Paul Imprisoned: Philemon

Illustration:

One spring day in 1950, in the Capitan Mountains of New Mexico, an operator in one of the fire towers spotted smoke and called the location into the nearest ranger station. The first crew discovered a major wildfire sweeping along the ground between the trees, driven by a strong wind. Word spread rapidly, and more crews reported to help. Forest rangers, local crews from New Mexico and Texas, and the New Mexico State Game Department set out to gain control of the raging wildfire.

As the crew battled to contain the blaze, they received a report of a lone bear cub seen wandering near the fire line. They hoped that the mother bear would return for him, but soon, about 30 of the firefighters were caught directly in the path of the firestorm. They survived by lying face down on a rock-slide for over an hour as the fire burned past them.

Nearby, the little cub had not fared as well. He took refuge in a tree that became completely charred, escaping with his life but also badly burned paws and hind legs. The crew removed the cub from the tree, and a rancher among the crew agreed to take him home. A New Mexico Department of Game and Fish ranger heard about the cub when he returned to the fire camp. He drove to the rancher’s home to help get the cub on a plane to Santa Fe, where his burns were treated and bandaged.

News about the little bear spread swiftly throughout New Mexico. Soon, the United Press and Associated Press broadcast his story nationwide, and many people wrote and called, asking about the cub’s recovery. The state game warden wrote to the chief of the Forest Service, offering to present the cub to the agency as long as the cub would be dedicated to a conservation and wildfire prevention publicity program.

Intro:

So, I had some discord in my household recently. I wouldn’t call it a fight; we never really argued as much as my wife snapped at me, and I snapped back, and that was that, but then she gave me that ‘silent treatment,’ you know, for a couple of days. During this time, I was getting really bitter, telling myself all sorts of lies, getting all self-righteous, and beginning to think things about my wife’s motivations for the way she was treating me. Now, some of them may have well been true, I don’t know, but what was true was that I hadn’t accepted any responsibility, thinking of myself as the recipient of the transgression. Can I get an amen? My snap back was a defensive one, right? So, I was justified, and so, therefore, I was owed the apology, not only for the initial spat but also for the days-long ‘silent treatment,’ am I right?

In today’s Scripture, we have a guy who was wronged. And look, maybe we need to transcend some social projections. There are two logical fallacies I want us to be aware of and steer clear of here when we dig into this Scripture and save ourselves from judgment or miss the blessing that is to be found in the message. The first is called the historian’s fallacy, and we fall into it when we assume that people in the past viewed things from the same perspective and had the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision, that’s us. There’s also presentism, similar but distinct in that present-day ideas, such as moral standards, are projected into the past.

We’re not there yet, but you can take my word for it; I’m just building my case—verse 18 in Philemon says. “If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. In verse 19, he says, “I will pay it back.” So, they’re acknowledging a debt is owed. Let’s just get that behind us. We’re going to come back to that.

If you’ve gone through 7-habits or are familiar with the 12-step program, forgiveness is about doing the work behind being forgiven, not necessarily being forgiven, but forgiving the other. That may very well happen along the way, but it isn’t the goal. When seeking forgiveness, you acknowledge your own wrongs against someone else. It doesn’t matter what precipitated it, caused it, the fact that you were victimized, or felt entitled. When seeking forgiveness, you don’t bring it up. That’s their burden, their cross.

This is what Jesus was telling Peter in Matthew 16 when he said:

18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

He’s not talking about making him the first bishop; he’s saying “on this truth”—his confession of Christ’s identity as the Messiah, the son of the living God—and he’s telling him the rules of the game; this is how it works!

And we can know that that’s the case because he reminds them when he appears to them after he was raised from the dead, in John 20:23, “If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

He’s not giving them divine authority; it’s about the sin of withholding forgiveness, the unforgivable sin, the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is thinking of ourselves so self-righteously that we have anything owed to us at all—victim mentality. That way of thinking, it’s a pit of despair, preventing us from forgiving because we can’t see the truth of the matter—that we indeed have sin, that we are both withholding forgiveness and very well probably wronged someone or someone’s in our blindness.

