Is it wrong, even sinful, to withhold sex from your spouse?

[Rajni]

While it does exist, my argument is at least biblically based. Deniers of sex have no grounds to stand on.

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.

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.

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.

If you disagree, that's your right. just don't twist our words to make it seem like we condone rape

As long as you don't twist my words to make it seem like I'm saying you 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?

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Well lets assume its just a "suggestion". Wel its also suggested you wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle. Its also suggested you put your gun in locked safe. Its also suggested you light a firecracker safely. Lots of things in life have suggestions, but it doesn't mean we should ignore them. Because usually when you ignore them then you are to blame for not listening. Hence if a person marries and doesn't really want to have sex because its not a commandment, I blame them when they get divorced.

Also I'd say anyone who is single/not married yet shouldn't really talk about the subject since they do not have first hand experience. Can't talk about whats right/wrong if you haven't been through it. Once your married and had a few years go by, then you can say if sex is important or not.

--edit---
Personally though its probably best for people who will not want sex to just stay single/celibate and save the person you want to marry the pain of having to deal with someone who doesn't want to have sex. Actually if you talk to a pastor about before getting married they will tell you sex is a big deal. The number of divorces due to sex related issues is pretty high.

 

[Grandpa2390]

******** inkaboutit4u.com reply *************

As i read many different versions, i think these other versions may help clarify this issue.

1 Corinthians 7:6 (GW) What I have just said is not meant as a command but as a suggestion.


New International Reader's Version
1 Corinthians 7:6 (NIRV) I say those things to you as my advice, not as a command.


1 Corinthians 7:6 (MSG) I'm not, understand, commanding these periods of abstinence - only providing my best counsel if you should choose them.

New Century Version
1 Corinthians 7:6 (NCV) I say this to give you permission to stay away from sexual relations for a time. It is not a command to do so.


English Standard Version
1 Corinthians 7:6 (ESV) Now as a concession, not a command, I say this.

1 Corinthians 7:6 (BBE) But this I say as my opinion, and not as an order of the Lord.
1 Corinthians 7:6 (CEBA) I'm saying this to give you permission; it's not a command.

The Complete Jewish Bible

1 Corinthians 7:6 (CJB) I am giving you this as a suggestion, not as a command.

GOD'S WORD Translation

1 Corinthians 7:6 (GW) What I have just said is not meant as a command but as a suggestion.
1 Corinthians 7:6 (TMB) But I speak this by permission, and not by commandment.

The Message Bible

1 Corinthians 7:7 (MSG) Sometimes I wish everyone were single like me - a simpler life in many ways! But celibacy is not for everyone any more than marriage is. God gives the gift of the single life to some, the gift of the married life to others.

Right. Referring to vs 1-2. And we know for vs 7 tells us

 

[Grandpa2390]

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.

Not true vs 7 is not a command and continues the thought of 1-2. 3-5 are out of place. And that is not a stretch. And not uncommon.

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?

We aren't saying sex on demand. You all are looking taking what we say and going in the wrong direction. We are not talking about what the spouse should do or deserve. We are talking about you

And I am going to trust verbatim translations over commentaries like msg or niv
The concession is for marriage rather than singleness

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

We aren't saying sex on demand.

Thats sort of the problem with the issues. People who aren't really into sex seem to think asking for sex is demanding it. They don't realize the problem si not their spouse (who is normal), but themselves who is not normal.

If a husband threatens to beat you if you don't have sex. Thats obviously abuse and hes a demanding pig. But if a husband has to keep asking for sex for days (or weeks) on end and you brush it off, then your in the wrong. Telling him "Your so demanding!" means you don't understand the situation. This is why spouse go cheat, look at inappropriate content...etc. BTW this isn't an excuse to do those things and it does make you a sinner. But point remains sex is important enough that with holding it "just because" can lead to the person breaking down and making stupid mistakes.

To be honest if I was married to someone who didn't want to really have sex and I resorted to bugging her and she still didn't want to. I'd pray a miracle would happen so I can marry someone else (sounds harsh and I wouldn't want anything to happen really). BUt still no need to torture the person your married to for 50+ years because of your lack of desire to have sex. I could bring up the topic of women demanding a baby when married. Theres no commandment that says a married couple has to have one. Just a suggestion.

