Philemon Opening thoughts

I'm taking a short, informal course on Paul's letter to Philemon. I've decided to make the thought questions presented in the course posts on this platform. This is the beginning.

INTRODUCTION TO PHILEMON

The occasion of this short letter (25 verses) is for Paul to write a letter that Onesimus will carry with him back to Philemon -- to deal with the relationship between Onesimus and Philemon.

What we know about Onesimus is that he is a slave of Philemon (more details about this probability below). Onesimus is likely a runaway slave (again, details about Onesimus' status below). What we know about Philemon is that he is a beloved co-worker of Paul connected to a house church meeting in Philemon's home [v1-2]. We have two other named persons: Apphia and Archippus, and we don't fully know the relationships. They are "sister" and "fellow soldier" in that church (many interpreters have settled on Apphia being the wife of Philemon, but this is not certain). They are connected with this church.

We also know that Philemon was led to become a believer in Jesus as Messiah/Lord and Savior by Paul. This occurred when Paul was in Philemon's house. Philemon is connected with this church, which is also near/a part of the church at Colossae. At this time, Philemon became a believer, but not Onesimus. This seems to be the natural reading of the text that when Philemon came to faith, Onesimus did not. Instead, Onesimus came to faith in Christ later. Faith happened, for Onesimus, when he came to be with Paul in prison to seek an advocate [v10], ("my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become during my imprisonment").

THE BIGGEST CRITICAL ISSUE

Philemon deals with the concept of slavery (and demands one sort out what it says/doesn't say regarding slavery and the implications of this). It also deals with strained or broken relationships between fellow Christians (members of the same local church), with forgiveness and restoration, and, by implication, with members of a local church having very different social status.

By far, the biggest critical issue for an interpreter of scripture is to answer the question of why Paul does not condemn slavery itself when he comes to deal with slavery as an issue in the context of these members of a church with which he has a connection/leadership. He has every opportunity to deal with the issue of slavery, but does not do so. That Paul does not say anything about slavery was used by slave holders to support the institution of slavery as acceptable. Many have asked why Paul was silent. This issue is important, and there are no definitive answers.

SLAVERY IN THE ROMAN WORLD

Slavery was very common in the Roman world; it was a part of everyday culture. Since slavery was common, there were structures in place for the location and return of slaves to their owners. Any runaway slave would have to contend with a fairly robust system of recognizing runaway slaves and seeing that their owner was notified and the runaway returned. If Onesimus was seeking to avoid capture and return, he very likely would have avoided prison. Runaway slaves usually had to steal, and those seeking them would find them in prison.

Slavery in the world was not what we often think. It was not ethnic or racial, and there was not just one kind or type of slavery. There were many different kinds of slaves, and various "levels" of slavery (i.e., some honored professions, such as a doctor, might allow one to enslave himself to a rich household. This honored slave would not be mistreated; he would still be a slave, but it was a choice and likely an honored placement. In Galatians 3:25, where Paul refers to the law as a "guardian," <παιδαγωγόν>, he is referring to a position in a rich household where the guardian <παιδαγωγόν> would oversee the education of the householder's heir. This was a well-educated, honored person, but he would often be a slave (honored slave) of that house.

There were methods by which slaves could earn or purchase their freedom (or others could assist). This was called manumission

There is no indication that Onesimus is an honored type of slave, but it is possible. Even if not honored, certain trusted slaves would move about the Roman world rather freely to accomplish tasks for their households. Because chattel slavery colors our view, we view the concept of slavery through American eyes. Slavery in Rome could be as brutal and ugly as African American chattel slavery, but there were many different kinds of slavery in Roman society; not all of them brutal or ugly (it was still slavery, and the arc of history still condemns it; I am not attempting to justify slavery as acceptable).

Paul's grand declaration in Galatians 3:28, of course, stands out, though the great question is why he does not repeat it here. "There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." Instead, Paul sends Onesimus back to Philemon with the words, "if you consider me your partner, welcome him as you would welcome me" [v17]. He follows up with [v20] "I am writing to you knowing that you will do even more than I ask." It is not as if Paul left Philemon a lot of room to treat Onesimus as a runaway slave might be treated. The Christian brotherhood essentially dissolved the master-slave dynamic. The question remains as to why Paul is subtle. He has every opportunity in this letter to make that declaration universal for Christianity. Of course, Paul does not know that via the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, his words are to be included as a portion of scripture which we, to this day, call "the word of God." (This could open a door as to the nature and process of God's inspiration of the words of all biblical writers; alas that door is beyond the scope of this writing on this day).

