ESB Book notes:
Titus is mentioned by name 13 times in the NT, including 9 times in 2 Cor.  This book and the two to Timothy are the "Pastoral Epistles".

Fairly uncontested that Paul wrote the letter.  Written between 62-64 AD.  The last mention we have of Titus is that he went to minister to Dalmatia - modern Yugoslavia.  Titus was probably also with Paul on his 2nd and 3rd journeys, so had some experience as a missionary.  This letter to Titus was probably delivered by Zenas and Apollos. 

Titus is never mentioned by Luke in Acts. We know, however, that Titus ministered with Paul in Crete, and was left there when Paul moved on.  Paul later invites Titus to join him in Nicopolis for the winter.  Titus is mentioned  9 times in 2Co, because he was there with Paul during the third missionary journey.  Titus was very familiar with the teaching of the Judaizers, and had gone with Paul and Barnabas to the Jerusalem Council where that was the subject.

Having left Titus in Crete as he had left Timothy in Ephesus, Paul goes on to Macedonia.  He likely wrote this letter in response to a letter from Titus, or a report he had gotten about Titus' work in Crete.

This book does not focus on explaining doctrine.  The lack of doctrinal teaching suggests both that Titus was well grounded in these subjects and that the believers in Crete were also sticking closely with established doctrine.  Some doctrines are affirmed in this short book, however, including God's sovereign election, saving grace, Christ's deity and second coming, substitutionary atonement, and regeneration and renewing of believers by the Holy Spirit. 

Chapter 1
Normal, standard, Pauline greeting.  The offering of prayers is skipped here, as it was in 1Timothy.  Vs 5 jumps right into the subject matter:
5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you-- [Tit 1:5 ESV]
Titus was left behind to get some things still undone "in order" and appoint elders.  These were to come from every town, not just within the church it seems.  
2021 - Could be there was only one church on the whole island, so it was best not to have all the elders from that one place where the church was.  Or it could be that there were several churches, and elders for each church should come not only from that one town but all towns served by that church.  Hadn't  noticed this before, but it would make sense where churches are rare - and not two or three per block as we have here in the US - and people came from lots of surrounding towns to get there.

Qualifications are given for overseer, much like those given to Timothy in 1 Tim.  Included in "overseer" is the ability to give instruction in sound doctrine, and rebuke those who contradict it.  Overseers must be assertive if necessary.  Paul mentions that among those who might need rebuke are the Judaizers, who recruit and teach for their own reasons, not for advancement of the gospel.  Perhaps to claim Christians as Jewish proselytes?  

Cretans characterized as liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.  Paul says this is a true report of them.  They were to be rebuked sharply, not just rebuked.  This verse:
15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. [Tit 1:15 ESV]
Unbelievers are never credited with anything good at all.  Goes back to Ezekiel I think, where it talks at length about those last second conversions moving things they did as unbelievers - which the world probably called good but that God does not credit to unbelievers - from the "nothing" column to the good works column.  Think here of rich but unbelieving philanthropist, donating millions of dollars to orphans.  With God, this gets no credit, this is filthy rags, because they don't believe.  But a career criminal who once fed a starving dog gets credited for that at judgement if he later becomes a believer.

The consciences of unbelievers are defiled.  This seems to be about those who are teaching false doctrine within the church, not about unbelievers in general.  Professing believers who's works, whose lifestyle, who's teaching indicates that they are not believers at all.  Paul is not sympathetic to these because they at least come to church.  He calls them detestable, unfit for ANY good work.  The idea seems to be that if anything, they need to be rebuked and evangelized, but under no circumstances given any authority or responsibility among the believers.

