THE BASIC OUTLINE
FROM THE NKJ PERSONAL STUDY BIBLE:
Nelson Publications, 1990, 1995
Quote:
Philemon, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians are called the
Prison Epistles because Paul wrote them while in prison. Unlike
the other prison letters which are addressed to churches,
Philemon is addressed to an individual.
AUTHOR AND DATE
Philemon and Colossians were probably written by Paul at the same
time, about A.D. 62, during his imprisonment at Rome recorded in
Acts 28:16-31. References to being a prisoner (verses. 1,9,23)
and to being aged (v.9) support this conclusion. Many of the
same people are mentioned in both letters: Archippus (Philem.2;
Col. 4:17), Onesimus (Philem.10: Col.4:9), Epaphras (Philem.23;
Col. 1:7; 4:12), Mark (Philem.24; Col.4:10), Aristarchus
(Philem.24; Col.4:10), Demos (Philem.24; Col.4:14), and Luke
(Philem.24; Col. 4:14). Onesimus and Tychicus (Col.4:7-9) were
the bearers of these letters.
BACKGROUND
Philemon probably lived in the Lycus Valley where Colosse and
Laodicea were located (see Col.4:15). He was a close friend of
Paul, indebted to him spiritually and a helper in his ministry
(vv.l,19). A church met in Philemon's house (v.2). Onesimus ...
had run away and been converted by Paul in Rome (v.10).
Slavery was part of everyday life in the Roman Empire. Prior to
Christ's birth, almost a third of Rome's one million people were
slaves. Regarded only as possessions, they were bought and sold;
their conditions varied depending on then skills and owners.
Christian teaching improved their let by concentrating on inward
moral transformation which naturally produced outward changes
(see 2 Cor.5:17). Masters and slaves were both exhorted to live
worthy of Christ (see Col.3:22-4:1). Moreover, by placing an
emphasis on the common brotherhood of Christian believers (v.
16), Christ and His followers struck at the very foundation of
slavery. As Paul says, "There is neither ... slave nor free, but
Christ is all and in all" (Col.3:11). When captured, runaway
slaves were treated cruelly, sometimes branded on the arm or
forehead, and sometimes put to death....
CONTENT AND PURPOSE
Paul states two reasons for the letter: (1) an appeal for
Onesimus to be received as a brother in Christ by Philemon (vv.
8-21), and (2) a request for Philemon to prepare a guest room for
Paul's coming visit (v.22). Paul supports the principle of
restitution for past wrongs.... However, he bases the appeal to
Philemon on their relationship (vv.17-19), and on the common
Christian fellowship of Philemon, Onesimus, and Paul (vv.10,16).
What happened to Onesimus? No doubt Philemon obeyed Paul and
forgave Onesimus. Otherwise he probably would have destroyed this
letter...
End Quote
.............
While there is much merit in the above, and correct in the
main, it is the Bible Commentary by ALBERT BARNES that I believes
gives the truth of the matter on the epistle of Paul to Philemon.
This letter from Paul to Philemon has been often greatly
misunderstood and perverted by many a Christian leader and whole
sects, to claim that God and the Bible endorse and teach the
rightful practice of "slavery." While the Bible does address the
subject of slavery and even lays out laws and rules to govern
that practice, doing so is NOT the same as saying that God and
the Bible endorse and encourage and justify and make righteous
the practice of slavery. God often under the Old Testament
ALLOWED many things, for as Jesus put it to the Pharisees,
"because of the HARDNESS of the heart." The practice of slavery
in Israel was one of those allowences because of the hardness of
the heart. And in allowing it, God gave certain laws to regulate
it, to make it humane and somewhat "respectable." But slavery was
NEVER the ideal of the Lord.
I believe ALBERT BARNES gives the correct understanding of
this letter of Paul to Philemon, and gives enough evidence that
there is no way of proving Paul or this letter he wrote,
endorses in any way the practice of slavery or that Paul was
sending Onesimus back to Philemon as a slave, albeit as a
"Christian" slave.
I shall give you much of what Albert Barnes has to say. For
all of his words on the matter of the book of Philemon, the
reader can ascertain for themselves from "Barnes' Notes on
the New Testament."
But first in my own words, with some amplification I will
render in modern English Paul's letter to Philemon:
This letter is from Paul, who is in prison for preaching the
Gospel about Christ Jesus, and also from our brother
Timothy. I am writing to you Philemon, our much loved
co-helper, and to our sister Apphia and to Archippus, a
fellow soldier in the work of the cross of Christ. I am also
writing to the congregation that meets in your home.
May God our Father and the Lord Jesus christ give you all
grace and peace.
I always thank God when I pray for you all. Philemon, I keep
hearing of your trust in the Lord Jesus and your love for
all of God's children. You are generous because of your
faith. And I am praying that you will always put your
generosity to work, for in so doing you will come to
understand all the good things we can do in Christ's work. I
myself have gained much joy from your love, my brother,
because your kindness has so often helped the hearts and
lives of God's people.
And so, because of all this, I feel bold in asking a favor
of you. I could demand it in the name of Christ, for it is
indeed the correct and right thing to do, but because of
your love and service, I prefer to just ask you as a favor.
Please take this then as a request from your friend Paul, an
old man now, in confinement for doing the work of Christ
Jesus.
My request, even my plea, is that you show kindness to
Onesimus. I hold him in my mind as my very own son, because
he became a believer as a result of my ministry here in this
confinement. Onesimus (which means "useful") has been of
much use to you in the past, but now he is very useful to
both of us. Whom sending him back again to you, also
comes my own heart and feelings. I really did want to keep
him here with me to serve me, for a while, being in these
chains for the Gospel's sake. But I do not want to do this
without your consent and approval. And I do not want you to
help in this matter because you are forced to do it, but
because you willingly want to do it.
Perhaps you can think of it this way: Onesimus ran away for
a little while so you could have him back for good. He is no
longer just a servant; he is a beloved brother, and
especially to me. Now he will mean so much more to you, both
as a servant and as a brother in Christ.
So, if you consider that I am your partner in god's work,
give him the same welcome as you would give me if I were
coming to you. If he has harmed you in any way, or stolen
anything from you, then charge it to me, send me the bill
for it. I Paul, write this in my very own hand-writing "I
will repay it." But I will not mention that you owe me your
very own life.
Yes, my dear brother, please do this favor for the Lord's
sake. Give me encouragement in Christ. I am very confident
as I write this letter to you that you will do what I ask,
and even more.
Please keep a guest room ready for me, for I am hoping that
God will answer your prayers and soon let me return to you.
Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, send you his
greetings. So does Mark, Aritarchus, Demas, and Luke, my
fellow co-workers.
The favor and love and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be
with your spirit.
FROM "BARNES' NOTES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT"
1. THE HISTORY OF PHILEMON
OF PHILEMON, to whom this epistle was addressed, almost
nothing more is known than can be ascertained from the epistle
itself. It is short, and of a private character; but it is a
bright and beautiful gem in the volume of inspiration.
