Paul’s letter to Philemon is so short that often it is passed over without notice. Moreover, the content of this letter is so personal that few find relevance in it for their own lives. Most seem to view this letter in the abstract—as an example of how Paul treated slavery in the Hellenistic world. Few seem to grasp the deeply personal nature of Paul’s appeal and its implications for interpersonal ministry.

This misconception of Philemon is not altogether surprising. Much of Paul’s appeal and persuasive art is missed in English translation. Paul resorts to the use of word plays to make his appeal more subtle, even ambiguous. The subtlety of this letter notwithstanding, few letters in the New Testament capture the art of persuasion as well as the letter to Philemon. Yet this letter is much more than a persuasive argument. This letter captures a glimpse of how Paul applied his theology to ethical situations.

The letter to Philemon is “carefully crafted” and “a masterpiece of suggestion.”[1] This letter only indirectly addresses the church; its main recipient is the person Philemon. Furthermore, Philemon does not appear to be a pastor in a local congregation. As such, this letter reveals for us Paul’s approach to ministry to normal, average church members in the congregations with which he interacted. Consequently, we ought to see this letter as a valuable glimpse into Paul’s view of interpersonal ministry.

Our approach in this treatment of Paul’s letter will be threefold. We will first discuss the background and occasion for Paul’s letter. Then we will provide an exegetical overview of the letter’s contents. We will then consider some broad implications for interpersonal ministry based on what we found in the exposition of the letter.

Background & Occasion

Paul wrote Philemon during his first Roman imprisonment[2] to Philemon, who was a member of the Colossian church (v. 1).[3] Onesimus, Philemon’s former slave, robbed him in some way (v. 18) and somehow met up with Paul in Rome and became a Christian (vv. 10-11) through Paul’s ministry. Paul then persuaded him to return to Colossae, but sent this letter with him “appealing to Philemon to reinstate him as a ‘brother beloved’” (vv. 15-16).[4] This letter was probably sent with Paul’s letter to the Colossians. Tychicus and Onesimus together traveled to Colossae to deliver the letter to the Colossians (Col. 4:7-9), and it is reasonable to assume that they also traveled with the letter to Philemon.[5]

It is impossible to determine why and how Onesimus left Philemon and came to Rome with any degree of certainty. Several possibilities have been suggested; however, the best explanation is that after Onesimus had stolen from Philemon, he feared the punishment he would receive. Therefore, he fled to Paul to ask him to be an amicus domini (friend of the master), that Paul might appeal to Philemon on Onesimus’ behalf, always intending to return to his master.[6]

If Onesimus sought out Paul to be an advocate—an amicus domini—to plead his case, he would not be considered a fugitivus (fugitive) under Roman law. In the first century AD, Proculus stated that a slave is not a fugitive “who, having in mind that his master wished physically to chastise him, betook himself to a friend whom he induced to plead on his behalf.”[7] Rapske states that in this case “neither time nor distance are considerations in establishing whether a slave is a fugitivus or not… the intent of the slave is the all-important factor.”[8] The slave is not a fugitivus if he flees his master’s wrath, especially if the master is “threatening to rid himself of the slave by selling him or having him killed.”[9] In this way, Paul could not be charged with harboring a fugitive under Roman law (cf. Rom. 13:1-7) or with violating Deuteronomic law (Deut. 23:15-16). The following is a sample letter from an amicus domini, Pliny the Younger:

Pliny the Younger (c. A.D. 62–c. A.D. 113)
To Sabinianus

YOUR freedman, whom you lately mentioned to me with displeasure, has been with me, and threw himself at my feet with as much submission as he could have fallen at yours. He earnestly requested me with many tears, and even with all the eloquence of silent sorrow, to intercede for him; in short, he convinced me by his whole behaviour that he sincerely repents of his fault. I am persuaded he is thoroughly reformed, because he seems deeply sensible of his guilt. I know you are angry with him, and I know, too, it is not without reason; but clemency can never exert itself more laudably than when there is the most cause for resentment. You once had an affection for this man, and, I hope, will have again; meanwhile, let me only prevail with you to pardon him. If he should incur your displeasure hereafter, you will have so much the stronger plea in excuse for your anger as you shew yourself more merciful to him now. Concede something to his youth, to his tears, and to your own natural mildness of temper: do not make him uneasy any longer, and I will add, too, do not make yourself so; for a man of your kindness of heart cannot be angry without feeling great uneasiness. I am afraid, were I to join my entreaties with his, I should seem rather to compel than request you to forgive him. Yet I will not scruple even to write mine with his; and in so much the stronger terms as I have very sharply and severely reproved him, positively threatening never to interpose again in his behalf. But though it was proper to say this to him, in order to make him more fearful of offending, I do not say so to you. I may perhaps, again have occasion to entreat you upon his account, and again obtain your forgiveness; supposing, I mean, his fault should be such as may become me to intercede for, and you to pardon. Farewell.[10]

While this letter was written as an advocacy letter for a freedman rather than a slave, it is easy to see parallels between the letters of Pliny and Paul.

