Paul's Letter To Philemon: Slavery Debates From The Bible

While Old Testament passages such as Leviticus 25:44-46 and Exodus 21:20 were at the center of the biblical slavery debates, several passages from the New Testament also played an important role in those debates. Perhaps the most widely quoted and famous text from the New Testament that made its way into the antebellum, biblical slavery debates was Paul’s Letter to Philemon. Paul’s Letter to Philemon was seen by pro slavery advocates as the story of Paul returning a fugitive slave to his master. Based upon this antebellum understanding of Philemon, southerners argued that the Bible confirmed the validity of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 and more generally slavery itself. Southerners believed they were justified in using Philemon to sanction

the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 and slavery itself because “Paul sent Onesimus back to his master” and did not “question the master’s right to his slave.” In contrast to the southern, pro-slavery reading of Philemon, abolitionists argued that in Philemon Paul did not sanction the return of a fugitive slave to his master. Instead, they asserted that the relationship between Philemon and Onesimus was unclear in the story and offered an alternative interpretation of the relationship.

They concluded that Onesimus was Philemon’s debtor, rather than his slave, since verse eighteen of Philemon implies that Onesimus owed Philemon a debt. Based on the lack of clarity concerning the relationship between Philemon and Onesimus and the evidence that suggested Onesimus was a debtor, abolitionists concluded that Paul’s letter to Philemon was not relevant to the fugitive slave law debate. In effect, southerners were using a letter which did not detail the return of a fugitive slave to his master to sanction a law which called for the return of a fugitive slave to his master. Paul’s letter to Philemon and the Fugitive Slave Law were

dissimilar. In addition to pointing out the lack of clarity concerning the relationship of Onesimus to Philemon, abolitionist’s also pointed out that Paul’s words and actions seemed to call for leniency in the treatment of fugitive slaves which was in marked contrast to the treatment fugitive slaves received in the South. Based on this line of reasoning, abolitionists argued that Paul’s letter to Philemon did not sanction southern slavery. The systems of biblical slavery and southern slavery were distinct in respect to the treatment of fugitive slaves. Through a critical assessment of the pro-slavery and anti-slavery argument concerning Paul’s Letter to Philemon, a study of Roman law-practice concerning fugitive slaves, a study of southern law-practice concerning fugitive slaves, and an examination of contemporary biblical scholarship concerning Paul’s letter to Philemon, it will be seen that southerners were not unquestionably justified in using Paul’s Letter to Philemon and the Bible to sanction slavery as it was practiced in the American South.
Before addressing the pro-slavery and abolitionist arguments that were made based on Paul’s Letter to Philemon, it is necessary to have a basic understanding of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. In the fall of 1850, President Millard Fillmore signed into law the strictest measure ever taken against fugitive slaves in the United States. Known simply as the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, it was signed into law as part of a larger compromise that sought to forestall a growing sectional crisis that was brewing over slavery in the United States. In the words of scholar Paul Finkelman, this fugitive slave law legally enabled slavery, “to reach into any state to retrieve those accused of fleeing from bondage.” The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 stated the following:
“And be it further enacted, That when a person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the United States, has heretofore or shall hereafter escape into another State or Territory of the United States, the person or persons to whom such service or labor may be due, or his, her, or their agent or attorney, duly authorized, by power of attorney, in writing, acknowledged and certified under the seal of some legal officer or court of the State or Territory in which the same may be executed, may pursue and reclaim such fugitive person, either by procuring a warrant from some one of the courts, judges, or commissioners aforesaid, of the proper circuit, district, or county, for the apprehension of such fugitive from service or labor, or by seizing and arresting such fugitive, where the same can be done without process, and by taking, or causing such person to be taken, forthwith before such court, judge, or commissioner, whose duty it shall be to hear and determine the case of such claimant in a summary manner; and upon satisfactory proof being made…that the person so arrested does in fact owe service or labor to the person or persons claiming him or her, in the State or Territory from which such fugitive may have escaped as aforesaid and that said person escaped, to make out and deliver to such claimant, his or her agent or attorney, a certificate setting forth the substantial facts as to the service or labor due from such fugitive to the claimant, and of his or her escape from the State or Territory in which he or she was arrested, with authority to such claimant, or his or her agent or attorney, to use such reasonable force and restraint as may be necessary, under the circumstances of the case, to take and remove such fugitive person back to the State or Territory whence he or she may have escaped as aforesaid.”

