Philemon, Epistle to
Philemon Epistle To
1. Authenticity.-The Pauline authorship of this Epistle is beyond reasonable doubt. The repeated use by Ignatius, c._ a.d. 109 (Ephesians 2, Magn. 12, Polyc. 6), of the words , let me have joy of thee, used in Phm 1:20, may be a coincidence, the phrase being fairly common; but before the middle of the 2nd cent., Marcion, who rejected a large portion of the NT, including several Pauline Epistles, retained this letter, without mutilation, ascribing it to St. Paul (Tertullian, c. Marc. v. 21). It is also included in the Muratorian Canon (c._ a.d. 170) among St. Pauls Epistles. Early in the 3rd cent., Origen repeatedly quotes the letter as Pauline (Com. in Matt. Tract. 33, 34); and Eusebius (HE_ iii. 25) includes all St. Pauls Epistles among acknowledged Scriptures. In the 4th cent. it was rejected by some as either not Pauline or, if Pauline, uninspired; but for no other reason, apparently, than its supposed non-edifying character (see Jerome and Chrysostom, Comm. in Philem.). In modern times Baur (Paul, Eng. tr._2, 1873-75, ii. 80) has stood almost alone among eminent critics in rejecting (with hesitation, however) the Pauline authorship, owing chiefly to his more emphatic rejection of Colossians, with the authenticity of which that of Philemon stands or falls (see Colossians, Ep. to the). For the view that the letter is allegorical (grounded on the name Onesimus and on the play thereon in v. 11) there is no semblance of ancient authority; and historical reality is stamped on every sentence of the Epistle (see Onesimus).
2. Place and date of composition.-As St. Paul was in captivity at the time (Phm 1:9), the letter must have been sent either from Rome or from Caesarea; and although the subscription written from Rome to Philemon cannot be traced further back than the 5th cent. (it is ascribed then to Bishop Euthalius), it appears to be correct. Some critics, indeed (including Meyer, Weiss, Holtzmann, etc.), prefer Caesarea, chiefly because (1) a runaway slave would choose a near city as refuge; (2) St. Paul hoped soon to visit Colossae (v. 22), and (3) he had more reason to expect early release from Caesarean than from Roman imprisonment. But (1) Rome would be preferable for Onesimus, with a view to avoiding detection: and v. 18 suggests, without actually indicating, that the slave, like many runaways, had purloined enough to defray expenses; (2) at Caesarea, the Apostle must have always looked forward to Rome (Act 23:11; Act 25:11) and therefore would not be contemplating an early visit to Phrygia; (3) Php 2:24 (certainly written from Rome) shows that St. Paul had then some hope of release.
The place of composition so far fixes the date; for St. Pauls two years of Roman confinement (Act 28:30) are usually ascribed to the period between a.d. 59 and 63 (see Colossians, Ep. to the, with which the letter to Philemon was simultaneously dispatched, the salutations being similar).
3. Occasion and object.-See Onesimus and Philemon.
4. Contents.-After salutations to Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus (qq.v._) in which Timothy (who had been with St. Paul at Ephesus, Act 19:22) is appropriately associated with the Apostle, the letter begins with a cordial recognition of Philemons faith and love towards Christ and towards brethren whose hearts he had refreshed by Christian fellowship and generous charity. He then indicates that something which he might have boldly enjoined he prefers to plead for as a favour; old man_ as he now is, and a prisoner of Jesus Christ, he is to be indulged. He solicits a friendly reception for Philemons slave Onesimus, in spite of past delinquency through which he had belied his name, and become unprofitable. Onesimus was St. Pauls spiritual son, and had become most helpful to the Apostle in ministry, and much beloved. St. Paul calls him his very heart. He would have liked to retain him at Rome as the representative of Philemon, knowing the latters anxiety to serve him (Paul). But the Apostle will do nothing without his friends consent, so that Philemons favour to himself might be quite voluntary and not constrained. Perhaps, however, continues the Apostle (who assumes with delicate tact the deep regard which Philemon would now have for his penitent and converted slave), perhaps he was parted from thee for a season (note how the idea of an over-ruling Providence is adroitly introduced) in order that thou mightest receive him back for altogether, not now as a slave, but as a beloved brother in the Lord. There is a possible barrier, however, which St. Paul seeks to remove. Onesimus had in some way wronged Philemon, apart from desertion. Let me discharge his debt, writes St. Paul euphemistically; put it to my account: here is my signature-I, Paul, will repay. For, he adds, recalling Philemons conversion by himself, I will not plead that thou owest to me thy very self. Yea, brother, he continues, adducing what would be the strongest motive in Philemons eyes, viz. his love of St. Paul, let me have joy of thee; refresh my heart in the Lord. Finally, as if apologizing, with winning courtesy and confidence, for the injustice he has been doing to Philemon through superabundant intercession, I well know, he declares, that thou wilt perform even beyond what I ask. After an expression of hope that, through the prayers of Philemon and others, he may soon be set free, and so be able to visit his Colossian brethren, he sends salutations from mutual friends (including Luke and Demas, the faithful and the faithless at a later time, 2Ti 4:10-11), and concludes with the Apostolic Benediction: The Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