The most common explanation given in regard to this issue is that Paul is simply dealing with the issue at hand. Slavery is so common, he knows it will not change, and he focuses on the gospel. Further, Paul is focusing on the Gospel, and he knows that instructing the infant church to undermine a societal norm will likely mean getting the cause most important— the Gospel — off track, and (at a time of burgeoning persecution), undermining a societal norm will give more reason for persecution at a critical time when persecution is increasing.

Philemon is not the only text where this critical issue of slavery and its reality in the life of the church enters into interpretive difficulty. Here are slave/master references in the New Testament (I do not assert I have listed them all): (1) Ephesians 6:5-9 ... (2) Colossians 3:22 ... (3) 1 Tim. 6:1-2 ... (4) 1 Peter 2:18 ... (5) 1 Tim. 1:10.

Of those, note especially the Ephesians text. Paul writes in the genre of "household codes." [Footnote:1] In the context of household codes, strong arguments have been made that Paul subtly and deftly undermines the Roman world's understanding of these codes while carefully instructing Christians to follow societal expectations. Nevertheless, the seeds are sewn that undermine the societal order, which is not in line with Christian ethics. (The very same arguments are made that Paul undermines Patriarchy with husband/wife instructions as regards household codes). It is beyond the scope of this essay, but notice in Ephesians 6:5-9 Paul gives instructions to masters to treat slaves justly; not to threaten and to remember the relationship is temporal, but there is no partiality in the heavenly view. Just to compare with my earlier (parenthetical) assertion, Paul in Ephesians 5:22-32 addresses wives directly in the instruction to submit, but in Aristotle's famous household code for Roman society, he says [this is not a direct quote though I took liberty of using the quotation mark for clarity] something akin to "husbands, ensure your wife is properly submissive in all things." In other words, in Roman understanding, wives were not even important enough to be addressed directly; Paul changes this. Nowhere in scripture is a husband instructed to make or do anything if his wife is not submissive, but Aristotle had clear instructions that the husband had authority to make it happen. Further, going back to verse 22 where the verb submit <ὑποτάσσω> occurs, it is clear that husbands/wives in the Christian home have a mutuality that is not found in Roman society.

So Paul focuses on the matter at hand, but in Paul's instructions (under the doctrine of holy inspiration), the groundwork is laid for a change to Roman society (1 Clement in CE 98 or so already demonstrates how this is happening). Again, this is ancillary to the question at hand on the letter to Philemon.

PHILEMON AS SLAVE (Paul as advocate, but why? 4 theories)

By far the most common understanding of this letter is that Onesimus is a runaway slave (who likely stole property of Philemon as he ran away [v18], but the stolen property is a possible or likely reading of the meaning of the text, but this interpretation is not demanded. This letter, then, is a letter by Paul as an advocate asking forgiveness on behalf of the runaway slave. Other interpreters have said it is not grammatically necessary that Onesimus was a runaway slave. Instead, for some reason, he needed or wanted Paul as an advocate to help him; perhaps with a restored relationship to Philemon (one must speculate somewhat as to why -- for example, some failure to accomplish an assignment or some other kind of shortfall, but not a runaway situation). A third way interpreters of this letter is limited to American Abolitionists during the pre-Civil War conflict in the USA, and it is not widely accepted. These Abolitionists saw Onesimus and Philemon as brothers (literal or metaphorical in the church), but not slave/master. There was a reason Abolitionists had this interpretation. It was a reaction to slave-holders using this passage to support the institution of slavery. While these abolitionists were on the right side of history regarding the slave issue, their interpretation is nevertheless not strong (it's better to understand the text as a slave/master relationship, and then separately deal with the critical issue of Paul's silence). More recently, some interpreters have made it an issue of slavery itself. Perhaps Onesimus ran away (without the theft), and he ran away specifically to appeal to Paul as a Christian regarding his lot in life as a slave. The fact that he came to Paul in prison supports this (a runaway attempting to avoid capture would avoid prison where capture is indeed more likely).

We can conclude with confidence that Onesimus was Philemon's slave and needed Paul as advocate. It may be likely that the relationship between master and slave was more than just strained, and Onesimus was fearful for his very life if caught (the likelihood of this is up to the interpreter, but it seems at the very least highly probable).

Paul talks about Onesimus, the likely runaway slave, as "formerly [being] useless to you...." I will simply seed the end of this introduction to hint at Paul's subtle play on words with Onesimus' name. I look forward to writing more.

FOOTNOTE
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_household_code