Is There Ever a Reason To Deprive Your Spouse Their Conjugal Rights

Conjugal Rights and the Question of Exceptions

And with conjugal rights, in my mind, it seems like a similar discussion where if you're saying, hey, I don't want to give my spouse their conjugal rights. Well, then the question is, well, why did you marry them?

Warning, the following message may be offensive to some audiences. These audiences may include but are not limited to professing Christians who never read their Bible, sissies, sodomites, men with man buns, those who approve of men with man buns, man bun enablers, white knights for men with man buns, homemakers who have finished Netflix but don't know how to meal plan, and people who refer to their pets as fur babies.

Viewer discretion is advised.

People are tired of hearing nothing but doom and despair on the radio. The message of Christianity is that salvation is found in Christ alone, and any who reject Christ therefore forfeit any hope of salvation, any hope of heaven.

The issue is that humanity is in sin, and the wrath of Almighty God is hanging over our heads. They will hear his words, they will not act upon them, and when the floods of divine judgment, when the fires of wrath come, they will be consumed and they will perish.

God wrapped himself in flesh, condescended and became a man, died on the cross for sin, was resurrected on the third day, has ascended to the right hand of the Father where he sits now to make intercession for us.

Jesus is saying there is a group of people who will hear his words, they will act upon them, and when the floods of divine judgment come in that final day, their house will stand.

Welcome to Bible Bash, where we aim to equip the saints for the works of ministry by answering the questions you're not allowed to ask. We're your host Harrison Kerrigan, Pastor Tim Mullett, and today we'll answer the age-old question, is there ever a good reason to deny your spouse their conjugal rights?

Now Tim, what Bible verse do you have to open up the episode for us with as we discuss this topic?

Tim Mullett. Yeah, 1 Corinthians 7, 3 through 5 says, 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 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 limited time, that you may devote yourself to prayer. But then come together quickly, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Harrison. OK, so the Bible verse seems pretty straightforward, but then I think if you were to just poll a bunch of people, say that you had the ability to do that online somehow, you might not get as straightforward an answer as Paul is giving here, right?

Is that a fair assumption to make?

Tim Mullett Yeah, I mean, it's kind of funny because when you, I've asked this kind of question at a variety of times, particularly online. It was just people in general, people that I've interacted with, and most people lead with the exceptions, like in their mind, like exceptions to this rule.

Harrison. Yeah, but what about the time when your spouse is abducted by terrorists?

Tim Mullett. Yeah, sometimes it's like the most extreme kind of hypothetical as possible, but then what's interesting about it is, it really is at a point where they're leading with these exceptions as if it would be absolutely stupid just to say no.

Does that make sense?

Harrison What do you mean?

Tim Mullett. I mean, it's not as if the standard impulse for most Christians, even like solid Christians, if you were to say, is there ever a time to deny your spouse their conjugal rights, they would say yes, even though Paul is saying don't deprive one another very directly.

And then he gives like an exception that's not an exception, but I mean, we can get into that in a minute. But despite the way, like how strongly Paul words it, what I found is most people are actually objecting to it being worded the way Paul words it.

And most of the time, they're objecting to it pretty strongly. Meaning like, I asked this question recently online, and people looked at me and were like, hey, you're an idiot. You're stupid. Of course, there's reasons to deprive your spouse.

You know, are you a moron or something like that? And it just makes you think, are you guys looking at what's being said here? Do you understand the meaning of words? Like what's going on here? You know, so it's one of those things where not only would most people, like with most people who generally agree with this concept of conjugal rights, I mean, even them, I would say most of them wouldn't say that there's never a situation to deny your spouse their conjugal rights.

So most people are going to argue that obviously there is a case to deny your spouse their conjugal rights unless you're just an idiot or something like that.

So what are some of the reasons given that make it so obvious that there are situations where you should deny your spouse their rights?

Are you saying like what are the reasons that people give?

Yeah, what are the reasons they bring up?

Yeah, so like you dummy, you idiot, like don't you know, like women, like here's some situations, like a woman who just gives birth should deny her spouse. Yeah, deny her spouse his conjugal rights. Or like what if she has cancer, you know?

