When it comes to sex, do you see God’s commands as being about making you do something you don’t want to do?
I think that’s often the way we see things like 1 Corinthians 7:3-5–the “do not deprive each other” passage. That’s certainly the way that it’s often framed, when it’s turned into “obligation sex”. God made us so that we would need sex fairly frequently (especially men!). And so we’re not to deprive each other, and we’re to make sure we stop each other from feeling temptation.
Isn’t that rather, well, defeating?
You can see evidence of that line of thinking in the comments on this post, which got really sad. People were using those verses to mean that you could never say no to your husband.
I’ve written before that I think 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 was never written to be about obligation sex, but instead to be about mutual sex. The big thing you’ll notice about those verses is that it’s equal–it’s not written to coerce or pressure a woman into doing anything. It assumes that sex will be a mutual experience, which is actually really cool.
1 Corinthians 7:3-5
The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
I won’t rehash that argument, because I wrote a 3-piece series on it already!
But a while ago an Australian reader sent me another interpretation, which I found really interesting. And I wanted to run it today. She writes:
Recently I went to the Scriptures in a totally new way, in particular devouring the Old Testament.
In the law I now saw picture after picture of God’s character and of course prophetically of Jesus… but also, restriction after restriction, including restrictions that affected peoples sex lives… often to do with purification times – days of abstinence and waiting.
After a couple of years reading the OT almost exclusively, I wandered back into the New Testament and saw something brand new in 1 Corinthians 7:5… something that I’m cautious about expressing in case I’m totally wrong BUUUUT – what if, what IF those words about not withholding ourselves from each other were to do with the putting away of the Law?! What IF they were to grant a brand new FREEDOM?!! What if they were saying – “go for it – there are no more restrictions on the basis of the law”!? What if it was NEVER meant to become the source of misery and condemnation (usually on women) in the form of something VERY LIKE another LAW?! What if those words are meant to be a release to freedom instead of something so often held over as a rule?
Here’s what she’s arguing:
The Old Testament was full of rules about when you could and couldn’t make love, and about purification rituals you’d have to perform after your period, or childbirth, or weird emissions, or anything like that. It made sex seem rare and burdensome.
Think about it: the Jews in the Old Testament were very used to thinking:
I can’t have sex:
- For seven days around the wife’s period
- On the Sabbath (since after sex you were unclean until the following evening and thus would be prohibited from worship)
- During some times of national purification
- For a long time after the birth of a child
- After any abnormal discharge or any strange skin condition
And many more! In fact, there were so many regulations that abstaining from sex for a time would have been a common occurrence.
We’re not really used to that in the same way at all. We don’t tend to abstain for spiritual reasons but instead for practical reasons or health reasons.
The Jews would have been used to thinking of sex as separate from holiness and worship of God.
But then Paul writes this amazing passage in 1 Corinthians 7, where he says, “do not deprive each other except for a time and by mutual consent…” No more rules! No more feeling like sex isn’t a part of a holy life. No more feeling like the less we have sex, the more we’re worshipping God.
Instead, sex is supposed to be a healthy part of the Christian life. God is saying, “Go for it!”
Certainly we can refrain because we’re going to choose to fast for a time in prayer, and that’s a good thing. But it’s a decision we make together; it’s not something imposed upon us because we’re somehow unclean.
When we make the “do not deprive” passage into a new kind of law, then, we miss the whole point.
It isn’t about pressuring women to perform. It’s about experiencing real freedom in the bedroom, in a mutual relationship.
That’s really cool! I thought this Australian reader’s comparison between the Old Testament and Paul’s new proclamations were really interesting, and I hope you find them that way, too!
Want more freedom in the bedroom?
Maybe you’d like to experience that kind of abandon and freedom, but sex still feels like an obligation.
I created my Boost Your Libido course just for you! I know what it’s like to feel like, “I know I have to do this to keep my husband happy, but I’d rather just have some time to myself!”
But I know what it is to get to the other side and truly long to make love, too. You can get there! Check it out here.
