The "T's" and "Y's" Of the King James Bible By Dave Reese

This section of the Forum is for Bible studies that are based on the outlines for sound Bible Believing doctrine as highlighted in the Forum Rules section.
Divisive topics will be moderated to avoid contentions and strife 2 Timothy 2:15 , Proverbs 13:10

Re: The "T's" and "Y's" Of the King James Bible By Dave Rees

Postby George » Thu Jul 17, 2014 5:08 pm

NOTICE TO ALL READERS: DUE TO THE QUIRKINESS OF THE WORD PROCESSOR ON THIS FORUM, I LOST ALL SCRIPTURE REFERENCES TO PART ONE. i SHALL ENDEAVOR TO INSERT THE MISSING REFERENCES AS QUICKLY AS I CAN. George Anderson

PART ONE

Aloha Brother Chette,

I think that a quick review of the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to Philemon is in order before I proceed to reply to your last Post. I have divided the Letter up into Four Parts – Note: all speculations in Blue.

1. Philemon 1:1-3 - Paul’s greeting to Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus, and to “the church in thy (i.e. Philemon’s) house”

2. Philemon 1:4-7 - Paul’s testimony concerning Philemon’s character and the “joy and consolation” that Paul has because of Philemon’s testimony (i.e. Philemon’s “love and faith”)

3. Philemon 1:8-19 - Paul’s testimony concerning Onesimus and his personal appeal to Philemon to accept Onesimus “Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved”

4. Philemon 1:20-25 - Paul’s farewell to Philemon


PART ONE – Paul’s Greeting

  Philemon 1:1 ¶ Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer,
      2 And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:
      3 Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Notice that although the Apostle Paul’s Letter is addressed to Philemon personally, he specifically mentions “our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier”, and he also includes “the church in thy house” in his greeting.
Since Paul mentions the fact that Philemon is a “fellowlabourer” there’s a good chance that he (i.e. Philemon) is engaged in the Lord’s work – he might be an evangelist like Timothy, since Timothy is also described as Paul’s “fellowlabourer” in 1 Thessalonians 3:2; or he might be among the group of men who assisted Paul in his ministry, i.e. “Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellowlabourers” in Philemon 1:24; or he might be one of the elders (along with Archippus – Paul’s “fellowsoldier” who might have also been an elder ) in the church that met in his house. There is no way of knowing for sure since the Holy Bible doesn't tell us.
The Scriptures are not clear as to what office (if any) Philemon might have held, but one thing is absolutely clear: Philemon was not said to be “the leader” (singular) in the church that met in his house! And any attempt to make him “the leader” (singular) of that church is not only disingenuous and deceitful, but it is also an indirect, oblique, guileful, cunning, and sly attempt to foist off on Christian brethren the idea (i.e. the unscriptural teaching) that only one person is in charge of a ‘local’ church of God – i.e. the “Pastor” (i.e. “the leader”, singular).
Do you see how it is done? This is the problem with a “Formal Education” or “Formal Instruction”. When attending a Bible School (or a “Christian” College or University), if a Christian is not extremely careful (and spiritually discerning) they will readily accept error and false doctrine by academic osmosis (i.e. a subtle or gradual absorption or mingling of leaven with truth) without even being aware of it.
In the scriptural context, the Holy Bible never says that Philemon was “the leader” (singular) in the church because the “church meets in his house”, and any attempt by a preacher, “pastor”, teacher, or commentator to make him so amounts to ADDING to the Holy words of God!


PART TWO – Paul’s Testimony Concerning Philemon

     Philemon 1:4  I thank my God, making mention of thee always in my prayers,
      5 Hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all saints;
      6 That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus.
      7 For we have great joy and consolation in thy love, because the bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother.

Did you know that the Apostle Paul writes about genuine “love” and “faith” more than any other writer in the Bible? If Paul wrote so much about “love and faith”, it stands to reason that when Paul wrote about Philemon’s “love and faith” that these must have been genuine characteristics of the man and the reason that Paul held him in high esteem as a “fellowlabourer” in the Gospel of Christ, not asthe leader” of the church that met in his house.

Paul’s testimony concerning Philemon’s character and personal Christian testimony is crystal clear and there is not that much that can be added to Paul’s observations other than to say that it’s a crying shame that in the 56 years that I have been a born again child of God I have met very few Christians that have measured up to Philemon’s personal testimony. And I am not talking about today’s modern day lovey-dovey, wishy-washy, namby-pamby, effeminate, refined, cultivated, sophisticated, prissy, and effete Christianity!


