Bible Commentaries
Philemon 1

Verses 1-25

PHILEMON

XXVIII

THE BOOK OF PHILEMON

Philemon 1:1-25.

This letter was addressed to Philemon, Apphia, Archippus, and the church in Philemon’s house. The probable relations of these parties to each other are as follows: ...Philemon the husband, Apphia the wife, Archippus the son. Philemon was probably pastor of the church in his own house, and Archippus probably pastor of the church at Colosse, or possibly at Hierapolis. This letter was principally addressed to Philemon because he) alone, under the law, had full control over Onesimus for life or death, and his decision was final. The family and the church in his house were included because the status of Onesimus, when determined by Philemon, would necessarily interest and affect them all.

The relation of Paul to Philemon prior to this letter is given in Philemon 1:19, in which Paul says, "Thou owest to me even thine own self," which implies that he was Paul’s convert. This conversion probably occurred in Paul’s two years’ meeting at Ephesus when "All they that dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks," Acts 19:10.

The inhabitants of the Lycus valley were doubtless accustomed to attend the May Festivals at Ephesus in honor of Diana "whom all Asia worshiped" (Acts 19:27). Paul’s meeting overlapped two of these festivities. Paul also calls Philemon his "beloved and fellow worker" (Philemon 1:1) and his "partner (Philemon 1:17). The terms seem to imply that Philemon was a preacher. Moreover, Paul heard reports by Epaphras of Philemon’s faith and work (Philemon 1:5-7).

Paul’s previous relation to Archippus is seen from the following statements: He calls him "fellow soldier" (Philemon 1:2) and in the accompanying letter to the Colossians (Colossians 4:17) he sends this message: "Say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfill it." So it is probable that Archippus also was a convert of Paul and ordained by him.

Doubtless his family lived at Colosse (Compare Philemon 1:2; Philemon 1:11-12; Philemon 1:16 with Colossians 1:2; Colossians 4:9; Colossians 4:17) and other letters were sent at the same time with this, viz.: Colossians and Ephesians (Compare Philemon 1:10; Philemon 1:13; Colossians 4:7; Colossians 4:9; Ephesians 6:21), the date of which is about A.D. 63.

The characteristics of the letter to Philemon are, (1) It is one of the shortest in the New Testament. (2) It is more personal than any other except perhaps 2 John. Three John, though personal also, has more to say of missionary and church matters. (3) .It is about a private matter over which Philemon has absolute legal control.

This brief personal letter about a private matter is of immense importance, and therefore was incorporated into the inspired Bible, That private matter touches the worldwide institution of slavery – an institution as old as human history – and discloses the attitude of Christianity toward the institution. But there are other Pauline passages which also disclose Christianity’s attitude toward slavery. Paul himself in Galatians 3:27-28 declares, "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. In Christ Jesus there can be neither bond nor free." And in 1 Corinthians 12:13 he declares: "In one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether bond or free," and in Colossians 3:11 he declares: "In the new man there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman; but Christ is all and in all." These are great principles.

These passages teach (1) In Christ there can be no distinction between bond and free. (2) In water baptism there can be none. (3) In the Spirit baptism there can be none. (4) In the church there can be none. These settle the attitude of Christianity toward slavery so far as principles go. Moreover, in Colossians 3:22-4:1; Ephesians 6:5-9; 1 Timothy 6:1-2; Titus 2:9-10 he sets forth with great clearness the reciprocal duties of the Christian master and slave. These passages settle Christianity’s attitude toward slavery so far as duties go. But in both principles and duties the discussion is abstract. The peculiar value of Philemon is that it gives us a concrete case, all the parties involved not only being prominent and well known, but all belonging to one household and to one church. The slave is named and his offense. The master, his wife, his son, and his church are named. An inspired apostle comes in contact with the fugitive slave. Not then in abstract generalities as given in the two sets of passages above, but in a most specific and concrete case what will Christianity do? Not what ought it to do, but what did it do? Let us not shun the particulars:

1. It convicted the slave of the double sin of fleeing from the master and of robbing him.

2. It led him to repentance and reformation.

3. It converted him to Christ, thus bringing him into a blessed state of peace with God.

4. It manifested intense sympathy, with and love toward this slave as a man equal before God with all other men in religious privileges.