Or what if he's beating her, you know? Or what if he cheats on her, you know? Or what if she has some kind of disease or like what if she's sick, you know? Dummy, like obviously there's reasons to deprive your spouse their conjugal rights.

So they'll get the imperious tone and they'll go for it.

Do people ever bring up, you know, like, hey, what if they're just not in the mood?

See, most, I mean, I think most, like most Christians, like quote-unquote professing Christians would go that route, but I'm talking about even like solid-minded Christians aren't. They may not necessarily go that.

So even the ones who would say like, hey, that's a bad reason to deny conjugal rights. They might still say some of the other ones that you've brought up.

Yeah, are good reasons to deny. But then, you know, I want to qualify that when I've, the issue is that if you were to ask, is there any good reason to deny your spouse their conjugal rights? I'm just going to say no.

Like there's no good reason, period.

Like the end.

But then the problem is if I say that, no one knows what I'm saying yet.

Right.

Meaning I've just said something that's like obviously true. Like what I just said was right. What I said was exactly what Paul says. But then I'm not allowed to say it. And if I do say it, then people think I've said something I didn't say.

When all I said was what Paul said. Does that make sense?

Yeah.

So I guess just flesh out a little more what you mean by that.

Right.

So like the issue here is all this, this question hinges on what the word defraud or deprive means. Okay. So like that's like that's what if you say, is there ever a good reason to deprive your spouse their conjugal rights?

The biblical answer is no. And like the biblical answer is no, not even with prayer, not even for the purpose of prayer. So like the answer is no. Like there's not.

Okay.

But then that all hinges on what the word deprive means.

Okay.

Okay.

So most people don't understand what deprive means. So they think like deprive means like for any reason go without having sex or something. But that's not what the word means.

Right.

So the word deprive like in the Greek here.

Right.

So you look up this definition. It's to cause another to suffer loss by taking away through illicit means, to rob, to steal, to despoil, or to defraud.

Right.

So you should never do that. You should never cause your spouse to suffer loss by taking away through illicit means.

Right.

You should never rob them. You should never steal from them. You should never despoil them. You should never defraud them. That's what that word means.

Okay.

So there's not a situation. So the issue is what's happening is like whatever these exceptions in people's mind are, they're not exceptions to defraud. Does that make sense?

Yeah.

Because like defraud.

Yeah.

Basically saying like, hey, you know, for the purpose of prayer, that's not a fraudulent thing to do. That's not a deceitful thing to do. You're coming together. You're forming an agreement. And then you're fulfilling that agreement and then quickly returning to each other.

Right.

So Paul lists that as like a possible exception, like the only possible exception. But then he does so in a way that is just somewhat like it's not even precise. You get what I'm saying? So he says in verse five, do not deprive one another.

Like that's a very strong statement. And then he only gives one qualification to it. He says, except perhaps by agreement. For a limited time for the purpose of prayer. But then the issue is once it's except like once it becomes a situation where you're both mutually agreeing to abstain.

Right.

You're no longer in the realm of defrauding.

Right.

So what's actually happening is he's making a very strong statement like don't ever defraud each other.

Right. Like that.

You don't defraud each other. You don't cause each other to suffer loss. By illicit means you don't rob, steal, defraud, whatever else. Perhaps, and this is the way his word is, like perhaps the only situation where you could possibly do something is when you both agree to it together.

Right.

For the purpose of prayer and just for a very limited time. That would be like if you both agree. But then the issue is once you both agree, it's no longer defrauding anyways. Does that make sense?

Yeah, I think the only thing that has me still a little hung up on it is just the fact that he uses the word except which seems like a strange. It makes the verse still sound like that is somehow a defrauding.

Even though I don't know that Paul would call it a defrauding. Does that make sense?

Yeah, but you think about it this way. If Paul were to say don't ever steal from each other, except perhaps if you both agree that they willingly want to give you money that doesn't belong to you. In which case then that's the only situation where you can take something that doesn't belong from you.

