Phile 12-14 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 12. Whom I have sent again . That is, to Philemon. This was, doubtless, at his own request, for (1.) there is not the slightest evidence that he compelled him, or even urged him to go. The language is just such as would have been used on the supposition either that he requested him to go and bear a letter to Colosse, or that Onesimus desired to go, and that Paul sent him agreeably to his request. Comp. , "Yet I suppose it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus my brother, and companion in labour," etc. , "All my state shall Tychicus declare unto you, who is a beloved brother, and a faithful minister and fellow-servant in the Lord: whom I have sent unto you for the same purpose, that he might know your estate," etc. But Epaphroditus and Tychicus were not sent against their own wills--nor is there any more reason to think that Onesimus was. See Intro., & 2. (4.) (2.) Paul had no power to send Onesimus back to his master unless he chose to go. He had no civil authority; he had no guard to accompany him; he could entrust him to no sheriff to convey him from place to place, and he had no means of controlling him, if he chose to go to any other place than Colosse. He could indeed have sent him away from himself; he could have told him to go to Colosse, but there his power ended. Onesimus then could have gone where he pleased. But there is no evidence that Paul even told him to go to Colosse against his own inclination, or that he would have sent him away at all unless he had himself requested it. (3.) There may have been many reasons why Onesimus desired to return to Colosse, and no one can prove that he did not express that desire to Paul, and that his "sending" him was not in consequence of such a request. He may have had friends and relatives there; or, being now converted, he may have been sensible that he had wronged his former master, and that he ought to return and repair the wrong; or he may have been poor, and a stranger in Rome, and may have been greatly disappointed in what he had expected to find there when he left Philemon, and may have desired to return to the comparative comforts of his former condition. (4.) It may be added, therefore, (a.) that this passage should not be adduced to prove that we ought to send back runaway slaves to their former masters against their own consent; or to justify the laws which require magistrates to do it; or to show that they who have escaped should be arrested and forcibly detained; or to justify any sort of influence over a runaway slave to induce him to return to his former master . There is not the least evidence that any of these things occurred in the case before us; and if this instance is ever appealed to, it should be to justify what Paul did --AND NOTHING ELSE. (b.) The passage shows that it is right to aid a servant of any kind to return to his master if he desires it. It is right to give him a "letter,"and to plead earnestly for his favourable reception if he has in any way wronged his master--for Paul did this. On the same principle, it would be right to give him pecuniary assistance to enable him to return--for there may be cases where one who has fled from servitude might wish to return. There may be instances where one has had a kind master, with whom he would feel that on the whole he could be more happy than in his present circumstances. Such cases, however, are exceedingly rare. Or there may be instances where one may have relatives that are in the neighbourhood or in the family of his former master, and the desire to be with them may be so strong that on the whole he would choose to be a servant as he was before, rather than to remain as he is now. In all such cases it is right to render aid--for the example of the apostle Paul goes to sustain this. But it goes no further. So far as appears, he neither advised Onesimus to return, nor did he compel him; nor did he say one word to influence him to do it; nor did he mean or expect that he would be a slave when he should have been received again by his master. . Thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels . There is great delicacy also in this expression. If he had merely said, "receive him ," Philemon might have thought only of him as he formerly was. Paul, therefore, adds, that is, mine own bowels "---"one whom I so tenderly love that he seems to carry my heart with him wherever he goes." Doddridge .

Philemon 12-14

Verse 12. Whom I have sent again. That is, to Philemon. This was, doubtless, at his own request, for

(1.) there is not the slightest evidence that he compelled him, or even urged him to go. The language is just such as would have been used on the supposition either that he requested him to go and bear a letter to Colosse, or that Onesimus desired to go, and that Paul sent him agreeably to his request. Comp. Php 2:25, "Yet I suppose it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus my brother, and companion in labour," etc. Col 4:7,8, "All my state shall Tychicus declare unto you, who is a beloved brother, and a faithful minister and fellow-servant in the Lord: whom I have sent unto you for the same purpose, that he might know your estate," etc. But Epaphroditus and Tychicus were not sent against their own wills--nor is there any more reason to think that Onesimus was. See Intro., & 2. (4.)

(2.) Paul had no power to send Onesimus back to his master unless he chose to go. He had no civil authority; he had no guard to accompany him; he could entrust him to no sheriff to convey him from place to place, and he had no means of controlling him, if he chose to go to any other place than Colosse. He could indeed have sent him away from himself; he could have told him to go to Colosse, but there his power ended. Onesimus then could have gone where he pleased. But there is no evidence that Paul even told him to go to Colosse against his own inclination, or that he would have sent him away at all unless he had himself requested it.

(3.) There may have been many reasons why Onesimus desired to return to Colosse, and no one can prove that he did not express that desire to Paul, and that his "sending" him was not in consequence of such a request. He may have had friends and relatives there; or, being now converted, he may have been sensible that he had wronged his former master, and that he ought to return and repair the wrong; or he may have been poor, and a stranger in Rome, and may have been greatly disappointed in what he had expected to find there when he left Philemon, and may have desired to return to the comparative comforts of his former condition.

