Some Christians present themselves just as these pure and clean holy people without any desires or lustful thoughts. I am afraid I must quickly say that this is simply not true. I believe that we are fully sexual beings, that God created us as man and woman with a sharp distinction, that God had sex in mind when he created us and it is good.

Sex is truly a huge thing in a life of every person and it is important that we see it as it really is; that we understand it and we delight in it correctly. So shall we take a look at what Bible really says about sex altogether? The first step I would encourage you to take is that when searching for some answers in connection to this, stop searching for the word “sex” and type in “all things” as “sex” is after all a subset of “all things“…

• Sex is created by God (“by him all things were created”—Col. 1:16).
• Sex continues to exist by the will of Christ (“in him all things hold together”—Col. 1:17)
• Sex is caused by God (he “works all things according to the counsel of his will”—Eph. 1:11).
• Sex is subject to Christ (“he put all things under his feet”— Eph. 1:22).
• Christ is making sex new (“Behold, I am making all things new”—Rev. 21:5).
• Sex is good (“everything created by God is good”—1 Tim. 4:4).
• Sex is lawful in the context of marriage (“all things are lawful”—1 Cor. 10:23).
• When we have sex, we are to do it for the glory of God (“whatever you do, do all to the glory of God”—1 Cor. 10:31).
• Sex works together for the good of God’s children (“for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose”—Rom. 8:28).
• We are to thank God for sex (“nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving”—1 Tim. 4:4).
• Sex is to be sanctified by the Word of God and prayer (“every-thing . . . is made holy by the word of God and prayer”— 1 Tim. 4:4-5).
• We must be on guard not to be enslaved by sex (“I will not be enslaved by anything”—1 Cor. 6:12).
• We are not to grumble about sex (“do all things without grumbling”—Phil. 2:14).
• We are to rejoice in the Lord during sex (“rejoice in the Lord always”—Phil. 4:4).
• We are to be content in sex (“having all contentment in all things at all times”—2 Cor. 9:8 mg.).
• We are to practice and pursue sexual relations in holiness and honor (“each one of you [is to] know how to control his own body [KJV: “possess his vessel”; RSV: “take a wife for himself”] in holiness and honor”—1 Thess. 4:4).
• Spouses are not to “deprive one another [sexually], except perhaps by agreement for a limited time,” that they might devote themselves to prayer (1 Cor. 7:5).
• But then they are commanded to “come together again [sexually], so that Satan may not tempt [them] because of [their] lack of self-control” (1 Cor. 7:5).
• In this fallen age, sex is both pure and impure—“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” (Titus 1:15).

Inspired by “Sex and the supremacy of Christ” by Piper J. & J. T., Taylor

The term “mission” cannot be found in the Bible even once, thus it is in place to ask ourselves: “Why is it that we so much focus on mission today?” I would suggest that although we lack the exact term, the idea or the concept of mission stretches across the entire Scriptures. Moreover I would add that mission objectives were always inclusive, not exclusive. In other words they always included all the people and not only Israel nation, even though Israel nation was the chosen nation in the focus of the Old Testament.

To be on the same page, I will again use the definition offered by Merriam Webster’s dictionary about mission: “a ministry commissioned by a religious organization to propagate its faith or carry on humanitarian work”

Mission in the Old Testament

After the flood we can find genealogies of all three brothers Japheth, Ham and Shem listed in Genesis 10. Even though the major enemies of Israel – Canaanites, Egyptians, Hittites or Philistines came out of Ham’s lineage, they yet appear here equally, for they were also included in God’s plan of salvation. In Genesis 12:1-3 (NIV), God said to Moses:

“…Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you. ² “I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great,and you will be a blessing. ³ I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”

Later Jeremiah is appointed to be a prophet over nations (Jer. 1:5-9) and Isaiah also prophesied over people of all nations (66:18-24). Furthermore Psalms refer to extent of God’s grace through worship (Ps. 67:1–2; 72:8, 17) and Solomon’s prayer includes seeking foreigners.

Mission in the New Testament

While Jesus’ ministry was mostly oriented on the Jews, he also ministered to others like Roman centurion (Mt. 8:5-13) or Samaritan woman at the well (Jn. 4). Yet His words to disciples are clear and unambiguous in all four Gospels and Acts, in which the entire world and people of all nations are included (Matt. 28:19–20; Mark 16:15–16; Luke 24:46–49; John 20:21–22; Acts 1:8). Secondly also Apostle Paul received a calling from God in a unique way with the same objective (Acts 26:16-18).

