One aspect of prison ministry is that during bible studies, topics tend to come up that are neglected or just plain ignored on the outside because they are “too touchy” or you “just don’t go there.” even though they reflect real-life issues that need to be dealt with in a biblical manner. One of those topics was discussed last night at Chippewa Correctional-East. The topic?
“Is it OK to masturbate if you’re thinking about your spouse while doing it?”
Yes, that’s really what was discussed. And, we discussed it like adults, biblically.
Naturally, sexual issues need to be addressed in dealings with prisoners and many are beyond the scope of this post. The nature of masturbation in general (and let’s be honest – this is not a “guys only” issue, right, ladies?) in the life of a prisoner is something that is real and for the Christian, needs to be addressed biblically. Our specific discussion, though, addressed the subject as stated above – it is OK if the object of our thoughts is your spouse?
A popular response to the issue is Genesis 38 and the story of Onan. If one looks at the text, though, one will see that the issue is not the one we are dealing with here.
6 And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord put him to death. 8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother’s wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. 10 And what he did was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also.
A more explicit description fo the responsibility Onan was to fulfill is given in Deuteronomy 25:5-10:
5 “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 6 And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. 7 And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’ 8 Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him, and if he persists, saying, ‘I do not wish to take her,’ 9 then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face. And she shall answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’ 10 And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, ‘The house of him who had his sandal pulled off.’
Jesus then had to deal with this issue in Matthew 22 in an encounter with the Sadduccees:
23 The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question, 24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up children for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother. 26 So too the second and third, down to the seventh. 27 After them all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her.”
29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” 33 And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.
So we can see that the story of Onan will not give us our answer. So what is the answer?
It would seem that there is no explicit text addressing the issue, but that we can draw our conclusion from some texts concerning marriage and sexuality. We can see in Genesis that the first couple was to “be fruitful and multiply.” Sex was to be used in this citation for the purpose of procreation – populating the earth. That has not changed.
From a reading of the Song of Solomon, we can see that sexual pleasure in the context between a husband and wife is a) a good thing and b)a desirable thing. The text is explicit to the point that many (if not most) congregations dare not read it during the Sunday service because of its content. Of course, that raises the issue of whether or not we really believe 2 Tim. 3:16-17 – the “All Scripture” reference – is “All Scripture” REALLY useful for what it says it is or is some to be passed over because it addresses subjects which are “adult in content.” Even if a church send their young people off to “children’s church” and the like – is the Song of Solomon ever addressed in adult gatherings? One would be hard-pressed, though, to find anything in the Song of Solomon that would affirm or endorse the practice we are discussing.
Proverbs 5 addresses the importance of monogamous sexual relationship within marriage:
15 Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well.
16 Should your springs be scattered abroad, streams of water in the streets?
17 Let them be for yourself alone, and not for strangers with you.
18 Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth,
19 a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love.
20 Why should you be intoxicated, my son, with a forbidden woman and embrace the bosom of an adulteress?
21 For a man’s ways are before the eyes of the Lord, and he ponders all his paths.
22 The iniquities of the wicked ensnare him, and he is held fast in the cords of his sin.
23 He dies for lack of discipline, and because of his great folly he is led astray.
From this passage, again, one would be hard pressed to find justification for masturbating while thinking of one’s spouse. The context certainly seems to be not one that endorses sex by one’s self, but with one’s partner.
1 Corinthians 6 & 7 address sexual issues at length, but a few verses would seem to address the issue somewhat directly:
3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 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. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
Here we see that “conjugal rights” involve both spouses and both spouses in an active, participatory sense. We see that each spouse does not have “authority” over their own bodies. We see that deprivation is to be ceased by the “come together again” phrasing. Deprivation would not seem to be allowed to cease by one spouse taking authority over their own body in order to fulfill a need.
Now, in practice – is that easy? Most definitely not. For a prisoner – male or female to be separated from their spouse for 1, 5, 10, 20 years or life does indeed present an enormous problem with temptation and the desire to fulfill the God-given sexual desire that was to be satisfied in the context of that marriage. Does not the non-incarcerated spouse wrestle with this issue as well?
A difficult situation, indeed. It would appear, though, that it would be difficult to find biblical justification for the practice of masturbation while thinking about one’s spouse. Even in the cases of separation (even if we exclude prisoners from this discussion) or issues such as disability, the Scripture does not seem to give us an out on the issue. Further input would be greatly welcomed, though.
