must then be processed with issues of canon (a difficult subject in its own right) and of apostolic authority.
Paul’s Imprisonment
Proceeding under the conviction that Paul wrote Ephesians, we turn our attention to the significance of Paul’s imprisonment as the backdrop to this letter. Two locations are generally given as the setting for the writing: Ephesus and Rome (with a small minority suggesting Caesarea Maritima). Acts notes Paul’s imprisonment in Rome (and Caesarea Maritima) and Paul makes a comment about facing beasts in Ephesus, which some suggest is an oblique reference to an imprisonment there (1 Cor 15:32). The resolution of this problem is controlled in part by conclusions reached concerning Pauline authorship of Philemon and Colossians, and to a lesser extent, Philippians. Put simply, the problem involves four epistles (known as the prison epistles), three interconnected lists of names, two very similar epistles (Ephesians and Colossians), and one author, Paul. It seems that Paul was in the same location when he composed Philemon and Colossians, because Timothy coauthored the letters and so many of the same people are referenced in both letters, including the slave Onesimus. Additionally, it seems that Paul was in the same location when he wrote Ephesians and Colossians, because both were to be delivered by the same person, Tychicus. That suggests a scenario that allows for a single imprisonment for at least three of the four prison epistles.42
Onesimus’ Status
A key element in the debate is the role played by Onesimus, Philemon’s slave. The general consensus has been that Onesimus was a runaway slave who happened upon Paul while both were imprisoned, and there he came to faith in Christ through Paul’s ministry. Following this fortuitous outcome, Paul seeks Onesimus’ release from Philemon, his owner and Paul’s friend. Decisions about where Paul is imprisoned when he writes to Philemon are thus predicated on where one imagines a runaway slave might flee, or more specifically, how far might he travel from Colossae. The events are reconstructed as follows: Onesimus is imprisoned with Paul and becomes a follower of Christ. Paul is duty bound to send Onesimus back to Philemon, but he urgently desires that Philemon free his slave. He urges Philemon to settle the outstanding debts owed by Onesimus to Paul’s account. The letter is a success; Philemon frees Onesimus, who returns to Paul who is still imprisoned. After some unspecified time elapses, Tychicus and Onesimus return to Colossae with their letter (and presumably the one to the Laodiceans).
The above scenario depends upon Onesimus being a runaway slave, but such a conclusion has rightly come under heavy scrutiny in recent years. First, it assumes that runaway slaves were imprisoned, but why did the person who captured Onesimus not return him to his owner, especially as often rewards were given for returned slaves? Second, it is alleged that Onesimus stole from Philemon, but Paul does not include any mention of Onesimus’ repentance for running away or stealing goods. In fact, Paul does not even mention that he had found Philemon’s runaway slave! This suggests that Philemon knew Onesimus’ location and was aware of his reason for being there.
Another theory suggests that Onesimus was not so much running away as seeking out Paul to mediate a disagreement between himself and Philemon. The argument draws on the figure of the amicus domini, or friend of the master. An ancient example from the early second century CE often cited is Pliny the Younger’s letter to his friend Sabinianus.43 In this exchange, Pliny speaks of Sabinianus’ freedman (a former slave) who begs Sabinianus’ mercy and forgiveness by beseeching Pliny to speak on his behalf. Pliny agrees, and writes to assure his friend Sabinianus that the freedman is reformed, repentant of his past deeds, and ready to make a clean start. None of these details are present, however, in Paul’s letter to Philemon. Moreover, no mention is made of Onesimus repenting and seeking mercy, or of Philemon being angry at his slave’s behavior (Pliny notes Sabinianus’ outrage at his freedman’s behavior). Importantly, Pliny is speaking about a freed slave, not one currently enslaved.
