The Epistle to Philemon has been generally recognized by the church as worthy of a valued place in the New Testament canon. Its contribution to our knowledge of Paul’s character and gifts and its own grace and cultivation have been treasured and celebrated. The work of a Christian gentleman, it is suffused with considerateness, tactfulness, graciousness, and warmth of affection, and it is undergirded by apostolic firmness and authority. The book is moving and forceful, all the more so because of its brevity. It has been carefully studied for information about the bearing of the Gospel upon master-slave relationships and upon the institution of slavery itself.
GENUINENESS
The authority of Philemon and its Pauline authorship were recognized from the beginning. It was, of course, received as an authoritative communication from the apostle Paul by Philemon and the others in the church in his house, and there is no indication that its origin and character were subsequently forgotten or successfully challenged. Defences of it by Jerome and others indicate some opposition to and difficulty with the epistle, but it has triumphed through the years over all challengers. The earliest example in extant patristic literature of the use of Philemon may be in Ignatius’ epistle to the Ephesians. Professor John Knox has maintained that there is striking evidence of a literary connection between these two works (see Philemon Among the Letters of Paul, 1959, p. 98 ff.). Possible other early reflections of Philemon occur in Ignatius’ epistle to the Magnesians, XII, and in his epistle to Polycarp, VI. Marcion included it in his collection. Tertullian refers to it in his work against Marcion (V: XXI), and remarks that the brevity of the epistle protected it from the latter’s falsifying manipulation. Origen quotes it as Paul’s. It is included in the Muratorian canon, in ancient versions of the New Testament, and was recognized by Eusebius as an undisputed book. The internal evidence of genuineness is quite strong. The style is manifestly Pauline, that is, the author clearly reflected in its form and substance is Paul; its close and wholly natural agreements or connections with other epistles, notably with Colossians, constitute a powerful testimony of its genuineness and theirs (see John Knox, op. cit., p. 33 ff.).
Opposition to Philemon in modern times has not been very plausible or successful. F. C. Baur rejected it as he did most of the other epistles of Paul in the interests of his thoroughly discredited reconstruction of early Christian history; but even he realized that in rejecting it he might appear to be guilty of hyper-criticism. Only a negative criticism which has lost practically all touch with revelation and reality could persuade itself that Philemon is not genuine. Even among nonconservative scholars its genuineness is granted today.
PLACE OF COMPOSITION
Paul was a prisoner at the time he wrote Philemon (vv. 1, 9, 10, 13, 23). As has been indicated, Philemon is closely connected with other epistles, especially Colossians. Timothy is mentioned along with Paul in the opening of both epistles. Those who send greetings at the end of Philemon are said also to send greetings at the end of Colossians. Archippus is among those addressed in Philemon, and a command is directed to Archippus in Colossians 4:17. Philemon was written to go with Onesimus on his return to his master. According to Colossians 4:7–9, Onesimus was to accompany Tychicus to Colossae. Tychicus, it will be remembered, was likewise sent to those addressed in Ephesians (Eph. 6:21–22). (See Knox, op. cit., pp. 34–55.) It should be clear that Philemon and Colossians were written in the same place and at about the same time. Ephesians and Philippians, also prison epistles, were likewise written about the same time and in the same place. The traditional view is that these four epistles were written in Rome during Paul’s first imprisonment there. Less plausible are the suppositions that Philemon was written in Caesarea or in Ephesus. (For a discussion of the problem see C. F. D. Moule: The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon, 1957, pp. 21–25.)
INTERPRETATIONS OF PHILEMON
Philemon has commonly been interpreted as follows: Paul wrote the epistle in behalf of a Phrygian slave Onesimus who had run away from his well-to-do master Philemon, perhaps after having stolen from him. Onesimus had in some fashion come into contact with Paul during the apostle’s first Roman imprisonment, and had been converted and transformed from an unprofitable slave to a useful Christian brother. Although he had become highly serviceable and dear to Paul, and the apostle would have liked to have retained him, it was necessary that he be sent back to his master, that forgiveness be sought from him, and that obligations be met. In the letter Paul asks that Onesimus be received by his master as a Christian brother. Despite the fact that Philemon owes his own self to the apostle, Paul offers to make restitution for loss that Philemon may have suffered. Paul has confidence that Philemon will do more than he asks—and some would take this to mean that Philemon will grant Onesimus his freedom. The letter is sent with Tychicus and Onesimus to Colossae (Col. 4:7–9).
A fascinating interpretation of the situation which produced Philemon and secured its admission into the corpus of acknowledged Pauline epistles has been advanced by Professor John Knox in his book Philemon Among the Letters of Paul (see also his Introduction and Exegesis for Philemon in The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. XI). Not every point in Knox’s hypothesis may be new, but the total reconstruction is marked by originality and forcefulness. Regrettably it is intimately connected with a faulty conception of early Christian history and of the formation of the New Testament canon. The validity, however, of certain positions taken does not rest upon the validity of the context in which Knox places them.