From Col.4:9, it may be inferred that the person to whom it
was addressed, was an inhabitant of Colosse, since Onesimus,
concerning whom this epistle was written, is there mentioned as
"one of them." ... He is said by Calmet and Michaelis to have
been wealthy; but this cannot be determined with certainty,
though it is not improbable. The only circumstances which seem to
indicate this, are, that Onesimus had been his "servant," from
which it has been inferred, that he was an owner of slaves; and
that he appears to have been accustomed to show hospitality to
strangers, or, as Michaelis expresses it, "travelling
Christians." See ver.22 of the epistle. But these circumstances
are not sufficient to determine that he was a man of property.
There is no evidence, as we shall see, that he was a
slave-holder; and Christians in moderate circumstances were
accustomed to show hospitality to their brethren. Besides,
it is not said in ver.22, that he was accustomed to show general
hospitality; but Paul merely asks him to provide for him a
lodging. It is probable that he had been accustomed to remain
with him when he was in Colosse.
It is quite clear that he had been converted under the
ministry of the apostle himself. This appears from what is said
in ver.19: "I do not say to thee, how thou owest unto me even
thin, own self." This cannot be understood otherwise than as
implying that he bad been converted under his preaching, unless
the apostle, on some former occasion, had been the means of
saving his life, of which there is no evidence. Indeed, it is
manifest, from the general tone of the epistle, that Philemon had
been converted by the labours of the author. It is just such a
letter as it would be natural and proper to write on such a
supposition; it is not one which the apostle would have been
likely to write to any one who did not sustain such a relation to
him. But where and when he was converted is unknown. It is
possible that Paul may have met with him at Ephesus; but it is
much more probable that he had himself been at Colosse, and that
Philemon was one of his converts there...
It is evident from the epistle, that Paul regarded him as a
sincere Christian; as a man of strict integrity; as one who could
be depended on to do right. Thus (vers.5-7) he says, that he had
heard of his "love and faith toward the Lord Jesus, and toward
all saints;" thus he confidently asks him to provide for him a
lodging when he should come, (ver.22) and thus he expresses the
assured belief, that he would do what was right towards one
who had been his servant, who, having been formerly unfaithful,
was now converted, and, in the estimation of the apostle, was
worthy of the confidence and affection of his former master.
In regard to his rank in the Christian church, nothing
whatever is known. Paul calls him (ver.1) his "fellowlabourer;"
but this appellation is so general, that it determines nothing in
regard to the manner in which be co-operated with him in
promoting religion. It is a term which might be applied to any
active Christian, whether a preacher, an elder, a deacon, or a
private member of the church. It would seem clear, however, that
he was not a travelling preacher, for he had a home in Colosse,
(vers.2,22) and the presumption is, that he was an active and
benevolent member of the church, who did not sustain any office.
There are many private members of the churches, to whom all that
is said of Philemon in the epistle would apply...
Nothing is known of his age, his profession, or of the time
and circumstances of his death. Neither is it certainly known
what effect this epistle had on him, or whether he again received
Onesimus under his roof. It may be presumed, however, that such a
letter, addressed to such a man, would not fail of its object.
2. THE OCCASION ON WHICH THE EPISTLE WAS WRITTEN
This can be learned only from the epistle itself, and there
the circumstances are so marked as to make a mistake impossible.
(1) Philemon had had a servant of the name of Onesimus. Of the
character of this servant, before Paul became acquainted with
him, nothing more is known than that he head been "unprofitable"
to Philemon, (ver.11) and that he had probably done him some
wrong, either by taking his property, or by the fact that he had
escaped from him, ver.18. It is not necessary to suppose that he
was a SLAVE; for all that is implied of necessity in the word
which is employed to designate his condition in ver.16, (doulos,)
and all that is stated of him in the epistle, would be met by
the supposition that he was bound to Philemon, either by his
parents or guardians, or that he had bound himself to render
voluntary service. See Notes on ver.16. (2) For some cause, this
servant had fled from his master, and had gone to Rome. The cause
of his escaping is unknown. It may be, that he had purloined the
property of his master, and dreaded detection; or that he had, by
his base conduct in some other way, exposed himself to
punishment; or that he merely desired freedom from oppression; or
that he disregarded the bonds into which he himself, or his
parents or guardians, had entered, and had therefore escaped.
Nothing can be inferred about his condition, or his relation
to Philemon, from the fact that he ran away. It is, perhaps,
quite as common for apprentices to run away, as it is for slaves;
and they who enter into voluntary bonds to render service to
another, do not always regard them. (3) In some way, when at
Rome, this servant had found out the apostle Paul, and had been
converted by his instrumentality. Paul says, (ver.10) that he
had "begotten him in his bonds" - which seems to imply that
Onesimus had come to him, and not that Paul had searched him out.
It does not appear that Paul, when a prisoner at Rome, was
allowed to go at large, (comp. Acts 28:30) though he was
permitted to receive all who came to him. Why Onesimus came to
the apostle is not known.
It may have been because he was in want, and Paul was the
only one in Rome whom he had ever seen; or it may have been
because his mind had become distressed on account of sin, and he
sought him out to obtain spiritual counsel. Conjecture on these
points is useless, where there is not even a hint that can serve
as a clew to find out the truth. (4) From some cause, equally
unknown, Onesimus, when converted, was desirous of returning to
his former master. It is commonly ASSUMED, that his returning
again was at the instigation of the apostle, and that this
furnishes an instance of this belief, that runaway slaves should
be sent back to their masters. But, besides that there is NO
CERTAIN evidence that he EVER was a slave, there is as little
proof that he returned at the instigation of Paul, or that his
return was not wholly voluntary on his part. For the only
expression which the apostle uses on this subject, (ver.12) "whom
I have sent again" - does not necessarily imply that he even
proposed it to him, still less that he commanded it. It is a word
of such general import, that it would be employed on the
supposition that Onesimus desired to return; and that Paul, who
had a strong wish to retain him, to aid him in the same way that
Philemon himseLf would do if he were with him, (comp.ver.13)
had, on the whole, concluded to part with him, and to send him
again, with a letter, to his friend Philemon. It is just such
language as he would have used of Timothy, Titus, or
Epaphroditus, if employed on an important embassy at the request
of the apostle. Comp. Luke 7:6,10,19; 20:13; Acts10:5; 15:22;
1Cor.4:17; 2Cor.9:3; Eph.6:22; Phil.2:19,23,25,28; 1 Thess.3:2,5;
Titus 3:12, for a similar use of the word "send." There is
nothing in the statement which forbids us to suppose that
Onesimus was himself disposed to return to Philemon, and that
Paul "sent" him at his own request. To this, Onesimus might have
been inclined from many causes. He may have repented that he left
his master, and had forsaken the comforts which he had enjoyed
under his roof. It is no uncommon thing for a runaway apprentice,
or servant, when he has seen and felt the misery of being among
strangers and in want, to wish himself well back again in the
house of his master. Or he may have felt that he had wronged his
master in some way, (comp. Notes on ver.18) and, being now
converted, was desirous of repairing the wrong. Or he may have
had friends and kindred in Colosse whom he was desirous of see
again. Since any one of these, or of many other supposable
causes, may have induced him to desire to return to his master,
it should not be assumed that Paul sent him against his will, and
thence be inferred that he was in favour of sending back runaway
slaves to their masters AGAINST their will. There are many points
to be proved, which CANNOT be proved, to make that a legitimate
inference. (5) Whatever were the reasons why Onesimus desired to
return to Philemon, it is clear that he was apprehensive of some
trouble if he went back. What those reasons were, it is
impossible now to determine with absolute certainty; but it is
not difficult to conjecture what they may have been, and any of
the following will account for his apprehensions - either (a)
that he had done his master wrong by the mere act of leaving him,
depriving him of valuable services which he was bound to render;
or (b) that he may have felt that the mere act of running away
had injured the character of his master, for such an act always
implies that there is something in the dealings of a master
which makes it desirable to leave him; or (c) that he had in some
way injured him in respect to property, by taking that which did
not belong to him, ver.18; or (d) that he owed his master, and he
may have inferred from his leaving him that he meant to defraud
him, ver.18; or (e) that the laws of Phrygia were such, that
Onesimus apprehended that if he returned, even penitent, it would
be judged by his master necessary to punish him, in order to
deter others from committing a similar offence. The laws of
Phrygia, it is said, allowed the master to punish a slave without
applying to a magistrate. It should be said also that the
Phrygians were a severe people, (Curtius, Lib.v.c.1) and it is
not improbable that, from the customs there, Onesimus may have
apprehended harsh treatment if he returned. It is not proper to
assume that any one of these was certainly the reason why he
feared to return, for this cannot be absolutely determined. We
should not take it for granted that he had defrauded his master -
for that is not necessarily implied in what is said in ver.18,
and we should not impute crimes to men without proof; or should
we take it for granted, that he feared to be punished as a
runaway slave - for that CANNOT be proved; but some one or more
of these reasons, doubtless, operated to make him apprehensive,
that if he returned he would meet with, at least, a cold
reception. (6) To induce his master to receive him kindly again,
was the main object of this courteous and kind epistle. For a
view of the arguments on which be urges this, see the Analysis of
the epistle. The arguments are such, that we should suppose they
could not be resisted; and we may presume, without impropriety,
that they had the desired effect on the mind of Philemon; but of
that we have no certain evidence.
