The history of the Epistle to
Philemon is a very curious one.
The value attached to it by
different generations, by
different schools and by
different individuals, provides
an interesting criterion of
their respective ethical
attitude and development. The
intellectualist and the
dogmatician of any period have
no use for such a document. In
the fourth century there were
those who denied its genuineness
on internal grounds. Its
subject, the fate of a fugitive
slave, was felt to be beneath
the dignity of an Apostle and of
Scripture. It contributed
nothing to doctrine or to
edification. So Jerome had to
defend it against those who said: "Aut epistolam non esse Pauli,
aut etiam, si Pauli sit, non
habere quod aedificare nos
possit." Even Calvin, though he
appreciates the witness of the
Epistle to the "singular
loftiness" of Paul's mind, makes
a kind of apology for the subject "
otherwise low and mean." And as Calvin values the epistle for
the light it sheds on the character of the Apostle, so
Luther connects his appreciation of its beauty with an
allegorical interpretation
which, however striking and true, is
nevertheless of a secondary character: "We are all His
Onesimi to my thinking." Another class of estimates
proceeds on the supposition that
the epistle contains some
authoritative guidance for the
Church on the subject of
slavery. Whenever that question
has been debated, this letter
has been appealed to to show
that Christianity sanctions the
institution. With equal
confidence it has been prayed in
aid by those who denied it. And
even after the controversy has
died away, the impression has
remained in many quarters that
it was on this point that the
letter chiefly bore. Others again, who have,
recognised that the letter
neither provides doctrinal
material nor positive guidance
regarding slavery in the
direction of tolerance or of
condemnation, have based their
appreciation of it upon
aesthetic considerations. They
have praised its tenderness, its
playfulness, its delicacy of
touch, its extraordinary
effectiveness as an appeal. And
all that they have said is true.
It is nothing less than perfect
as a specimen of letter-writing.
It touches with consummate skill
one after another of highest
notes in Philemon's character.
It betrays a singular
combination of perfect
confidence in the depth and
sincerity of his affection with
a wistful desire that it may be
able to stand this tremendous
test. Both confidence and doubt
are here; but the confidence
outweighs,the doubt.
The
letter has had less than justice
done to it by our authoritative
translations. The Authorised
Version not only puts a serious
obstacle in the reader's way by
its slavishly literal rendering
of the word which should be
rendered "heart," with the
strangest results for the
uninstructed reader; but it
blunts the poignancy of the
whole situation by putting (in
verse 11) "whom I have sent
again," instead of "whom I have
sent," or better, "am sending
back." Perhaps the central
passage might be translated
thus: "So for all the right
I
have to speak authoritatively in
Christ, and to lay injunction on
thee as to what thou shouldest
do, yet because of love I rather
use entreaty, I, no other than
Paul, now aged and at this
moment a prisoner of Christ
Jesus: I entreat thee concerning
my son Onesimus, whom I have
begotten in my prison, Onesimus
who was at one time Little Good
to thee, but now both for thee
and me has become Great Good.
Him I am sending back, the man
who is my very heart. Fain would
I have kept him beside me, that
he might take thy place in
ministering to me in these
shackles riveted by the Gospel.
But I decided to do nothing
without thy consent, in order
that thy goodness might be not
compulsory but voluntary. For
perchance it was for this that
he was separated from thee for
an hour, in order that thou shouldest get him back for
eternity-not any longer in the
character of a slave, but more
than a slave, a brother beloved,
especially by me, but how much
more by thee, beloved both as a
man and in the Lord." A little consideration of this
central passage and of the
circumstances out of which the
letter comes will show that of
far higher importance than the
testimony which it bears to the
Apostle's character, his tact
and tenderness, or the light
which it might throw on
Christianity and slavery, is the
fact that behind it and through
it we gain an invaluable view of
Christianity at work. We see, in
fact, what the Gospel might be
expected to accomplish, and what
it did accomplish in governing
life and action. The letter
brings us acquainted with three
men each one of whom is
successively inspired to
recognise the will of God
presenting itself in demands the
most distasteful and most
difficult, each one of whom is
enabled by the power of the
indwelling Christ to do what he
thus learnt that God required of
him. We have first of all the Apostle
himself. It is not difficult to
imagine-what it meant for him to
have Onesimus for a companion
and minister to his physical
needs. He was now old in years,
and older still through
suffering, broken in health, and
in prison. Others besides
Onesimus must have had access to
him. But we may assume some
special devotion on the part of
the grateful slave, some special
gift of ministration to Paul's
need, which made his presence
inexpressibly valuable to the
Apostle. And a day came when the
conviction formed itself in the
Apostle's mind that this must
stop. He must no longer indulge
himself in the enjoyment of this
fellowship and help. It was
wrong. Onesimus belonged to
another. Paul must send him
away, even though to do so was
like tearing out his own heart. What was it that led Paul to
recognise this most distasteful
course as a duty 1 We may call
it the voice of conscience. He
would probably have described it
as a word of the Lord. It was
certainly no law, no precept, no
rule of life, to which his
attention was called, and to
which he submitted. The
situation was wholly new,
unprovided for in any code of
ethics. But the right course
presented itself to Paul's mind
with all the authority of duty:
he knew it, though in no other
way than men can know it now who
truly desire to be taught of
God. Yet it was not a duty which
could be described as obvious
though new. On the contrary,
many quite plausible arguments
might have been advanced in
favour of keeping Onesimus, e.g.
