More often, however, it is a collision of ideology. There is no doubt at all that the Bible, for instance, indicates that in a standard household the husband is the head of the wife (e.g., 1 Cor 11:3). Now, I'm sure you're all aware that this statement collides headlong with the more popular egalitarian view where "we're coequals; neither is head over the other -- we share it" concept of the day. And, look, doesn't that sound more "civilized", more "advanced", and, hey, even more loving? So we're struck with not merely a tension, but a direct contradiction between what might appear to be right and what is clearly stated in Scripture as correct.
One of those that I've been mulling over recently is this one. Do with it what you will.
Because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another (1 Cor 7:2-5).Now, this is one that clearly collides with both the good will of any decent husband as well as the viewpoint of the culture. According to this command from Paul, it would appear that husbands and wives owe each other sex. (I know that in the majority of cases it is a question of a man with a stronger drive and the woman withholding for various reasons, but let's not limit it to that.)
Now, we know intuitively that the good husband is not going to "force himself" on his wife sexually. A loving husband will wait until she's "in the mood". No decent man would expect his wife to "perform" (See how the language just demands that the text is not right?) when she doesn't feel like it. After all, husbands are supposed to love their wives sacrificially, and certainly sacrificing our own needs for sex in favor of our wives would be a good and right thing, right? But, doesn't that collide with this passage? Doesn't that say that Paul was mistaken and really represented the situation incorrectly?
The text says that the husband does not have authority over his own body nor does the wife over hers. It seems as if he's saying, "It doesn't matter if you're in the mood. You need to give yourself to your spouse." It seems as if he's saying that a godly marriage requires that the husband give his body to his wife to meet her needs and the wife give her body to her husband to meet his needs and "in the mood" is irrelevant. It seems as if it's a lot closer to the version of yesteryear where a wife thought she ought to "service her husband" to keep him happy because that was part of her duty as a wife (and vice versa for husbands).
Now, you have to be honest. That sounds ... archaic. It sounds barbaric. But you also must recognize that the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked, and typically the culture is not going to offer you a biblical perspective on things. Someone once told me that the easiest way to determine what is right to do is ask yourself what comes naturally ... and do the opposite. This seems similar.
So, does this text say what it appears to say? If so, what are we to conclude? Is it possible to have a biblically sound marriage without the wife engaging her husband sexually or vice versa? Does the text violate our popular "in the mood" concept? I'm not willing to entertain the "Paul was a mysogynist and was clearly wrong" argument, but I do want to know if I'm missing it somewhere because it looks like this is telling husbands and wife to engage in sex regularly to avoid the temptation to sexual immorality. Does it? Some insight and even clarification might be helpful.
19 comments:
I see a lot of tension even within this passage, but I think the tension is relieved if both parties understand it. On one hand, Paul is saying marriage is for controlling sexual impulses. On the other, each spouses' body is not their own. While the wife may want sex and the husband doesn't, it would be wrong for the wife to demand it, but it would be wrong for the husband to deny it. And there you find the delicate balance.
Nice dance, David. So, you're talking to a husband and wife who are asking you for advice. He wants sex more often; she doesn't. Do you tell him to suck it up and deal with it? Or do you tell her to give up her reticence and give her husband what he needs? Would you say the husband is wrong for wanting more or the wife is wrong for withholding it? (If necessary, feel free to reverse the genders on that theoretical question. Male or female is not the question.)
(I recently read in interesting article about a non-Christian couple. I think he was a professional soccer player and she was a model. She believed the wife should submit to her husband -- imagine that. She told wives, "Don't be stingy. Just give him sex once a week or so. It doesn't matter if you're in the mood; do it because you love him." I found it a little bit ... awesome that a non-Christian wife would see it that way.)
I think she has the key. Love. Do you love your spouse, but want sex less often than they do? Is it loving to withhold or to give in? But, don't let it go too far in the other direction. It is the very tension of each is not their own body but their spouses'. Don't demand so much that your spouse does it out of obligation instead of love.
