Epistle To Philemon - Significance

Significance

Paul's letter is a personal one and can appear cryptic to outsiders. His tactful address to Philemon was labelled "holy flattery" by Martin Luther. Commending Philemon's Christian compassion, but at the same time subtly reminding Philemon of his apostolic authority over him, and the spiritual debt Philemon owes to him, Paul pleads with Philemon to take Onesimus back. Paul notes that because of his conversion, Onesimus is returned "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother" (v. 16). Several issues remain unclear about Paul's expectations for Philemon. Is he expected to forgive Onesimus or manumit him? Is he to consider Onesimus to be Philemon's "brother" as well as his "slave"? Does this new brotherhood supplant Onesimus's servitude or does the brotherhood confer only a spiritual equality between Onesimus and Philemon, while the temporal designation of slave remains? Furthermore, are there implications in the text (verses 14 and 20) that suggest Philemon is actually to return Onesimus to Paul, following forgiving and accepting him as a Christian brother? Some facets of Paul's societal expectations can be seen in these verses.

The German Protestant theologian Martin Luther saw a parallel between Paul and Christ in their work of reconciliation, which is also in fact contained within the concept of Christian Grace.

Still, Luther insisted that the letter upheld the social status quo: though not explicit, the text could be interpreted to indicate that Paul did nothing to change Onesimus's legal position as a slave and that Paul was complying with Roman law in returning him to Philemon. However, the text could also be interpreted as indicating that Paul was demanding the legal freedom of Onesimus and, as an act of both trust and reconciliation, holding Philemon accountable in the higher court of God to accomplish this change himself. That Onesimus was a runaway slave could be suggested by the pun Paul makes on his name (which means "useful"), stating that (up until the time of Philemon receiving the letter) Onesimus had been "useless" to Philemon. The fact that Paul enjoins Philemon to prepare a room for Paul's later visit – even though Paul is currently in prison without a stated commutation of sentence – could be read as a subtle threat: Paul would come to ensure his wish for Onesimus's freedom was in fact carried out by Philemon. Paul was so sure of his spiritual authority in issuing this only nominally "voluntary" request that he was convinced that his own imprisonment would be dissolved via Divine intervention. There is thus an ironic contrast between Paul's own temporal imprisonment and Philemon's temporal freedom (and mastery over Onesimus), balanced by the inversion of that relationship in what Paul sees as his own spiritual authority over Philemon and Philemon's spiritual subservience to Paul, who is claiming that Onesimus – temporally, a slave – is, spiritually speaking, not simply equal to his master but a brother of his. The fact that Paul makes the expectation of his own temporal freedom explicit by demanding that Philemon prepare for his literal return is thus a poetic reinforcement of the fact that he expects Onesimus' temporal freedom to be granted as well. The paradox is further extended when one considers that – despite his claims of spiritual authority over Philemon – Paul frames himself – and, by extension, both Philemon and Onesimus – as fellow bondservants of Christ, who being their spiritual master, is also their brother and equal. Even further, Christ is described by Paul elsewhere as a bondservant of the Father, though mysteriously coequal to the Father. Just as Paul expects Onesimus (and, at a later time, himself) to be freed literally from his yoke, as fellow servants of Christ, they expect to realize their status of brotherhood and thus equality with Christ (before the Father) in a literal, temporal fashion, upon Christ's return to earth.

Diarmaid MacCulloch, in his A History of Christianity, describes the epistle as "a Christian foundation document in the justification of slavery". Due to its ambiguity, the letter was a cause of debate during the British and later American struggles over the abolition of slavery. Both sides cited Philemon for support.