The Epistle to Philemon
Philemon 1:1-3 KJV 1 Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our
brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer, 2 And to
our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church
in thy house: 3 Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the
Lord Jesus Christ.
Introduction
The letter to an individual named Philemon is probably the strangest letter that Paul ever wrote. It is actually a letter of intercession for an individual by the name of Onesimus. There are several details to be considered in the overview of this book.
Before this, however, it is interesting to take a look at who was with Paul at the time of the writing of this letter.
Epaphras is the first mentioned. Paul calls him a “fellow prisoner”. It is believed that Epaphras was also a prisoner that was also brought to Rome at the same time as Paul. It is also believed that he was from Colossae as well, which means that he might have been very familiar with Philemon. It seems that he might have been released at the same time as Paul, not having his case heard by Ceasar as yet. Tradition states that he later became a Colossae and was eventually martyred there.
Marcus is the second mentioned. This would be no other than John Mark the one who had first accompanied Paul on his first missionary journey but turned back not long into the trip. It was over him that Paul and Barnabas had their great disagreement resulting in Barnabas and Mark going in one direction and Paul and Silas going in another. At this point in time Paul states in Second Timothy that Mark is profitable to him in the ministry.
377
Apparently, all disagreements had been settled between the parties.
Therefore, Mark is now in Rome with Paul.
Aristarchus of Thessalonica is the third man mentioned. Acts twenty-seven places him on the same sea voyage to Rome with Paul and Luke. He was one of the two men that were that were seized in the riot at Ephesus. Was he also a prisoner with Paul? We cannot tell for sure if he was, however, he was present in Rome with Paul when this letter was written. Tradition holds that he was also martyred in Rome under Nero.
The fourth mentioned is a man by the name of Demas. At the time of the writing of the letter to Philemon, Demas was a fellow laborer with Paul. It seems a short time later that he deserts Paul at Rome and goes to Thessalonica. Paul states that he loved the present world more than he did the cause of Christ. After Demas arrives in Thessalonica, no more is heard of him in human history.
Philemon
I stated in the beginning of the Introduction that there were some details to consider in this epistle. The first detail to consider is the individual to whom the letter is written. Philemon seems to have been a wealthy individual who had been saved under the ministry of Paul during the time he spent at Colossae. It is believed that the church at Colossae probably met in his home. Paul greets not only Philemon but also Apphia, believed to be Philemon’s wife, and Archippus, believed to be either Philemon’s son or possibly the pastor of the church, or maybe even both. It is not possible to know for sure concerning Archippus. Paul also greets the church that meets in Philemon’s home. This indicates that though the letter is addressed personally to Philemon, he seems to want the letter made available to the entire church.
Philemon had an excellent reputation. The reputation of both Philemon and the church in his home had crossed the sea and reached Paul’s ears and heart in the Roman prison. They were good witnesses and light bearers for our Lord and His church.1
378
Most believe that Philemon was a slave owner. Many would hold it against him that he was, believing that it made him a “bad Christian.” We must remember that slavery was very common in those times and just because an individual was an owner of other humans did not necessarily make him or her a bad person. We will see more on this a bit later.
It is the shortest of all the New Testament writings, especially by Paul. It probably consisted of only one page. It was also written in the same time frame as the previous epistles that we have considered that are part of the
“Prison Epistles.”
Onesimus
Onesimus is the subject of the letter to Philemon. Many would say that he was a slave of Philemon and after stealing from him, ran away to Rome so that he could disappear. In Rome he somehow came in contact with Paul and as a result was saved.
Some would say that Onesimus was already saved, having been in Colossae at the same time as Paul and the start of the church there, and desiring to see Paul again, stole from Philemon and went to Rome to find Paul. This is not as believable as him being a slave and running away.
On the subject of Onesimus being a slave of Philemon, based on verse sixteen, Albert Barnes has some enlightening insight on the subject. 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?
Not now as a servant - The adverb rendered “not now”
(οὐκέτι ouketi), means “no more, no further, no longer.” It implies that he had been before in this condition, but was not to be now; compare Mat_19:6, “They are no more twain.”