3. THE TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING THE EPISTLE
THERE can be no doubt that this letter was written from Rome
about the time when the epistle to the Colossians was written.
The circumstances which conduct to this conclusion are such as
the following: (1) Paul at the time when it was written was a
prisoner. "Paul a prisoner of Jesus Christ;" ver.1. "Whom I have
begotten in my bonds," ver.10. Comp. ver.23, "Epaphras my
fellow-prisoner in Christ Jesus." (2.) It was written when he had
hopes of obtaining his liberty, or when he had such a prospect of
it that he could ask Philemon, with confidence, to "prepare him a
lodging," ver.22. (3) Timothy was with him at the time when it
was written, (ver.1) and we know that Paul desired him to came to
him to Rome, when he was a prisoner there, as soon as possible, 2
Tim.4:9: "Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me." (4) We know
that Onesimus was actually sent by Paul to Colosse while he was a
prisoner at Rome, and it would be morally certain that, under the
circumstances of the case, he would send the letter to his master
at that time. No other instance is mentioned in which he sent him
to Colosse, and the evidence is as certain as the nature of the
case admits, that that was the time when the epistle was written.
See Col.4:9. (5) The same persons are mentioned in the
salutations, in the two epistles; at least, they are so far the
same as to make it probable that the epistles were written at the
same time; for it is not very probable that the same persons
would, in another place, and on another occasion, have been with
the apostle. Thus Aristarchus, Mark, Epaphras, Luke, and Demos,
join in the salutations both to the church at Colosse and to
Philemon. Probably at no other time in the life of Paul were all
these persons with him, than when he was a prisoner at Rome.
These considerations make it clear that the epistle was written
while Paul was a prisoner at Rome, and at about the same time
with the epistle to the Colossians. If so, it was about A.D.62.
4. THE CHARACTER OF THIS EPISTLE
THIS letter is almost wholly of a private character; and yet
there is scarcely any portion of the New Testament of equal
length which is of more value. It is exquisitely beautiful and
delicate. It is a model of courtesy and politeness. It presents
the character of the author in a most amiable light, and shows
what true religion will produce in causing genuine refinement of
thought and language. It is gentle and persuasive, and yet the
argument is one that we should suppose would have been, and
probably was, irresistible. It is very easy to conceive, that the
task which the apostle undertook to perform, was one which it
would be difficult to accomplish - that of reconciling an
offended master to a runaway servant. And yet it is done with so
much kindness, persuasiveness, gentleness, and true affection,
that, as the letter was read, it is easy to imagine that all the
hostility of the master was disarmed, and we can almost see him
desiring to embrace him who bore it, not now as a servant, but as
a Christian brother, ver.16. "It is impossible," says Doddridge,
"to read over this admirable epistle without being touched with
the delicacy of sentiment, and the masterly address, that appear
in every part of it. We see here, in a most striking light, how
perfectly consistent true politeness is - not only with all the
warmth and sincerity of a friend, but even with the dignity of
the Christian and the Apostle. And if this letter were to be
considered in no other view than as a were human composition, it
must be allowed to be a master-piece in its kind. As an
illustration of this remark, it may not he improper to compare it
with an epistle of Pliny, that seems to have been written on a
similar occasion, (Lib. ix. Let. 21;) which, though penned by one
that was reckoned to excel in the epistolary style, though it has
undoubtedly many beauties, yet must be acknowledged by every
impartial reader vastly inferior to this animated composition of
the apostle." As a specimen of the courtesy and politeness which
the Christian ought to practise at all times, as well as
furnishing many valuable lessons on Christian duty, (see the
remarks at the close,) it deserves a place in the volume of
inspiration ...
ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE
The epistle embrace, the following subjects:
1. The salutation, ver.1-3.
2. A mention of the excellent account which the apostle had heard
of Philemon, and the occasion which he had for thankfulness on
his behalf, ver.4-7. (a) He always remembered him in his prayers,
ver.4. (b) He had heard of his faith and love, and of his
kindness towards those who bore the Christian name, ver.5. (c) He
desired that his goodness in making others, in common with him,
partaken of the expression of his faith, might be even more
effectual in securing the proper acknowledgment of it wherever it
might be known, ver.8. (d) He says that he had great joy and
consolation from the happiness which he had conferred on
Christians who needed his aid, ver.7.
3. The main subject of the epistle - the desire that he would
receive his servant Onesimus again, and the arguments to persuade
him to do it, vers.8-21. (l.) He places it on the ground of
entreaty, not of command. He might, in virtue of his apostolic
office, enjoin many things on him, and possibly this, yet he
chooses to place it wholly on other grounds, and to make it a
matter of personal friendship, ver.8. (2.) Particular reasons why
he should do it (a) For love's sake - love to Paul - now an old
man, and in prison on account of their common religion, ver.9.
