AGAINST THE BACKGROUND of our contemporary cultural values and assumptions, the so-called “household codes” in Paul’s letters to the Colossians and Ephesians are controversial and confusing. In his letter to the Galatians, he says that in Christ, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female” (Gal 3:28, NIV). And as we’ve seen, he says something similar in Colossians: “Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all” (Col 3:11). In God’s eyes, the walls of prejudice we’ve so easily taken for granted have been broken down; we are one in Christ, a new family made up of people of different backgrounds and levels of social status.

But then, in the household codes, Paul seems to reinforce the status quo. He tells wives to submit to their husbands; he tells children to obey their parents. Such were the patriarchal assumptions that already existed in Roman households, where the paterfamilias reigned with the kind of state-supported power and authority that smacks of authoritarian regimes. And Paul goes further, seemingly giving Roman slave owners carte blanche by commanding slaves to be obedient to their masters as well:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism. (Col 3:22-25)

It’s because of such passages that some question the authenticity of the letters to the Colossians and Ephesians: how could Paul speak out of both sides of his mouth? How could he give such a vibrant picture of equality, then leave the often brutal hierarchy intact? If Paul did indeed write these words (and obviously, I am assuming that he did), how can we understand them without accusing him of inconsistency or hypocrisy?

Again, let’s consider the historical context. Slavery was everywhere in the Roman Empire, a fact of life in the society at large and in local households. Estimates vary, but it’s possible that slaves comprised as much as a fifth of the population overall, though the percentage may have been higher in the vicinity of Rome. They were a diverse group, and it was possible for slave owners and slaves to be of the same ethnicity. Some came from the ranks of conquered peoples; some were born into slavery; some were abandoned children; some had even sold themselves into slavery.

The situations of slaves also varied. Some were valued only for their manual labor, being assigned to backbreaking and dangerous work. Others were valued for their education and knowledge, and given important roles in the household, such as teaching the children of the paterfamilias. Some were treated with relative respect and others were treated as less than human. Some slaves who ran away hoped to find better masters rather than to escape slavery itself.

But all slaves were considered the property of the slave owner, and by Roman law, slave owners could pretty much do as they pleased.

That’s the larger context. But to my mind, there’s also a more local context. Paul’s letters to the Colossians, the Ephesians, and to his friend Philemon may all have been written at the same time. Philemon, apparently, was a well-to-do resident of Colossae who had a home spacious enough to host a house church. Paul wrote to him to advocate on behalf of a young man named Onesimus, one of Philemon’s slaves who had run away and by the grace of God encountered Paul and become a Christian.

We don’t know why Onesimus ran away. Some read verse 18 of Philemon as implying that Onesimus stole something from his master, but that’s far from certain. And from what Paul says in that letter, it seems unlikely that Philemon was a harsh master. Still, by Roman law, Onesimus was Philemon’s property, and Philemon had the right to beat or even execute him for his crime if he ever caught up with him.

He was about to catch up with him.

Picture the scenario. Onesimus encounters Paul in prison, possibly in Rome, possibly in Ephesus (I would lean toward the latter). The runaway slave becomes a Christian. Paul hears his story, realizes that he knows Onesimus’ master, Philemon, and knows that by law Philemon has Onesimus dead to rights. It was not unusual in Paul’s day for a third party to intervene as an advocate in such a conflict, and he does so by writing a letter.

And then…he sends Onesimus back to Colossae, back to Philemon, possibly with the letters to Philemon and the Colossians in hand.

If you were in Paul’s place, what would you put in those letters?

The instructions that Paul gives to slaves in Colossians don’t directly depend on the situation between Philemon and Onesimus. But I can’t imagine that situation not being uppermost in the Colossians’ minds — not if Onesimus brought or accompanied the letter itself, not if the letter was being read aloud during a house church meeting in Philemon’s home. That’s why, I think, Paul’s instructions to slaves are so much longer and more detailed than his instructions to wives and husbands, children and fathers.

Meanwhile, the personal letter written directly to Philemon is a master class in pastoral diplomacy. We won’t take the time here to explore it in detail. But for those of you who hate to leave a story unfinished, let me leave you with this.

Roughly fifty years after Paul wrote these letters, one of the main leaders and theologians of the early Christian church would be a man named Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, who may have been a disciple of the apostle John. Ignatius was executed in Rome for his faith. But on his way to Rome, Ignatius wrote a letter to the believers in Ephesus, thanking them for the love they showed him tangibly through their bishop. He urged the Ephesians to realize how blessed they were to have such a man as their bishop, and to seek to be like him.

The name of that bishop, the bishop of Ephesus, was Onesimus.

There’s no way to prove it was the same man, but if Paul was in fact imprisoned in Ephesus when he wrote the letters to Philemon and the Colossians, it makes sense. Philemon was convinced by Paul’s letter to graciously send Onesimus back to him in Ephesus, where the former slave found his calling and eventually became bishop of the church.

The moral of the story? Never underestimate what God might do.