It is easy for Americans to import their own ideas of slavery from American history to that which this letter addresses. While there are similarities, Carolyn Osiek writes,

The major differences are that ancient slavery was neither race-specific nor racist (which is not to deny that racism existed in the culture); there was no necessary assumption of natural inferiority; and manumission or the acquisition of freedom was quite common.[11]

Paul Achtemeier notes as well that “most urban and domestic slaves could look forward to freedom by the time they turned thirty, at which time they were frequently awarded Roman citizenship.”[12] Still, slaves were considered to be the property of their masters; any benefits extended to them were “at the complete discretion of [their masters] and could be withdrawn at any moment.”[13] These slaves performed a variety of tasks, “ranging from farm labour to business management, cooking to teaching. In short, any normal occupation could be filled by a slave.”[14]

If a slave were freed, he would not have the same status as a free-born man. He was considered a libertinus (a freedman) and still owed certain duties to either the former slave owner or the benefactor who freed him. This included, (1) an inheritance of half the freedman’s property, (2) obsequium or due respect, and (3) operae—a number of days of work.[15] For a slave to become a fugitive was a serious crime since it usually caused financial loss on the part of the master.[16] If a runaway slave were caught, he might receive as punishment “a branding on the face” or a permanent bronze slave collar with the owner’s name inscribed on it.[17] Harboring a fugitive slave was considered to be theft and was therefore a punishable offense.[18]

Exposition of Philemon

In comparison to the genre the other Pauline epistles, this letter “stands closest to the ancient private letter.”[19] We may outline the contents of this letter as follows:

I. Greetings (1-3)

II. Introduction: Thanksgiving Prayer (4-7)

III. Main Body: Appeal for Onesimus (8-20)

A. Understanding Onesimus “Then and Now” (8-16)

B. Paul’s Three Requests (17-20)

IV. Closing Remarks (21-25)

There are no major textual variants in this letter. It is reasonable to assume that we have this passage “substantially as Paul wrote it.”[20]

Greeting (vv. 1-3)

From the beginning of this letter Paul identifies himself as a prisoner of Christ Jesus. No doubt he did so not only because he was in prison when he wrote the letter, but because he wanted identify himself as being in a similar situation to that of Onesimus. He addressed Philemon along with the two other individuals in the house-church and the church congregation. He greets them warmly with his customary “grace to you” formula (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; Phil. 1:2; Col. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:2). However, this should not be seen as a trite, formulaic greeting. This greeting would be understood as a benediction or blessing that would communicate “the grace of God in which they stand and the relationship of peace that God has established with them in his Son, Jesus Christ.”[21]

Thanksgiving Prayer (vv. 4-7)

From this point on, Paul addresses Philemon directly.[22] Paul shares his prayer for Philemon and commends him for his love and faith. Verse 5 is a chiasm:

…for I hear of your (A) love and (B) faith,
which you have (B’) toward the Lord Jesus and (A’) for all the saints.

This may be translated, “for I hear of your love, which you have for all the saints, and your faith, which you have toward the Lord Jesus.”[23] The use of chiasm here seems to highlight the two main themes in Philemon’s character that Paul will develop throughout the letter. Paul’s prayer in v. 6 expounds on the faith that is found in Philemon and expresses his desire that the fellowship of his faith “might become effective in the knowledge of every good thing.” In v. 7 Paul commends his love, and in particular, the way Philemon has refreshed the hearts of the saints.

Paul’s prayer anticipates the main themes of Paul’s appeal for Onesimus as Philemon’s amicus domini, and in fact, forms the grounds for it. Paul was Philemon’s friend, and so he knew something about Philemon’s character. In particular, he knew that this “beloved fellow worker” had both faith in Christ and love for others. Throughout the main body of the appeal, Paul will make subtle references to these qualities of Philemon.

Paul’s Appeal for Onesimus (vv. 8-20)

Paul’s appeal takes up two paragraphs. The first paragraph describes Onesimus’ situation and Paul’s involvement in it. The second paragraph constitutes Paul’s actual requests of Philemon.

Understanding Onesimus Then and Now (vv. 8-16)

The first paragraph describes Onesimus’ situation in such a way as (1) to avoid appeals to authority and (2) to reshape Philemon’s perceptions of Onesimus based on Paul’s friendship with Onesimus. Paul is deliberately and explicitly seeking to avoid appeals that are rooted in authority, commands or control. He mentions his own authority to command him, yet his desire is to exhort instead (vv. 8-9). Paul was willing to express his desire to keep Onesimus with him in service to the gospel ministry (v. 13), but he sent him back so that Philemon could do the right thing willingly instead of under compulsion (vv. 12, 14). This is not to say that Paul never believed it correct to make appeals based on authority, as he has done so on various occasions (1 Cor. 5:3; 9:1; 2 Cor. 10:13-14; 12:12).[24]

Paul also describes Onesimus (and his relationship with him) in such a way as to reshape Philemon’s perceptions of his “runaway” slave. In v. 11, Paul employed a word play on Onesimus’ name (which means “useful”), making use of a contrast between the “once” and the “now”—that is, a contrast between our lives before and after salvation in Christ. Paul has made much use of this “once-now” contrast in his other letters.[25] Here, Paul describes Onesimus’ former life as “useless” and his present character as “useful.”[26] Onesimus was a Phrygian slave, and Peter O’Brien writes that “Phrygian slaves were proverbial for being unreliable and unfaithful.”[27] Onesimus “once” lived up to the popular stereotype of Phrygian slaves, but “now” Onesimus would live up to his name “useful.”

