Does Paul suggest that Philemon release Onesimus from slavery?

[Pergamum]

Philemon 1:15-16 (ESV):

For this perhaps is why [Onesimus] was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, no longer as a bondservant but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother—especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

Onesimus, a slave or bondservant, escaped from Philemon. He fled to Paul while he was in prison. Paul sent the man back to his owner, and asked for him to be forgiven.

But is Paul further arguing for the slave's release from service (indentured servant-hood or slavery?

 

[whirlingmerc]

It sounds like allot of diplomacy. But he can be both a brother and a slave. " both in the flesh and in the Lord." sounds like being both.

I'm not so sure he's saying to set him free outright and I'm not sure it's was as much of an issue back then. I think some slaves were more free and well treated than others though. Half of the Roman empire were slaves. Onesimus was going back prepared for whatever happened.

In one tradition Onesimus became Bishop of Ephesus which sounds free

 

[Mushroom]

In 1 Cor. 7:21 Paul exhorts slaves who are able to avail themselves of any opportunity to gain their freedom. Seems the station was not one to be desired, only endured of necessity. I'm curious, though - if a slave were set free by his master in ancient Rome, would that confer citizenship upon him, and if not, what then was his status?

 

[Alan D. Strange]

I think that Paul does indeed suggest to Philemon that he free Onesimus, but he clearly does not command it. Had he commanded it, this would have meant that there was clear apostolic precedent in precept and in practice that Christians must free their slaves.

This would have subverted the gospel, i.e., made it about manumission, rather than about the glorious work of Christ. This would have derailed that central gospel focus and turned the gospel into a radical social agenda at its very core.

About 40% of the empire were slaves. Paul was not about to make it all about the elimination of slavery.

Having said that, the clear implication of the gospel, i.e, what the gospel brings about (transformed lives) over against what the gospel is (salvation in Christ, regardless of situation), militates against Christians continuing to own slaves, certainly other Christians. Paul says in v. 8 that he is bold enough in Christ to command you to do what is required. What would that be? The verses that follow speak of Paul wanting Philemon to act from his goodness, not by compulsion "but of your own free will" (v. 14).

He wants Philemon to receive Onesimus back "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother" (v. 16). Still he does not command manumission, but suggests it by reminding Philemon that he (Philemon) owes himself to Paul, and that "I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say" (v. 21). I am leaving out parts. Read it all. It's quite magnificent.

It would be a remarkable, and unthinkable, churlishness on Philemon's part (and let none of us imagine such) for him to receive this letter and not endeavor to "do even more" than Paul says. And what could that reasonably be but freeing Onesimus? It is suggested and nearly commanded. But it's not, because such an apostolic command would truly have made the Christian faith at that point all about emancipation of slaves. And such is not the message of the gospel but it is, properly, as Paul clearly suggests, an effect of the gospel.

And what I cited in Perg's earlier thread on baptizing slaves makes it clear that over the following centuries Christianity acted as a leaven that brought ancient slavery to an end. I believe that it stems at least in no small part from Christian reflection on what Paul said to Philemon, which was not "you must free Onesimus," but he said enough that suggested such and, again, we cannot imagine Philemon saying something like "Well, Paul did not command him to be freed and that remains entirely in my discretion."

I believe that Philemon acted as Paul suggested and that many other Christians did subsequently, beginning with fellow Christians, but working outward toward all in slavery, ultimately bringing such to an end (before the lamentable start of modern race-based slavery).

Peace,
Alan

 

[Pergamum]

I think that Paul does indeed suggest to Philemon that he free Onesimus, but he clearly does not command it. Had he commanded it, this would have meant that there was clear apostolic precedent in precept and in practice that Christians must free their slaves.

This would have subverted the gospel, i.e., made it about manumission, rather than about the glorious work of Christ. This would have derailed that central gospel focus and turned the gospel into a radical social agenda at its very core.

About 40% of the empire were slaves. Paul was not about to make it all about the elimination of slavery.

Having said that, the clear implication of the gospel, i.e, what the gospel brings about (transformed lives) over against what the gospel is (salvation in Christ, regardless of situation), militates against Christians continuing to own slaves, certainly other Christians. Paul says in v. 8 that he is bold enough in Christ to command you to do what is required. What would that be? The verses that follow speak of Paul wanting Philemon to act from his goodness, not by compulsion "but of your own free will" (v. 14).

He wants Philemon to receive Onesimus back "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother" (v. 16). Still he does not command manumission, but suggests it by reminding Philemon that he (Philemon) owes himself to Paul, and that "I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say" (v. 21). I am leaving out parts. Read it all. It's quite magnificent.

It would be a remarkable, and unthinkable, churlishness on Philemon's part (and let none of us imagine such) for him to receive this letter and not endeavor to "do even more" than Paul says. And what could that reasonably be but freeing Onesimus? It is suggested and nearly commanded. But it's not, because such an apostolic command would truly have made the Christian faith at that point all about emancipation of slaves. And such is not the message of the gospel but it is, properly, as Paul clearly suggests, an effect of the gospel.

And what I cited in Perg's earlier thread on baptizing slaves makes it clear that over the following centuries Christianity acted as a leaven that brought ancient slavery to an end. I believe that it stems at least in no small part from Christian reflection on what Paul said to Philemon, which was not "you must free Onesimus," but he said enough that suggested such and, again, we cannot imagine Philemon saying something like "Well, Paul did not command him to be freed and that remains entirely in my discretion."

I believe that Philemon acted as Paul suggested and that many other Christians did subsequently, beginning with fellow Christians, but working outward toward all in slavery, ultimately bringing such to an end (before the lamentable start of modern race-based slavery).

Peace,
Alan

This is also what I believe as well:

I think that Paul does indeed suggest to Philemon that he free Onesimus, but he clearly does not command it. Had he commanded it, this would have meant that there was clear apostolic precedent in precept and in practice that Christians must free their slaves.

But I just wish Paul was clearer here. But as Dr Strange said, this would have subverted the Gospel. So, Paul was (obviously) much wiser than I when writing. I just wish there were more proof.