Epistle To Philemon

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible

Philemon, Epistle To

1. Occasion and contents . This beautiful private letter, unique in the NT, purports to be from St. Paul (with whose name that of Timothy is joined, as in 1 and 2 Thess., 2 Cor., Philipp., Col.) to Philemon, with Apphia and Archlppus, and the church in his house. This plural address appears, quite naturally, in   Philippians 1:22 and   Philippians 1:25 (‘you’); otherwise the letter is to Philemon alone (‘thee’). St. Paul is a ‘prisoner’ (  Philippians 1:1;   Philippians 1:9;   Philippians 1:13 ) a first link of connexion between this letter and Philippians (  Philippians 1:7;   Philippians 1:18 etc.), Eph (  Ephesians 3:1;   Ephesians 4:1;   Ephesians 6:20 ), and Col. (  Colossians 4:3;   Colossians 4:18 ); with Col. there is also close connexion in the fact that Onesimus was a Colossian (  Colossians 4:9 ), and in the salutations in both Epistles from Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke. It is almost certain that the letter was sent from Rome (not Cæsarea) to Colossæ, along with the Colossian Epistle, by Tychicus and Onesimus, to be handed to Philemon by the runaway slave, who at St. Paul’s instance was returning to the master he had wronged by embezzlement and flight. Onesimus had in some way become known to the Apostle, who had won him to the Christian faith (  Philippians 1:10 ). St. Paul regards him as his ‘child,’ his ‘very heart,’ a ‘brother beloved’ (  Philippians 1:10;   Philippians 1:12;   Philippians 1:16 ), and would fain keep his helpful ministry (  Philippians 1:13;   Philippians 1:11 ). But the convert must first put himself right by voluntary surrender: his service belongs to Philemon, and, however desired by St. Paul, can be accepted by him only of his friend’s free will (  Philippians 1:14 ). So St. Paul sends the slave back, with this letter to secure his forgiveness and the welcome of one Christian brother for another (  Philippians 1:15-17 ). He founds his appeal on what he has heard of Philemon’s love ‘toward all the saints’ (  Philippians 1:4-7;   Philippians 1:9 ); yet makes it also a personal request from ‘Paul the aged and now a prisoner,’ who has claims upon Philemon’s service (  Philippians 1:9-14;   Philippians 1:17;   Philippians 1:20 ), with just a hint of an authority which he will not press (  Philippians 1:8;   Philippians 1:19;   Philippians 1:21 , ‘obedience’). A wistful humour appears in the play on the meaning of the name Onesimus  ; ‘I beseech thee for Profitable, who was aforetime unprofitable, but now is profitable … Yea, let me have profit of thee’ (  Philippians 1:11;   Philippians 1:20 ); also when at   Philippians 1:19 St. Paul himself takes the pen and with playful solemnity (cf., for the solemn formula ‘I Paul,’   1 Corinthians 16:21 ,   2 Corinthians 10:1 ,   Colossians 4:18 ,   2 Thessalonians 3:17 ) gives his bond for the debt, ‘I Paul write it with my own hand, I will repay it.’ (It is possible, though less probable. that the Greek tense should be rendered ‘I have written,’ and that the previous verse also, if not the whole letter, is by St. Paul’s hand.) Indeed, the mingled earnestness, tact, and charm amply endorse Renan’s verdict ‘a little masterpiece’: the letter exemplifies the Apostle’s own precept as to ‘speech seasoned with salt’ (  Colossians 4:6 ), and shows the perfect Christian gentleman.

2. Teaching. It is significant for the depth and sincerity of St. Paul’s religious faith that this private letter in its salutation, thanksgiving, and benediction is as loftily devout as any Epistle to the Churches. Apart from this, the dogmatic interest lies in its illustration of Christianity at work . The relation of master and slave comes into conflict with that of the Christian communion or fellowship: the problem is whether that fellowship will prove’ effectual in the knowledge of every good thing which is in you unto Christ,’ and the slave be received as a brother. St. Paul does not ask that Onesimus be set free. It may even be doubted whether ‘the word emancipation seems to be trembling on his lips’ (Lightfoot, Col . p. 321): if it is, it is rather that Onesimus may be permitted to return to continue his ministry to the imprisoned Apostle than that Christianity, as he conceives it, forbids slavery. That Institution is not in St. Paul’s judgment to be violently ended, though it is to be regulated by the Christian principle of equality and responsibility before God (  Ephesians 5:5-9 ,   Colossians 3:22 to   Colossians 4:1 ); to the slave himself his worldly position should be matter of indifference (  1 Corinthians 7:21-24 ). Yet if Philemon should choose to assert his rights, it will mean a fatal breach in Christian ‘fellowship’ and the rejection of a Christian ‘brother.’ Thus St. Paul laid down the principle which inevitably worked itself out though not till the 19th cent. into the impossibility of slavery within a Christian nation. Christians long and strenuously defended It: Christianity, and not least this letter, destroyed it.