5. It restores the now penitent fugitive slave, with his own consent, to his master, according to the laws of the land, but it identifies the slave with the apostle returning him, who assumes all that the slave owes the master by theft or loss of service.

6. It counts the converted slave as a spiritual son and as the very heart of the sender.

7. It commends him as a brother in Christ to the master, and intercedes for full forgivenesss.

8. It assumes not to command that the slave be set free, but suggests it to the master, as of his own free will, in expressing confidence that the Christian master "will do more than is asked." Thus Christianity’s attitude toward slavery is expressed in the foregoing principles, reciprocal duties, and concrete case. Without the concrete case the Bible would be incomplete.

Let us see how this attitude has been received:

1. Those who comprehend that kingdom of our Lord is not of this world, but having to do with spiritual matters between God and man and between man and man, and stands opposed to arms and violence as a means of propagation, and that while it claims that we should render unto God all that is God’s, and unto Caesar all that is Caesar’s, are thoroughly satisfied with this attitude and believe that its leavening principles will ultimately abolish slavery and all other legal evils, through the consent of the evildoers converted to God, and that the evildoers not converted to God will be subjected to the punishments of his province and judgment.

2. But fanatics in every age have been dissatisfied with this attitude because it deals only with cases where slave or master is a Christian, and does not commence a crusade against slave-holding per se, denouncing and fighting governments and legislation enforcing or permitting slavery, and censure Christianity because it does not resort to violence to enforce its principles. It sneers at an inspired apostle returning a fugitive slave and trusting to voluntary love to bring about his emancipation. For example, these fanatics in this country quit preaching "Christ and him crucified" and substituted the theme, "John Brown and him hanged." The result was an emancipation by violence at a cost of blood and treasure that beggars computation, leaving behind problems to be solved that may prove to be insoluble by human wisdom.

Slavery was imposed upon the colonies and later upon the States of this Union as follows:

1. The mother country dumped upon the colonies convicts and political prisoners as slaves.

2. Some of the colonies made slaves of conquered Indians.

3. Men of commerce here and in Europe, through greed, equipped slave ships and introduced African slavery. One New England seaport fitted out a fleet of 250 slave ships, thereby laying the foundation of colossal fortunes which their descendants enjoy to this day.

4. Long after the section into which the slaves were sold earnestly desired the abolition of the slave trade, it was retained in the interest of those enriching themselves by the traffic.

The best men in both free and slave sections regretted its imposition on the nation, but in view of many grave complications were sorely puzzled as to the most honest and practical solution of the problem.

Though born and reared in the South, personally I never knew but one politician who advocated the perpetuity of the slave trade. From my earliest childhood the most familiar talk I can recall was on this line: This institution was imposed upon us. We believe it to be evil, but we recognize difficulties and complications in the solution of the evil calling for the highest human wisdom and forbearance. Its rigors should be abated and gradual emancipation encouraged where provision can be made for the care of those emancipated. Indeed, the first time I ever heard the word "Abolitionist," it was applied to me, only a child, because I said, "There ought to be no slaves."

In Paul’s day slavery as an institution was worldwide and had so existed from the beginning of history. More than half the population of the Roman Empire were slaves. The slave had no rights in law. He could be tortured, maimed, crucified, fed to fishes, or thrown to wild beasts at the’ will of his master. The majority of these slaves were war captives, equal to their masters in social position and heroism, and oftentimes superior in education and patriotism. This immense servile population formed an ever restless, seething, muttering volcano beneath the fabric of society.

