SERMON: “Mutual Fulfillment in Marriage” (1 Cor. 7:1–7)
“Mutual Fulfillment in Marriage”
(1 Cor. 7:1–7)
Series: “1 Cor: Holiness from Messes” #23 Text: 1
Corinthians 7:1–7
By: Shaun Marksbury Date: March
22, 2026
Venue: Living Water Baptist Church Occasion: AM Service
Introduction
Our culture has fully embraced the adage, “If it feels good,
do it!” The sexual revolution was fought
to ensure that there were no stigmas or inhibitions to a person wanting to live
life to the fullest. In fact, there are
many who think it’s unhealthy to suppress any urge, within reason.
We’ve considered those kinds of themes before, but how does
that affect relationships? The standard
practice of the world is to move from an emotional connection to a physical
relationship as soon as possible. Our society
has long since abandoned any idea of courtship and saving oneself for marriage;
in fact, there doesn’t even always need to be monogamy in a relationship! The growing consensus seems to be that, if
there is to be marriage, it’s best to test-drive the relationship. Unfortunately, if a couple decides to get
married after that, there can be ongoing issues in the relationship, as we’ll
soon see.
Last time, we noted a lot of animosity toward the idea of
marriage. Some people may simply have
practical concerns about how marriage works in our current economic
system. Others may have seen poor
examples of marriage, and they’re afraid of committing the same mistakes. There are a variety of reasons out there, but
people must beware lest they are excuses.
Part of this is a growing spirit of the age; Paul saw
similar dark times when he said that there were people “paying attention to
deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons” such as the forbidding of marriage
(1 Tim. 4:1–3).[1] There is certainly a Satanic desire to see
people avoid committed relationships, as it contributes to the breakdown of
society and ruins the people who search for alternatives. The spirit of the age then caused some to devalue
marriage in certain ways, and the same spirit is at work today to upset
marriages in other ways.
Of course, there are other categories of people out
there. There are those who want to get
married some day, but they are having a hard time finding someone. There are also those who have no interest in
marriage at the moment, and it’s not due to some sinful avoidance. Some may not be suitable for marriage, and
others simply have a different calling from God. These are also biblical categories.
Paul deals with these kinds of issue throughout this
chapter. Interestingly, he is only now
turning in this seventh chapter to the issues the Corinthians had questions
about, starting here in v. 1. Perhaps
because of all the talk on sexual immorality the apostle has already undergone
in the previous two chapters, Paul addresses issues of sex and marriage in the
first sixteen verses. He’ll continue to
address questions of marriage, divorce, and singleness throughout this chapter,
though there’s a strong undercurrent in this chapter on themes of contentment
in the Lord.
There were some in Corinth that had gone in the opposite
direction of the libertines of the previous chapter. There, those church members needed to hear
the command, “Flee sexual immorality” (6:18).
Here, though, there was another group that saw complete celibacy as the
ideal, even in marriage, and Paul dismantles that argument.
In this passage, we see Paul counter the spiritualized
narrative downplaying the importance of the one-flesh union in marriage. In doing so, he demonstrates the importance
of mutual sexual fulfillment in marriage that helps us where we are. We’ll see that in three ways this morning. First, God calls married couples to physical
unions (vv. 1–2). Second, God calls
couples to mutual unions (vv. 3–6). Third,
God calls married and unmarried individuals to contentment (v. 7).
First, God Calls Married Couples to Physical Unions (vv. 1–2)
Now concerning the
things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of sexual immoralities, each man
is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.
Paul begins, “Now concerning the things about which you
wrote,” answering the letter the Corinthians sent him. We don’t have their exact question,[2]
but his reply makes it clear: they were asking whether it was good for a man
“not to touch a woman.” There’s some
debate here as to whether Paul is saying this himself without introduction or
if he is quoting them (the ESV places this in quotation marks), but the passage
makes more sense and fits the surrounding context better if we read this as
Paul quoting one of their slogans.