that slavery itself was an
anomaly in God's world, that
Philemon had no right as a
Christian to keep slaves at all,
still less to have Onesimus
returned to him, that God had
allowed Onesimus to make good
his escape, and man had no right
to cancel the Divine concession.
If any such arguments had
occurred to Paul, there is no
trace of them i~ the Epistle.
Either they did not occur to
him, or they had been finally
dismissed by the influence of a
great imperative. One such
argument still more plausible he
does suggest, but that half
playfully and only to dismiss
it. He was persuaded of
Philemon's genuine love toward
himself, and that no one would
be prompter to yield him
unthrift service Had love but the warrant It seemed
providential, another might have
argued, that accident had
brought to the Apostle's prison
this quasi-representative of
Philemon, able and ready to do
that service which his master
would fain be rendering in his
own person. This thought
certainly occurred to Paul, but
he put it away from him.
Philemon must have an
opportunity of proving his love,
but in a different way from
that, and with the full and
informed consent of his will.
The Apostle saw his way clear
through all the tangle of
conflicting motives. He held
firmly to the dominating
consideration, that Onesimus
must be restored to his master
and allowed none of these
arguments to sophisticate his
conscience. He let Onesimus
depart. We may ask whether even
Paul ever gave stronger proof of
the veracity of his saying: " I
can do all things in Him that strengtheneth me." Then there is
Onesimus. To most men it will
appear that he had a yet harder
task laid upon him than the
Apostle. But first of all he had
to take it in, to recognise that
this was what God required of
him. In his case it may be
presumed that the ethical sense
itself was nonexistent or at least dormant. In
this respect the slave stood at
the other extreme of experience
from the Apostle. He was one of
the world's Ishmaelites, with as
little sense of duty as of debt
to the society which had denied
him the rights of manhood. It is
such an one who is now called
upon to use the liberty
wherewith Christ has made him
free in order to sacrifice the
liberty which he has captured
for himself. Of all the many
conversations of which we would
fain have the record, is there
one which would exceed in
interest the conversation
between Paul and Onesimus in
which this matter was first
broached and discussed? To
leave his new-found friend, to turn his face again towards
Colosse, to travel back all that
way in order to surrender the
liberty he had gained, to face
Philemon, to submit to any
treatment to which an indignant
master might expose an insurgent
slave, to accept at the best a
lifelong bondage, and at the
worst a death by torture—to do
this voluntarily and to do it
because it was right, argues an
extraordinary conviction both as
to the reality of the Divine
command and as to the imperative
obligation to obey. Once more there was abundant
opportunity for debate and
honest dubiety. Had Onesimus had
the wit and the willingness, he
might well have met the
Apostle's arguments (supposing
he used any) out of his own
lips. Had not Christ made all
men free, all men brothers? Was
not Philemon's right cancelled
by the higher right of the
freeman of Christ Jesus? To
which the Apostle could only
reply, Yes, but it must be left
to Philemon to acknowledge that.
And if there were present to the
mind of the Apostle and of Onesimus the thought that
Philemon would act not as a
non-Christian slave-holder might
be expected to act, if his
Christianity were reckoned into
their calculations, this only
throws further light on what
they understood Christianity to
mean; they trusted the power of
Christ over another man even as
they bowed to it in themselves. And yet it may be doubted
whether any conceivable argument
or persuasion on the part of the
Apostle is in itself sufficient
to account for the action of
Onesimus. It is not by argument
that conscience is quickened,
enlightened and enthroned. Paul
must have used some swift
unerring stroke of the word that
pierces as a two-edged sword: "
Ye are not your own, ye are
brought with a price ": not
your own even to assert your
civil liberty at the cost of
another man. " For freedom
Christ has made us free,"
freedom to submit joyously and
spontaneously to the conditions
which are called for by justice.
Does that involve suffering 1
Christ also suffered for us and
left us an ensample. Such
considerations occur to us as
possible in the circumstances.
