Preached at St Mary the Virgin, Little Burstead on Sunday 8 September 2013 at 10:30am
Purpose: To understand how Paul modelled the gospel message for Philemon and Onesimus.
Reading Philemon 1:1-21Introduction
Isn't it strange where the Lectionary readings end, what's
wrong with the last four verses? Well
perhaps the final greetings could be left out, but v22 is fairly important to
the tone of the letter.
We will look at this letter as a whole and examine our
reaction to it, deal with some of the issues it raises and finally look at the
doctrine of Atonement and especially Substitutionary Atonement. Academics like using long words to describe
things that most of us think are quite straight forward, so please don't switch
off as we get towards the second part of the sermon.
Onesimus
So let’s look at the characters and see what we know about
them and their situation. I'll start
with Onesimus as he seems to be the focus of attention. His name means 'useful' and he is a runaway
slave. We have no idea why he ran
away. There are speculations that he was a thief, this is based on verse 18, but this may not be the case. Another speculation is that he was badly treated, but we have no evidence for that at all.
Somehow on his journey he had come into contact with Paul,
and at some point converted to Christianity.
That's why he's called 'my son' by Paul in verse 10. It seems that he has changed (as you'd
expect) and is now living up to his name.
He is useful to Paul.
He is also mentioned in Colossians 4:9 where Paul’s writes:
He is coming with Onesimus, our faithful and dear brother,
who is one of you. They will tell you everything that is happening here.
It's difficult to tell whether this is a result of Onesimus
returning and being freed to go and work with Paul, or whether Paul still does
not know he is a runaway slave.
Philemon
The letter is written to Philemon, he and his wife Apphia
host a church and Archippus is most probably his son. Paul clearly knows them all well.
Paul
The Apostle Paul was in prison for preaching the Gospel, and
therefore 'a prisoner for Christ' not a prisoner of Christ! Being in prison was something Paul had become
familiar with. The likelihood here is
that he was in Rome under house arrest – perhaps one of the better
imprisonments. He couldn't leave, but he
could have open communication with his visitors, and have any visitors he
liked.
Reactions to the letter
Now that you know a little about the situation, I wonder how
you react to the letter. Put yourself in
Philemon's place. Your slave has run
away, perhaps years ago, then he turns up with this letter from Paul – the person
who was instrumental in your conversion and helped you found the church. One commentator I read said they would be
hopping mad to have received a letter like that (not the phrase they used
exactly). It is designed to give
Philemon very little choice -
v 9&10 “I could be bold and order you … instead I appeal to you in love”
– When is an order not an order? How ever you phrase your request, it still
sounds like an order.
v11 I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you.
– He's my closest friend while I'm in prison, but I'm sending
him to you ...
v12 I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could
take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel.
– You're not here helping me as you should be, but he is and
I'd like to keep him!
… and he goes on like this until in verse 16 he ups the
stakes. So that you can have him back
“better than a slave, as a dear brother”
Finally, in the verse we shouldn't have read there is the
hope (threat) that Paul will soon visit Philemon.
Issues – Slavery
Apart from the tone of the letter another major issue that is
raised is Slavery. Nowhere does the
Bible condemn slavery, it is part of the status quo. We should not think of slavery in the same
terms as the slave trade though. Most
slaves were either captured prisoners from conquests, or had fallen into debt,
or had been born into slavery.
A Roman slave would often have been considered part of the
family. They were paid and were often
professional people including doctors and teachers. Children born into slavery were
educated. A slave who did well could buy
his freedom, and many did. So many that
the laws about freeing slaves had to be tightened, but that was well after this
period.
Some slaves though were treated poorly, especially those on
the farms and in the mines. Slaves were subject to corporal punishment and it was common for runaways to be executed. There was a great fear of slave revolts and it was illegal for a Roman citizen to harbour a runaway slave.
Slaves could be traded in the market place or in private
sales, in some places they were even sold in shops. A slave would cost you about the same as a
donkey[1],
but a good slave might be 500 denarii[2]
(500 days wages for a labourer). Slavery
was an important part of the economy of the empire.
Having said all of that we still find the idea that one man
can be the owner of another abhorrent.
It goes against everything we believe about a God who loves us as
individuals and created us to live for him.
I believe that it is passages like the one that we are looking at today
that ultimately undermined the system of slavery, so while the Bible doesn't
condemn slavery, it has brought it to an end – at least as a legally and
economic process.
FF Bruce “What this epistle does is to bring us into an
atmosphere in which the institution could only wilt and die”[3]
Doctrine: Substitutionary Atonement
Now we must move on to doctrine. The doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement.
Before I explain it, and why it is worth talking about here
is a simple illustration that will help
us all understand what I'm talking about.