In short, those acting as commissioners of federal circuit courts, or those who were acting under the authority of the federal superior court in the territories, were granted the power to issue warrants under which an African American could be taken prisoner, held, and handed over to one who claimed that the prisoner was a runaway slave and could subsequently back up his claim with convincing evidence that he was in fact a runaway slave. A slave owner could prove ownership of a fugitive slave by putting forth an affidavit from a court that was located within his home state. This affidavit contained a physical description of the slave who had run away. If the description matched that of the prisoner, the federal commissioner would allow the claimant to take custody of the prisoner and remove him back to the state from which he had fled. In addition, the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 also denied accused fugitives any right to speak in their defense and imposed stiff penalties for those who inhibited persons from reclaiming their fugitive slaves. While the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793 had enabled slaveholders to legally recover fugitive slaves in any part of the country, the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 enhanced their legal ability to reclaim their fugitive slaves by undermining any and all state efforts to protect the freedom of an accused fugitive.
In the aftermath of the passage of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, it did not take long for southerners and northern sympathizers to begin searching for biblical justifications for the law. In fact, even prior to the passage of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, southerners were using Philemon to argue that the Bible sanctioned the return of fugitive slaves as justification for the earlier Fugitive Slave Law of 1793. As early as 1838, The Southern Literary Messenger stated that, “the apostle himself felt bound to sustain the authority of the master over the slave…that he might show that in right and justice fugitive slaves should be returned to their masters.” Though some publications such as The Southern Literary Messenger would argue that the Bible sanctioned the return of fugitive slaves to uphold the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793, much of the literature that supported the return of fugitive slaves would arise following the passage of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850.
The southern, pro-slavery argument from Philemon in support of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 is exemplified by the writings of a minister named Nathaniel Sheldon Wheaton.

Though a northerner, Wheaton was very sympathetic towards southern slavery. In his 1860 sermon titled, A Discourse on St. Paul’s Epistle to Philemon; Exhibiting the Duty of Citizens of the Northern States in Regard to the Institution of Slavery, Wheaton argued that Philemon sanctioned the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. According to Wheaton, “The law which reclaims the fugitive slave…demands no more than St. Paul thought it his duty to do in parallel case.” In essence, since Paul returned the fugitive slave Onesimus to his master, northerners were obligated to return fugitive slaves to their southern masters. To be fair, Wheaton did note one distinction that he believed existed between the circumstances that surrounded Paul’s return of a fugitive slave and the circumstances that surrounded northerners’ return of fugitive slaves. Quite simply, Paul had no legal constraints placed upon him. According to Wheaton, Paul “acted under no constraint of civil law.” Wheaton believed this to be the case because of Paul’s use of the words, “whom I would have retained with me.” For Wheaton, then, in returning Onesimus to Philemon Paul was willing to obey what he understood to be “the law of Christ and of justice towards a fellow Christian.” This is because he returned Onesimus under no legal constraint. Based on this

reasoning, were northerners not obliged to return fugitive slaves when they were compelled to do so by civil law as well as the law of Christ? Ultimately, in Wheaton’s eyes Paul’s actions in Philemon called for nothing less than northerners complying with the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 and returning escaped slaves to southerners.
In response to pro-slavery arguments such as those which were crafted by Nathaniel Wheaton, abolitionists would argue that Philemon did not sanction the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. As noted in the introduction of this chapter, abolitionists would assert that the relationship between Philemon and Onesimus was not entirely clear in Paul’s letter. They offered alternative explanations to elucidate their relationship. Typically, they suggested that Onesimus was Philemon’s debtor. Given the lack of clarity concerning these two men’s relationship coupled with the fact that the language of Philemon suggested Onesimus was Philemon’s debtor, these abolitionists argued that Philemon did not sanction the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. How could it if Philemon did not even concern the return of a fugitive slave? The Reverend Kazlitt Arvine