Paul's Odd Letter

A. W. Tozer said something to the effect that anything which turns your mind away from the kingdom of God within you to the world outside is a distraction. That would be a true statement in many religions, especially those of the east. But it is not true of Christianity. E. M. Bounds wrote that “Heaven is a poor market for ice,” meaning that there is no point in praying about something unless we are emotionally excited about it. But there are things for which we must pray that are not (in any conventional sense) exciting. Christianity is a religion that thrives by not being religious. For the holy man of other religion, holiness comes by cutting oneself off from the world, in escaping the problems and concerns of ordinary life. But for Christianity, holiness means serving God in the midst of the problems and concerns of life. Separation for the Christian does not mean a removal from the world but a transformation in the midst of the world. We are not separate from the world as the water in two adjacent glasses are separate but as a drop of oil in the water is separate. This can be proved by many things from throughout the New Testament, but the main point to notice is that we have one entire book which is dedicated--not to doctrine, not to instruction, not to worship, not to exhortation--but to dealing with a concrete, mundane, and even awkward problem of ordinary life. That book is, of course, Paul's epistle to Philemon.

Philemon is believed to have been written during Paul's imprisonment in Rome when he wrote the other Prison Epistles. I think most likely it was written at the same time as Colossians and Ephesians, and that Tychicus carried the three together on the same journey. But unlike those letters (and especially unlike Ephesians), this is a personal letter to a specific person and not to a church.

The letter is addressed specifically to Philemon, but also includes Apphia, Archippus, and their church. (I think this means Paul sends his greetings to them but not necessarily the letter as a whole.) Apphia and Archippus seem to have been members of Philemon's family--most suppose that Apphia was Philemon's wife and Archippus their son. Archippus was a minister of the gospel (see Colossians 4:17) and may have been the leader of the church which met in Philemon's house which was probably in Colosse. We shouldn't pass on without noticing something Clarke points out in his commentary--that there is a wordplay in Paul's greetings. The name Philemon means “affectionate and beloved” and Paul addresses him as the “dearly beloved.” The name Apphia is an affectionate term used for a sister and Paul addresses her as “sister.” (This word is not in the KJV, but is in other translations). Archippus means horseman and has the idea of a knight or cavalry officer--and Paul calls him a fellow-soldier. This sort of wordplay will come up again later with the last character in this story.

Though all our information about Philemon comes from this book (he is never mentioned outside it), we do know several things about him. We know that a church met in his house, as already mentioned. Given that he had a house large enough to host a church, most infer that he was at least moderately well-off. In verse 19, Paul tells Philemon: “Thou owest unto me even thine own self.” Paul and Philemon had some sort of previous relationship and Paul had been instrumental in something important in Philemon's life. Most commentators think this means that Paul had been the one who first preached the gospel to Philemon and led him to Jesus. (We do not know when or where this happened. It seems most likely that Paul had not yet visited Colosse at the time of this writing, but it wouldn't be unlikely that Philemon had traveled around and met Paul somewhere, especially since Paul was in the general area of Colosse.) But however they met, there was a deep, personal connection between these two men. Such was their friendship that Paul had no qualms about casually inviting himself to stay at Philemon's house following his release from prison. (Philemon 22) We also know from Verses 4-7 that he prayed for Philemon often. This was a man who was on St. Paul's heart.

In verse 5, Paul mentions “hearing of thy love and faith.” This is very similar to phrases found in the first chapter of Ephesians and Colossians. If these three letters were written at the same time, it makes sense that someone from that area had visited Paul and brought him news about the spiritual welfare of the churches and some of the individuals in the churches. Many people theorize that person was Epaphras, though some suggest it may have been Onesimus. At any rate, whoever brought the news, the upshot of the news was that Paul heard very good things about Philemon--specifically, about his faith in the Lord Jesus and his love for all Christians. The NET Bible comments on this verse: “The believers' invisible faith becomes visible in the demonstration of love for others.”

That tells us something about Philemon--verse 6 tells us something about Paul. In prayer, he gave thanks for the good things in Philemon's life and his immediate thought was to pray for a growth of those good things. I think it was said of some great inventor that whenever he saw something his first thought was, “How can I make that better?” That was Paul's attitude--whenever he saw someone doing well spiritually his first thought was, how can they do better? He prays, in verse 6, “That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus.” The phrase is rather hard to understand. Some, like Barnes, give it the idea that the outworking of Philemon's faith would become a testimony to the world around him about the true character of his faith. Others take it as speaking of Philemon's personal growth in faith and knowledge. But in either case, what Paul was praying for was a continual progression in Philemon's spiritual life.