2021 - This "question" comes up over and over again.  In many different NT books - I wonder if all those are Pauline books?  The question is, how are these people within all these churches moving up to positions of leadership if they are not truly saved?  How is it that the unsaved go right to the leadership positions and the truly saved are all in the audience listening to the false doctrine spewed out by the unsaved?   Or...and this is still the same question...are they really saved but just so shallow, or so saturated with remaining worldly ambition, that they assume these positions with the goal of advancing only themselves, and teaching what gets them the most traction?  Maybe they want lots of people looking to them as leaders so they can run for local judge?  Maybe they want to bring as many Christians into to line with the rules of the local synagogue that they can all "pass" as Jews, and so promote their own business enterprises into inclusion in the circle of local Jewish businessmen - which might well be a hugely lucrative thing to do.  How do we separate these?  I don't think this particular passage is about how to tell them apart, so I won't try and "read that into" this text.  BUT, is Paul tasking Titus here with silencing the saved who are still too worldly to lead, or silencing the unsaved who have been promoted one way or another to leadership position???  Which?  And what are the clues?
1.  We see the attitudes of the "noisy ones": Insubordinate - but to whom?  Anyone with authority over them in the church?
2. Empty talkers - As in their teaching really conveys no doctrine, no maturity?
3. Deceivers - this is about purposely, knowingly embracing what they know to be wrong.  No...this is purposely being untruthful in order to persuade others into wrong behavior.  
So each of these is an identifiable behavior...if you know the truth.  I doubt the insubordination would be public, where all could see it, but would have to be reported and investigated and determined to be true.  This is church discipline - but our churches nowadays don't pursue this much at all.  Would a preacher announce to the congregation that one of the deacons was being insubordinate to him?  Seems very unlikely.  If a church doesn't do this, it leaves the doors open to the insubordinate.  And if there were only the two of them present, then there's no reason to even bring the accusation.  How about the empty talkers?  Their whole Sunday School class may sing their praises - because the class is going to be full of the like-minded, who count it sufficient that they are attending church, but have no real ambition to learn and grow and advance and sacrifice and so on.  Do we need the Sunday School Superintendent to go and listen a few times - as happens with teachers in our public schools - and determine whether the teaching is all milk or has some meat to it?  I've never heard of a church doing this either, but it sure seems like it should be done.  And per this verse, the primary criteria should not be eloquence and popularity, but full vs empty.  But not just anyone can be the "listener" to these teachers.  And last, the deceivers.  Perhaps the most difficult of all in some cases, and very very easy in others.  For instance, a Sunday School teacher asking for money for himself because he is the ox trampling out the corn, is pretty obviously being deceptive about that verse.  What about a teacher who employs the people he teaches, and talks about how you are to work hard, no matter conditions or pay, for a brother that has hired you.  That is also pretty easy - IF someone recognizes it as wrong teaching and reports it per church discipline.  What if it is more subtle...What if the teacher came from another religion that believes emphatically that baptism is required for salvation, and they bear down on that with the scriptures that church used as proof of baptismal regeneration - the verse in this very letter - and so they "incite" a doctrinal dispute within the church.  And let's say they persist in this even after being warned by the pastor and elders about it?  If they persist, then they are both 3, and 1 aren't they?  So in each case, the noisy ones need to be identified, reported, and investigated to determine if there is a real problem.  There needs to be a known structure within the church for bringing concerns to the elders and pastor.  Even if the problem is with an elder or a pastor - in fact this is very likely to be the case.  So no teacher is above "inspection", no overseer is beyond being overseen by others.  It should be part and parcel in every church that the teachers are observed, and counseled by those in authority in the church - which would be the elders and the pastors.
Interesting that none of this really comes down to a determination of whether anyone is saved or unsaved.  It comes down to whether they are submissive to the leadership as a whole, whether they accept correction, whether they are "above review".  If we look at it this way, then we leave it to God to check the book for the name, and our focus is on what we can know - which is whether the saints are being provided for by those given office over them.  
And just one more topic here - In the church I attend, very much of the church's business is handled in committees, and I am sure only a small percentage of things are ever brought before the whole church.  Surely there is little or no real opportunity for all church discussion of most issues. All the "whole body" ever does is accept or reject the recommendation of a committee comprised of people they usually don't know and had no part in appointing to the committee.  It seems to me that those on these committees should be as much on the list of those who are to be "overseen" by the church as teachers are.  Their lives ought to be under constant scrutiny.  And...is this a good way to run a church, or is it just the "modern" way to run a church?  It probably gets decisions made faster and the decisions are more in accord with the top leadership's preferences.  And that doesn't seem wrong.
Also see comments on 3:9-11 below....