PART THREE – Paul’s Testimony Concerning Onesimus

     Philemon 1:8 ¶ Wherefore, though I might be much bold in Christ to enjoin thee that which is convenient,
      9 Yet for love's sake I rather beseech thee, being such an one as Paul the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ.
      10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:
      11 Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me:
      12 Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels:
      13 Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel:
      14 But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly.
      15 For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever;
      16 Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?
      17 If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself.
      18 If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account;
      19 I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.

We now come to the heart of the Apostle Paul’s Epistle and the only place where the Holy Bible testifies to and speaks about Onesimus’ relationship to both the Apostle Paul and to Philemon. It appears that Onesimus met the Apostle Paul in prison (as a fellow prisoner or possibly as a servant?) and that Paul won him to the Lord. Onesimus is mentioned only twice in the Scriptures [once in in Colossians 4:9, and again in Philemon 1:10-19]. In addition, Onesimus’ name is mentioned twice (as an additional note – not as Scripture) in the King James Bible at the end of Paul’s Letter to the Colossians and again at the end of Paul’s Letter to Philemon. Since the additional notes are not Scripture, I treat them as academic speculation and totally ignore them - see the verses.  

Colossians 4:7 ¶ All my state shall Tychicus declare unto you, who is a beloved brother, and a faithful minister and fellowservant in the Lord:
8 Whom I have sent unto you for the same purpose, that he might know your estate, and comfort your hearts;
9 With Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you. They shall make known unto you all things which are done here.

Colossians 4:18 The salutation by the hand of me Paul. Remember my bonds. Grace be with you. Amen.

          “Written from Rome to the Colossians by Tychicus and Onesimus.”

Philemon 1:10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:

Philemon 1:25 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.
          “Written from Rome to Philemon, by Onesimus a servant.”

From the Apostle Paul’s Letter to the Colossians, it appears that Onesimus was from Colosse [ Colossians 4:9 – “Onesimus . . . who is one of you”] which probably means that Philemon is also from Colosse. But what does all of this speculation have to do with the context or the subject at hand?

     Philemon 1:8 ¶ Wherefore, though I might be much bold in Christ to enjoin thee that which is convenient,
      9 Yet for love's sake I rather beseech thee, being such an one as Paul the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ.
      10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:

Paul beseeches Philemon “for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds”. Since the Apostle Paul was never married, we know that Onesimus was not his physical son, but one of his spiritual children [2 Corinthians 6:13], begotten through the Gospel [1 Corinthians 4:15]. This much should be clear to any reasonable person.

     Philemon 1:11  Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me:

Paul doesn’t cite HOW or WHY Onesimus was “unprofitable” to Philemon, he just stated that he was “unprofitable” (perhaps because Onesimus was no longer Philemon’s servant? Remember, at that time, a ‘servant’ was considered ‘property’); and then he goes on to state that Onesimus is “now profitable to thee and to me”. Nowadays “profit” has to do with making money (material wealth), but a review of all of the verses where Paul speaks (or writes) about “profit” [Romans 2:25; 3:1,12; 1Corinthians 7:35; 10:33; 12:7; 13:3; 14:6; Galatians 1:14; 5:2; 1Timothy 4:8, 15; 2Timothy 2:14; 3:16; 4:11; Titus 3:8-9; Philemon 1:11 ] reveals that Paul is not referring to making money (or physical goods), but he is speaking (or writing) about spiritual “profit” (i.e. ‘spiritual gain’?). Read the verses.

In , Philemon 1:11 IF Paul is talking about Onesimus being “unprofitable” to Philemon in the sense of Philemon having lost money (or goods) because of Onesimus’ actions “in time past”, then is Paul speaking (or writing) about Onesimus being “now profitable to thee and to me” in the sense of Philemon and Paul gaining money (or worldly goods) because Onesimus is now a child of God? Is Paul going to use Onesimus to make money (or gain worldly goods)? Of course not! Obviously the Apostle Paul is speaking (or writing) about something other than money (or worldly goods).

     Philemon 1:12  Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels:

Paul sends Onesimus back to Philemon and he (Paul) REQUESTS that Philemon receive Onesimus as if he were Paul’s physical son.

     Philemon 1:13  Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel:
      14 But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly.

