Rape in Marriage: Why “Biblicism” Can Become Spiritual Abuse

There are few sentences more revealing than this one:

“When ‘mutuality and voluntary giving’ is present there is no need for force or fear, unwanted sex does not exist, non-consensual sex does not occur, and rape in marriage is a vicious fabrication.”

That is not just a bad take. It is dangerous teaching.

For the purpose of this article, by "biblicism" we mean "treating the Bible like a dictionary of unrelated quotes rather than a cohesive library of books". It can mean other things, but for this article it is a convenient word to emphasise the issue.

This article is about an idea: that if you quote 1 Corinthians 7 and a few “simple instructions of God” in isolation, you can deny the reality of rape in marriage and accuse anyone who names it of twisting Scripture.

That is not faithfulness to the Bible. That is a weaponisation of the Bible.

I want to examine:

1. What rape in marriage actually is

2. What 1 Corinthians 7 does and does not say

3. How this kind of “biblicism” (flat, selective proof-texting) becomes spiritual abuse

4. Why denying marital rape harms victims and protects abusers

5. A more faithful, whole-Bible way to speak about sex, consent, and covenant

1. What are we talking about when we say “rape in marriage”?

By “rape in marriage” I mean this:

A husband engages in sexual activity with his wife by force, intimidation, threats, manipulation, or overwhelming pressure, such that she does not freely choose it. She submits because she is afraid, cornered, conditioned to comply, or has given up resisting.

She might:

• say “no” and be ignored;

• be physically restrained or forced;

• give in after being threatened (“if you don’t… I’ll punish you / go elsewhere / take the kids”);

• feel that her “no” is pointless because every refusal is punished or sulked over;

• be taught that saying no is sinful by definition, so she never feels free to say it.

On paper, someone can say, “But she didn’t say the word no that night.” In reality, when a whole system of coercive control has been built around her, she may never feel safe enough to say a clear no.

That is not “conjugal rights”. It is sexual abuse within marriage.

Legally, in places like Australia, the UK, New Zealand and most jurisdictions, non-consensual sex within marriage is a crime. The law recognises that a wedding ceremony does not turn a person into property. If she (or he) does not consent, it is rape—regardless of marital status.

Theologically, the question is: does Scripture anywhere give a husband the right to override his wife’s will by force or fear? The answer is no.

2. What 1 Corinthians 7 does—and doesn’t—say

The text in question is 1 Corinthians 7:3–5:

“Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer…”

A flat, surface biblicism reads only two phrases:

• “The wife has not power of her own body, but the husband”

• “Defraud ye not one the other”

and concludes:

“Sex is owed. She cannot say no. Therefore ‘rape in marriage’ is a contradiction in terms.”

But Paul’s actual argument has at least four parts:

1. Mutuality:

   • “Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence, and likewise also the wife unto the husband.”

   • “The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband; and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.”

   In other words: neither spouse is an independent sexual agent; each belongs to the other. Any reading that gives the husband a unilateral entitlement and erases the wife’s equal claim is already out of step with the text.

2. “Render” benevolence, don’t seize it: “Render” is a giving verb, not a taking verb. Paul talks about giving what is due, not grabbing what you want. The direction of travel is: “How do I give myself to you?”, not “How do I extract what I am owed?”

3. Mutual consent and self-control: Paul explicitly limits abstinence to situations “by mutual consent for a time”. That is: neither spouse may unilaterally impose ongoing celibacy on the other. It is not a command to override someone’s fear, exhaustion or trauma. The whole passage sits within a chapter about self-control, not licence.

4. The wider ethic of love and non-harm:

   • Love “does no harm to a neighbour” (Romans 13:10).

   • Love “does not insist on its own way” (1 Corinthians 13:5).

   • Husbands are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the ecclesia, “giving himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25), and to live with them “according to knowledge” / “considerately… showing honour” (1 Peter 3:7).

If a man uses 1 Corinthians 7:3–5 to demand sex through fear, pressure or force:

• He is not “rendering due benevolence”; he is taking.

• He is not exercising self-control; he is indulging entitlement.

• He is not loving as Christ loved; he is doing harm to his neighbour and his own body (1 Corinthians 6:18).

That is the opposite of what the passage teaches.

To say, “Rape in marriage is a vicious fabrication” because “if mutuality exists there is no force” is to confuse what ought to be with what actually is. Paul is describing how Christian spouses should behave. He is not denying that husbands can and do sin grievously against those instructions.

3. How “simple biblicism” becomes spiritual abuse

The pattern is depressingly common:

1. Select a handful of verses (1 Corinthians 7, Ephesians 5, 1 Peter 3).

2. Flatten them—ignore genre, context, audience, and the whole of the rest of scripture.

3. Use their “simple meaning” as a club against anyone who raises harm:

   • “Scripture says you owe sex; you are defrauding your husband.”

   • “God hates divorce; you must not leave, however you feel.”

   • “Wives, submit to your husbands; your resistance is rebellion.”

4. Accuse those who name harm of “adding caveats” or “importing human philosophy” if they:

   • mention consent,

   • name domestic abuse, or

   • refer to the reality of trauma and coercive control.

This is not fidelity to Scripture. It is biblicism in the worst sense: treating the Bible as a flat list of rules detached from the character of God, the whole counsel of God, and the lived experience of the vulnerable.

Several red flags:

• Denying reality: Declaring “rape in marriage is a vicious fabrication” in the face of survivor testimony is a textbook move of spiritual abuse. It tells victims, “Your experience is not real; the only reality is my interpretation of these verses.”

• Reversal of accusation: The person naming harm (e.g., “1 Corinthians 7 does not authorise forced sex”) is likened to “the serpent in Eden,” while the man using the text to justify coercion is treated as the defender of “simple obedience”. Evil is called good, and good evil.