(b) Paul regarded Onesimus as his own son, and asked that he
might be received and treated as such, ver.10. (c) He assures
Philemon that, whatever he might have been formerly, he would
now find him to be profitable to himself, ver. 11. (d) He assures
him that Onesimus was especially dear to him, and that he would
have been very useful to him in his circumstances, but that he
did not think it proper to retain him with him without the
consent of Philemon. Onesimus, therefore, was not sent back as a
worthless vagabond, and Philemon, in receiving him, might be sure
that he was receiving one whom Paul believed was fitted to be
eminently useful, vers.12-14. (e) He suggests to Philemon that
probably it was so arranged by divine Providence, that Onesimus
should depart in order that he might receive him again in a far
more tender and endearing relation, not as a servant, but as a
Christian brother, vers.15,18. (f) He appeals to the personal
friendship of Philemon, and asks that if he regarded him as a
participator with him in the hopes of the gospel, or as a
fellow-labourer in a common cause, he would receive him as he
would himself, ver.17. (g) He says that he would himself become
security for Onesimus if he owed Philemon anything, or had in my
way wronged him, vers. 18,19. (h) He concludes the argument by
referring to the happiness which it would give him if Philemon
would receive his former servant again; and with the expression
of his conviction that he would do more than he asked in the
matter, and then asks that, while he showed favour to Onesimus,
he would also prepare a lodging for him, for he hoped soon to be
with him, vers.20-22. Perhaps by this lest suggestion he hoped
also to do much to favour the cause of Onesimus - for Philemon
could hardly turn him away when he expected that Paul himself
would soon be with him. Such an argument would be likely to be
effectual in the case. We do not like to deny the request which a
friend makes in a letter, if we expect soon to see the writer
himself. It would be much more easy to do it if we had no
expectations of seeing him very soon.
4. The epistle closes with affectionate salutations from certain
persons who were with Paul, and who were probably well known by
Philemon, and with the customary benediction, vers.23-25......
VERSE 11.
"Which in time past was to thee unprofitable."
Either because he was indolent; because he had wronged him,
or because he had run away from him. It is possible that there
may be an allusion here to the meaning of the name Onesimus,
which denotes profitable, (Greek ... to be useful, to be
profitable, to help) and that Paul means to say that he had
hitherto not well answered to the meaning of his own name, but
that now he would be found to do so.
"But now profitable to thee."
The Greek here is ... euchreston, but the meaning is about
the same as that of the word Onesimus. It denotes "very useful."
In 2 Tim.4:21, it is rendered, "meet for use;" in 2 Tim.4:11, and
here, "profitable." It does not elsewhere occur in the New
Testament.
"And to me."
Paul had doubtless found him useful to him as a Christian
brother in his bonds, and it is easy to conceive that, in his
circumstances, he would greatly desire to retain him with him.
VERSE 12
"Whom I have sent again."
That is, to Philemon. This was, doubtless, at his own
request, for
(1.) there is not the slightest evidence that he compelled
him, or even urged him to go. The language is just such as would
have been used on the supposition either that he requested him to
go and bear a letter to Colosse, or that Onesimus desired to go,
and that Paul sent him agreeably to his request. Comp. Phil.2:25,
"Yet I suppose it necessary 'to send' to you Epaphroditus my
brother, and companion in labour;" etc. Col.4:7,8, "All my state
shall Tychicus declare unto you, who is a beloved brother, and a
faithful minister and fellow-servant in the Lord: whom I have
'sent' unto you for the same purpose, that he might know your
estate;" etc.
But Epaphroditus and Tychicus were not sent against their
own wills - nor is there any more reason to think that Onesimus
was. See Intro.2.(4.)
(2) Paul had no power to send Onesimus back to his master
unless he chose to go. He had no civil authority; he had no guard
to accompany him; he could entrust him to no sheriff to convey
him from pace to place, and he had no means of controlling him,
if he chose to go to any other place than Colossi. He could
indeed have sent him away from himself; he could have told him to
go to Colosse, but there his power ended. Onesimus then could
have gone where he pleased. But there is no evidence that Paul
even told him to go to Colossi against his own inclination, or
that he would have sent him away at all unless he had himself
requested it.
(3) There may have been many reasons why Onesimus desired to
return to Colosse, and no one can prove that he did not express
that desire to Paul, and that his "sending" him was not in
consequence of such a request. He may have had friend, and
relatives there; or, being now converted, he may have been
sensible that he had wronged his former master, and that he ought
to return and repair the wrong; or he may have been poor, and a
stranger in Rome, end may have been greatly disappointed in what
he had expected to find there when he left Philemon, and may have
desired to return to the comparative comforts of his former
condition.
(4) It may be added, therefore, (a) that this passage should
NOT be adduced to PROVE that we ought to "send back runaway
slaves to their former masters" against their own consent; or to
justify the laws which require magistrates to do it; or to show
that they who have escaped should be arrested and forcibly
detained; or to justify any sort of influence over a runaway
slave to induce him to return to his former master. There is
NOT THE LEAST evidence that any of these things occurred in the
case before us; and if this instance is ever appealed to, it
should be to justifY What Paul did - AND NOTHING ELSE. (b) The
passage shows that it is right to aid a servant of any kind to
return to his master IF he desires it. It is right to give him a
"letter," and to plead earnestly for his favourable reception IF
he has in any way wronged his master - for Paul did this. On the
same principle, it would be right to give him pecuniary
assistance to enable him to return - for there may be cases where
one who has fled from servitude might wish to return.
There may be instances where one has had a kind master, with
whom he would feel that on the whole he could be more happy than
in his present circumstances. Such cases, however, are
exceedingly rare. Or there may be instances where one may have
relatives that are in the neighbourhood or in the family of his
former master, and the desire to be with them may be so strong
that on the whole he would choose to be a servant as he was
before, rather than to remain as he is now. In all such cases it
is right to render aid - for the example of the apostle Paul goes
to sustain this. But it goes no further. So far as appears, he
neither ADVISED Onesimus to return, nor did he COMPEL him; nor
did he say one word to INFLUENCE him to do it; nor did he MEAN or
EXPECT that he would be a SLAVE when he should have been received
again by his master. See Notes on ver.16.
"Thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels."
There is great delicacy also in this expression. If he had
merely said, "receive him," Philemon might have thought only of
him as he formerly was. Paul, therefore, adds, "that is, mine own
bowels" - "one whom I so tenderly love that he seems to carry my
heart with him wherever he goes." (Doddridge).
VERSE 13
"Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead."
"That he might render me the service which I know you would if
you were here." The Greek is, "for thee;" that is, what he should
do for Paul might be regarded as done by Philemon himself.
"He might have ministered unto me."
He might have rendered me assistance; to wit, in such a way
as one who was in bonds would need.
VERSE 14
"But without thy mind would I do nothing."
Nothing in the matter referred to. He would not retain
Onesimus in his service, much as he needed his assistance,
without the cordial consent of Philemon. He would not give
him occasion for hard feeling or complaint, AS IF Paul had
induced him to leave his master, or AS IF he persuaded him to
remain with him when he wished to return - or AS IF he kept him
away from him when he owed him or had wronged him. All that is
said here is entirely consistent with the supposition that
Onesimus was DISPOSED to return to his master, and with the
supposition that Paul did not compel or urge him W do it. For
it is probable that IF Onesimus had proposed to return, it would
have been easy for Paul to have retained him with him. He might
have represented his own want of a friend. He might have appealed
to his gratitude on account of his effort for his conversion. He
might have shown him that he was under no moral obligation to go
back. He might have refused to give him this letter, and might
have so represented to him the dangers of the way, and the
probability of a harsh reception, as effectually to have
dissuaded him from such a purpose. But, in that case, it is clear
that this might have caused hard feeling in the bosom of
Philemon, and rather than do that he preferred to let him return
to his master, and to plead for him that he might have a kind
reception.