Paul informs Philemon that he (i.e. Paul) would have personally preferred to have Onesimus stay with him (i.e. Paul) “that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel:”; and then he (Paul) adds: “But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly”. What a contrast to many of today’s “Christian” preachers, “pastors”, and teachers who are only interested in dictating to Christians as to what they can and cannot do! A basic Christian principle is illustrated in Philemon 1:14: Unlike the Jews in the Old Testament, who were of necessity REQUIRED by the Law to both do and observe certain ordinances, i.e. sabbath observance, tithing, etc., etc., under the New Covenant Christians are REQUESTED to do certain things (such as church attendance, free-will offerings and giving, etc.) “WILLINGLY”, and not of “NECESSITY”; and “out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned”.

     Philemon 1:15  For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever;
      16 Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?
      17 If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself.

Paul is still beseeching (practically pleading) with Philemon to “receive him (i.e. Onesimus) as myself”. Please notice that up to this point Paul has said nothing as to WHAT Onesimus’ offense (if any) was. And what follows in Philemon 1:18-19 doesn’t reveal what crime (if any) that Onesimus may have committed.

     Philemon 1:18  IF he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account;
      19 I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.

IF”? We now come to the crux of this matter. “IF he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account” [Philemon 1:18]. WHY would Paul say “IF he hath wronged thee”, if Paul was aware of the offense (or crime) which Onesimus was guilty of? On the other hand: WHY does Paul say “IF”? Didn’t Paul know whether or not Onesimus had committed an offense (or a crime) against Philemon? (Was Paul that dense? I trow not!). If, as the verse indicates, Paul wasn’t exactly sure whether Onesimus had committed an offense (or a crime) against Philemon or not, how in the world do all of the “Christian” scholars and academics know exactly what that offense was (today) when it is obvious that Paul wasn’t exactly sure of what it was (back then)? IF he (Onesimus) had committed some offense (or crime), it is obvious from the context of the verse that Paul wasn’t exactly sure of what it was!

Whether Onesimus had committed an offense (or a crime) or not, and whether Onesimus owed Philemon some compensation or not, Paul was willing to recompense Philemon for whatever Philemon believed he was owed. Although Paul reminds Philemon that “thou owest unto me even thine own self besides”. This is obviously an example of the Apostle Paul ‘practicing what he preached’ [Galatians 6:2].

PART FOUR – Paul’s Farewell

     Philemon 1:20  Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels in the Lord.
      21 Having confidence in thy obedience I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do more than I say.
      22 But withal prepare me also a lodging: for I trust that through your prayers I shall be given unto you.
      23 There salute thee Epaphras, my fellowprisoner in Christ Jesus;
      24 Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellowlabourers.
      25 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.

The Apostle Paul’s farewell is quite clear and self-explanatory and I see no need to comment on it since it is very much like the farewells in many of his other Epistles.  
NOTE: I included more speculation (in blue) in this essay than I normally would to demonstrate the way a genuine Bible believer should clearly introduce speculation, hypothesis, guesses, etc., by using words like might, possibly, probably, it appears, etc., which make it absolutely clear that that the speaker (or writer) is engaged in speculation or personal opinion. It's not that hard!

In conclusion: In the scriptural context,  Philemon 1:8-19 deals with Paul’s testimony concerning Onesimus and his personal appeal to Philemon to accept Onesimus “Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved”. The verses might be a type of “Imputation and Justification”, but that would be a spiritual interpretation of the verses, not a historical or doctrinal application of the verses as they are found within the pages of the King James Bible.

While the spiritual interpretation of verses of Scripture might be true and possibly of interest to some folks, they are open to private interpretation. Personally, I am much more interested in the expository teaching of Scripture, where the holy words of God are taken in their historical context (and rightly divided) and the doctrinal meaning of the words is determined. Often times the spiritual interpretation of verses of Scripture can actually detract from the historical and doctrinal application!       

An additional observation: Please take note of how the words “thee”, “thou”, “thine”, (all singular) and “you” (plural) are used throughout the entire Epistle.

As promised, I shall now proceed to reply to your last Post.


Re: The "T's" and "Y's" Of the King James Bible By Dave Rees
      by Chette » Fri Jul 04, 2014 7:05 am

      "Here are some interesting observations by men of God concerning Philemon and Onesimus that are not found in the scriptures."