“Today not only in philosophy but in politics, government, and individual morality, our generation sees solutions in terms of synthesis and not absolutes. When this happens, truth, as people have always thought of truth, has died.”

Francis Schaeffer

John 1:1; 2. Timothy 3:16;

17.april (Tuesday)

William will give a lecture at Aalborg University on the topic of God and Evil.

18.april (Wednesday) 

Debate in Copenhagen with Mr. Klemens Kappel. (click to see the previous article, that shortly covered Kappel’ professional background)

It is not yet known where exactly in CPH, will this debate take place, but we will make sure to notify you as soon as we know it!

Do you believe that everything that is written in Bible is true?

…Give it a thought!

(If you would like to share your answer underneath the article, you are more than welcome!)

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 2:42; Luke 14:27;

Would be your life different without your faith? How?

…Give it a thought!

(If you would like to share your answer underneath the article, you are more than welcome!)

Reblogged from With All I Am:

A wonderfully and respectfully dressed young lady, Linda passing out the Watch Tower and & Awake Magazines met  Christian at a cafe. Christian: Why should I be a Jehovah’s Witness? Linda: Because you love Creator Jehovah God, you appreciate the great sacrifice he and his Son Jesus Christ made for you, because you long to see an end to all wickedness and suffering, and because you want to share the knowledge of that hope with others. Christian: Is that why you became a Jehovah’s Witness? Linda: Yes …

“Today Christians spend more money on dog food than missions.”

Leonard Ravenhill

Mark 16:15; I Chr. 16:23, 24; Acts 20:24;

Have you ever seriously doubted your faith? What was the main reason?

…Give it a thought!

(If you would like to share your answer underneath the article, you are more than welcome!)

When enemy poisons water of its opponent no matter how pure and clean it was before it cannot be used for anything, thus the opponent is handicapped or completely paralyzed and the enemy has a solid advantage.

This technique is often used to discredit speakers personality even before any real arguments are presented and thus it is rather pointed at an audience than at a speaker. For when listeners adopt negative attitude towards the speaker they often are more likely to rule out his answer as being the right one.

Let me attach also some other definitions:

“This sort of “reasoning” involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This “argument” has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of “reasoning” is obviously fallacious.” by Nizkor Project

“Anyone bold enough to enter a debate which begins with a well-poisoning either steps into an insult, or an attack upon one’s personal integrity. As with standard ad hominems, the debate is likely to cease to be about its nominal topic and become a debate about the arguer. However, what sets Poisoning the Well apart from the standard Ad Hominem is the fact that the poisoning is done before the opponent has a chance to make a case. Poisoning the Well is not, strictly speaking, a logical fallacy since it is not a type of argument. Rather, it is a logical boobytrap set by the poisoner to tempt the unwary audience into committing an ad hominem fallacy.” by FALLACY FILES

“Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).” by Wikipedia

Example: “CITY COUNCILMAN: The Mayor is a very good talker. Yes, talk he can do … and do very well. But when it comes time for action, that is a different matter.”

Now the mayor is in a very difficult position for if he remains silent it might seem he accepts council-mans criticism, on the other side if he starts talking and defending himself, then more he talks, more he appears to confirm the accusations.

This time I was again inspired to write this article from a real life (Internet) situation by a blogger called Francois Tremblay who insists, besides others, that all the anti-abortionists (pro-life ) that want to comment under his “pro-abortion series” must first answer this question under somewhat strict conditions (see here):

“What maximum number of women dead from botched back alley abortions per year under an anti-abortion scheme do you consider a fair and just tradeoff to prevent all abortions that would happen under a pro-abortion scheme?“

If this question remains unanswered or the response does not meet Francois’ requirements he says clearly, that you will be banned and ergo your comment won’t go through (which I could also experience on my own). Because this is not a completely classic form of well poisoning it must be said that Mr. Tremblay did a good job making it subtle and hidden, for in fact if someone wishes to enter the debate, he must poison his own well.

After my comment was banned I tried to show Mr. Tremblay the nature of his approach. At this point, I will leave it up to you to be the judge and decide how it went.

I wish you a pleasant reading.

(Model) Debate on Commenting rules for the pro-abortion series.

or “Poisoning the Well”

factorysense

I assume my comment was not accepted in “Introduction to the pro-abortion position.” so I will give a try over here .