Let me know: Do you struggle with seeing the Bible as something that pressures you in the bedroom, or frees you in the bedroom? Let’s talk about it in the comments!
[adrotate banner=”302″]
Sheila Wray Gregoire has been married for 25 years and happily married for 20! She loves traveling around North America with her hubby in their RV, giving her signature "Girl Talk" about sex and marriage. And she's written 8 books. About sex and marriage. See a theme here? Plus she knits. Even in line at the grocery store.
The australian readers view of those scriptures is not new and is more or less lockstep with the view expressed in the catechism of the catholic church.
I never would have thought of it that way but that’s a pretty great way to look at it. I’ve wondered about some of those laws in the past. Like is it against God’s will to have sex while on your period? I have messed up cycles and we would only have sex a few times a month!!
I don’t really worry about that kind of thing anymore because I believe that my husband and I have complete freedom within our marriage bed. Anything between just the 2 of us is permissible and likely beneficial :p
Thanks for sharing!
I always have a problem with the “mutuality” that you always bring up. Not that that is completely wrong, or evil, or not biblical, but it is always, always the excuse used by low-libidos to say “we should only have sex if we both want to – and since I don’t want to – no thanks!”, or “I don’t feel like doing X, so I don’t have to!”
And since they hardly ever want to have sex, any sex outside of that is NOT mutual, and thus the low-libido views it as either obligatory or duty, and considers the high-libido spouse in the wrong for wanting sex more. Which of course, is absolutely false.
The problem is, I think people only see it in those 2 ways: either “mutual” sex, or its not mutual, therefore must be “obligation sex” or “duty sex”. There is no in-between for them.
But I think there is a third way: in fact, I think its the ONLY way. If I am a Christ-follower, a believer, a follower of Jesus, then His Word, and obeying Him, will bring me joy – not only that, it should be a joy to do so! And when I do follow His Word and obey Him, I will be blessed. To do anything else will do the exact opposite: sadness, problems, condemnation.
Note that I didn’t say anything about sex here. This applies to EVERYTHING – work, school, friendships, parenting, entertainment, etc. Follow Gods word = blessings and joy. Not following = sadness and problems.
So I read 1 Corth 7:1-5 in a different way: my body doesn’t belong to me. It first belongs to God, of course (he paid a blood-price for me) but it also belongs to my wife. Not 50% of it, not 75% of it, not 99% of it. ALL of it. I am to fulfill her sexual needs. Period. I am to be a Servant-Lover of my wife. A Servant-Lover puts the needs of their spouse before their own each and every time. When she asks, if I’m not strapped to a hospital gurney, I’m there (grace can apply here, of course, but I have actually tried in this case!). Not only am I there, but I’m there 100%, totally committed. Why? Not only do I love my wife dearly, but its also because I’m a Christ-follower. I believe in Him and His Word. When I obey, I am blessed. And each and every time, no matter how I FEEL about it, whenever I do this, I DO end up being blessed. And part of this blessing is a better relationship and marriage with my wife. And Whenever I don’t, bad things happen.
Note that I put Servant first, Lover second. If I fail to serve my wife in other parts of our life, I can’t be her Lover, properly. Because other parts of the Word also command this, and I want to obey that as well.
Also note I didn’t say anything about what my wife should do. That is NOT my concern. That is between her and God. What is between me and God – that is my concern. God’s word teaches this, and I am to obey it. Following God’s word, to a believer, is to be a joy. That is the attitude that I take into everything. If my wife doesn’t feel the same way, well, thats hard to deal with, of course, but that should have no impact whatsoever on how I am supposed to treat her or meet her needs, sexual or otherwise.
So when you throw in the word “mutual”, I believe the implication there is “only if we both want it” – and that can apply to anything: kids, homes, work, etc. When you through in the “mutual” clause, it automatically gives one person power – the one who doesn’t want whatever. So, to me, sex has mostly nothing to do with mutuality.
To me, there is one and only way mutuality works: when both spouses are Servant-Lovers to each other. If one is not, mutuality never works.
