Saturday, December 5, 2009

Stop Depriving One Another, except...

  Yes, there are some exceptions.

  The exceptions of the Karzai law were:

    1.   The husband may not refrain from having sex with his wife for greater than four months.
    2.   They may refrain from having sex if they are traveling.
    3.   The husband is not to impose on her if she is ill- or if such imposition would be harmful in any way.

  Now we know from the previous post at this blog- that the first exception is hugely unbalanced.  Four months versus four days? What was Karzai thinking?
  Perhaps he was thinking that the husband may be on military duty.  Or a pilgrimage to Mecca.  While women in Afghanistan are not compelled to do those duties. 

  This would tie in with the second exception as well.  If you call military duty "traveling".  Oh, the inconveniences of traveling.  Yet, I doubt if a honeymoon-suite at Niagara Falls would qualify for this exception.

  The final exception appears to be perfectly loving.  Even appearing to grant the wife a psychological defense.  But such a granting would be inconsistent as well as specious, now wouldn't it?

  Now, what exceptions does the Holy Spirit grant?

     1.  Mutual agreement.

  What?  That's all?  That's nothing!

  Now wait a minute, you say- 1 Cor. 7:5 grants an exception for "prayer".  Yes, by mutual agreement.  And I expect a weekend religious retreat would find Holy Spirit endorsement-  with mutual agreement.

  Well, what about "fasting"?  Yes, by mutual agreement.
And if you check the NET link on this verse, you will see that this exemption (which is included in the KJV and NKJV)- is probably another "ascetic addition".

 Also note that "fasting" is written in a different hand (and ink) in one of our oldest and finest manuscripts.  And written in the margin. 
  And as Philip Comfort says in NTT and TC, "Paul [as directed by the Holy Spirit] would probably not be calling for one form of abstinence- fasting- in the same passage where he is clearly speaking against sexual abstinence".

  Comfort also discounts the manuscripts used by the  KJV and NKJV for verse 3 of this chapter.  Saying that, "some translator or scribe tried to soften Paul's command that a husband had an obligation to satisfy his wife sexually".

  Well, what if he felt an obligation to serve his country rather than his wife? 
  Same thing.  By mutual agreement.
But if his wife is unfaithful to him during that service?   He is responsible.  He is not culpable- but he is responsible.
For 'failing to provide'- 1 Tim. 5:8.

  And if he is unfaithful while she is ill? 
  He is still culpable- but she is responsible as well.
Do not think that 'sins of omission' do not apply anymore. Hebrews 9:7 still applies.
While the 'sins of commission' of Hebrews 9:10 do not.

  But what if you can't come to a mutual agreement?  What if you are having an argument?

  Douglas Wilson suggests, "Never have sexual relations when you are out of fellowship with one another" (Reforming Marriage, pg.75).  A personal agreement that he made with his wife.  An agreement with a huge incentive for mutual agreement. Unless the incentive isn't there.
  That agreement was enhanced by the further rules that- no one was to come in or leave the home until there was harmony.  Indeed, house arrest.  An even greater incentive- for some.
  To prevent turning "what God intended as a unifying and wonderful experience into an act of hypocrisy".

  Indeed, unity is the principle.  Unity is the precept.  And unity is the precedent.

  A principle of the order of creation- of one man and one woman.
  A precept commanded by God - of becoming One-flesh (Genesis 2:24).
  And a precedent established by His tri-unity- as being One-God

  And why would we not want unity?  Unity just a little lesser than 'communion with God/prayer'?
  Unity modeled after His Tri-unity?

  Indeed, "Let Us make man in Our image- according to our likeness" (Genesis 1:26).
  And bid them unified- as We are unified.