In Philemon, as Knox sees it, Paul is really requesting something for himself. In verse 10 Paul is asking for Onesimus, not simply in behalf of him. What he desires is that Onesimus be sent back to him by Philemon for the service of the Gospel. The letter from Laodicea referred to in Colossians 4:16 is taken to be Philemon. The master of Onesimus is not Philemon but rather Archippus, who is considered to be a resident of Colossae and head of the household referred to in Philemon. To Archippus rather than to Philemon the body of the letter is directed. The “service” of Archippus, mentioned in Colossians 4:17, was to return Onesimus to Paul for the apostle’s use in spreading the Gospel. Philemon himself may have been a resident of Laodicea and overseer of the churches in the Lycus valley. The epistle was sent first to Philemon at Laodicea; from there Onesimus and the epistle proceeded to Archippus and the church at Colossae, which was under Philemon’s oversight. In Knox’s view Onesimus was released by Archippus, went on to a career of distinguished service, became bishop of Ephesus, is frequently mentioned in Ignatius’ epistle to the Ephesians in a section of the epistle in which very significant use is made of the epistle to Philemon. Knox would suggest that Onesimus was concerned in the publication of a body of Paul’s letters at Ephesus, and that because of his special interest in Philemon, the letter to him was included. Ephesians, which, according to Knox’s view, drew notably on Colossians, another epistle of special interest to Onesimus, was composed to head the collection. In all this Onesimus was providing “devoted ‘service’ ” and was of continuing usefulness to Paul. Marcion’s supposed employment of this Ephesian corpus of Paul’s letters is magnified: Marcion’s use of this corpus and his making it the larger portion of a new “Bible” “gave the decisive impulse toward the formation of the New Testament, as a second formal and authorized canon” (op. cit., p. 108). In this development Knox would find an explanation for the prominence of Paul’s writings in the New Testament. He conceives that if his reconstruction should be found valid, Philemon might well be from the viewpoint of the history of the New Testament canon “the most significant single book in the New Testament—the living link between the Pauline career and the Pauline tradition, between the letters of Paul and the New Testament of the Church” (idem).
Although one must disagree for substantial reasons with Knox’s view of the large contribution which Onesimus is conceived to have made via Marcion in the formation of the canon of the New Testament, there is no decisive objection to the identification which he favors of the Onesimus of Philemon with the Onesimus of Ignatius’ epistle to the Ephesians. It is, of course, conceivable that the influence and eminence of Onesimus might have been a factor in the recognition and preservation of Philemon by some, but the epistle has intrinsic marks of inspiration and authority that command the recognition of God’s people. It is not merely an informal private letter to be preserved at least chiefly because of personal interest, but it is a communication which for all its tenderness and particularity is rather formal and dignified, being addressed to a church as well as to individuals. Although not a tractate, it is concerned with a problem of more than local and passing interest. The date proposed by Knox for the publication of Paul’s letters, like the dates which he assigns to a number of New Testament books, is much too late. The suggestion that Paul is appealing to Onesimus’ master for the slave that he may be free for the service of the Gospel is attractive and compatible with the language used by Paul, although it is not demonstrably right. It is interesting to observe that the more that Paul actually? and plainly requests in verse 10, the less there remains for Philemon to do in addition (v. 21). On this point we consider the position which Knox takes in his exegesis of Philemon in The Interpreter’s Bible ad loc. That Paul is addressing himself chiefly to Archippus in the epistle, rather than to Philemon, is hard to credit. The mention of Philemon first (verse 1) gives him a natural claim which Knox’s argumentation cannot overthrow. The position that Philemon is the “letter from Laodicea” likewise does not compel conviction (see C. F. D. Moule, op. cit., p. 17 f.). The “service” or “ministry” of Archippus mentioned in Colossians 4:17 (“Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfill it”) is plausibly interpreted more broadly than Knox’s interpretation. Whatever this “service” may have been, whether the reference was to the performance of the work of a deacon, an elder, evangelist or to something else (see J. B. Lightfoot: Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, 1927, p. 307), it does not appear to be only one proposed act of service. The restrictive relative clause that follows the word “ministry”—“which thou hast received in the Lord”—best applies to a service previously assigned.
ANALYSIS OF PHILEMON
Address (1–3). The structure of the address or salutation of Philemon is threefold. As in the other epistles of Paul and in secular letters of the day there is first a nominative section, in which the name of the author is given; then a dative section, in which the destination of the letter is announced; and finally a section of greeting. The address of a Pauline epistle does differ from that of the typical secular letter of that time, not only in length and variety but also in its Christian character.
The first word of Philemon is an assertion of authorship. Paul then proceeds to describe himself as a “prisoner of Christ Jesus.” He does not need to stress his apostleship here as he had to do in Galatians, and his desire is to beseech rather than to enjoin (8–9, and see Lightfoot, op. cit., on verse 1). The suffering of Paul for the Lord as indicated by the words “prisoner of Christ Jesus” might well move Philemon and cause him to realize how small by comparison would be the personal loss which his granting of Paul’s request would entail (cf. Lightfoot and C. F. D. Moule ad loc.). Paul regards his imprisonment as a privilege, since it is from the Lord and for His praise and the Gospel’s sake (cf. Phil. 1:29).
