- Dec 26, 2007
- 8,558
- 3,939
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Unorthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
Only if it were a command, which not all agree it is. And if it were a command, it would still work against some folks, as the last paragraph of this post points out.While it does exist, my argument is at least biblically based. Deniers of sex have no grounds to stand on.
And that makes absolutely no sense, structurally. A sentence starting with the sentiment "I wish" in verse 7 isn't going to be misconstrued as a command that Paul would have to clarify that it isn't a command. The verses leading up to it, however, could be (and are, apparently), given their more commanding tone, and therefore verse 6 acts as a disclaimer for the preceding verses. And if verse 6 were referring to verses 1-2, it would follow immediately after 1-2 and not be separated by 3 other verses before getting around to "this is not a command". I think some commentators were doing some serious mental gymnastics to come to that conclusion, which doesn't surprise me at all.You obviously didn't read my post. Verse6 is referring to 1-2 and 7. It ends at 7 not 6. In fact commentators set 6 and 7 apart as a pair. 3-5 is a command.
As long as you don't twist my words to make it seem like I'm saying you condone rape.If you disagree, that's your right. just don't twist our words to make it seem like we condone rape
At any rate, if we're going to treat those verses like a command rather than a concession, then whichever spouse doesn't want sex can simply plead the 4th verse by saying, essentially, "I have authority over your body, and with that authority I declare you keep it away from mine until I say otherwise. And that's a command, not a concession, according to scholarly commentators, etc. etc. and so on and so forth... " So I'm not sure how long the sex-on-demand folks will want to insist it's a command given how that could work against them. Maybe "concession" would be better after all?
Upvote
0