Letter to Philemon (Part Seventeen)

Part Seventeen of the New Testament Survey Series

Khen Lim




Onesimus seeks Philemon's forgiveness (Image source: patheos.com)

Paul’s letter to his friend, Philemon, is unique not least because it only has one chapter with 25 verses, making it the shortest in the New Testament. Besides that, this is not a letter to a church or any group of people but specifically to an individual.

Considering both of these points, for such a letter to be included in the New Testament simply means that the Early Church Fathers saw something quite significant in it that is worthy of canonisation.

The basic underlying theme behind the letter is Paul’s appeal to Philemon, a leader in the Colossian church, concerning another person who goes by the name of Onesimus. Apparently there is some acrimony between the two people and Paul is using the letter to try to get the two to reconcile with one another.

In the letter, he asks Philemon to make peace with Onesimus in two ways – firstly as a brother and then as a fellow believer. In Christian brotherhood, Paul reminds his friend that he should no longer treat Onesimus as a slave but instead to bring about the opportunity for him to join him in ministry (vv.12-16) in reflection of the meaning behind his name, being ‘useful’ (vv.8-11).

As a fellow believer, Philemon should welcome Onesimus as someone whom Paul had been instrument in converting to Christ (vv.17-19). Then in verse 20, Paul makes one final appeal by not only stroking Philemon’s pride as a way to get him to grant Onesimus freedom (vv.20-21) but also to predict confidently that he would even outstrip his expectations in doing so.

So who is this Onesimus that he could riled up Philemon enough for Paul to write him a letter of appeasement? In the New Testament, the name Onesimus appears twice – once in this letter and the other in Colossians 4 where in verse 9, a Christian by the same name is said to accompany Tychicus to visit fellow Christians in the city of Colossae. However we know nothing else about him other than just that but the possibility is certainly there that he could be the same Onesimus as the one in Paul’s letter to Philemon.¹

Philemon is a slave-master who is a new Christian while Onesimus is a runaway slave. Scripture tells us that Onesimus had escaped punishment for a theft that he was accused of but we don’t know if this accusation is justified but we do know that in running away, he went to where Paul was imprisoned (which is either Rome or Caesarea).

It was because of this encounter that Onesimus accepted Christ (v.10). Before this, Paul had also converted Philemon to Christianity as well. It is very likely that because Paul was witnessed to their conversions, he felt the responsibility to try and bring them together and reconcile. Hence the letter to Philemon.

In Paul’s enthusiasm to seek the depths of Philemon’s Christian love, we have an unforgettable lesson about Christianity and slavery. Here the apostle teaches that being a brother in Christ means more than a master-slave relationship.

This is a very important development at a time when even the church had no policy condemning slavery. Paul’s position in this matter underscores a sense of moral responsibility that helped to lay the foundation in the relationship between the owner and the slave.

Paul’s urgings to Philemon exemplifies two things. Firstly no one would be able to do what the apostle did if it were not for the fact that he had seen the light of the Gospel. In other words, it is only by being Gospel equipped that this is possible.

Secondly Paul’s letter offers us the opportunity to tell the difference between the effects of law and grace. Where law operates, the relationship between the owner and the slave remains rigid and enshrined in legal restrictions that may be true but harsh, brutal and unkind. However where grace is empowered, we experience the power of love eclipsing all else in the true fellowship of Christ.

It is true that Philemon is within his rights given within Roman – and even Mosaic – law to impose punitive measures against a runaway slave whom he owns but the covenant of grace that Paul espouses helps us to view the relationship between Philemon and Onesimus as one that is beyond a master and his slave. Inspired by Christ, Philemon is encouraged to see Onesimus in a completely different light and vice-versa.

To even remotely suggest that Paul is not the author is unimaginable. After all, this is a personal letter from a friend to a friend, concerning another friend (1:1). All three have mutual relationships that are all indisputably tied back to Paul the apostle and evangelist. Nothing can be clearer than this and therefore authorship is not in doubt. However modern scholars are questioning the place from which he wrote the letter and admittedly, this is not clear.

It is said that Paul was imprisoned here in the Mammertine Prison in Rome (Image source: unboundoperator.wordpress.com)

We are aware that Paul wrote it from prison and like some of the Prison Epistles, we will have to choose between Rome, Caesarea and also Ephesus. The timing of certain events may tell us that Rome could be the best option. For example, we know that this letter was written within the same time period as that to the Colossians, which draws us to 64AD when Paul was under house arrest in Rome (Acts 28:30-31).