2024 - This verse:
15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. [Tit 1:15 ESV].  A bit paradoxical, but a profound truth also.  The saved sin, but remain pure.  All that we do is forgiven before it happens because Jesus paid for it and himself forgave it.  For the lost, even the best, highest, good deed is as lepers bandages. You cannot do a good thing in God's eyes while dancing on the body of His Son.  While considering Christ just an historical anomaly.  While thinking "Well thanks for dying for me, but since I didn't ask you to do that, I owe you nothing for it."  The way people see Christ is binary.  He is either all or nothing, yes, or no, white or black.  So many think they can make it on their own merit, because they are better than so many who are worse.  But this verse denies them that position, in so many words.  They are defiled, unclean, impure, and they will not get anywhere near a Holy God.

Moving on to chapter 2.  I thought this was going to be a short morning in 2021.  Not working out that way.

Chapter 2
Paul tells Titus to teach sound doctrine, and then talks about how older men and women are to behave.  Is this doctrine?  Or just general character traits that a Christian should exhibit depending on age?  

Look at the standard for "older men", but I presume older men who are not overseers,  Just church members.  Me, in fact.  "Sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness.  There is a real life application study for me, learning what all these words mean.
2021-2, The above is Vs 2 in ESV.  Below are other translations:
2 That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience. [Tit 2:2 KJV]
2 Older men are to be temperate, dignified, sensible, sound in faith, in love, in perseverance. [Tit 2:2 NASB95]
2 Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance. [Tit 2:2 NIV]
So here's how the words line up:
Sober-minded, sober, temperate, temperate
Dignified, grave, dignified, worthy of respect
Self-controlled, temperate, sensible, self-controlled
Sound in faith, sound in faith, sound in faith, sound in faith.  Guess there is very little wiggle room for this phrase!
Sound in love, sound in charity, sound in love, sound in love.  Same.
Sound in steadfastness, sound in patience, sound in perseverance, sound in endurance.

There follow instructions to older women, then to young men.  Titus seems to be included in the young men group, and is urged to live an exemplary life, beyond reproach.  Then bondservant behavior is discussed.  
This verse:
13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, [Tit 2:13 ESV]
Jesus referred to as both God and Savior.  Not an expert, but I don't see the article in front of either word.  
2021 - Perhaps "our" serves as the definite article in this  verse?  KJV puts it in front of God (see KJV translation below).  The Interlinear has a separate indicator in front of each word.  In front of God it calls the indicator a "phrase", and the word is Strongs G3173, transliterated "megas".  But megas is an adjective meaning great.  The KJV definite article is not technically there.  "of great God" is a more literal translation.  But apparently some put in the and some put in our to make it read more smoothly.  The word translated God is theos, used 1343 times in the KJV, and 1320 of those are the upper case God.   ESV does it all differently.  Note how it reads:  "...the appearing of the glory of...", not the appearing of God and Jesus themselves.  So much to be unraveled...
13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ; [Tit 2:13 KJV]

In 14, we see that Jesus redeemed us, to purify us for himself.  We are his possession.  I hadn't thought of redemption this way before.  We were purchased from a previous master - our sin - and so freed from that, but the redeemer now owns us.  We are not free to do as we like, but are now beholden in every way to the one who bought us and so saved us from death.  The redemption - which was voluntary on his part, not required by him - saved us from inevitable death under our former master who had no care for us at all.

In 15, Paul urges Titus to "exhort and rebuke".  Perhaps this "rebuke them" is repeated often because Titus was not very confrontational (I don't think Timothy was either, and both of them were apparently quite young), or perhaps because the Cretans were as described in chapter 1 and need constant "prodding".

Chapter 3
1 Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, [Tit 3:1 ESV]

2023 - Remember that these rulers and authorities were in Crete, where Paul had left Titus.  I am not sure they were under local rule, a governor appointed by Rome, or perhaps even a Centurion backed by a garrison of soldiers. Whomever it was, the Christians there were to submit to their government.

We are to speak evil of no one.  No one at all.  There don't seem to be exceptions.

