Philemon versus other Pauline letters is the prologue in which Paul refers to himself as “a prisoner of Christ Jesus”. The use of this phrase could merely indicate that Paul was in prison. However, none of the other Pauline letters, even the other prison epistles use this phrase in the prologue. I do not think it is a coincidence that Paul uses this phrase in a letter that is dealing with slavery. If Paul’s goal was merely to obtain Onesimus’ freedom, why would he not utilize his apostolic authority to do so? The fact that he uses this phrase in the prologue as opposed to the phrase apostle or servant is because he wants to bring focus to the issue of slavery. Kirk Lyons believes “Paul’s intention was to promote an ideology affirming that within the church of Jesus Christ the primary relationship would be a pseudo-familial relationship among peers”.[2] I think this concept is somewhat diminished by the fact that Paul makes it clear he could use his apostolic authority but chooses not to. Is coercion through the threat of authority, any different than the actual use of authority? Or perhaps as it found in many other letters, Paul’s apostolic authority is in question, and thus he uses other tactics to achieve his goal, which is Onesimus’ freedom from slavery to serve Paul and thus serve Christ.

Who is Onesimus? Much of traditional exegesis treats Onesimus as a runaway slave from Philemon. Paul Rees among many others suggests that “Onesimus was arrested and the two met in prison.”[3] I find this highly unlikely. It is clear from the letter that Onesimus has been of service to Paul in prison. I find it hard to believe, that of all the prisoners in all the prisons of Rome, it would be likely that a runaway slave of a friend and church leader would just happen by coincidence to be put in the same cell as Paul. There are some who argue that Onesimus sought out Paul as a unbiased third party arbitrator to appeal to the slave owner. I again find this hard to believe. I cannot imagine a runaway slave voluntarily seeking out someone in prison (even if it was only house arrest) for fear of being arrested themselves. Although it is not specified anywhere many scholars point to this letter being written during Paul’s imprisonment in Rome. Due to the similar greetings in this letter and the letter to the Colossians it is assumed that addressees of Philemon were from Colossae or that general area. Due to the distance between Colossae and Rome I would find it hard to believe that Onesimus would travel all that way merely to engage Paul as a mediator.

Nordling makes a long, well documented but rambling defense of the runaway slave theory. He documents very well the history of and impact of runaway slaves in the Roman Empire. Yet I find he doesn’t overcome the basic challenge that the letter doesn’t indicate in any form that Onesimus is a runaway. In trying to describe why Paul did not mention Onesimus was a runaway, he states “Paul’s purpose here is primarily conciliatory: to persuade Onesimus’ angry owner to welcome back his previously disobedient slave.”[4] First there is nothing to indicate that Philemon is angry, and secondly, I think it is clear that Paul wanted Philemon to free Onesimus so Onesimus could be of service to Paul and Christianity. In his final conclusion Nordling states:
The ultimate danger of the new interpretation is that it could turn a letter which manifestly breathes the great hearted tenderness of the apostle into a rather dispassionate non-theological financial transaction between Paul and Onesimus owner. Yet I doubt that such a routine scrap of business correspondence would ever have become part of the canonical NT”[5]

I think the use of the word danger is an overstatement. Merely because something is new doesn’t make it dangerous in and of itself. I do not think the mere fact that Onesimus is or is not a runaway diminishes what Paul is trying to accomplish in this letter nor diminishes Paul’s spirit filled heart. I do agree that if Onesimus was a runaway, Paul’s request would have been of greater magnitude and at a higher cost of Philemon’s reputation. However I would never call a request for the freedom of a human being under any circumstances “a routine scrap of business”. The issue as to why the letter is included as cannon is a much larger issue, but I think it boils down to the fact that the letter was confirmed as authentically Paul’s which in and of itself, was reason enough to include it.

I think it is far more likely that Onesimus was sent to Paul from the Colossae church. I think Onesimus’ time with Paul is coming to an end and Paul was hoping to continue to have his services. In verse 13 he states “I wanted to keep him with me, so that he might be of service to me in your place”. I think this is a key phrase. Perhaps Philemon was supposed to be the one to come and aid Paul, but instead Philemon sent his slave. If this is so, why would Philemon send a slave who was an unbeliever to Paul. One possibility is that he sent him to Paul with hope the slave would be instructed in Christian ways. I do not think this to have a high probability, but wanted to give Philemon the benefit of the doubt. Another alternative as to why Philemon sent a slave instead of himself is that possibly Philemon was not a strong believer in Christianity, and or perhaps was miffed that he had to send one of his slaves away for a period of time. Due to this, he sent a slave to Paul that was an unbeliever and one with whom Philemon had challenges with. Onesimus would have certainly indicated to Paul the challenges, and between such challenges and the time spent away from service from his master very well could have been the cause of the need for verse 18.

