Shoud this scripture be considered "Patriarchal?"

All4Christ said:

Honestly, I think scripture can be abused by corrupt minds. Many pieces of scripture can be taken in an isolated fashion and turn it into something that is not true or good. That doesn’t mean that St Paul was promoting that dangerous interpretation.

Click to expand...

So true. People find scripture to quote or twist to justify some abuses and evil intents.

Dave-W said:

1 Corinthians 7:3
The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.​

Isn't this just a biblical excuse for a woman to be abused sexually by her husband?

Click to expand...

Is it a biblical excuse for a man to be sexually abused by his wife? Unless one only reads the bolded phrases and disregards the rest, the passage seems to require exactly the same thing from both husband and wife.

and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

Since it shows the wife also has dominion over the husband's body, I would take this to be a mutual partnership.

It's not always about the woman's libido, either. There are men with low drives who don't want to do much with their wives and that becomes an issue. I was friends with a married couple who had that issue. We can't assume the drives are on the men's side, many times its higher on the woman's end. People are finally facing this, but it's always been a true issue and not something that's seen as shameful or shocking anymore.

The question remains: what are we supposed to do for the approval of everyone on CF??

Dave-W said:

The fact that there is no similar verse applying to the husband:

Ex 210 If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.
If GOd is concerned about the libido of a slave woman, why does he say nothing about the man? Because of this verse (and a few others) Jewish understanding since at least the first century bc is "Sex is a woman's RIGHT and a husband's responsibility."

Click to expand...

Dave, I think this could mean how women want to have children, not how much they are driven for sexual sensations. Women in that culture could highly value having children; so their right to conjugation could have meant essentially they had a right to have a man do what could get them pregnant.

Didn't one of Jacob's wives pay mandrakes to another wife, in order to have access to him? This was not for having sexual pleasure, but so she could have a child, I think.

Also, I would say each man or woman can be unique; so I would not try to make a one-size-fits-all statement about which gender is the most driven to sexual pleasure.

I think Paul means for each couple, being unique persons with their unique relationship, to find out how they will do things with each other.

Certainly, Paul does not mean for the man to take advantage and boss and abuse his wife. And Peter talks about how the man needs to relate with his lady as with the weaker vessel. So, this means, I would say, very clearly, that God means for him to be kind to her and tender and doing what comes with sharing and caring >

"submitting to one another in the fear of God." (Ephesians 5:21)

So, they both need to be prayerful and subject to how fearing God has them obeying how He has them relating. And this includes no one dominating over the other >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

So, though, yes the man is her head . . . but like to how Jesus is our Head. And how does Jesus bring us to obey Him? This is how to do it And Jesus expects us to be ready to obey, by being submissive and in peace and being glad to do what He wants. So, the biblical husband expects his lady to benefit from doing what he desires. And both are trusted to be honorable and honest about this.

There is trusting in the mix

Also, though it appears Paul is talking about how to determine their sexual activities, having power over someone's body can include that you can get someone to submit to how you want to love him or her and do your companion good > instead of you two being so into independence, that you won't let your own spouse who dearly loves you help you and share in things you need to do.

My opinion is people need to do things with each other, so they can learn how to love, and put this above either one getting one's own way. Marriage can be a research laboratory for making breakthrough discoveries in how to love. We grow to know, in love. And then we need to grow more And there are general rules to help us not to go the wrong way, including "Do all things without complaining and disputing" (in Philippians 2:13-16). And husbands are commanded to not get bitter toward their wives > Colossians 3:19 < this can help a man to never accept any excuse for getting bitter; instead, he needs to pray and submit to how God our Heavenly Father guides him in God's own peace > Colossians 3:15.

So, this is what I would say God means by your scripture, in context with His word and not with how wrong people will take any scripture the wrong way. You might consider how when Jacob did not love Leah his wife, God closed Rebecca's womb; God did not just let Jacob treat Leah any way he jolly well pleased.

Ones in marriage can keep on being so independent, that they can be isolated more or less from each other and not develop in how they could have love with one another. So, possibly with this scripture we can consider how having power over one another is not only for how we might want to use the other person for pleasure! It is not meant for selfish gratification of lust > 1 Thessalonians 4:4-6.

But, in any case, each couple is unique, and can enjoy praying and discovering how they develop their sharing. We grow in Jesus, to discover how He has us living and loving So, we are wise not to set ourselves in relationships with rules that we are now able to understand and do - - now while we are not as mature as we can become in God's love and wisdom and creativity.

It takes time to become a good ol' peach >
first there's that cute little buddy, so fuzzy,
then the green teen not exactly mature;
and even in our middle years,
yes we can be oh-so colorful
in all the peach light
coming down all around us;
and yet, we're going to get at least
a little bit bitter and sour,
deep-down inside.
Because we need to go through some
heat of the summer,
before we can reach a ripe old age;
but then is when we can get
sweeter and sweeter and
even more and more juicy.
Because we made that commitment
to learn how to love >
"'Take My yoke upon you, and
. . . . . .learn from Me,
for I am gentle and lowly in heart,
and you will find rest for your souls.'"
. . . . . . . . . . . . .(Matthew 11:29)

Dave-W said:

I know historically what it meant. Hillel and Shammai (first century BC) had that discussion and Shammai said 2 weeks max and Hillel (grandfather of Paul's mentor Gamaliel) said one week max.

But that still does not stop this passage from being used in a patriarchal manner to force a wife to have sex.

Click to expand...