• Gender partiality: Scripture is completely symmetrical in 1 Corinthians 7: the husband’s body belongs to his wife as much as her body belongs to him. But the “simple” reading somehow only ever flows one way: his needs, her duty. Calling that “severe gender partiality” is not slander; it is observation.

Spiritual abuse happens when Scripture is used to bind victims and protect perpetrators. This kind of biblicism is one of its favourite tools.

4. Why denying marital rape harms victims and protects abusers

When an ecclesial/church leader or teacher says:

“Rape in marriage is a vicious fabrication.”

several things happen at once.

4.1 Victims are silenced and shamed

A woman whose husband:

• forces himself on her,

• uses threats to obtain compliance,

• or treats every “no” as a sin that must be punished,

hears this message loud and clear:

• “If I use the word rape, I am accusing him falsely.”

• “If I say I have been sexually abused, I am fabricating.”

• “If I seek help, I am attacking marriage and Scripture.”

She learns to name her experience as “my fault”, “my duty”, or “just how marriage is”.

4.2 Abusers are shielded

A husband who already feels entitled hears:

• “God says I have conjugal rights.”

• “These new teachings about consent are human philosophy.”

• “If she calls this abuse, she is attacking God’s Word.”

He now has theological cover for what he is doing. If anyone challenges him, he can quote 1 Corinthians 7 and accuse them of “feminist thinking” or “worldly ideas”.

4.3 The ecclesia becomes unsafe

Elders and arranging brethren who absorb this teaching are likely to:

• minimise disclosures (“we don’t talk about ‘rape’ in marriage”)

• rebuke wives for “not rendering due benevolence”

• pressure women to “repent” of refusal rather than confronting male coercion

• treat legal categories (like marital rape) as secular intrusions rather than as sometimes naming sins the church has ignored.

The net effect is that those who most need the protection of Christ’s body learn that it is not safe to speak there.

5. A better, whole-Bible way to speak about sex, consent and covenant

We do not have to choose between faithfulness to Scripture and naming marital rape as sin and crime. In fact, if we are faithful to the whole of Scripture, we are compelled to name it.

5.1 Marriage is covenantal, not contractual entitlement

Biblically, marriage is:

• a covenant of self-giving love, patterned on Christ and the ecclesia (Ephesians 5:25–32);

• a union in which both parties leave, cleave, and become “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24);

• a relationship where the husband’s headship is expressed in sacrifice, not domination (Ephesians 5; Mark 10:42–45).

Any sexual ethic in marriage must sit under that:

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the ecclesia, and gave himself for it.” (Eph 5:25) “Love does no harm to a neighbour.” (Rom 13:10) “Husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honour…” (1 Pet 3:7)

A husband who uses force, threats, or coercion to obtain sex is not loving, not understanding, not honouring. He is violating the covenant he claims to uphold.

5.2 Consent is simply one way of talking about non-coercive love

The Bible does not use the modern word “consent”, but it knows the reality behind it:

• “Do to others what you would have them do to you.” (Matthew 7:12)

• “Do not deprive one another, except by mutual consent for a time…” (1 Corinthians 7:5, NIV wording highlights “mutual consent”).

• “Do not lord it over those in your charge, but be examples to the flock.” (1 Peter 5:3)

Consent is not about importing secular philosophy; it is about taking seriously:

• mutuality,

• non-coercive love,

• the difference between a gift freely given and a thing extracted by threat or fear.

When a wife (or husband) is not free to say no, covenant love has been replaced by coercive entitlement.

5.3 Justice, mercy, and faithfulness apply inside marriage

Jesus’ rebuke to the Pharisees is very relevant:

“You have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness.” (Matt 23:23)

Those “weightier matters” do not stop at the bedroom door.

• Justice: refusing to allow those with power to harm those without; naming oppression; not perverting Scripture to protect the strong.

• Mercy: caring for the wounded, believing the cries of the oppressed, making room for lament and escape.

• Faithfulness: holding marriage as a covenant of love and truth, not a prison; insisting that repentance must bear fruit, including in how sexuality is expressed.

A husband who terrorises his wife sexually is not being “faithful to his vows” even if he can produce a marriage certificate. He is committing injustice inside the covenant.

5.4 The ecclesia's responsibility

If we accept that:

• rape in marriage can and does happen; and

• Scripture nowhere grants immunity to a husband’s sexual sin,

then ecclesias have clear responsibilities:

• Teach positively: about mutuality, tenderness, and bodily dignity in marriage.

• Name abuses plainly: including sexual coercion, even when there is a marriage licence.

• Support survivors: with safety planning, pastoral care, and respect for their conscience decisions about sex and separation.

• Confront abusers: calling them to repentance, insisting on fruit over time, and accepting civil consequences where crimes have been committed.

To do anything less is not “keeping the simple instructions of God”; it is ignoring the God who hears the cry of the oppressed.

6. Conclusion

The claim that “rape in marriage is a vicious fabrication” is not a defence of biblical truth. It is:

• a denial of the reality many women (and some men) live with;

• a misuse of 1 Corinthians 7 that strips it of its mutuality and its context;

• a form of spiritual abuse that silences victims and emboldens abusers.

We can and must say both:

• “Marriage is a sacred covenant that should not be lightly broken,” and

• “Sex obtained by force, fear or coercion—even in marriage—is sin and, in many jurisdictions, a crime.”

Anything less is not faithfulness to Scripture. It is partiality and injustice disguised as piety.

If we are serious about honouring Christ, the Bridegroom who gives himself for his bride, we cannot use his Word to excuse husbands who take what is not truly given.

Read our article on 7 Sane Reasons why an oppressed wife might say "no".