I’m not sure I’ve ever heard a sermon on Philemon until the other day. In fact, I think the only time I’ve ever heard it referenced is using v6 (“I pray that you may be active in sharing your faith”) to support evangelism, which sounds like a reasonable application in some English translations (notably the NIV), though probably not the actual meaning. At any rate, until I heard a two-part Doug Moo sermon, I’d never heard someone exposit the text.
There are probably a couple reasons for this: it’s very short, Paul doesn’t outright condemn slavery like we might want him to, and we don’t know the ending to the story. We have no biblical reference to Philemon’s reaction to Paul’s letter. Did he take advantage of the Roman laws which would permit him to punish severely, even with death? Did he set Onesimus free? Did Onesimus return to his position as slave, but with the fellowship of his newfound brothers and sisters in Christ? All of these, and probably more, are possibilities.
I don’t think we can come to a strong conclusion to this question, though I think I lean toward Onesimus being set free by Philemon. I’ll look at 3 points of evidence, though the 3rd is the one that is most intriguing to me.
- Toward the end of his letter to the Colossians, Paul tells them that he is sending Tychicus to them (probably the letter carrier), along with Onesimus. Let’s assume for a second that this is the same Onesimus we encounter in Philemon. Is this a clue that he was set free and became a part of Paul’s ministry team? That’s possible, though I tend to think that Philemon and Colossians were sent together (notice that many of the same people send their greetings at the end of both letters). I should note that it is possible that Philemon was written earlier, and Colossians would be evidence that Philemon was emancipated. I just don’t think that’s the most natural way to understand this connection.
- Ignatius, writing sometime around 110AD, refers to the bishop in Ephesus, Onesimus. Is this the same Onesimus? That certainly is possible. If Onesimus was a fairly young man when Paul wrote to Philemon, it is possible that this could be the same man, though 50 years older. Unfortunately, there is no certainty these refer to the same person. Onesimus was a relatively common name, though I think more study can be done on this (maybe it has been, I don’t know). Onesimus means “useful” or “profitable,” which makes sense since he was a slave. Were most people with the name “Onesimus” slaves? If so, what are the chances there would be a bishop with that name? If it is a slave name, then I’d argue this makes the likelihood of them being the same person greater (though I wouldn’t die on this hill).
- One thought I’ve had but have never really encountered (but I may have forgotten) is considering the implications of the very existence of the letter. If Philemon rejected Paul’s request to accept Onesimus back as a brother (even if he didn’t grant him full emancipation), would this letter still exist? Would it have been copied and circulated? It’s not as if this were a public letter in the sense of 1-2 Corinthians or Galatians (though Philemon apparently wasn’t the only person to read it). One of those letters would have been much more likely to be copied, even if it didn’t have the effect Paul would have liked. All it would take would be for one house church to agree with it, copy it and distribute it. Paul’s letter to Philemon, on the other hand, would probably not exist if Philemon refused to grant Paul his wish.
We still cannot say for sure what happened. I suppose it’s possible that someone else had access to this letter and copied it, though I still think the same issue applies: if the situation ended poorly, why would anyone keep it? I think the evidence points toward there being a “happy ending.” What exactly that “happy ending” is… well… that’s harder to tell. Was he returned to Paul? Was he granted freedom and stayed with Philemon and his household? Was he kept on as a slave, albeit with an entirely different relationship to his master? We’ll never know, but I’m betting he ended up with a far better result than if Paul had never written the letter to begin with.
I find your reasoning on point 3 pretty compelling. I’m skeptical on point 2… I wouldn’t expect even a young man of the mid first century to still be alive and working by 110. It could happen, but I can’t see much reason to think it likely that this was the same fellow. But, maybe his son?
Yeah, being the same man 50 years later is hard to believe, though certainly not impossible. In the end, like you, I’m more persuaded by my 3rd point. Save the best for last… so says Vanessa Williams.
Point 3 actually does sound sort of familiar to me. The only places I can think of where I might have read it would be Carson/Morris/Moo (I read the edition before Morris opted out) and O’Brien’s Philemon commentary, which I read in full. Or perhaps it came up in the Colossians Bible study I attended, and the Bible study leader mentioned this when Onesimus came up. He’s a former history professor, so that kind of line of reasoning is the sort of thing that might occur to him more than it might to biblical scholars specializing in rhetoric or grammar.
Yeah, I’m sure someone somewhere has thought of it before me. The only Philemon commentaries I’ve really ever used were Fitzmyer and Barth/Blanke, and I’m quite sure I didn’t read it in them. I owe O’Brien, but have only used his Colossians portion, and I haven’t read an NT Intro in years. Anyway, I’m holding to my delusion that I had an original thought.
Love what you’re saying, but what strikes me as one goes through the story is not only what happens to Onesimus in the end, but the amazing grace that Philemn had and how that reflects the grace our Lord Jesus has for us. To me that is the story of Philemon. This one paragragh completely challenges all I thought I know and accept of human nature. Paul had quite a cheek to not only ask/demand Philemon to accept back this lying robber and run away slave, but to consider him a friend and more…a brother! That while I am sure the thoughts going through Philemons mind was here is this rubbish back again and carrying a letter from someone I esteem. Must have stolen that too:) That must have been something…but then again that is what God does about us…it is called grace…undeserved but so incredibly sweet.
