Introduction to Philemon

Read about Paul's private letter to Philemon here. Philemon was a Colossian. If the letter is authentic, it must have been sent at the same time as the public letter to the Colossians. This suggests that the letter carried a message intended to give the Colossian audience Paul's views on the slave/master relationship in order to put a little social pressure on Philemon regarding his slave Onesimus. I don't understand why it does not immediately follow Colossians in the text of the New Testament. That would make much more sense than its current place, after the letter to Titus.

The letter begins with a greeting from Paul and Timothy, to Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus. It is speculated that Apphia was Philemon's wife and Archippus his son. Verses 4-7 are the common "thanks, praise, and prayers"  that Paul includes in his letters. After praising Philemon's love, Paul gets to the purpose of the letter.

He says he is not going to be bold and order Philemon to do what he ought. He appeals to him on the basis of love, Paul's advanced age, and his prisoner status. In other words, he is giving Philemon cause to feel guilty for not doing what Paul is asking him to do. Paul is making an appeal on behalf of Onesimus, who is like a son to him, another reason to give Philemon pause to think. Paul admits Onesimus was useless to Philemon, but he has made himself useful to Paul. I'm not surprised. Psychologically, there is a big difference between doing something obligatory, as a slave for a master, and something voluntary, as a friend for a friend.

I don't think Paul fully understood the nuances of the slave/master relationship. Apparently, he was never a slave or a master. Historically, a slave was property. They were owned like possessions. The slave was under compulsion to be obedient to the master in anything and everything. In the Old Testament, the master was only obligated not to kill the slave quickly. Yes, there was a whole range of good and bad masters throughout history. There was a large variation in duties and living conditions among slaves.  That did not erase the fact that a slave was not his own master. He was under obligation to his master in every single aspect of his life, if the master so chose it. The slave had no freedom that the master did not grant him.

I am sure that kind and generous masters were often loved by their slaves. However, I personally think that if they actually loved their slaves as equals or friends, they would have given them their freedom and allowed them to choose whether or not to remain employed under them. Why have slaves to begin with? Why not hire someone at fair wages to do the jobs you need done? 1. The master has a position of power over the slave and he may not be the kind of person any one is willing to work for. 2. The slave cannot quit and go work for someone else. 3. The master only has to pay and provide for the slave as much as he is willing or able. I imagine that was less than the going rate for a free person with the same skills.

 Also, in an authoritarian society, under a monarchy, everyone was a kind of slave to the king who was supposed to be god's representative power, if not actually a god himself, as in many cultures. Freedom was a privilege, not a right. Philemon and Paul were privileged by circumstance of birth. Paul and the people he writes to have lived in this kind of world their whole lives, they have known no other. That is  one reason Paul's claims to heavenly knowledge cannot be taken seriously. He is not radical enough. If slavery is wrong now, it was wrong then. Paul was already a prisoner and willing to die for his faith. He also asked others to sacrifice themselves for christ's sake. What difference would the truth about the evil of slavery have made to his earthly position? The truth is Paul did not consider slavery wrong at all. To him, it was another metaphor for the heavenly reality. Everyone is a slave to the master in heaven.