How does understanding Rome’s view of sex impact how we should interpret Paul’s writings in 1 Corinthians?
We’re starting a series in the month of April of views of sex throughout history, and I started yesterday looking at 8 weird things about ancient Rome and sex.
Today I want to use those things to help us look at what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Corinthians 7 with new eyes. I find this so exciting and so liberating, and I hope you will too!
1. Paul insisted that sex isn’t just physical; it’s intimate too.
Yesterday we were looking at how one of the defining features of sex in Roman times was that it was about power. It was a man penetrating someone else; what made him masculine was that he was doing the penetrating. The other person was basically there to be used.
So sex was not a joining of two bodies and souls but more a one-sided taking. Even if the one being taken enjoyed it, it was still about the person taking.
This was also a culture where using prostitutes was considered normal male behavior. Wives were for producing offspring; prostitutes were for sex. When the people of Corinth became Christians, then, they still had some pretty warped views of sex. And into that, Paul wrote some pretty impassioned words about how we were to see this practice of using prostitutes. In the famous “your body is a temple” verses, he writes:
Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.
Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.
Paul is saying that sex is more than just physical! In a world where sex was basically divorced from intimate relationships, Paul steps in and says that when you’re with a prostitute, you’re “one with her in spirit.”
Now, some weird doctrines have emerged from that verse to say that we have “soul ties” with anyone that we’ve ever had sex with, and I’m not trying to say that here, and I don’t think the passage says that. But Paul is saying that we need to take the act of sex more seriously. He’s reflecting back on what is written in Genesis 4–“Adam KNEW his wife Eve.” Sex was meant to be this deep knowing, this deep intimacy, this deep longing to be connected. It is something sacred, but not in the “temple prostitute” kind of sacred. It’s something beautiful between two people, and it should not be taken lightly.
Paul is restoring intimacy to the idea of sex, a concept that was sadly lacking. And that’s beautiful!
2. Paul thought the body was good, not bad
But to balance with this idea that sex isn’t only about the body, Paul then steps in one chapter later and stresses that the body is actually good.
In this culture where sex was about power and was rather ugly, many people converting to Christianity were also committing to a life of celibacy. The Greek philosophy that the body was bad and the soul was good was still rampant at this time, and had infiltrated the church. It was only natural in a society that saw the body as bad, and that treated sex as ugly, that new Christians would think you could be more godly by giving up on sex altogether.
In fact, when Paul talks about “virgins” in 1 Corinthians 7, he doesn’t mean virginity as the state of one’s hymen, as we often think of it. Many scholars believe instead that he’s referring to people, and especially women, who have pledged themselves to a life of celibacy.
Paul honors those who do want this, saying:
Want to say unmarried? That’s great! The unmarried can dedicate themselves to God wholeheartedly because they don’t need to worry about their family.
But then one verse later he also says this:
We may laugh at the phrasing, but he’s really saying, “hey, if you want to marry, go for it! You don’t need to stay single!”
And that’s really the context for the “do not deprive” verses that are so iconic.
Other than Ephesians 5:22 (“wives, submit to your husbands”), I can’t think of any other verses that have been so weaponized against Christian women as 1 Corinthians 7:3-5. But as we look closer at them today, I hope you’ll see that the weaponization is totally AGAINST what Paul is saying. And actually his message is really freeing!
So let’s see how Paul sets it up:
So Paul was being asked by those who wanted to be celibate if this was a good thing to do if they were already married, and he’s saying–No! If you’re married, you should have sex. There is nothing actually bad about sexual relations in their proper place. In fact, they’re a good thing!
And then he goes on to add those verses that we too often have come to hate:
In this context of marriage where one spouse may choose to declare themselves celibate in service to God, Paul is saying, “do not deprive each other.” He’s not talking about never refusing sex when you have a headache; he’s saying that intimate, mutual, pleasurable sex the way God intended it should be a part of a marriage relationship, and this is a GOOD thing.
Want to read more about the “Do Not Deprive” Verses?
- What do the “do not deprive” verses really mean?
- What if women are the ones most likely to be deprived?
- The Great Sex Rescue goes into detail in these verses throughout the book–it’s a great resource for this!
The Great Sex Rescue
Changing the conversation about sex & marriage in the evangelical church.
What if you’re NOT the problem with your sex life?
What if the things that you’ve been taught have messed things up–and what if there’s a way to escape these messages?
Welcome to the Great Sex Rescue.
In the middle of a Christian culture that has denigrated sex and seen it as “less than”, Paul firmly says that the body is good and that sex is good within marriage, and we shouldn’t practice celibacy.
Okay, now for the most revolutionary point:
3. Paul set a brand new standard for sex: complete and utter mutuality. Women mattered!
Remember what we learned about sex in Rome yesterday: It was about power. It was mostly about men. Women were secondary.
Now let’s add to it another factor: In Roman times, men actually had full authority over their wives, to the extent that they could murder their wives if they wanted and they wouldn’t be charged with anything. They owned their wives.
This was a society in which men dominated. No one could really picture anything different.
And yet Paul walks in and presents a picture of sex that is completely and utterly mutual. In fact, women’s needs are actually mentioned first! “The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife.” Imagine the impact of that! Women had needs and husbands were to fulfill them. Women did not exist to serve men; on the contrary, marriage was to be a mutual relationship where each served the other.
We’re so accustomed to thinking about sex as something men need and women don’t that we gloss right over the mutuality of these passages, as we explain in The Great Sex Rescue:
In fact, the Bible tells us that women should not be deprived. “The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband” (1 Cor. 7:3, emphasis ours).
