|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Happily Married but Sex Life Sucks - 11/10/2009 3:40:32 PM
|
|
|
jhuperetes
Posts: 1579
Status: offline
|
Interesting...
So, how do you understand verse 4 and 5 in 1 Cor. 7:2-5?
The Mishnah is not part of my Bible.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
quote:
ORIGINAL: mosess8
That may be his opinion but it is not the opinion of the bible.
The OT supports this and it is the beginning point for the NT authors:
Sex is a wife's right and a husband's responsibility.
In fact the Mishnah (which wrote down the social and religious mores of the first century) said exactly how often a man was to offer to satisfy his wife based on his occupation. If he were independantly wealthy, it was every day. If his job was in one of the lower frequencies, she could sue in the courts to get him to change occupations to satisfy her more frequently.
There is absolutely nothing (other that 1 Cor 7) in the bible that says it the other way around. Perhaps that is why Paul wrote that, to try to bring it back into balance.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Happily Married but Sex Life Sucks - 11/11/2009 11:32:33 AM
|
|
|
trainfan
Posts: 3161
Joined: 7/26/2007
From: The land of confusion
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
quote:
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. What translation is THAT??? Not a good one...
(NASB) 1Co 7:1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.
(WEB) 1Co 7:1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote to me: it is good for a man not to touch a woman.
(ASV) 1Co 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
That is from the NIV but this is not the place to discuss the merits of one translation over another.
Regardless of what translation you prefer the passage when put in context in any version is still refering to marriage itself "being a concession not a command". Which is what my original point was. It appears southserve was trying to say sex was the "concession not a command" in the following quoted post.
quote:
ORIGINAL: southserve
quote:
ORIGINAL: Concerto
I have to disagree with the above response. What does the Bible say? That, unless it is agreed upon, husband and wife should not deprive each other of intimacy. Love is a two way street. Marriage is a "relationship" meaning, 2 people, not one. Should the husband love his wife sacrificially, yes? But, being intimate should not be considered some type of "reward" meaning, well, the husband was extra extra kind this week, so, because of that, the wife then agrees to intimacy. That is not right...once again, the Bible says:
"The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.6 NIV
C
How convenient that you stopped just short of including the tail end of that thought by the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians which says :"I say this as a concession, not as a command" 1CO 7:6.
_____________________________
Disappoints are inevitable, discouragment is a choice.
Dr. Charles Stanley.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Happily Married but Sex Life Sucks - 11/11/2009 4:10:38 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3971
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jhuperetes
Interesting...
So, how do you understand verse 4 and 5 in 1 Cor. 7:2-5? (ESV) 1Co 7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman."
1Co 7:2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
1Co 7:3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.
1Co 7:4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
1Co 7:5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
1Co 7:6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this.
I would say that the apostle is bringing some equality to the marriage bed, and that he is saying that it is the spouses RESPONSIBILITY before God to keep them satisfied.
Any break in frequency of sex should be ONLY by mutual agreement, and probably follow the teachings of Paul's mentor Gameliel: no longer than a week. ONLY FOR A DEVOTED TIME OF PRAYER.
I take the "concession" to be that he allows for any break at all.
< Message edited by DaveW -- 11/11/2009 4:17:03 PM >
_____________________________
Avatar is my son Caleb and Leah on their wedding 12/20/09
We are now empty nesters.......
====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Happily Married but Sex Life Sucks - 11/11/2009 4:14:18 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3971
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: trainfan
... this is not the place to discuss the merits of one translation over another.
Regardless of what translation you prefer the passage when put in context in any version is still refering to marriage itself "being a concession not a command". Which is what my original point was. It appears southserve was trying to say sex was the "concession not a command" in the following quoted post.
Please see the above post as to what the concession REALLY is.
_____________________________
Avatar is my son Caleb and Leah on their wedding 12/20/09
We are now empty nesters.......
====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Happily Married but Sex Life Sucks - 11/11/2009 4:24:27 PM
|
|
|
jhuperetes
Posts: 1579
Status: offline
|
I believe you are seriously mistaken if you think physical relations is a one sided responsibility, DaveW.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Happily Married but Sex Life Sucks - 11/11/2009 7:16:56 PM
|
|
|
trainfan
Posts: 3161
Joined: 7/26/2007
From: The land of confusion
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
quote:
ORIGINAL: trainfan
... this is not the place to discuss the merits of one translation over another.
Regardless of what translation you prefer the passage when put in context in any version is still refering to marriage itself "being a concession not a command". Which is what my original point was. It appears southserve was trying to say sex was the "concession not a command" in the following quoted post.
Please see the above post as to what the concession REALLY is.
Oh really?
Let's see what the commentaries say. I picked these at random from the on-line commentaries at Crosswalk.com
From John Darby's Synopsis of the New Testament. Bolded applies to the verse in question. Here is the link to the full commentary on the chapter.
If, by mutual consent, they separated for awhile that they might give themselves to prayer and to spiritual exercises, the bond was to be immediately acknowledged again, lest the heart, not governing itself, should give Satan occasion to come in and distress the soul, and destroy its confidence in God and in His love-lest he should tempt by distressing doubts (it is for,not by incontinency) a heart that aimed at too much, and failed in it.
