That Doesn't Belong To You

Okay, the weekend is my least traffic, so maybe I can get away with this topic with a minimum amount of interaction. Well, I'll give it a shot.

The Bible has several places that talk about marital relations -- how marriage is supposed to work. One of the better known passages is in Paul's letter to the church at Corinth.

¹ Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." ² But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. ³ The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. ⁴ 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. ⁵ Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control (1 Cor 7:1-5).

I am not writing this on the topic of "same-sex marriage", but it's clear that Paul defines marriage as not only "man and woman", but "one man and woman". "Each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband." No polygamy. Fine and dandy. But not the topic. And apparently the tension between husband and wife as it regards sexual relations has always been the case. It is interesting that Paul terms it "conjugal rights" (in the ESV). The Old Testament calls it "marital rights" or "the duty of marriage". And all the commentators are pretty clear that this is talking about sharing the bed -- sexual relations. Funny thing. Why is it that I've never heard it from the pulpit that husbands and wives owe their spouses "conjugal rights"? But, again, I'm not writing this to comment on how men and women sometimes don't give their spouses their "conjugal rights" as they should.

One of the things that always amused me about this passage was verse 4. Paul says that "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." I have joked about it. "So, there I was, laying on the bed. I patted the spot beside me and told my wife, 'Hey, your body belongs to me, so get it over here ... nekkid!' And she says, 'And your body belongs to me, so put that nasty old thing in the closet.'" I mean, if you take it at face value, we could play at this forever!

So I imagine that my humorous perspective was not likely what was meant. What, then, was? Well, the statement about whose body it is can be aimed in two possible directions. One is the funny way I did it. "See that, honey? Paul says that you do not have authority over your own body; I do." The other is the opposite: "I didn't realize that I don't own my own body; it belongs to my spouse." One angle tells her for me. The other tells me for her.

If the statement is intended as the latter, it changes things. One of my commenters mentioned (more than once) that marital sex is mostly just self-gratification. He meant it in a good way (I was never really sure how), but that was the basic concept. And I suspect, voiced or not, that this is the most common view. "My spouse owes it to me to please me." I mean, isn't that one of the big problems in marriages? "She/he is just not giving me the sexual satisfaction I need." But if the intent is to tell me that my body doesn't belong to me, then marital sex suddenly becomes not about me. It becomes all about my spouse. The aim shifts. The focus moves. Now my job becomes to provide all the possible satisfaction that my spouse might want. You see, my body doesn't belong to me, so how much I get out of it is irrelevant. It becomes a case of seeing my spouse in the bedroom as more significant than me, of not looking out for my interests, but for the interests of my spouse. You know ... kind of like it says in Philippians 2. In other words, if you are approaching sexual relations with your spouse with the idea of what you can get out of it ... you're not following Paul's marriage instructions.

Love is a funny thing. Done properly, it puts you in a very vulnerable place. Love, for instance, does not insist on its own way, believes the best of the loved one, is patient and kind, and so on. So ... who is insisting on my way while I'm not? Doesn't that kind of believing in someone mean that I can be taken advantage of? Doesn't that kind of patience and kindness set me up to take the brunt of others' selfishness? And the answer is that love indeed puts you in an incredibly vulnerable place. That kind of love would also require of you that you take the position I have suggested above. My sexual "needs" and desires are irrelevant; I need to look out for hers. So ... who is looking out for mine? Very vulnerable. The rewards of such a love, however, are phenomenal, reciprocated or not. And the rewards for that kind of obedience (because it is, after all, a command) are also a good thing. Vulnerable or not, it's the right thing. Now the only question is will you do it? Will I?