Chette wrote:
      "Smith's Bible dictionary - Philemon was the bishop of the church"

Actually Smith’s Bible Dictionary says: “It is related that Philemon became bishop of Colosse, and died as a martyr under Nero”. (“It is related” simply means that Smith’s Bible Dictionary is repeating ‘HEARSAY’, and not unequivocally stating a scriptural or historical ‘FACT’). In point of fact, upon reading Smith’s Bible Dictionary comments regarding Philemon, it is manifest that it is very careful to distinguish between speculation and fact and cites Scripture verses in support of its speculations, as I shall demonstrate:
Smith's Bible Dictionary

Phile'mon,

the name of the Christian to whom Paul addressed his epistle in behalf of Onesimus. He was a native probably of Colosse, or at all events lived in that city when the apostle wrote to him: first, because Onesimus was a Colossian, Col 4:9

and secondly because Archippus was a Colossian, Col 4:17

whom Paul associates with Philemon at the beginning of his letter. Phm 1:1-2

It is related
that Philemon became bishop of Colosse, and died as a martyr under Nero. It is evident from the letter to him that Philemon was a man of property and influence, since he is represented as the head of a numerous household, and as exercising an expensive liberality toward his friends and the poor in general. He was indebted to the apostle Paul as the medium of his personal participation in the gospel. It is not certain under what circumstances they became known to each other. It is evident that on becoming a disciple he gave no common proof of the sincerity and power of his faith. His character as shadowed forth in the epistle to him, is one of the noblest which the sacred record makes known to us.

Did you notice how careful Smith’s Bible Dictionary was in distinguishing between speculation and fact? If a Christian preacher, pastor, teacher, or commentator chooses to engage in speculation, this is the methodology that they should follow.

Chette wrote:
      "Intl Bible encyclopedia - Apphila was Philemon's wife and Archippus was his son."

The following are The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia’s comments on Philemon:

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

PHILEMON
fi-le'-mon, fi-le'-mun (Philemon): Among the converts of Paul, perhaps while at Ephesus, was one whom he calls a "fellow-worker," Philemon (Phm 1:1). He was probably a man of some means, was celebrated for his hospitality (Phm 1:5-7) and of considerable importance in the ecclesia at Colosse. It was at his house (Phm 1:2) that the Colossian Christians met as a center. It is more than probable that this was a group of the Colossian church rather than the entire ekklesia. His wife was named Apphia (Phm 1:2) {pure conjecture!}; and Archippus (Phm 1:2) was no doubt his son {conjecture!}. From Col 4:17 we learn that Archippus held an office of some importance in Colosse {conjecture!}, whether he was a presbyter (Abbott, ICC), or an evangelist, or perhaps the reader (Zahn), we cannot tell. He is called here (Phm 1:2) Paul's "fellow-soldier."

The relation between the apostle and Philemon was so close and intimate that Paul does not hesitate to press him, on the basis of it, to forgive his slave {correction – “servant”}, Onesimus, for stealing and for running away {pure conjecture!}.

See PHILEMON ,EPISTLE TO .
Tradition makes Philemon the bishop of Colosse (Apostolical Constitutions, vii, 46), and the Greek Martyrology (Menae) for November 22 tells us that he together with his wife and son and Onesimus were martyred by stoning before Androcles, the governor, in the days of Nero. With this the Latin Martyrology agrees (compare Lightfoot, Ignatius,II , 535). This evidence, however, is unsatisfactory and cannot be trusted as giving unquestionable facts as to Philemon. The only sure information is that in the epistle bearing his name.
  
Charles Smith Lewis

The facts are that: “Tradition . . . . is unsatisfactory and cannot be trusted”, and “The only sure information is that in the epistle bearing his name”. Amen & amen! Everything (i.e. all guesses, speculations, hypothesis, opinions, etc.) that is outside of the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to Philemon “is unsatisfactory and cannot be trusted”, and “The only sure information is that in the epistle bearing his name”. That’s exactly what I have been saying all along! How are genuine Bible believers edified by this information? WHY refer to the church of God at Colosse in “the Greek” (i.e. “ecclesia”)? Does “the Greek” clarify anything; or does it obscure, complicate, and confuse the issue and muddy the waters?

Chette wrote:
      Easton's - Philemon probably held some position in the church.

