Would Philemon support American slavery?
So what about Philemon? Often he is trotted out at as the token New Testament slave owner. Godly—after all, the church met in his home—friends with Paul, and most certainly a slave owner. The argument, as some make it, is that because Paul does not command Philemon to release Onesimus, then slavery must be totes cool for Christians.
Here is the truth: while the message of Philemon is more profound than simply “slavery is bad,” the book does present some uncomfortable truths for both sides of today’s social justice debate.
The background: Philemon was a church leader in Colossae. He owned slaves, one of whom ran away, apparently after stealing something from Philemon. Somehow this slave, Onesimus, met Paul in Rome and was converted, and eventually became valuable to Paul as a ministry partner. Paul then found himself in a bind. Should he send Onesimus back to Philemon, and risk losing one of his ministry partners? Or should he keep him and risk offending Philemon, should he ever find out? Also, if he writes Philemon, should he claim apostolic authority and demand that for the sake of the Gospel Onesimus be released? Should he command his manumission on the grounds that slavery is inherently dehumanizing, even in its more accepted Roman forms?
The book of Philemon is Paul’s answer to these questions. In less than 350 words Paul persuades Philemon to release Onesimus and have him return to Rome. Church history records that the request was granted, and Onesimus eventually became the bishop of Colossae (O’Brien in the WBC, 44:265). This letter, and Paul’s handling of the situation in general offers insight into how Paul viewed the institution of slavery.
It should be noted that Paul found himself in an ethical quandary of biblical proportions. By Roman law, a person could not employ or aide a runaway slave. But by Levitical Law, a Jew cannot send a runaway slave back to his master (Deuteronomy 23:15). This is actually a sneaky argument for dispensationalism because if Paul had considered himself still under Levitical Law he would not have violated it by sending Onesimus back (Acts 22:3).
Paul chooses not to claim apostolic authority in his letter. Rather, he appeals to Philemon out of love and friendship. The letter begins with a greeting, followed by Paul’s prayer of thanksgiving for Philemon. Onesimus is not mentioned until verse 10 after Paul has already reminded Philemon that he could command him to do just about anything and Philemon would have to accept, but Paul doesn’t press that point.
Rather his request comes in the form of an appeal. The reader can almost feel Philemon’s suspense building as he reads the letter from the Apostle, wondering what exactly it is that Paul wants. Then, immediately after the request, Paul uses a pun based off of Onesimus’ name, which means “useful.” Formerly the slave was useless to Philemon, but now he has become truly Onesimus to Paul, and if released to Philemon as well. Paul intentionally structured the letter to lead Philemon gradually to the main request, which comes in verse 21, rather than bluntly saying it at the beginning. He did this through humour and by carefully choosing his words.
The request is actually broken up into three parts: verse 10, 17, and 21. In verse 10 Paul appeals for his “child” Onesimus but does not state what exactly he is appealing for.
The request is actually broken up into three parts: verse 10, 17, and 21. In verse 10 Paul appeals for his “child” Onesimus but does not state what exactly he is appealing for.
In verse 17 he makes his request known: “receive him as you would receive me.” And then finally in verse 21, he asks Philemon to do all this, and “even more.” He then concludes by telling Philemon that if Onesimus owes him anything, Paul will repay it. Then Paul reminds Philemon that Philemon owes everything he has including his life to Paul. The implication is that everything Philemon owns, including his life, minus what Onesimus owes him, still leaves Philemon owning Paul enough to merit him heeding Paul’s request. It is also intentionally humorous how Paul reduces Onesimus’ debt to Philemon as some money that could just be charged to Paul’s proverbial account- in Paul’s rhetoric Onesimus’ crime has been reduced from larceny and dereliction of duty to petty theft.
The problem this letter presents today’s reader is the nature of the request in verse 21. The structure of the sentence is intentionally ambiguous. “Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say.”
The problem this letter presents today’s reader is the nature of the request in verse 21. The structure of the sentence is intentionally ambiguous. “Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say.”
