# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume XIII/On Timothy, Titus, and Philemon/On Philemon/Argument

homilies of St. John Chrysostom,
archbishop of constantinople,
on the
epistle of St. paul the apostle
to
Philemon.
Argument.
First, it is necessary to state the argument of the Epistle, then also the matters that are questioned respecting it. What then is the argument? Philemon was a man of admirable and noble character. That he was an admirable man is evident from the fact, that his whole household was of believers, and of such believers as even to be called a Church: therefore he says in this Epistle, “And to the Church that is in thy house.” (v. 2.) He bears witness also to his great obedience, and that “the bowels of the Saints are refreshed in him.” (v. 7.) And he himself in this Epistle commanded him to prepare him a lodging. (v. 22.) It seems to me therefore that his house was altogether a lodging for the Saints. This excellent man, then, had a certain slave named Onesimus. This Onesimus, having stolen something from his master, had run away. For that he had stolen, hear what he says: “If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee aught, I will repay thee.” (v. 18, 19.) Coming therefore to Paul at Rome, and having found him in prison, and having enjoyed the benefit of his teaching, he there also received Baptism. For that he obtained there the gift of Baptism is manifest from his saying, “Whom I have begotten in my bonds.” (v. 10.) Paul therefore writes, recommending him to his master, that on every account he should forgive him, and receive him as one now regenerate.
But because some say, that it was superfluous that this Epistle should be annexed, since he is making a request about a small matter in behalf of one man, let them learn who make these objections, that they are themselves deserving of very many censures. For it was not only proper that these small Epistles, in behalf of things so necessary, should have been inscribed, but I wish that it were possible to meet with one who could deliver to us the history of the Apostles, not only all they wrote and spoke of, but of the rest of their conversation, even what they ate, and when they ate, when they walked, and where they sat, what they did every day, in what parts they were, into what house they entered, and where they lodged—to relate everything with minute exactness, so replete with advantage is all that was done by them. But the greater part, not knowing the benefit that would result thence, proceed to censure it.
For if only seeing those places where they sat or where they were imprisoned, mere lifeless spots, we often transport our minds thither, and imagine their virtue, and are excited by it, and become more zealous, much more would this be the case, if we heard their words and their other actions. But concerning a friend a man enquires, where he lives, what he is doing, whither he is going: and say, should we not make these enquiries about these the general instructors of the world? For when a man leads a spiritual life, the habit, the walk, the words and the actions of such an one, in short, all that relates to him, profits the hearers, and nothing is a hindrance or impediment.
But it is useful for you to learn that this Epistle was sent upon necessary matters. Observe therefore how many things are rectified thereby. We have this one thing first, that in all things it becomes one to be earnest. For if Paul bestows so much concern upon a runaway, a thief, and a robber, and does not refuse nor is ashamed to send him back with such commendations; much more does it become us not to be negligent in such matters. Secondly, that we ought not to abandon the race of slaves, even if they have proceeded to extreme wickedness. For if a thief and a runaway become so virtuous that Paul was willing to make him a companion, and says in this Epistle, “that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me” (v. 13.), much more ought we not to abandon the free. Thirdly, that we ought not to withdraw slaves from the service of their masters. For if Paul, who had such confidence in Philemon, was unwilling to detain Onesimus, so useful and serviceable to minister to himself, without the consent of his master, much less ought we so to act. For if the servant is so excellent, he ought by all means to continue in that service, and to acknowledge the authority of his master, that he may be the occasion of benefit to all in that house. Why dost thou take the candle from the candlestick to place it in the bushel?
I wish it were possible to bring into the cities those (servants) who are without. “What,” say you, “if he also should become corrupt.” And why should he, I beseech you? Because he has come into the city? But consider, that being without he will be much more corrupt. For he who is corrupt being within, will be much more so being without. For here he will be delivered from necessary care, his master taking that care upon himself; but there the concern about those things will draw him off perhaps even from things more necessary, and more spiritual. On this account the blessed Paul, when giving them the best counsel, said, “Art thou called, being a servant? care not for it: but if even thou mayest be made free, use it rather” (1 Cor. vii. 21.); that is, abide in slavery. But what is more important than all, that the word of God be not blasphemed, as he himself says in one of his Epistles. “Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and His doctrine be not blasphemed.” (1 Tim. vi. 1.) For the Gentiles also will say, that even one who is a slave can be well pleasing to God. But now many are reduced to the necessity of blasphemy, and of saying Christianity has been introduced into life for the subversion of everything, masters having their servants taken from them, and it is a matter of violence.
Let me also say one other thing. He teaches us not to be ashamed of our domestics, if they are virtuous. For if Paul, the most admirable of men, speaks thus much in favor of this one, much more should we speak favorably of ours. There being then so many good effects—and yet we have not mentioned all—does any one think it superfluous that this Epistle was inserted? And would not this be extreme folly? Let us then, I beseech you, apply to the Epistle written by the Apostle. For having gained already so many advantages from it, we shall gain more from the text.
[Note.—The views of the Fathers on Slavery and Emancipation were very conservative, as slavery was interwoven with the whole structure of the Roman empire and could not be suddenly abolished without a radical social revolution. But the spirit of Christianity always suggested and encouraged individual emancipation and the ultimate abolition of the institution by teaching the universal love of God, the common redemption and brotherhood of men, and the sacredness of personality. Comp. Bishop Lightfoot’s Commentary on Colossians and Philemon, and Schaff’s Church History, I. 793–798; II. 347–354; III. 115–122. Möhler, in his Vermischte Schriften, II. 896 sqq., has collected the views of St. Chrysostom on slavery, and says that since the time of the Apostle Paul no one has done more valuable service to slaves than St. Chrysostom.—P.S.]

## Footnotes

* ↑ B. and a Venice ms. read πιστῶν. Edd. πιστὴν, which applies to the household as one.
* ↑ πάντων ἕνεκεν. The phrase occurs again in a few lines, where it is translated, “on every account.”
* ↑ θαυμαστὸς as before.
* ↑ B. and Ven. here add, “And on this score forgive him everything. And so much for the argument. Now let us proceed to the solution of the questions. Inasmuch as some venture to say,” &c. and presently, “For I say not only this, that it was proper,…but add this also, that I wish.”
* ↑ He means in the Canon, as before by the word “annexed.”
* ↑ So B. and Ven. Edd. “where they sat and when they walked.”
* ↑ Lat. “landed,” but κατήχθησαν bears the other sense, and he means evidently, “in what part of the house.” B. and Ven. have, “I would not have been weary of relating.”
* ↑ B. and Ven. ἐρωτῶντας.
* ↑ So also he says on the place, and Theodoret too, although he calls it a hyperbole. Εἰ καὶ is properly “if even,” but the καὶ may be taken with the following word, as “also”; see Kühner, § 824, anm. 1, who quotes Eur. Andr. 1080, and Xen. Mem. i. c. 6, § 12.
* ↑ τῆς ὑφῆς.