In fact it can be said that the Onesimus that had left Philemon was not the same Onesimus who was returning. The Onesimus who left was a thief; the Onesimus who returned was Paul’s heart and even his “son” (v. 10). In considering the providence of God as the reason Onesimus had left him, he suggests that Onesimus was separated so that Philemon could have him back eternally as a “beloved brother” in the Lord instead of as a mere slave (vv. 15-16). Paul’s language in this paragraph creates a new perspective of Onesimus as Paul’s “son” and “heart,” and Philemon’s “beloved brother,” that Philemon would see his former slave in a new light.

At the same time, there is a great deal of ambiguity surrounding what Paul wants Philemon to do. In verse 13, Paul expresses his wish to have Onesimus serve him in the chains of the gospel; yet this request did not require that Philemon free Onesimus. Onesimus could have served Paul as a slave or a freedman. In verse 16, Paul considers the possibility Philemon could have Onesimus back eternally, “no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother.” Yet John Barclay considers even this statement to be vague. He asks,

Should this [“as”] be interpreted to mean that ‘though he might remain a slave, he should no longer be as a slave? And what exactly is implied by saying that, as a beloved brother, Onesimus will be more than/above… a slave? Does it imply that the new status of brother supersedes the old status of a slave, or could it mean simply that the new status is superimposed on the old?[28]

Despite wide spread opinion to the contrary,[29] these questions cannot be fully answered. In fact, at this point in the letter, it is still unclear exactly what Paul wants Philemon to do.

Paul’s Three Requests (vv. 17-20)

Paul’s three requests form the climax of Paul’s letter to Philemon. Each is expressed in the imperative mood; however, in light of vv. 8-9, the imperatives should be seen not be seen as commands but as requests. [30] These requests are: (1) that Philemon would receive Onesimus as he would Paul (v. 17), (2) that Philemon would charge Paul with any debt owed to Philemon by Onesimus (vv. 18-19), and (3) that Philemon would refresh Paul’s heart by letting Paul profit from him in the Lord.

Until this paragraph, Paul has not explicitly asked anything of Philemon. One would expect that this ambiguity would be cleared up here. Yet even here, it is unclear what precisely Paul was asking of Philemon. It cannot be assumed that Paul was asking Philemon to manumit his slave. While certainly Paul wanted Philemon to accept Onesimus as a brother in Christ, there is no statement in these verses that Onesimus should be freed.

First Request: If you have me as a partner, receive him as you would me.[31]

This first request is rooted in the faith that Paul had perceived to be in Philemon (v. 5). In the protasis of this condition, Paul hopes that Philemon considers him to be a koinonos (partner), meaning “one who takes part in something with someone.”[32] Murray Harris has said, “In a Christian context this term implies more than mere friendship or similarity of outlook. It betokens spiritual unity in Christ and common loyalty to Christ, partnership in believing and working for the gospel.”[33] Paul uses a related word koinonia (fellowship) in verse 6 the fellowship of faith which existed in Philemon. Paul desired that “the fellowship of [Philemon’s] faith might become effective in the knowledge of every good thing in us for Christ” (v. 6). The particular “good thing” (see also v. 14) which Paul desired for Philemon was that he would receive Onesimus as a beloved brother (v. 16) and as if he were Paul himself.[34]

Second Request: If he has wronged you in any way or owes you anything, charge this to my account. I Paul am writing with my own hand, I will repay—not to mention to you that you owe to me your very self as well (vv. 18-19).

Whether Onesimus had stolen from Philemon or simply mismanaged his funds cannot be determined certainty.[35] However, Paul was willing to repay that debt. O’Brien notes, “As a father for his son (cf. v. 10) Paul declares he is prepared to stand good for any damages.”[36] If the above explanation of the circumstances surrounding Onesimus’ departure is correct, this condition should be considered as “hypothetical only in form but which describes the actual offense of Onesimus.”[37] Lightfoot remarks, “The case is stated hypothetically but the words doubtless describe the actual offence of Onesimus.”[38] Paul would have determined that he had wronged Philemon as Onesimus, now a useful Christian, told Paul his story. In fact, this offense would have been the reason for the letter itself.

Although Onesimus probably was not a fugitive under Roman law, he certainly was in the eyes of Philemon. For a slave to steal from his master and run away was not entirely uncommon. For instance, Sarapias wrote a letter asking for help from the administrator of the district in finding his runaway slave:

I have a slave, who formerly belonged to my father, by the name of Sarapion, … [who] had been entrusted by me with our household. (Nevertheless) he, … purloining some items of clothing from our household with which I had provided him and even other items which he also took possession of for himself from our household, has secretly run away…[39]

It is entirely possible that Onesimus held a similar position to Sarapion and administered his master’s finances.[40] Osiek has noted that house slaves “were not only performers of menial tasks, but often trusted agents and administrators in business affairs. Many were highly educated.”[41] If this were the case with Onesimus, he would have had many opportunities to either steal from Philemon or mismanage his funds.