Does that make sense?

Yeah.

That's what defraud means. Defraud means steal. If you think about it like that, don't ever steal from your husband. Unless he agrees for a limited time and he doesn't need the money and he's just going to give it to you.

In which case you can take it. But you should never take it from him in an unwilling way. In that case, that's kind of what this word means basically.

It seems like essentially this verse is really kind of getting at the selfish nature that we have. So Paul is saying don't defraud each other. Give what's owed to one another. To your spouse. And then the same is expected from your spouse.

That your spouse will give to you what's owed to you. And there should never be any sort of selfish I'm not going to give you what I promised you.

So the whole passage hinges on the idea that there are these things called conjugal rights. So the husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights and likewise the wife to her husband. So the idea is these conjugal rights exist.

And then what each person is told in this arrangement is you don't defraud from them. And what that means is you don't cause them to suffer loss by taking away through illicit means. You don't steal from them.

So that's the issue. So these rights exist. They're there. They're part of the marriage covenant. That's what they are. So you're not allowed to just cut a person off. You're not allowed to do that because you're defrauding them.

You're stealing from them. That's not permitted. That's not what marriage is. Marriage is a one flesh relationship. So for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother in Genesis 2 .24. A whole pastor's wife too shall become one flesh.

That's what marriage is. One flesh relationship that grants both parties conjugal rights. So it goes both ways. And if you're to withhold that from them, like you're stealing from them, you're robbing them.

That's the concept, right? So then the issue is there's never a good case to do that. There's never a good situation where you do that. You may, perhaps, like in his language, you may perhaps agree together to temporarily abstain for the purpose of prayer.

Stealing's wrong, okay? Stealing's bad. Don't do that, right?

Yeah, and I guess if the other person's willing to give it to you, like if we're using the stealing analogy, right? If someone's willing to give you something and you take it, you're not stealing.

Right, right.

So then that's how the one exception he grants works. But then what people have done is they've just gotten so accustomed to adding a bunch of different exceptions to this that what they end up doing is they end up coming up with like a nonsense scenario, right?

So they're making a hash of this word deprive here, right? Defraud here. But the issue is this isn't the way to handle the tough cases, if that makes sense. So when I say that, when I say, hey, there's no good reason to ever defraud someone, I didn't say that a woman who just gave birth to a child is morally, like yesterday, is morally in sin for not being able to have sex with her husband temporarily.

I didn't say that, but that may be what they hear, but then that's not what I said. So the issue is there's other ways to deal with these difficult kind of exceptions in people's minds, but then the issue is they're not actually exceptions.

They're just different things. Does that make sense?

Yeah, but explain a little more what you mean by. They're just different things.

Okay, if a wife is in a coma, let's go with the easiest analogy possible. A wife is in a coma. Is it possible for her to defraud her husband in that moment?

No.

She's unavailable.

But you see what I mean?

So people would put that forward as an exception to what Paul is saying, but do you see how it's totally irrelevant to what Paul is saying? It has nothing to do with what he's talking about. She can't defraud him because she's not there.

She's in a coma.

She's not withholding.

She's not making a conscious decision.

She's not making a decision to cause him to suffer loss through illicit means. Do you see what I'm saying? That's not what happened. What happens is she's out.

She's out.

She's gone, man.

Hopefully she's not gone, gone.

You get what I'm saying. There's no defrauding happening there. She's not withholding anything that's due to him. She's physically incapacitated. She's unable to give to him. Do you see what I'm saying?

That's not an exception. That's the point. When Paul says what he says in the way that he's saying it, people are criticizing him for not talking about comas or something like that. Do you see what I'm saying?

If I don't talk about a coma in that situation, what about a coma? Then people think, well, you're just like an idiot or something. Come on, you're not allowed to say it like that. It's like, well, Paul didn't say it like that.

The issue is not that Paul is unaware of the possibility of a coma. The issue is that that's not defrauding. Because she's not withholding something that's in her power to give. She has no power to give it.

I think it says something that Paul just doesn't feel the need to really qualify it a whole lot.

