Tabletalk Subscription
You have {{ remainingArticles }} free {{ counterWords }} remaining.You've accessed all your free articles.
Unlock the Archives for Free

Request your free, three-month trial to Tabletalk magazine. You’ll receive the print issue monthly and gain immediate digital access to decades of archives. This trial is risk-free. No credit card required.

Try Tabletalk Now

Already receive Tabletalk magazine every month?

Verify your email address to gain unlimited access.

{{ error }}Need help?

Philemon 15-16

“For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever” (Phile. 15).

We have been speaking of love as foundational to Christian ethics and of Philemon’s need to do what love required in the situation with Onesimus. Yet drawing such conclusions will not be equally obvious to everyone, for our culture and even many churches misunderstand the applications of true love. Countless people justify the cohabitation of non-married couples, homosexual relationships, covetousness, and other sins with an appeal to love. For example, some may argue that if two people love each other, why should their relationship be frowned upon because it does not fit the pattern of one husband and one wife?

If love is made the foundation of ethics but is not defined according to Scripture, then love can excuse anything. Christian ethicists say the love that must guide our decisions is the love that fulfills God’s moral law (Rom. 13:10); it is the love that concerns itself with bearing each other’s burdens (Gal. 6:2). Love may call us to go above and beyond the basic standards for generosity, respect, and concern for others, but it never demands us to violate the principles for conduct in the moral law of God.

Regarding interpersonal relationships, love often calls us to ignore certain offenses (Prov. 17:9; 1 Peter 4:8). This could be why Paul fails to mention specifically the reason for Onesimus’ flight from Philemon in Philemon 15–16, but it is perhaps more likely that the apostle does not speak of Onesimus’ misdeed directly because Philemon would not have needed a reminder of what led to the problems with his slave.

In any case, Paul continues his argument for Philemon to be reconciled to Onesimus through an appeal to God’s providence. True, Onesimus, from what we can gather, sinned against Philemon somehow; nevertheless, this sin did not occur outside of the sovereign will of the Lord. The apostle even suggests the ultimate design in this event was Onesimus’ salvation (vv. 15–16). Paul does this somewhat hesitantly, for while it is clear that Onesimus’ flight and conversion were in God’s sovereign will (after all, they happened), the Lord’s intent in allowing Onesimus’ sin was less plain because the apostle had no special revelation of this design. Seeing God’s providence remains a difficult undertaking, and while we can trust that our Creator has a design behind all that ever happens, we should not be quick to assume we know His intent.

Coram Deo Living before the face of God

Slowness to identify God’s design is important when we deal with tragedies. Too often we unhelpfully “identify” a specific lesson that the Lord is teaching to hurting people. Generally speaking, we know all things happen to help us learn to rely on God, but most of the time we do not know specifically why He ordains certain events. Let us not be afraid to admit that the Lord always has a purpose for what happens but that we often do not know what it is.

For Further Study
  • Genesis 45:4–8
  • Job 38–41
  • Acts 2:22–23
  • Romans 8:28; 11:33–36
Related Scripture
  • New Testament
  • Philemon

Free Consent

Receiving Onesimus

Keep Reading Christ in the Old Testament

From the April 2011 Issue
Apr 2011 Issue