This permission, however, and this direction which recommended Christians to marry, was not a commandment from the Lord, given by inspiration, but the fruit of the apostle's experience-an experience to which the presence of the Holy Ghost was not wanting
From the The 1599 Geneva Study Bible. Here is the link to the full commentary on the chapter.
7:6 5 But I speak this by permission, [and] not of commandment.
(5) Fifthly he teaches that marriage is not necessary for all men, but for those who do not have the gift of continency, and this gift is by a special grace of God.
From John Gill's Exposition of the Bible.
This actually supports both sides. Here is a link to commentary on the entire chapter.
But I speak this by permission…
Referring either to what he had said before, though not to all; not to (1 Corinthians 7:2) that for the avoiding of fornication, every man should make use of his own wife, and every woman of her own husband; since this is not by permission, but by command, (Genesis 2:24) that carnal copulation should be between one man and one woman in a married state; nor to (1 Corinthians 7:3,4) for that married persons ought to render due benevolence to, and not defraud each other, having a power over each other's bodies, is a precept, and not a permission, (Exodus 21:10) but to (1 Corinthians 7:5) their parting for a time, and coming together again: it is not an absolute command of God that they should separate for a time, on account of fasting and prayer, but if they thought fit to do so by agreement, they might; nor was there any positive precept for their coming together again directly, after such service was over. The apostle said this,
not of commandment;
but, consulting their good, gives this advice, lest Satan should be busy with them, and draw them into sin; but if they had the gift of continence, they might continue apart longer; there was no precise time fixed by God, nor did the apostle pretend to fix any: or it may refer to what follows after, that he would have all men be as he was; though he laid no injunction, but left them to their liberty; unless it can be thought to regard marriage in general, and to be said in opposition to a Jewish notion, which makes marriage (hwum) , a "command";
``a man, they say F6, is bound to this command at seventeen years of age, and if he passes twenty and does not marry, he transgresses, and makes void an affirmative precept;''
but the apostle puts it as a matter of choice, and not of obligation.
From Matthew Henry Complete Commentary
on the Whole Bible. Here is the link to the commentary on the entire chapter.
I speak this by permission, not of command. He did not lay it as an injunction upon every man to marry without exception. Any man might marry. No law of God prohibited the thing. But, on the other hand, not law bound a man to marry so that he sinned if he did not; I mean, unless his circumstances required it for preventing the lust of uncleanness. It was a thing in which men, by the laws of God, were in a great measure left at liberty. And therefore Paul did not bind every man to marry, though every man had an allowance. No, he could wish all men were as himself (v. 7), that is, single, and capable of living continently in that state.
_____________________________
Disappoints are inevitable, discouragment is a choice.
Dr. Charles Stanley.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Happily Married but Sex Life Sucks - 11/12/2009 6:32:19 AM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3971
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jhuperetes
I believe you are seriously mistaken if you think physical relations is a one sided responsibility, DaveW.
One sided? Paul's writing in 1 Cor 7 says it is not.
What I WAS saying is that biblically and in Jewish culture it was not considered such. 1 Cor 7 put the onus on women for the satisfaction of their husbands in equal terms to the biblical and cultural requirement for husbands.
_____________________________
Avatar is my son Caleb and Leah on their wedding 12/20/09
We are now empty nesters.......
====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Happily Married but Sex Life Sucks - 11/12/2009 10:01:12 AM
|
|
|
jhuperetes
Posts: 1579
Status: offline
|
I am sorry, I must have misunderstood your statement: "Sex is a wife's right and a husband's responsibility." (my emphasis)
Would you please elucidate on how you define these two highlighted terms and how they are compare and contrast as far as authority and responsibility?
I was also unable to find this sentence in 1 Corinthians 7. Which version do you use, so I may study it?
Thank you.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
quote:
ORIGINAL: jhuperetes
I believe you are seriously mistaken if you think physical relations is a one sided responsibility, DaveW.
One sided? Paul's writing in 1 Cor 7 says it is not.
What I WAS saying is that biblically and in Jewish culture it was not considered such. 1 Cor 7 put the onus on women for the satisfaction of their husbands in equal terms to the biblical and cultural requirement for husbands.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Happily Married but Sex Life Sucks - 11/12/2009 11:51:58 AM
|
|
|
stamper_ben
Posts: 7828
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lone Star State
Status: offline
|
Can you two start a discussion in the Theology folder to discuss your interpretations of the verses? Your discussion is not having anything to do with the issue the OP first brought up.
Thank you.
_____________________________
In 20 years from now, you’ll be more disappointed by the things that you didn’t do than by the ones you did. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbour. Explore. Dream. Discover
Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Happily Married but Sex Life Sucks - 11/12/2009 12:09:11 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3971
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: online
|
Please read my post more carefully. That statement is NOT from the NT, it is from the Mishnah and has been taught in Jewish homes since at least the first century bc.
My statement is that in this one place, 1 cor 7, Paul sets out to bring more balance to it.
_____________________________
Avatar is my son Caleb and Leah on their wedding 12/20/09
We are now empty nesters.......
====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