2021 - In fact there is another whole list here of how those who are submissive to God are to behave in the world.  Here are both those verses:
1 Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, 2 to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. [Tit 3:1-2 ESV]
There is a TCV topic, Evil Speaking, 3304, that I think I would like to follow from start to finish in the Bible.  I have never really used my TCV as the tool it is intended to be in Bible study.  This would be a good place to start.  What is meant by evil speaking?  Is sarcasm included?  Can I say "That guy drives like a moron", or worse, "That guy's a moron", because it says "of NO ONE", not just of those we truly have information about.  These are only two short verses, but my my my how much ground is covered!  Maybe even a FB post for next Thursday.

And right after we are given this "difficult" set of commands, our reaction is anticipated - our pride and arrogance in our saved condition, and Paul says this:
3 For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. [Tit 3:3 ESV]
There are those four fingers pointing backwards again.  Paul says "we".  He's included in the group that used to be like this.  If he is, then we are.  What a world to live in - hated, and hating.  That's where the lost live.  That is their day, every day, no matter how disguised inside popularity, riches, fame, and so on.  Inside, it is all hating and being hated.  Kind of gives all those "haters gonna hate" memes a different slant doesn't it?  Another possible FB post.

2022 - This might be a good verse to express what I've been reading in the book Dwight gave me...It's opened up a door to some things I have been doing so so very wrong, and accusing others of it as if I'm not guilty. Why are Christians supposed to forgive, to overlook, to reply graciously to insults? What I am guilty of doing is, plain and simple, judging other people.  When I hear someone that I know isn't perfect themselves gossip about someone else or hear someone rationalize doing the wrong thing because it is what they WANT to do, I set myself up as judge and jury and decide "Well.  Gossip is a sin and in this case so very hypocritical, and that person really needs to do some repenting - I mean, they don't even recognize what a hypocrite they're being!  Or I say, well, I'm never going to trust that person again because they are going to put themselves first, even if they have to completely disregard logic and published facts to do it.  And then there is vs 3, just above.  "...we ourselves were once...".  And we still are, truth be told, and least I am.  
Why should we give to those beggars at the street corners when there are help wanted signs everywhere, all they have to do is apply?  I bet if I offered that guy 4 hour's work he'd turn me down.  And he might.  How many times did we turn down the offer of salvation to our absolutely corrupt and undeserving selves before we accepted?  Is it so different?  God offers salvation to the good and the bad.  Good doesn't earn it, bad doesn't disqualify it.  In point of fact, those farthest from the light are more likely to seek it than those who can see it peeping above their horizon.  If all is well, we are unlikely to look for help.  Jesus died for friend and enemy alike.  He gave to the disciples and the tax collectors in equal measure.  He offered salvation to lepers and Pharisees.   And see also vs 5 below.  Not because of works, but according to HIS mercy.
I have a lot to work on.

These important verses about what salvation does:
4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, [Tit 3:4-6 ESV]
We had nothing to do with it.  It was up to him.  As translated, it is THE washing.  No article is used for renewal.  Were both done by the Holy Spirit, or just the renewal?  As I read the interlinear, neither actually has the article as a separate word.  This too would be a good study...
MSB is pretty direct that the washing is in fact regeneration - not water - and that the Spirit is the agent of the washing - not water.  Surely this is based on water not having any power at all to turn a heart of stone to a heart of flesh.  That is "My Spirit" that does that.  So if we take that OT reference to this "change" in believers, it cannot be about baptism.  An interesting xref to this usage is Eph. 5: 26:
26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, [Eph 5:26 ESV]   Can we use the same "rule of interpretation" in 5:26 that we are requiring of Titus 3:5 and still make sense both places?  Ephesians actually uses the word water, but is about the word.  
2021 - The proof that this is not about water baptism is in just reading what the point is, as shown in vs 5.  He saved us, not by ANYTHING we did to earn it, not by any work at all, not even by submission to water baptism, but according to His mercy.  I do not know why these words are not capitalized in the ESV.  Here is how it should be...per GTP:
5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, [Tit 3:5 NKJV]  NKJV seems to stand alone in the use of capitalization here.  Perhaps because the words being translated are "autos" and "sozos" and not "theos" in either situation.  And I'm not sure arguing that they shouldn't be capitalized makes points for arguing that it is not God in view here.

8 "The saying is trustworthy..."  This is like the third time in this book that Paul has used this phrase of some statement he made.  
Look at the rest of this passage though...
8 The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people. [Tit 3:8 ESV].  Being GOOD to others, without regard to merit, is excellent and profitable!   This saying is trustworthy, which means "Carve this one in granite".