So, v. 1 means, “Now concerning [the first of the things]
about which you wrote: [whether] it is good ‘for a man not to touch a woman,’ [consider
this:].” The phrase “not to touch a
woman” is a Jewish[3]
and Greek[4]
euphemism for sexual intercourse. Some
in Corinth — perhaps reacting to the gross immorality Paul rebuked in chapters
5 and 6 — had overcorrected and fell into the opposite ditch. They adopted the slogan, “It is good for a man
not to touch a woman,” and applied it even inside marriage! They thought spirituality meant denying the
body,[5]
so Paul quotes their slogan and immediately corrects it.
He states, “But because of sexual immoralities, each man is
to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.” Paul isn’t denying that celibacy can be good
in certain callings, and he’ll go on to talk about that later. However, he says it should not be the rule
for married people. Marriage is God’s
gracious protection against the plural “sexual immoralities” that surround us.
The word Paul uses for that (porneia) is the same
root as our word “pornography.” It
covers every form of sex outside the marriage covenant — premarital sex,
adultery, prostitution, homosexuality, and more — all issues Paul has already
addressed.[6] Much of this can be brought in by a tempted
married partner, unfortunately, and these were all acts that the Roman pagans
of Corinth were guilty of committing; Paul says it should be different with
married couples. Moreover, marriage can
serve as a guard against sexual immoralities, meaning that those who are purposefully
single and struggle with sin would (generally) do better to seek marriage.
So, he issues these imperatives. He says that “each man is to have his own
wife” and “each woman is to have her own husband” — again, euphemistic of sexual
intercourse.[7]
These are commands, not suggestions, and
they are deliberately exclusive and mutual.[8] They leave no room for polygamy,[9]
“open” marriages, swapping spouses, one night stands, or any other acts of
sexual immoralities. God designed one
man and one woman to enjoy one another exclusively for life.
This verse also quietly outlaws any notion that sex in
marriage is second-class spirituality. Such
an idea carried into church history, with various groups believing that two
spouses finding pleasure in one another as base and worldly, that sex in
marriage is allowable only because of human weakness.[10] Some began to teach, like some of the Roman
pagans, that sex in marriage is only for procreation. Around the third century, celibacy/virginity
began to be seen as a “higher calling.” [11] Monks would take vows of celibacy as a means
of fighting their sexual temptations. They
began to elevate celibacy so highly that those elders or priests in charge of
the church were eventually forbidden marriage, preferring a view that celibacy
is for official vocation.[12]
This had a connection in an unexpected direction. Around the same time of these theological
developments, an idea began to propagate that Mary remained a virgin her whole life. Some Christians thought that, after she gave
birth to Jesus, Mary and Joseph didn’t come together ever as a married couple. The brothers and sisters Jesus in the Gospels
were explained away as products of some other union. Jerome taught this on the grounds that the
virgin life is superior,[13]
and the perpetual virginity of Mary became the norm in a church culture beginning
to view sex within marriage as less-than-desirable.
Paul will have none of that. Marriage is not a concession to weakness; it
is God’s good gift. In fact, the same
apostle who wrote these words also wrote the magnificent picture of marriage in
Ephesians 5:22–33, where he compares it to Christ and the church. (That’s why we looked at that passage first this
past week.) Marriage is far more than a
sexual relationship when we take in all that Scripture says, but sex is a
unique blessing that God grants within its borders.[14] That it creates life via procreation and
supports a thriving civilization is further evidence that this is a good love
that God intended for us. [15]
Let me speak practically for a moment. Many today “test drive” a relationship by
living together first. They think it
will improve their odds of staying together. Research tells a different story. Studies drawing from the National Survey of
Family Growth and the Journal of Marriage and Family show that couples who
cohabitate before marriage face a significantly higher risk of divorce — often
30 to 80% higher — than those who wait until after the wedding. By contrast, couples who remain sexually pure
until marriage enjoy the lowest divorce rates, sometimes as low as 6 percent in
the first five years. Delaying intimacy
builds better communication, stronger commitment, and deeper satisfaction.
If you’re cohabiting right now outside of marriage, I don’t
mean to shame you. However, God’s Word calls
you to repentance and to make it right. So, come talk to me or one of our elders after
the service. We would love to counsel
you toward a God-honoring wedding and the joy that comes from obeying His Word.