It is, therefore, by no means necessary to suppose that Paul
felt that Onesimus was under OBLIGATION to return, or that he was
disposed to COMPEL him, or that Onesimus was not inclined to
return voluntarily; but all the circumstances of the case are
met by the supposition that, if Paul retained him, Philemon might
conceive that he had injured HIM. Suppose, as seems to have been
the case, that Onesimus "owed" Philemon, (ver.18) and then
suppose that Paul had chosen to retain him with himself, and had
dissuaded him from returning to him, would not Philemon have had
reason to complain of it? There was, therefore, on every account,
great propriety in his saying that he did not wish to use any
influence over him to retain him with him when he purposed to
return to Colosse, and that he felt that it would be wrong for
him to keep him, much as he needed him, without the consent of
Philemon.
Nor is it necessary, by what is said here, to suppose that
Onesimus was A SLAVE, and that Paul believed that Philemon had a
right to him and to his services as such. All that he says here
would be met by the supposition that he was a hired servant, and
would be in fact equally proper even on the supposition that he
was an apprentice. In either case, he would feel that he gave
just ground of complaint on the part of Philemon if, when someone
desired to return, he used any influence to dissuade him from it,
and to retain him with himself. It would have been a violation of
the rule requiring us to do to others as we would wish them to do
unto us; and Paul therefore felt unwilling, much as he needed the
services of Onesimus, to make use of any influence to retain him
with him without the consent of his master.
"That thy benefit."
The favour which I might receive from thee by having the
services of Onesimus. If Onesimus should remain with him and
assist him, he would feel that the benefit which would he
conferred by his services would be in fact bestowed by Philemon,
for he had a right to the Service of Onesimus; and while Paul
enjoyed it, he would be deprived of it. The word rendered
"benefit" here - means "good," and the sense is. "the good which
you would do me;" to wit, by the service of Onesimus.
"Should not be as it were of necessity."
As it would be if Paul should detain Onesimus with him
without affording Philemon an opportunity of expressing his
assent. Paul would even then have felt that he was in fact
receiving a "good" at the expanse of Philemon, but it would not
be a VOLUNTARY favour on his part.
"But willingly."
As it would be if he had given his consent that Onesimus
should remain with him.
.................
TO BE CONTINUED
Written November 2004
  Chapter Eighty-two:Paul writes to Philemon - Part two
FROM "BARNES' NOTES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT"
Continued from Part one
VERSE 15.
"For perhaps he therefore departed for a season."
Perhaps on this account, or for this reason - he left you
for a little time. Greek, "for an hour." The meaning is, that it
was possible that this was permitted, in the providence of God,
IN ORDER that Onesimus might be brought under the influence of
the gospel, and be far more serviceable to Philemon as a
Christian, than he could have been in his former relation to him.
What appeared to Philemon, therefore, to be a calamity, and what
seemed to him to be wrong on the part of Onesimus, might have
been permitted to occur in order that he might receive a higher
benefit. Such things are not uncommon in human affairs.
"That thou shouldest receive him far ever."
That is, in the higher relation of a Christian friend and
brother; that he might be united to thee in eternal affection;
that he might not only be with thee in a far more endearing
relation during the present life than he was before, but in the
bonds of love in a world that shall never end.
VERSE 16.
"Not now as a servant."
The adverb rendered "not now," means "no more," "no
further," "no longer." It implies that he had been before in this
condition, but was not to be now. Comp. Matt.19:6, "They are no
more twain." They were once so, but they are not to be regarded
as such now. Matt.22:46, "Neither durst any man from that day
forth, ask him any more questions:" They once did it, but now
they did not dare to do it. Luke 15:19, "And am no more worthy to
be called thy son," though I once was. John 6:66, "And walked no
more with him; though they once did. See also John 11:54; 14:19;
17:13; Acts 8:39; Gal.4:7; Eph.2:19. This passage, then, proves
that he had been before a servant - "doulos." But still it is not
certain what KIND of a servant he was. The word does not
necessarily mean SLAVE, nor can it be proved from this passage,
or from any other part of the epistle, that he was at any time a
slave...
The word denotes servant of any kind, and it should never be
assumed that those to whom it was applied were slaves. It is true
that slavery existed in the heathen nation, when the gospel was
first preached, and it is doubtless true that many slaves were
converted ... but the mere use of THE WORD does not necessarily
prove that he to whom it is applied was a slave. If Onesimus were
a slave, there is reason to think that he was of a most
respectable character ... and indeed all that is implied in the
use of the term here, and ALL that is said of him, would be met
by the supposition that he was a VOLUNTARY SERVANT, and that he
had been in fact intrusted with important business by Philemon.
It would seem from ver.18, ("or oweth thee ought,") that he was
in a condition which made it possible for him to hold property,
or at least to be intrusted.
"But above a servant, a brother beloved."
A Christian brother ... He was especially dear to Paul
himself as a Christian, and he trusted that be would be so to
Philemon.
"Specially to me."
That is, I feel a special or particular interest in him, and
affection for him. This he felt not only on account of the traits
of character which he had evinced since his conversion, but
because he had been converted under his instrumentality when he
was a prisoner. A convert made in such circumstances would be
particularly dear to one.
"But how much more unto thee."
Why, it may be asked, would he then be particularly dear to
Philemon? I answer, because (l) of the former relation which he
sustained to him, member of his own family, and bound to him by
strong ties; (2) because he would receive him as a penitent, and
would have joy in his returning from the error of his way; (3)
because he might expect him to remain long with him, and be of
advantage to him as a Christian brother; and (4) because he had
voluntarily returned, and thus shown that he felt a strong
attachment to his former master.
"In the flesh."
This phrase is properly used in reference to any relation
which may exist pertaining to the present world, as
contradistinguished from that which is formed primarily by
religion, and which would be expressed by the subjoined phrase,
"in the Lord." It might, in itself, refer to any natural relation
of blood, or to any formed in business, or to any constituted by
more friendship, or to family alliance, or to any relation having
its origin voluntary or involuntary servitude. It is not
necessary to suppose, in order to meet the full force of the
expression, either that Onesimus had been a slave, or that he
would continue to be regarded as such. WHATEVER relation of the
kind, referred to above, may have existed between him and
Philemon, would be appropriately denoted by this phrase. The
new and more interesting relation which they were now to sustain
to each other, which was formed by religion, is expressed by the
phrase "in the Lord." In BOTH these, Paul hoped that Onesimus
would manifest the appropriate spirit of a Christian, and be
worthy of his entire confidence.
"In the Lord."
As a Christian. He will be greatly endeared to your heart as
a consistent and worthy follower of the Lord Jesus.