The following are the Easton Bible Dictionary’s comments on Philemon:
Easton's Bible Dictionary

Philemon
an inhabitant of Colosse, and apparently a person of some note among the citizens (Col 4:9; Phm 1:2). He was brought to a knowledge of the gospel through the instrumentality of Paul (19), and held a prominent place in the Christian community for his piety and beneficence (4-7). He is called in the epistle a "fellow-labourer," and therefore probably held some office in the church at Colosse; at all events, the title denotes that he took part in the work of spreading a knowledge of the gospel.

I can basically go along with that statement.

PLEASE GO TO PART TWO
George Anderson    http://www.thywordistruthkjv.com/

. . . . . yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written . . . . . Romans 3:4
User avatar
George
 
Posts: 639
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:17 am
Location: Lancaster, Ohio

Re: The "T's" and "Y's" Of the King James Bible By Dave Rees

Postby George » Thu Jul 17, 2014 5:52 pm

PART TWO

Chette wrote:
      Intl Bible Encyclopedia - Onesimus was still a heathen when he defrauded his master

The following are The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia’s comments on Onesimus:

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

ONESIMUS

o-nes'-i-mus (Onesimos, literally, "profitable," "helpful" (Col 4:9; Phm 1:10)):

1. With Paul in Rome:

Onesimus was a slave (Phm 1:16) {The Holy Bible states he was “a servant”} belonging to Philemon who was a wealthy citizen of Colosse, and a prominent member of the church there. Onesimus was still a heathen when he defrauded his master {pure conjecture!}and ran off from Colosse. He found his way to Rome, where evil men tended to flock as to a common center, as Tacitus tells us they did at that period. In Rome he came into contact with Paul, who was then in his own hired house, in military custody. {The Holy Bible says absolutely nothing about Onesimus defrauding his master – the word defraud (or defrauded) cannot be found in the entire Epistle to Philemon in the King James Bible.}

What brought him into contact with Paul we do not know. It may have been hunger; it may have been the pangs of conscience. He could not forget that his master's house in Colosse was the place where the Christians met in their weekly assemblies for the worship of Christ. {pure conjecture!} Neither could he forget how Philemon had many a time spoken of Paul, {pure conjecture!} to whom he owed his conversion. Now that Onesimus was in Rome--what a strange coincidence--Paul also was in Rome.

The result of their meeting was that Onesimus was converted to Christ, through the instrumentality of the apostle ("my child, whom I have begotten in my bonds," Phm 1:10). His services had been very acceptable to Paul, who would gladly have kept Onesimus with him; but as he could not do this without the knowledge and consent of Philemon, he sent Onesimus back to Colosse, to his master there. {The Holy Bible says “I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds” [Philemon 1:10] – NOTmy child”.}

2. Paul's Epistles to Colosse and to Philemon:

At the same time Paul wrote to the church in Colosse on other matters, and he entrusted the Epistle to the Colossians to the joint care of Tychicus and Onesimus. The apostle recommends Onesimus to the brethren in Colosse, as a "faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you," and he goes on to say that Tychicus and Onesimus will make known to them all things that have happened to Paul in Rome. Such a commendation would greatly facilitate' Onesimus's return to Colosse.

But Paul does more. He furnishes Onesimus with a letter written by himself to Philemon. Returning to a city where it was well known that he had been neither a Christian nor even an honest man, {pure conjecture!} he needed someone to vouch for the reality of the change which had taken place in his life. And Paul does this for him both in the Epistle to the Colossians and in that to Philemon.

With what exquisite delicacy is Onesimus introduced! `Receive him,' says the apostle, `for he is my own very heart' (Phm 1:12). "The man whom the Colossians had only known hitherto, if they knew him all, as a worthless runaway slave {correction – “servant”}, is thus commended to them, as no more a slave {correction – “servant”} but a brother, no more dishonest and faithless but trustworthy; no more an object of contempt but of love" (Lightfoot's Commentary on Col, 235).
(1) Onesimus Profitable.
The apostle accordingly begs Philemon to give Onesimus the same reception as he would rejoice to give to himself. The past history of Onesimus had been such as to belie the meaning of his name. He had not been "profitable"--far from it. But already his consistent conduct in Rome and his willing service to Paul there have changed all that; he has been profitable to Paul, and he will be profitable to Philemon too.

