Albert Barnes Commentary Philemon 1:16

"no longer as a servant, but more than a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much rather to thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord." — Philemon 1:16 (ASV)

Not now as a servant. The adverb rendered "not now" (ouketi) means no more, no further, no longer. It implies that he had been in this condition before, but was not to be now.

Compare Matthew 19:6, They are no more twain. They were once so, but they are not to be regarded as such now. In Matthew 22:46, Neither dared any man from that day forth, ask him any more questions. They once did it, but now they did not dare to do it. In Luke 15:19, And am no more worthy to be called thy son, though I once was. In John 6:66, And walked no more with him, though they once did. (John 14:19; John 17:11; Acts 8:39; Galatians 4:7; Ephesians 2:19).

This passage, then, proves that he had been a servant before—doulov—doulos. However, it is still not certain what kind of servant he was. The word does not necessarily mean slave, nor can it be proved from this passage, or from any other part of the epistle, that he was at any time a slave. (See Barnes on Ephesians 6:5; compare also Barnes on 1 Timothy 6:1).

The word denotes servant of any kind, and it should never be assumed that those to whom it was applied were slaves. It is true that slavery existed in the pagan nations when the gospel was first preached, and it is doubtless true that many slaves were converted (see Barnes on 1 Corinthians 7:21); but the mere use of the word does not necessarily prove that the one to whom it is applied was a slave.

If Onesimus were a slave, there is reason to think that he was of a most respectable character (compare Barnes on Colossians 4:9). Indeed, all that is implied in the use of the term here, and all that is said of him, would be met by the supposition that he was a voluntary servant and that he had, in fact, been entrusted with important business by Philemon. It would seem from Philemon 1:18 (or oweth thee aught), that he was in a condition that made it possible for him to hold property, or at least to be entrusted with it.

But above a servant, a brother beloved. This means a Christian brother. (Compare Notes, 1 Timothy 6:2). He was especially dear to Paul himself as a Christian, and Paul trusted that he would be so to Philemon.

Specially to me. That is, Paul felt a special or particular interest in him and affection for him. He felt this not only because of the character traits Onesimus had shown since his conversion, but also because he had been converted through Paul’s ministry when Paul was a prisoner. A convert made in such circumstances would be particularly dear to someone.

But how much more unto thee. Why, it may be asked, would he then be particularly dear to Philemon? I answer, because:

1. Of the former relation he had with him—as a member of his own family and bound to him by strong ties.
2. Because Philemon would receive him as a penitent and would have joy in his returning from the error of his ways.
3. Because Philemon might expect him to remain long with him and be a benefit to him as a Christian brother.
4. Because he had voluntarily returned and thus shown that he felt a strong attachment to his former master.

In the flesh. This phrase is properly used in reference to any relation that may exist pertaining to the present world, as contrasted with that which is formed primarily by religion, and which would be expressed by the phrase that follows, "in the Lord."

It might, in itself, refer to any natural relation of blood, or to any formed in business, or to any constituted by mere friendship, or to family alliance, or to any relation having its origin in voluntary or involuntary servitude. It is not necessary to suppose, in order to meet the full force of the expression, either that Onesimus had been a slave or that he would continue to be regarded as such. Whatever relation of the kind mentioned above may have existed between him and Philemon would be appropriately denoted by this phrase.

The new and more interesting relation which they were now to sustain to each other, formed by religion, is expressed by the phrase "in the Lord." In both these, Paul hoped that Onesimus would manifest the appropriate spirit of a Christian and be worthy of Philemon's entire confidence.

In the Lord. As a Christian. He will be greatly endeared to your heart as a consistent and worthy follower of the Lord Jesus.

On this important verse, then, in relation to the use which is so often made of this epistle by advocates of slavery to show that Paul sanctioned it, and that it is a duty to send back those who have escaped from their masters so that they may again be held in bondage, we may remark:

1. There is no certain evidence that Onesimus was ever a slave at all. All the proof that he was is to be found in the word doulov—doulos—in this verse. But, as we have seen, the mere use of this word by no means proves that. All that is necessarily implied by it is that he was in some way the servant of Philemon—whether hired or bought cannot be shown.
2. At all events, even supposing that he had been a slave, Paul did not mean that he should return as such, or to be regarded as such. He meant, whatever may have been his former relation, and whatever subsequent relation he might have, that he should be regarded as a beloved Christian brother; that the leading conception regarding him should be that he was a fellow heir of salvation, a member of the same redeemed church, a candidate for the same heaven.
3. Paul did not send him back in order that he might be a slave, or with a view that the shackles of servitude should be riveted on him. There is not the slightest evidence that he forced him to return, or that he advised him to do it, or even that he expressed a wish that he would. When he did send him, it was not as a slave, but as a beloved brother in the Lord. It cannot be shown that the motive for sending him back was, in the slightest degree, that he should be a slave. No such thing is intimated, nor is any such thing necessary to be supposed for a fair interpretation of the passage.
4. It is clear that, even if Onesimus had been a slave before, it would have been contrary to Paul's wishes that Philemon should now hold him as such. Paul wished him to regard him "not as a servant," but as a "beloved brother." If Philemon complied with his wishes, Onesimus was never afterwards regarded or treated as a slave. If he did so regard or treat him, it was contrary to the expressed intention of the apostle, and it is certain that he could never have shown this letter in justification of it. It cannot fail to strike anyone that if Philemon followed the spirit of this epistle, he would not consider Onesimus to be a slave. However, if he had the relation of a servant at all, it would be as a voluntary member of his household, where, in all respects, he would be regarded and treated not as a "chattel," or a "thing," but as a Christian brother.
5. This passage, therefore, may be regarded as full proof that it is not right to send a slave back, against his will, to his former master to be a slave. It is right to help someone if he wishes to go back, to give him a letter to his master (as Paul did to Onesimus), to furnish him money to help him on his journey if he desires to return, and to commend him as a Christian brother if he is such; but beyond that, the example of the apostle Paul does not go. It is perfectly clear that Paul would not have sent him back to be regarded and treated as a slave. But being able to commend him as a Christian, Paul was willing to do it, and he expected that Onesimus would be treated not as a slave, but as a Christian. The case before us does not at all prove that Paul would have ever sent him back to be a chattel or a thing. If, with his own consent and by his own wish, we can send a slave back to his master to be treated as a Christian and as a man, Paul's example may show that it would be right to do it, but it does not go beyond that.
6. In confirmation of this, and as a guide in duty now, it may be observed that Paul had been educated as a Hebrew. He was thoroughly imbued with the doctrines of the Old Testament, and one of the elementary principles of that system of religion was that a runaway slave was in no circumstances to be returned by force to his former master: Thou shalt NOT deliver unto his master the servant that is escaped from his master unto thee (Deuteronomy 23:15). It cannot be supposed that, trained as he was in the principles of the Hebrew religion—of which this was a positive and unrepealed law—and imbued with the benevolent spirit of the gospel (a system so hostile to oppression), the apostle Paul would have constrained a slave who had escaped from bondage to return to servitude against his will.
7. It may be added that if the principles Paul acted on here were carried out, slavery would speedily cease in the world. Very soon it would come to an end if masters were to regard those whom they hold "not as slaves," but as beloved Christian brothers; not as chattels and things, but as the redeemed children of God. Thus regarding them, they would no longer feel that they might chain them, task them, and sell them as property. They would feel that, as Christians and as men, they were on a level with themselves, and that those who were made in the image of God and who had been redeemed with the blood of his Son ought to be FREE.