Turning to our Scripture, we see this ideal lived out in a real-world situation, one that involves betrayal, theft, slavery, but also God’s providence and reconciliation.

Intro:

So, the letter to Philemon is a little different than the rest of the Epistles to the churches that Paul wrote while imprisoned. First, it’s to a person, not a people; Philemon, not the Philemites or the Philemonians, perhaps the Philemanians, or maybe the Philemese? In any case, Philemon lived in Colossae, and it’s generally held that the two letters are related, Colossians and Philemon. Many commentaries address them both in the same volume. In fact, the earliest copy and, therefore, most authoritative tradition we have comes from a document called Papyrus 46, which is dated between 175 and 225 CE, so about 110-160 years after we believe it was penned, and it’s believed, as it was portrayed by this document, so even in antiquity—that they’re connected, relation between the two is assumed.

Transition:

This is significant. It’s important because, as we see in 1 Corinthians, as we’ll see in our next series, the Pastorals, primarily in 1 Timothy and Titus, dissension; mainly heretical contention, but follow me here—leaves us open to grave sin. It’s counted amongst the capital vices, blasphemy, suspicion, and conflict. He’s not saying they’re equivalent, but you can see how it has the potential to start one down that path.

Context:

What’s significant about these two books being written in relation to one another is that there is no tone of condemnation whatsoever. We know that Paul was not responsible for planting the church at Colossae. But Philemon is described as a “fellow worker” of Paul. Philemon may have converted to Christianity through Paul’s ministry; the letter is addressed to the church that meets in his house. This is a home church. Now, the church was underground during this time, at the time of Philemon’s authorship, Paul is, of course, imprisoned, James is or is about to be stoned to death by the High Priest, Simeon is crucified, and shortly after the Great Fire of Rome is blamed on the Christians, a great persecution arises, which is possibly the earliest mention of Christians by that name, as a result of which, Paul is beheaded.

So, that may be why multiple church gatherings are developing: the secrecy in which they’re meeting, but we also have a biblical account of worship and what it looked like at that time. Recorded in Acts 2:42-47:

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day, they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

This is one defense for denominations. There are others, but this goes to show that we can be different, evolving with our own traditions, practices, and customs while maintaining a central identity. Difference can be ok—it’s not the same as dissension.

Transition:

That’s just something you can observe; Paul has a very plain point in his message. You can tell this in that it’s his shortest epistle. In fact, it’s nearly the shortest book in the Bible. John’s second and third epistles only beat him by about 100 words. Paul’s point is that those who are in Christ are brought into a spiritual family by God’s grace and are called to participate in his work.

Background:

The Epistle to Philemon was cited by both those who sanctioned the institution of slavery in America and those who advocated abolition. While it is true that the words of the apostle here cannot be construed to advocate the abolition of slavery, the spirit of the epistle definitely supports that position. This indicates how Christians have historically confronted the evils of society. There is tension; don’t let anyone tell you differently. Paul instructs us in Romans 12:2, Do not be conformed to the pattern of this world. Peter says, in Acts 5:29, We must obey God rather than men; and James calls out what he equates to “adulterous people, do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore, whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”

These verses don’t address the specific issue of Christians’ relationship to the government, but rather, in the context of living with and amongst unbelievers. This is in the context of the rise of the Zealots; there are problems for Christians from Jews as well as the government. Paul is literally telling them to submit to authorities and to pay taxes. It’s also about trusting in God. The government is repeatedly cast as an agent that God uses to work his will. This is so in the Old Testament and the New. It should be noted that It’s usually used to draw a distinction between the world and God’s Kingdom, but not always. Nevertheless, Peter tells slaves, in 1 Peter, to remain “in reverent fear of God [submitting] yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh” (2:18).

