Some time back, there was a thread about sex in marriage. Psalm63 presented a case that Paul was saying that sex needed to be done with benevolence because of the phrase 'due benevolence' and the meaning of the Greek word.
Here is the passage in the KJV, which uses 'due benevolence'.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
I asked a retired Classices (i.e. Greek and Latin) professor, a former chair at a state university, about this. If I recall correctly, he referred me to a related word in Romans 13:7 in which Paul says to give tribute to whom tribute is due. The word in Romans 13 is opheilas. The word in I Corinthians 7 is opheilomenEn. An Greek interlinear glosses the term in I Corinthians 7 as 'being-due' or 'being owed'. If etymologically, the term has to do with benevolence, it seems to have been used to refer to what is owed another person or entity.
I am wondering how verse 5 would be interpreted using Psalm63's interpretation that Paul is saying that sex needs to be done with a benevolent attitude. Is Paul saying that it is okay to withhold even nonsexual benevolence from one another while performing a fast which both parties agree to? I do not believe that, but if one were to say that Paul's point is that sex should be benevolent and argue that he is not saying that one is obligated to provide ones spouse with sex, this is where the argument would lead, imo.
I don't have a problem with the idea that sex should always be done with a benevolent attitude. We are taught to love one another. I do think it confuses the passage if this type of interpretation takes away from the fact that Paul is indicating here that providing sex for the other partner is something that is their 'due' that a married person is obligated to provide.
Here is the passage in the KJV, which uses 'due benevolence'.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
I asked a retired Classices (i.e. Greek and Latin) professor, a former chair at a state university, about this. If I recall correctly, he referred me to a related word in Romans 13:7 in which Paul says to give tribute to whom tribute is due. The word in Romans 13 is opheilas. The word in I Corinthians 7 is opheilomenEn. An Greek interlinear glosses the term in I Corinthians 7 as 'being-due' or 'being owed'. If etymologically, the term has to do with benevolence, it seems to have been used to refer to what is owed another person or entity.
I am wondering how verse 5 would be interpreted using Psalm63's interpretation that Paul is saying that sex needs to be done with a benevolent attitude. Is Paul saying that it is okay to withhold even nonsexual benevolence from one another while performing a fast which both parties agree to? I do not believe that, but if one were to say that Paul's point is that sex should be benevolent and argue that he is not saying that one is obligated to provide ones spouse with sex, this is where the argument would lead, imo.
I don't have a problem with the idea that sex should always be done with a benevolent attitude. We are taught to love one another. I do think it confuses the passage if this type of interpretation takes away from the fact that Paul is indicating here that providing sex for the other partner is something that is their 'due' that a married person is obligated to provide.