Right?

I'm sure you're going to talk about this some more, what I'm about to say. I think that does speak to... There's a lot of times where you read things in the Bible and you think to yourself, man, if someone were to say this today, they would need to endlessly qualify this.

With this scenario and with that scenario and all of these different things. So often throughout the Bible, you just read these almost like one-liners a lot of times. It's straightforward. It's not difficult to understand at all.

Unless you just really hate what's being said. You want to twist it to mean something that it doesn't mean. This seems like one of those passages where Paul's being really straightforward. He's giving a command for husbands and wives not to deprive one another.

He's not qualifying it endlessly. He's not talking about the coma. He's not talking about the woman who just gave birth. He's not talking about when you're sick or whatever else. We'll talk about some of those things.

For some reason, he doesn't feel the need to qualify any of those things. You're right. It's not like he's unaware that those are possibilities. It's not like people started getting sick 50 years ago.

But he's not talking about it. He doesn't mention that at all. In my mind, that does speak to the kind of society we're in right now. Whatever your conclusion is, I don't know how you can read a verse like this and then hear people talk about the topic and conclude that we are faithfully obeying this verse as the universal church, like all Christians everywhere generally.

I don't know how you can come away with that conclusion.

Think about it this way. This is a word that means steal. Think about it that way. Let's just move out of this realm and talk about stealing. What does God say? Thou shalt not steal.

Period.

But think about that. There's no need. The issue is related to the concept of stealing. There's no need to qualify it.

Right.

Because there's no good situation to steal. Do you see what I'm saying? There's never a good reason. You can come up with a good reason in your mind to steal, but then the issue is stealing by definition is wrong.

Even the most Robin Hood kind of scenario or whatever else, maybe there's some sort of concept of taking back what belongs to you, but then if you're going to get into that kind of realm, you're no longer talking about stealing.

The moral argument you're making at that point is it belongs to me, and it was stolen, and I'm just taking it back. Does that make sense?

Yeah.

The issue is the only way you can make this argument is to say, hey, it's not stealing. Do you see what I mean?

Yeah.

Now, are there situations where it's understandable for a thief to steal? Well, the Bible even mentions those in Proverbs. You don't despise a thief who's starving to death or something like that, but that doesn't mean it's morally right.

Right.

You just may understand as a human being that there are some situations which are harder than others, and hope that you never get into that kind of situation.

Yeah, like surely there's a difference between stealing a loaf of bread and stealing a PS5, right?

Sure, sure. Yeah, or all the Gucci bags at the store or whatever for reparations. But then the issue is if you're dealing with the word steal, steal by definition is wrong. There's never a good case to steal.

That's what we're talking about. So then the issue is what's happening with this discussion is people really, they don't believe that conjugal rights are rights. That's the point.

Yeah, yeah.

So if a conjugal right is a right and to defraud someone is stealing, right? To cause someone to suffer loss through illicit means, to rob, to steal, to despoil, to defraud, if that's what you're talking about, there's never a good situation to do that.

There's no exceptions to that. That's wrong.

Period.

The end is wrong. It's wrong to steal. And so that's the very point in which the dispute is happening in our society. We don't believe these are rights. And so we believe that these are privileges that you have to continually earn in the course of your marriage.

Meaning if you're a husband, you have to keep your wife happy, give her as much quality time as she wants and everything else, fulfill all of her relational needs. And you have to do that in order to earn this privilege again, right?

So your marriage vows didn't do it. Now, I could say something like that, and people, what they instantaneously hear, and it's like crazy they hear this, they think I'm saying that a guy is honorable just to ignore your wife and then expect her to sleep with you or something like that.

That's not what I'm saying. I didn't say that at all. I'm saying that the issue is these are rights and what are the entailments of rights? Do you see what I mean? So you should never take away someone's right.

You don't have the moral high ground by depriving someone of their rights ever. Like you never occupy, no matter how understandable it is. And so what you have is you have like a situation where you have this command that people are treating as if it's optional instead of as a command, right?