They were once so, but they are not to be regarded as such
now; Mat_22:46, “Neither durst any man, from that day forth ask him any more questions.” They once did it, but now
they did not dare to do it; Luk_15:19, “And am no more 379
worthy to be called thy son,” though I once was; Joh_6:66,
“And walked no more with him,” though they once did; see
also Joh_11:54; Joh_14:19; Joh_17:11; Act_8:39; Gal_4:7;
Eph_2:19. This passage then proves that he had been before
a servant - δοῦλος doulos - a slave. But still, it is not certain what kind of a servant he was. The word does not necessarily
mean slave, nor can it be proved from this passage, or from
any other part of the Epistle, that he was at any time a slave; see the Eph_6:5 note, and 1Ti_6:1 note. The word denotes
servant of any kind, and it should never be assumed that those to whom it was applied were slaves. It is true that slavery existed in the heathen nations when the gospel was
first preached, and it is doubtless true that many slaves were converted (compare the notes at 1Co_7:21), but the mere use
of the word does not necessarily prove that he to whom it is
applied was a slave. If Onesimus was a slave, there is reason to think that he was of a most respectable character (compare the notes at Col_4:9), and indeed all that is implied in the use of the term here, and all that is said of him, would be met by the supposition that he was a voluntary servant, and that he
had been in fact intrusted with important business by Philemon. It would seem from Phm_1:18 (“or oweth thee ought”), that he was in a condition which made it possible
for him to hold property, or at least to be intrusted.
But above a servant, a brother beloved - A Christian brother; compare the notes at 1Ti_6:2. He was especially dear to Paul
himself as a Christian, and he trusted that he would be so to Philemon.
Specially to me - That is, I feel a special or particular interest in him, and affection for him. This he felt not only on account of the traits of character which he had evinced since his conversion, but because he had been converted under his
380
instrumentality when he was a prisoner. A convert made in
such circumstances would be particularly dear to one.
But how much more unto thee - Why, it may be asked, would
he then be particularly dear to Philemon? I answer, because:
(1) Of the former relation which he sustained to him - a member of his own family, and bound to him by strong ties;
(2) Because he would receive him as a penitent, and would
have joy in his returning from the error of his ways;
(3) Because he might expect him to remain long with him
and be of advantage to him as a Christian brother; and,
(4) Because he had voluntarily returned, and thus shown that
he felt a strong attachment to his former master.
In the flesh - This phrase is properly used in reference to any relation which may exist pertaining to the present world, as
contradistinguished from that which is formed primarily by
religion, and which would be expressed by the subjoined phrase, “in the Lord.” It might, in itself, refer to any natural relation of blood, or to any formed in business, or to any constituted by mere friendship, or to family alliance, or to any relation having its origin in voluntary or involuntary servitude. It is not necessary to suppose, in order to meet the full force of the expression, either that Onesimus had been a slave, or that he would continue to be regarded as such.
Whatever relation of the kind, referred to above, may have
existed between him and Philemon, would be appropriately
denoted by this phrase. The new and more interesting
relation which they were now to sustain to each other, which
was formed by religion, is expressed by the phrase “in the
Lord.” In both these, Paul hoped that Onesimus would
381
manifest the appropriate spirit of a Christian, and be worthy of his entire confidence.
In the Lord - As a Christian. He will be greatly endeared to
your heart as a consistent and worthy follower of the Lord
Jesus. - On this important verse then, in relation to the use which is so often made of this Epistle by the advocates of slavery, to show that Paul sanctioned it, and that it is a duty to send back those who have escaped from their masters that
they may again be held in bondage, we may remark that:
(1) There is no certain evidence that Onesimus was ever a
slave at all. All the proof that he was, is to be found in the word δοῦλος doulos - doulos - in this verse. But, as we have seen, the mere use of this word by no means proves that. All
that is necessarily implied by it is that he was in some way
the servant of Philemon - whether hired or bought cannot be
shown.
(2) At all events, even supposing that he had been a slave,
Paul did not mean that he should return as such, or to be regarded as such. He meant, whatever may have been his former relation, and whatever subsequent relation he may have sustained, that he should be regarded as a beloved Christian brother; that the leading conception in regard to him should be that he was a fellow-heir of salvation, a member of the same redeemed church, a candidate for the
same heaven.
(3) Paul did not send him back in order that he might be a
slave, or with a view that the shackles of servitude should be riveted on him. There is not the slightest evidence that he forced him to return, or that he advised him to do it, or even that he expressed a wish that he would; and when he did send
him, it was not as a slave, but as a beloved brother in the 382
Lord. It cannot be shown that the motive for sending him back was in the slightest degree that he should be a slave. No such thing is intimated, nor is any such thing necessary to be supposed in order to a fair interpretation of the passage.
