Do you believe the innocent party in a situation

[rgcraig]

Perhaps, but I believe this also reads that it was instruction and not a commandment.

1 Corinthians 7
Matthew Henry

The apostle answers several questions about marriage. (1-9) Married Christians should not seek to part from their unbelieving consorts. (10-16) Persons, in any fixed station, should usually abide in that. (17-24) It was most desirable, on account of the then perilous days, for people to sit loose to this world. (25-35) Great prudence be used in marriage; it should be only in the Lord. (36-40)

Verses 1-9 The apostle tells the Corinthians that it was good, in that juncture of time, for Christians to keep themselves single. Yet he says that marriage, and the comforts of that state, are settled by Divine wisdom. Though none may break the law of God, yet that perfect rule leaves men at liberty to serve him in the way most suited to their powers and circumstances, of which others often are very unfit judges. All must determine for themselves, seeking counsel from God how they ought to act

[Pressing-On]

I think as stated in my previous post by Matthew Henry that Paul's wording is on the marriage vs. single issue. That makes much more sense than him giving a directive in verse 5 only to take it back as though it does not have to be followed. That just doesn't make sense.

At least that's what I'm getting from Abigail's interpretation. She can correct me if I am wrong or misunderstood her post.

This explains it a little further and I have to agree, especially in light of verse 1, where is says: I Cor 7:1 "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman."

The topic of verses 1-5 leads Paul to expand his comments on the issue of marriage. Paul extends his comments in verse 6 by saying, "But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment." Let's be clear about what is meant by that statement. Paul is differentiating between actual verbal commands of Christ which serve as a precedent as opposed to issues of marriage never dealt with specifically by Christ in his earthly ministry. Paul is recommending a single life (like his own). He is pointing out that there is no command of Christ recommending a single life, but Paul considered the times critical. In verse 9 he advocates marriage for those who struggle to contain their sexual appetites as discussed in verses 1-5 when he says, "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." I'm confident that "burn with lust" is meant there, although that cannot be proved by the Greek construction of the sentence itself.
http://www.bibletrack.org/cgi-bin/bible.pl?dy=2&mo=9

And further support of the marriage vs. single:

7:6 {By way of permission} (kata sungnwmen). Old word for pardon, concession, indulgence. _Secundum indulgentiam_ (Vulgate). Only here in N.T., though in the papyri for pardon. The word means "knowing together," understanding, agreement, and so concession. {Not of commandment} (ou kat' epitagen). Late word (in papyri) from epitassw, old word to enjoin. Paul has not commanded people to marry. He has left it an open question.
http://www.godrules.net/library/robert/robert1cor7.htm

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by blueeyes

Do you believe the innocent party in a situation of adultery can remarry?

YES!

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

They did? Solomon certainly didn't and I'm very sure Abraham didn't. lol

You're right. I didn't take those into account who had multiple wives, but that wasn't the custom for everyone. For husbands of one wife, they missed 12-14 days per month of sex, while their wife was niddah, and for 7 days afterward.

Look, I don't know if you've noticed, but no one is really saying that women and men shouldn't grant each other "due benevolence." I just don't believe if a person sins they have the right to blame any other party than themselves.

The question here is not in the details of the matter, but in the matter of a broken covenant, in this case the marriage contract. Tell me, PO, is the marriage covenant broken in God's eyes if a woman (or a man) denies their spouse sex?

If not, then I think we can assume that some matters are more important than others. And that while no one may escape blame for some contribution to marital turmoil, there can be one party that sins and breaks the covenant, and one who does not.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

You're right. I didn't take those into account who had multiple wives, but that wasn't the custom for everyone. For husbands of one wife, they missed 12-14 days per month of sex, while their wife was niddah, and for 7 days afterward.

Look, I don't know if you've noticed, but no one is really saying that women and men shouldn't grant each other "due benevolence." I just don't believe if a person sins they have the right to blame any other party than themselves.

The question here is not in the details of the matter, but in the matter of a broken covenant, in this case the marriage contract. Tell me, PO, is the marriage covenant broken in God's eyes if a woman (or a man) denies their spouse sex?

If not, then I think we can assume that some matters are more important than others. And that while no one may escape blame for some contribution to marital turmoil, there can be one party that sins and breaks the covenant, and one who does not.