Were Paul to directly denounce slavery, it would have been problematic, to say the least. It would have precipitated an immediate conflict between Rome and Christianity. It would have painted Christianity as being antisocial. It would have received the full force of the empire, putting it down no different than any other rebellion. It wasn’t spineless or a lack of conviction but a disciplined exercise of tact. This is commendable. We can believe this is the case because we see this as a theme. Historically, through participation with Babylon during their captivity, depicted in the book of Daniel. We see this through the earthly ministry of Jesus in his response to the Pharisees, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25).

Message in a sentence:

Instead of a full-frontal attack on the institution of slavery, Paul settles on the spirit of love, grace, compassion, and consideration that ultimately leads hearts to abandon such things.

This is clearly the goal, anyway. It is, after all, only a legalistic victory if you get people to comply with you when you’re in the right—but if you can change hearts to ease suffering, to be charitable, to be self-sacrificing, in the midst of disparity, inequality, and in the absence of justice, that’s when you’ve won. When you’ve won hearts, the rest will follow.

That’s what Paul is doing here. You can tell as much because of the structured parallelism that supports this as the central point.

Scripture:

In his opening comments, verses 1-4, Paul describes himself as “a prisoner of Christ Jesus.” This is the same way he signs off in verses 23-25, equating himself with Onesimus.

In verse 4: “I always thank my God when I mention you in my prayers, 5 because I hear of your love for all the saints and the faith that you have in the Lord.” As in verse 17: “So, if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would me.”

This isn’t extortion; instead, it is an excellent example of using mitigated exhortation! A literary arm-twisting, if you will.

In the same way, verses 9-10 and 15 & 16 mirror one another, starting in verse 10: “[I] appeal to you for my son, Onesimus. I became his father while I was in chains. Verse 15: “For perhaps this is why he was separated from you for a brief time, so that you might get him back permanently.”

You can see his hope, his intent, even a bit of manipulation, but for a good cause—right?! In verse 11: “Once he was useless to you, but now he is useful both to you and to me.” In light of verse 16: “No longer as a slave, but more than a slave—as a dearly loved brother.”

The center of the structure and the focus of his message is verses 12-14, emphasizing verse 14.

Point:

We read in verse 12, “I am sending him back to you—I am sending my very own heart. 13 I wanted to keep him with me, so that in my imprisonment for the gospel, he might serve me in your place.”

And here’s the point, the application and the gospel in a sentence: 14 I didn’t want to do anything without your consent, so that your good deed might not be out of obligation, but of your own free will.

Transition:

If you’ve won a heart, the rest will follow. Paul’s aim is the spirit of love, grace, compassion, and consideration. Because once a heart gets to that point, you don’t need to compel anyone to do anything. They’ll ultimately abandon the desires of the flesh. It’s why Jesus doesn’t focus on telling people what not to do; he tells them what to do.

Explanation:

As I said earlier, it’s only a legalistic victory if you get people to comply with you when you tell them otherwise in the first place. If you can change hearts, and only God does that, by the way— but that we can play a part through patients, prayer, and petition—emphasis on the patients, this is what biblical evangelism is! Living it, we’re living proof, and if it doesn’t work in us, what are we peddling? Living the Gospel means easing the suffering of others, being charitable, and self-sacrificing—in the midst of disparity and inequality and in the absence of justice.

Transition:

Daniel Akin comments that Paul employs psychological and spiritual tact and, at the same time, doesn’t sacrifice his apostolic authority. Through its example, the church has preserved Philemon as a canonical manual on how believers might go about mediating conflicts and resolving personal difficulties within the family of God.

Summary:

So, who did Paul save, and who benefited from this plea? Paul was determined to do all he could to bless Philemon, Onesimus, and the church that met in their home. He believed the God who had reconciled sinners to himself through His Son, the Lord Jesus, could also reconcile a master and a slave who had become brothers! This is the beauty and power of the gospel at work in people’s lives. It is a glorious thing to put on display for a watching world to see.