5. Testimony to the Epistle.-Against depreciators, in the 4th cent., of the Epistle as trifling and unedifying, Jerome, the most learned, and Chrysostom, the most eloquent, of the Fathers, vindicate, as we have seen, its apostolic worthiness and religious helpfulness. In the Reformation epoch, Luther (in his German Bible) eulogizes it as showing a right noble and lovely example of Christian love; and Calvin (Com. in loc.) discerned in it a life-like portrayal of the gentleness of the apostolic spirit. Among modern writers, Sabatier (The Apostle Paul, Eng. tr._, 1891, p. 226) describes it as full of grace and wit, of earnest, trustful affection, gleaming among the rich treasures of the NT as a pearl of exquisite fineness. Nowhere, writes Ewald (Com. in loc.), shall we find the sensibility and warmth of delicate friendship more beautifully blended with the higher feeling of a superior intellect, of a teacher and an Apostle. Lightfoot compares it with the younger Plinys similar letter (Ep. ix. 21) to a friend on behalf of an offending but penitent freedman, and awards the palm to the Apostles Epistle, which stands unrivalled as an expression of simple dignity, of refined courtesy, of large sympathy, and of warm personal affection (op. cit. p. 319). A veritable little masterpiece of the art of letter-writing, exclaims Renan (LAntchrist, 1873, p. 96). Those sweet utterances of an author deeply imbued with the Christian spirit, writes Baur, even while rejecting the authenticity of the Epistle (Paul, ii. 83). Hackett (in Langes Com. on Holy Scriptures, Philemon, p. 7) notes the Apostles delicacy and skill in harmonizing contrarieties. He must conciliate a man who supposed that he had good reason to be offended. He must commend the offender, and yet neither deny nor aggravate the imputed fault. He must assert the new ideas of Christian equality in the face of a system which hardly recognized the humanity of the enslaved. His success must be a triumph of love, and nothing be demanded for the sake of the justice which could have claimed everything. He limits his request to a forgiveness of the alleged wrong, and a restoration to favor and the enjoyment of future sympathy and affection, and yet would so guard his words as to leave scope for all the generosity which benevolence might prompt (including emancipation).
6. Incidental instruction
(1) Christianity and slavery.-We have in this letter an illustration of the two-fold relation of primitive Christianity to slavery. On the one hand, slaves are instructed to recognize the obligation of faithful and obedient service, along with careful avoidance of any teaching which might seem to identify the Church with the social revolution, rapine, and murder by which slave-insurrections were then characterized. On the other hand, there is fearless proclamation of the grand truth of universal Christian brotherhood, through which eventually slavery was to be expelled from Christendom; along with emphatic encouragement of Christian masters, like Philemon, to treat their slaves with humane consideration, and their Christian slaves as brethren in the Lord. The outcome of this policy was the immediate betterment of the condition of slaves, their more frequent liberation, and their ultimate emancipation by all Christian nations. Christianity, moreover, has delivered from moral as well as from material bondage; from the bondage of spiritual ignorance and from subjection to sinful tastes and habits. Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free (Gal 5:1).
(2) This Epistle illustrates the refining influence of Christianity. St. Paul, while honest from the outset even amid anti-Christian prejudice, had yet a rough element in his original nature. He not only persecuted but ontraged () the Church, dragging () even women to prison, and breathing out slaughter (Act 8:3; Act 9:1). Christian faith not only reformed but refined him, made him (as this Epistle emphatically indicates) a true gentleman, through the development in him of a fine spirit of Christian courtesy and consideration.
(3) The Epistle, while manifestly describing a real incident, is none the less incidentally, what Weizscker regards it as essentially, an allegory. We are all by nature Onesimi, as Luther said; we have revolted from the service of our rightful Master and Lord; we have sought again and again to be fugitives from His presence, and to live in a far country, without God in the world. In Christ, whom the Apostle here represents, we have at once a Friend in need, a Redeemer from sin and misery more effective than St. Paul, an Intercessor at the throne of grace, more sympathetic and more persevering even than him who mediated with Philemon for the runaway Onesimus.