To summarize: The first point is clear. God calls married couples to physical union,
not to private spirituality or private sin. He designed sex, and within marriage, it’s not
dirty. He made it to be a wonderful
gift, and He prescribes the practice next:
Second, God Calls Married Couples to Mutual Unions (vv. 3–6)
The husband must
fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own
body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have
authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by
agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come
together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of
self-control. But this I say as a
concession, not as a command.
Paul now moves from the fact of marriage to the nature of
marriage. Some misunderstand what he’s
saying here, seeing this as somehow oppressive.
Indeed, these verses were revolutionary in their day, and they are still
counter-cultural in ours. Yet, they are
words of blessing that will help your relationships.
Note how he begins.
In v. 3, he says: “The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and
likewise also the wife to her husband.” The
word “duty” or “conjugal rights” literally means “the debt” or “what is owed.” In marriage, sexual intimacy is not a favor
you grant when you feel like it; it is a debt you owe your spouse.
Now, some might see this as somehow misogynistic, but Paul was
calling out the men in his culture — many were only spending time with their wives
for procreation and societal expectation while also visiting mistresses for
their own pleasure. Yet, Paul presents
marriage not only as monogamous, but as a perfect balance: husbands owe wives,
and wives owe husbands.
It’s that context that we need to understand v. 4. Those who might be suspicious of Paul would
see his opening words as against women: “The wife does not have authority over
her own body, but the husband does.” Yet,
he continues by saying that “likewise also the husband does not have authority
over his own body, but the wife does.” Do
you see how he’s continuing the balance?
He began with husbands in v. 3 and ended with them in v. 4, just as he
ended with wives in v. 3 and began with them here. The verses present a mutuality.
Specifically here, this is mutual authority. The husband’s body belongs to his wife, and
the wife’s body belongs to her husband.
In fact, we could argue that Paul is continuing to call out men here who
assumed they had supreme authority in these verses: “The husband must fulfill
his duty to his wife… [for] the husband does not have authority over his own
body, but the wife does.” In the Roman
world a husband could do whatever he wanted with his own body and often
exploited slaves and prostitutes while expecting his wife to remain chaste.[16] One commentary notes:
Paul views marriage as a release
for sexual desires, “a way of avoiding danger.”
Certainly the notion that sexual relations within marriage ought to act
as a check on immorality is reflected in Paul’s Jewish inheritance: for
example, “Drink water from your own cistern … rejoice in the wife of your
youth.… Why should you be infatuated, my son, with a loose woman?” (Prov. 5:15,
18, 20); “Be on your guard against the spirit of immorality … take for yourself
a wife” (Testament of Levi 9:9–10);
and: “Beware, my son, of all immorality.
First of all take a wife from among the descendants of your father”
(Tob. 4:12). This biblical and Jewish
perspective is remarkably different from the Roman view that men were to take
wives in order to have legal heirs, while sexual pleasure, if it was to be
sought at all, would typically be found outside the marriage.”[17]
This view protected wives from neglect and husbands from
self-indulgence. In Ephesians 5:28–29,
we read, “So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own
bodies. He who loves his own wife loves
himself; so husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself.” This takes on special meaning here, for the
husband is to help his wife both spiritually, emotionally, and physically. There are times when the husband fails in
this duty.
Incidentally, the Romans were not the only ones to have a low
view of their wives. Centuries later,
Islam would tell Muslims how to control their wives. Surah 4:34 in the Qur’an says that husbands
must first advise disobedient wives, and then, if they still don’t listen, to separate
beds. Sex becomes a weapon, and if they
still won’t yield, the final step is to strike them.[18] Christianity elevated women in society, but
Islam took them backward.
So, this was a countercultural message.[19] Of course, it’s just as countercultural today,
but for a different reason. We must also
read essentially that the “wife must fulfill his duty to her husband, [for] the
wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does.” There cannot be mutual fulfillment in marriage
if this is a one-sided equation.
Still, there is a fear here that many have that this opens
the door for abuse. Beloved, it does not,
for neither party can claim only half these verses. Instead, this closes the door to selfishness.