Hello, I am pro-life (anti-abortion) and I’ve read your comment rule, however the question you are asking in terms of argumentation falls into category called “poison well”, which means that it is build in a way that suits you.

There is hardly someone that would say that it is “fair and just tradeoff” to kill X number of women “to prevent all abortions.” When we speak about human life there is hardly something like “fair and just tradeoff”, instead it can be called necessary evil that arises from the situation. (This would throw a slightly different light on my answer)

In the same way you could question other things e.g. “What maximum number of drug users dead from infected needles in back alleys per year under an anti-drug scheme do you consider a fair and just tradeoff to prevent all drug usage that would happen under a pro-drug scheme?”

The number here is not important; for it only makes the person who answers it look insensible. The laws in effect will always have “back alleys”, yet the alternatives could result in much worse consequences. Thus please understand why I will not give you and exact number since that would be too much of an oversimplification of this whole issue. While “women dead from botched back alley abortions” would be surely the necessary evil of such regulation, the current alternative is much worse (seeing life as something worth protecting).

Now I see that your position is probably founded in Antinatalism. As, perhaps this could be the root of all the divergence, please show us on what ground is Antinatalism the objective “default”?

I hope we will have here a discussion in a decent manner .

Francois Tremblay

 “Hello, I am pro-life (anti-abortion) and I’ve read your comment rule, however the question you are asking in terms of argumentation falls into category called “poison well”, which means that it is build in a way that suits you.”

 Of course it is built in a way which suits me. After all, I am the one building the argumentation, and therefore it suits me very well.

 “There is hardly someone that would say that it is “fair and just tradeoff” to kill X number of women “to prevent all abortions.” When we speak about human life there is hardly something like “fair and just tradeoff”, instead it can be called necessary evil that arises from the situation. (This would throw a slightly different light on my answer)”

 No matter what you call it, it is a factual consequence that women will die for any anti-abortion scheme that passes muster. Whether you think it is just or evil does not change the fact (and besides, calling something a “necessary evil” is an oxymoron: how can something evil be necessary?).

 “In the same way you could question other things e.g. “What maximum number of drug users dead from infected needles in back alleys per year under an anti-drug scheme do you consider a fair and just tradeoff to prevent all drug usage that would happen under a pro-drug scheme?””

 I think that’s a fair question, no? Whatever you call it, there are drug users that die every day from infected needles- in big Western cities, it is now the main vector of HIV transmission. I think that’s a pretty important ethical point to bring in the issue.

 “The number here is not important; for it only makes the person who answers it look insensible.”

 That is the problem of holding an insensible position, yes. How is that my problem?

 “The laws in effect will always have “back alleys”, yet the alternatives could result in much worse consequences.”

 Ah well let’s hear what you think are “worse consequences” than women dying.

 “Thus please understand why I will not give you and exact number since that would be too much of an oversimplification of this whole issue.”

 I am not asking you to give an EXACT number, just an approximation.

 “While “women dead from botched back alley abortions” would be surely the necessary evil of such regulation, the current alternative is much worse (seeing life as something worth protecting).”

 Ah yes, the old anti-woman screed that fetuses are more important than women’s lives. If that’s your idea of a counter-argument, sorry but no cigar. I don’t see that the alternative is worse at all. But anyway, one of the reasons why I ask this question is to show that anti-abortion people like you have no respect for actual people’s lives, and you’ve already proven that in your comment here, so nothing further is really necessary! You’ve already proven my point! Another reason was to make you think, but this, sadly, seems to have failed.

 “I hope we will have here a discussion in a decent manner .”

 This is the end of the discussion as far as I’m concerned. You’ve made my point eloquently. I don’t really see what else is left to say. As I said, in the abortion series you either follow the commenting rule or I can’t let your comments through; that’s all there is to it.

factorysense

For the first part, of course it is your right to build your argumentation on anything you want, however the nature of it will then reveal what are your intentions behind. If one wants to be fair and present only real arguments and valid thoughts in attempt to seek or be open for the truth he will surely avoid strategies of distraction like the “poison well” is, that only creates apparent advantage and those who do not recognize it are shabbily mislead.

Your second technique of argumentation to dismember individual parts from the whole again does not create an impression that you really are in fact seeking to answer my objections, for answering these stand alone statements (some taken out of paragraph) appears to be merely an effort of ridicule or another distraction which confuses the real answer. Thus If it is possible I would appreciate if you avoided this manner of responding for next time.

