Paul... Passive aggressive in Philemon?

[Stope]

It appears, from my worldview, that Paul is being passive aggressive with Philemon to receive Onesimus (I could force you, but... You owe me your own self...)...

That said, if he WAS being passive aggressive (and passive aggressive is a sin/wrong), then does that not also call into question Paul as a person/human who has sin? And then, how do we know his sin didnt creep in? In other words:

Does the sinful nature of Paul/NT writers creep in and distort the books they wrote?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Or maybe Paul is simply being tactful. He seems to be speaking in a way that a superior speaking to an inferior does when he could command, but instead he wants to give the person an opportunity to do the right thing of their own accord.

Passive aggressive comes into play in relationships when the person doesn't come out and tell you what they want you to do. (That's why it is called "passive.") But, as you note, Paul explicitly tells Philemon what he would like to happen, but he stops short of a command. Paul, stating what he wants to happen, is NOT being passive aggressive.

 

[Frosty]

I would first be interested to see how the OP defines "passive aggressive".

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Does the sinful nature of Paul/NT writers creep in and distort the books they wrote?

Such a conclusion, distortion of Holy Writ by sin, would undermine the plenary inspiration of Scripture. It would imply the penmen were not prevented from error by the superintendence of God the Holy Spirit. It is a view contrary to our Confessions.

WCF 1.8
"...being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical..."

 

[Stope]

I would first be interested to see how the OP defines "passive aggressive".

I take back using Passive Aggressive, instead I use manipulative. And when I say that I mean that Paul is sort of saying what he wants, and asserts he could force it, however he at the same time says Philemon doenst have to - but it APPEARS that Paul is kind of being manipulative...

But, my bigger question is:
Does the sinful nature of Paul/NT writers creep in and distort the books they wrote?

 

[Stope]

Such a conclusion, distortion of Holy Writ by sin, would undermine the plenary inspiration of Scripture. It would imply the penmen were not prevented from error by the superintendence of God the Holy Spirit. It is a view contrary to our Confessions.

WCF 1.8
"...being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical..."

Yes I agree with you, but I dont know how to explain this to a person who doesnt care (or even know) the confessions.. How, from scripture, can we argue for this truth?

 

[py3ak]

2 Peter 1:21. Inspired words are not of human origin, but are produced by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Yes I agree with you, but I dont know how to explain this to a person who doesnt care (or even know) the confessions.. How, from scripture, can we argue for this truth?

It would have been more clear to all had you actually included this as the motivation for your question. Ruben has supplied above the answer you seek.

When God uses human language so that temporal man may understand His truthful revelation, there is a supernatural warrant—it is God speaking through the writer—that the Scriptures will not be in error.

 

[hammondjones]

I suggest that we are not seeing passive-aggressiveness, but rather a different way of speaking truth to someone, which is highly cultural. Specifically I mean a way speaking of truth to someone which is somewhat foreign to the Western culture that most of us on this board have grown up in and possibly/probably natively read the Bible with.

For example, much can be said about cultures in which saving face is still very important, even today. Consider, for example, the exchange between Abraham and Ephron in Genesis 23. Obviously, Abraham should buy the land, but it is not culturally proper for him to directly say "how much do you want?" That is not the way things are done. Ephron must offer it freely (but not actually for free). Only in a roundabout way will they agree upon a price.

This I think is instructive for understanding Philemon, in which Paul is in fact making a very strong statement to Philemon regarding Onesimus.

I suggest, then, that it is not a sinful way in which the authors (in this case Paul) of Scripture are writing, but rather a cultural one. Inspiration is not dictation.

 

[Stope]

I suggest that we are not seeing passive-aggressiveness, but rather a different way of speaking truth to someone, which is highly cultural. Specifically I mean a way speaking of truth to someone which is somewhat foreign to the Western culture that most of us on this board have grown up in and possibly/probably natively read the Bible with.

For example, much can be said about cultures in which saving face is still very important, even today. Consider, for example, the exchange between Abraham and Ephron in Genesis 23. Obviously, Abraham should buy the land, but it is not culturally proper for him to directly say "how much do you want?" That is not the way things are done. Ephron must offer it freely (but not actually for free). Only in a roundabout way will they agree upon a price.

This I think is instructive for understanding Philemon, in which Paul is in fact making a very strong statement to Philemon regarding Onesimus.

I suggest, then, that it is not a sinful way in which the authors (in this case Paul) of Scripture are writing, but rather a cultural one. Inspiration is not dictation.

Wow brother this is a great response. That said, yes I can see how if the address was sent private to ONLY Philemon then I could see how he could save face, but the letter was sent to the entire church in his household, so then if anything it seems he might hear "weak" and a "pushover" as he was subtly told to do this thing that Paul desired???