 

[Grandpa2390]

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.

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.

As long as you don't twist my words to make it seem like I'm saying you 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?

I actually like the message version

In this version the concession can command is about periods of abstinence
I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can see the case

The real interpretation is that he's not commanding us to marry, he is permitting us
3-5 is the explanation for the "command" that isn't a command

 

[Rajni]

Well lets assume its just a "suggestion". Wel its also suggested you wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle. Its also suggested you put your gun in locked safe. Its also suggested you light a firecracker safely. Lots of things in life have suggestions, but it doesn't mean we should ignore them.

Very true.

Also I'd say anyone who is single/not married yet shouldn't really talk about the subject since they do not have first hand experience. Can't talk about whats right/wrong if you haven't been through it. Once your married and had a few years go by, then you can say if sex is important or not.

I agree that first hand experience is crucial, which is why after 21 years of marriage I think I know enough to weigh in on it. Pile on top of that the whole "stay pure till married" thing I did, which undermines the people involved because they'll have no idea whether or not they'll even like sex until they're already locked into a marriage. But by then it's too late, it's their duty as Good Christian Spouses.

 

[Rajni]

We aren't saying sex on demand. You all are looking taking what we say and going in the wrong direction.

Yeah, "demand" might be a strong word. "Command" might be (only slightly) better. It is portrayed as a duty whether a person likes it or not (according to some interpretations, anyway, you know how these things go).

I actually like the message version

In this version the concession can command is about periods of abstinence
I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can see the case

It's interesting you mentioned The Message version, as I downloaded the Message App just the other day (trying to get back into reading the bible more regularly again).

Here's the MSG version of 1 Cor 7:1-7:

1 Corinthians 7:1-7 The Message (MSG)
To Be Married, to Be Single . . .

7 Now, getting down to the questions you asked in your letter to me. First, Is it a good thing to have sexual relations?

2-6 Certainly—but only within a certain context. It’s good for a man to have a wife, and for a woman to have a husband. Sexual drives are strong, but marriage is strong enough to contain them and provide for a balanced and fulfilling sexual life in a world of sexual disorder. The marriage bed must be a place of mutuality—the husband seeking to satisfy his wife, the wife seeking to satisfy her husband. Marriage is not a place to “stand up for your rights.” Marriage is a decision to serve the other, whether in bed or out. Abstaining from sex is permissible for a period of time if you both agree to it, and if it’s for the purposes of prayer and fasting—but only for such times. Then come back together again. Satan has an ingenious way of tempting us when we least expect it. I’m not, understand, commanding these periods of abstinence—only providing my best counsel if you should choose them.

7 Sometimes I wish everyone were single like me—a simpler life in many ways! But celibacy is not for everyone any more than marriage is. God gives the gift of the single life to some, the gift of the married life to others.​

Regarding the abstaining for the purpose of prayer, I can see how this could be a problem for those who do see sex as an obligatory martial duty. Aside from the verse 4 thing I mentioned yesterday, there's the whole abstaining from sexual relations for the purpose of praying. If one is applying the command (or maybe just a suggestion?) in 1 Thessalonians 5:17 to "pray without ceasing", one has to wonder when the couple would ever be able to come back together again. So now it seems to me that the verses that are commonly considered the command-portion of the passages could easily work in either side's favor.

Again, though, I want to clarify that I absolutely do not support the practice of depriving someone of physical relations to manipulate or punish them. That's not cool.






-

 

[Dave-W]

"Is it wrong, even sinful, to withhold sex?
You know, it would make your spouse disappointed of you."

The rule of thumb is "Do unto others"...
So there ya go.

And if they are withholding because they do NOT want to do it? Ever?

That IS "do unto others..."

 

[inkaboutit]

My good Lord, you read that totally all wrong.

God's purpose for polygamy in the OT was for the protection and provision of widows. An elderly widow depended on her own son for support. That is illustrated in the story of Ruth. That's why Jesus on the cross specified that John was to consider Mary his own mother. That was the point of Onan's crime--he refused to father a son for his widowed sister-in-law. That was the center of the drama surrounding Tamar and Judah, who would not allow his other sons to impregnate his widowed daughter-in-law.