Hi John! Thanks for your comment! I do agree about being servant lovers, which is why I have REPEATEDLY on this blog told women to initiate, and why I have a course out on how to Boost Your Libido, and why I repeatedly write about how important sex is in marriage (seriously, just look at the posts on the sidebar of the most popular posts here!).
So I hear what you’re saying, but I do think that I have repeatedly (even ad nauseum?) told women how important sex is.
The problem is that I believe a big reason that women DON’T have libidos is because of how the church has portrayed women’s obligation in sex. I’m not sure a man can totally understand this, but bear with me. As a woman, we are constantly aware that we are at risk. The thought that someone can force us to have sex is just constantly there, at the back of our minds. It never goes away. We scan every street we walk down; we’re aware of our surroundings; we scope out the room if we’re alone with a guy. It’s instinctual.
And so our deepest fear, in many ways, is that we will be forced by someone when we don’t want to.
That’s just the way we’re wired because of the biological differences in the genders.
Then we go to church, and we hear how men will be tempted to lust after other women if we don’t have sex enough. And it equates GOD with this fear that we always have. Our deepest fear is that we’ll be forced; and now we hear that God wants to force us, too. I really think this is a primary reason many women shut down, very early in life. Sex is seen as something very distasteful.
The only way around this, I believe, is to give the FULL picture of Scripture, which is that sex was designed for women, too, and that God wants women to enjoy it! That sex was designed to draw us together in a deeply intimate experience. That sex was designed to be truly beautiful.
If women can get a hold of that, it can undo a lot of the damage that’s been done.
Here’s what I think is going on: when a man is in a marriage with a wife who doesn’t want to have sex very often, he gets sad, rejected, and desperate (and rightly so). And so what he wants is for there to be more teaching on how women should have sex more. He feels desperate, and he sees that as the reasonable solution.
The problem is that, on the whole, this won’t work because it’s only reinforcing the problem that women have to begin with: we see sex as something that is an obligation.
What’s the solution, then? To start some teaching that heals women’s sex drives (because our culture has done a real number on women) and to start encouraging sex for other reasons. I’d argue that your reason–being a servant lover–is a very good one. So is helping your husband to feel loved. And so is helping us to feel more intimate, have fun, and sleep better! But too often what we’re told is that if we don’t have sex HE WILL LUST, and that’s a really ugly message that has done so much harm.
It’s interesting, but when Paul said,
…he was addressing that to BOTH men and women. There was the assumption that women would need sex, too. We’ve taken that message, though, and given it ONLY to women, and we women hear it constantly from the time we’re children (men need sex; women need to perform; he’s just an animal). I think the church needs to reclaim Paul’s message as it was originally, addressed to BOTH genders. And we need to start talking about sex in a healthy way for women
So that’s what I’m trying to do, because I honestly believe that the “obligation sex” message, even if you try to couch it in “nice” terms, will almost always backfire.
But I’m curious what other women think. Anyone else want to chime in?
Sheila, I agree with you wholeheartedly! I was told that growing up, and so there was always a “you get what you asked for” mentality if I was ever “not in the mood” when my husband was hinting at wanting to have sex. If I don’t “deliver”, then it would be my fault if he wanders, either in his fantasies, turns to pornography, or even is tempted by an affair. Of course, through your message over the last 5+ years, I believe totally different now, and I can freely enjoy sex with my husband without that sense of obligation that if I decline for whatever reason, much is at risk. After 33 years of marriage, we are still learning and growing in this, as well as many other areas.
Thank you for your consistent biblical teaching about sex, intimacy, and other marriage topics. My husband and I both read your blog, so he hears your perspective too, and he agrees with it.
I’m so glad, Jamie!