After making this request, Paul inserted his own signature to the letter.[42] Ben Witherington has noted that “Paul used scribes to write his letters… At the end of some of his letters Paul indicates the point at which he takes up the pen to write a line himself and perhaps to add a characteristic signature.”[43] Paul probably added his signature here to serve as a “legal promissory note…, undertaking to make compensation for the damages.”[44] This is a legal statement that bound Paul to his pledge to repay Onesimus’ debt. As Harris states, this is Paul’s “certificate of debt” (cf. Col. 2:14)—“a signed statement of indebtedness by which he formally and legally assumes all the indebtedness of Onesimus toward Philemon.”[45]

In addition, however, Paul reminded Philemon that he became a Christian through Paul’s ministry—a debt far greater than Onesimus’ debt to Philemon. One should be careful not to interpret this statement by Paul as an act of coercion (he’s already stated that he did not want to do this in vv. 8-9). Paul did intend to gain Philemon’s consent, but only so that his “good deed might not be as under compulsion, but freely” (v. 14). Thus, it seems better to interpret this statement as a subtle attempt by Paul to remind Philemon of the grace that he had received through Paul’s ministry—especially salvation itself. Paul repeatedly reminds us of our sinful past so that we can realize the greatness of the grace that has been bestowed upon us (Eph. 2:1-10, Col. 1:21-23, 2:13, 14). Paul wanted Philemon to understand that he also has a “once-now” contrast in his life. If he knew the amount of grace he has received undeservedly, he would realize that he had been in the same situation as Onesimus. Philemon has no right to claim superiority over Onesimus, now his brother in Christ. Thus, Philemon should show the same kindness and forgiveness to others who have wronged him that he has received. As Lohse writes, “Philemon will understand that within this relationship one can no longer balance debt against debt. Onesimus has experienced the same mercy of God by which Philemon first became a Christian.”[46]

In his first two requests Paul deliberately assumes theological language—especially language from the doctrine of justification—and applied it to this situation. The following chart illustrates verbal parallels between Paul’s language in Philemon and the rest of the Pauline corpus:

Language in Philemon	Language in Pauline Literature
v. 11—“Once” was useless; “now” is useful.	Rom. 5:8-11; 7:5-6; 11:30-32; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 1:23; 4:3-7, 8-10; Eph. 2:1-4, 11-13; Col. 2:13; 3:7-8 Col. 1:21, 22—“Once you were alienated from God…. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death….”
v. 17—Philemon should “receive” Onesimus as Paul	Rom. 14:1, 3—“Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment…. God has accepted him.” Rom. 15:7—“Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God”
v. 18—If he has “wronged” you…	Col. 3:25—“Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism.”
v. 18—If he “owes” you…	Rom. 13:8—“Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.”
v. 18—“charge” [impute] it to my account.	Rom. 5:13—“But sin is not charged to an account when there is no law.”
v. 19—Paul signs the letter to legally bind himself to Onesimus’ debt.	Col. 2:14—The “certificate of debt” owed to God is nailed to the cross.

The case for intentional use of theological language becomes stronger when one considers related cognates to the vocabulary Paul employs here. The specific word of “imputation” used in Philemon only appears elsewhere in Rom. 5:13. However, a related word is used frequently to refer to the imputation of righteousness (Rom. 4:3-6, 9-11, 22-23; Gal 3:6). Paul used a word “to wrong” here that is the opposite of another word Paul uses to speak of God’s act of justifying those who believe by faith (Romans 2:13; 3:20, 24, 28; 4:2; 5:1, 9; Galatians 2:16, 3:11, 24; 5:4). It seems clear that Paul was in a very real sense treating this broken relationship as a “redemptive analogy” to the gospel message. He entered into this broken relationship between Philemon and Onesimus in the same manner that Christ entered into the broken relationship between God and man.

Third Request: Indeed, brother, may I have profit from you in the Lord. Refresh my heart in Christ (v. 20)

Paul uses two word plays in this request. In the first word play, he uses the word for “profit” (onaimen) that shares the same root word as Onesimus. Lohse states that “Paul employs an expression that is almost a fixed formula. Consequently, a wordplay on the name of Onesimus cannot be read” here.[47] However, this word never occurs elsewhere in the writings of Paul (or in the entire New Testament). Thus, it seems that this is an unusual expression for Paul to use. Furthermore, Paul has already once made a play on Onesimus’ name when he claims in v. 11 that Onesimus was “formerly useless to you but now useful both to you and to me.”[48] It would be a large coincidence if in fact this is not a play on Onesimus’ name. Whatever the case, the intent of this request is to say that, now that Onesimus has become a brother in Christ, he is a profitable person, such that even Paul could benefit by “Philemon’s warm reception of Onesimus back into his household (v. 17)” and forgiveness of his offense.[49]

The second word play is contained in Paul’s request to Philemon that he would refresh Paul’s “heart” (splangchnon). This is not the typical word for heart. In fact, it literally refers to “the inner parts of the body, especially the intestines”^{^[50]} (“bowels” in the KJV).[51] Yet this noun is used in this letter as a technical term, and Paul’s use of it constitutes a powerful yet subtle argument for the proper treatment of Onesimus. In verse 7, Paul commended Philemon because the “hearts” of the saints have been refreshed through him—that is, Philemon was known to be a loving person who refreshed the hearts of the saints. In verse 12, Paul identifies Onesimus with his own “heart.” In verse 20, the climax of the letter, Paul, one of the saints, asks Philemon to refresh his “heart.” Of course, in 12, Paul has already identified his own “heart” with Onesimus himself. Paul appealed to the Philemon’s “love for all the saints” (v. 5), which expresses itself in “refreshing the hearts” of the saints (v. 7). Yet for Philemon to love Paul as he does the other saints, he must refresh his heart, and his heart is Onesimus.