On this important verse, then, in relation to the use which
is so often made of this epistle by the advocates of slavery, to
show that Paul sanctioned it, and that it is a duty to send back
those who have escaped from their masters that they may again be
held in bondage, we may remark, (1) there is no certain evidence
that Onesimus was ever a SLAVE at all. ALL the proof that he was,
is to be found in the word "doulos" - in this verse. But, as we
have seen, the mere use of this word by means proves that. All
that is necessarily implied by it is that he was, in some way,
the SERVANT of Philemon - whether hired or bought cannot be
shown. (2) At all events, even supposing that he had been a
slave, Paul did NOT MEAN that he should RETURN as such, or to be
regarded as such. He meant, whatever may have been his former
relation, and whatever subsequent relation he might sustain, that
he should be regarded as a beloved Christian brother; that the
leading conception in regard to him should be that he was a
fellow-heir of salvation, a member of the same redeemed church, a
candidate for the same heaven. (3) Paul did not send him back IN
ORDER that he might be a slave, or with a view that the shackles
of servitude should be riveted on him. There is not the slightest
evidence that he FORCED him to return, or that he ADVISED him to
do it, or even that he expressed a WISH that he would; and when
he did send him, it was NOT as a SLAVE, but AS A BELOVED BROTHER
IN THE LORD.
It cannot be shown that the motive for sending him back was,
in the slightest degree, that he should be a slave. No such thing
is intimated, nor is my such thing necessary to be supposed in
order to fair interpretation of the passage. (4) It is clear
that, even if Onesimus had been a slave before, it would have
been contrary to the wishes of Paul that Philemon should now hold
him as such. Paul wished him to regard him "not as a servant;"
but as a "beloved brother." If Philemon complied with his wishes,
Onesimus was never afterwards regarded or treated as a slave.
If he did so regard or treat him, it was contrary to the
expressed intention of the apostle, and it is certain that he
could never have shown this letter in justification of it. It
cannot fail to strike any one that if Philemon followed the
spirit of this epistle, he would not consider Onesimus to be a
slave; but if he sustained the relation of a servant at all,
it would be as a voluntary member of his household, where, in all
respects, he would be regarded and treated, not as a "chattel,"
or a "thing," but as a Christian brother. (5) This passage,
therefore, may be regarded as full proof that it is not right to
send a slave back, against his will, to his former master, to be
a slave. It is right to help one if he wishes to go back; to give
him a letter to his master, as Paul did to Onesimus; to furnish
him money to help him on his journey if he desires to return; and
to commend him as a Christian brother, if he is such; but beyond
that, the example of the apostle Paul does not go. It is
perfectly clear that he would NOT have sent him back to be
regarded and treated as a slave; but being able to commend him as
a Christian, he was willing to do it, and he expected that he
WOULD BE treated, not as a slave, but as a Christian. The case
before us does not go at all to prove that Paul would have ever
sent him back to be a chattel or a thing. If, with his own
consent, and by his own wish, we can send a slave back to
his master to be treated AS A CHRISTIAN and as A MAN, the example
of Paul may show that it would be right to do it, but it does not
go beyond that. (6) In confirmation of this, and as a guide in
duty now, it may be observed, that Paul had been educated as a
Hebrew; that he was thoroughly imbued with the doctrines of the
Old Testament; and that one of the elementary principles of that
system of religion was, that a runaway slave was IN NO
CIRCUMSTANCES to be returned by force to his former master.
"Thou shalt NOT DELIVER UNTO HIS MASTER THE SERVANT THAT IS
ESCAPED FROM HIS MASTER TO THEE," Deut.23:15.
It CANNOT be supposed that, trained as he was in the
principles of the Hebrew religion - of which this was a positive
and unrepealed law, and imbued with the benevolent spirit of the
gospel - a system so hostile to oppression, the apostle Paul
would have constrained a slave who had escaped from bondage to
return to servitude against his will. (7) It may be added, that
if the principles here acted on by Paul were carried out,
slavery would speedily cease in the world. Very soon would it
come to an end if masters were to regard those whom they hold,
"not as slaves," but as BELOVED CHRISTIAN BROTHERS; not as
CHATTELS and THINGS, but as the redeemed children of God.
Thus regarding them, they would no longer feel that they might
chain them, and task them, and sell them as property. They would
feel that, as Christians and as men, they were on a level with
themselves; and that they who were made in the image of Gad, and
who had been redeemed with the blood of His Son, OUGHT to be
FREE!
(Remember that in the time when Albert Barnes wrote these notes
on the New Testament, SLAVERY was practiced in many parts of the
world, including North America - Keith Hunt).
VERSE 17.
"If thou count me therefore a partner."
The word rendered partner, means a partaker, a companion.
The idea in the word is that of having something in common with
any one - as common principles; common attachments; a common
interest in an enterprise; common hopes. It may be applied to
those who held the same principles of religion, and who have the
same hope of heaven, the same views of things, etc. Here the
meaning is, that if Philemon regarded Paul as sharing with him in
the principles and hopes of religion, or as a brother in the
gospel, so that he would receive him, he ought to receive
Onesimus in the same way. He was actuated by the same principles,
and had the same hopes, and had a claim to be received as a
Christian brother. His receiving Onesimus would be interpreted by
Paul as proof that he regarded him as a partaker of the hopes of
the gospel, and as a companion and friend...
VERSE 18.
"If he hath wronged thee."
Either by escaping from you, or by failing to perform what
he had agreed to, or by unfaithfulness when he was with you as a
servant, or by taking your property when he went away. Any of
these methods would meet all that is said here, and it is
impossible to determine in which of them he had done Philemon
wrong. It may be observed, however, that the apostle used
delicacy in this matter. He does not say that he had wronged him,
but he makes a supposition that he might have done it. Doubtless,
Philemon would suppose that he had done it, even if he had done
no more than to escape from him, and, whatever Paul's views of
that might be, he says that, even if it were, he would wish him
to set that over to his account. He took the blame on himself,
and asked Philemon not to remember it against Onesimus.
"Or oweth thee ought."
It appears from this, that Onesimus, whatever may have been
his former condition, was capable of holding property, and of
contracting debts. It is possible that he might have borrowed
money from Philemon or he may have been regarded as a tenant, and
may not have paid the rent of his farm, or the apostle may mean
that he had owed him service which he had not performed.
Conjecture is useless as to the way in which the debt had
been contracted.
"Put that on mine account."
Reckon, or impute that to me. This word occurs nowhere else
in the New Testament, except in Rom.5:13, where it is tendered
"imputed." It means "to reckon;" to "put to one's account;" to
wit, what properly belongs to him, or what he assumes. It never
implies that that is to be charged on one which does not properly
belong to him, either as his own act, or as that which he has
assumed. In this case, it would have been manifestly unjust for
Philemon to charge the wrong which Onesimus had done, or what he
owed him, to the apostle Paul without his consent; and it cannot
be inferred from what Paul says here that it would have been
right to do so.
