Bible Challenge Day 163: Sex (1 Corinthians 7)

Today’s chapter from First Corinthians is all about that most fascinating topic: sex. And what Paul has to say about sex in this chapter is pretty surprising, given his reputation as a misogynist and a prude.

Paul does state a clear reference for celibacy, which partially justifies his prudish reputation. He says that he wishes all could be like him, i.e. celibate (7:7). And he ends the chapter by saying that “he who marries is fiancée does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (7:38). In between, he makes the same point in other ways.

But Paul is clear that not all have the gift of celibacy. And those who are not called to a life of celibacy should marry. After all, “it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion,” i.e. to be driven by unsatisfied sexual desire (7:9). So marriage is an acceptable alternative for Christians, even if it is not the highest calling in Paul’s view.

The thing that interests me most is Paul’s clear linkage of sexuality and marriage. On the one hand, he assumes that sexual activity should be confined to marriage. In today’s culture, that is a conservative stance. But Paul is clear that one reason for marriage—indeed the only reason he mentions—is sexual satisfaction. It is striking that Paul does not mention children. Paul talks about sex as the satisfaction of human desire, not as a means of procreation. This flies in the face of the argument that procreation is the primary—sometimes people say only—legitimate reason for sex.

Paul is also startlingly egalitarian in this chapter. Everything he says about men’s sexual rights in connection with their wives, he says in virtually identical language about women’s sexual rights with regard to their husbands. “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 except perhaps by agreement for a set time . . . .” (7:3-5).

Today the language about a wife not having authority over her own body sounds jarring, but in Paul’s day that was obvious. What was revolutionary was the next clause—the husband does not have authority over his own body. And the husband cannot unilaterally decide against sex any more than the wife can. Temporary separations are by mutual consent. Then the spouses must again fulfill their obligation to provide mutual sexual satisfaction. That is a more modern, more pro-sex and pro-woman position than is normally associated with Paul!

Fr. Harvey