Once again, however, Paul’s appeal, though both emotional and passionate, is also ambiguous. How exactly is Paul to profit from Philemon, and how is Paul’s heart (Onesimus) to be refreshed? All that can be said with certainty is that Paul wanted Onesimus to be with him (v. 13), that Onesimus should be considered a beloved brother (either instead of or as well as a slave), (v. 16), that Onesimus should be received in the same way Philemon would receive Paul (v. 17), and that Paul would pay for that which Onesimus had stolen from Philemon (v. 18-19). Whether Paul intended for Onesimus to be released cannot be determined from this letter.

Closing Remarks and Greetings (vv. 21-25)

It is interesting to note Paul’s statement that he is confident in Philemon’s “obedience” when nothing has been commanded of him. Paul was not tossing out obligation as a result of his rhetorical technique. There was a “right thing” that he “ought” to do, but Paul was not going to command him to do it. He was going to leave that to the Holy Spirit’s work in Him and rather counsel him. The confidence that Paul had in the Holy Spirit’s work allowed him to be confident that Philemon would do even more than what he asked (v. 21).

Implications for the Church:
How Theology Informs Ethics

Bruce Metzger eloquently writes that this letter “illustrates the way in which ordinary human relationships may be made the means of expressing Christian love.”[52] While Philemon was wealthy enough to own both a slave and a house for the church to meet in (v. 2), it does not appear that he was in an official leadership position in the church. He was in that sense an ordinary member of the congregation in Colossae. This letter, then, gives us a glimpse in to Paul’s ministry to people with ordinary problems of interpersonal relationships. Great attention, therefore, ought to be given towards understanding the manner in which Paul sought to minister in the midst of this broken relationship between Philemon and Onesimus.

Paul’s Shaping of Perception

We have already noted Paul’s attempts at reshaping Philemon’s perception of Onesimus in the body of his appeal. In the first paragraph, Paul also used the “once-now” contrast in v. 11 and other characterizations of Onesimus to transform Philemon’s perception of Onesimus from a useless Phrygian slave and thief (vv. 11, 16, 18) into Paul’s “son,” a “dear brother in the Lord” and a man who lived up to his name (vv. 10, 11, 16). In the second paragraph, Paul uses the splangchnon (“heart, intestines”) word play to transform Onesimus into Paul’s “heart.” It is thus impossible for Philemon to treat Onesimus harshly without damaging Paul’s heart. Yet Paul knew that Philemon was the kind of person who “refreshes the hearts of the saints,” (v. 7) so he did not have reason to worry. He could be confident that Philemon would do even more than what he asked (v. 21).

Paul’s use of perception change is valuable for the church today. A major aspect of Christian counsel is entering into broken relationships and creating new perceptions for the characters involved. Paul’s most powerful means of doing this is through using the language of justification. It is to this that we must now turn.

Paul’s Concept of Reception in Justification

As has already been discussed, Paul adopted the very language of justification when he entered into this broken relationship between Onesimus and Philemon. All people have wronged God and consequently owe a debt to Him that they cannot repay (Rom. 4). Yet He justified us through faith (Rom. 5:1) and forgave our sins, “having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us” (Col. 2:14). Christ served as a mediator by which our debt was imputed to him and his righteousness was imputed to us (Rom. 5, 2 Cor. 5:21). In this letter, it is clear that what Christ did in the spiritual realm to secure our salvation, Paul imitated in the personal arena to bring reconciliation between these two Christians. Though Onesimus wronged Philemon and owed him a debt he presumably could not repay, Paul assumed a mediatorial role and asked that Philemon’s debt be imputed to him. Paul signed this letter as a certificate of debt to legally bind himself to pay what Onesimus owed. Paul was willing to follow the example of Christ even at the possibility of a considerable financial loss. Not only that, but Paul requested that Philemon receive Onesimus as he would receive Paul himself. He was asking that Philemon would impute the friendship that Philemon had with him to Onesimus.

In other words, Paul saw this broken relationship as a “redemptive analogy” for the gospel message. He applied the gospel as a model for entering into broken relationships and bringing about true redemption and restoration. In fact, Paul viewed all relationships in this manner. In both Ephesians and Colossians, Paul calls us to view the three major types of relationships we have—husband/wife, parent/child, master/slave (or employer/employee)—as redemptive analogies, or object lessons for the gospel. His example frees us up to be creative in our relationships with others. It causes us to consider how we might bring the gospel to bear in any and every one of our relationships.

One avenue to follow is Paul’s approach to “reception” and “perception.” While Paul and Philemon both knew that Onesimus had sinned and wronged Philemon, Paul still wanted Philemon to look at Onesimus, to see Paul’s heart and to receive him as would receive Paul himself. There was no denial of Onesimus’ sin, and certainly that sin was not ignored. Paul’s investment in this relationship would cost him the full price of Onesimus’ debt.