The steps in the case were these: (l) Onesimus; not Paul,
had done the wrong. (2) Paul was not guilty of it, or blameworthy
of it, and never in any way, or by any process, could be made to
be, or conceived to be. It would be true for ever that Onesimus
and not he had done the wrong. (3) Paul ASSUMED the debt and the
wrong to himself. He was willing, by putting himself in the place
of Onesimus, to bear the consequences, and to have Onesimus
treated AS IF he had NOT done it. When he had voluntarily assumed
it, it was right to treat him as if he had done so; that is, to
hold him responsible. A man may assume a debt if he pleases, and
then he may be held answerable for it. (4) If he had not assumed
this himself, it never could have been right for Philemon to
charge it on him. No possible supposition could make it right. No
agency which he had in the conversion of Onesimus; no friendship
which he had for him; no favour which he had shown him, could
make it right. The CONSENT, the CONCURRENCE, on the part of Paul,
was absolutely NECESSARY in order that he should be in any way
RESPONSIBLE what Onesimus had done. (5) The same principle
prevails in imputation everywhere. (a) What we have done is
chargeable upon us. (b) If we have not done a thing, or have not
assumed it by a voluntary act, it is not right to charge it upon
use. (c) God reckons things as they are. The Saviour voluntarily
ASSUMED the place of man, and God reckoned, or considered it so.
He did not hold him guilty or blameworthy in the case; but as he
had voluntarily taken the place of sinners, he was treated as if
he had been a sinner. God, in like manner, does not charge on man
crimes of which he is not guilty. He does not hold him to be
blameworthy, or ill-deserving for the sin of Adam, or any other
sin but his own. He reckons thing, as they are. Adam sinned, and
he alone was held to be blameworthy or all-deserving for the act.
By a divine constitution he had appointed that if he sinned, the
consequences or results should pass over and terminate on his
posterity - as the consequences of the sin of the drunkard pass
over and terminate on his sons, and God RECKONS this to be so -
and treats the race accordingly. He never reckons those to be
guilty who are not guilty; or those to be ill-deserving who are
not ill-deserving; nor does he punish one for what another has
done. When Paul, therefore, voluntarily assumed a debt or an
obligation, what he did should not be urged as an argument to
prove that it would be right for God to charge on all the
posterity of Adam the sin of their first father, or to hold them
guilty for an offence committed ages before they had an
existence. The case should be adduced to demonstrate one point
only - that when a man assumes a debt, or voluntarily takes a
wrong done upon himself, it is right to hold him responsible
for it....
................
TO BE CONTINUED
  Chapter Eighty-three:Paul writes to Philemon - Part three
FROM ALBERT BARNES' NOTES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT
The epistle to Philemon, though the shortest that Paul
wrote, and though pertaining to a private matter in which the
church at large could not be expected to have any direct
interest, is nevertheless a most interesting portion of the New
Testament, and furnishes some invaluable lessons for the church.
1. It is a model of courtesy.
It shows that the apostle was a man of refined sensibility,
and had a delicate perception of what was due in friendship, and
what was required by true politeness. There are turns of thought
in this epistle which no one would employ who was not thoroughly
under the influence of true courtesy of feeling, and who had not
an exquisite sense of what was proper in intercourse with a
Christian gentleman.
2. The epistle shows that he had great tact in argument.
And great skill in selecting just such things as would be
adopted to secure the end in view. It would be hardly possible to
accumulate, even in a letter of fiction, more circumstances which
would be fitted to accomplish the object which he contemplated,
than he has introduced into this short letter, or to arrange them
in a way better fitted to secure the desired result.
If we remember the state of mind in which it is reasonable
to suppose Philemon was in regard to this runaway servant, and
the little probability that a man in his circumstances
would receive him with kindness again, it is impossible not to
admire the address with which Paul approaches him. It is not
difficult to imagine in what state of mind Philemon may have
been, or the obstacles which it was necessary to surmount in
order to induce him to receive Onesimus again - and ESPECIALLY
TO RECEIVE HIM AS A CHRISTIAN BROTHER.
If, as has been commonly supposed, Onesimus had been a
slave; if he had run away from him; if he had been formerly
intractable and disobedient; if he had wronged him by
taking property with him that did not belong to him, or if he had
owed him, and had run off without paying him, it is not difficult
for any one to imagine how great was the difficulty to be
overcome in his mind before the abject of Paul could be
accomplished. This will be felt to be especially so, if we bear
in remembrance the repugnance necessarily felt by a slaveholder
to receive one who has been a slave as an equal in any respect,
or to regard and treat such an one as a Christian brother on the
same level with himself. Or if we suppose that Onesimus had been
a voluntary servant in the employ of Philemon, and had failed to
render the service which he had contracted to perform, or had
embezzled property, or had gone off in debt, greatly irritating
the mind of his master, the difficulty to be overcome before he
received him again would be little less. In either case, it would
be necessary to soothe his irritated feelings, and to inspire
confidence in one who hitherto had evinced little claim to it,
and to persuade him now to receive one who had shown that
he was not to be trusted as a Christian brother.
If the epistle be examined with reference to either of these
suppositions, it will be found to be composed with the most
finished tact and art.
3. This epistle has been frequently appealed to by the friends
and advocates of slavery as furnishing a support or apology for
that institution.
Indeed, it would seem to be regarded by the advocates of
that system as so clear on the point, that all that they need to
do is to name it as settling the whole matter in debate. The
points which it is supposed by the advocates of that system to
prove are two:
FIRST, that slavery is right - since it is assumed that
Onesimus was a slave, and that Paul does not intimate to Philemon
that the relation was contrary to the spirit of Christianity; and
SECOND, that it is our duty to send back a runaway slave to
his master - since it is assumed that Paul did this in the case
of Onesimus.
It cannot be denied that this view of the matter would be
sustained by most of the commentaries on the epistle; but it is
time to inquire whether ouch an exposition is the true one, and
whether this epistle really gives countenance to slavery in
respect to these points.
In order to this, it is important to know exactly what was
the state of the case in reference to these points - for in
interpreting the New Testament it should not be ASSUMED that
anything is in favour of slavery, nor should anything be ADMITTED
to be in favour of it, without applying the moat rigid principles
of interpretation - any more than in the case of profaneness,
adultery, or any other sin.
As the result of the examination of the epistle, we are now
prepared to inquire what countenance the epistle gives to slavery
in three respects, and whether it can be fairly appealed to
either in justification of the system, or in showing that it is a
duty to return a runaway slave against his consent to his former
master.
To make out these points from the epistle, it would be
necessary to demonstrate that Onesimus was certainly a slave;
that Paul so treats the subject as to show that he approved of
the institution; that he sent back Onesimus against his own will;
that he returned him - because he supposed he had done wrong by
escaping from servitude; and that he meant that he should
continue to be regarded as a slave, and held as a slave, after
his return to Philemon.
Now, in regard to these points, I would make the following
remarks in view of the exposition which has been given of the
epistle.
(1) There, is no positive evidence that Onesimus was a SLAVE at
all. See Notes on verse 16. Even if it should be admitted to be
PROBABLE that he was, it would be necessary, in order that this
epistle should be adduced in favour of slavery, that that fact
should be made out without any ground of doubt, or the argument
is worthless. It is clear that the epistle, under any
circumstances, can be adduced in favour of slavery only SO FAR as
it is certain that Onesimus was a slave. But that is NOT CERTAIN.