Illustration[4]
A man was caught stealing milk that had been delivered to a shop. He had been arrested and he was taken to court. The judge asked him, “How do you plead?” There was only one way he could plead, because he had been caught in the act. He had to plead guilty. He asked for leniency for he had two small babies at home and nothing to give them and instead of seeing them starve he resorted to stealing. He said, “Judge, I plead for the mercy of the court.” The judge said that since he had pleaded guilty, he had no alternative but to find the man guilty and he assessed a fine. The fine was ten pounds. The man stood there, crestfallen, for he anticipated a jail sentence since he had nothing with which to pay. Then the judge got up, laid down his gavel, walked off the bench, walked over to the clerk’s desk and paid the £10.00 himself, and set the man free. Then, he approached the man and wrote him a cheque for £100 to provide for his need.
There was no question of guilt, nor of the justice of the
sentence. And yet the one who had had to find him guilty, was the one who had
paid his indebtedness in order that he might go free.
Substitutionary Atonement
That is Substitutionary Atonement. Someone else pays the price for our failings,
and we are free to go. Substitutionary
because it is not us who pays, Atonement because we are put right with the
person we have offended.
Substitutionary Atonement – Real Life example
Here's how it works in real life:
During the war between Britain and France, men were conscripted into the French army by a kind of lottery system. When someone’s name was drawn, he had to go off to battle.
There was one exception to this, however. A person could be exempt if another was willing to take his place.
On one occasion the authorities came to a certain man and told him he was among those who had been chosen. He refused to go, saying, "I was shot 2 years ago."
At first they questioned his sanity, but he insisted that this indeed was the case. He claimed that the military records would show that he had been conscripted 2 years previously and that he had been killed in action.
"How can that be?" they questioned. "You are alive now!"
He explained that when his name came up, a close friend said to him, "You have a large family, but I am not married and nobody is dependent upon me. I’ll take your name and address and go in your place." And that is indeed what the record showed.
This rather unusual case was referred to Napoleon Bonaparte, who decided that the country had no legal claim on that man. He was free![5] Someone else had complete the service he owed and died in his place, the debt had been paid once and could not be due again.
There was one exception to this, however. A person could be exempt if another was willing to take his place.
On one occasion the authorities came to a certain man and told him he was among those who had been chosen. He refused to go, saying, "I was shot 2 years ago."
At first they questioned his sanity, but he insisted that this indeed was the case. He claimed that the military records would show that he had been conscripted 2 years previously and that he had been killed in action.
"How can that be?" they questioned. "You are alive now!"
He explained that when his name came up, a close friend said to him, "You have a large family, but I am not married and nobody is dependent upon me. I’ll take your name and address and go in your place." And that is indeed what the record showed.
This rather unusual case was referred to Napoleon Bonaparte, who decided that the country had no legal claim on that man. He was free![5] Someone else had complete the service he owed and died in his place, the debt had been paid once and could not be due again.
Gospel and the letter to Philemon
It is like that for us.
Jesus has died in our place. He
is the payment for our sins, and because He is the payment, we are free, we are
made right with God.
It is exactly the same argument that Paul is using in today's
reading when he says to Philemon in verse 18:
“If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge
it to me”
We know that Onesimus owed Philemon something, even if he was
not a thief, he still owed Philemon the time that he had been missing, or
possibly the cost of his replacement.
Whatever it was Paul would pay, because Onesimus couldn't,
and Paul loved Onesimus.
Paul also knew the Gospel, he knew that ultimately none of us
can pay what we owe. All of us are
reliant on Jesus for our freedom from sin and our acceptance by God.
We can see the parallels with the Gospel in this letter:
Philemon is God, with a legitimate claim on Onesimus (who
represents us). Paul is Christ, paying
the price and ensuring that the return is possible. Paul is being a good Christian and doing what
Jesus did. Paul is doing what we are all called to do, but he is taking a risk.
Risks and Costs
Paul
Even though he was already in prison, harbouring a runaway
slave was punishable by death. We must assume that only Paul knew who Onesimus really was, otherwise he would have been in big trouble immediately and his guards would have handed him over straight away. As soon as he found out
he would have been thinking about how Onesimus should be returned.
Paul has written a very strong letter to one of his converts
demanding a very unpopular and difficult course of action. There was a chance that Philemon would be
offended and not do as Paul wanted, in that case the church that Paul had
invested so much effort in would have failed.
Onesimus
Onesimus knew he had to return, if there was any argument it
is not recorded. He also knew he was taking a risk. Even with the letter in
his pocket, perhaps especially with the letter in his pocket, travelling back
would be dangerous. Not nearly as
dangerous as arriving though. It was
common for a runaway slave to be put to death immediately they returned as a
deterrent to the others.
Philemon
If Philemon was to accept Onesimus back as a slave and without punishment he would be unpopular with his fellow slave owners. If he accepts him back and then gives him his
freedom he is going to be more than unpopular, he will be seen as encouraging
rebellion.
Ending
So, what happened? I
hate stories where you don't get a proper conclusion to the events, especially
when those stories are about real people.
Well we don't know, if there was a record it is lost is history.
Well there was a bishop in Ephesus called Onesimus (after
Timothy) who collected together the letters of Paul and this document was in
that collection. There is no evidence
that they were the same person, but it makes for a good end to the story.