Well, would Romans 14:13 apply here? - "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way."

If I defrauded my husband, I can honestly say that I would have to take a portion of the blame if Satan tempted him and he fell into adultery.

I think, somehow, we keep centering ourselves on the violated and neglected women we know and the bad boy that committed adultery. I'm just focusing on "defraud" and the implications.

But, I did read something very interesting on this subject and the history behind the questions put to Paul.

The Corinthian Church had sent Paul a letter in which they had requested his opinion on a number of matter. Chapter 7 is a reply to some such question as, "Should believers marry in view of the imminence of the end of the age?"

Paul's answer is a classical example of what has been termed an "interim" ethic - an ethic for the interim between the end of one age and the advent of another and conditioned by such historical presuppositions. Marriage is a desirable state only to those who cannot sublimate the sex instinct. It has no value in itself, and since the end of this age is at hand, it is not even necessary as a means of procreation. In principle marriage is religiously and ethically indifferent, but in practice it can easily interfere with an individual's dedication of himself to God.

Although Paul believed in celibacy as the ethical ideal, he disagreed with some in Corinth who apparently held that married people ought to practice rigorous continence. Continence in the married relationship was impossible except by mutual consent and for limited periods, and then only for cultic ends.

By appealing to a command of the Lord (possibly the tradition preserved in Mark 10:2-9), the apostle repudiated divorce but acknowledged that, in extending the prohibition to include the divorce of an unbelieving partner, he spoke on his own authority. His advice to unmarried persons to remain as they were was given likewise on his own initiative and "in view of the impending distress."

The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, page 690.

And my point here is that, IMO, after further research, I Cor 7:6 is not speaking of verse 5 being a permissive suggestion as opposed to a command, but rather, is focusing on the whole of chapter 7 on the issue of - marriage vs. remaining single as he was.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Some marriages may need dissolution for the individuals to come to repentance. Consider these radical examples...

Same sex marriages.

Marriages with many partners.

It can be argued (and some do) that a marriage never was Holy and constitutes ongoing sin rather than a singular event. In some cases dissolution is included in the price of repentance.

Well, that's rather deep. The thought had not occurred to me. Interesting, Stephen! Yes, I agree and a good point you've made!

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Well, would Romans 14:13 apply here? - "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way."

If I defrauded my husband, I can honestly say that I would have to take a portion of the blame if Satan tempted him and he fell into adultery.

I totally agree with your philosophy on that. I just don't think I'm contradicting myself to say when adultery occurs, the spouse is the injured or innocent party. LOL!!!!!

I think, somehow, we keep centering ourselves on the violated and neglected women we know and the bad boy that committed adultery. I'm just focusing on "defraud" and the implications.

Sometimes it's a bad girl, you know. To me the "innocent party" in a marriage refers to the one who didn't break the contract. The one who chooses to stay, and remain faithful, and keep trying in spite of disagreements and turmoil.

I've had days when I was so angry with Jeff, I couldn't bear to speak to him--let alone be physically intimate. At that point, it isn't a matter of "depriving" him purposefully, but intimacy is as much a state of mind as a physical union--especially for women. Of course, I do recognize the need to resolve differences as quickly as possible....

My point is, IF he went to work on a day when we were disagreeing with one another, and cheated on me because he was angry with me, or even hurt because of something I had said or done, HE would still be in the wrong, and HE would still be the one who had broken the contract, even if I had made the situation worse for whatever reason. And the same scenario applies to me. If I'm angry with him, and call up an old Friend to make me feel loved again--well, ultimately that isn't my husband's fault, is it?

The point of the passage is to point out the importance of meeting each other's needs--not to play a blame game. The issue here is going outside of the marriage covenant to solve a problem that should be resolved between the two in the contract. There can be problems in the marriage, and they can be solved--within the marriage. The existence of problems doesn't validate one party stepping outside the covenant to alleviate those issues.

But, I did read something very interesting on this subject and the history behind the questions put to Paul.

That was an interesting snippet! I really hadn't considered that Paul encouraged singleness because of impending tribulation.

And my point here is that, IMO, after further research, I Cor 7:6 is not speaking of verse 5 being a permissive suggestion as opposed to a command, but rather, is focusing on the whole of chapter 7 on the issue of - marriage vs. remaining single as he was.