"Don't demand so much that your spouse does it out of obligation instead of love."
I get that. It sounds right. But, if that's the case, then where is the protection against sexual immorality if there is a no sexual fulfillment because "I didn't want to demand so much that my spouse did it out of obligation instead of love"?
(See, it's a tough question for me.)
One I struggle with as well.
This topic is interesting, but now let's take it a disturbing direction: is marital rape a moral wrong?
It can be argued that it is not, because the wife's body is not her own, but her husband's; hence, she, by virtue of being married to him, has granted perpetual consent for sex. Further, because sex with his wife is something he is entitled to, her refusing to give it to him is equivalent to stealing. By forcing her to engage in sex, he is merely taking what is rightfully his, in the same way that a person would break into their neighbor's house to take back a stolen television.
On the other hand, it can be argued that the right to have is not the same as the right to take. For example, if your employer doesn't pay you your full wages, you can't go into his safe and remove the cash that he owes you.
So where do you stand?
I have less of a problem with marital rape. Yes, it's wrong. Here's the deal. Your body is not your own. That's the point.
We get confused pretty easily. "Wives, submit to your husbands." So we husbands will beat our chests and decry the unsubmissive wife. But wait a minute. The command was not "Husbands, make sure your wives submit." The command was given to the wife.
In the same way, the command is given to the husband that his body is not his own and the command is given to the wife that her body is not her own, not vice versa. Give, but not take. That's the idea. "I can take my wife anytime I please" clearly violates the intent of the command (as well as "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her"). I can't fit marital rape into biblical context.
I would think that, to be safe and not hurt my brain trying to over-analyze, the point is how each of us regards our own bodies after taking the vows of marriage.
The guard against immorality is covered in two ways: 1st, the vow itself, and 2nd, accepting that once the vow is taken, one's body no longer belongs to one's self. As a very loose analogy, it would be like giving away your car, but using it for joyriding. The car is no longer yours and shouldn't be treated as though it still is.
Regardless, there is nothing but one's own adherence to one's own vows to prevent sexual immorality. No vow or understanding of one's role in marriage can alter that.
So, Marshall, you would say that Paul's statement about "the temptation to sexual immorality" is simply covered by getting married, not by having moral sexual relations? The vow is all that is in view, not the sexual relations?
(Seriously, I have so many questions on this topic.)
No, I would not say that. Of course the moral sexual relations within a marriage is where one is to indulge one's sexual desires lawfully. I was referring more to the attitude one should adopt regarding both the vow and one's own body.
So, as an anonymous woman (and I'm sure it's just sooOOOooo hard to figure out who I might be - heh), I have to wonder; if a wife is not at all "in the mood" but just letting her husband "have his way with" her to be a good wife and meet his needs but he claims that he can't really enjoy himself unless he knows that SHE is enjoying herself, do you think she should fake it and pretend that he has put her "in the mood"?
That just seems downright deceptive! But then "they" say you gotta keep your man happy, or he might want to stray. Or do you (collective "you", as in any of you men who most often comment) the performance of a good actress should trump honesty. I don't think God wants us to be actresses. That's on par with lying. Geez. What an awful question to ask!
But really, should a wife ever pretend she's into it when she really just plain is not and would much, much rather be asleep because she has been meeting the demands of kids or others all day long and now, now she feels the demands of sex on top of it all, and again, too. (Didn't they just do this the other day?) Plus, she JUST washed those sheets and so nicely made up the bed.
Arg. Why, Lord, why? At such times, I sometimes wonder, couldn't we have been like coral instead? Yes, coral. It reproduces asexually.
But then, at other times, it can be pretty great, so... one can only hope both parties are in the mood at the same time more often than not, right?