Literature.-Commentaries (among others) of Jerome, Chrysostom, and Theodore of Mopsuestia; of Calvin, Bengel, and Rollock; of H. Ewald (1857), H. Alford (Gr. Test.5 iii. [1871]), H. A. W. Meyer (Eng. tr._, 1880), C. J. Ellicott (31865), J. B. Lightfoot (31879), H. B. Hackett (in Langes Com. on Holy Scriptures, Philemon, Eng. tr._, 1869), A. H. Drysdale, Philem., 1906, H. von Soden (in Holtzmanns Handkom. zum NT, 1893), M. R. Vincent (ICC_, 1897), A. Maclaren (Expositors Bible, 1887); F. W. Farrar, The Messages of the Books, 1884; A. L. Williams, Col. and Philem., 1907; A. Schumann, Philem., 1908. For Christianity and slavery, see W. A. Becker, Gallus, tr._ F. Metcalfe, 21849, and W. E. H. Lecky, History of European Morals8, 1888, chs. ii. and iv.
Henry Cowan.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
Philemon, Epistle to
was written from Rome at the same time as the epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians, and was sent also by Onesimus. It was addressed to Philemon and the members of his family.
It was written for the purpose of interceding for Onesimus (q.v.), who had deserted his master Philemon and been “unprofitable” to him. Paul had found Onesimus at Rome, and had there been instrumental in his conversion, and now he sends him back to his master with this letter.
This epistle has the character of a strictly private letter, and is the only one of such epistles preserved to us. “It exhibits the apostle in a new light. He throws off as far as possible his apostolic dignity and his fatherly authority over his converts. He speaks simply as Christian to Christian. He speaks, therefore, with that peculiar grace of humility and courtesy which has, under the reign of Christianity, developed the spirit of chivalry and what is called ‘the character of a gentleman,’ certainly very little known in the old Greek and Roman civilization” (Dr. Barry). (See SLAVE)
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Philemon, Epistle To
PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO.
1. Occasion and contents.This beautiful private letter, unique in the NT, purports to be from St. Paul (with whose name that of Timothy is joined, as in 1 and 2 Thess., 2 Cor., Philipp., Col.) to Philemon, with Apphia and Archlppus, and the church in his house. This plural address appears, quite naturally, in Phm 1:22 and Phm 1:25 (you); otherwise the letter is to Philemon alone (thee). St. Paul is a prisoner (Phm 1:1; Phm 1:9; Phm 1:13)a first link of connexion between this letter and Philippians (Php 1:7; Php 1:18 etc.), Eph (Eph 3:1; Eph 4:1; Eph 6:20), and Col. (Col 4:3; Col 4:18); with Col. there is also close connexion in the fact that Onesimus was a Colossian (Col 4:9), and in the salutations in both Epistles from Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke. It is almost certain that the letter was sent from Rome (not Csarea) to Coloss, along with the Colossian Epistle, by Tychicus and Onesimus, to be handed to Philemon by the runaway slave, who at St. Pauls instance was returning to the master he had wronged by embezzlement and flight. Onesimus had in some way become known to the Apostle, who had won him to the Christian faith (Phm 1:10). St. Paul regards him as his child, his very heart, a brother beloved (Phm 1:10; Phm 1:12; Phm 1:16), and would fain keep his helpful ministry (Phm 1:13; Phm 1:11). But the convert must first put himself right by voluntary surrender: his service belongs to Philemon, and, however desired by St. Paul, can be accepted by him only of his friends free will (Phm 1:14). So St. Paul sends the slave back, with this letter to secure his forgiveness and the welcome of one Christian brother for another (Phm 1:15-17). He founds his appeal on what he has heard of Philemons love toward all the saints (Phm 1:4-7; Phm 1:9); yet makes it also a personal request from Paul the aged and now a prisoner, who has claims upon Philemons service (Phm 1:9-14; Phm 1:17; Phm 1:20), with just a hint of an authority which he will not press (Phm 1:8; Phm 1:19; Phm 1:21, obedience). A wistful humour appears in the play on the meaning of the name Onesimus; I beseech thee for Profitable, who was aforetime unprofitable, but now is profitable Yea, let me have profit of thee (Phm 1:11; Phm 1:20); also when at Phm 1:19 St. Paul himself takes the pen and with playful solemnity (cf., for the solemn formula I Paul, 1Co 16:21, 2Co 10:1, Col 4:18, 2Th 3:17) gives his bond for the debt, I Paul write it with my own hand, I will repay it. (It is possible, though less probable. that the Greek tense should be rendered I have written, and that the previous verse also, if not the whole letter, is by St. Pauls hand.) Indeed, the mingled earnestness, tact, and charm amply endorse Renans verdicta little masterpiece: the letter exemplifies the Apostles own precept as to speech seasoned with salt (Col 4:6), and shows the perfect Christian gentleman.