I agree that it's addressing the whole chapter. Which would include verse 5.

I cannot imagine Paul introducing to the church the new idea that women were sinning if they said, "Not tonight, dear." He gave wise advice, absolutely! But a sin for saying they're too tired? I really think that is stretching it too far.

I really hate to even discuss this, because I do agree with you (and Paul) that defrauding your spouse is wrong (as well as stupid.) However, the marital relationship is more complex than just "give me what I need when I need it." It's a marriage of minds, too, and there are emotional needs that come into play. Inconsiderate behavior on the part of either party will harm the relationship overall, including in the bedroom. A man can't be a jerk all day, demand his "due benevolence", cheat on his wife when he doesn't get what he needs, and blame her for it. And of course, there's a reverse statement that applies to the woman. I just don't feel like writing it.

As for your stumbling block scripture--I'm not in disagreement with it. I'm sure if my husband cheated on me, I would blame myself, and ask myself all sorts of questions relating to my own culpability. However, in the midst of my hurt, if I sat down to discuss it with someone else, I would hope they wouldn't try to blame me for his sin. None of us are required to bear the burden of another person's sins. At least, not as far as I know.

Romans 14:12 "So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God."

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

And the same scenario applies to me. If I'm angry with him, and call up an old Friend to make me feel loved again--well, ultimately that isn't my husband's fault, is it?

No, it's not his fault. Not even if he forgot Valentine's Day, spoke rudely to you, left his dirty socks on the floor, accused you of PMS-ing because you were hurt over Valentine's Day, left for work without giving you a kiss, and flirted with the neighbor on his way out the door. And continued that pattern for several years.

You'd STILL be wrong for calling up that old friend.

Adultery's a sin, it's a bad choice, it's wrong. There's no provocation that justifies it.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

No, it's not his fault. Not even if he forgot Valentine's Day, spoke rudely to you, left his dirty socks on the floor, accused you of PMS-ing because you were hurt over Valentine's Day, left for work without giving you a kiss, and flirted with the neighbor on his way out the door. And continued that pattern for several years.

You'd STILL be wrong for calling up that old friend.

Adultery's a sin, it's a bad choice, it's wrong. There's no provocation that justifies it.

This is like the "Burning Bed" scenario. A guy who beats and abuses his wife for so long that eventually she snaps and kills him. Is she just as guilty of murder as someone who would have killed him for his wallet? Is she guilty at all?

At what point, if any, does emotional distancing become so extreme that it is almost impossible for a normal person to resist some form of temptation that crosses their paths?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I totally agree with your philosophy on that. I just don't think I'm contradicting myself to say when adultery occurs, the spouse is the injured or innocent party. LOL!!!!!

I think it could be a contradiction of sorts, especially if the spouse you are calling "innocent" has been party to "defrauding". Here we go........ lol

Sometimes it's a bad girl, you know. To me the "innocent party" in a marriage refers to the one who didn't break the contract. The one who chooses to stay, and remain faithful, and keep trying in spite of disagreements and turmoil.

If staying in context with the passage of scripture we are discussing, we must conclude that the "defrauder" is NOT an innocent party, IMO.

I've had days when I was so angry with Jeff, I couldn't bear to speak to him--let alone be physically intimate. At that point, it isn't a matter of "depriving" him purposefully, but intimacy is as much a state of mind as a physical union--especially for women. Of course, I do recognize the need to resolve differences as quickly as possible....

I believe that if you are angry, you are defrauding/depriving - on purpose. I don't want to present myself as an innocent party as I have been a "defrauder" at various times and actually made him pay me for my services just because he was annoying me. It was all in fun, but I did keep the money. That possibly could be classified as a sin. I'm not sure if I ever repented over that or not.

My point is, IF he went to work on a day when we were disagreeing with one another, and cheated on me because he was angry with me, or even hurt because of something I had said or done, HE would still be in the wrong, and HE would still be the one who had broken the contract, even if I had made the situation worse for whatever reason. And the same scenario applies to me. If I'm angry with him, and call up an old Friend to make me feel loved again--well, ultimately that isn't my husband's fault, is it?

