Meaning of Due Benevolence

[Created2Write]

Show me that in the Bible.

I said it was my opinion, I never said it was in the Bible. As far as I know, it's not in the Bible. The Bible does warn against withholding sex and encourages married couples to have sex so I have to assume it's an important aspect of marriage. If it wasn't, it wouldn't have been mentioned.

Infidelity:
1.marital disloyalty; adultery.

I do consider willful neglect of sex over an extended period of time, when one is able to have sex and there is not an extenuating circumstance, to be marital disloyalty. It's my own opinion and on one else has to share it, but I do ask that responses be respectful.


2.unfaithfulness; disloyalty.

See above.


3.lack of religious faith, especially Christian faith.
4.a breach of trust or a disloyal act; transgression.

I also consider it to be a breach of trust.

 

[JaneFW]

Firstly, there is a difference between a willful neglect when one is perfectly capable of having sex but they choose not to, and certain circumstances that may prevent it that are beyond our control. They are definitely not the same thing. Yes, you go without sex in each one, but they why is entirely different.

Second, not everyone is you, Jane. Perhaps you can be fine without sex, as I'm sure others can too. But some of us wouldn't be. The neglect involved would be very damaging to us, even if it isn't to you. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with holding sex in high regard. And no one has talked about making it "a god". That's ridiculous. But having a physical, emotional and relational need for sex with our spouse is not wrong.

I specifically said "You can enjoy sex and hold it in high regard ..." So, I don't know why you are now saying there is nothing wrong with that, because I never said there was.

A person chooses what they are damaged by. A person can choose whether to stay with their spouse after s/he has had an affair, or after the discovery of porn use, or after whatever. A person can choose these things. Choose devestation OR I will survive because I got God on my side. The latter is a better way to handle disappointment but maybe that's just me.

 

[LinkH]

Well, my point was that "benevolence" MEANS "kindness" and that there is an ENTITLEMENT to KINDNESS. Paul IS teaching an entitlement to sex in marriage, but it should be hand in hand with KINDNESS. It is not a one-sided entitlement to "sex on demand" regardless of how the other party feels.

Why would 'sex on demand' be one sided? It is two-sided. I don't like 'sex on demand' to describe what Paul is saying here. It is an extreme way to put it.

Your post is actually the only one that specifically addresses the grammatical point made in the OP, which is fine. There would only be a few posts otherwise.

My point is this, if 'due benevolence' is referring to kindness, then can 'kindness' be withheld during fasting from due benevolence? When you think about that way, it makes more sense to see 'kindness' (or 'what is owed') here to be used euphemistically to refer to sex.

Sex should be kind and benevolent, of course, but I don't see that as Paul's point. Would you take it as Paul using a word for 'kindness' to refer to sex to emphasize the fact that sex should be kind?

 

[JaneFW]

* Sticking to OP.

 

[LinkH]

Without food you will die. Without sex, well, you won't die. That's why you can't use that analogy.

Analogies only go so far. Sure, not having sex doesn't literally kill you. Being refused, especially repeatedly, can hurt someone emotionally.

If your spouse refuses to talk to you for days on end, you won't die.
If your spouse yells at you and calls you 'knucklehead' all the time, you won't die.
If your spouse buys a chalk board and grows long fingernails, just to scratch the chalk board to annoy you all day, you won't die.

There are a lot of things that won't kill you that your spouse shouldn't do to you.

You can find someone else to talk to you.
You can find other people to be around who won't call you knucklehead.
You can find people to hang out with who don't scratch chalk boards.

But you aren't supposed to have sex with someone besides your spouse.

 

[Created2Write]

I specifically said "You can enjoy sex and hold it in high regard ..." So, I don't know why you are now saying there is nothing wrong with that, because I never said there was.

You choose what you are damaged by. You choose whether to stay with your spouse after s/he has had an affair, or after you discover porn use, or after whatever. You can choose these things. Choose devestation/never to recover/my life is over/high drama/end of the world OR I will survive because I got God on my side. The latter is a better way to handle disappointment but maybe that's just me.

No one said their life would be over, or that it was the end of the world so I don't know why you said those things. It's very goading and insulting. I'd appreciate it if we could discuss this without such comments being made.