2. Teaching.It is significant for the depth and sincerity of St. Pauls religious faith that this private letter in its salutation, thanksgiving, and benediction is as loftily devout as any Epistle to the Churches. Apart from this, the dogmatic interest lies in its illustration of Christianity at work. The relation of master and slave comes into conflict with that of the Christian communion or fellowship: the problem is whether that fellowship will prove effectual in the knowledge of every good thing which is in you unto Christ, and the slave be received as a brother. St. Paul does not ask that Onesimus be set free. It may even be doubted whether the word emancipation seems to be trembling on his lips (Lightfoot, Col. p. 321): if it is, it is rather that Onesimus may be permitted to return to continue his ministry to the imprisoned Apostle than that Christianity, as he conceives it, forbids slavery. That Institution is not in St. Pauls judgment to be violently ended, though it is to be regulated by the Christian principle of equality and responsibility before God (Eph 5:5-9, Col 3:22 to Col 4:1); to the slave himself his worldly position should be matter of indifference (1Co 7:21-24). Yet if Philemon should choose to assert his rights, it will mean a fatal breach in Christian fellowship and the rejection of a Christian brother. Thus St. Paul laid down the principle which inevitably worked itself outthough not till the 19th cent.into the impossibility of slavery within a Christian nation. Christians long and strenuously defended It: Christianity, and not least this letter, destroyed it.
3. Authenticity.The external testimony is full and consistent, although so short and personal a letter might easily lack recognition. It is contained in the Syriac and Old Latin Versions, and named in the Muratorian Fragment. Marcion accepted it (Tert. adv. Marc. v. 21). Origen quotes from it three times, in each case as St. Pauls. Eusebius includes it among the undisputed books. On internal grounds it may fairly he claimed that the letter speaks for its own genuineness. Some modern critics (since F. C. Baur) have questioned its authenticity, mainly because they reject Colossians, with which this letter is so closely connected. As Renan writes: If the epistle is apocryphal, the private letter is apocryphal also; now, few pages have so clear an accent of truth. Paul alone, it would seem, could have written this little masterpiece (St. Paul, p. xi.). But it must suffice here to affirm as the all but universal judgment, that Philemon belongs to the least doubtful part of the Apostles work (Jlicher, Introd. to NT, p. 127).
4. Date and place of writing.The argument for Rome as against Csarea (Meyer, etc.) seems decisive. Opinion is greatly divided as to the order of the Epistles of the Captivity, i.e. whether Philippians or the group Eph.-Col.-Philem. is the earlier (see Lightfoot, Philip. pp. 3046). In either case the limit of date for Philem. lies between c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 6062, and the later date is suggested by Phm 1:21-22 (see Colossians and Philippians).
S. W. Green.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Philemon, Epistle to
This most beautiful of all Paul’s Epistles, and the most intensely human, is one of the so-called Captivity Epistles of which Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians are the others. Of these four PHILIPPIANS (which see) stands apart, and was written more probably after the other three. These are mutually interdependent, sent by the same bearer to churches of the same district, and under similar conditions.