In Martin Luther’s terms, Paul encourages us to see each other as “at the same time righteous and sinner.” We receive and accept each other because in our justification God looks at us in a new way—a child of God clothed in the righteousness of Christ. A converted thief should not be thought of as a thief, but as a human being who is deeply loved by his Savior. Even though others may wrong us and hurt us deeply, we understand that their actions do not define them as persons. They are defined by their relationship to their Savior, and all human beings are created in His image. There ought to be a baseline of acceptance and reception in all of our relationships. Once that relationship of reception is established, then people will feel more comfortable sharing their lives, sin and all, and be turned to the gospel in the midst of it. After all, Paul tells us that it is “the kindness of God that leads us to repentance” (Rom. 2:4).

On the other hand, we don’t pretend that sin does not exist in the lives of others. We must always understand that all human beings by their human nature are “totally depraved” except by the grace of God. Even regenerate Christians can exclaim with Paul, “I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature….What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Rom. 7:18, 24-25 ). Paul is not calling us here to simply excuse, ignore or enable the sinful behavior of others. Such approaches seek peace through “getting along” rather than through redemption. Genuinely Christian engagement in relationship with others therefore causes us to deal squarely with the sin both in us and in each other, seeking repentance that forgiveness might bring genuine reconciliation.

Of course approaching Christian relationships in such a paradoxical way will lead to relational questions that have no easy answers. How do we genuinely love others, accepting them as human beings created in God’s image, without excusing or enabling sin? How do we discipline our children for their disobedience and misbehavior and at the same time demonstrate the grace of God who pardons all our sins? These are questions that must be asked. The answers do not come easily. In the end, however, it seems that Paul’s perspective on relationships moves us to engage in these struggles with creativity. There are many ways to bring the gospel to bear in the midst of relational trials, and by God’s grace, He will lead us through them.

Paul’s Observation of Philemon’s Character

Paul’s rhetorical strategy was centered on his understanding of Philemon’s character. When Paul began his appeal with “Therefore…” (v. 8), he was basing his appeal on what he knew of Philemon’s character in vv. 4-7.[53] He knew that the Spirit had produced in him both love for others and faith in Christ (v. 5), and that this Holy Spirit-induced character change could form the basis for his appeals. In other words, Paul knew Philemon well as a “beloved fellow worker” (v. 2) and had confidence in the Holy Spirit to complete in him that work that He had begun (Phil. 1:6). Paul was unable to go to Colossae and have a conversation with Philemon; he had to base his appeal on what he knew of him. Yet we see that the first thing he sought to accomplish was to know Philemon and understand his character, so that the appeal he wrote would be able to touch him where he was. When we have the luxury of a conversation, following Paul’s lead would cause us to first seek understanding of others before seeking to speak to their situation.

In v. 21, Paul again drew on his knowledge of Philemon’s character, stating his confidence that Philemon would do even more that what he asked. In all likelihood, Philemon did more than Paul asked, since this letter has survived; otherwise, Philemon would likely have destroyed the letter.[54] In fact, there has been much speculation about a bishop named Onesimus known by Ignatius in the early 2^nd century. Onesimus was a common slave name, so nothing can be said with certainty, but many have speculated that this Onesimus was the same as the one spoken of in this letter. It is also widely suggested that Paul’s letters were first collected in Ephesus. It is easy to further speculate that after Philemon granted Onesimus his freedom, Onesimus became the bishop of the church in Ephesus and included this “charter of liberty” to Philemon as part of the Pauline canon, which he himself collected in gratitude for Paul’s advocacy on his behalf.[55]

Paul’s Intentional Ambiguity

Throughout our discussion of this letter, we have noted Paul’s intentional ambiguity. In fact, Paul’s writing style in this letter constitutes what Anthony Thistleton calls an “open” style of writing. He writes,

the more “open” the text…, the more active the role of the reader becomes, but at the price of permitting less clarity and wider boundaries of possible meaning. Such texts achieve greater force and greater engagement, but often at the price of a degree of ambiguity or polyvalency.[56]

Paul used a more open style of writing to engage his reader in the relational conflict and to permit enough ambiguity to allow him to make his own decisions.

Nowhere in this letter does Paul explain exactly what the “good thing” (v. 8) is that Philemon is to do; he left it to Philemon to figure that out. Paul knew that Philemon was a regenerate believer, and so he left that to the work of the Holy Spirit in Philemon’s life. Barclay writes that Paul is intentionally ambiguous because “Philemon must be left to work out what is demanded by love. As Lohse writes, Philemon ‘is encouraged to let love do his work, for love is resourceful enough to find the right way in accomplishing the good.’”[57] Paul did not write this appeal to Philemon to prescribe for Philemon what he should do. He intended to exhort Philemon to decide how he was going to receive Onesimus on the basis of the love and faith which he had in Christ, rather than on the basis of the compensation he was due.