A second, and stronger, argument concerning Onesimus is that he was sent to Paul by Philemon to help the former survive in prison. Onesimus was functioning in a similar way to Epaphroditus, who was the emissary for the Philippian church, bringing aid and cheer to the confined apostle (Phil 2:25). Onesimus apparently became quite valuable to Paul’s ongoing ministry, thus prompting Paul to ask that Philemon consider releasing Onesimus to full-time service with Paul. This reconstruction makes better sense of Paul’s letter to Philemon, and is more historically sensitive to the situation of ancient slavery and the realities of imprisonment. A close examination of the letter reveals language commonly used in speaking about letter carriers and private messengers. Specifically, Paul implies that he would rather not send back Onesimus at that particular moment (12–14), suggesting that Onesimus was permitted by Philemon to stay only a specified amount of time.44 Moreover, Paul uses the verb anapempō (to send back) in v. 12, which is often used in correspondence to signify the return of the messenger.45
In the end, it does seem to defy the odds that Onesimus, a runaway slave, would be imprisoned with Paul, especially in a city as large as Ephesus or Rome. Paul, as a Roman citizen, would not suffer the same fate as a slave, even in prison. Acts 16:22–24 records Paul’s chains and imprisonment in the deepest recesses of the Philippian jail, and notes that this treatment was unacceptable for a Roman citizen who had not yet been condemned. The situation was resolved with an apology by the city council (16:37–39). Again, why would Paul believe he had authority to decide whether to return Onesimus to his owner? Surely once his status was known, would not Onesimus be returned irrespective of Paul’s own thoughts on the subject? Paul was chained to Roman guards; it seems unlikely that they would have turned a blind eye to a runaway slave helping their captive.
It must be noted as well that in the Roman period, a freed slave was still beholden to his owner, under the latter’s power, much as a father retained authority over his grown children. It would not be enough, then, for Onesimus to be granted freedom, Philemon must also release him to serve Paul and the ministry. Paul’s letter requesting as much fits this reconstruction of events. Finally, if one assumed that Onesimus was fleeing his owner, either as a runaway or as one seeking a mediator, then a more cynical (but possible) reading of his situation was that he agreed to the gospel message only to enhance his standing with Paul. One might argue that Philemon (and Paul) would suspect the genuineness of Onesimus’s conversion, inasmuch as his profession of faith was a key argument for his release and forgiveness of all past deeds and debts. But if Philemon sent Onesimus to Paul, the genuineness of the latter’s conversion is on more solid ground.
Ephesus Imprisonment
Looking closely at the arguments for Paul’s imprisonment in Ephesus, one assertion put forward depends on Onesimus’s runaway status. The claim is that he would not have had the funds to flee to Rome. This theory usually alleges that he stole from Philemon, which invites the question of why Onesimus did not steal enough to get himself as far from Colossae as possible. Where better to lose oneself than in Rome, a city of a million people, as some estimates put Rome’s population in the first century CE? A second argument in favor of an Ephesus imprisonment focuses on accommodating the several visits between Colossae and Paul indicated by the correspondence. The timeline runs as follows: Onesimus meets Paul, Paul sends a letter with Onesimus back to Philemon, the latter frees Onesimus to serve with Paul (who is in prison), and Tychicus is sent with Onesimus back to Colossae. Travel between Ephesus and Colossae is about five days; between Colossae and Rome about two months. Thus it would be quite simple for Philemon to send Onesimus to care for Paul in Ephesus, and for the former to make several trips back to Colossae.
A serious challenge to the Ephesus theory is the lack of evidence for an Ephesus imprisonment. Acts is silent on this, which in and of itself does not disqualify the argument. But the positive evidence is likewise slim. Paul speaks of enduring many imprisonments (2 Cor 11:23), and specifically of facing “wild beasts in Ephesus” (1 Cor 15:32). This latter phrase is taken as implying some sort of literal incarceration in the city. Several points, however, caution against drawing this conclusion. First, if Paul was given over literally to the beasts, he would have been stripped of his citizenship. However, from Acts it appears that Paul retained his citizenship