1. Place of Writing:
There is some diversity of opinion as to the place from which the apostle wrote these letters. Certain scholars (Reuss, Schenkel, Weiss, Holtzmann, Hilgenfeld, Hausrath and Meyer) have urged Caesarea in opposition to the traditional place, Rome. The arguments advanced are first that Onesimus would have been more likely to have escaped to Caesarea than to Rome, as it is nearer Colosse than Rome is, to which we may reply that, though Caesarea is nearer, his chance of escape would have been far greater in the capital than in the provincial city. Again it is said that as Onesimus is not commended in Ephesians, he had already been left behind at Colosse; against which there are advanced the precarious value of an argument from silence, and the fact that this argument assumes a particular course which the bearers of the letters would follow, namely, through Colosse to Ephesus. A more forcible argument is that which is based on the apostle’s expected visit. In Phi 2:24 we read that he expected to go to Macedonia on his release; in Phm 1:22 we find that he expected to go to Colosse. On the basis of this latter reference it is assumed that he was to the south of Colosse when writing and so at Caesarea. But it is quite as probable that he would go to Colosse through Philippi as the reverse; and it is quite possible that even if he had intended to go direct to Colosse when he wrote to Philemon, events may have come about to cause him to change his plans. The last argument, based on the omission of any reference to the earthquake of which Tacitus (Ann. xiv. 27) and Eusebius (Chron., O1, 207) write, is of force as opposed to the Rom origin of the letters only on the assumption that these writers both refer to the same event (by no means sure) and that the epistles. were written after that event, and that it was necessary that Paul should have mentioned it. If the early chronology be accepted it falls entirely, as Tacitus’ earlier date would be after the epistles. were written. In addition we have the further facts, favorable to Rome, that Paul had no such freedom in Cuesarea as he is represented in these epistles as enjoying; that no mention is made of Philip who was in Caesarea and a most important member of that community (Act 21:8), and finally that there is no probability that so large a body of disciples and companions could have gathered about the apostle in his earlier and more strict imprisonment, at Caesarea. We may therefore conclude that the Captivity Epistles were written from Rome, and not from Caesarea.
2. Authenticity:
The external evidence for the epistle is less extensive than that of some of the other epp., but it is abundantly strong. The play on the word Onesimus which Paul himself uses (Phm 1:11) is found in Ignatius, Ephesians, ii. This may not mean necessarily a literary connection, but it suggests this. The epistle is known to Tertullian, and through him we know that Marcion accepted it (Adv. Marc., v. 21). It is in the list in the Muratorian Fragment (p. 106, l. 27), and is quoted by Origen as Pauline (Hom. in Jer., 19) and placed by Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, xxv) among the acknowledged books.
It has twice been the object of attack. In the 4th and 5th centuries it was opposed as unworthy of Paul’s mind and as of no value for edification. This attack was met successfully by Jerome (Commentary on Philemon, praef.), Chrysostom (Argum. in Philem) and Theodore of Mopsuestia (Spicil. in Solesm, I, 149), and the epistle. was finally established in its earlier firm position. The later attack by Baur was inspired by his desire to break down the corroborative value of Philem to the other Captivity Epistles, and has been characterized by Weiss as one of Baur’s worst blunders. The suggestions that it is interpolated (Holtzmann), or allegorical (Weizsacker and Pfleiderer), or based on the letter of Pliny (Ep. IX, 21) to Sabinianus (Steck), are interesting examples of the vagaries of their authors, but deserve only to be mentioned (Zahn). In its language, style and argument the letter is clearly Pauline.
3. Date:
The date will, as is the case with the other Captivity Epistles, depend on the chronology. If the earlier scheme be followed it may be dated about 58, if the later about 63, or 64.
4. Argument:
The apostle writes in his own and Timothy’s name to his friend PHILEMON (which see) in behalf of Onesimus, a runaway slave of the latter. Beginning with his usual thanksgiving, here awakened by the report of Philemon’s hospitality, he intercedes for his ‘son begotten in his bonds’ (Phm 1:10), Onesimus, who though he is Philemon’s runaway slave is now a brother. It is on this ground that the apostle pleads, urging his own age, and friendship for Philemon, and his present bonds. He pleads, however, without belittling Onesimus’ wrongdoing, but assuming himself the financial responsibility for the amount of his theft. At the same time the apostle quietly refers to what Philemon really owes him as his father in Christ, and begs that he will not disappoint him in his expectation. He closes with the suggestion that he hopes soon to visit him, and with greetings from his companions in Rome.
5. Value:
The charm and beauty of this epistle have been universally recognized. Its value to us as giving a glimpse of Paul’s attitude toward slavery and his intimacy with a man like Philemon cannot be over-estimated. One of the chief elements of value in it is the picture it gives us of a Christian home in the apostolic days; the father and mother well known for their hospitality, the son a man of position and importance in the church, the coming and going of the Christian brethren, and the life of the brotherhood centering about this household.
Literature.
Lightfoot, Col and Philem; Vincent, Phil and Philem (ICC); yon Soden, Hand Commentar; Alexander, in Speaker’s Commentary.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Philemon, Epistle to
That this epistle was written by the apostle Paul is the constant tradition of the ancient church. It is expressly cited as such by Origen; it is referred to as such by Tertullian; and both Eusebius and Jerome attest its universal reception as such in the Christian world.