Much of the legalism that we face in contemporary Christianity is grounded in a lack of faith in the work of the Holy Spirit in people’s lives. We have a hard time believing that if Christians are allowed to live according to the freedom they have as regenerate Christians they will in turn seek to “walk according to the Spirit” (Rom. 8:4). We therefore think that Christians need a good dose of law to motivate them to “be good.” We forget that the gospel turns standard “worldly” works-righteousness upside down. It is not law that motivates us to be good, it is the power of the gospel and the working of the Spirit in the lives of those He has redeemed. Therefore, it should not scare us that “all things are permissible for me” (1 Cor. 6:12). What should rather concern us is whether or not we are being “mastered by anything” besides the love of God.[58]

One consequence of our failure to give up on worldly works-righteousness is that we seek to speak too soon to tell people what to do. This is not to say that it is always wrong to tell others “what to do.” Rather, we do not take the time to listen and understand before we speak. Paul was not able to visit Philemon in Colossae; he was in prison. So, in his entire letter, he never told him what to do. He left that work to the Holy Spirit working in Philemon’s life. In this way, Paul obeyed James’ advice: “be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger” (James 1:19).

Conclusion:
Toward a Model for Interpersonal Ministry

This passage is an example of the way in which Paul expected those in his congregations to relate to each other. We are now at a place to suggest an exegetical model for interpersonal ministry. This model will not be complete; after all, this is merely a one page letter written by one person to one relational situation. Furthermore, this model will not be a “method”—that is, a step by step operations manual for interpersonal relationships. It would seem that such a method would be something that Paul himself would oppose. Rather, this model ought to be seen as a way of conceptualizing what ought to happen when we live in our interpersonal relationships in a way that will exalt the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

First, Paul sought to be an observer. Before he began writing this letter, he met, befriended and loved Philemon as his own spiritual son. He listened to him and sought to understand him and his situation. Paul also considered the character of his friend Philemon and reflected on who he was before he lifted his pen. When he wrote, he demonstrated his own understanding of Philemon and his character.

Second, Paul preferred exhorting over demanding. He refused to “lay down the law.” Instead, he sought to counsel and exhort his friend. Paul’s exhortation was centered on the gospel (1 Cor. 2:2). He sought to apply the gospel to Philemon’s heart, and he gave him the means to apply the gospel to the heart of Onesimus as well. He did not command Philemon to do “the right thing.” He rather accepted him as a brother in the Lord. Neither Paul’s life nor the life he taught others to live were motivated by a desire to gain what was due or what was deserved. Rather, both his life and the life he taught others to live were motivated by the desire to love and forgive others with the same love Christ displayed for us on the cross (Eph. 4:32, Col. 3:13).

Such a model can be said simply and succinctly: “Listen and understand before you speak, and when you speak, speak the gospel.” A good conversation centered on the gospel message applied to the hearts of sinners is really all that matters in interpersonal relationships.

Bibliography

Achtemeier, Paul J., Joel B. Green and Marianne Meye Thompson. Introducing the New Testament: Its Literature and Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.

Barclay, John M. G. “Paul, Philemon, and the Dilemma of Christian Slave Ownership.” New Testament Studies 37 (1991): 161-186.

Barclay, William. The Letters to Timothy, Titus and Philemon. The Daily Study Bible. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1957.

Bauer, Walter, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Fredrick W. Danker. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Brooks, James A. and Carlton L. Winbery. Syntax of New Testament Greek. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1979.

Bruce, F.F. Paul: An Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdans, 1977.

________. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Carson, D.A., Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Carson, Herbert M. The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and Philemon. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. Ontario: InterVarsity, 1970.

Harris, Murray. Colossians and Philemon. Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Horsley, G.H.R. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 1976. Macquarie University, Austrailia: Ancient History Document Research Center, 1981.

Johnson, Luke T. The Writings of the New Testament: An Introduction. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.

Kümmel, Werner Georg, Paul Feine, and Johannes Behn. Intro to the New Testament. 14th ed. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966.

Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Lightfoot, J.B. Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon. London: Macmillan and Co., 1916.

Llewelyn, S.R. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, Vol. 6: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1980-1981. Macquarie University, Austrailia: Ancient History Document Research Center, 1992.

Lohse, Eduard. Colossians and Philemon: A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.

Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996, c1989.

Lucas, R. C. Fullness and Freedom: the Message of Colossians and Philemon. The Bible Speaks Today. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1980.

Lundin, Roger, Clarence Walhout and Anthony Thiselton. The Promise of Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Lyall, F. “Roman Law in the Writings of Paul—The Slave and the Freedman.” New Testament Studies 17 (1970): 73-9.

Metzger, Bruce M. The New Testament: Its Background, Growth and Content. New York: Abingdon, 1965.

McDonald, H. Dermot. Commentary on Colossians and Philemon. Waco, TX: Word, 1980.

Moule, C.F.D. Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: University Press, 1953.

O’Brien, Peter T. Colossians and Philemon. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 44. Ed. Hubbard, David A. and Glenn W. Barker. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982.

________. The Letter to the Ephesians, Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Osiek, Carolyn. “Slavery in the Second Testament World.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 22 (1992): 174-9.

Pliny the Younger. Letters. Trans. William Melmoth; rev. F. C. T. Bosanquet. Vol. IX, Part 4. The Harvard Classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1909–14; Bartleby.com, 2001. www.bartleby.com/9/4/.

Rapske, B.M. “The Prisoner Paul in the Eyes of Onesimus.” New Testament Studies 37 (1991): 187-203.

Witherington, Ben. Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary on First and Second Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Carlisle, Cumbria CA: The Pasternoster Press, 1995.

[1] Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Introduction, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 354.