Servile insurrections of magnitude had occurred, threatening to upheave and destroy the foundations of government. Here and there some high-spirited slave – a hero, noble, or prince in his own country – resented, by violence, the indignities heaped upon him by a cruel and capricious master. Hence a law was enacted by Augustus Caesar that when a master was killed by a slave, all the other slaves of the household should be put to death. Many rich, corrupt Romans had hundreds of slaves. A case in point occurred about the time Paul entered Rome as a prisoner. An infuriated slave, unable in his proud spirit to endure longer the tyranny and cruelty to which he was subjected, slew his Roman master, Pedanius. When it was found that 400 fellow household slaves must now perish, under the law, by wholesale execution, there were popular appeal and protest. But the inexorable Senate decided that public safety demanded the enforcement of the law, and so they sent out a battalion of the Praetorian Guard to repress popular interference and see that the law was enforced. Bo, surrounded by the imperial guard, the 400 innocent men, women, and children were publicly executed.

Roman literature of Paul’s day and later teems with allusions to the danger to the state arising from the system of slavery. Historians, poets, and orators grew eloquent on the dangers toward the state and the masters, but seemed not to realize the horrors of the system toward the slave.

Our Lord had said, "My kingdom is not of this world, else would my servants fight." The mission of Christianity would have perished if it had, as a political, earth force, preached a crusade against civil institutions and relations. It contented itself by lifting master and slave into a spiritual kingdom where in Christ there would be neither bond nor free, but all were brothers, with equal religious privileges and rights. This leaven ultimately creates a Christian civilization, in whose atmosphere all men become equal, even in civil matters.

One privilege remained to the slave – he might flee to an influential friend of his master and implore his intercession. A case in point is as follows: About thirty years after Paul’s letter, a fugitive slave of a rich Roman fled to the noblest Roman of his day, Pliny the younger. Fortunately for literature, Pliny’s letter of intercession, when he returned the fugitive slave to his master, has been preserved, furnishing an historical parallel to Paul’s letter apart from its religious element.

Following is a translation of Pliny’s letter: Caius Pliny to Sabinianus, health: Thy freedman, with whom thou saidst thou wast incensed, came to me, and falling at my feet, as if at thine, clung to them. He wept much, much he entreated, and much was the force of his silence. In short, he fully satisfied me of his penitence. Truly I believe him to be reformed, because he is sensible of his wrong. Thou art angry I know; and thou art angry justly, this also I know; but clemency has then the highest praise, when there is the greatest cause for anger. Thou hast loved the man, and I hope thou wilt love him. Meanwhile it is sufficient that thou suffer thyself to be entreated. It will be right for thee to be angry with him again, if he shall deserve it, because having once yielded to entreaty, thine anger will be the more just. Forgive something in view of his youth. Forgive on account of his tears. Forgive for the sake of thine own kindness. Do not torture him, lest thou torture also thyself; for thou wilt be in torture, when thou, who art so gentle, shalt be angry. I fear lest, if to his prayers I should unite my own, I should seem not to ask, but to compel. Yet I will unite them, and the more fully and abundantly in that I have very sharply and severely reproved him, strictly threatening that I will never hereafter intercede for him. This I said to him because it was necessary to alarm him; but I do not say the same to thee. For perchance I shall intercede again, and shall again obtain; only that my request be such as it befits me to ask and thee to grant. Farewell.

The letter of the noble heathen does him great credit, not only as an epistolary gem, exquisite in tact and style, but shows his kindliness of heart toward an unfortunate man shut off by law from human right or privilege. But it does not recognize the inherent manhood of a slave. It makes no plea on that score. There is condescending pity in it, but no appeal to God’s fatherhood or man’s brotherhood. It sees no place in time or eternity where master and slave, on a footing of equality, stand without distinction of person or social position before a supreme and final judge. It does not commend the slave as Pliny’s son, or very heart, or as a brother beloved to Sabinianus. It does not offer to make good whatever debt the slave, under the law, may owe to the master. As the heavenly kingdom is higher than the Roman Empire, so far does Paul’s letter surpass the letter of the noble heathen.