This epistle was evidently written during the apostle’s imprisonment (Phm 1:9-10), and, as we have already endeavored to show [COLOSSIANS, EPISTLE TO THE], during his two years’ imprisonment at Rome. It was occasioned by his sending back to Philemon his runaway slave Onesimus, who, having found his way to Rome, was there, through the instrumentality of the apostle, converted to Christianity; and, after serving Paul for a season, was by him restored to his former master, without whose consent the apostle did not feel at liberty to retain him. The epistle commences with the apostle’s usual salutation to those to whom he wrote; after which he affectionately alludes to the good reputation which Philemon, as a Christian, enjoyed, and to the joy which the knowledge of this afforded him (Phm 1:1-7). He then gently and gracefully introduces the main subject of his epistle by a reference to the spiritual obligations under which Philemon lay to him, and on the ground of which he might utter as a command what he preferred urging as a request. Onesimus is then introduced; the change of mind and character he had experienced is stated; his offence in deserting his master is not palliated; his increased worth and usefulness are dwelt upon, and his former master is entreated to receive him back, not only without severity, but with the feeling due from one Christian to another (Phm 1:8-16). The apostle then delicately refers to the matter of compensation for any loss which Philemon might have sustained either through the dishonesty of Onesimus, or simply through the want of his service; and though he reminds his friend that he might justly hold the latter his debtor for a much larger amount (seeing he owed to the apostle his own self), he pledges himself, under his own hand, to make good that loss (Phm 1:17-19). The epistle concludes with some additional expressions of friendly solicitude; a request that Philemon would prepare the apostle a lodging, as he trusted soon to visit him; and the salutations of the apostle and some of the Christians by whom he was surrounded at the time (Phm 1:20-25).
This epistle has been universally admired as a model of graceful, delicate, and manly writing. ‘It is a voucher,’ says Eichhorn, ‘for the apostle’s urbanity, politeness, and knowledge of the world. His advocacy of Onesimus is of the most insinuating and persuasive character, and yet without the slightest perversion or concealment of any fact. The errors of Onesimus are admitted, as was necessary, lest the just indignation of his master against him should be roused anew; but they are alluded to in the most admirable manner: the good side of Onesimus is brought to view, but in such a way as to facilitate the friendly reception of him by his master, as a consequence of Christianity, to which he had, during his absence, been converted; and his future fidelity is vouched for by the noble principles of Christianity which he had embraced. The apostle addresses Philemon on the softest side: who would willfully refuse to an aged, a suffering, and an unjustly imprisoned friend a request? And such was he who thus pleaded for Onesimus. The person recommended is a Christian, a dear friend of the apostle’s, and one who had personally served him: if Philemon will receive him kindly, it will afford the apostle a proof of his love, and yield him joy. What need, then, for long urgency? The apostle is certain that Philemon will, of his own accord, do even more than he is asked. More cogently and more courteously no man could plead.’
Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature
Philemon, Epistle to
[Phile’mon]
Nothing is known of Philemon beyond what is found in this epistle, nor is it clear where he resided. The similarity of the salutations to those found in the Epistle to the Colossians, and the reference to Onesimus in that epistle, leads to the conclusion that Philemon dwelt somewhere in the direction of Colosse (probably at Laodicea, Archippus being mentioned in Col 4:17, and Phm 1:2), and that both epistles were sent from Rome about A.D. 62. Though the assembly in the house of Philemon is mentioned in verse 2, the epistle is a personal one to Philemon and his wife.
Onesimus their slave had run away, and, having been converted under the ministry of Paul, he was sent back by the latter to his master. Paul does not ask for the freedom of Onesimus, but that he may now be received in grace as a brother, indeed, be received as the apostle’s ‘own bowels.’ Paul does not assert apostolic authority, but entreats as the ‘prisoner ‘ and ‘the aged.’ Led by the Holy Spirit, the epistle is a gracious appeal, and difficulties are met in it in a matter requiring much delicacy. If the slave had robbed Philemon, Paul would repay it; but he reminds Philemon of how much he owed him, even his ‘own self besides.’
Some may be surprised that such an epistle should form part of the inspired word. But it is ‘profitable’: for fifteen hundred years slaves were extensively owned by Christians. Many may never have thought of seeking their conversion, or may have been prejudiced against it. A Boer in South Africa, though a Christian himself, once told a preacher that he was sure he might as well preach to the dogs as to his African servants. God saw the need of such an epistle. The slave had become ‘a brother beloved.’