Sheila – I’ll take your invitation to chime in although I come from the man side. Here is what I see. John’s point is probably the most literally correct way to interpret the Bible. My take on it is – Who lives like that? Maybe there are a few. Congrats to you John. I wish I could live my life in that manner. The problem is I don’t. My observation is neither do most others. Regardless if it is sex, money, my wife, or my families agenda. I always get in the way of myself. Sometimes I can put myself in that biblical mode and ask myself “What would Jesus do? ” I say sometimes. Maybe even rarely. Last week I was at the store and I was in the mode of setting up a date night with my wife. We were going to watch a movie together at home. Red Box didn’t have the movie we wanted but I bought my wife a GIANT KITkAT anyway. She loves chocolate and particularly Kitkats. Before I got home she lashed out at me over the phone for something….don’t even recall what it was at this point. I stuck the Kitkat in the freezer without a word. It sat there and is still there. I bought it because I love my wife. I bought it because I know it will please her and she will gain pleasure from it. The tool is Love. That is God’s gift that I can use to be human. I did not consciously buy the Kitkat bar because I am my wife’s servant and I am supposed to live in that manner. Not there yet. Nor do I expect to be soon. In addition, last week my wife had an event she planned for improving the grounds at our kids school. I had other intentions to continue working around the house instead of helping her. Besides, she had 24 other people there what does she need me for? Because I am her husband and I can show support. I did it for her. – funny thing – I just recalled that was what the fight was about on the phone lol….indirectly…. Anyway, Quite frankly I much rather would have stayed home and got the things I wanted to do done. I showed up out of mutual respect for her. It was the next right thing to do. I did not do it because I am her servant. I am told that if I bring the body the mind will follow. So if I mutually agree to something even if not for the biblical reason but maybe just because it is the next right thing. Well maybe it is not the literal Bible verse thinking but you know what? I can only hope by the Grace of God that he sees I am doing my best. I am trying to make my way to his heart through giving to others with the tools he has given me. The results for me and my wife and others are totally awesome. It makes for a great life. I have this thing about me. Its called being human. I am selfish. If there is nothing in it for me then I won’t do it. God uses this character flaw in me to reward me with awesome gifts when I do his will -even if I am not taking the literal approach. I do like the message but seems a little to literal for me. We do what works for us.
Thanks for that, Phil! That’s really interesting. And I do think your heart here is so good. You are trying to show her love, and I hope that’s what all of us will strive to do, even when it’s hard. It really is the only way to find true peace. And hopefully it will lead to much better marriages, too!
I’m with you, Sheila. I think the point of Paul’s saying it is “by mutual agreement” goes both ways. It isn’t saying: “no sex unless you both agree”. It’s saying: “you must always find agreement.” This is freeing for women in a culture like ours! Imagine a man needing your input and actually caring about it! (This is sarcastic, of course, since I know many, many men who care about input from women… I married one, after all!) But it doesn’t flip the scripture on its head; women MUST also respect his input the same. Women do have trouble with the desire to control their husbands, and the current culture is only feeding it. I can’t tell you how often I hear of women who push their husbands’ feelings aside because they don’t want to address his desires. Paul made it very clear: both husband and wife matter. You seem to focus on helping women find freedom in this, Sheila, which is much needed and appreciated! It is important to keep it in mind that men are important and precious to God as well, which is why we say that we do need to see men the way God sees them, especially in marriage!
Well said, Moriah!
I think the problem with declaring that a women needs to give sex because her body is not her own is that she feels like a Servant. Period. (A body guard to keep their husband from sin. Always on the job to keep him safe. A person to fulfill a need and not an equal.) They don’t feel like a Lover because Lovers are equal. (Both desire and then both are fulfilled)
In your example, you are a servant by doing caring tasks and supporting. You are a Lover when it comes to sex. She may feel like just a servant if she is taught that her job to serve her husband. (As well as emotionally, and in all things) She doesn’t see herself an equal in sex (because he is getting his desire through sex but she is already doing the servant things he does and now she is doing more by protecting him by giving sex) so she never feels like a Lover.
That being said: I feel like Shelia addressed many of the reasons why this thinking is flawed. I think she has done an excellent job in her blog teaching that often women need to jump in before they feel interested. Which can be a major cause of the lowest common denominator problem. But declaring the fact that someone doesn’t feel like things are equal is unreasonable doesn’t change the feelings they have.