(2) Paul Guarantees.
Onesimus had evidently stolen his master's goods before leaving Colosse, {Where is the scriptural ‘evidence’ to support this speculation?} but in regard to that the apostle writes that if he has defrauded Philemon in anything, he becomes his surety. {But the Holy Bible says something different “If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account” [Philemon 1:18]} Philemon can regard Paul's handwriting as a bond guaranteeing payment: "Put that to mine account," are his words, "I will repay it." Had Philemon not been a Christian, and had Paul not written this most beautiful letter, Onesimus might well have been afraid to return. In the Roman empire slaves were constantly crucified for smaller offenses than those of which he had been guilty. {which, according to the scriptural testimony, were exactly WHAT???} A thief and a runaway had nothing but torture or death to expect. {pure conjecture!}

(3) The Change Which Christ Makes.
But now under the sway of Christ all is changed. The master who has been defrauded {pure conjecture!} now owns allegiance to Jesus. The letter, which is delivered to him by his slave {correction – “servant”}, is written by a bound "prisoner of Jesus Christ." The slave {correction – “servant”} too is now a brother in Christ, beloved by Paul: surely he will be beloved by Philemon also. Then Paul intimates that he hopes soon to be set free, and then he will come and visit them in Colosse. Will Philemon receive him into his house as his guest?

(4) The Result.
It cannot be imagined that this appeal in behalf of Onesimus was in vain. Philemon would do more than Paul asked; and on the apostle's visit to Colosse he would find the warmest welcome, both from Philemon and from Onesimus.

John Rutherfurd

Can you see WHY I have grown weary of reading this unmitigated slop? Do you understand WHY I say that it’s a waste of my time studying Bible commentators, when so many of their writings are so obviously flawed and full of error? This garbage does not edify the brethren; instead it can only mislead them and cause them to err (or worse).  

Chette wrote:
      Easton's - Onesimus, a slave who after robbing his master Philemon, fled to Rome.

The following are the Easton Bible Dictionary’s comments on Philemon:
Easton's Bible Dictionary

Onesimus

useful, a slave {correction – “servant”} who, after robbing his master Philemon (q.v.) at Colosse, fled to Rome, {pure conjecture!} where he was converted by the apostle Paul, who sent him back to his master with the epistle which bears his name. In it he beseeches Philemon to receive his slave {correction – “servant”} as a "faithful and beloved brother." Paul offers to pay to Philemon anything his slave {correction – “servant”} had taken, and to bear the wrong he had done him. He was accompanied on his return by Tychicus, the bearer of the Epistle to the Colossians (Phm 1:16,18).

The story of this fugitive Colossian slave {correction – “servant”} is a remarkable evidence of the freedom of access to the prisoner which was granted to all, and "a beautiful illustration both of the character of St. Paul and the transfiguring power and righteous principles of the gospel."

When attempting to study the Holy Scriptures, must Bible believers spend so much of their time continually correcting the commentators? Or would they be better off ignoring the so-called Bible commentators and going to the pure source of the Holy words of God (i.e. “the fountain of living waters”) rather than these “broken cisterns, that can hold no water” [Jeremiah 2:13]?

I shall endeavor to shorten my responses to the rest of the citations.

Chette wrote:
      Halls Comm. - Our fellow laborer in the Gospel, Bishop or Pastor of the Church at Colosse.

Since I am unfamiliar with Halls Commentary, I can only say that “Hall” couldn’t prove that Philemon was the “Bishop (singular) or Pastor (singular) of the Church at Colosse” if his life depended on it!

Chette wrote:
J F B Comm - Greek, "But it (thou art not inclined to 'receive him' because) he hath wronged thee"; a milder term than "robbed thee." Onesimus seems to have confessed some such act to Paul.
Then WHY did Paul say “IF he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account” [Philemon 1:18]? If Onesimus had “confessed” to committing a crime to Paul, WHY does Paul say “IF he hath wronged thee”? The Apostle Paul wasn’t as dense as the scholars and scribes who are commenting on this Epistle, and who obviously haven’t mastered basic ‘reading comprehension’. If Onesimus had “confessed” to committing a crime to Paul, Paul would have known that Onesimus hath “wronged” Philemon – there would have been no doubt in Paul’s mind, but Paul said “IF he hath wronged thee”, because it appears that he (i.e. Paul) wasn’t sure that he had.
Again, since I do not have the J F B Commentary (i.e. Jamieson, Fausett, & Brown), I can only say that “Jamieson, Fausett, & Brown” reference to “Greek” undermines the authority of the Holy Bible in English and their comment “Onesimus seems to have confessed some such act to Paul” concerning Onesimus possibly having committed a crime and “confessing” such to Paul is incomprehensible in the light of Philemon 1:18, to say the least.