Too often, though, books portray that verse and the surrounding ones as applying only to men. Fred and Brenda Stoeker’s Every Heart Restored even says this: “Sure, men are promised regular sexual release by Scripture. But by the same token, women are promised that their husbands will treat them with honor and tenderness (1 Pet. 3:7).”
Let’s look more closely though. Notice something interesting about that passage they referred to about men’s needs? They forgot to mention that it’s directed at both spouses. If they use that verse to show women they need to give their husbands “sexual release” (i.e., orgasm), then by their own logic, they should have charged men with the same responsibility to bring their wives release too.
The Bible does not assume that one spouse will be perpetually sexually deprived by the other. No, the Bible tells us that both genders need to look out for the other, and it’s expected that women will experience pleasure too. Even “It is better to marry than to burn with passion” is addressed to “the unmarried and to widows” (1 Cor. 7:8–9). Paul assumed that women would have passions! Sex is about both of you. Both of you should give and receive; both of you should feel loved and cherished.
We need to stop talking about 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 as being about a man being promised sexual release, and realize that it’s about both people having their needs met!
And then Paul says something even more extraordinary.
Paul says that a wife has authority over her husband’s body–“the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.” Remember, this is a society where men had complete authority over their wives’ bodies, and Paul gives women that same authority. Well, not to kill their husbands–but he says that no one has any authority over the other that the other does not also have over them.
I truly don’t think we get how big a thing this was. In our modern age, we read these verses and our hearts fall a little bit because we think, “great, so he owns my body and I can’t say no.” But that was not the emphasis that Paul was making! The big revolutionary thing here is that sex is mutual. Sex is for women just as much as it is for men. It is not only about the one penetrating; it is about BOTH people experiencing something intimate together, and both people matter equally.
To take it even further, this is the only place in Scripture where Paul explicitly talks about authority in marriage. And when he does so–he makes it totally mutual and equal.
In other passages he talks about the husband being the head of the wife, but in Greek there are two words that we translate “head” in English. One has a connotation of authority, and one really does not. Paul deliberately chose the one that did not.
Want to read more about what “head” means in Greek?
I’m not really the blog for that, because I’m not a Greek scholar. But I do have some posts that can help, and I’ll point you to some other resources as well!
- What Does Headship Really Mean? (podcast)
- Our Submission Series (let’s look at what the submission passages actually mean)
- Marg Mowczko’s site (she is a Greek scholar, and she’s written a lot about headship and the submission passages)
- Cynthia Westfall’s book Paul and Gender
- Beth Alison Barr’s upcoming book The Making of Biblical Womanhood
Paul is walking into unhealthy relationship dynamics that are based on power, and saying, “NO!”
Instead of a power-based marriage, with one person having authority of the other, Paul presents a relationship where both people matter and where mutuality and intimacy reign. That’s the point of 1 Corinthians 7:3-5–not a command for women to submit to one-sided sexual encounters where they feel used (and if that’s you, please listen to our duty sex podcast and pick up The Great Sex Rescue!).
When we try to make marriage into a hierarchy, authority based relationship rather than a mutual, intimate one, we’re perpetuating Roman culture rather than the Bible. And I think that’s a shame, because I think we’ve missed the heart of what Paul was saying here.
So let me leave you with Jesus’ words, that I believe were central to Paul’s understanding of what the Christian life should look like:
Exactly. Marriage is not about power or using each other.
Marriage is about a mutual serving in an intimate relationship. That’s what Paul was trying to say, and I hope that helps you to see those verses anew today–and hopefully will stop people from weaponizing them in the future!
What do you think? Did any of that surprise you? Does any of this context change how you see the verses? How have they been taught to you?
Sex Throughout the Ages Series
- 8 Weird Facts about Sex in Roman Times (April 6)
- The Significance of 1 Corinthians 6-7 in light of Roman culture (April 7)
- A Romp Through Medieval Times and Sex (April 13)
- 10 Weird Pieces of Victorian Sex Advice (April 14)
- The Contagion Theory of Sexuality–and How to Change It (April 19)
- 12 Pieces of Advice from a 1970s Sex Manual (April 20)
- 12 Ways the Christian 1970s Culture Tried to Be Sex Positive–While Also Fighting Back against the Sexual Revolution (April 21)
- A Look at Christianity’s Response to the Sexual Revolution: Kinsey, the 1970s, and the Early Christian Sex Books (our April 22 Podcast)
- How Youth Group Changed After Generation X (and what it was like before purity culture) (April 26)
- Is Porn the New Purity Culture? (April 27)
- A Liturgy of Lament for the Teaching We Received about Sex and a Prayer for Healing (April 30)
Sheila Wray Gregoire
Founder of To Love, Honor and Vacuum
Like you, I'm heartbroken by the Josh Duggar case, and by the continued support for him from his...
On Fridays I like to take a look at what's been happening on social media this week, because often...
God does not ask us to consent to selfish sex. In fact, one-sided intercourse is not sex. I can...
For the last three years I've been trying to change the evangelical conversation about sex. I've...
I've had some amazing podcasts drop recently, and I wanted to make sure I shared them with you....
Has anyone noticed that the math in Love & Respect for how many people the book applies to...
On Spanking: When You Think You’re Following the Bible, but You’re Really Following Your Own Interpretation
It's easy to use the "we're just following the Bible!" trumpcard when debating something, and...
I never spanked my kids. Well, there's a funny story about Katie, but I'll leave that for another...