When two people stand at the altar and say,
“I do,” they are giving each other the gift of their bodies for the rest of
their lives. [20]
That gift is to be cherished, not
demanded or withheld in anger.[21]
There was a case in Puritan New England in the mid-17th
century. A wife brought her husband to
the pastor and then in front of the whole church because he was withholding sex
from her. The church found in her favor
and ordered the man to start going to bed with his wife or face church
discipline. The man refused, and the
church excommunicated him for neglecting his wife. Even the Puritans were not the prudes on sex
that people think they were![22]
Then comes the practical command in verse 5: “Stop depriving
one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves
to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of
your lack of self-control.” Now, there’s
a lot to consider there, but let’s look at each part of the verse. First, Paul uses the same word for
“depriving” that he used for “defrauding” in chapter 6, an illicit theft,[23]
meaning that their asserting of “rights” went beyond lawsuits to a selfish desire
to withhold sex.[24]
Paul says that to withhold sex from your
spouse without mutual agreement is to rob them.
Paul does give them an exception. However, he’s clear that this is temporary,
mutual, and purposeful. He gives three
conditions:
- It
must be by agreement — literally, “with a common voice.”[25]
Husbands and wives should talk
opening about sex, and there can be no unilateral decisions.[26]
- It
must be only for a limited time. Paul
does not give a calendar, but the context implies days, not months or
years.
- The
purpose must be spiritual: “so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.” Some manuscripts inaccurately add “and
to fasting,”[27]
which fits the idea of giving up a good gift for a season to focus on God.
But even without that phrase, the
principle stands.[28]
There are times — perhaps before a
major decision, during a season of grief, or in concentrated prayer for a
lost loved one — when a couple may choose to fast from sex the way they
fast from food. But they must come
back together afterword.
Why? “So that Satan
will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” Paul is realistic. Prolonged deprivation creates vulnerability. Satan loves to disrupt prayer[29]
and exploit unmet needs.[30]
Christians can sometimes create the
circumstances of their own temptation by devil.
We must take care not to do so for ourselves or for our spouses. We must neither deprive our spouses nor
remain apart after agreed-upon separations lest we open the door to this
temptation. The marriage bed is meant to
be a fortress, not a battlefield.
Verse 6 wraps up this section: “But this I say as a
concession, not as a command.” Now,
there’s a good deal of debate as to whether “this” refers to the temporary
abstinence in verse 5 or to the whole discussion of marriage in verses 2–5. Of course, there can be no command to get
married, but it seems that the “concession” is the temporary situation of v. 5
(as the Reformation Study Bible notes).
In other words, he doesn’t command married couples to live like monks (like
the ascetics were doing in their “spiritualized” understanding), for sexual
relations in marriage are important. He
is only permitting brief, agreed-upon pauses for prayer, but the default is
regular, joyful, mutual intimacy.[31]
Brothers and sisters, this passage destroys two lies. First, sex is not only for the husband’s
pleasure, for Paul says the wife has authority over her husband’s body. Second, sex is not only for procreation, for Paul
never mentions children here. He speaks
of pleasure, protection from temptation, and mutual delight, as representing in
the Song of Solomon.
Now, we have many people here. Some are not married, and some may be widowed.
What does the text have to say to them?
Third, God Calls Married and Unmarried Individuals to Contentment (v. 7)
Yet I wish that
all men were even as I myself am. However,
each man has his own gift from God, one this way, and another that.
Paul wants them to remain as he is, that is, unmarried (v.
8), or in a state of self-control, at least. Now, as it seems that he’s single, that opens
a question about his life. Acts 20:26 hints
that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin, which required marriage.[32] If Paul is married now, and then he somehow
lost his wife, that means that Paul doesn’t talk about what may have been one
of his greatest heartbreaking moments, which could be understandable. However, it’s impossible to know whether Paul
was ever married.
Paul did see freedom that his singleness gave him for ministry,
though.[33]
That makes sense — a wife and children
may have limited the number of journeys on which he embark. A man might desire to engage in missions in a
dangerous part of the world, but a family would rightly give him pause in this
regard. This is in no way a denigration
of the gift of marriage, but there is also a certain gift for ministry that
comes with being single. That’s why Paul
wishes everyone could experience his freedom, but he immediately balances it
with “each man has his own gift from God.”