If we continue along this line of thinking, the letter then appears to be a rebuke to Philemon. It was a way of embarrassing Philemon for sending an unbelieving slave to help Paul The entire letters’ outward goal is to coerce Philemon into freeing Onesimus. I think along those lines, without question, Paul is saying Christianity should not practice slavery. Christians should be “beloved brothers” and sisters. I think Paul is against slavery, but he feels he cannot come out and outwardly denounce slavery for fear of retribution. He believes the better course of action is to change society one heart, one person at a time, with the teachings and spirit of Jesus. I think there is no question that the letter would have been read by the guards, and if he had publicly denounced slavery, there would have been a backlash as much of the Roman economic system was based on free labor from slaves. I think Sabine Bieberstein relates this to modern times quite succinctly by indicating “Our concern today must be to use such individual cases to unmask systems that show contempt for human beings, and to tell the story of the victims”[6] I think the challenge we have today, is that over saturation through the media tends to make people tune out to the suffering in the world. This letter is a reminder that injustice can be changed by independent actions by individuals.
On a different note, W.H. Griffiths Thomas in quoting Dr. J.H. Jowett states
Although personal liberty was an exceedingly precious thing – a pearl of great price - there was something more precious still – a pearl of great price – the welfare of all the Christian faith, might not only have jeopardized the interests of the struggling infant Church, but would have plunged into even great hardships all the slaves throughout the Empire. So Onesimus voluntarily went back into bondage, sacrificing his personal liberty for the common good, the good pearl for the sake of the better, and in so doing proved himself a worthy member of the Kingdom of God.[7]

I think this analysis is hyperbole and even dangerous. I think Paul did worry about the effect on Christianity if the religion became thought of by the government as fermenting slave revolt. Yet it is clear that during that time in history there were many runaway slaves and there were slave revolts. So I do not see the request to free one slave as a creating a hardship for slaves throughout the empire. Yet much of Christianity theology is based on sacrifice. I just think it is dangerous to indicate that the way to become a member of the Kingdom of God is to enslave ones self. Again if one is reading this allegorically, the concept of enslaving oneself to Christ could be an acceptable reading. Alternatively, to accept physical slavery as the sacrifice necessary to attain redemption is despicable.

There seems to be an ongoing justification in scholarly writings as to why Christianity accepted slavery. William Richardson seems to put forward and apologetic response. He indicates that “it is questionable whether people were even capable of envisioning a society where all were in theory free”[8] I find this statement incredulous. The whole basis of Christianity was the vision of a society where last would be first. Richardson goes on to reflect about Paul’s “commitment to the Christian mission”[9] and quoting Ernest F. Scott states “an attack on social and political institutions would not have accomplished anything save the exposure of his mission to danger as a revolutionary movement”[10] If one takes this point of view, one is saying the end justifies the means. Religion at that point in time in history was very interwoven into politics. Christianity in its goal to preserve itself, tried to avoid conflict with governments. Yet instigating governments is exactly what Jesus did. Christians often won converts through their martyrdom. I would argue that Christian passiveness which may have allowed the religion to survive, may have extended Roman rule and bloodshed and caused countless deaths. Perhaps they did not have the courage of their own convictions. Or maybe they truly believed death was preferable to engaging in violence.