If one can be emotionally hurt when their spouse has neglected them completely, it only makes sense that they would be hurt when their spouse has neglected them sexually. How they respond to that hurt, yes, is a choice. But because one is hurt from the sexual rejection doesn't make them wrong. Yes, God is always with us. Yes, we can overcome our obstacles. But the fact of that matter is that for some people sex is a need, physically, emotionally and relationally. A lack of that need would still hurt the person substantially.

 

[LinkH]

Isn't being generous with our spouse better than being stingy?

 

[JaneFW]

Analogies only go so far. Sure, not having sex doesn't literally kill you. Being refused, especially repeatedly, can hurt someone emotionally.

If your spouse refuses to talk to you for days on end, you won't die.
If your spouse yells at you and calls you 'knucklhead' all thetime, you won't die.
If your spouse buys a chalk board and grows long fingernails, just to scratch the chalk board to annoy you all day, you won't die.

There are a lot of things that won't kill you that your spouse shouldn't do to you.

Sure.

But the point is that you won't die.

No sex does not equate with no oxygen.

 

[Created2Write]

Analogies only go so far. Sure, not having sex doesn't literally kill you. Being refused, especially repeatedly, can hurt someone emotionally.

If your spouse refuses to talk to you for days on end, you won't die.
If your spouse yells at you and calls you 'knucklhead' all thetime, you won't die.
If your spouse buys a chalk board and grows long fingernails, just to scratch the chalk board to annoy you all day, you won't die.

There are a lot of things that won't kill you that your spouse shouldn't do to you.

VERY good post! I agree!

 

[JaneFW]

Isn't being generous with our spouse better than being stingy?

Sure. You are preaching to the choir. That's just not how it always is, and when it isn't, it's no good quoting scripture to that spouse nor beating them with the Bible, nor telling them you are about to expire from lack of ..... People will be what they will be.

 

[JaneFW]

But the fact of that matter is that for some people sex is a need, physically, emotionally and relationally. A lack of that need would still hurt the person substantially.

No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it. (1 Cor 10:13)

For whatever a person succumbs to, to that he is enslaved (2 Peter 2:19)

You've kept track of my every toss and turn
through the sleepless nights,
Each tear entered in your ledger,
each ache written in your book. (Psalm 56:8)

There is an answer for every hurt and every need in our lives.

 

[JaneFW]

No one said their life would be over, or that it was the end of the world so I don't know why you said those things. It's very goading and insulting. I'd appreciate it if we could discuss this without such comments being made.

I don't know why you think that is directed at you or suggesting you said any of that. It's jsut not uncommon to see end of the world scenarios posited by people who think that no sex is the end of everything. It's simply not.

 

[Created2Write]

Yes Jane, there is an answer to every hurt and need. No one is arguing that. But that doesn't mean a person's need for sex from their spouse is wrong! Link already posted the verse about sex from 1 Corinthians chapter seven(I think it was). It's a good thing. God created it and didn't intend for spouses to deny one another.

Why are you so against the idea that for some people sex is a need in their marriage? No one has said it should be a need for you. I very much dislike the negative attitude that sex gets here on this forum. I thank God my husband and I don't see it negatively and I thank God I married a man who holds sex to the same regard that I do.

 

[JaneFW]

Yes Jane, there is an answer to every hurt and need. No one is arguing that. But that doesn't mean a person's need for sex from their spouse is wrong!

I also never said it was wrong. *sigh*

I don't know about you, but I'm getting back to the OP because constantly defending myself about things I haven't said is getting boring.

 

[Created2Write]

Constantly defending sex is getting old.

 

[JaneFW]

You see, I don't know why anyone needs to "defend" sex. Just because someone says that sex isn't their be all and end all, what will happen? Will sex just stop? Hardly.

The fact that there is such an obsession about sex makes it plain (to me anyway) that people won't stop having sex tomorrow because one 49 year old woman said 'yah boo sucks' today.

There are a lot of people - women and men - for whom sex is just not the pinnacle of their Christian walk, or their marriage, or their life. They're not any less for that. Sucks to be married to one if you feel that sex is all that, but that's when you make a choice about where the real importance lies.

 

[McScribe]

Actually it's not really about sex. Feminism denies the idea that women need to under any circumstances be accountable to men. This is because it is not about it being a two way street of mutual accountability but about feminists doing whatever they want to and calling it good. Sex is merely a part of that picture. It can apply to everything from sex to emotional responses.