Thirdly, you based your entire concluding part of your comment on a mere assumption (“If that’s your idea of a counter-argument…”), that I hold an “anti-womans creed” (that fetuses are more important than womens lives). However if you read through my comment again, you will see that in fact I have not made a single statement where I would grant or unequivocally agree with this view. Therefore again, if I may politely ask you next time it would be beneficial for our discussion if you were slower to make your conclusions and perhaps ask me if something is unclear as I did before.

In fact, I believe you forgot to answer my question, so I attach it again:

“Now I see that your position is probably founded in Antinatalism. As, perhaps this could be the root of all the divergence, please show us on what ground is Antinatalism the objective “default?”

At last to elaborate a little more on the question of seeing life as something worth protecting, I see life of a woman and baby as equal. If this is considered to be a foundation for this issue then truly deaths of millions (babies) are worse consequence than the alternative. Not mentioning that a fetus or baby has never any other option in this debate whatsoever, while many woman would have at least two (decision to be sexually active [considering the possible consequences] & voluntarily going under known risk of botched back alley abortion).

Just to have a look how it could look reversely…

What maximum number of babies dead from abortions per year under a free abortion scheme do you consider a fair and just trade off to prevent some women dying from botched back alley (illegal) abortions that would happen under an anti-abortion scheme?

Please surely do not feel obliged to answer it , for it is only to show how absurd the entire question is. Why should babies face sure death for the irresponsibility and possible foolishness of their mothers who would even act illegally in pursuing such a treatment, that might end the lives of both? Such action could be legally called a murder, no?

If you asked someone to give you only an approximation to it, it would still serve as a “poison well” that makes the writer insensible…

Neither way, to move forward you need to answer my question regarding Antinatalism or you need to show on what ground life of a baby is not equal to womans life?

Thank you for your timely response and if you were interested in finding more about my perspective please click on my name “factorysense” and find the article “Abort Abortions?” on the right side of the page. I would surely value your comments to it as well (without any admitting questions ).

Francois Tremblay

“What maximum number of babies dead from abortions per year under a free abortion scheme do you consider a fair and just trade off to prevent some women dying from botched back alley (illegal) abortions that would happen under an anti-abortion scheme?”

Infinity.

See, that was easy enough. Your turn with the anti-abortion question.

factorysense

Hello Francois

I appreciate the brevity of your response, however it does not necessarily help us to understand your position. I stipulated that a life of a baby is equal to life of a woman. Since you did not challenge this statement one could fall under the impression that you have nothing against it. Thus if you agree with it and yet your answer for my initially intended only rhetorical question is “Infinity” than it appears that you would agree with this genocide for sake of this significantly lower number of woman (comparing to infinity), who after all acted illegally or foolishly. If we only switched babies for Jews and woman for Germans, than this would pretty much make you a mass-murderer of the highest class in Nuremberg Trials (…that might appear slightly insensible).

Now, with all respect if I may ask you please do not make us conform to this demonstrated “poison well” question, but rather offer us some real arguments, for as far as I can see you again have chosen to answer one minor part of my comment, but entirely neglected other including my question regarding Antinatalism.

Hope to hear from you soon again .

Francois Tremblay

Seriously? I refuse to dignify some lunatic who not only believes that fetuses’ lives are more important than women’s lives, but also believes that killing fetuses is the same as the Holocaust. You are way out of bounds in terms of both sheer offensiveness and complete lack of logic, and I can no longer give you the benefit of the doubt.

If you want a formal argument in response to nonsense of this nature, you’ll have to wait for the upcoming entries against the anti-abortion position. But of course you won’t be allowed to comment on them because you obstinately refuse to follow the commenting rule. Such is life.

If you have any more questions on how I can help you follow the commenting rule, then please post them… otherwise I am not interested in continuing this discussion. Go talk to a lamppost.

factorysense(unfortunately, this last message was also deleted approx. 5 hours after it was posted.)

Francois

You again asserted that I believe that “fetuses’ lives are more important than women’s lives”, while I have already twice clearly pronounced that I do not think anything of this sort, for their lives are equally precious.

Further on you named me a lunatic and referred me to a lamppost. I do not recall anything for which I would deserve such a treatment.