But how did they come to be
adequate? They could only be so
to a man who in sober earnest "
counted all things but loss for
the excellency of the knowledge
of Christ Jesus." But all
explanation is probably
incomplete which stops short of
recognising that this poor slave
shared in the same experience as
Paul claimed when he said: "We
have the mind of Christ." If the
Thessalonians were " taught of
God " to love one another,
Onesimus too may have seen his
duty simply because God showed
it to him. And when he saw it he
did it. And the Christianity
which Paul preached and his
disciples practised, must be
credited with results such as
these. God in Christ, unseen,
unheard, save by faith, was One
whose " lightest whisper moved
them more than all the ranged
reasons of the world." Onesimus was moved and enabled
by the same Spirit whom it is
open to all men to receive. What
he did was, from. the point of
view of certain modern
moralists, a piece of Quixotic
absurdity; but it was a triumph
of the Cross. It represented the sacrifice of
the individual to the social
ideal of justice, which is the
very nerve of ethical progress.
And it was accomplished in the
power of the Crucified and Risen
Lord. There remains Philemon. From
some points of view what was
proposed to him was the most
difficult task of all, He was
called on to forgive, frankly
and completely, to forgive one
who had wronged him with a
forgiveness which would be as
public as the wrong. That he
would have to do before entering
on the question of how he was to
treat Onesimus in future. The
relationship of an ordinary
slave-holder with a renegade
slave would have no future. It
was not only worldly wisdom, it
was a deep understanding of the
working of Christianity, which
led the Apostle to overleap this
preliminary step, and to ask for
the all- inclusive thing, viz.,
that Philemon should recognise
in Onesimus a brother. From a
lower ethical standpoint the
appeal would have been for
mercy, for the application of a
Stoical ἀταραξία, a
dispassionate Consideration Of
how little would be gained by
vengeance. Paul leaves all such
considerations below him. He
presents to Philemon a God-given
opportunity to find another
friend, one who had indeed been
a slave, who might possibly
continue in the same status in
the eyes of the world, but all
the time would be that
inestimably precious thing, a
brother in Christ. Paul counted
first of all on Philemon's joy
that Onesimus had become a
Christian, and his readiness to
admit him as such into the
Brotherhood. This is the central motive whose
spring Paul seeks to release.
But there are others. He reminds
Philemon of the course of life
he has already adopted, the
ideal he is known to aim at, in
practising "love" towards God's
people. This which he is now
asked to do is but a special,
though a very difficult, case of
the same principle. He waives
the obligation which Philemon is
under to himse1f, but even in
waiving reminds him of it. He
appeals to the relation now
established between himself and
Onesimus, so close that Philemon
cannot despise the one without
despising the other. And finally
he appeals to Philemon's
affection for himself as well as
to his faith in Christ. " For
all the right I have to speak
authoritatively in Christ and to
lay injunction on thee what thou
shouldst do, yet because of
love, I entreat rather." The
letter shows not only what the
new religion could accomplish in
cases of individual duty, but
what it could effect in creating
a common life to which men made
appeal because they knew it to
be real. How did Philemon meet this
appeal 1 It cannot be said that
we know. And yet we may rest
confidently in the belief that
his response was worthy of the
trust reposed in him by Paul.
That seems to be the only view
consistent with the survival of
the letter. In the other event
there is nothing to account for
its having been, preserved
either by Philemon or by the
Christians at Colosse. He would
not keep it to reproach him; he
would not show it to his shame.
Paul was not mistaken either in
the man to whom he wrote or in
the power of the Gospel in which
he trusted. That to which first
he and then Onesimus had bowed
their hearts was mighty to
control Philemon also to a task
not less difficult perhaps,
considering the circumstances of
his life. Apart from the many other
excellencies which have been
found in it, the letter to
Philemon provides invaluable
evidence as to the working of
Christianity. We see men of
three very different types
lifted to new conceptions of
duty, called on in various ways
to do the most unlikely and the
most unpalatable things, and
doing them because they were
Christ's men. And the Gospel which we here see
at work is the same Gospel which
the Apostle states, expounds and
defends in his other Epistles.
Looking back over it, we see
that, short as it is, it strikes
several of the great notes of
the Pauline Gospel. Both
Philemon and Onesimus are " new
creatures," Onesimus having been
"begotten again" in Paul's
prison, Philemon having believed
to the winning or the saving of
"himself." This common
experience constitutes a common
relationship of the most binding
and the most fertile
description, a relation which
co-exists with, but
interpenetrates, any previously
existing relations. Onesimus may
remain a slave of Philemon; but
if he does he will be a
"super-slave," because he is at
the same time a brother. All
these relationships, all this
life, in fact, belong to a new
sphere. They are " in the Lord."
Paul's well-worn principle is
not trite only because it is a
living one. Wear makes it
stronger. On that plane these
men meet and see one another in the
light of eternity; and their
relations and mutual obligations
become clear. They can even meet
as master and slave, the one
forgiving because he has been
forgiven, the other doing his
service " with anxious heed "
because both are " thralls of
the Lord Christ." So far is this
Epistle from being of secondary
importance or of merely private
interest, it might well be
placed in the forefront of our
study of Paulinism. C. ANDERSON SCOTT.
|
|