In verse 7 we learn that Philemon's Christian love was both a comfort and a joy to Paul and to those around him. Philemon was a good man who did good for the people of the church. The hearts of Christians were refreshed by him. This is the kind of man Philemon was.

This is Paul's introduction. It is clear that there was a deep bond between these two men. It is clear that Philemon was a good man and that Paul was very pleased to hear of his spiritual state. These facts form the background for the rest of the book. Verse 8-21 contain the main body of the letter and introduce to the other main character--Onesimus.

As with Philemon and his family, Paul also makes a pun off Onesimus's name. The name Onesimus means profitable, leading to Paul's admission in verse 11 that he “in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me.” Verse 16 identifies him as a doulos--a slave, one bound to serve another--of Philemon. Philemon as a moderately wealthy man would likely have owned slaves. (Paul Copan suggests, however, that the term slave is a metaphor and that Onesimus was actually part of Philemon's family. So if you ever felt like your family treated you like a slave, there is a precedent.) Verse 15 says that he had “departed for a season” from Philemon. Many take this a deliberate understatement on Paul's part. The truth, most likely, that Philemon had run away from his master. Verse 18 suggests the possibility that Philemon had wronged his master and owed something to him. This might mean that he had stolen something from his master or perhaps had caused him a loss in some other way. Even slaves could have great responsibilities (think of Joseph) and it is possible that Onesimus was entrusted with something important by his master and either by accident or deliberately misused that trust and caused some loss to his master. This is what Paul means by saying that he had once been unprofitable to Philemon.

[In speaking of Onesimus wronging and being in debt to Philemon, Paul says “if.” Is this a rhetorical device? There are other places in the prison epistle where the concept “This... therefore that” is expressed by “If... then.” See Philippians 2:1-2. Robertson argues that in this case, the language implies that the supposed condition is actual. In that case, we could rephrase it: “Yes, I know he wronged you, but...” On the other hand, some suggest that Onesimus hadn't wronged Philemon and Paul uses this merely a supposition: “Even supposed he had wronged you, still...” Most likely, the reality was that it wasn't possible for Paul to judge the full rights and wrongs of the case, especially without hearing Philemon's side of the story, and so he said “if” to represent a genuine uncertainty.]

We believe slavery is wrong. As I pointed out in a previous article, St. Paul saw it as being far from an ideal thing. For that reason, our sympathies are probably more likely with Onesimus than with Philemon. But that isn't necessarily a fair picture. Given a social structure, even a bad social structure, there will always be rights and wrongs on both sides--the wrongness of slavery does not mean there were no good masters nor that there were no bad slaves. And certainly, from the very small amount of data we have in this book, it seems that Philemon had the better side of this encounter. We saw before the glowing description which Paul gives of Philemon at the beginning of the epistle--and though Paul may have been deliberately buttering him up, I don't believe he would have engaged in baseless flattery. Philemon seems to have been a strong Christian and a good man. Hopefully, that means that he was a good master as masters go, neither cruel nor unreasonable. And all we know about Onesimus in relation to Philemon that he had been unprofitable. The word can also be translated useless or even detrimental. Onesimus was a common name among slaves, for obvious reasons. The one thing you want from a slave is to be useful. And that was something Onesimus had not done. I don't think this refers to his “departure” from Philemon, but rather to his life as a slave before that departure. Whether this unprofitableness refers to a single act of some kind or to a general pattern of behavior, it does not give us a favorable impression of Onesimus.

We don't have enough details to say for sure, but it seems that whatever exactly had happened between Onesimus and Philemon, a good share of the blame did lie with Onesimus and that Philemon had some right to be angry at him, to feel that he had been wronged. This slave from whom he had expected service and respect had instead been unprofitable to him and had ended up running away.

But while that gives us a general picture of who Onesimus was, it isn't complete. The other thing we know about Onesimus is found in verse 10 in which Paul refers to him as “my son... whom I have begotten in my bonds.” It shouldn't be necessary to point out, but this doesn't mean that Onesimus was literally Paul's son whom he fathered while in prison. And while calling him “my son” could just mean in general that he felt affection towards him as if he were his son, the fact that he speaks of becoming his father suggests that Paul had been instrumental in leading him to Christ. (See 1 Corinthians 4:15) This idea is repeated in verse 16 which refers to him as “a brother beloved... in the Lord.” To be “in the Lord” is a typically Pauline expression for being a Christian. We are saved “in the Lord”--by sitting with Christ in heavenly places.