2021 - This verse:
9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. 10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned. [Tit 3:9-11 ESV]
This likely points back at the verses in 1:15.  Perhaps some additional detail on how often they are to be confronted.  Confrontation is not ongoing.  Twice, then done.
2021-2,  Quarrels "about the law" are unprofitable and worthless.  All in the list are, but it is interesting that he did not say quarrels about the Psalms, or quarrels about the Major Prophets.  Only the law is mentioned.  I don't think though, that it would be fair to say only the things in this list are to be avoided.  There was also a list for Timothy.  
2021-2, I looked for a list, but didn't really find one as we have here.  I found these, though, just not in list form:
7 Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness; [1Ti 4:7 ESV]
23 Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. [2Ti 2:23 ESV]
These are the only two along these lines that I found, the rest of the admonitions to Timothy being more about a preacher's duties than general commands.  So Titus receives the longer list.  It is interesting that Titus is also overseeing a church, and charged with keeping them doctrinally sound - just as Timothy was - though perhaps Titus is older and not the favorite that Timothy is.  So it could be that Paul had received specific information that the list in vs 9 was causing problems in Crete.  Even so, it is a good list for us about what is to be avoided.

2021-2, this verse:
10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, [Tit 3:10 ESV]
I have never heard of a church doing this.  How many such commands are there in the NT, directed specifically at the "shepherd" let's say, and they are never used today.  This seems to give the preacher - not a committee of elders or deacons - both the responsibility and the authority to warn divisive members and if ignored, to sort of "Wash their hands of them".  It doesn't say excommunicate them, it doesn't say this is church action, but "preacher" action.   How in the world would this play out.
Pulling out all the disciplinary instructions given to the church in the NT would make a very interesting study.
I don't think we are to be tattle tales on each other.  Neither do I think we are to ignore sin in our fellow church members and leave it to the deacons  or elders to both notice and correct.  I think the NT teaches that church discipline starts with individual members confronting sin when they see it.  But my oh my how difficult it is when we ourselves have to go up to someone and say "Ma'am, your shorts are too short for church."  Would any of us do that?  Or how about "Sir, I saw you touching the young girls in your class, and that has to stop."  Would we do that?  Just where is our "line", beyond which we will not let others go without confronting them?  I am firm that if it is not a big enough deal to you to overcome your fear of confrontation or repercussions, then you have no business mentioning it to anyone else.  Unless...what if it is to check yourself.  Is it possible for two women to discuss the attire of a third, with the idea that if they agree, then they will together go and confront that third woman.  Hmm...This would make it a lot easier, I think, to confront such a thing.  And also for the guy touching the girls inappropriately.  If two observe it, and two agree that it was too much, how much easier for two people to confront than one.  As I read the instructions, the one is to go first, and if rebuffed, then and only then do two or three go.  I need to move on though, got pretty side-tracked here.  Church discipline is sort of a favorite subject of mine.  

Titus is given just about the same instructions about things to avoid as Paul gave Tim in 1Tim.  Avoid foolish controversies.  Don't argue about things that don't matter anyway.  Quarrels about the law are mentioned specifically.  Why argue about the law since the law is no more anyway?  Those who are divisive were to get 2 warnings, and then be ignored completely.  That would be confrontational...

12 When I send Artemas or Tychicus to you, do your best to come to me at Nicopolis, for I have decided to spend the winter there. [Tit 3:12 ESV]  Paul is obviously not writing this letter from prison.  So it must have been written either before prison in Rome, or during the implied release between his first and last imprisonment there.  It is this second that the Chronological assumes - because of where it is placed in the chronology.  If we go this way with our thinking, then we must assume that 2 Tim was written during Paul's second and final imprisonment.  I further note that Nicopolis is not on any of the missionary routes Paul took.  It is not even on the maps.  BUT, if you look it up in Strong's, there were many cities with this name, since it means "City of Victory".  Every conqueror there was seems to have renamed the conquered city Nicopolis.  So for the argument above to carry real weight, you need to locate them all, and see if ANY of them could have been visited on a missionary journey.