Yes, IMO, part of the blame would be to your husband. Notice I said, "part of the blame". BUT, I don't think an isolated incident is a good example. I believe the scripture is speaking more on the lines of a pattern in the marriage as I don't think Paul would have focused on that if he didn't hear or see a continuous problem he was trying to get the hearers to avoid. He does speak of a virgin getting married who will certainly have "trouble in the flesh".

I did speak about this to my husband and referenced something you said in an earlier post - "some women just do not like sex." He agreed, but I'm laughing inside because I was thinking, "How would you know?" LOL! I won't elaborate on that point, but really! LOL!

The point of the passage is to point out the importance of meeting each other's needs--not to play a blame game. The issue here is going outside of the marriage covenant to solve a problem that should be resolved between the two in the contract. There can be problems in the marriage, and they can be solved--within the marriage. The existence of problems doesn't validate one party stepping outside the covenant to alleviate those issues.

Never did I say any party could validate or make excuses for their personal behaviour. What I am saying is that the admonition, instruction, or advice given - still - is focusing on the "defrauder". Some of the responsibility and blame lies there. I can't take that any other way - "Defraud ye not one the other...."

That was an interesting snippet! I really hadn't considered that Paul encouraged singleness because of impending tribulation.

It was interesting as I noticed verse 29 seems to support the idea.

I agree that it's addressing the whole chapter. Which would include verse 5.

LOL!

Of course, but I will point out, again, that in the course of this discussion the point was made that in verse 6, Paul's words were being conveyed as referencing verse 5 and saying that he is speaking by permission and not commandment pointing to the defrauder as merely a warning and not exactly a command or instruction. So, I want to point out, again, that after studying this passage, it appears to me that Paul's words in verse 6 are focusing on the idea of his opinion on marriage, overall, versus remaining single and is not contradicting the admonition in verse 5 to NOT defraud one another. Just wanted to point that out, again, as I felt a little relieved that I found some sense in the dialogue as the other view seemed a bit confusing to reconcile.

I cannot imagine Paul introducing to the church the new idea that women were sinning if they said, "Not tonight, dear." He gave wise advice, absolutely! But a sin for saying they're too tired? I really think that is stretching it too far.

As I stated above, I don't believe Paul would have addressed an "isolated" incident, but rather a pattern of defrauding. That would be a grievous sin, IMO. That is much like setting a cookie jar on the counter, with the lid off, and telling a child who is really hungry - DO NOT even think about touching it!

I really hate to even discuss this, because I do agree with you (and Paul) that defrauding your spouse is wrong (as well as stupid.) However, the marital relationship is more complex than just "give me what I need when I need it." It's a marriage of minds, too, and there are emotional needs that come into play. Inconsiderate behavior on the part of either party will harm the relationship overall, including in the bedroom. A man can't be a jerk all day, demand his "due benevolence", cheat on his wife when he doesn't get what he needs, and blame her for it. And of course, there's a reverse statement that applies to the woman. I just don't feel like writing it.

I agree with you - the marital relationship is, at best, a bit complicated. That is the reason I am focusing on the "defrauding/depriving". My question still remains - Is there a deeper admonition or meaning here to focus on, such as, true submission and humility? True and deeper love and forgiveness in all things? True forgiving 7 x 70? Do you see where I am going with this? I am seeing a disconnect in the Christian world, for the most part, and I wonder if it could be in not reaching back to the subject of "defraud you not one another".

As Cindy stated earlier - does it cover more than intimacy? Can it include conversation, etc. ? Sometimes my mind is somewhere else and my husband says, "You are not even listening to me!" It is so important to him that I pay attention to him in every way! I am so different from him as being alone is very important to me. That caused a lot of problems for us when we first started out. I think it took him 10 years to realize it didn't mean that I didn't love him. I just need to go inside myself and be alone. It's just my way. So, yes, I think that "defrauding" entails more than just physical intimacy.

As for your stumbling block scripture--I'm not in disagreement with it. I'm sure if my husband cheated on me, I would blame myself, and ask myself all sorts of questions relating to my own culpability. However, in the midst of my hurt, if I sat down to discuss it with someone else, I would hope they wouldn't try to blame me for his sin. None of us are required to bear the burden of another person's sins. At least, not as far as I know.

Romans 14:12 "So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God."

I agree with your scripture, but will also point out that the "defrauder" will also give account of himself/herself.