The dative section mentions Philemon first, for he is the person chiefly addressed in the epistle. Paul affectionately describes him as beloved and fellow-worker, a term used of one who labored with the apostle for the advancement of the Gospel and in the care of the churches. Philemon was a resident of Colossae (cf. Col. 4:9). He was converted through Paul’s instrumentality (v. 19), probably in Ephesus, and made an effective testimony by his life of genuine Christian love. He was a man of means and of generosity. His house was open to the church. Apphia the sister, the second person addressed, may have been the wife of Philemon, and Archippus, the third person addressed, may possibly have been their son. As was noted above, Archippus exercised a ministry (Col. 4:17). The fact that he is mentioned in Colossians 4:17 right after the reference to Laodicea by no means indicates that he was a resident of Laodicea. From his close association with Philemon in the address of this epistle he would seem, like Philemon, to have been a resident of Colossae. Paul describes him as “our fellow-soldier” (cf. Phil. 2:25 and see Knox, op. cit., p. 67 ff.). The typically Pauline greeting, in which grace and peace are represented as coming from both God and our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, concludes the salutation.
Thanksgiving (4–7). A section of thanksgiving, characteristically Pauline, follows the address. The Christian grace and the devoted activity of Philemon provide a firm basis and warm encouragement for thanksgiving and rejoicing. One who is of such exemplary character as Philemon would respond favorably to such a request as the apostle is about to make of him.
The Appeal ofPhilemon (8–21). Rather than command, Paul on account of love entreats Philemon. Paul the aged (or possibly “ambassador”) beseeches him (cf. Eph. 6:20, and see Lightfoot ad loc.; Edgar J. Goodspeed: Problems of New Testament Translation, 1945, pp. 185–187; and James Hope Moulton and Wilbert Francis Howard: A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. II, 1929, pp. 86 f.).
Paul had been instrumental in the conversion of Onesimus, to whom he refers in verse 10 as “my child, whom I have begotten in my bonds” (cf. 1 Cor. 4:15). The name “Onesimus” means “useful,” “helpful,” “profitable.” The form which is employed here is possibly to be rendered “as Onesimus.” Paul, reflecting on the meaning of the name, might be saying that he has begotten the slave as a useful person, as a true Onesimus. In verse 11 Paul plays on the meaning of the name “Onesimus.” He whose name means “useless,” but now to both Paul and Philemon he is “useful.” Paul (v. 12) sends Onesimus back to Philemon (cf. Knox, op. cit., p. 25), to be received “as himself”—a “new Onesimus—Onesimus really himself” (idem). The affection of Paul for the converted slave is expressed in the warmest terms: he refers to Onesimus as his heart, “mine own bowels” (AV), my very heart” (ERV).
Paul’s inclination was to keep Onesimus with him in order that Onesimus in behalf of Philemon or in Philemon’s place might minister to him in the bonds of the Gospel (v. 13). But he determined not to do anything without Philemon’s consent in order that the latter’s goodness (or benefit or favor) might not be of necessity or compulsion (v. 14).
Perhaps Onesimus had departed (v. 15) for a short time that Philemon might receive him in full (or “permanently,” see Moule ad loc). But Paul has in mind (v. 16) Onesimus’ being received not as a slave but as more than a slave, a brother beloved, a fellow Christian, dear to Paul but even more to Philemon. If Philemon holds Paul as a close friend, Paul would have him receive Onesimus as he would himself (v. 17).
Paul gives his bond that if Onesimus has wronged Philemon or has caused him loss, if he owes him anything—Paul himself affirms it in his own handwriting—he will make restitution. This is not to mention the fact that Philemon owes Paul his own self (vv. 18–19)! Then addressing Onesimus as brother (v. 20), the apostle employs a verbal form resembling the name “Onesimus,” indeed a form of the verb from which “Onesimus” is descended: Let me have profit or joy from you in the Lord. He would have Philemon refresh his heart (his bowels) in the Lord (cf. vv. 7 and 12). Paul expresses confidence (v. 21) in Philemon’s obedience and says that he knows that Philemon will do more than he says. The “more” could very well be the manumission of Onesimus that he might freely serve in the cause of the Gospel and refresh Paul’s heart (as Philemon had refreshed the hearts of the saints). Paul would have Philemon prepare a room for him. His hope is to be released from imprisonment and to be granted to Philemon and the others addressed through their prayers (v. 22).
Conclusion. As is Paul’s custom, he sends greetings. Epaphras, Paul’s fellow-prisoner, and Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke his fellow-workers are mentioned. The apostle concludes with a benediction (v. 25).
JOHN H. SKILTON
Professor of New Testament
Westminster Theological Seminary