For ancient people, the specific term for "marriage" (as opposed to "betrothal") was synonymous with "getting her pregnant." In fact, the Roman term for "marriage" was in matrimoniam ducere, which literally means "to lead into motherhood."

God permitted a woman to divorce a husband who would not get her pregnant because he was denying her an opportunity for support in her old age--basically saying, "I hope you die."

That is also why God commands men to remain especially faithful to "the wife of your youth." That would be a man's first wife, the one arranged by his parents, not a later wife that he chose after he became well-to-do.

REKirk said ___God's purpose for polygamy in the OT was for the protection and provision of widows. An elderly widow depended on her own son for support.

****Inkaboutit4u.com Replies *******

This clearly is NOT true. Polygamy, a man married many wives and many concubine. Many were NOT widows at all.

Look at SOS, Polygamist, Solomon, who had 140 wives and concubines, at the time, (Song of Solomon 6:8 ) was having nude seductive dates with a very young , maybe teenage, girl trying to get her to marry him.

They were NOT married in SOS because at the end of SOS ( Song of Solomon 8:10 she still is a virgin.

Jewish women had sex in the middle of their wedding day to prove they were a virgin and the Bloody bed sheets given to the parent as proof she was a virgin on her wedding day. This clearly proves they were not married in SOS.

REKirk said ---- That is illustrated in the story of Ruth.

****Inkaboutit4u.com Replies *******

Ruth was a widow but Boaz, a rich man could have had a lot of wives, but the Bible does not say he is a polygamist at all, we only see him as not married to anyone at the time he married Ruth. But what we do know is Ruth sexual seduces Boas and had sex with him in the Barn threshing floor late at night In the dark per Naomi instructions. Ruth 3: 2-15

from “ divine Sex “ Book by Philo Thelos page 25 -27

On my web site you can get free "Divine Sex" Ebook

Ruth, seeking to offer herself sexually to Boaz as his wife, is told by Naomi to go to his bed while he sleeps and “uncover his feet” and lie down until he awakes and tells her what to do, (Ruth. 3:7).

The action Ruth is to take here is not merely to simply lay down at the
foot of his bed and put the end of the blanket over herself.

“Uncover the feet” was a well known euphemism in that culture for “expose the genitals.”

Moffatt translates the Hebrew words this
way: “uncovered his waist and lay down there.” She was advised to uncover Boaz’s genitals and lay down beside him.

When he awoke with his genitals uncovered and Ruth lying beside him, he did not have to guess what she wanted!

She was offering herself to him sexually, and he was willing! When she asked him to “spread your covering over me” she used a euphemism for sexual intercourse.

This phrase arose because in sexual intercourse, a
woman lying on her back lays open her robe to the man. The man spreads his robe apart as he lies on top of her.

Thus the phrase “cover with my robe (or skirt, or covering)” also came to refer to sexual intercourse.



REKirk said ----That's why Jesus on the cross specified that John was to consider Mary his own mother.
****Inkaboutit4u.com Replies *******
This has nothing to do with polygamy at all.

REKirk said ----That was the point of Onan's crime--he refused to father a son for his widowed sister-in-law. That was the center of the drama surrounding Tamar and Judah, who would not allow his other sons to impregnate his widowed daughter-in-law.
****Inkaboutit4u.com Replies *******
Yes, the law behind that, God would force people to be polygamy. God was/is very pro-polygamy.

 

[inkaboutit]

Right. Referring to vs 1-2. And we know for vs 7 tells us

******inkaboutit4u.com reply **************

The Bible versions below would clearly disagree with you.


1 Corinthians 7:6 (MSG) I'm not, understand, commanding these periods of abstinence - only providing my best counsel if you should choose them.

New Century Version
1 Corinthians 7:6 (NCV) I say this to give you permission to stay away from sexual relations for a time. It is not a command to do so.

 

[Grandpa2390]

******inkaboutit4u.com reply **************

The Bible versions below would clearly disagree with you.


1 Corinthians 7:6 (MSG) I'm not, understand, commanding these periods of abstinence - only providing my best counsel if you should choose them.