What is the “even more”? Does it involve the manumission of Philemon? “In effect, to manumit or not to manumit, that is the question” (Craig de Vos, Journal for the Study of the NT82:99).
Could Philemon have sent Onesimus back to Paul without giving him his freedom? The key to this question is found in the interpretation of Paul’s request to do “Even more than I say.” The problems with interpreting this as a request for Onesimus’ freedom follow: It is possible that in Philemon’s mind he would be partnering with Paul’s missionary labour all the more if Onesimus remained his slave. Onesimus could return to Paul and serve Paul as a slave of Philemon. Moreover, would Paul really ask Onesimus to reward a slave who deserves to be punished? Certainly Paul is not asking him to free all of his slaves, and equally certain Paul is not asking him to free all of the Christian ones. For these reasons, some have rejected manumission as the request.
However, most commentators do see the “even more” as a request for Onesimus’ manumission. Keith Essex points out that by having the letter read in front of the church, the church would have joined Paul’s restrained rhetoric in pressuring Philemon to release Onesimus.
Thus it is best to see the letter of Philemon as a request for Philemon to treat Onesimus as a brother in all settings- church, life, occupation and ministry. Notice: while some appeal to the book of Philemon as evidence that Christians could own slaves, the truth is actually the other way around. By pleading with Philemon to treat one of his slaves as “more than a brother” and by asking for his freedom, “Paul was asking for something far more radical than manumission” (de Vos).
Could Philemon have sent Onesimus back to Paul without giving him his freedom? The key to this question is found in the interpretation of Paul’s request to do “Even more than I say.” The problems with interpreting this as a request for Onesimus’ freedom follow: It is possible that in Philemon’s mind he would be partnering with Paul’s missionary labour all the more if Onesimus remained his slave. Onesimus could return to Paul and serve Paul as a slave of Philemon. Moreover, would Paul really ask Onesimus to reward a slave who deserves to be punished? Certainly Paul is not asking him to free all of his slaves, and equally certain Paul is not asking him to free all of the Christian ones. For these reasons, some have rejected manumission as the request.
However, most commentators do see the “even more” as a request for Onesimus’ manumission. Keith Essex points out that by having the letter read in front of the church, the church would have joined Paul’s restrained rhetoric in pressuring Philemon to release Onesimus.
Thus it is best to see the letter of Philemon as a request for Philemon to treat Onesimus as a brother in all settings- church, life, occupation and ministry. Notice: while some appeal to the book of Philemon as evidence that Christians could own slaves, the truth is actually the other way around. By pleading with Philemon to treat one of his slaves as “more than a brother” and by asking for his freedom, “Paul was asking for something far more radical than manumission” (de Vos).
Paul appealed for them to be partners in the ministry so that in their new relationship, the terms ‘slave’ and ‘master’ are transcended. His request, if needed, would undermine the social values upon which the Greco-Roman society was founded.
For this reason, Paul avoids directly demanding that Philemon release Onesimus. He was not in the business of social reform through direct advocacy. Plus, had Paul commanded Onesimus’ release, he would have been freed, but not with the resulting equality and respect within the church that was achieved through manumission being Philemon’s own “free will.”
However, it is interesting to note that Paul’s circumlocution if followed, would begin the process of dismantling slavery within the church (Gaebelien has a long section on this in his Philemon commentary).
For this reason, Paul avoids directly demanding that Philemon release Onesimus. He was not in the business of social reform through direct advocacy. Plus, had Paul commanded Onesimus’ release, he would have been freed, but not with the resulting equality and respect within the church that was achieved through manumission being Philemon’s own “free will.”
However, it is interesting to note that Paul’s circumlocution if followed, would begin the process of dismantling slavery within the church (Gaebelien has a long section on this in his Philemon commentary).
Generally speaking, Paul has no qualms about Christian masters owning Christian slaves (read the next paragraph!). Yet in this instance, the Apostle is not concerned about anything generally. Rather he has in view two Christian men, and the desire to be reunited with his partner in the ministry, Onesimus. It seems impossible to ignore the implications of this request.