And while he had once been unprofitable, now he had been profitable--specifically, he had been profitable to Paul. It seems from verse 13 (though this is far from certain) that he had ministered to Paul while in prison. As we know, Paul was under house arrest at this time, meaning he had more freedom than a typical prisoner would, but still unable to leave his house. He would have been dependent on other people for everything, and so it is not hard to imagine how Onesimus could have proved useful to him. But the point to notice is that he had. The one who had once been unprofitable was now profitable. There had been a great change--because he had been born again.

And that brings us up to the point of this letter. Here we have Paul, in prison in Rome. And we have Onesimus and Philemon. Both of these men were very close to Paul. Both had been brought to Christ by Paul. Paul refers to both of them as his brothers. And yet there was something in the past which was a barrier between Onesimus and Philemon. Philemon no doubt felt, and perhaps not without justification, that Onesimus had wronged him, had betrayed him, had hurt him both by being (in whatever way) “unprofitable” and by running away. There was a break, a problem between these two men--something that seemingly went beyond merely the fact that one was a master and one a slave. And that placed Paul in a difficult position--because he was a friend, and a close friend, to both of these men who were enemies to each other. If Philemon had found out that Paul was harboring Onesimus and offering him sanctuary, he might have been upset, feeling that Paul had betrayed him.

Moreover, Onesimus was (seemingly) a fugitive, a runaway. As such, he did have a certain danger hanging over his head. In the large city of Rome, it was probably unlikely that anyone would know who he was, but if he had returned to Colosse, it likely that he would have been known as a runaway and could have been arrested and returned to his master. We do not know what Philemon would have done if he had caught Onesimus. But we do know what in general happened to runaway slaves when they were caught. The typical punishment was death by crucifixion or branding with a hot iron.

This was the somewhat complex, awkward situation that St. Paul, for better or for worse, found himself. He had a close, personal bond to both Philemon and Onesimus. But Philemon had (possibly) legitimate reason to feel bitter and antagonistic to Onesimus.  And for that reason, and because he was a runaway slave, Onesimus had reason to be fearful of a meeting with Philemon. And so, Paul wrote this letter.

The main point to notice about Paul's method of dealing with this is his love. I think reading over this letter, the heart of Paul is the strongest impression we get. Paul cared deeply about both of these men and wanted the best for both of them. And so he did not choose sides. Because he was a friend of Philemon, he could have joined in his bitterness and distrust of Onesimus. Because he was a friend of Onesimus, he could have joined in his bitterness and distrust of Philemon. But that isn't what he did.

Paul was an apostle with a special authority invested in him by Jesus Christ; he was a leader in the church; he was a recognized authority figure, even if he was presently in prison; and he was a man to whom Philemon owed a great deal (v. 19). If you read Paul's other letters, you'll see that he had no trouble in telling people just what to do; in speaking with the authority vested in him as an apostle. Paul had the right and authority as an apostle, as a leader, as a man to whom Philemon owed a debt--Paul had the right and authority to tell Philemon what to do. He could have ordered Philemon to be reconciled with Onesimus--a fact which he casually reminds Philemon of in verse 8. But what would have happened if he had?

I think Philemon would have listened (though, obviously, Paul couldn't actually FORCE him to do anything), but any forgiveness given under those circumstances wouldn't have been real. If anything, the gulf between Philemon and Onesimus would only have grown wider. For genuine reconciliation, for genuine healing to take place, Philemon had to offer it freely. And that is why Paul did not command Philemon but instead “beseech”ed him, he asked him, he requested him. In verses 13-14, Paul says that he would have liked to keep Onesimus with him as a helper there in prison, saying that Onesimus could have rendered the service that Philemon himself would have rendered if he had been there, “but without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly.” If Philemon had sent Onesimus to minister to Paul, that would have been a real act of service on Philemon's part. If Onesimus had stayed and served Paul without Philemon knowing anything about it, that would not have been a real act of service on Philemon's part. For it to be real, Philemon had to cooperate willingly. And in the same way, for any reconciliation to take place, both men had to cooperate willingly. That was why Paul requested rather than commanded. (And while we can't push the parallel too far, this is also the way God deals with us. God could force us to follow Him, but instead, He entreats us, never moving without our will.)