New Century Version
1 Corinthians 7:6 (NCV) I say this to give you permission to stay away from sexual relations for a time. It is not a command to do so.

Those are bible commentaries, not translations. And they are wrong.

 

[inkaboutit]

Those are bible commentaries, not translations. And they are wrong.

**************inkaboutit4u.com reply *******

NO. Neither one is a commentary.

"The Message" is a Bible paraphrase. NOT a commentary.

"The New Century Version" is a translated version of the Bible and is not just a man made commentary.

They both clearly disagree with you. So people can chose for them self which to believe.

 

[Grandpa2390]

**************inkaboutit4u.com reply *******

NO. Neither one is a commentary.

"The Message" is a Bible paraphrase. NOT a commentary.

"The New Century Version" is a translated version of the Bible and is not just a man made commentary.

They both clearly disagree with you. So people can chose for them self which to believe.

paraphrase=commentary
It is the person writing what he thinks that the translation says.

If you want to quote scripture in an argument, you should stick to real translations: Kjv nasb esv

And they don't disagree with me. While they may be saying differently about what command and permission refer to, they both agree that it doesn't refer to whether a spouse can unilaterally decide to abstain. They talk about whether a couple can mutually agree to abstain
And he advises on how that mutual agreement should be handled

So.. a spouse cannot just decide to be abstinate.

 

[inkaboutit]

If you want to quote scripture in an argument, you should stick to real translations: Kjv nasb esv

****************inkaboutit4u.com reply**********

I use as many versions as i can to get better understanding. If you only use those 3 versions you getting very limited understanding .

And they don't disagree with me. While they may be saying differently about what command and permission refer to, they both agree that it doesn't refer to whether a spouse can unilaterally decide to abstain. They talk about whether a couple can mutually agree to abstain
And he advises on how that mutual agreement should be handled

So.. a spouse cannot just decide to be abstinate.

****************inkaboutit4u.com reply**********

Only because of "The Century version" and The Message" make it clear, that the permission was about the absence part only. This was not not clear in the other versions.

Bottom line is a marriage is for at least 2 people and especially because the Church "tradition of men" sexual teaching greatly limits sexual pleasure to only one man and one women this becomes super important to meet sexual needs of each spouse. If a spouse refuses, then Divorce is the only option.

God has many other options in the Bible, but the Churches' "tradition of Men" teachings only create one option - divorce.

God and the Bible are pro-nudist, pro-sexual freedom, pro-swingers, pro-polygamy (Churches are not) this create many options to have sexual needs meet. God and the Bible are lot more flexible then man made , "tradition of men" Church teachings.

Since religion leaders depend on religion income, they have to teach, "tradition of men" teaching or they get fired. So if you want truth you have to do the proper research to find truth.



On my web site I have a FREE COPY of the "Divine Sex" ebook 321 pages

from "Divine Sex" book by Philo Thelos page 155

Don’t go to your preacher and ask him if this statement is true.Preachers are honest but blind about some things just like the rest of us.

In sexual matters especially, religious leaders have much to gain by NOT questioning the status quo and many will NOT even seriously consider any alternate viewpoint on any sexual matter.

They have been trained by their mentors, pressured by their peers, and threatened by their financial insecurity to give nothing but the “majority report” on sexual issues.


So if you want to be confident that you are getting close to

objective Bible truth, look for yourself.



You will be amazed, even flabbergasted at what you find

when you look for yourself, with eyes that want to see what is in the Bible.

You may even be angry at what has been kept from you by those who were responsible to tell you “just the truth ma’am,” but who, for many reasons, could not even find the truth for themselves.

 

[Grandpa2390]

****************inkaboutit4u.com reply**********

I use as many versions as i can to get better understanding. If you only use those 3 versions you getting very limited understanding .




****************inkaboutit4u.com reply**********

Only because of "The Century version" and The Message" make it clear, that the permission was about the absence part only. This was not not clear in the other versions.

Bottom line is a marriage is for at least 2 people and especially because the Church "tradition of men" sexual teaching greatly limits sexual pleasure to only one man and one women this becomes super important to meet sexual needs of each spouse. If a spouse refuses, then Divorce is the only option.

God has many other options in the Bible, but the Churches' "tradition of Men" teachings only create one option - divorce.