C. S. Lewis says,

There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations—these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. It is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit. (The Weight of Glory, 46)

I believe Paul would agree with Lewis. The Roman Empire saw Onesimus as a slave. It saw only with the eyes of the flesh. Paul saw Onesimus as “a dearly loved brother.” He was now part of a special family—God’s family.

I want to get back to the illustration I started with, what might seem like, now, a fairly disconnected story about a bear and a wildfire. Brothers, who is it that we all know that bear to have become? “Smokey the Bear,” right, and what’s Smokey say? “Only you can prevent a wildfire.” If I could sit everyone down at a Strong Bonds retreat or something and see a fight between you and your spouse, I’d resolve it; it’s just that simple. The problem is it’s not tangible; it doesn’t really exist. It’s in your heart—and only you can prevent a forest fire.

Transition:

Paul’s trying to relay that to Philemon. If Onesimus is his spiritual son, as he says in v. 10, Philemon is getting him back as a brother! This is a biblical example—a demonstration of how we apply Christ’s teachings. This is the Parable of the Prodigal Son!

He’s saying that this new spiritual status of Onesimus is something special. He is getting Onesimus back on both as a slave—but even better than that, he’s getting him back as a brother!

Philemon had to see the providence of God in this. Only through the lens of faith, faith in One crucified like a slave himself, could enable Philemon to see things as they truly were and not to receive him begrudgingly but able to rejoice in it.

That’s what we’re called to do, too.

Exhortation:

As followers of Jesus, we must bring the Gospel to bear on every aspect of life and anticipate its transforming power in the lives of other believers.

Because the whole Gospel is here for us, in verse 17, we see substitution,

17 If you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would me.

In verses 18–19, we see satisfaction,

18 And if he has wronged you in any way, or owes you anything, charge that to my account. 19 I, Paul, write this with my own hand: I will repay it.

In verse 20, reconciliation,

20 May I benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ.

And he does so with confidence in the gospel’s work in others, as we can observe in verse 21, expressed through faithful witnesses as we see in verses 23–24.

His prayer, both here and the future, which includes us today, is in verse 25, the call for Divine enablement. That God, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, transforms our hearts so that the good deeds which result from obedience to God’s will are voluntary, coming from the desire of our own hearts, and not by compulsion from religious obligation.

Transition:

When that happens, a miracle is witnessed. Sure, it’s not the parting of the Red Sea, but it’s the moving of a mountain! A mountain of pride in our hearts, and I don’t want to make light of what Jesus says we are capable of through faith, but truly, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23). It’s only through God we are capable of doing such things—miracles.

Conclusion:

So, what’s this letter about? Why is it included in the Canon? Paul wrote an appeal on behalf of Onesimus, right? If that’s the case, I’m telling you, today, that it is unworthy of its place in Scripture.

It’s an appeal to Philemon to seek forgiveness. To shed the scales from his eyes—to be delivered from the blindness bestowed unto him from his own despair. His damnable self-righteousness, his victim mentality and perspective. Paul reminds him gently, literally in verse 19, “that you owe me your very self.”

A debt is owed, sure. But Paul’s message, consistent throughout his New Testament writings, is that the law is condemnation. So yes, a debt is owed. But the message to Philemon is that we are to forgive so that we may be forgiven! In that way, it is a plea for someone’s life, but the recipient of the mercy, the hope that Paul has, it’s not a plea on Onesimus’s behalf.

This letter was included in Scripture because it shows us an application of the framework told to us by Jesus himself and shown throughout the New Testament. A debt is owed—and if you collect, may I remind you that “whatever you bind on earth is also bound in heaven.”

If Paul had written me the same letter, it wouldn’t be about forgiving my wife. It’s about me accepting my debt. That’s the burden of forgiveness. Because in seeking forgiveness, you’ve already let go of what you think you’re due and accepted responsibility.