And notice what Paul used as the basis of this request. (vv 10-12) He is telling Philemon--if you love me, if you would hear an appeal for me, then hear an appeal for Onesimus. Barnes thinks there is a significance in the fact that in verse 10 in Greek the name Onesimus is placed at the very end of the verse. Philemon would first read of this man as Paul's son, as someone Paul cared deeply about--and only after that was he reminded that the man was Onesimus, the man who had once wronged him. Paul's point was that if Philemon loved Paul he should also love Onesimus. He will pick up this thought in a more definite way in verse 17: “If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself.”  Paul carries this thought even further in verses 18-19, in which he takes personal responsibility for Onesimus. As we pointed out before, it appears that there was at least a possibility that Onesimus had wronged Philemon in some way, that he was in debt to him in some way. In order for reconciliation to take place, this debt had to be taken care of. But Onesimus, as a runaway slave, didn't exactly have mountains of cash lying around. And so Paul took on himself that debt, making it clear that he would take responsibility for paying back whatever Onesimus owed. He took Onesimus's debt to Philemon as his own and promised to repay it if Philemon asked. And while I don't think he expected Philemon to ask him to carry through with this promise, I believe he was ready and willing to do it. (Though since he had been in prison for the last several years, where would he have gotten the money? Maybe he had still been able to do some tentmaking while in prison. Or maybe he still had some money left over from that which Philippi had sent him.)

We should notice that Paul was taking a risk in all this, and I don't just mean the financial risk of repaying Onesimus's debts. There was always the possibility that Philemon would refuse to forgive Onesimus--and if he did then, with Paul identifying with Onesimus as he did, then Philemon would have transferred his animosity from Onesimus to Paul. This attempt of Paul's could have led to a break in the relationship between Paul and Philemon. But Paul took that risk in order to bring about reconciliation.

And while we can't push the analogy too far, I want to point out that in doing this Paul was showing the love of Christ--because that is what Christ did. In order to bring reconciliation between mankind and God, He took upon Himself the responsibility for the guilt and debt of man, standing with man. Because Paul promised--or warned--us in Romans that if we are Christians, the love of God will be shed abroad in our heart. And if the love of God is in someone's heart, they will love like God and that is what we see happening here in Philemon.

So the main point to notice in all this is the love of Paul in which he took the risk of identifying himself with Onesimus in order to bring about reconciliation.

There is a second point to notice here. In verse 15, he speaks of Onesimus's departure from Philemon saying: “Perhaps he therefore departed for a season.” Most of the translators take this word “therefore” in the sense of “for this reason” or “because of this.” In other words, that though Onesimus had probably run away from Philemon, possibly doing him some kind of wrong in the process, there had been a deeper purpose behind it and something good had come out of it. This reminds of what Joseph says to his brothers in Genesis 50:20. “But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.” What Joseph's brothers had done to him was wrong, inexcusable, and, from a human standpoint, unforgivable. But Joseph did forgive his brothers and at least part of his reason was that he realized that despite their evil intentions, their act had actually been allowed by God in order to accomplish something good. The sin of Joseph's brothers, without ceasing to be what it was, became something more as it became part of the plan of God, and that seems to have been why Joseph was able to be completely at peace about it. In the same way, Paul is suggesting that perhaps Onesimus's act--wrong as it might have been--had also been allowed by God for a greater purpose.

But what was that purpose? “That thou shouldest receive him for ever; not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?” Philemon and Onesimus had once had a relationship that was, to put it mildly, purely a business relationship. Onesimus was bound in service to Philemon and that was about all there was to that. As we said before, it is reasonable to assume that Philemon was a good master as masters go, and their relationship may have been as amicable as the relationship between master and servant is ever likely to be. But that is all they were to each other--master and servant. And that was a relationship which couldn't last forever. Onesimus had already partly destroyed it by running away and inevitably, if nothing else, it would have been sundered by death.