Chette wrote:
     
Matthew Henry Comm - Philemon, one of note and probably a minister in the church of Colosse, a city of Phrygia, had a servant named Onesimus, who, having purloined his goods,

Since I do not have Matthew Henry’s Commentaries I can only say that that brother Henry was correct in stating that Philemon was “probably a minister in the church of Colosse” (instead of saying that Philemon was “THE minister’ (singular) or “THE Leader” singular) in the church of Colosse), and he also used the correct word “servant” instead of the substitute word “slave” that many scholars use. However, he veered off into the ditch when he claimed that Onesimus “purloined his (i.e. Philemon’s) goods”, since he could not prove his statement from Scripture.

Chette wrote:
     
Philip Dodridge comm - one of the pastors of the Colossian church

If Philip Dodridge had said possiblyone of the pastors of the Colossian church” I would have given him an ‘B+’, but since he made a declarative statement (which he could not prove from Scripture) he gets a ‘C’ for mentioning multiplepastors (i.e. ‘elders’) of the Colossian church” and an ‘F’ for failing to distinguish between his opinion on the issue and the plain scriptural facts.

Chette wrote:
     
Robertson's NT word Pics - He had probably robbed Philemon before he ran away.

And since the Holy Bible says NOTHING as to whether Onesimus had “robbed Philemon” or not, we can safely disregard Robertson’s speculations for what they are – i.e. the educated guesses of “a notable American scholar of New Testament Greek” who wouldn’t hesitate to CHANGE the Holy words of if he believed that they needed ‘improvement’.  

Chette wrote:
     
“Need I go on.”

{There is no need for you to “go on” since your appeal to “Christian” scholars only reaffirms what I have believed for over 40 years – i.e. that, just as in the days of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the days of His disciples and apostles, scholars and scribes are not to be trusted - for far too many of them have their own agenda.}
     
“Should we totally condemn and pass judgment on Dave Reese for these statements about Philemon and Onesimus?”

{Of course we shouldn’ttotally condemn and pass judgment on Dave Reese for these statements about Philemon and Onesimus”. However, as professing Bible believers, we have an obligation to judge what he says or writes (i.e. his words), and if his words do not line up with the Scriptures (i.e. if they are in error or they are false) we have a duty to call attention to his errors and refute them with Scripture.}  
     
“Should we condemn him for his presenting that this last letter of the NT epistles is a type of Imputation and Justification?”

{Of course we shouldn’tcondemn him for his presenting that this last letter of the NT epistles is a type of Imputation and Justification?”. Bible believing Christians should not be in the business of ‘condemning’ anyone. On the other hand, if someone is teaching his personal opinions, guesses, speculations, and assumptions as Bible truth, or if someone is clearly teaching error, or if they are responsible for leavening the Holy words of God, we can (and should) judge their words according to the Scriptures.}   1 Corinthians 10:15 ¶ I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.

     
“Though I understand your point that it does change the word of God if one makes their opinion the same as the words of God but I don't think he was doing that.  You are correct the teaching in not in the text but in men's interpretation of what Paul's says and those are not necessarily true.”
{I am sorry, but after re-reading your statement (above) several times, I still don’t ‘get it’. If, in the course of teaching Christian brethren, a professing Bible believer says (or writes) something which is “not necessarily true”, they are teaching ERROR. If someone teaches error to the brethren they are introducing LEAVEN into the body of Christ; there are NO IF’S, AND’S, or BUT’S about it! If someone (it matters not as to who they may be) substitutes their personal opinions, guesses, speculations, and assumptions as Bible truth, they are engaged in CHANGING the Holy words of God; there are NO IF’S, AND’S, or BUT’S about it! I know of no scriptural way to evade or side-step this matter. Error is error. Leaven is leaven. False Doctrine is false doctrine. Changing God’s holy words amounts to changing Gods Holy words. And no amount of equivocation can change these declarative statements.}
“As far as it being a type of Imputation and Justification.  I would have to say it was a very good observation of the text on Reese's part.  And does it not appear that those types are there?  Just as if one would say Joseph was a Type of Christ?”
{If a professing Bible believer chooses to ‘spiritually interpret’ some verses of Scripture that’s their prerogative, but as I said earlier: “The verses might be a type of “Imputation and Justification”, but that would be a spiritual interpretation of the verses, not a historical or doctrinal application of the verses as they are found within the pages of the King James Bible.