3. Authenticity. The external testimony is full and consistent, although so short and personal a letter might easily lack recognition. It is contained in the Syriac and Old Latin Versions, and named in the Muratorian Fragment. Marcion accepted it (Tert. adv. Marc . v. 21). Origen quotes from it three times, in each case as St. Paul’s. Eusebius includes it among the undisputed books. On internal grounds it may fairly he claimed that the letter speaks for its own genuineness. Some modern critics (since F. C. Baur) have questioned its authenticity, mainly because they reject Colossians, with which this letter is so closely connected. As Renan writes: ‘If the epistle is apocryphal, the private letter is apocryphal also; now, few pages have so clear an accent of truth. Paul alone, it would seem, could have written this little masterpiece’ ( St. Paul , p. xi.). But it must suffice here to affirm as the all but universal judgment, that ‘Philemon belongs to the least doubtful part of the Apostle’s work’ (Jülicher, Introd. to NT , p. 127).

4. Date and place of writing. The argument for Rome as against Cæsarea (Meyer, etc.) seems decisive. Opinion is greatly divided as to the order of the Epistles of the Captivity, i.e . whether Philippians or the group Eph.-Col.-Philem. is the earlier (see Lightfoot, Philip . pp. 30 46). In either case the limit of date for Philem. lies between c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 60 62, and the later date is suggested by   Philippians 1:21-22 (see Colossians and Philippians).

S. W. Green.

Morrish Bible Dictionary

Nothing is known of Philemon beyond what is found in this epistle, nor is it clear where he resided. The similarity of the salutations to those found in the Epistle to the Colossians, and the reference to Onesimus in that epistle, leads to the conclusion that Philemon dwelt somewhere in the direction of Colosse (probably at Laodicea, Archippus being mentioned in  Colossians 4:17 , and  Philippians 2 ), and that both epistles were sent from Rome about A.D. 62. Though the assembly in the house of Philemon is mentioned in verse 2, the epistle is a personal one to Philemon and his wife.

Onesimus their slave had run away, and, having been converted under the ministry of Paul, he was sent back by the latter to his master. Paul does not ask for the freedom of Onesimus, but that he may now be received in grace as a brother, indeed, be received as the apostle's 'own bowels.' Paul does not assert apostolic authority, but entreats as the 'prisoner ' and 'the aged.' Led by the Holy Spirit, the epistle is a gracious appeal, and difficulties are met in it in a matter requiring much delicacy. If the slave had robbed Philemon, Paul would repay it; but he reminds Philemon of how much he owed him, even his 'own self besides.'

Some may be surprised that such an epistle should form part of the inspired word. But it is 'profitable': for fifteen hundred years slaves were extensively owned by Christians. Many may never have thought of seeking their conversion, or may have been prejudiced against it. A Boer in South Africa, though a Christian himself, once told a preacher that he was sure he might as well preach to the dogs as to his African servants. God saw the need of such an epistle. The slave had become 'a brother beloved.'

Easton's Bible Dictionary

It was written for the purpose of interceding for Onesimus (q.v.), who had deserted his master Philemon and been "unprofitable" to him. Paul had found Onesimus at Rome, and had there been instrumental in his conversion, and now he sends him back to his master with this letter.

This epistle has the character of a strictly private letter, and is the only one of such epistles preserved to us. "It exhibits the apostle in a new light. He throws off as far as possible his apostolic dignity and his fatherly authority over his converts. He speaks simply as Christian to Christian. He speaks, therefore, with that peculiar grace of humility and courtesy which has, under the reign of Christianity, developed the spirit of chivalry and what is called 'the character of a gentleman,' certainly very little known in the old Greek and Roman civilization" (Dr. Barry). (See Slave .)

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

This most beautiful of all Paul's Epistles, and the most intensely human, is one of the so-called Captivity Epistles of which Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians are the others. Of these four Philippians (which see) stands apart, and was written more probably after the other three. These are mutually interdependent, sent by the same bearer to churches of the same district, and under similar conditions.