But now something had changed. A new relationship had been created between them, one that would exist forever. Because Philemon was a Christian and Onesimus had now become a Christian, they were brothers in the Lord. I already mentioned that they were united in their common friendship with St. Paul, but they were also united in their common friendship with God. That is what had been achieved. The NET Bible puts it: “Their new relationship as brothers in Christ would transcend the societal structures of this age. The occasion of Onesimus' flight to Rome would ultimately be a catalyst in the formation of a new and stronger bond between these two men.” They were no longer what they had once been. Onesimus was no longer merely a runaway slave who had wronged his master and so Paul is telling Philmon not to treat him as one. And while this is controversial, Paul seems to be asking Philmon to set Onesimus free from slavery, so that he would be no longer a slave but something more than a slave. Throughout all that had gone down between these two, Philemon had not lost a slave--he had gained a brother.

And that is how this all connections back to Ephesians (and Colossians). In Ephesians 6, Paul made it clear that slaves--though forced by circumstances to serve their masters) were not mere 'things,' were not of an inferior race to their masters--rather they were human beings who could glorify God and would be judged by God. That was why Paul could make the appeal he did--because Onesimus was not merely Philemon's slave. He was a human being, who had once been a sinner but who was now a child of God and was, therefore, a brother beloved both in the flesh and in the Lord. That was the common thing which united these three men--Paul, Philemon, and Onesimus--as different as they may have been in other ways--they all loved and were loved by God.

Paul ends with this appeal: “Yes, brother, let me have some benefit from you in the Lord. Refresh my heart in Christ.” (v. 20, NET Bible) Some have pointed out that the Greek word for “receive benefit” (or “receive joy” as in the KJV) is the root word for Onesimus's name. Onesimus had once been worthless to Philemon, but now he had become profitable to both Philemon and Paul, and if Philemon received him as a brother that would prove profitable to Paul. The NET Bible points out this verse mirrors verse 7. Just as Philemon had brought refreshment to other Christians, Paul was asking that he refresh his heart by receiving Onesimus. He had done good for other people; he could now do good for Paul.

That is the end of Paul's appeal. The big question which remains is this: did Philemon respond to this appeal? Did Philemon forgive and receive Onesimus? Though we don't know for sure there, are several indications that he did. (1) Paul believed he would. “Having confidence in thy obedience I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do more than I say.” (v. 21) Paul felt that he knew Philemon well enough to know what he would do under the circumstances. That he would not just forgive Onesimus but even go above and beyond what Paul had asked. This is also confirmed in another way. When Paul wrote Colossians he notes that he sent Tychicus and Onesimus to fill in details about how he was doing. (Colossians 4:7-9) This obviously couldn't have been written before the events of Philemon took place. If Colossians is written later, this would be proof that Philemon had, at any rate, not killed Onesimus and had allowed him the freedom to continue serving Paul. If, as I theorized at the beginning, Colossians and Philemon were written at the same time and delivered at the same time, then this is proof that Paul felt certain that Philemon would forgive Onesimus. If Philemon had had Onesimus executed upon return, that would have put a definite damper on the end of Colossians. (2) There was an added incentive because Paul and Philemon might soon meet. (See v. 22) Paul had hopes that he would soon be released from prison and intended to visit Colosse. The possibility of Paul's imminent visit would have given another reason (and perhaps put a little pressure) on Philemon. (3) The church father Ignatius mentions a man named Onesimus who was bishop of Ephesus and there are many who believe it was the same as this Onesimus. (4) When I first seriously asked myself about Philemon's response, the cynic in me responded that Philemon probably tore the letter up and had Onesimus killed. But if he had done that, then we wouldn't be reading this letter today. Of course, we believe the Bible to be inspired, so ultimately God superintended events so that this book ended up in the Bible. But there is also a human side to the process, and it is rather strange when you think of it. This was a very personal, very private letter between two men. Paul wasn't allowed a computer in prison so it would have been written by hand. Paul may have made a rough draft for himself but the main letter he obviously sent to Philemon. At that point, only two copies of this letter existed. In order for it to end up in the Bible, someone had to make a handwritten copy of one of those copies and pass it on. Either Paul or Philemon had to make the decision take this personal letter and make the effort to copy it out and pass it around for public inspection. And really that only makes sense under the assumption that Philemon and Onesimus were reconciled and that this letter was a testimony to just what God had done for them.

A master and his slave are not likely to get along all that well under the best of circumstances. And here we have a slave who had failed and wronged, perhaps even betrayed, his master. As a master, Philemon had a legal right to get revenge in any way he wanted, and he could have done it without raising an eyebrow in his society. If there could be forgiveness and reconciliation in such a situation--if such a master and slave could be transformed into brothers--then that would be a shining testimony to the world of just what Christianity could really do.