At last, out of our previous conversation I could understand that you aren’t looking for answers, or you do not want your ideas to be challenged, but rather it seems you seek to merely shout your truth out into the world. Yet I would be glad to be wrong on this one…

Now I wish you all the best and if you one day decide to answer my questions and offer some valid arguments I would be more than happy to talk to you again.

God Bless!

A.W. Tozer

We are opening a new Series of articles called Question suggestion. This very simple concept is meant to give you one question every week to think about. Simple as that!

However if you would like to share your answer underneath the article, you are more than welcome!

What would you ask God, if you could ask Him something?

…Give it a thought!

“Rejoice, that the immortal God is born, so that mortal man may live in eternity.”

John Huss

Jn. 3:16; Is. 9:6-7;

Today many people started to use the expression “Merry Xmas”, which might appear completely insignificant, and merely practical or original, however after a closer second look we might find a deeper importance in it, let’s have a look…

Xmas

X – is commonly used as variable, thus it stands for something unknown or uncertain. People who use this expression can possibly apply it because they do not know the true meaning of this holiday and therefore correctly put a variable to define their unawarness. Second part of the word “mas” can then closer specify the actual practice or custom that takes place during this time. In most cases this akronym could stand only for “meat and soup“.

Christmas

Christ – is the very meaning of this event. Such person surrounds everything around His birth, for that is the core idea of this session. Again, second part of the word develops this idea further and could stand for “master and savior“

Note: Any resemblance of thoughts in this post to actual persons and events is purely coincidential.

Some kind of respectable status is one of those things nearly everyone strives for. However there are different ways people take to get to this desired position.

In some cases uniqueness is the primary goal and thus anything that can bring it, is highly welcomed. Big names, labels and brands is surely one of the most common ways of doing it. Often people buy special products from largely advertised expensive companies in the warm outlook that this will bring them some sort of similar distinction as it brought to those faces that in fact stand behind them. It is almost staggering how one ball point pen for $150 can make someone feel more important, confident, secure or special. Still, it is gloomy when these feelings are based merely on the type of physical things that these people are surrounded with.

This appeal is well known by above mentioned type of companies which deliberately use slogans that speak about status, such as:”Think different” or “Because you’re worth it“. And out of the experience we can say that it surely works just fine.

At last, I would like to say again that there is nothing wrong with these things alone, for I believe it is positively wonderful to be able to afford not only to pay the regular, but also to choose from the variety of fascinating products market offers us. Yet, there is probably something erroneous if a person refuses to eat your baked chicken with rice and goes afterwards to order - arroz con pollo.

“Evangelism is not a professional job for a few trained men, but is instead the unrelenting responsibility of every person who belongs to the company of Jesus.“

Elton Trueblood

“Any method of evangelism will work if God is in it.“

Leonard Ravenhill 

Is. 6:8; Mark 16:15; 2.Tim 2:15;

Look also at a 168 pages long masterpiece written by the pen of Leonard Ravenhill: “Why Revival Tarries“. I would only add a personal review of one of the readers, that I found very apt, to give just a small idea what it is about.

“This book should come with a warning label on it saying: “If you want to destroy your life go ahead and read this book!” This book absolutely destroyed me in every way possible. I remember recieving this book from a friend in Philly and was in a bad season in my life and also remembering being scared to read the book. No wait I wasn’t scared to read it I was absolutely terrified, and my pre-concieved notions were correct. Once I picked up that book I was as good as dead. I began to weep and groan for weeks and weeks. The burning words in those pages completely consumed me and scathed me. I was skinned and hung up for death. Everything in my life was burnt up and left in an ash heap before my feet, so that I had to turn to God and say what now? He replied and said do what I have always wanted you to do, die! Everything changed for me, prayer life, ministry, preaching, relationships, church, conduct, and everything else. I walked away broken, battered, and bruised from this book and have never been the same. So with that read this book unless you want to live in your ‘normal’ Christian life, but if you have enough guts to actually do what the bible says, let Ravenhill expose your fakeness and start all over again from step one!“

 Contemporary form of this argument was formulated by William Lane Craig.

A modern reflection

Robert J. Gula, a professor of logic at the Groton School in Massachusetts listed in his book about verbal logical fallacies called “Nonsense” quite a few that Paul in fact uses here, starting with the “word choice”, “image words” or “(controlling) phraseology”.