Craig De Vos tries to argue that due to the nature of the slave culture, which was “lazy, negligent, willful, cowardly, and criminal“[11] and “had values such as obligation, duty, obedience to authority, subordination and acquiescence, dependency, and respect for tradition”,[12] that even if Paul were to be successful in obtaining Onesimus’ freedom “the legal act and structural change of manumission would not have changed this”.[13] It is true that one learns a way of life based on their circumstances and it can become entrenched. It becomes a part of who you are. But if the cycle is broken under which the circumstances of such behavior are created, then over time one’s life can be tranformed. I believe one the great things about Christianity is the notion of personal transformation and its availability to all people. I would also challenge the basic argument of his statements. In order to enslave someone we must first demonize them. So I think slaveholders attribute negative attributes to such people to justify their own actions. I also do not view the value of duty the same as submission out to fear of retribution. Additionally the fact that there were so many runaways as documented in various articles, leads me to believe that many salves did not accept it as a way of life. I think the concept of personal freedom burns deeply in the soul of every person. Slavery breads hatred. One may be subservient because they are not willing to accept the consequences of pain and death. But few people voluntarily choose slavery. I think the story of Christ and thus Christianity is that we must accept the consequences of not accepting societal norms, even if it means one’s own death, just as Jesus sacrificed himself as opposed to denouncing his beliefs.
Perry Kea in looking at whether Christianity is really counter cultural or just a sub culture of society, indicates that “he (Paul) is responding to the cultural expectation that an owner should gain from his slave’s service” and “Paul addresses the master-slave relationship of Philemon and Onesimus with respect for the dominant social role of Philemon”.[14] His conclusions seem to indicate that Christianity is not challenging the dominant culture but is just a part of the grander mosaic of society. I disagree. I think Paul views Christianity as very egalitarian, which would be counter cultural. I think this letter is about dealing with power even within the Christian community. Paul is never one to follow convention in his actions. He does follow the law when it suits him and it is to his advantage. I think to some degree Paul feared Philemon’s power or retribution if Onesimus was not returned. Or perhaps Paul was trying to help give justification to Philemon within the community as a way to make it easier within the cultural setting to release Onesimus. Andrew Wilson feels:
“Philemon’s position is particularly vulnerable, for any FTA (face threatening act) in the letter is made the more so by its public mention before Philemon’s immediate community. We might therefore expect Paul to take particular care to mitigate any FTA with politeness strategies to reduce the cost to Philemon in both face and material terms in order to avoid damaging his standing within the Christian community at Colossae.”[15]

I think Paul wanted everyone to be prisoner’s to Jesus Christ, not to each other, which is a counter cultural idea. I think Paul just believed in working within society to transform it as opposed to be revolutionary. By making this letter public he is trying to change the balance of power in the community and with Philemon without causing disruption

I would take an even more radical reading of this letter. Perhaps the letter is an allegorical tale regarding slavery. Since most of Paul’s writings are letters dealing with specific situations, it would lead one to believe that the same is the case in this situation. I believe revelation is ongoing and we should read more into this today than what its traditional or historical impetration was. .

Lightfoot points out that the name Philemon relates to the “legend of Philemon and Baucis the aged peasants who entertained not angels, but gods unawares, and were rewarded by their divine guest for their homely hospitality and their conjugal love.”[16] Perhaps this was not coincidence. Conceivably Paul wanted to send a message about what type of love Christian love is. The legend of Philemon is an example of how one should treat their fellow human beings no matter what their station in life may be. That is the same message of this letter.

Slavery was a given fact in the time this was written. Slavery was legal in this country just over 200 years ago. We often forget that even today physical slavery is still a common practice throughout the world and occurs even in this country. But on a deeper level, I think the point that could be made is that we are all slaves. We are slaves to our material possessions, we are slaves to our lifestyle, we are slaves to our families, and as Paul indicated he is a prisoner of Jesus Christ, we are slaves to religion. Paul did not use his authority to show the way to freedom, rather as verse 9 indicates, he wants freedom “on the basis of love”. We must release ourselves from the prisons of hatred and desires and treat people on the basis of love in order for there to be a kingdom of heaven on earth. I thought of this while reading Abingdon New Testament Commentaries which indicated the wordplay on the name Onesimus. It indicates that
Onesimus means useful. There may be a further pun intended too; in Hellenistic Greek, and modern Greek as well the word useful (Chrestos) would have been pronounced exactly Christos (anointed or Christ). Thus useless could also be heard as without Christ. Confusion of the two words was easy.[17]

Onesimus was a common name for slaves. Perhaps the use of this name was a double entendre to indicate that he could only be useful as a free Christian brother not as a slave.
The entire letter would take on a different meaning if the word Onesimus was replaced with Christ. It would be a call to Christianity. It would be a call to personal freedom. Ultimately this was always Paul’s goal, to evangelize the world for Christ. Ultimately that is the purpose and message of Philemon for me.