MSB Book Notes on Philemon:
This letter is specifically to an individual, named Philemon.  The church at Colosse met in his house.  So how big could it have been???

Very little controversy over who wrote this book.  There is nothing in the book that a forger could have profited by, so why would it be a forgery?  Early church fathers recognized it as a letter from Paul.  These "fathers" are different than what I am used to seeing.  Their names are Jerome, Chrysostom, and Theodore of Mopsuestia.  I've heard of Jerome, but the others not at all.

Much of what is said about this letter has already been covered in the intro to Colossians.  There is this statement in the MSB which is very striking:
"The NT nowhere directly attacks slavery;  had it done so, the resulting slave insurrections would have been brutally suppressed and the message of the gospel hopelessly confused with that of social reform.  Instead, Christianity undermined the evils of slavery by changing the hearts of slaves and masters.  By stressing the spiritual equality of master and slave (long list of references), the Bible did away with slavery's abuses.

Turning to the book...
In addition to Philemon as a recipient, Apphia, Archippus, and "the church in your house" are named.  (2021 - Here is that phrase again!  In your house.  Where exactly does Philemon live?  Are there multiple churches in Colossi or are they well outside the city???  There is a short note in MSB about it, and it helps not one bit.)  So Paul's appeal for Philemon to forgive Onesimus was to be seen and read by others.  A little peer pressure for him to set a good example, as it was in his own home that the church was meeting.  Since this church met in Philemon's house, was he the preacher?  If so, was Nympha the preacher in her house back in Col 4:15?

In Paul's words, though he could order Philemon to forgive Onesimus, he chooses instead to appeal on behalf of Onesimus, and leave the final decision to Philemon.  Under Roman law, technically, Philemon could do about whatever he cared to do to Onesimus.  Paul calls Onesimus "his very heart".  Apparently Onesimus had become almost indispensable to Paul.

Paul says that whatever Onesimus stole from Philemon when he ran away, he, Paul, will repay in full.  Paul also says he wants to come and spend time with Philemon, should he be released from imprisonment in Rome.  This is interesting, because I don't believe the two had met.  Epaphrus was from Colosse, and it seems he was saved in Ephesus under Paul's preaching.  Epaphrus took the gospel back to Colosse, and there Philemon was apparently saved, and offered his house as a meeting place for the young church there.

And that's it.  The MSB notes are longer than the book itself...

2021-2 - Everything below is from 2021-2.
Vs 1:  1 Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, To Philemon our beloved fellow worker [Phm 1:1 ESV].  So Paul is in prison and Timothy is with him.  That would seem to indicate that this is written on Paul's second imprisonment, and not that last one from which he is never freed.  Timothy, so far as we know, did not go to see Paul that last time, though Paul pleaded for him to come.  So this is before that.  The MSB intro refers us to the introductions of other books to see when Philemon was written, but basically, it was during the same imprisonment that Paul wrote Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians.  So not that last one where he wrote to Timothy.  The date given is somewhere between AD 60-62.

We say this is written to an individual, and the content certainly makes it a personal letter.  But in his "address line", Paul includes not only two other people, but also the whole church there in Philemon's house.
2023 - I am not sure the church is in Philemon's home.  As I read it today, in 2023, it looks like the church was in Archippus' home.  The Greek may indicate otherwise in ways not obvious in English, but in English, it is quite easy to say that the church is not in Philemon's home at all.

This verse:
12 I am sending him back to you, sending my very heart. [Phm 1:1, 12 ESV].  His very heart.  Surely Onesimus had become a great supporter of Paul.  In what way?  Was Paul saying Onesimus was the best slave ever?  Surly not that.  I think more likely Onesimus had shown himself to be a gifted student of Paul's teaching, a quick learner, and with great discernment.  I think that because of that, Paul saw great potential in Onesimus as a teacher in the church...but not until he cleared up the problem of his past that was hanging over his head.  Philemon could rightly prevent Onesimus' even going to church, much less teaching.  And imagine the change of attitude Philemon would need to have.  This slave stole from Philemon's house to finance his escape.  He's been gone for some time.  And Paul is asking Philemon not only to take him back without repercussions, but to embrace him as a brother and fellow Christian.

The book closes without us knowing how all this turned out...