The Bible doesn't propose truth in that way. The Bible proposes that men and women alike sin, and that their sins are equal, and that each is capable of the same sins regardless of which is prone to what sins in particular. It requires us to equally be accountable to God for our sins and to repent likewise. Furthermore, it requires husbands and wives to love one another, and shows how there is a parallel to this love, whatever different perspective it begins from. Part of the way this love demonstrates itself in marriage is through sex. Tossing off pat phrases and avoiding the depth of meaning in scripture isn't good enough--we are called to do better than that.

 

[mkgal1]

I've pretty much only read the OP and skimmed the other posts, as to not get distracted. One thing that was brought up by C2W, I think is really at the whole base of these verses:

Infidelity:
1.marital disloyalty; adultery.

Paul also said that it *is* good to be married (what most believe is the whole foundation of the letter---answering the probably question of,...."is it good to marry, Paul, like the Jewish leaders say....or do we become celibate--even leaving our wives in order to be followers of Christ?")...but, with marriage, there is the difficulty of divided loyalty. Divided between God and spouse.....that's really starting out with the "handicap" of being double-minded....trying to serve (be benevolent to) spouse while also serving God. IOW....marriage *can* become an idol that gets between us and God. We *can* be disloyal to God because of our spouse. The reverse seems to be true as well. God doesn't want us to be unbalanced in our relationship with Him. He won't (I don't believe) cause our relationship with Him to be taking away from (defrauding) our spouse (which is what I believe the mutual consent about prayer and fasting is about).

When one is seeking God....at that point in time (fasting) *is* setting aside everything/everyone else.....ONLY focusing on God and trying to discern His will. That is why 1st Corinthians 7:32-33 makes sense in thinking of benevolence being what's due, and that sex isn't a perfect substitute:

I want you to be free from the concerns of this life. An unmarried man can spend his time doing the Lord's work and thinking how to please him. But a married man has to think about his earthly responsibilities and how to please his wife (benevolence)~1st Corinthians 7:32-33

IMO....the versions that have removed "benevolence" have really trashed the original message. In my mind....it is consistent--it "fits" IRL. Benevolence is ALWAYS due in marriage....always good....it's "kindness"....there is no other "side" of it....it's always positive....always considering what is best for that person. Sex works under that umbrella....but, to remove the umbrella of "benevolence"....sex isn't always kind....there *is* a possbile negative side of sex.

 

[Psalm63]

Why would 'sex on demand' be one sided? It is two-sided. I don't like 'sex on demand' to describe what Paul is saying here. It is an extreme way to put it.

Your post is actually the only one that specifically addresses the grammatical point made in the OP, which is fine. There would only be a few posts otherwise.

My point is this, if 'due benevolence' is referring to kindness, then can 'kindness' be withheld during fasting from due benevolence? When you think about that way, it makes more sense to see 'kindness' (or 'what is owed') here to be used euphemistically to refer to sex.

Sex should be kind and benevolent, of course, but I don't see that as Paul's point. Would you take it as Paul using a word for 'kindness' to refer to sex to emphasize the fact that sex should be kind?

Verse 3 speaks of "due benevolence" I DON'T think "due benevolence" refers merely to sex. I think it encompasses a LOT more than "just" sex! Verse 33-34 flesh out some more this KINDNESS/BENEVOLENCE aspect which Paul expects in marriage.

Verse 4 speaks of each having authority over the body of the other

Verse 5 speaks of the fasting

I see verse 4 and 5 as the "sexual entitlement"


I would also point out that Paul is speaking to the Corinthians correcting a cultic belief that married couples should remain celibate. He is not speaking to modern American men who have "learned" about sex from porn. He is not teaching that marriage entitles anyone to have sex on demand whenever they want regardless of the other person. (And I HAVE heard the passage used that way).

I would point out another passage written by the very same Paul which people should be looking at equally carefully when it comes to sex in marriage. In this passage, Paul warns that anyone who engages in "the lust of concupiscence like the Gentiles" is cheating his brother(spouse). (1 Thes 4:3-8)

Porn use warps marital sexual intimacy and should be expelled from among those who claim Christ.

 

[Psalm63]

IMO....the versions that have removed "benevolence" have really trashed the original message. In my mind....it is consistent--it "fits" IRL. Benevolence is ALWAYS due in marriage....always good....it's "kindness"....there is no other "side" of it....it's always positive....always considering what is best for that person. Sex works under that umbrella....but, to remove the umbrella of "benevolence"....sex isn't always kind....there *is* a possbile negative side of sex.