not metaphorical (v. 16). Paul refers to the physical kinship of Onesimus and Philemon “in the flesh” as well as a fictive kinship “in the Lord” as the basis of their reconciliation. A. D. Callahan writes: “When Paul exhorted Philemon to receive Onesimus no longer as a slave, he was there commanding the former to desist in treating the latter as though he were beyond the pale of fraternal entitlements to love, honor, and respect . . . In this short, diplomatic epistle Paul attempted deftly to heal a rift not between errant slave and irate master, but between estranged Christian brothers.”94 In light of this I conclude:
(a) Against option four that Onesimus and Philemon are brothers is that the letter has far too much gravity and pathos for Paul simply to be urging Philemon to treat Onesimus as a beloved brother. Fraternal love is a major theme, but it exists between the two now only in light of Onesimus’s conversion. Paul seems to use a different form of exhortation when he seeks reconciliation of equal persons within a community (e.g., Phil 4:2; 2 Cor 2:5–11). It is the social inequality between the two, deliberately complicated by Onesimus’s conversion,95 that is the problem in the reconciliation.
(b) Against option three that Paul seeks to have Onesimus released to his service is that this view lacks any reasonable explanation of the disruption between Onesimus and Philemon that is apparent in verses 15–19, and particularly the fact that the separation could have implied that Philemon might never receive Onesimus back at all (v. 15). Did Philemon or Archippus think that by sending Onesimus to Paul on an errand or with supplies that they were thereby running the risk of never seeing him again? I would doubt it.
(c) The first option, the view that Onesimus was a runaway slave, explains the language of being “separated” (v. 15), “wronged,” and “owed” (v. 18). The reference to “as a slave” is probably real (v. 16); that Paul needs Philemon’s consent before enlisting Onesimus among his cohort of coworkers implies a slave-master relationship between the two (vv. 13–14). Yet this view lacks the expected references to fugitive status, there is no mention of the severity of punishment that could await a runaway slave, it begs the question of why Onesimus went to Paul at all rather than vanish entirely, and finally, no explicit circumstance for Onesimus’s flight is given, which must give cause for thought.
(d) I conclude that the second option is the most probable, and that Onesimus journeyed to Ephesus from Colossae to have Paul mediate between him and his master over some matter that is now public before the Colossian church. Onesimus has become a believer as a result of the encounter, which, in tandem with Paul’s religious authority, adds further reason for Philemon to respond favorably to Onesimus and to heed Paul’s request. The urgent qualification that needs to be made here is that Philemon’s perception of Onesimus’s absence may not accord with Onesimus’s actual intentions in going to Paul. The technical legal distinction between a runaway slave and a slave absent from duty and absconded to his master’s superior, may not exist in the mind of an irate slave owner.96 Either way, Paul agrees to be an advocate for Onesimus to Philemon in order to effect reconciliation between them and to secure a better future for them beyond the normal slave-master relationship.
Paul and Slavery
More sensitively we have to ask: did Paul endorse slavery or was he at least complicit to its continuing operation?97 The mere mention of slavery conjures up feelings and thoughts that are so clearly an affront to our modern moral sensibilities. We desperately want Paul to speak out directly against it and we are scandalized that he did not do so. Space prohibits us from entering into a lengthy discussion of slavery in antiquity. By one definition a slave was a person who did not have the right of refusal. Some people voluntarily sold themselves into slavery in order to avoid a deathly poverty, and many slaves enjoyed good living conditions during their service and were even rewarded with emancipation. Yet in the ancient world a slave was regarded as a piece of human property and susceptible to manifold forms of abuse and exploitation (particularly vulnerable were women and children). Many were forced into slavery as a result of capture from war—both combatants and civilians—and some were born into slavery. In major urban centers up to one third of the population were slaves. Four points need to be mentioned:98 (1) Slavery was indelibly part of the social structure, welfare system, and economic activity of the ancient world and no one seems to have envisaged the operation of society without the institution of slavery. While the moral treatment of slaves was discussed on a philosophical plane, the fact of slavery was never debated and its necessity was simply assumed. (2) In the absence of a modern democracy and libertarian ethics it would have been impossible to lodge an effective and successful political protest against slavery. (3) The most effective means of ameliorating the slave’s plight was through just and kind treatment by a master, with the hope of manumission at a future point, and the prospect of remaining under the master’s patronage and provision as a freedman or freedwoman. (4) In 1 Cor 7:21 (“Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so”) Paul seems to urge slaves not to accept the status quo, but seek to improve their condition and achieve their freedom where possible. Moreover, in the epistle to Philemon, Paul urges Philemon to accept Onesimus in a way that radically alters the slave-master relationship. It is their fictive kinship as brothers in Messiah and coworkers for the kingdom that transcends societal norms and also transforms their attitudes, actions, and responses towards each other with a decidedly Christian ethic. F. F. Bruce notes that the epistle to Philemon “brings us into an atmosphere in which the institution of slavery could only wilt and die.”99 Paul was no William Wilberforce, but without Paul we might never have had William Wilberforce.
1. Deissman 1957: 107.
2. Calvin 1979a: 348.
3. Xenophon Anab. 1.2.6.
4. Strabo Geogr. 12.8.13.
5. Josephus Ant. 12.119, 125.
6. Ibid. 12.147–53; Philo Legat. 245.
7. Cicero Flac. 28.68.
8. Cf. Bruce 1984a: 5; Trebilco 1991: 13–14.
9. Ameling 2004: 398–440.
10. Tacitus Annals 14.27; and according to Eusebius (Chron. 1.21) all three major towns in the Lycus Valley were destroyed. Strabo (Geogr. 12.8.16) wrote that the entire region was known as a centre of repeated catastrophes.
11. Lincoln 2000: 580.
12. See “Colossae,” online: http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/theology/institute/colossae/.
13. See the synoptic parallels provided by Kooten 2003 and further lists of parallels in Talbert 2007: 4–5. I find that a comparison of Eph 6:21–22 and