You are right, I have in fact never heard a sermon on Philemon and this Sunday intend delivering one hence my thoughts on grace and getting further insights.
absolutely Daniel… I think what is emphasized more is the aceptance of a person who once was a slave( of something) and now has been set free ( in Christ). So, he is no longer a slave but a brethren. This appeals to all of us. Lot of the usages of words in this letter seems metaphorical ( like Paul refers to Onesimus as son). Wsa literally Onesimus a slave or a sinner?? dat is what I am wondering about
[…] in the early church slaves became bishops, because social status was immaterial. There was even a Bishop Onesimus – could it have been Philemon’s runaway slave whom Paul wrote […]
If Onesimus was 15 or 20 while imprisioned with Paul in the year 62, then he would have been only 55 or 60 at the turn of the century when he might have risen to be a Bishop, following Saint Timothy in Ephesus. That is not implausible at all. Since the name itself means “useful man” suggestive of a slave nickname, and a bishop by that unusual name was recorded in Ephesus, it follows that this may indeed be the same fellow. Paul’s eloquent praise for Onesimus speaks to his leadership potential with maturity, despite slave staus.
Greetings and sincere appreciation for your opinions. I am not a Biblical scholar, in fact am all but Biblically illiterate. I am a volunteer in a Bible study @ a nearby prison and will be discussing Philemon. In the pre-study materials that I received, it mentioned Onesimus being appointed as a Bishop and later being stoned or otherwise put to death. When looking for some scriptural account of Onesimus’ life after Paul, I discovered your website; The Boston Bible Geeks. At 68, I have just become intrigued by the Bible and would like to know if I, at the elementary level, could pose scriptural inquiries (perhaps on a 1 on 1 format) to BBG, at your scholarly level, or would you recommend I begin elsewhere? Either way, thanks for what I learned today.
There is a wonderful book on the Apostle Paul by F.F. Bruce and he goes into detail what may have happened to the slave Onesimus.
If you really want to grow your faith and knowledge of the bible look up a website Biblical-Literacy.com You can listen to the lessons online or through a podcast. Or simply download the lessons. I have been a student of Mark Lanier’s for over 15 years and I love the gift knowledge that I have received thus far.
Good luck on your journey through knowing and understanding Gods love.
You can find the history of just about any disciple in the Orthodox Church Synaxaria. Onesimus’ is here: https://oca.org/saints/lives/2011/02/15/100526-apostle-onesimus-of-the-seventy
Dear friends, I appreciate your opinions on Onesimus, the runaway slave. Although Paul had never visited Colossae, but his friendship with Philemon probably developed during Paul’s ministry in Ephesus. Philemon was a wealthy member of the Colossian church. His wife Apphia and son Archippus formed a faithful family having a good standing in the church. The Colossian church used to meet in his house, and he was active in Christian service. Epaphras, Philemon’s pastor at Colossae, was with Paul in Rome (1:23). He, too, would have testifed about Philemon.
Paul urges Philemon to welcome him as he would welcome the Apostle Paul. It is true that Onesimus owes Philemon some material value, but Philemon owes all the eternal value. The two phrases “receive him as myself” (1:17) and “put that on my account” (1:19) would have made Philemon to certainly treat him as a brother in the Lord. If Philemon had rejected Paul’s plea, I believe that the Holy Spirit would not have allowed this letter to be included in the Canon of 66-books. Through this action, apostle Paul broke the very backbone of slavery by changing the relationship of slave and master. So one should not doubt the credentials of Philemon. This of course speaks of everyone’s life as we too are runaway slaves just like Onesimus in the sight of God.
The ‘Early Christian writings’ in the “Epistles of St. Ignatius” mentions “In receiving their Bishop Onesimus, Ignatius received the whole Church which he represented” pg.39 point [5]. Father Ignatius death probably occurred sometime in (A.D 98-117). Onesimus was a teen when Paul wrote to Philemon in (A.D 60). So It was quite possible Onesimus was the Bishop leading the church in Ephesus who came to meet Father Ignatius.
Further as per the traditions, Onesimus was later taken to Rome and martyred for his undeniable faith in Jesus (http://www.christdesert.org).
I agree with and see with most of this except the fact that the letter wouldn’t exist if Philemon refused to rant Paul’s wish. The Bible is God breathed and that being said the letter could have been given, through the Holy Spirit, to someone else to write after being destroyed all being part of Gods plan to have it in His book. Just a thought.
Fact is your right we will never know
for sure. But i like the reasoning that
Why is this letter included in the bible?
Probably because the believers of that
Time knew what the outcome was.
So from the outcome they drew whatever lesson was to be drawn. Now we in the 21st century can draw whatever lesson we can from this short
Gospel.