(4) It is clear that, even if Onesimus had been a slave before, it would have been contrary to the wishes of Paul that Philemon should now hold him as such. Paul wished him to
regard him “not as a servant,” but as a “beloved brother.” If Philemon complied with his wishes, Onesimus was never
afterward regarded or treated as a slave. If he did so regard or treat him, it was contrary to the expressed intention of the apostle, and it is certain that he could never have shown this letter in justification of it. It cannot fail to strike any one that if Philemon followed the spirit of this Epistle, he would not consider Onesimus to be a slave, but if he sustained the relation of a servant at all, it would be as a voluntary member of his household, where, in all respects, he would be regarded and treated, not as a “chattel,” or a “thing,” but as a Christian brother.
(5) This passage, therefore, may be regarded as full proof that it is not right to send a slave back, against his will, to his former master, to be a slave. It is right to help one if he wishes to go back; to give him a letter to his master, as Paul did to Onesimus; to furnish him money to help him on his
journey if he desires to return; and to commend him as a Christian brother, if he is such; but beyond that, the example of the apostle Paul does not go. It is perfectly clear that he would not have sent him back to be regarded and treated as
a slave, but being able to commend him as a Christian, he
was willing to do it, and he expected that he would be treated, not as a slave, but as a Christian. The case before us does not go at all to prove that Paul would have ever sent 383
him back to be a chattel or a thing. If, with his own consent, and by his own wish, we can send a slave back to his master,
to be treated as a Christian and as a man, the example of Paul may show that it would be right to do it, but it does not go
beyond that.
(6) In confirmation of this, and as a guide in duty now, it may be observed, that Paul had been educated as a Hebrew; that
he was thoroughly imbued with the doctrines of the Old Testament, and that one of the elementary principles of that
system of religion was, that a runaway slave was in no circumstances to be returned by force to his former master.
“Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant that is escaped from his master unto thee;” Deu_23:15. It cannot be
supposed that, trained as he was in the principles of the Hebrew religion - of which this was a positive and
unrepealed law, and imbued with the benevolent spirit of the
gospel - a system so hostile to oppression, the apostle Paul
would have constrained a slave who had escaped from
bondage to return to servitude against his will.
(7) It may be added, that if the principles here acted on by
Paul were carried out, slavery would speedily cease in the world. Very soon would it come to an end if masters were to
regard those whom they hold, “not as slaves,” but as beloved
Christian brothers; not as chattels and things, but as the redeemed children of God. Thus regarding them, they would
no longer feel that they might chain them, and task them, and sell them as property. They would feel that as Christians and as men, they were on a level with themselves, and that they
who were made in the image of God, and who had been redeemed with the blood of his Son, “ought to be free.”2
Paul Writes His Own Letter
384
In verse nineteen, Paul states that he has written the letter with his own hand.
Most, if not all, of Paul’s writings were dictated to someone else who did the actual writing. There were some that Paul signed with his own hand but not many. This was a personal letter to a friend and fellow believer and laborer. Luke was probably available to write it, but Paul preferred to do it himself. After all, he was asking Philemon to take back someone who had wronged him, and maybe not just a little. Philemon was being asked to take Onesimus back as a brother, not as a servant. He had expressed a desire to keep Onesimus with him to help him but did not want to do that because of his friendship with Philemon. He knew that Onesimus would go back and be someone who would be as profitable as he was with Paul.
Another unique thing about Paul’s letter is that if Onesimus owed Philemon anything (which he probably did), Paul was taking on the debt himself. He indicated that he would pay the debt that Onesimus owed. He would make restitution. This was very “Christ-like” of him to do this. Jesus took our sin debt that He did not owe and paid it in full.
Paul’s Release Expected
No doubt Paul took responsibility for Onesimus’ debt because he expected to return to Colossae in the near future. He said in verse twenty-two, But
withal prepare me also a lodging: for I trust that through your prayers I
shall be given unto you. Paul seemed quite confident that he would be released soon. It was probably close to the end of the two years of house arrest and his case still had not come before Ceasar. According to Roman Law if a case had not been before Ceasar within two years, the prisoner was to be released. That time was coming to an end. It seems that Paul anticipated paying that debt of Onesimus.
Conclusion
Next, we will consider what happened to Paul after the two years came to an end.
385
1 Albert Garner, Power Bible CD 3.8a, his comments on Philemon five 2 Rick Meyers, e-Sword, version 13.0.0, copyright 2000-2021, Albert Barnes, his comments on Philemon
386