So they're treating it as something. And then the issue is if you say, hey, let's say that a husband was rude to his wife earlier in the day and then he wants to sleep with her at night or whatever. And is she allowed to say no?

It's like, well, no, biblically she's not allowed to say no. That's not the way it works, right? So she's not allowed to say no, but that doesn't mean that he's a good guy for not living with her in an understanding way either, right?

So both things can be true at the same time. You can have a guy who's just being a pig and you can have a woman who's being defiant. Do you see what I'm saying? Like both of those things can exist at once.

And what people want to do is they want to make obedience to this one contingent upon the other person obeying first. But then that's not really how it works. Like that's not, like the way relationships work is that both people have to commit to obeying God no matter what the other person does.

And that extends to this area too. So you're never like, you know, if you get mad at your wife and you don't talk to her for three days, there's never a good reason to do that. It doesn't matter what she did.

You see what I'm saying?

Yeah, in my mind, it seems a lot like the whole, you know, a lot of people will bring up in the abortion, baby murder debate, they'll bring up this idea of like, hey, just because I'm sleeping around doesn't mean I want to get pregnant.

And it's like, well, then why are you sleeping around? I mean, that's the natural outcome of having sex is you will get pregnant. That's what happens. And sure, there's ways to try and stave it off, but that's the natural process.

So why did you even agree to, you know, performing that action to begin with? And with conjugal rights, in my mind, it seems like a similar discussion, you know, where if you're saying, hey, I don't want to give my spouse their conjugal rights, well, then the question is, well, why did you marry them?

If you don't want to do it. Now, to your point, what you're saying, sure, there's absolutely, you know, bad husbands out there. There's absolutely bad wives out there. But then that's, you know, a separate discussion.

Yeah, I mean, it's like, all right, so just as a husband has a responsibility to provide for his wife, right? So you think about it this way. Is there ever a good reason for a husband just to quit his job and not go to work anymore?

No, the Bible would call him worse than an unbeliever.

But what if she was mean to him?

Still worse than an unbeliever.

Right? What if she deprives him of his conjugal rights? You see what I'm saying? Like, there's not, like, that's not, like, no matter how she sins against you, you throwing your hands up in the air and say, hey, I'm not going to do, fulfill my responsibilities.

It was never justified. I don't care if she's, like, mean to you all day long. I don't care if she's a contentious woman. If she's, like, one of those ladies that it's better to live on the corner of a rooftop.

If you decide to just stop going to work to provide for her, the Bible says you're worse than an unbeliever. Like, because you're not fulfilling your vows at that point. And so, like, the issue is we know this as it relates to men, but we don't typically know this in the opposite direction.

You see what I mean?

Yeah.

Like, we know related to anything that the Bible calls a man to do, we're going to absolutely hold him to do that no matter what she does, right? But then in the other area, we just, we don't have the same kind of rigor.

But then the issue is that's just the way it works on both sides.

And even going so far as to say, hey, whatever, you know, whatever the wife does that might be wrong in the relationship is probably the husband's fault in some way.

Sure, sure.

So, I mean, I just, whatever you do, you just, when you have a command, you have a command. You have to treat it like a command. That's the point, you know?

Right.

So, the issue here is, yeah, if you were to ask me, is there any, is there ever a situation where you deprive your spouse of their conjugal rights?

No.

I'm just saying no. You would never steal. I'll never steal.

So, what about, you know, just going to, quickly going to some of these individual excuses that people might give, you know, would you, and maybe we can try and define the line a little more clearly for people who might still feel confused on this, but earlier you talked about like, hey, what if your wife is in a coma?

What if your husband's in a coma? Are they denying you, you know, your conjugal rights? No, right? Because they're incapable of fulfilling that promise right now. So, are there, I know people give other reasons why, like, hey, what if I'm sick, you know?

Is sickness in your mind a, hey, you are incapable of fulfilling your conjugal rights?

I mean, I think a lot of the things, the situations people will bring up, I would put in that category of being incapable, if that makes sense.

Being incapable?