It is worth remembering that Roman slavery was fundamentally different than slavery in the United States. Philemon did not kidnap Onesimus. It seems more likely that Onesimus had agreed to be a slave for a period of time, received payment for that period, and then fled. It is in this way that he robbed Philemon. However, notice that in even this form of slavery- mild by comparison to what happened in the Americas- Paul laid the foundation of equality in the church.
It is worth remembering that Roman slavery was fundamentally different than slavery in the United States. Philemon did not kidnap Onesimus. It seems more likely that Onesimus had agreed to be a slave for a period of time, received payment for that period, and then fled. It is in this way that he robbed Philemon. However, notice that in even this form of slavery- mild by comparison to what happened in the Americas- Paul laid the foundation of equality in the church.
It was the former slave that would be his ministry partner, and Philemon would be serving the Lord by granting Onesimus his freedom and treating a former runaway slave as more than a brother.
Philemon was a Christian man who owned slaves. However, this letter does not justify the institution of American slavery; in fact, it does the opposite. The nature of Paul’s request showed that over a period of time, even Roman slavery would be undone by those ministering and labouring for the Gospel.
But also notice this—Paul did not advocate for the ending of slavery Empire-wide, nor for anything approaching today’s drive for so-called social justice. Instead, he did something more radical. He preached the gospel and allowed it to work in society by working in Philemon’s heart. Some may disparagingly call this a truncated gospel, but it is the gospel of the New Testament.
There are those who take Philemon and use it as a license to preach against perceived social injustice today. But in so doing they are taking Philemon too far. But it is also possible to take Paul’s approach as an excuse for inaction in the face of real injustice.
Philemon was a Christian man who owned slaves. However, this letter does not justify the institution of American slavery; in fact, it does the opposite. The nature of Paul’s request showed that over a period of time, even Roman slavery would be undone by those ministering and labouring for the Gospel.
But also notice this—Paul did not advocate for the ending of slavery Empire-wide, nor for anything approaching today’s drive for so-called social justice. Instead, he did something more radical. He preached the gospel and allowed it to work in society by working in Philemon’s heart. Some may disparagingly call this a truncated gospel, but it is the gospel of the New Testament.
There are those who take Philemon and use it as a license to preach against perceived social injustice today. But in so doing they are taking Philemon too far. But it is also possible to take Paul’s approach as an excuse for inaction in the face of real injustice.
Too often in American history, Christians sat by and watched a culture of lynching and Jim Crow laws ravage the nation, whilst saying platitudes like “just preach the gospel, and let the culture take care of itself.” Those that argue thus are actually running contrary to Paul instructions to Timothy.
We are to confront sin, and American slavery was certainly sin (as well as Jim Crow laws). To fail to confront even systemic sins, such as abortion, racism, and slavery, is to fail to guard the church against error and reveals a lower understanding of common grace than non-Christian social activists have.
We are to confront sin, and American slavery was certainly sin (as well as Jim Crow laws). To fail to confront even systemic sins, such as abortion, racism, and slavery, is to fail to guard the church against error and reveals a lower understanding of common grace than non-Christian social activists have.
But on the other hand, to take the mandate to confront sin and morph that into a mandate to correct social inequalities through direct action is also too far. The SJWs of today should spend more time reading Philemon, and antebellum apologist should spend more time (any time, really) in 1 Timothy 1:10.
If you have kept with me through these four posts, I hope you come away with the confident ability to respond to those who say “the Bible allowed American slavery” with: “No. When it comes to the African slave-trade, the Bible does one thing: it condemns it without equivocation.” Author Cripplegate
If you have kept with me through these four posts, I hope you come away with the confident ability to respond to those who say “the Bible allowed American slavery” with: “No. When it comes to the African slave-trade, the Bible does one thing: it condemns it without equivocation.” Author Cripplegate