For other purposes than illustration and comparison this letter of Pliny is here introduced. It brings to the fore these questions:

1. Did Onesimus, like the slave of Sabinianus, designedly flee to Rome to invoke the intercession of Paul as an influential friend of his master, Philemon?

2. Had there been opportunity to Onesimus to sufficiently know Paul and his relation to Philemon as a warrant for this step?

3. Was Paul, before this letter, ever in the Lycus valley, thus affording the opportunity of this knowledge to Onesimus?

The answers to these questions in order are as follows:

1. In the absence of any statement from Paul as to how Tie first met Onesimus in Rome, we may for the present say only this much: It is possible that Onesimus designedly fled to Rome to seek Paul’s intercession with his master, and hence that Onesimus himself brought about the first meeting with the apostle for this very purpose.

2. It is every way probable that Onesimus had ample opportunity sufficiently to know Paul and his influential relations with Philemon to warrant the step. This knowledge may have come about in either of two ways: Philemon, in his visits to Ephesus, the metropolis of his province, either while a heathen attending the annual festival in honor of Diana, or after his conversion in attending Paul’s meeting, may have followed a common custom not only in taking his wife and son, but his household slaves. In this way Onesimus could have known Paul. Again, a household slave must have beard much of the great apostle, who was not only revolutionizing all Asia, but especially had revolutionized this family, husband, wife, and son, and had led to Christ Epaphras, the evangelist, who had planted the churches in the Lycus valley. In the same way he must have known that Epaphras had gone to Rome to see Paul, a prisoner there.

Thus the opportunity for knowledge was ample. And when we consider the fact that after Onesimus reached Rome, knowing Paul was there, it would be natural for a fugitive slave, anxious to escape detection, to avoid meeting one so well acquainted with his master’s family, and it would be quite easy to avoid the meeting, since Paul was hindered from moving about by his chain, and his place of confinement as a prisoner would be well known, unless the slave himself designedly brought about the meeting. Then our answer to the previous question must be changed from "possible" to "probable," for this furnished an adequate reason for the interview, which otherwise the slave had both reason and ability to prevent.

3. The third question, to wit: Was Paul ever, before this letter, in the Lycus valley, thereby increasing the opportunity of Onesimus to know him? We must divide the question, settling first: Was Paul ever before in the Lycus valley? Some contend that he was, because Acts 16:6 says, "He went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia," and the Lycus valley was a part of Phrygia. They fail to note, however, that all of ancient Phrygia was not incorporated into the Roman province of Asia, and that the following verse distinctly declares that he was forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia at this time.

But Professor Ramsay, an expert on Paul’s travels, contending against Bishop Lightfoot, argues with great force that Paul on his third tour must have passed through the Lycus valley to reach Ephesus. The scriptures on which he bases his contention are Acts 18:23; Acts 19:1, which say, "He went through the region of Galatia, and Phrygia, in order, establishing the disciples . . . and having passed through the upper country, came to Ephesus." We shall not here attempt to decide whether Ramsay or Lightfoot be correct about Paul’s line of travel on this occasion, since even if one agree with Ramsay that it led through Colosse, it has no bearing on the opportunity of Onesimus to know Paul. It was simply a confirming tour, going over ground previously traveled, and did not become evangelistic till Ephesus was reached. There is neither proof nor probability that Paul stopped in the Lycus valley and no evidence whatever that he became acquainted with the Philemon family until the great Ephesus meeting described in Acts 19. Therefore, Professor Ramsay’s contention, however well sustained, is irrelevant to the matter under consideration.