It cannot be made to be certain. It should not be taken for
granted. Either of the suppositions that he was bound to service
till he was of age, by a parent or guardian, or that he had
voluntarily bound himself to service for wages, will meet all
that is necessarily implied in the epistle.
(2) There is not the least evidence that Paul used any force, or
even persuasion to induce him to return to his master. It cannot
be proved from the epistle that he even ADVISED him to return.
It is certain that he did not compel him to do it - for Paul had
no power to do this, and no guard or civil officer accompanied
Onesimus to secure him if he had chosen to escape. Every one of
the circumstances mentioned in the epistle will be met by the
supposition that Onesimus DESIRED to return, but that there were
circumstances which made him apprehensive that if he did, he
would not be kindly received and that, at his request, Paul wrote
the epistle to induce Philemon to receive him kindly. Nothing
more can be PROVED; nothing more is necessary to be believed, in
order to a fair interpretation of the epistle. Nothing is more
natural than the supposition that when Onesimus was truly
converted, he would desire to return to Philemon if he had in any
way done him wrong.
But to make it proper to adduce this epistle to show that it
is a DUTY to return a runaway slave to his master, even on the
supposition that Onesimus was a slave, it is necessary to PROVE
either that Paul ADVISED him to return, or that he COMPELLED
him to do it against his will. No one doubts that it would be
right to help one who had escaped from slavery, if, on any proper
account, he should WISH to go back to his former master: if he
felt that he had wronged him, or if he had a wife and children in
the neighbourhood, or if he was satisfied that he could be more
happy in his service than he could be elsewhere.
To this point, and this only, this epistle goes.
(3) There is no evidence that Paul meant that Onesimus should
return AS a slave, or with a view to be retained and treated AS a
slave. Even opposing he had been so formerly, there is not the
slightest intimation in the epistle that when he sent him back to
his master, he meant that he should throw himself into the chains
of bondage again. Nor is there the slightest evidence that IF he
had supposed that this would be the result, he would have even
CONSENTED that he should return to his master. No man can take
this epistle, and prove from it that Paul would have sent him at
all, if he had supposed that the effect would be that he would be
reduced to slavery, and held in bondage.
If such had been his expectation, he would never have
written such a letter as this. The expression of such a desire
would have found a place in the epistle; or, at least, the
epistle would not have been so framed as almost of necessity to
lead to a different result.
(4) There is very satisfactory evidence, besides this, that he
did NOT mean that Onesimus should be regarded and treated by
Philemon as a slave. It would be impossible for Philemon to
comply with the wishes breathed forth in this letter, and meet
exactly the desires of Paul in the case, and yet retain him as a
slave, or regard him as property - as a "chattel" - as a "thing."
For (a) IF he had been formerly a slave; if this is the fair
meaning of the word "doulos" - then this is expressly declared.
Thus, in verse 16, he is commanded to receive him "NOT NOW as a
SERVANT. If he had been a slave before, he did NOT WISH that he
should be received as such now, or regarded as such any longer.
How COULD Philemon comply with the wish of the apostle, and yet
regard Onesimus as a slave? The very attempt to do it would be
directly in the face of the expressed desire of Paul, and every
moment he held him as such he would be disregarding his wishes.
(b) He desired him to receive and treat him, in all respects, as
a Christian brother - as one redeemed - as a man -"ABOVE a
SERVANT, a BROTHER BELOVED." How could he do this, and yet regard
and treat him as a slave? IS it treating one as a Christian
brother to hold him as property; to deprive him of freedom; to
consider him an article of merchandise; to exact his labour
without compensation? Would the man himself who makes another a
slave suppose that HE was treated as a Christian brother,
if HE were reduced to that condition? Would he feel that his son
was so regarded if HE was made A slave? There are no ways of
reconciling these things. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a master to regard
his slave as, in the proper and full sense of the phrase, "a
CHRISTIAN BROTHER." He may, indeed, esteem him highly as a
Christian; he may treat him with kindness; he may show him many
favours; BUT - he regard him also AS HIS SLAVE; and this fact
makes a difference wide "as from the centre thrice to the utmost
pole" in his feelings towards him and other Christians. He is NOT
on a level with them AS a Christian. The notion of his being HIS
SLAVE mingles with all his feelings towards him, and gives
a colouring to all his views of him. He cannot but feel, if he
himself is under the influence of religion, that that slave, if
he were treated in all respects AS a Christian, would be as
free as himself; would have, right to his time, and skill, and
liberty; would be permitted to form his own plans, and to enjoy
the avails of his own labour; and would be secure from the
possibility of being SOLD. (c) Suppose news that Paul, after a
short interval, had actually come to the residence of Philemon,
as he expected to, (ver.22) and had found him regarding and
treating Onesimus AS A SLAVE; would he have felt that Philemon
had complied with his wishes? Did he ask this of him? Did he not
request just the contrary? verse 18. Would it not be natural for
him to say to him that he had NOT received him as he wished him
to? And how cold Philemon reply to this?
(5) The principles laid down in this epistle Would lead to the
universal abolition of slavery. If all those who are now slaves
were to become Christians, and their masters were to treat them
"not as slaves, but as brethren beloved," the period would not be
far distant when slavery would cease. This probably will be
admitted by all. But a state of things which would be destroyed
by the widest prevalence of Christianity, is not right at any
time. Christianity, in its highest influences, interferes with
nothing that is good, and would annihilate nothing which is not
wrong. That which is true, and best for the welfare of man,
will survive when the true religion spreads all over the world;
and to say, as is commonly admitted even by the advocates of
slavery, that Christianity will ultimately destroy the system, is
to say that it IS NOW WRONG!! For Christianity destroys nothing
which is in itself right, and which is admirable for the highest
good of man. It will, destroy intemperance, and idolatry, and
superstition, and war, because they are evil and wrong
- and ONLY because they are so; and for the same reason, and
that only, it will it abolish slavery. When a man therefore,
admits that the gospel will ultimately destroy slavery, he
at the same time admits that it is NOW an EVIL an a SIN. The
gospel is adapted and designed to put an end to the system. It
DID annihilate it in the Roman Empire, and its tendency
everywhere is to secure its final abolition. The system,
THEREFORE, is evil. It is opposed to the spirit of religion. It
is destructive of the welfare of society. It is a violation of
human rights. It is contrary to the will of God.
The gospel everywhere teaches us to regard the slave "no
longer as a slave, but as a brother;" and when this is secured,
the system must speedily come to an end.
For this, and for all its other anticipated influences, we
should labour and pray that the gospel may be diffused as
speedily as possible all over the world; that it may raise
man everywhere from his degradation; and invest every human being
with the dignity of a freeman; that it "may undo the heavy
burdens, break every yoke, and bid the oppressed go free," Isa.
58:6.
.................
AMEN to Albert Barnes' notes on this book and letter of Paul the
apostle to Philemon.
Barnes was writing in a time and an age when slavery was a common
practice in various parts of the world, including North America.
Emphasis (capitasl words) Albert Barnes.
SO WE HAVE NOW ENDED THE NEW TESTAMENT BIBLE STORY |
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment