No one seriously disputes the authenticity of the letter to Philemon, even those biblical scholars who believe that Paul did not write the letter to the Colossians himself, yet it has the same setting and some of the same characters as the letter to Philemon. Inevitably, the question arises as to why the two letters would not be pseudepigraphic; but the counter-question is why anyone would go to the trouble of creating the letter to Philemon, a note with such a narrow focus, and attributing it to Paul. So, with the majority of biblical scholars, the letter to Philemon will be accepted as authentically Paul's, regardless of the position taken on Colossians.

1. The Background

   It is the shortest of the Pauline letters (335 words; note that 2 John contains 245 words, 3 John 219, and the size of these short letters seems to have been dictated by the size of the papyrus), and its format is closest to the model of ordinary Hellenistic letters, especially those intended for intercession. It should not, however, be assessed simply as a letter from one individual to another asking for a favor. As a person who has lived a long life and suffered much in the service of Christ, Paul writes to the head of a Christian house-church, or even to a church in the person of its host (since Paul anticipates community pressure on Philemon). He writes as a prisoner, that is, as one who has sacrificed his freedom for Christ, in order to ask for the freedom of another; and in every line, just below the surface, is the fundamental challenge to the societal rank of master and slave, introduced by the change in relationship brought about by the gospel.

   Let us make some general remarks about slavery in Paul's day. Society in the provinces of the Roman Empire where Paul conducted his missionary activity was highly stratified. At the top level were the Romans appointed by the Senate or the emperor to administer the province politically, fiscally and militarily; then came the local privileged class (by heredity or money); then the small landowners, merchants and artisans. These were followed, in terms of social rank, by the freedmen who had been freed from slavery by the action of their masters or by their own purchase of freedom; finally, at the bottom of the ladder, there were the immense number of slaves whose existence was intimately linked to the economic well-being of the Empire. People became slaves in a variety of ways: many were prisoners of war, others were kidnapped by slave hunters, still others were enslaved by debt, and, of course, there were the children born to slaves. In the general category, the most arduous form of slave life was endured by those who performed heavy manual labor, such as mining, building construction, and ship oars. In contrast, many of those who worked in households for understanding masters would not have been much worse off than the servants in wealthy British homes at the end of the last century. At a particularly high level were the highly educated slaves who administered their masters' estates or businesses, taught children, and even earned their own money. It was from this group that many emerged by winning or gaining freedom.

   The specific situation of slavery dealt with in the letter to Philemon is well known to Paul, Philemon and Onesimus. Unfortunately, the presuppositions are not made explicit, and the sequence of events must be reconstructed from clues. One plausible reconstruction is that Philemon was a well-to-do Christian, that Apphia was his wife and that Archippus was close to him; Philemon's house served as the meeting place of a house church. It is not certain that Paul ever met Philemon personally; in any case, the evangelization of the area in which Philemon lived was probably the result of Paul's mission, perhaps through fellow Pauline workers (vv. 23-24: Epaphras?). Onesimus was the slave of Philemon who had apparently run away. The begetting words in v. 10 suggest that Paul had (recently) converted him. In another city, was he thrown into prison (but not as a fugitive, otherwise he would have been sent back), and was it there that he met Paul who evangelized him? Or was the encounter more deliberate: Without being imprisoned, had he, as a fugitive, sought the help of a group of Christians (and of Paul, of whom he had heard from his master) in a foreign city where he was now in trouble? In any case, the fact that Paul was the source of the new life shared by Philemon and Onesimus is the basis of this message intended to implement the effects of this theological reality on the social level.