Now, he does not say “gift of singleness.” This is not a charismatic gift in the same
way we speak of spiritual gifts in chapter 12.[34] Many people think there is a specific “gift of
singleness,” but that’s not taught here.
Rather, the “gift” is the grace to be content and fruitful in whatever
state God has placed you. Both are good
states in which to live, and neither is second-class.
This verse frees us from cultural pressure. In Roman Corinth, law actually penalized
people who stayed single too long. [35] Today our culture sometimes treats singleness
as failure or marriage as the only path to meaning. Paul says both marriage and singleness are good.
What matters is whether you are obeying
God and finding your contentment in Christ.
If you are single and desire marriage, do not despair or
create an idol of marriage — use this season to grow in holiness, serve the
church, and trust God’s timing. If you
are married, certainly do not romanticize singleness; pour yourself into your
covenant with joy. Whatever your lot, make
glorifying God supreme.
Conclusion
So, what does all this mean for us?
First, to the married: Cherish the gift of physical and
mutual union. Do not deprive one another
for any unbiblical reason and so open the door for temptations. Instead, fulfill your obligations to one
another with joy. May your marriage be a
testimony to the world that God’s design is better than the world’s chaos.
Second, to the single: God is sovereign, so embrace the time
God has given you today as a gift. Use
your singleness for undistracted devotion to the Lord, learning, growing, and
serving Him. And if marriage is your
desire, pray, prepare, and trust that God is readying you for His glory.
Third, to us all: Find your ultimate satisfaction in Christ.
Marriage is a picture, but Christ is the
reality. Similarly, singleness can be a platform, but Christ
is the prize. In every season, believer,
remember that He fully knows, loves, and is near to You — make Him your
ultimate focus.
[1] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament,
(Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), 1 Co 7:1.
[2] John D. Barry, Douglas Mangum, Derek R. Brown, Michael
S. Heiser, Miles Custis, Elliot Ritzema, Matthew M. Whitehead, Michael R.
Grigoni, and David Bomar, Faithlife Study Bible, (Bellingham, WA:
Lexham Press, 2012, 2016), 1 Co 7:1.
[3] John MacArthur Jr., Ed., The MacArthur Study Bible,
electronic ed., (Nashville, TN: Word Pub., 1997), 1737.
[4] F. Alan Tomlinson, CSB
Study Bible: Notes, 2017, 1820.
[5] Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter
to the Corinthians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, (Grand
Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010),
267–268.
[6] Ibid., 276.
[7] J. I. Packer, Wayne Grudem, and Ajith Fernando, Eds., ESV Global Study
Bible, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 1613.
[8] Andrew David Naselli, Romans–Galatians, 2020, X, 279.
[9] David Prior, The Message of 1 Corinthians: Life in the Local Church,
The Bible Speaks Today, (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1985), 115.
[10] Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A
Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament
Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 497.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid., 496.
[13] Donald Mackenzie, Dictionary
of the Apostolic Church (2 Vols.), 1916–1918, 2, 642.
[14] MacArthur.
[15] Robertson, 1 Co 7:2.
[16] Ciampa and Rosner, 279–280.
[17] Ibid., 278.
[18] Also, Sahih al-Bukari 5825, Sunan abi Dawud 2146, and Sunan
an-Nasa'i 3964.
[19] Naselli.
[20] MacArthur, 1738.
[21] Barry, et. al., 1 Co 7:4.
[22] Leland Ryken, Worldly Saints: The Puritans as They
Really Were (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 39.
[23] Ciampa and Rosner, 281–282.
[24] Prior, 116.
[25] Ciampa and Rosner, 282.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ronald Trail, An Exegetical Summary of 1 Corinthians 1–9,
(Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 255.
[28] Ciampa and Rosner, 283.
[29] Prior, 119.
[30] John F. MacArthur Jr., 1 Corinthians, MacArthur New
Testament Commentary, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), 158.
[31] Ciampa and Rosner, 284.
[32] Robertson, 1 Co 7:7.
[33] MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible, 1738.
[34] R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistle to
the Corinthians, (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House,
1963), 280–281.
[35] Naselli.