Yeah, yeah. So, I mean, like, obviously in the Bible you have, you have sick people who are laying beside pools and the Bible describes them as being unable to get up and walk and move, right? So, that kind of person, like, the issue is, like, there is a category in the Bible of a person who is a cripple, right?

And so, like, there's categories for sick people, like, people who have debilitating illnesses. Like, they're, and like, the issue is, you don't look at those people and you say, hey, you're worse than an unbeliever because you're not working to provide for your family.

It's like, he's bedridden.

Right.

Dude has no legs and no arms because the Muslim tribe came in and chopped him off because he was a Christian or something like that, right?

Sure.

So, I'm not making light of that if there's anyone who doesn't have any arms or legs who's listening to this. I'm just trying to say that, like, there's obviously, like, the Bible obviously has a category for suffering debilitating illness and, like, with that kind of situation, the Bible would use language to say, hey, they're unable to do things.

And so, if you're unable to do something, you're unable to do something, that's just the way it works. Do you see what I'm saying?

Yeah.

So, now, I mean, there's obviously sickness and there's sickness. So, if you say, hey, like, is sickness a good reason to deprive your spouse? I'm going to say no. It's not a, like, sickness is not a good reason to deprive your spouse.

Like, but, like, sickness may fall into this category of being, like, physically incapacitated, right? Like, physically unable to perform normal obligations. So, if you're physically unable to perform normal obligations, like, the issue is you're not depriving in that moment.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Yeah.

Like, you're just too weak.

You're too weak to move.

Like, we could do this thing that you want to do, but I may throw up on you, you know?

So, is there a difference between that and, I mean, there's different kinds of sicknesses, right? So, there's, like, there's the sickness like you're talking about, you know, and then there's the sickness that's

Like, I have a headache and I'm cranky and I'm in a bad mood.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Like, I'm, you know, I'm cramping.

I don't feel good.

Right. Yeah.

Like, I'm, you know, I'm nauseous, but I'm not, like, throwing up nauseous. I'm just

Yeah.

I mean, there's tons of stuff like that that we all feel all the time. So, is that in the same category as, like, hey, I've had my, you know, arms and legs chopped off? Even though that's not a sickness, obviously.

So, I'm not When I say that sickness falls into that category, I want that category to be a strong category. You see what I'm saying? Like, there is a category in the Bible of someone who's physically unable to do something, and so use your brain and figure out what that is, right?

So, I mean, typically, like, we know, like I mean, we know this in other realms. So, like, if you were to, you know, if you were to call in sick at work, so just take it out of this realm, right? Completely.

What does your employer expect? A doctor's excuse, right?

Right.

If you go to school, you call in sick, a doctor's excuse. So, I mean, we have a category for this kind of thing to where, you know, it can get fuzzy at a certain point, but we all know what this category is.

Like, you're sick. You see what I'm saying? And so there's obviously sickness, and there's, like, I don't feel good, you know? Like, I haven't felt good, like, for the past 20 years. Because I make poor life choices, right?

Because I make poor life choices, I never move and, you know, everything else. So, like, there's obviously, like, that kind like, psychosomatic, I'm suffering from fibromyalgia sickness. There's that kind of thing, and then there's, like, real sickness.

And so I would say that the real sickness, whatever that means, like, whatever that real sickness means, I would say that falls into the category of physically incapacitated. But, I mean, like, the issue is, yeah, obviously, like, people work that category for all sorts of reasons in all sorts of areas, you know?

There is a type of person who is constantly calling into work sick, and there's really nothing wrong with them. They stayed up too late playing video games and that kind of thing, and they're saying they're sick because they don't feel good because they woke up and they had a headache, and, you know, maybe they have a little bit of a tummy ache.

And, you know, obviously, in a saner time, people would look at them and say, hey, normal obligations proceed, right? And if you're the kind of person who's constantly, like, working that category, then you end up getting fired in most places, right?

Hopefully, yeah. Yeah, I mean, so most normal secular employees are not going to deal with that kind of thing in perpetuity forever. It's like, all right, yeah, you've pulled that card too many times, and now we don't believe you anymore, right?