It's interesting historically speaking that within Judaism the opposite was actually the problem that had to be addressed. When it came to sex etc. a man could have concubines according to the provision of the Law.

"...A husband is responsible for providing his wife with food, clothing and sexual relations (Ex. 21:10), as well as anything else specified in the ketubah. Marital sexual relations are the woman's right, not the man's. A man cannot force his wife to engage in sexual relations with him, nor is he permitted to abuse his wife in any way (a practice routinely permitted in Christian countries until quite recently)."

Marriage in Judaism

I've always just taken that scripture to mean a couple things. First, that marriage was about putting the needs of the other person before oneself, and second, that it applied equally to both the husband and wife. I've never gotten a sense of patriarchy out of that statement.

Dave-W said:

The fact that there is no similar verse applying to the husband:

Ex 210 If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.
If GOd is concerned about the libido of a slave woman, why does he say nothing about the man? Because of this verse (and a few others) Jewish understanding since at least the first century bc is "Sex is a woman's RIGHT and a husband's responsibility."

Click to expand...

com7fy8 said:

Dave, I think this could mean how women want to have children, not how much they are driven for sexual sensations. Women in that culture could highly value having children; so their right to conjugation could have meant essentially they had a right to have a man do what could get them pregnant.

Didn't one of Jacob's wives pay mandrakes to another wife, in order to have access to him? This was not for having sexual pleasure, but so she could have a child, I think.

Click to expand...

I agree that this isn't about libido - but "marital rights" had to do with having children (since that was - at the time - the woman's sort of "life insurance" when her husband died). Remember Tamar and how she pretended to be a prostitute in order to get pregnant (Genesis 38)?

I prefer the versions of this text that aren't about sex, but love, like the Aramaic version - because I believe that is what it's message is (but people that are patriarchal - or even abusive - can make loads of passages line up with what they believe):

mkgal1 said:

I prefer the versions of this text that aren't about sex, but love, like the Aramaic version - because I believe that is what it's message is (but people that are patriarchal - or even abusive - can make loads of passages line up with what they believe):

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Let a man bestow to his wife the love that is owed; in this way also, the woman to her husband.

Click to expand...

I have read where it says to give affection to the other, which is due. And my experience is the love does so much more than physical intimacy.

Thank you

com7fy8 said:

I have read where it says to give affection to the other, which is due. And my experience is the love does so much more than physical intimacy.

Thank you

Click to expand...

Exactly. That reminds me of 1st Corinthians 13 and what's said about "if I don't have love". It's all just shallow external behavior that means nothing.

mkgal1 said:

"if I don't have love".

Click to expand...

amen . . . wow, what a good application!

thank you

Dave-W said:

My point here is forcing someone to have sex with you (either by this scripture or other means) is inherently abusive.

Click to expand...

The key word here is "force," is it not? That would always be wrong.

But is that the intention of that Scripture? I think not.

Dave-W said:

I want to know if people see this scripture as patriarchal.

Click to expand...

Not inherently and in isolation; although within a patriarchal matrix it can be misused badly.

Dave-W said:

1 Corinthians 7:3
The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.​

Isn't this just a biblical excuse for a woman to be abused sexually by her husband?

Click to expand...

Not seeing how you get that, since the husband is to give his body to his wife just as much as the wife is to give her body to her husband.

com7fy8 said:

Dave, I think this could mean how women want to have children, not how much they are driven for sexual sensations.

Click to expand...

Dave-W said:

But the history does not bear that out. In first century Judea, the marriage contracts specified how often the wife was to be pleasured sexually, and if the husband’s job did not involve travel or a lot of heavy toil, it was daily. Later that got codified in both the Mishnah and the Talmuds.

Click to expand...

Well, now that I think about it > when Leah started having children, if I remember correctly, she said now my husband will love me > Genesis 29:31-35. But if loving meant more pleasure . . . this would match with what you are saying.

But is there more to love, than sexual intimacy? I guess different people might have different ideas and feelings about this. I hope love does not go on time out while ones are not intimate with each other.

"Let all that you do be done with love." (1 Corinthians 16:14)

Also, I think of this > Leah possibly did not understand love, if she felt that Jacob loving her depended on her having children. And possibly, if women could resort to courts in order get the attention they want from their husbands, this also could mean there is a problem . . . not for all women, but for ones resorting to court action >

like you said:

We also have surviving court documents of women taking their husbands to Rabbinic courts to force them to change jobs so they could give them more sex.

So it WAS about "sexual sensations," and not just bearing more children.

Click to expand...

Those, then, too, by the way, could be people who considered themselves under the law. In Jesus, we are not under the law.

And did a wife go to law because of libido or because of a lust problem? I think each woman can speak for herself. What certain desperate ones did does not speak for all. Also, Paul is clear how it is a shame to take another Christian before unbelievers > 1 Corinthians 6:1-6; are you saying the Rabbinic court was held by people who confessed Jesus to be the Lord of all and our Savior, or were they ones who did not believe and obey Jesus?

And if we have the Holy Spirit, we can function differently than unbelievers > "not in passion of lust", Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 4:5; God's love is more sweet and tender and intimate with better pleasure and deeper intimacy . . . all the time while we are submitting to God in His love > Psalm 63:3; so I would not assume that what goes for wives who were unbelievers necessarily goes for Christian wives.

Dave-W said:

How does a wife sexually abuse her husband?

Click to expand...

In the same manner as a husband sexually abuses a wife.