First two could be described as intentional usage of specific words that create a positive image or describe a situation in a way that makes it sound better than it actually is (removes the sting from a possibly unpleasant condition). This is also called euphemism and a typical example would be to call old people – senior citizens or friends who are in autumn of their lives.

Acknowledging the fact that Onesimus stole a substantial amount of money from Philemon, calling him “useless” (11, NIV) is truly a good “word choice” strategy. As the word “useless” does not sufficiently embrace the fact that damage was induced, but it merely denotes that no positive outcome can be expected. Surely more objective words such as thief, thug or robber could have been used, or even going the opposite, negative, direction rascal or scoundrel could do the job.

Further Gula defines “controlling phraseology” as small suggestions that try to control a response before it is made. These could be short phrases like you do, don’t you, surely you, or even whole sentences as “You don’t really want to go out tonight, do you?” Such phrasing makes it even harder to say “Yes, I do want to go out.” Going back to scriptures we can see this method used abundantly in the verse 21.

“Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask.”

However the prevalent logical fallacy Paul uses would be the appeal to love or appeal to friendship which is together called argumentum ad amicitiam. This occurs when no or only very little reasonable arguments are offered, but emphasize is put solely on a relationship e.g. wife telling to her husband: “if you truly loved me, you would buy me that pearl necklace”. Logically while husband can be deeply in love with his wife, he will not buy her the pearl necklace, for he is perfectly aware of the fact that if he did it, they would not be able to pay their rent for next month. And because he loves her he wants the best for her, which is in this case roof over her head.

Besides overall presence of this appeal in the epistle, we can see it also specifically in verse 17:

“So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me.”

Philemon is requested here to treat a disloyal, dishonorable and deceitful slave in a completely same manner as he would treat his dear friend and co-worker in Christ Apostle Paul merely on the ground of their partnership without much further explanation attached to it. This does not seem like a good deal for him, furthermore it appears to be completely irrational!

Legalism vs. Grace

After this somewhat lengthily examination I believe the contrast of legalism and grace needs to be taken into the picture, to adequately explain what Paul is truly doing here. As shown before, his request is plainly absurd, at least from the legalistic perspective.

However, Christ did not come on Earth to secure legalism, but to establish grace for sinners. The reason why rational cogitations based on logic and adamant justice will never support grace, is that grace goes beyond them. Grace is in fact illogical and until one wants to hold tight to legalistic perspective he can never understand what grace is, as Jesus demonstrated it. Mr. Gula himself in conclusion expressed that after all there is nothing intrinsically wrong with emotional appeals, for sometimes they merely reflect a deep feeling or belief. If our belief in God is genuine it should be reflected in our behavior and talk as well.

Today we are more and more concerned with justice, than ever before. The American trend to immediately sue anyone or anything that could possibly induce damage to our well-being is slowly stretching all over western world, leaving only very little space for forgiveness, mercy and grace. Paul in the same time to the same city writes:

^“13 Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. ¹⁴ And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.”

 (Col 3:13–14, NIV)

Letter to Philemon invites us to start walking on an seemingly irrational path, which will surely be often misunderstood by the secular world (1.Cor. 4:10), yet God’s perspective tells us that it is perfectly reasonable, as together with love it creates unity among people. Since our churches and their members are not at all immune to this cultural influence change, it is crucial for us to remind ourselves repeatedly what God has done for us and that he just asks us to follow His example. As it was with Pharisees, we have just the same tendency to descend to legalistic attitude, which Jesus addressed so sharply in Matthew 23.

Soteriology, one of the Major’s in Bible is a grace based doctrine and Christians should likewise ascribe weight to it in their individual lives as it is a powerful tool that transforms lives and repairs what was once broken.

Since in this paper I have put emphasize on God’s grace, I believe there are certainly other perspectives that could be examined regarding this letter; however these affairs need to be gone over by some other studies. Finishing with a short quote from the “prince of paradox”, I would like to leave an open end for everyone to contemplate over its meaning and use.

“Reason is always a kind of brute force; those who appeal to the head rather than the heart, however pallid and polite, are necessarily men of violence. We speak of ‘touching’ a man’s heart, but we can do nothing to his head but hit it.”

-       G.K. Chesterton

“The church is not a dormitory for sleepers, it is an institution for workers; it is not a rest camp, it is a front line trench.“

Billy Sunday

Col. 1:18; Eph. 5:25-27; Rom. 12:5

 This graph also says a little about distribution of wealth around the world, since the wealthy countries consume the highest amount of general production. If the Earth is to support everyone equally, then the consumption rate for each country must oscillate around 3. This would mean practically that there is no way every family would have a car, fridge, TV, microwave etc. but would have to settle down for a much lower standard.

