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.

Introduction

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.

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.

[1] http://www.sermoncentral.com/print_friendly.asp?SermonID=44334

[2] http://www.sermoncentral.com/print_friendly.asp?SermonID=48969

[3] http://www.sermoncentral.com/print_friendly.asp?SermonID=48969

[4] http://www.sermoncentral.com/print_friendly.asp?SermonID=48969

[5] http://www.sermoncentral.com/print_friendly.asp?SermonID=44334