Either by getting away from you, or by neglecting to perform what he had consented to, or by unfaithfulness when he was with you as a servant, or by taking your property when he left. Any of these techniques would meet all that is said here, and it is difficult to decide in which of them he had done Philemon off-base. It might be observed, be that as it may, that the apostle manifests much delicacy in this issue. He doesn't state that he had wronged him, however he makes a supposition that he may have done it. Surely, Philemon would assume that he had done it, regardless of whether he had done close to escape from him, and, whatever Paul's perspectives of that may be, he says that regardless of whether it were thus, he would wish him to set that over to his record. He assumed the fault on himself, and requested that Philemon not recollect it against Onesimus.
It shows up from this, that Onesimus, whatever may have been his previous condition, was fit for holding property, and of contracting obligations. It is conceivable that he may have acquired cash of Philemon, or he may have been viewed as an inhabitant, and might not have paid the lease of his homestead, or the apostle may imply that he had owed him benefit which he had not performed. Guess is pointless with regards to the manner by which the obligation had been contracted.
Reckon, or ascribe that to me - εμοὶ ἐλλόγα emoi ellogaThis word happens no place else in the New Testament, with the exception of in Romans 5:13, where it is rendered credited. It intends to "figure;" to put to one's record, to mind, what appropriately has a place with him, or what he expect. It never infers that that will be charged on one which does not appropriately have a place with him, either as his own particular demonstration, or as that which he has expected. For this situation, it would have been plainly out of line for Philemon to charge the wrong which Onesimus had done, or what he owed him, to the missionary Paul without his assent; and it can't be gathered from what Paul says here that it would have been all in all correct to do as such. The means for the situation were these:
(1) Onesimus, not Paul, had done the wrong.
(2) Paul was not liable of it, or reprehensible for it, and never in any capacity, or by any procedure, could be made to be, or considered to be. It would be genuine everlastingly that Onesimus and not he had done the off-base.
(3) Paul accepted the obligation and the wrong to himself. He was eager, by placing himself in the place of Onesimus, to endure the outcomes, and to have Onesimus regarded as though he had not done it. When he had intentionally accepted it, it was more right than wrong to regard him as though he had done as such; that is, to consider him answerable. A man may accept an obligation in the event that he satisfies, and after that he might be held liable for it.
(4) on the off chance that he had not accepted this himself, it never could have been appropriate for Philemon to charge it on him. No conceivable supposition could make it right. No office which he had in the transformation of Onesimus; no fellowship which he had for him; no support which he had demonstrated him, could make it right. The assent, the simultaneousness with respect to Paul was totally vital all together that he ought to be in any capacity in charge of what Onesimus had done.
(5) a similar guideline wins in attribution all over.
(a)What we have done is chargeable upon us.
(b)If we have not completed a thing, or have not expected it by a willful demonstration, it isn't all in all correct to charge it upon us.
(c)God figures things as they seem to be.
The Savior deliberately accepted the place of man, and God figured, or thought about it so. He didn't hold him liable or culpable for the situation; however as he had willfully replaced the delinquent, he was dealt with as though he had been a sinner. God, in like way, does not charge on man wrongdoings of which he isn't blameworthy. He doesn't hold him to be culpable, or sick meriting for the wrongdoing of Adam, or some other sin yet his own. He figures things as they seem to be. Adam trespassed, and only he was held to be reprehensible or sick meriting for the demonstration. Whenever Paul, accordingly, intentionally accepted an obligation or a commitment, what he did ought not be asked as a contention to demonstrate that it would be appropriate for God to charge on all the successors of Adam the transgression of their first father, or to hold them blameworthy for an offense submitted ages before they had a presence. The case ought to be showed to exhibit one point just - that when a man expect an obligation, or deliberately takes a wrong done upon himself, it is all in all correct to consider him in charge of it.
Join christian-trail curation trail @ https://steemauto.com , register and help in encouraging one another in steemit.
Also fellow christians if haven't done so please read this post for building the christian community on steemit here: https://steemit.com/christian-trail/@wilx/christians-on-steemit-let-us-follow-and-support-each-other-pt-7-join-
Thanks for reading.
If you found my article nice, please resteem to your friends and support it with your up vote, it’s highly appreciated.
You can also follow me 