God and the Bible are pro-nudist, pro-sexual freedom, pro-swingers, pro-polygamy (Churches are not) this create many options to have sexual needs meet. God and the Bible are lot more flexible then man made , "tradition of men" Church teachings.

Since religion leaders depend on religion income, they have to teach, "tradition of men" teaching or they get fired. So if you want truth you have to do the proper research to find truth.



On my web site I have a FREE COPY of the "Divine Sex" ebook 321 pages

from "Divine Sex" book by Philo Thelos page 155

Don’t go to your preacher and ask him if this statement is true.Preachers are honest but blind about some things just like the rest of us.

In sexual matters especially, religious leaders have much to gain by NOT questioning the status quo and many will NOT even seriously consider any alternate viewpoint on any sexual matter.

They have been trained by their mentors, pressured by their peers, and threatened by their financial insecurity to give nothing but the “majority report” on sexual issues.


So if you want to be confident that you are getting close to

objective Bible truth, look for yourself.



You will be amazed, even flabbergasted at what you find

when you look for yourself, with eyes that want to see what is in the Bible.

You may even be angry at what has been kept from you by those who were responsible to tell you “just the truth ma’am,” but who, for many reasons, could not even find the truth for themselves.

Lol. Use as many Versions as you can. But recognize that the paraphrases should be treated like a commentary. With a grain of salt. If you want to read what is written you go for the verbatim translations and reference the Greek Hebrew Aramaic etc


Your views are skewed about religion and Christianity. We are going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

"The Message" is a Bible paraphrase. NOT a commentary.

But paraphrasing is commentary as it basically says "Heres another way to phrase it in easier terms.!" Which then means the person is replacing words and interrupting it their own way "based loosely" on what the verse says.

Also whoever mentioned the KJV, sorry that version isn't correct either. Actually, none of the bibles we have in america are correct. Or around the world. If you want to claim which version is perfect then really you can only claim one.... the original scripts. Everything outside of that is translated.

Still though when it comes to these issue of holding back sex. The main versions most use essentially say the same thing about the subject.

 

[SkyWriting]

And if they are withholding because they do NOT want to do it? Ever?

That IS "do unto others..."

Absolutely correct. Always treat people just as you would wish they would treat you.
I cannot think of anything worse, sexually, than being with a reluctant partner.


She asks.....
"Are you through yet?"
Go to 7:45

 

[Archivist]

Absolutely correct. Always treat people just as you would wish they would treat you.
I cannot think of anything worse, sexually, than being with a reluctant partner.
"Are you through yet?" Go to 7:45

Agreed.

The question in this thread could just as easily be "is it wrong, even sinful, to demand sex from your partner when he/she doesn't want to have sex."

Sometimes people don't feel well. Sometimes they have something on their mind. Sometimes they have just had a bad day. It certainly isn't wrong or sinful for them to not want to have sex if they don't feel like it.

 

[SkyWriting]

But paraphrasing is commentary as it basically says "Heres another way to phrase it in easier terms.!" Which then means the person is replacing words and interrupting it their own way "based loosely" on what the verse says.

Also whoever mentioned the KJV, sorry that version isn't correct either. Actually, none of the bibles we have in america are correct. Or around the world. If you want to claim which version is perfect then really you can only claim one.... the original scripts. Everything outside of that is translated.

Still though when it comes to these issue of holding back sex. The main versions most use essentially say the same thing about the subject.

The subject of sex?

I deleted 1st Cor.
It is wrong.

Hebrews 13:4
Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.

Genesis 2:24
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Proverbs 5:18-19
Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love.

1 Corinthians 7:2
But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

Genesis 39:7-10 And after a time his master's wife cast her eyes on Joseph and said, “Lie with me.” But he refused and said to his master's wife, “Behold, because of me my master has no concern about anything in the house, and he has put everything that he has in my charge. He is not greater in this house than I am, nor has he kept back anything from me except yourself, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?” And as she spoke to Joseph day after day, he would not listen to her, to lie beside her or to be with her.

1 Corinthians 7:1-2
Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

1 Thessalonians 4:7
For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness.

2 Timothy 2:22
So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.

Job 31:1
“I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a virgin?