As just it was his letter to the Colossians, Paul’s co-writer in this case is also Timothy. Furthermore we do have a few names to contend with including Epaphras, Apphia, Archippus, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke. All were Paul’s companions at some stage of his life and missionary journeys. But who are they and what made them important enough for Paul to have included in his letter to Philemon?

-         Epaphras

Epaphras was a Christian pastor who helped spread the Gospel to his fellow citizens in Colossae. It is believed that he met Paul while the apostle was a prisoner in Rome where he came with a favourable account of the church community in Colossae.

-         Apphia

Nowhere else in the New Testament other than in Paul’s letter to Philemon that Apphia is mentioned. Essentially we know very little of her other than Paul addressing her as “our sister,” in the Christian parlance (as in ‘sister in Christ’).

We may consider that she was a faithful servant that Paul had come to know but then it is also possible that as the church in is in fact Philemon’s home, she could also be his wife and Archippus could then be their son.

This would conveniently dovetail with the assumption that Philemon, Apphia and Archippus were mentioned together as a family with their home and since Paul’s letter was about a domestic issue, all this could therefore make sense.

Tradition suggests that all three died during the reign of Nero although Scripture doesn’t provide such information.

-         Archippus

The Archippus that is mentioned in this letter (1:2) was named alongside Philemon and Apphia as if he is related. There are in fact some who believe he may be the son of Philemon and Apphia, assuming that these two are married to each other.

There is also an Archippus that appeared in Colossians 4:17 whom Paul had asked to act more diligently on his ministry. In that sense, it is possible that he was a pastor but we don’t know which church he would have been associated with.

Then we also have records from the Apostolic Constitutions (7.46) from the fourth century that reveals another Archippus who was the first bishop of Laodicea in Phrygia, which is today, a part of modern Turkey. Yet tradition also has it that another Archippus was one of the seventy-two disciples whom Jesus appointed (Lk 10:1).

-         Mark (or Marcus)

This is the same Mark (1:24) as the one whose relationship with Paul was strained to the point of breakup (Acts 15:38-40, 2 Tim 4:11) but here, they have mended their ways and reconciled, a fact well known to the believers in Colossae (Col 4:10).

It is probably that Paul mentioned Mark in the letter as a subtle way to remind Philemon that even he had to work through issues of Christian forgiveness. In other words even someone with a stout apostolic authority had relied on the grace of God to remedy things with John Mark.

-         Aristarchus

Aristarchus was one of Paul’s faithful companions who shared his trials and tribulations and who had travelled to Rome with him. He is also mentioned alongside Gaius as having been mesmerised by the excited Ephesians in a riot that was fanned by the angry silversmiths (Acts 19:29). Together (with Gaius), they were known as the ‘men of Macedonia’ who were also Paul’s travelling companions.

This probably took place almost immediately following the uproar in Ephesus. The ‘men of Macedonia’ name could be because Aristarchus faithfully accompanied Paul from Greece via Macedonia (Acts 20:4).

According to Acts in verses 20:4 and 27:2, Aristarchus was a native of Thessalonika. It is likely that he and Gaius were pulled up by authorities to weed out Paul whom they considered to be their leader but when they refused to disclose anything, they were left unharmed because they were Greeks.

We also know from Acts 27:2 that Aristarchus shared prison time with Paul, which is why the apostle called him “my fellow prisoner.” Tradition suggests that he was also martyred during the reign of Nero.

-         Demas

Demas is any companion of Paul (1:24), a man who was involved in ministry but beyond that, it is difficult to know more. However we believe that he is also the same Demas as the one mentioned in 2 Tim 4:10a where Paul wrote in the letter saying, “…for Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonika” and yet the apostle considers him a “fellow labourer,” (Phm 24) which may translate as a co-worker (from the Greek word sunergos).

W.D. Thomas points out that this co-worker relationship could suggest that he and Paul had worked closely as partners, sharing their burdens and responsibilities and in that sense, they might have been equal to one another. Thomas went on to claim that possibly, Demas was a “close confidant of Paul, sharing the apostle’s vision of winning the world for God.”²

-         Luke (or Lucas)

The Luke mentioned in this letter is the same as the physician who stayed with Paul in Rome. And he is the same Luke who wrote the Gospel and the same who, alongside Aristarchus, were Paul’s travelling companions on the trip to Rome (Acts 27:1-2).