While the spiritual interpretation of verses of Scripture might be might be true and possibly of interest to some folks, they are open to private interpretation. Personally, I am much more interested in the expository teaching of Scripture, where the holy words of God are taken in their historical context (and rightly divided) and the doctrinal meaning of the words is determined. Often times the spiritual interpretation of verses of Scripture can actually detract from the historical and doctrinal application!”}    
     
“George, I really think you can exercise a bit more grace towards people and their opinions, speculations and assumptions.  I am not saying you need to compromise your standing, just give them a bit more grace.  Point it out but don't be so quick to meet out judgment of a person's heart.  None of us are prefect and surely you have not attained it yet.  Right?”

Brother Chette, while I appreciate your advise, I believe that you are miss-judging me and/or my motives. I am not judging anyone's "heart", since only God "knowest the hearts of all the children of men" [1 Kings 8:39; 2 Chronicles 6:30; Luke 16:15; Acts 1:24; Acts 15:8; 1 John 3:20]! I believe that I go out of my way to extend “more grace towards people”; however, I do not believe that the Scriptures teach that I should be exercising “a bit more grace towards people” who are actively engaged in changing God’s Holy words, or if they substitute their personal opinions, guesses, speculations, and assumptions for Bible truth, or if they are introducing LEAVEN into the body of Christ. The Scriptures teach that there are times when we should:

2 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.


And on the other hand, there are times when we must:  

2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

Titus 2:15 ¶ These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.


And it takes true spiritual discernment, understanding, and wisdom to know when to exercise these things and to whom they apply - it's not a 'one size fits all' situation. And if someone (a fellow brother in Christ?) is offended or ends up despising me because I speak (or write the truth), in good conscience I cannot change or alter the way that I deal with professing Bible believers (especially those who are in positions of authority) when they engage in deception, error, or leaven. I have a question for all those Christian brethren who become offended by what I say (or write):

Galatians 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
George Anderson    http://www.thywordistruthkjv.com/

. . . . . yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written . . . . . Romans 3:4
User avatar
George
 
Posts: 639
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:17 am
Location: Lancaster, Ohio

Re: The "T's" and "Y's" Of the King James Bible By Dave Rees

Postby Chette » Fri Jul 18, 2014 4:20 am

Yes as I went through I found that many times men had placed alongside God's word their conjectures.  My point in pointing it all out was to show that by tradition this teaching that Philemon was the pastor/bishop/eldere of the church which was in his house had been on going for many years and it has been so ingrained in some men that they repeat it as fact.

I don't think we need to go through and correct them as you say it is to time consuming and takes away from real study of the word of God.

Every man from the beginning of the first Century on down has added their conjectures, opinions and speculations in their commentaries.  I guess in conclusion we should not read any thing but the Bible.  Study only the Bible and keep all our speculative interpretations out of our final messages we would share with members of the body of Christ.

Truly, George you are a rare specimen when it comes to your attitude and study of the word of God.  You are to be commended.  None of us can be trusted with the word of God apart from the Holy Ghost.  

I was taught to observe scripture and in so doing we were to come up with our points of observation but what was in the text.  But even the bestr of my teachers still came to conclusions when they took the next step and interpreted what they read in the text.  and as always the next step was to re-state the text in your own words and then from that develop an application for your life.

I find myself sometime sickened when I listen to the preacher on the radio say things that are not in the word but as we have seen above are their conjectures, speculations and opinions stated as fact.  The worst thing is many look at them from what they say and often give them great credit for their insight to the word of God.  When in fact it is their words more than God's.

I have to say I find your studies much different in that they present the facts of the text straight forward with no admixture.  Many times you don't even have to explain to deeply because it is clear from the scriptures you quoted.

I would trust your word on God's word above that of many men.  I do from time to time check and see if some things you say are true and when I look closely at the text I can find no error.

Thanks George, again you prove your point on the fallibility of men and the infallibility of God's Holy Words.
Psalm 49:3 My mouth shall speak of wisdom; and the meditation of my heart [shall be] of understanding.

www.chettesblog.wordpress.com
User avatar
Chette
 
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:08 am
Location: Virginia

Previous

Return to Bible Studies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron