The Significance of Philemon with Regard to Social Issues⤒🔗

“The short length and personal focus of Philemon raises an obvious question, ‘Why is it in the canon?’” so writes D. A. Carson. He goes on to rightly assert that we must seek reasons for its inclusion that are in keeping with the overall purpose of Scripture as stated in 2 Timothy 3:16 ('All scripture...is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”).¹

One significant contribution Carson brings to our attention is the fact that this epistle “contributes to our understanding of the Christian approach to social issues such as slavery.”² According to Roman law, it was obligatory that a runaway slave be returned to his master, and we find Paul complying with that law. T.E. Robertson raises the question, “Would Paul, out of respect for Roman law, have told Onesimus to return to a cruel pagan master to be tortured or crucified?”³ Robertson conjectures that if such were the fate that awaited Onesimus if he were to be returned to his earthly master, Paul would not have pursued the course that he did. Instead of complying with Roman law, he would no doubt have appealed to the higher divine law that governed the relation of masters and indentured servants (and slaves) during the Old Testament dispensation. In Deuteronomy 23:15-16 we find the commandment, ''You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you...you shall not oppress him.” But in the case of Onesimus, Paul was confident that he was not handing this man over to an awful fate. Nevertheless, we must still come to grips with the fact that Paul, at least in this present case, does comply with the Roman law.

When we read the Epistle to Philemon, along with the rest of the New Testament epistles, we discover that neither Paul nor any of the other apostles denounce the prevailing system in which slavery was a common and very widespread practice. Before considering the reasons for this, as well as the deeper implications of the gospel that are at work, we need pause for a moment to consider the institution of slavery as it existed in the ancient world and as it was practiced in seventeenth through nineteenth-century America and England.

Ancient Slavery and Antebellum Slavery←⤒🔗

We begin by quoting D. De Silva,

The Greco-Roman slave population is estimated at about one-in-three to one-in-four people. A huge proportion of the population, therefore, would have been slaves. Unlike Western slavery in the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries, slavery in the ancient world was not based on a presumption of ethnic inferiority but on the practicalities of conquest, criminal proceedings, birth into a slave family, or defaulting on debts.⁴

De Silva’s comparison of slavery as practiced in the ancient world with that practiced in seventeenth through nineteenth-century America and England is basically true, although it needs some modification. The base motivation (and we use the term “base” both in the sense of “fundamental” as well as “despicable”) for slavery in all ages and at all times was economic. What drove the black African tribal chieftains to raid their neighboring tribes and sell them into slavery to the white traders who plied the waters off the coast of West Africa was financial gain. What impelled the traders to transport the captured African peoples to America was financial gain. What induced the white plantation owners to employ slave labor was financial gain.

It was in the 1830’s that the concept of ethnic and racial inferiority was brought forth as a “justification” for slavery, and then only out of “necessity.” “The defenders of slavery, [i.e. primarily the Southern plantation owners], had to consider the 75 percent of the southern white population who had no slaves and who did not share in the economic benefits of the system. Therefore, the principal justification of slavery came to hinge on racism, maintaining that all whites were superior to all blacks but equal to one another. The idea of democratic equality among whites was thus made consistent with slavery.”⁵ Thus, the concept of ethnic and racial inferiority was introduced as a means of achieving “white solidarity” and avoiding discontent on the part of the large non-slave holding Southern population. But in light of the biblical teaching concerning the creation of man (cp. Gen. 1:26-28; Acts 17:26), the doctrine of such inferiority could not long function as a justifiable excuse for the practice of slavery. In fact, it was fundamentally a mere facade, “the real motive, though rarely admitted, was that slavery was profitable.”

While the institution of slavery came to be “justified” by the doctrine of racial and ethnic inequality in nineteenth-century America, there was also a de-humanizing component to slavery as it was maintained in the ancient world. “The slave was considered ‘living property’ (cp. Aristotle, Politics, 1.4 1253b31), entirely under the authority and power of the master/owner. Many philosophers and moralists advocated the ethical treatment of slaves, touting the benefits of preserving one’s personal property (Aristotle, Politics, 1.6 1255b9-13) ...Slaves of private individuals, however, did have the hope of manumission. Theoretically, a slave could purchase his freedom from money saved up in the course of doing business on the master’s behalf; more often they were freed by the master in his will as a gift for decades of faithful service...”⁶

Herein lies a fundamental distinction between slavery as it was practiced in the ancient world and as it came to be practiced in nineteenth-century America: In the American system the slave was seen as having an inherently inferior status based on biological considerations, (again, a doctrine that is clearly refuted by the Scriptures). In the ancient system the slave had imposed upon him an inhumanity, (being considered as “living property”), but there lay before him the possibility of manumission and with it the alleviation of his less than human status.

The Difference Between Circumcision and Slavery←⤒🔗

But we must still face the fact that the Apostle Paul does not denounce the system of slavery. On more than one occasion he calls upon converted slaves to live lives of exemplary service to their earthly masters (cp. Eph. 6:5-8; Col. 3:22-25; cp., also, 1 Pet. 2:18-19). But he also exhorts Christian masters to treat their slaves with kindness and justice (cp. Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1). Furthermore, when possible, the slave is encouraged to take advantage of gaining his freedom, but he must not take matters into his own hands and rise up in rebellion against his master (cp. 1 Cor. 7:21-22a). The counsel Paul gives to both slaves and freemen found in 1 Corinthians seven is sandwiched between the twice-repeated exhortation: “Brothers, let each one remain with God in the status he had when he was called [to faith in Christ]” (1 Cor. 7:20, 24).

So once again we are left with the question, “Why does the Apostle Paul not denounce the system of slavery?” De Silva phrases the question in this way, “Why wouldn’t Paul fight against the distinctions of slave and free...with the same verve that he opposed the validity of the Jew-Gentile distinction?”⁷ [De Silva is referring to the fact that the apostle adamantly refused the demand of the Judaizers that Gentile converts be circumcised in order to be saved, cp. Acts 15:5]. The Apostle Paul himself answers this question when he explains to the Galatians the reason he withstood the demands of the Judaizers:

But not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. ⁴[This whole matter arose] because of the false brothers who entered [the church] undetected, having 'sneaked into [our fellowship]' in order 'to spy on' our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might makes us 'slaves.' ⁵[But] not even for a moment did we submit to them; [we resisted them] so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you. Gal. 2:3-5

Paul took the action he did because “the truth of the gospel” was at stake. The gospel of grace, the means by which men are reconciled to God and delivered from the bondage of sin, must ever have the place of first priority, and that for the simple reason that it pertains to that which is transcendent and eternal. Writing to those who were converted to Christ while in a state of slavery, the apostle says, “Do not let it concern you.” That is to say, the converted slave was not to become preoccupied with his present position in society, (or lack of position); he should not allow the situation to embitter him or cause him to wallow in self-pity. We must not allow the situation in which we find ourselves to overshadow our relation to Christ or hinder our service to Christ. By the grace of Christ, we are called to transcend our present social situation and lack of position by appreciating the truth expressed in 1 Corinthians 7:22a, “he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman” (cp. Jn. 8:34-36).

As De Silva has pointed out, “A huge proportion of the population...would have been slaves.” To advocate the immediate abolition of slavery would have resulted in the complete disruption of society by violent means, something that the Roman government would never have countenanced. The result of such an endeavor on the part of the Christian Church would either have resulted in the annihilation of the Church in its stage of infancy, or would have run the risk of transmuting the gospel of grace with all of its transcendent and eternal significance (cp. 2 Cor. 5:18-21) into a mere “social gospel.” What if the gospel of grace had been subordinated to the goal of eradicating the institution of slavery? What if, in consequence of which, every last slave in the empire was emancipated? What if a man were not only to gain his freedom, but were even to gain the whole world, “what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his own soul?” (Mk. 8:36)

Thus, for the sake of the priority of the gospel of grace, Paul and the rest of the apostles did not denounce the social system that prevailed in the first century A.D. But, at the same time, that gospel of grace contains within it the implications and the power to not only transform individuals but to dethrone the ungodly social systems devised by sinful man. As D. Guthrie expresses it:

This Epistle [addressed to Philemon] brings into vivid focus the whole problem of slavery in the Christian Church. There is no thought of denunciation...The apostle deals with the situation as it then existed. He takes it for granted that Philemon has a claim of ownership on Onesimus and leaves the position unchallenged [Note: in the light of verse 21, we take exception to this latter statement made by Guthrie]. Yet in one significant phrase Paul transforms the character of the master-slave relationship. Onesimus is returning no longer as a slave but as a brother beloved (verse 16). It is clearly incongruous for a Christian master to 'own' a brother in Christ...and although the existing order of society could not be immediately changed by Christianity without a political revolution, (which was contrary to Christian principles), the Christian master-slave relationship was so transformed from within that it was bound to lead ultimately to the abolition of the system.⁸

The Significance of Paul’s Request Made to Philemon←⤒🔗

Philemon is exhorted to receive Onesimus “no longer as a slave, but more than a slave,” he is to receive him as “a brother beloved.” But most significantly, notice that he is to do so “both in the flesh and in the Lord” (vs. 16). In other words, the spiritual relationship believers share as brothers and sisters in Christ is not to be held in distinction from our present earthly (“in the flesh”) existence: there cannot be two distinct dimensions of interaction, the one transcendent, the other earthly; on the contrary, the transcendent spiritual relationship has the priority and must permeate every dimension of our existence, including all earthly relationships. In the words of De Silva, “New relationships formed in the Lord cannot be restricted to a spiritual or religious sense, but must be lived out ‘in the flesh.’ Onesimus cannot be Philemon’s brother on Sunday only and his slave the rest of the week. The new model of relating must be enacted in everyday life...”⁹

This brings us back to the three introductory verses of the epistle. Now we must seek to answer the challenge posed by E. Harrison, when he writes, “This curious combination of intimacy and publicity calls for explanation.” One answer given is that by means of this dualistic introduction, (Paul addresses Philemon and the church), the apostle is seeking to bring pressure on Philemon to comply with his requests. Harrison himself offers this suggestion: Philemon must make his decision regarding Paul’s request in the light of the fact that both his family and Christian friends are aware of the request. Under the circumstances it is hard to imagine any Christian man failing to respond to the plea.¹⁰ Carson, referring to these opening verses and others, tells us that we “must not be naïve and ignore the several subtle ways that Paul brings pressure on Philemon to do what he wants.”¹¹

However, we must surely think more highly of the great apostle than to suppose that he would stoop to such methods in order to “get his way.” We would suggest that the true significance of the dual introduction is to be found in the fact that it is not Philemon alone who is exhorted to receive Onesimus as a beloved brother in Christ. By virtue of coming to faith in Christ, Onesimus has entered into the fellowship of the saints, and it is the obligation of the entire church to receive him as a beloved brother in our Lord Jesus Christ. So, although the exhortation is directed to Philemon as a prominent member of the fellowship meeting in Colossae and in his own home, it is not he alone who must take heed to this exhortation.

Finally, we must consider the Apostle Paul’s remark found in verse 21. When he informs Philemon of his confidence that Philemon “will do even more than I say,” is he expressing the hope that Philemon will remit his slave to the care and service of the apostle? From the context we think not. It is much more likely that what Paul has in mind and what he gently urges Philemon to do is nothing less than grant Onesimus his freedom, granting him manumission and deliverance from his bonds of slavery. In effect, Paul is appealing to Philemon to live out the implication of the gospel. He has just urged Philemon, and the church, to receive Onesimus, no longer as a slave, but as a beloved brother in the Lord. Now, in verse 21, he is urging Philemon to treat Onesimus accordingly, no longer as a slave, but as a beloved brother in the Lord. What earthly brother would treat a beloved brother as a slave? How could a Christian brother so treat a fellow believer, a spiritual brother in Christ?

The gospel of grace contains within it the implications and the power to not only transform individuals, but to dethrone the ungodly social systems devised by sinful man. By means of this epistle the Apostle Paul is calling upon Philemon and the church that meets in his house to live out the implications of the gospel of grace before the world. T.E. Robertson informs us, “in God’s providence, abolition was eventually attained, and the influence of this Epistle played no small part in the accomplishment of this result.”¹²