Essentially Paul mentioned the names of these people because at some point in time during his stay in Rome as well as his missionary journeys, he had depended on their faith and loyalty.

Paul’s letter to Philemon maybe short but it is thematically simple yet important. We find two messages that tell us of sacrificial love on the one hand and slavery on the other.

The lesson of sacrificial love applies equally to us whether at our workplace or at home. Paul’s advice to Philemon inspires us to seriously consider how we should treat Christian employees as members that uphold the Body of Christ in the same way as all of us do.

What we should not do is to treat people like mere stepping stones amidst our ambitiousness but instead as brothers and sisters in Christ with whom we are to be gracious, accommodating and understanding. If we do not do this, we merely risk being held accountable before God because we lack action and/or compassion (Col 4:1).

There are in fact certain important characteristics concerning sacrificial love that Paul underlines in his letter. In the negotiation, the new Christian, Onesimus, concedes that he must revert to Philemon and submit to his authority because he is his master and that may even result in justifiable (lawful) punishment.

In order to appeal to Philemon’s conciliatory love and compassion, Paul also chose to write the letter void of the usual apostolic authority to which he has. Instead he dispensed with it and took on a soft and humble approach. He did this for two reasons: firstly, in a hope that he could reach deep into Philemon’s heart of hearts and secondly – and more importantly – to ensure that he would clearly understand that he did it not out of favour to Paul but to please God.

As for the matter of slavery, it is an incredibly sensitive issue to deal with in the days of Paul. We should not be concerned if slavery is or isn’t abominable because society’s values back then are not how we understand them today. It may not be politically correct today to run a slave farm but in the ancient past of many nations, it was very much part of what was expected.

Amidst all of this, most if not all New Testament writers did not broach on the subject but then they did not necessarily agree with slavery. Certainly Scripture does not record it as such also. When we consider the sensitivity of the subject matter, it must be very difficult to open up and talk about it for anyone.

In Paul’s case, writing a letter to his friend, Philemon, a new Christian whom he converted concerning a runaway slave, Onesimus, another new Christian whom he also converted, is no small feat, as one can imagine. This explains why he changed tact with his writing style. That is why he did not act on his apostolic authority but instead spoke as a friend. That also explains why he used the opportunity to turn the issue from a legalistic relationship to one that concerns a relationship between one Christian brother and another.

By doing so, he basically appealed to Philemon to look at his relationship from a different perspective; one in which the apostle hoped he would take into account the spiritual status – and well-being – of someone who was born again and therefore has been transformed by God’s grace.

Last and but least, let us not forget that this is definitely a very different letter to any that Paul has ever written up to this point. Notwithstanding the personal angle, Paul displayed exceptional tact with elegant grace, impeccably subtle negotiation skills and a humanly soft-hearted appeal. Verses 7 to 10 reveals just such beauty we speak of: “In the past, brother, you have so frequently ‘refreshed the hearts of the saints’ – now I want you to do it again.”

Verses 8 and 9 show how he refrained from exerting his apostolic authority. Instead Paul felt it was better to reach deep into Philemon’s heart using a non-authoritative approach. He appealed to his Christian emotions to help the new convert realise the new desire to do what is right, to do it for the sake of love (v.9), to do it for an old man like Paul (v.9), to do it for a prisoner such as he (v.9), to do it for one who was now as well loved as being his son (v.10) and finally to do it for the one who was also saved through Paul’s affliction (v.10).

As many say, this may be a short letter but it is nothing short of remarkable significance. Paul’s versatility in displaying a very different style of writing might confound modern scholars but let’s look at it as another example of great divine grace.

1. It is also probable that he is the same Onesimus named by Ignatius of Antioch to be the Bishop in Ephesus. According to the Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, he is the one consecrated a bishop by the apostles and who accepted the episcopal throne in Ephesus after Timothy. During the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian, Onesimus was imprisoned in Rome and subsequently died either by stoning or beheading.

2. Thomas, W.D. 1983-1984. Demas the Deserter. Expository Times, 95: 179-180.

 Part Eighteen (Book of Revelation) will be available on April 6 2016. This will be the final part of the New Testament Survey Series.