The lowest common denominator problem is real though. (Not just in sex) The way I see it: A saver and a spender can live together if they work together toward their mutual goals. The spender may have to make some sacrifices (not spend as much, scale back), the saver will have to relinquish some control and give more trust. For their mutual goals.
Perhaps discussing our marriage and sex lives with our spouse as shared goals would emphasize the mutual nature in a healthy way.
Our shared marriage goal is a healthy relationship that brings both partners satisfaction. Seeing the big picture that we are trying to create – A mutual goal – takes sex out of a sealed vacuum so it is seen as one component of building a healthy, equal,relationship instead of just another way of being a servant.
Mutual doesn’t have to be lowest common denominator.
That’s a great way of explaining it! That’s why I often tell the higher-libido spouse (and it’s not always the guy) to talk to his spouse about how they want more intimacy, and how they want the best marriage they can have, rather than just say, “I need more sex.” Let’s talk about things we can both agree on, and agree that if God wants marriage to be awesome, and He made sex to be a big part of that, why would we want to miss out on it? But as soon as we start talking about how “I need more sex” it tends to backfire, because the lower libido spouse sees the person as someone with no self-control. That’s brutal, and likely unfair, but that tends to be what happens.
Talking about goals that they both have in common, though, can really help to frame the conversation in a different way!
Yes! Very well written. It’s why I take such issue with people who say/write “if you don’t give your husband frequent exciting sex he’ll be very tempted by porn or that woman at the office.” Of course an unmet need makes temptation harder to resist. But if the main reason for sex is just to “keep your man,” many of us would say, “okay, off you go!”
Sex is about intimacy and relishing each other. If sex isn’t that way in a marriage, if it’s mainly about keeping the husband from temptation, something is very, very wrong. And it will take both of them making changes to right it.
Lisa–I love this: But if the main reason for sex is just to “keep your man,” many of us would say, “okay, off you go!”
That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to say. So well encapsulated!
I think you are spot on, about some women believing in the obligation rather than the freedom. (And men’s part in that.)
It’s like when you accept Christ. Your sins are forgiven–you are a new person in Christ, and will be with Him in heaven. So, what does that mean in terms of the way that you live your life? Do you keep sinning? Do you think, “Wow, I have been forgiven! I can now live free from sin, and therefore, live however I want, and just ask to be forgiven when needed?”
No.
I think being forgiven, and being loved ABSOLUTELY means that we are called to love absolutely ourselves. That means, of course, our spouse. We should never force, or cause a woman to think, “Hey, I’ll lust if you don’t provide this.” Both spouses, as Christians, are free to love, without obligation, just as they are now free from sin, because our Lord died for us to free us.
In this way, with God’s gift of sex, we should constantly move toward one another, spiritually, physically, socially, recreationally, and even financially: How can I share the best of me with you? A husband’s, “I long to be with you sexually,” can be met with a “I’m so tired tonight. Can we have a one day rain check?”
And the husband is free to accept this and anticipate the joy of sex with a spouse that is rested and ready.
Thank you! That’s lovely.
Hi John, I really don’t think you and Sheila are saying very different things. You are absolutely right in your description of a Servant-Lover and how you described that playing out is absolutely beautiful. Timothy Keller said “If two people can both say I am going to treat my own self centeredness as the main issue in the marriage then they have the prospect of a truly great marriage.” That is what you are describing and you are right it only really works when both people are doing it. Where I think the two of you are missing each other is in how you look at the word mutual. You described it as “we should only have sex if we both want to – and since I don’t want to – no thanks!”, or “I don’t feel like doing X, so I don’t have to!” That isn’t what mutual means. That is selfishness being displayed. Mutual is for both parties benefit so when she says that sex should be mutual she is saying that there needs to be a shift in thinking so that both men and women view sex as being for both their benefit and the benefit of their marriage. Too many times sex is viewed as being only for the man’s benefit and that robs so many women, men and marriages of the benefits of sex that God has created. That kind of mutual benefit is exactly what you are describing when you are talking about putting your wife’s needs first and making sure they are always met regardless of whether you feel like it or not because of your love and obedience to Christ. If both spouses do that and add to it a shift in thinking about sex as being for the pleasure of both spouses and the benefit of greater intimacy in the marriage then everyone wins and no one feels obligated at all. I could be wrong but that is how I have interpreted what Sheila means when she says sex should be mutual. I really just think the two of you are approaching the word mutual from two completely different scenarios and experiences.