(4.) It may be added, therefore,

(a.) that this passage should not be adduced to prove that we ought to send back runaway slaves to their former masters against their own consent; or to justify the laws which require magistrates to do it; or to show that they who have escaped should be arrested and forcibly detained; or to justify any sort of influence over a runaway slave to induce him to return to his former master. There is not the least evidence that any of these things occurred in the case before us; and if this instance is ever appealed to, it should be to justify what Paul did --AND NOTHING ELSE.

(b.) The passage shows that it is right to aid a servant of any kind to return to his master if he desires it. It is right to give him a "letter,"and to plead earnestly for his favourable reception if he has in any way wronged his master--for Paul did this. On the same principle, it would be right to give him pecuniary assistance to enable him to return--for there may be cases where one who has fled from servitude might wish to return. There may be instances where one has had a kind master, with whom he would feel that on the whole he could be more happy than in his present circumstances. Such cases, however, are exceedingly rare. Or there may be instances where one may have relatives that are in the neighbourhood or in the family of his former master, and the desire to be with them may be so strong that on the whole he would choose to be a servant as he was before, rather than to remain as he is now. In all such cases it is right to render aid--for the example of the apostle Paul goes to sustain this. But it goes no further. So far as appears, he neither advised Onesimus to return, nor did he compel him; nor did he say one word to influence him to do it; nor did he mean or expect that he would be a slave when he should have been received again by his master. Phm 1:16.

Thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels. There is great delicacy also in this expression. If he had merely said, "receive him," Philemon might have thought only of him as he formerly was. Paul, therefore, adds, that is, mine own bowels"---"one whom I so tenderly love that he seems to carry my heart with him wherever he goes." Doddridge. Verse 13. Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead. "That he might render me the service which I know you would if you were here." The Greek is, "for thee;" (υπερσου;) that is, what he should do for Paul might be regarded as done by Philemon himself.

He might have ministered unto me. He might have rendered me assistance, (διακονη;) to wit, in such a way as one who was in bonds would need.

(b) "that in thy stead" 1Cor 16:17, Php 2:30 Verse 14. But without thy mind would I do nothing. Nothing in the matter referred to. He would not retain Onesimus in his service, much as he needed his assistance, without the cordial consent of Philemon. He would not give him occasion for hard feeling or complaint, as if Paul had induced him to leave his master, or as if he persuaded him to remain with him when he wished to return-- or as if he kept him away from him when he owed him or had wronged him. All that is said here is entirely consistent with the supposition that Onesimus was disposed to return to his master, and with the supposition that Paul did not compel or urge him to do it. For it is probable that if Onesimus had proposed to return, it would have been easy for Paul to have retained him with him. He might have represented his own want of a friend. He might have appealed to his gratitude on account of his efforts for his conversion. He might have shown him that he was under no moral obligation to go back. He might have refused to give him this letter, and might have so represented to him the dangers of the way, and the probability of a harsh reception, as effectually to have dissuaded him from such a purpose. But, in that case, it is clear that this might have caused hard feeling in the bosom of Philemon, and rather than do that he preferred to let him return to his master, and to plead for him that he might have a kind reception. It is, therefore, by no means necessary to suppose that Paul felt that Onesimus was under obligation to return, or that he was disposed to compel him, or that Onesimus was not inclined to return voluntarily; but all the circumstances of the case are met by the supposition that, if Paul retained him, Philemon might conceive that he had injured him. Suppose, as seems to have been the case, that Onesimus "owed" Philemon, (Phm 1:18,) and then suppose that Paul had chosen to retain him with himself, and had dissuaded him from returning to him, would not Philemon have had reason to complain of it? There was, therefore, on every account, great propriety in his saying that he did not wish to use any influence over him to retain him with him when he purposed to return to Colosse, and that he felt that it would be wrong for him to keep him, much as he needed him, without the consent of Philemon. Nor is it necessary, by what is said here, to suppose that Onesimus was a slave, and that Paul believed that Philemon had a right to him and to his services as such. All that he says here would be met by the supposition that he was a hired servant, and would be in fact equally proper even on the supposition that he was an apprentice. In either case, he would feel that he gave just ground of complaint on the part of Philemon if, when Onesimus desired to return, he used any influence to dissuade him from it, and to retain him with himself. It would have been a violation of the rule requiring us to do to others as we would wish them to do unto us, and Paul therefore felt unwilling, much as he needed the services of Onesimus, to make use of any influence to retain him with him without the consent of his master.

That thy benefit. The favour which I might receive from thee by having the services of Onesimus. If Onesimus should remain with him and assist him, he would feel that the benefit which would be conferred by his services would be in fact bestowed by Philemon, for he had a right to the service of Onesimus, and while Paul enjoyed it, he would be deprived of it. The word rendered benefit here αγαθον --means good, and the sense is, "the good which you would do me;" to wit, by the service of Onesimus.

Should not be as it were of necessity. As it would be if Paul should detain Onesimus with him without affording Philemon an opportunity of expressing his assent. Paul would even then have felt that he was in fact receiving a "good" at the expense of Philemon, but it would not be a voluntary favour on his part.

But willingly. As it would be if he had given his consent that Onesimus should remain with him.