Tradition has something to say of the future of Onesimus:

1. A letter of Ignatius) about A.D. 107, mentions an Onesimus, pastor at Ephesus, and incidentally seems to allude several times to matters in the letter to the Colossians, but there is nothing in this Ignatius letter to identify Onesimus, pastor at Ephesus, with Paul’s Onesimus. The mere sameness of name proves nothing.

2. Traditions of both the Roman and Greek churches have much to say of Paul’s Onesimus, giving him exalted positions, but the historical evidence underlying the traditions is without value, practically amounting to nothing.

After the foregoing discussion there is little more in the text of the letter to which attention needs to be called. However, we will look at the section (8:21) of the letter which has ever excited the greatest admiration. This section discloses Paul’s method of making his plea:

1. I might enjoin by apostolic authority, but do not.

2. I might appeal to what you owe me, even your very salvation, but do not.

3. I might have presumed to keep Onesimus to serve me in your stead, but do not.

4. For love’s sake I beseech rather, being such a one as Paul, the aged, and a prisoner.

5. Onesimus is the spiritual child of my bonds, my very heart.

6. It may have been God’s providence that you lost him for a season to have him forever.

7. Before, he was not helpful, though he is named Onesimus (meaning helpful) ; now he is helpful, justifying the name.

8. Before, he was a slave; now, he is a brother.

9. As you and I are "partners," what he is tome let him be to you – receive him as you would me.

10. What he owes you by reason of theft or loss of service when absent, I, Paul, give written bond to pay.

11. You have refreshed other hearts, refresh also the heart of Paul, the aged prisoner.

12. I am confident you will do more than I ask. This plea reminds us of other historical petitions, such as, Judah’s plea for Benjamin (Genesis 44:18-34), and Jeannie Dean’s plea before England’s queen for her sister Effie, as told by Sir Walter Scott in The Heart of Midlothian.

On Lightfoot’s contention that "Paul, the aged" (Philemon 1:9) should harmonize with Ephesians 6:20 and be rendered, "Paul an ambassador," I would say that the form of the word is not the same as in Ephesians. The ambassador feature has already been given in Philemon 1:8. The context demands the usual meaning of the word "aged."

J. M. Pendleton illustrates (Philemon 1:18-19) the doctrine of Christ as surety for the sinner, and the release of the obligation against the original debtor just as soon as the creditor charges the debt to the surety. In this way Old Testament saints could be forgiven before the surety actually paid the debt in expiation.

QUESTIONS

1. To whom was this letter addressed?

2. What were the probable relations of these parties to each other?

3. To whom was this letter principally addressed, and why were the others included?

4. What was the relation of Paul to Philemon prior to this letter?

5. What Paul’s previous relation to Archippus?

6. Where did this family live?

7. What other letters were sent at the same time with this?

8. What is the date?

9. What are the characteristics of the letter to Philemon?

10. What then gives this brief personal letter about a private matter its immense importance, and justifies its incorporation into the inspired Bible?

11. What other Pauline passages which also disclose Christianity’s attitude toward slavery; what their teaching, and what the greater importance of this letter?

12. How has this attitude been received?

13. What example in this country?

14. How was slavery imposed upon the colonies, and later upon the states of this union?

15. What was the state of mind of the best men in both free and slave sections toward the institution per set

16. What is the condition in Paul’s day?

17. What one privilege remained to the slave?

18. What is case in point?

19. What are the pleas made in Pliny’s letter?

20. Compare this with Paul’s letter.

21. For what other purposes than illustration and comparison is this letter of Pliny introduced?

22. What are the answers to these questions in order?

23. What has tradition to say of the future of Onesimus?

24. What part of the letter has ever excited the greatest admiration, and what the items of Paul’s plea?

25. Of what other historical petitions does this remind us?

26. What says the author of Lightfoot’s contention that "Paul the aged" (Philemon 1:9) should harmonize with Ephesians 6:20 and be rendered, "Paul an ambassador"?

27. What great, doctrine does J. M. Pendleton illustrate by Philemon 1:18-19, and how?