Melissa: Yes! This!
I think freedom in Jesus is a principle that applies in a lot of things, though it’s worth pointing out that much of the church at Corinth was composed of new gentile believers, probably less familiar with Jewish law.
Good point, Kacey!
True servant hood springs from desire, freedom and strength not compulsion. Too often folks read these verses you mention as a whip or chain of obligation.
Thanks for your focus!
Thanks, Jerry!
He came that we might have life and have it more abundantly. Live, love, laugh, leave a legacy. I think it is very important to fully appreciate the gift of sexual love rather than worry about imposed limitations. There should be no better example of human sexual love than two married Christians. However too many think the best sex happens outside the bounds of both marriage and especially Christianity,
Thank you so much for this interpretation. I truly believe that your ministry is doing a great job of redefining sex for woman. I do believe that God intended freedom to enjoy sex in the marriage bed for both women and men. Our culture is so scary because it has perverted sex so badly, & when you mix that with telling a woman she’s obligated to give her husband sex, she’s can’t enjoy it freely. She’s motivated to not “lose” her husband to pornography or an affair. That’s not freedom. That’s living life under a constant cloud of fear. Jesus came to give us life (at its fullest), not to fear what might happen if we don’t do something. That’s OT talk. I believe there is a lot to learn from the OT. Especially when you put it together with the NT. This is a perfect example. Thank you for what you are doing to empower women biblically.
You’re so welcome, Jenny!
Would love to hear feedback on the case where the husband never initiates with the reason that he doesn’t want to force the wife to do something she doesn’t want to do. If only one person initiates all the time (whether husband or wife) doesn’t that make that person feel like the other person doesn’t want them? Do you have an article on that somewhere you can point me to?
I do have a post on when your husband won’t initiate sex, but that may not be exactly what you’re looking for. It sounds like this is more a communication issue–he doesn’t want to unless she’s 100% into it, or else he feels guilty. And that may be the case of a guy not understanding how a woman’s sex drive works (how he has to get her ready), and also not understanding how his wife feels. If the issue is really that you’re having difficulty talking about this, then my book 31 Days to Great Sex may be the best bet! It’s not very expensive, but it’s super fun, and the feedback I get from people is that the best benefit is that it finally helped them talk about this stuff!
Sheila – I love your Australian reader’s idea that those verses primarily have to do with putting away the law and embracing a new kind of freedom in our marriages. We tend to assume that verses mean what we have always been told they mean, but sometimes that isn’t the case. It makes perfect sense to me that these verses aren’t intended to lay another burden on spouses (most often wives), but rather to encourage wives and husbands to love, serve and care for each other in the freedom we have in Christ.
Thanks for always striving to help women embrace their sexuality and let go of thoughts and behaviors that hinder great sex in our marriages.
How do you get over feeling violated. There are times that I have tried to go with it because he was in the mood, but further into being intimate I just couldn’t get over feeling violated. I couldn’t keep going I just wanted to get away. No fault of my husband,I know this is my own issue.
First, thank you for this website and the stand you are that marriages, relationships, intimacy, and families work.
Secondly, in reading this article I wanted to connect with you regarding what he Old Testament or Law as you’re calling it views sex. It actually affirms what you are saying, and wasn’t confining at all. If you’re open to study together, I think it would add to your message while correcting some of the mis-information around the Old Testament. They were actually commanded to have sex, lots of it, and good passionate sex!