2. General Analysis of the Message

   The letter, designed to persuade, is clever, with almost every verse hinting at something more than what is stated. Indeed, some have detected well-known rhetorical canons and techniques. In verses 4 to 7, which constitute a captatio benevolentiae, Paul flatters (not necessarily insincerely) Philemon by reporting what he has heard of his Christian love and faith - heard from Epaphras and/or Onesimus, or because everyone in the Pauline circle knows this exceptional figure? Then, in v. 8, Philemon receives an oblique reminder of Paul's apostolic authority to command; yet, according to Paul's preference, this letter is an appeal concerning Onesimus' fate (10). Although as Paul's child in Christ he is extremely useful to his Christian father in prison and Paul would have liked to keep him as a collaborator, Paul will do nothing without Philemon's consent (and probably the approval of the house-church). So he sends Onesimus away with the wish that Philemon would accept him not as a slave but as a beloved brother. Notice what is being asked: not simply that Onesimus escape the punishment that might be legally imposed, not simply that Onesimus be set free (which we might have expected as a more noble gesture), but that Onesimus be moved into the realm of Christian relationship: "Receive him as you would receive me" (v. 17). This request is a dramatic example of Paul's way of thinking, faithful to the change of values brought about by Christ: His antinomy is not simply slave and free, but slave and new creation in Christ. In vv. 18-19, Paul guarantees with his own hand a promise of repayment of all that is owed; but by emphasizing that he is the one to whom Philemon owes (directly or indirectly) his Christian life, Paul makes any claim for repayment virtually impossible. There is a double rhetorical touch in v. 21, where Paul reminds Philemon that he owes him obedience (to Paul as an apostle or to God and the gospel?) and expresses his confidence that Philemon will do more than what is asked of him. The "more" is interpreted by some as an allusion to the fact that Philemon should free Onesimus, his Christian brother, from slavery. Paul will visit him after his release (an occasion for which Philemon has prayed: v. 22). Is this a subtle indication that Paul wants to see for himself how Onesimus has been treated? It is almost certain that Philemon reacted generously, otherwise the letter would not have been preserved.

3. Social Import of Paul's View on Slavery

   Jesus himself had a strong apocalyptic vision: The kingdom/rule of God was present in his ministry - the decision was imperative in the face of a divine invitation that would not be repeated. In the tradition, Jesus avoided stating a timetable for the end of time; but even if the precise moment could not be known, the dominant impression is that of a near end. Paul, too, had an apocalyptic approach in which the death and resurrection of Christ marked the change of times. A strong apocalyptic vision does not encourage long-term social planning. Structures in society that impede the proclamation of the gospel must be neutralized. Yet precisely because Christ is coming back soon, other structures that do not represent gospel values may be allowed to remain, provided they can be circumvented to allow the proclamation of Christ. It will not be for long. The implications of the gospel for slavery are clear to Paul: in Christ Jesus, "there is neither slave nor free" (Gal 3:28); all are of equal value. All have been baptized into one body (1 Cor 12:13) and must treat each other with love. The only true slavery that remains after the change of the eons is slavery to Christ (1 Cor 7:22). Yet overthrowing the Roman societal institution of slavery is not an achievable task in the very limited time before the coming of Christ. It is obvious that slaves worldwide will seek freedom; but if one is a slave at the time of one's calling and physical freedom is unattainable, this situation is not of essential importance. "Whatever state each one has been called to, let him remain there with God" (1 Cor 7:21-22).

   For some biblical scholars, the letter to Philemon reflects a welcome and stronger Pauline position on slavery, one that would eventually lead sensitive Christians as a whole to reject it. Here we see that when Paul can expect cooperation, he challenges a Christian slave owner to defy convention: to forgive and welcome back into the home a runaway slave; to refuse financial reparation when offered, keeping in mind what one owes to Christ as proclaimed by Paul; to go further in generosity by freeing the servant; and above all, theologically, to recognize in Onesimus a beloved brother and thus to acknowledge his Christian transformation. Adopting such a gracious stance could have deleterious social implications in the eyes of outsiders and even less daring Christians. It may make the one who acts in this way look like a disrupter of the social order and a revolutionary; but this is a price to pay for fidelity to the Gospel.

   For other biblical scholars, the letter to Philemon represents a lack of courage. In essence, despite his implicit encouragement to free Onesimus, Paul does not explicitly tell Philemon that keeping another human being as a slave is to deny that Christ has reversed values. To tolerate a social evil while gently protesting in the name of Christianity is to endorse it and ensure its survival. And indeed, over the centuries, the fact that Paul did not condemn slavery was used by some readers of the Bible as proof that the institution was not evil in itself. But it was forgotten at the time that Paul's partial tolerance of slavery was so fundamentally determined by his apocalyptic perspective that it could not serve as a guide once the expectation of the second coming was moved to an indefinite future.

4. From Where and When

   Paul is writing this letter from prison, and so we must survey the same three candidates for imprisonment examined for the letter to the Philippians: Ephesus, Caesarea, Rome. But the situation is more complicated. In itself, this letter gives fewer clues than Philippians: although Paul wants a guest room prepared for his visit (v. 22), we are never told where the recipients live. (Yet, admittedly, a request for a guest room to be prepared if Paul has to make a long sea voyage from Rome or Caesarea, even if only to approach the target site, seems odd.) Many of the key factors that helped determine the place of origin of Philippians are verified here; and so, if Ephesus was the most likely candidate for this letter, it could be considered here as well.

   However, the obvious relationship between Philemon and Colossians must also be considered. The beginning of both letters mentions Timothy "our brother" as a co-sender with Paul; and the end of both letters refers to Paul's own hand (Phlm 19; Col 4:18). Eight of the ten people mentioned in Philemon are also mentioned in Colossians. (Nevertheless, it is not certain that Paul wrote Colossians, so the details there may not be factual biography.) Since Onesimus and Archippus are mentioned in Colossians (4: 9.17), the vast majority of interpreters assume that Philemon lived in the Colossae area; and this workable assumption favors Ephesus as a candidate for Paul's location. In terms of slave stealing, this city was only 110 miles away, in contrast to the immense distances between Colosse and Rome or Caesarea. There are difficulties, however. The Christology of Colossians is advanced, and if Colossians is truly Pauline, this could favor the Roman captivity (61-63) and the end of Paul's career for the composition of Colossians and Philemon. Specifically, of those who were with Paul when he sent the letter to Philemon (vv. 1 and 24), Timothy's presence favors Ephesus; Aristarchus was both with Paul in Ephesus in 54-57 and left with him from Caesarea for Rome in 60 (Acts 19:29; 27:2); Mark (which one? ), Luke and Demas are not mentioned in the stay in Ephesus, but are later associated with Rome (respectively 1 Pet 5:13 (Babylon-Rome); 2 Tim 4:11 (also Acts 28:16 if Luke is part of the "us"); 2 Tim 4:10). All this is very uncertain, however; and on the whole, the arguments in favor of Ephesus and the composition around 56 are as good as or better than those in favor of Rome. Nothing essential in terms of interpretation depends on this decision.

5. Subsequent Career of Onesimus

   We can assume that Paul wrote a large number of personal letters to individual Christians. Why has this one been preserved? The usual and most likely answer is that this letter is more ecclesial than personal, having important pastoral/theological implications. But to explain his preservation, some biblical scholars have made a rather romantic proposal. Onesimus would have been released by Philemon and would have returned to work with Paul in Ephesus, where he would have remained as the main Christian figure after Paul's departure. It would have still been there more than half a century later when Ignatius of Antioch, using more developed language of church structure, addressed the church at Ephesus "in the person of Onesimus, a man of unspeakable love and your bishop" (Ephesians 1:3). In this capacity, and because of the esteemed memory of the one who was his father in Christ, Onesimus would have been well placed to collect the scattered letters of the long dead Paul. With understandable pride, he would have included among the great writings that the apostle had addressed to the churches a little missive that had been preciously kept for all those years, because it concerned Onesimus himself and made possible his entire later career. Unfortunately, there is hardly any evidence for this very attractive theory. The Onesimus who was in Ephesus in 110 CE may have taken this name in honor of the slave who had been converted there by the imprisoned Paul long before. There is no way to know, but to adapt an Italian saying, Sè non è vero, è ben trovato: Even if it's not true, it was still worth proposing.

6. Issues and Problems for Reflection
   1. It is interesting to list the main characters with the descriptive titles given to them in the letter to Philemon. To what extent does Paul use the titles to make the people involved aware of who they and he are through the gift of God in Christ? How does this new theological dimension affect their existing relationship?

   2. Often, authority is quickly invoked to solve a church problem. Paul is very clear that he has authority, but he prefers to persuade (vv. 8-9; see also 2 Cor 8:8), even though he cleverly includes rhetorical and psychological pressure in persuasion. To what extent is such a preference inherent in the metanoia or "conversion", when it is understood literally as a change in thinking? The NT uses the language of God's commandment(s) to speak of the coming of the kingdom. What does this have to do with the fact that the gospel places responsibility on the individual?

   3. Paul's partial tolerance of slavery may be related to his apocalyptic view that this world is dying. Today's Christians with strong apocalyptic views are often accused of placing less emphasis on social justice. Are there examples in Christian history where a strong apocalyptic vision and a strong demand for change in social structures coexist? How might they coexist today?

   4. Related to (3) is the question of "provisional ethics," i.e., ethical attitudes formulated in a context where the present time is seen as passing quickly because Christ will soon return. On the one hand, the belief in Christ's imminent return made it possible to tolerate unjust social institutions for the short time expected (provided that the Gospel could still be proclaimed); on the other hand, heroic demands seem to have been made on Christians precisely because the things they could hold on to would not last. If, in 1 Corinthians 7:20-24, a slave can be told to remain a slave on the assumption that one may as well remain in the state to which one has been called, the same is true of a single or married person whose life may also be troubled. "The time appointed is shortened; from now on, let those who have wives live as if they had none" (7:29). How can we determine what is permanently required by the Gospel, even if this requirement was made with the presupposition of a short interval?