[2] Donald Guthrie states, “None but the most extreme negative critics have disputed Pauline authorship of this Epistle.” See Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, (Ontario: InterVarsity, 1970), 638-9.

[3] This traditional view of the situation which occasioned the letter has been challenged by John Knox, who argues that the true addressee is Archippus, and Onesimus belonged to him. Philemon was a leader of the churches in the Lycus valley, according to him, and this letter is the “letter from Laodicea” mentioned in Colossians 4:16. This letter was supposedly sent to Laodicea before it was taken to Colossae so that Philemon could also urge Achippus to listen to Paul’s request. However, as Carson states, This “is not the natural way to interpret Philemon 1-2 and Colossians 4:16, nor does it reckon with the fact that Marcion knew a letter to Laodicea as well as a letter to Philemon.” See D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 389.

[7] Digest 21.1.17.4, cited in Rapske, “The Prisoner Paul in the Eyes of Onesimus,” 196.

[10] Pliny the Younger. Letters, trans. by William Melmoth; rev. by F. C. T. Bosanquet. Vol. IX, Part 4. The Harvard Classics (New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1909–14). Bartleby.com, 2001. www.bartleby.com/9/4/.

[11] Carolyn Osiek, “Slavery in the Second Testament World,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 22 (1992): 174.

[12] Paul J. Achtemeier, Joel B. Green and Marianne Meye Thompson, Introducing the New Testament: Its Literature and Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 425.

[13]S.R. Llewelyn, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, Vol. 6: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1980-1981 (Macquarie University, Austrailia: Ancient History Document Research Center, 1992), 50.

[14]F. Lyall, “Roman Law in the Writings of Paul—The Slave and the Freedman,” New Testament Studies 17 (1970): 73.

[17]G.H.R. Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 1976, (Macquarie University, Austrailia: Ancient History Document Research Center, 1981), 140-141.

[18]B.M. Rapske, “The Prisoner Paul in the Eyes of Onesimus,” New Testament Studies 37 (1991): 192.

[19] Werner Georg Kümmel, Paul Feine, and Johannes Behn, Introduction to the New Testament, 14th ed., (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966), 246.

[20] D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 389.

[21] O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 44, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1982), 274.

[22] The second person pronouns occur in the singular.

[23] Ibid., 275, 278-9. The NIV adopts this translation.

[24] This list comes from H. Dermot McDonald, Commentary on Colossians and Philemon (Waco, TX: Word, 1980), 174.

[25] Rom. 5:8-11; 7:5-6; 11:30-32; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 1:23; 4:3-7, 8-10; Eph. 2:1-4, 11-13; Col. 2:13; 3:7. Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, 66, 292 and The Letter to the Ephesians, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 156-7, 183-4. This contrast is also found in 1 Peter and Hebrews. O’Brien writes, “The wonder of the salvation that has been experienced is contrasted with the lost situation from which God has freed them” (Ephesians, 158).

[26] Luke T. Johnson suggests a second layer of pun here. The Greek word for “useful” is a combination of the preposition eu-, meaning “good” and chrestos. Thus, euchrestos would sound much like eu-Christos, or “good Christian.” See Johnson, 355.

[27] Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, 292.

[28] John M. G. Barclay, “Paul, Philemon, and the Dilemma of Christian Slave Ownership,” New Testament Studies 37 (1991): 173.

[29] See R. C. Lucas, Fullness and Freedom: the Message of Colossians and Philemon, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1980), 187.

[30] One function of imperatives is to offer a request. See James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek, (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1979), 128.

[31] The middle imperative of προσλαμβάνω (“to receive”) can be understood as “receive into one’s home/household.” See Walter Bauer, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Fredrick W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 717b; see also Murray Harris, Colossians and Philemon, in Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament Series (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 272.

[32]BAGD, 440a. O’Brien adds that the plural typically is used of “those who shared common interests or engaged in the same endeavors,” while in the singular (as it is used here) it “could designate ‘a business partner’ (cf. Luke 5:10)” (O’Brien, 299).

[33]Murray Harris, Colossians and Philemon, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament Series (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 272.

[34]Eduard Lohse, Colossians and Philemon: A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 203.

[38]J.B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon, (London: Macmillan and Co., 1916), 341.

[42]Lightfoot states, “This incidental mention of his autograph, occurring where it does, shows that he wrote the whole letter with his own hand” (Lightfoot, 341). This view cannot be ruled out, but Witherington’s appraisal above is probably to be preferred.

[43]Ben Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary on First and Second Corinthians, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Carlisle, Cumbria CA: The Pasternoster Press, 1995), 37.

^{^[50]} Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, LN 8.58 (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996, c1989).

[51] Though G. E. Ladd insists that it refers to “nobler organs—the heart, liver and lungs.” See George E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 518.

[52] Bruce M. Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth and Content (New York: Abingdon, 1965), 234.

[53] Herbert M. Carson, The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and Philemon, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 107.

[54]F.F. Bruce, Paul: An Apostle of the Heart Set Free, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdans, 1977), 406.

[55] See Bruce’s discussion of this admittedly speculative view in The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 201-2.

[56] Roger Lundin, Clarence Walhout and Anthony Thiselton, The Promise of Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 153.

[58] Go ahead and take that both as an objective and subjective genitive—our love for God and His love for us.