1. Place of Writing:

There is some diversity of opinion as to the place from which the apostle wrote these letters. Certain scholars (Reuss, Schenkel, Weiss, Holtzmann, Hilgenfeld, Hausrath and Meyer) have urged Caesarea in opposition to the traditional place, Rome. The arguments advanced are first that Onesimus would have been more likely to have escaped to Caesarea than to Rome, as it is nearer Colosse than Rome is, to which we may reply that, though Caesarea is nearer, his chance of escape would have been far greater in the capital than in the provincial city. Again it is said that as Onesimus is not commended in Ephesians, he had already been left behind at Colosse; against which there are advanced the precarious value of an argument from silence, and the fact that this argument assumes a particular course which the bearers of the letters would follow, namely, through Colosse to Ephesus. A more forcible argument is that which is based on the apostle's expected visit. In  Philippians 2:24 we read that he expected to go to Macedonia on his release; in   Philippians 1:22 we find that he expected to go to Colosse. On the basis of this latter reference it is assumed that he was to the south of Colosse when writing and so at Caesarea. But it is quite as probable that he would go to Colosse through Philippi as the reverse; and it is quite possible that even if he had intended to go direct to Colosse when he wrote to Philemon, events may have come about to cause him to change his plans. The last argument, based on the omission of any reference to the earthquake of which Tacitus ( Ann . xiv. 27) and Eusebius ( Chron ., O1, 207) write, is of force as opposed to the Rom origin of the letters only on the assumption that these writers both refer to the same event (by no means sure) and that the epistles. were written after that event, and that it was necessary that Paul should have mentioned it. If the early chronology be accepted it falls entirely, as Tacitus' earlier date would be after the epistles. were written. In addition we have the further facts, favorable to Rome, that Paul had no such freedom in Cuesarea as he is represented in these epistles as enjoying; that no mention is made of Philip who was in Caesarea and a most important member of that community ( Acts 21:8 ), and finally that there is no probability that so large a body of disciples and companions could have gathered about the apostle in his earlier and more strict imprisonment, at Caesarea. We may therefore conclude that the Captivity Epistles were written from Rome, and not from Caesarea.

2. Authenticity:

The external evidence for the epistle is less extensive than that of some of the other epp., but it is abundantly strong. The play on the word Onesimus which Paul himself uses ( Philippians 1:11 ) is found in Ignatius, Ephesians , ii. This may not mean necessarily a literary connection, but it suggests this. The epistle is known to Tertullian, and through him we know that Marcion accepted it ( Adv . Marc ., v. 21). It is in the list in the Muratorian Fragment (p. 106, l. 27), and is quoted by Origen as Pauline ( Hom . in Jer ., 19) and placed by Eusebius ( Historia Ecclesiastica , III, xxv) among the acknowledged books.

It has twice been the object of attack. In the 4th and 5th centuries it was opposed as unworthy of Paul's mind and as of no value for edification. This attack was met successfully by Jerome ( Commentary on Philemon , praef.), Chrysostom ( Argum . in Philem ) and Theodore of Mopsuestia ( Spicil . in Solesm , I, 149), and the epistle. was finally established in its earlier firm position. The later attack by Baur was inspired by his desire to break down the corroborative value of Philem to the other Captivity Epistles, and has been characterized by Weiss as one of Baur's worst blunders. The suggestions that it is interpolated (Holtzmann), or allegorical (Weizsacker and Pfleiderer), or based on the letter of Pliny (Ep. IX, 21) to Sabinianus (Steck), are interesting examples of the vagaries of their authors, but "deserve only to be mentioned" (Zahn). In its language, style and argument the letter is clearly Pauline.

3. Date:

The date will, as is the case with the other Captivity Epistles, depend on the chronology. If the earlier scheme be followed it may be dated about 58, if the later about 63, or 64.

4. Argument:

The apostle writes in his own and Timothy's name to his friend Philemon (which see) in behalf of Onesimus, a runaway slave of the latter. Beginning with his usual thanksgiving, here awakened by the report of Philemon's hospitality, he intercedes for his 'son begotten in his bonds' ( Philippians 1:10 ), Onesimus, who though he is Philemon's runaway slave is now "a brother." It is on this ground that the apostle pleads, urging his own age, and friendship for Philemon, and his present bonds. He pleads, however, without belittling Onesimus' wrongdoing, but assuming himself the financial responsibility for the amount of his theft. At the same time the apostle quietly refers to what Philemon really owes him as his father in Christ, and begs that he will not disappoint him in his expectation. He closes with the suggestion that he hopes soon to visit him, and with greetings from his companions in Rome.

5. Value:

The charm and beauty of this epistle have been universally recognized. Its value to us as giving a glimpse of Paul's attitude toward slavery and his intimacy with a man like Philemon cannot be over-estimated. One of the chief elements of value in it is the picture it gives us of a Christian home in the apostolic days; the father and mother well known for their hospitality, the son a man of position and importance in the church, the coming and going of the Christian brethren, and the life of the brotherhood centering about this household.

Literature.

Lightfoot, Col and Philem  ; Vincent, "Phil" and "Philem" ( Icc ); yon Soden, Hand Commentar  ; Alexander, in Speaker's Commentary.

The Nuttall Encyclopedia

A short letter by Paul to a member of the Church at Colossæ on behalf of a slave, Onesimus, who had deserted his service, gone off with some of his property, and taken refuge in Rome, but had been converted to Christ, and whom he begs not to manumit, but simply to receive back as a brother for his sake.