Are we, in our daily lives, willing to go real with this idea? Just a thought…

“There will be no one in need among you, …if only you will obey the Lord your God by diligently observing this entire commandment that I command you today.”

Deut. 15.4-5

The background

Over all, this epistle is known for the “appeal to consent” or “compelling appeal” that is very carefully nested in the letter by Paul. I believe that on this one page he sets an example of how we should speak to each other in the church when we face possible diversion or difference.

Let us first look closer at what was most likely going on in this story. We are dealing with 3 people – Paul, Philemon and Onesimus.

Paul

According to the refferences in verses 1,9 and 19 we can identify Paul as the author of the letter. Moreover also the vocabulary, phrases  and style appears to be his when taken into comparrisson with other Pauline letters. At that time Paul was a prisoner in Rome yet he was still spreading the gospel with strong influence even from the imprisonment.

Philemon

Secondly, Philemon was the owner of the slave „Onesimus“. And as we read in verse 19 he was apparently converted through Paul. From what we know about him he was a respected man in Colossea.

Onesimus

Thirdly, while there are also some other interpretations, most bible scholars would agree that Onesimus seems to be a slave who ran away from his master, and even though it is not clearly stated, he most likely stole something valuable. For at that time it was a common practice to send slaves on long journeys with great ammount of money to manage business of their masters, which naturaly had to be a great temptation.  Moreover Onesimus was fairly a common name for slave – it meant “useful” or “profitable”.

States of slaves

Slaves had practically no value in those times, still there was a big difference between a slave serving in a Jewish household and all the other slaves.

Paul Copan, an expert on historicity of Jesus Christ wrote in “God is Great, God is Good” that all surrounding nations including Romans treated their slaves as property. That means that they were marked as horses or cows or they were given tattoos that showed they belonged to this or that master, they were often cruelly punished by extreme measures and even could be easily killed only if it was will of their master without anyone examining some kind of element of righteousness.

Now Israelites also had slaves, but Mosaic Law secured them a completely different position. All the cruelty and exploitation (misusing) was clearly forbidden which is also shown in Exodus 21:26-27:

“²⁶An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. ²⁷ And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.”

Moreover slave owners were instructed to treat their slaves well.

“If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves.”

(Leviticus 25:39, NIV)

The phrase “do not make them work as slaves” refers probably to working slaves of all the contemporary surrounding nations such as Hammurabi, Summery, Acadians, Hittites, Assyrians or Egyptians etc. in which a position of bond servant was as suggested above truly a terrible fate to undergo.

The story of persuasion

At this point Onesimus was a slave who was useless, unprofitable (11) and fully deserving punishment for his single action. But somehow on his escape he met Paul in Rome who shared with him the gospel. He responded to that call, accepted Jesus Christ and changed his life completely; as he was transformed, Paul now calls him profitable (11) and useful. Yet in Paul’s eyes he appears to be not only a slave anymore, but a dear brother in Lord Jesus Christ (16). At this point Paul sends Onesimus to city of Colossae together with Tychicus (Col. 4:7-9). He comes back to Philemon most likely carrying this letter in which Paul intercedes for him in a very special way, which we are about to look at now:

1. He starts lifting up love that Philemon has for the Lord and for people (4-7), but then he appeals to him for Onesimus on basis of that same love (9).
2. He tells him he could order him to accept Onesimus (8) but he will not do it, because he hopes he will act by love (9).
3. Then Paul speaks how important is Onesimus to him (12), which surely makes it harder for Philemon to decide to punish him.
4. In verse 17 he demands that if Philemon considers Paul as his partner he will welcome him as he would welcome Paul.
5. And at last he says that if Onesimus owes him some money Paul will pay it back for Onesimus (18) but he should remember that he owes him his salvation (19), which is more valuable than anything else.

There are two elements that appear to come forward throughout the entire letter – a concept of love and free choice. Yet, having in mind the previous five points, Paul clearly reminds Philemon about all the attached circumstances, which seems that this accentuated freedom, is only apparent. Thus many of us could have an impression that such a way of speaking is plainly manipulative.

…Read the solution in the second part of this article – Unreasonable Philemon (2/2).