Bibliography
Bieberstein, Sabine. "Disrupting the normal reality of slavery: a feminist reading of the Letter to Philemon." Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 79 (S 2000): 105-116.
Brown, Raymond E. “An introduction to the New Testament”. New York: Doubleday Publishing, 1996
Carson, Herbert. The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and Philemon. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1960.
Cotter, Anthony. "Epistles of the captivity." Catholic biblical Quarterly 4, no. 11 (October 1949): 370-380.
De Vos, Craig Steven. "Once a Slave, Always a Slave?." Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 82 (June 2001): 89-105.
Dunham, Robert E. "Phileomn 1:1-25." Interpretation 2, no. 52 (April 1998): 191-194.
Frinlingosw, Christoper. "For my child, Onesimus; Paul and domestic power in Philemon." Journal of Biblical Literature 1, no. 119 (Spring 2000): 91-104.
Harris, Murray J. Colossians and Philemon. Grand Rapids, MI: William B Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Jones, J Estill. "Letter to Philemon - and illustration of Koinonia." Review and Expositor, no. 46 (October 1949): 454-466.
Kea, Perry V. "Paul's Letter to Philemon : A short Analysis of its Values." Perspectives in Religious Studies 23 (Summer 1996): 223-232.
Koch, Eldon. "A Cameo of Koinonia - The Letter of Philemon." Interpretation 2, no. 17 (April 1963): 183-187.
Lightfoot, J.B. Saint Paul's Epistles To The Colossians and to Philemon. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1879.
Lyons, Kirk C. "Paul's confrontation with class: the Letter to Philemon as counter-hegemonic discourse." Cross Currents 1, no. 56 (Spring 2006): 116-132.
Nordling, John. "Onesimus fugitivus : a defense of the runaway slave hypothesis in Philemon." Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 41 (Fall 1991): 97-119.
Osiek, Carolyn. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000.
Rees, Paul. The Epistles to eh Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1964.
Richardson, William. "Principle and content in the ethics of the Epistle to Philemon." Interpretation, no. 22 (July 1968): 301-316.
Soards, Marion. "Some neglected theological dimensions of Paul's letter to Philemon." Perspectives in Religious Studies, no. 17 (Fall 1990): 209-219.
Thomas, Griffith, W.H. Studies in Colossians and Philemon. Edited by Edited by his Daughter. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1973.
Wilson, Andrew. "The Pragmatics of Politeness and Pauline Epistolography : A case Study of the Letter to Philemon." Journal for the Study of the New Testament D, no. 48 (1992): 107-119.

[1] J Estill Jones, "Letter to Philemon: an illustration of Koinonia," Review and Expositor, no. 46 (O 1949): 457.
[2] Kirk C. Lyons, "Paul's confrontation with class: the Letter to Philemon as counter-hegemonic discourse," Cross Currents 1, no. 56 (Spring 2006): 124.
[3] Paul Rees, The Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1964), 127.
[4] John Nordling, "Onesimus fugitivus : a defense of the runaway slave hypothesis in Philemon," Journal for the Study of the New TEstament, no. 41 (Fall 1991): 107.
[5] "Ibid, pg. 119.
[6] Sabine Bieberstein, "Disrupting the normal reality of slavery: a feminist reading of the Letter to Philemon," Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 79 (S 2000): 116.
[7] W.H Griffith Thomas, Studies in Colossians and Philemon, ed. Edited by his Daughter (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1973), 163.
[8] William Richardson, "Principle and Content in the Ethics of the Epistle to Philemon," Interpretation, no. 22 (July 1968): 307.
[9] "Ibid, pg. 307.
[10] "Ibid, pg. 308.
[11] Craig Steven De Vos, "Once a Slave, Always a Slave?," Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 82 (June 2001): 95.
[12] "Ibid, pg. 95.
[13] "Ibid, pg. 95.
[14] Perry V. Kea, "Paul's Letter to Philemon : A short Analysis of its Values," Perspectives in Religious Studies 23 (Summer 1996): 226.
[15] Andrew Wilson, "The Pragmatics of Politeness and Pauline Epistolography : A case Study of the Letter to Philemon," Journal for the Study of the New Testament D, no. 48 (1992): 109-110.
[16] J.B Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistles To The Colossians and to Philemon (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1879), 304.
[17] Carolyn Osiek, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000), 136.