Interestingly, Anonymous, I don't actually know who you may be. The reason for that is because I don't think I can limit your question to one female I might deduce. All that to say you remain anonymous. :)
I think the whole "He won't enjoy it unless he knows she does" situation is 1) rare and 2) causes a different set of conditions. To almost all males, I think, sex is enjoyable and satisfying. There are a few (I personally know two) who do not find sex enjoyable and satisfying unless that singular condition is met -- that his wife is enjoying it. In that condition, it isn't about sex. And, as you rightly point out, "faking it" isn't right and won't help.
So that wife will need to find out why she isn't/can't enjoy the sexual relationship God ordained for her marriage (it is, after all, a gift from God and, as such, ought not be ignored or abhorred) and fix it if possible. Sometimes it's not possible. In fact, thinking too far down this path gets too murky for me to figure out. But I do think that a spouse who is unable/unwilling (because sometimes it's physical -- unable -- and sometimes it's something else -- unwilling) to sexually satisfy his/her spouse needs to pursue any possible remedy for that problem. Is there something that puts her/him in the mood? Is there something that puts him/her out of the mood? Is there something physical that can be remedied? Oh, lots of possibilities. I think, too often, wives/husbands (it's not just one sex or the other) find themselves in this problem condition and just ... give up. And that, I think, would be a mistake -- a biblical mistake.
I don't think the teaching implies that one can expect compliance with every request. That would be a bit selfish, I would think. I believe its more a mandate against holding out for less than acceptable reasons.
While I would certainly agree that this Scripture requires "compliance with every request", I'm agreeing because it's inverted. As in 072591's question, it turns the concept on its head. The point is not that a husband (or wife) should expect, by virtue of biblical command, that every time he (or she) requests sex, it must be supplied. That was never the intent of the passage.
The question is "Should I, as the one being requested, make every attempt to satisfy the requests of my spouse? Or am I free to ... 'withhold' if I'm just not in the mood? Am I free to refuse if I just don't feel like it?"
We so easily turn this whole thing around. Husbands seek to impose submission on wives. Wives seek to demand love from their husbands. Husbands seek to require sex from their wives. And so on. The commands related to these conditions are not given in these directions. Wives are to give submission. Husbands are to give love. Spouses are to give themselves to the sexual needs of their spouse. In none of these is "taking" or "getting" in view.
So, while I basically agree, I am curious. I do believe (and I think the Bible argues) that there are "acceptable reasons" to not have sexual relations at a particular time, but I'm curious what you would classify as "acceptable reasons"? (Because I'm pretty sure a lot of people would classify "I'm not in the mood", "I'm mad", "We just did it last month", or "He's such a brute" as "acceptable reasons" and I'm not so sure about those.)
How about illness - shouldn't that be an acceptable reason to refuse sex?
Glenn, as I said, I believe the Bible teaches that there are acceptable reasons. They are, necessarily temporary. I would think that illness would be one. Incapacity would be one. (I mean, you can't do what you don't have the capacity to do.) Paul lists devotion to prayer for a limited time as one (1 Cor 7:5). He suggests "perhaps by agreement for a limited time" in all cases. I would hope that a spouse would agree in the case of illness, for instance.
But I am curious what, say, Marshall Art's idea of "acceptable reasons" might be.
Tough to say. Haven't run into one, personally. But I think between you and Glenn, you've got it covered. As you say, Paul speaks of "times of prayer". Not much else to go on, but I have to think there must be something that might arise unforeseen. Simple exhaustion could be one. A tough day sapping one of desire. I would suspect that a spouse who is not prone to frivolous excuses would appear to be speaking truthfully if "I'm really tired" is heard. Is that a refusal or a rain check?
I don't know too many people who, given a spouse who is loving and sexually generous, is told, "Oh, honey, I'm so sorry, but I'm exhausted. Can we do this tomorrow?" would be offended or hurt. That's a rain check, not a refusal.
I agree, except that at the time the check is given, it is also a refusal for sex at that time. Thus, an "acceptable" reason for no sex at that time. Again, for me it's kind of a "know it when I see it" kinda thing and to strain to give a better example causes sharp pains in my temples.
Post a Comment