Philemon is a short book, so it was the first one that I memorized. I have to admit that I often wonder why it was placed in the canon. I know that amount of content was not a prerequisite to be in the Bible, but Philemon seems as if it has nothing to tell Christians. I hope no one finds that blasphemous; this is only a reaction when I first read through Philemon. Once I start digging into what Paul had to say in his epistle to Philemon then I start to see the value of it. Of course, it is not that I ever doubted the value of Philemon, but that next to Galatians, Colossians, and Romans, Philemon seems like a lightweight in a group of heavyweights.
The letter concerns Onesimus – which means ‘useful’ – who was a slave of Philemon’s but had been helping Paul while he was imprisoned. The letter does not tell what type of help he was providing for Paul; I do not know the historical background of the letter, so I’m not sure if Paul is writing this while imprisoned at Rome or not. However, Paul had grown fond of Onesimus and desired for him to stay around to help him. However, apparently Philemon also had use of him and ordered (?) him to come back. Paul sent him back, but with an appeal to Philemon that Onesimus might return to help Paul.
The issue of slavery pervades the letter but is not directly addressed. If slavery was a sin, then it would be strange that Paul would not order Philemon to free Onesimus; however, Paul does say that Philemon would have Onesimus back “no longer as a slave” (v. 16). I think it is strained to take this phrase as making a claim about their societal relationship (master-slave). Rather, it seems to be referring to their bond as brothers in Christ – when Onesimus returned to Philemon their relationship in Christ would take on a different form. Perhaps Paul thought Philemon should free Onesimus for practical reasons but not for ethical reasons.
However, I find it hard to assert that slavery could be ethically permissible, especially for someone who takes the Golden Rule as the center of Christian ethical theory. If the Golden Rule is to be the focal point of Christian ethical theory, then slavery would be impermissible, because I do not want others to enslave me. However, one feature of the Golden Rule which is often overlooked is its personal nature. ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ I cannot take the Golden Rule and use it to tell others what they should do. (Perhaps the GoldenRule should be taken as a principle that governs second-order moral principles – for those of you unfamiliar with Alan Donagan’s work can skip this – instead of governing first-order principles. We would have to appeal to Kant’s Categorical Imperatives to see a formulation of the Golden Rule in third-personal terms.)
Anyway, although I think enslaving others is wrong, I do not think it is directly addressed in this letter. Although Paul does not mention a command against slavery in this letter, that does not mean that he is thereby assenting to the institution. Perhaps the phrase “no longer as a slave” does mean that Paul is telling Philemon that it is wrong to have slaves; perhaps I was mistaken earlier when I said that it was a stretch to make that into a commandment against slavery. However, I shall leave this issue for later posts since it does not directly bear on Philemon.
The Epistle to Philemon shows the passionate nature of Paul’s ministry. He considers Onesimus his son, showing that Paul was deeply involved with those Christians around him. (It is interesting that he called Onesimus his so – implying that he was his father – if Jesus’s teaching to call no man father were to apply to this situation. If not, then Protestants lose that argument against Catholicism.)
Anyway, I cannot think of much more to say at the moment. Philemon was too short for me to go passage-by-passage, although I might do so later.
