God’s Good Design for Intimacy
January 19, 2025
Preached by Ron Smith
Scripture Reading
1 Corinthians 7:1-9
1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 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.
6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
For the past few chapters Paul has been talking about sexual immorality. What sexual immorality tries to fulfill is our desire for intimacy. That desire to be known, to be loved as we are, to be cherished, to be close to another. The problem is that sexual immorality leaves us empty – it can’t deliver the intimacy that it promises. So, what will fulfill our desire for intimacy? Is it marriage? Is it not engaging in sex at all, even if I am married? Is it living a life of singleness? As Paul turns his attention to talking about marriage and singleness maybe we will find the answer.
This morning, I have two main points: the perversion of God’s good design of intimacy, and the preservation of God’s good design of intimacy. Instead of presenting these points in a logical, sequential order, what I want to do is read through the passage, explain what the text is saying and show you where we see these two points. I hope we will see what God’s good design for intimacy is how our desire for it can be fulfilled.
Let’s jump in. Verses 1-2:
Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
It seems that the previous discussion of sexual immorality in chapter six has brought to Paul’s mind something that the Corinthian church had written him about. Now we have no record of this letter that they wrote to him. We only know of its existence because of the few places in 1 Corinthians that Paul refers to it (8:1; 12:1; 16:1). What we find here in verse 1 seems to be a quotation from that letter. You might notice that in most modern translations “it is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” is in quotes. What follows in verse two on, is Paul’s response to it.
Right out of the gate we see Paul correcting their extreme view. Sexual immorality was obviously a problem in Corinth and as we have seen in chapters 5 and 6, it has seeped into the church. So, it appears that the Corinthians have come up with a solution – no sex. Complete abstinence, even for married couples. It’s typical isn’t it for us to see the dangers of one position and then in reaction go all the way to the opposite position.
While they may have had good intentions, Paul in effect says, “no, no. that’s not going to work.” It’s ultimately a wrong strategy to take in preventing sexual immorality. We see in what he says that abstinence within the marriage would fan the flames of sexual immorality – the very opposite of what they wanted.
Perhaps the problem was that they did not fully understand what sexual immorality was. In the most simplistic terms, while it can take many forms, it is any act of sex outside of the context of marriage. Sexual immorality is a perversion of God’s good design of intimacy. Sex outside of marriage is a perversion of God’s good design of intimacy.
Paul goes on to say that each man should have his own wife and each wife her own husband. The word ‘have’ is a command. The ESV tries to signal that by adding the word ‘should’ – should have. We could look at that and interpret it as saying that every person needs to be married. As if Paul is commanding marriage. However, that is obviously not what he means because what he goes on to say in verse 7 contradicts that understanding. When Paul says let each man have his own wife and each wife her own husband, it is best to understand this word ‘have’ as a euphemism for sex. Let each man have sex with his own wife and each wife have sex with her own husband. Don’t go outside of the marriage bed to find another partner.
This understanding is backed up in what we read next. Let’s look at verse 3.
3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.
That word ‘should’ alerts us to another command. Namely a command to give (or it could be translated pay back). There is no option here. Husbands give, likewise wives give. What are they to give? Well, anyone who speaks English knows what conjugal means, right? But just in case you don’t, Google’s definition is: “relating to marriage or the relationship of a married couple.”
Other translations instead of conjugal rights says, ‘the husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife’ and vice versa. All the translations are trying to make sense of the Greek. Quite literally we could translate this verse like this: ‘the husband should pay his debt to his wife.’ And likewise for the wife. In marriage, there is a debt that must be paid back. The context of this verse helps us see that the debt has to do with sexual relations with your spouse. Sex with your wife, sex with your husband is something you owe them.
Now, if you don’t like that, you are really not going to like verse 4. This is perhaps more troubling for our modern society.
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.
What emotions does that illicit in you as you hear those words? I think in this individualistic world where we value the self above all else, these words are hard to accept. “What do you mean my wife has authority over my body?” Well, to pull on the language of verse 3, I owe her my body. In marriage the two become one, inseparable. To the point that what’s mine is hers and what’s hers is mine.
Almost every time I speak to people about how in marriage 2 people become one, there is a quick response that tries to protect the individuality of each person. They say, “yeah, but that doesn’t mean that I cease to be who I am, the way God made me.” That is true. But I hate to say it, I don’t really think that our problem is that we think too little of ourselves. We think too much of ourselves. So instead of trying to protect my individual identity, my wife and my marriage would be better served if I would think more of how we have become one, and more of how I belong to her. It’s not going to change who I am as a person.
The point here is one of mutual possession. This preserves God’s good design for intimacy. The giving of yourself to another to the point you can say, ‘my body is your body.’ Perhaps we could visually illustrate it by thinking of a married couple taking a simple stroll in a park holding hands. Probably doesn’t do it justice, but holding hands is a signal that you belong to me, I belong to you. I would just add that this idea of mutual possession goes beyond the sexual arena even though that is Paul’s focus here. It would do us well to mediate on what it means that my body is your body even beyond the bedroom.
You might be concerned that a view like Paul is advocating here could lead to dominance. In particular, a husband’s dominance over his wife. Notice that all through these verses Paul is addressing both the husband and the wife. This has the effect of mitigating against extreme views on both sides. There is no room for an extreme male chauvinistic interpretation that would justify male dominance.
Unfortunately, there have been husbands who have perverted God’s good design for intimacy by appealing to verses like this to get their wives to do what they want. This is wrong. Husbands do not look to this verse and try to use it as a way to force yourself on your wife. Don’t mishandle Scripture to feed your appetite for sex.
On the other extreme, we see the perversion of God’s design for intimacy in passivity. These verses can’t be used to justify passivity. You are not your own. There is no retreating in the relationship. There is no hiding. No living completely separate lives has if your spouse didn’t exist. There is not to be manipulation of the other. “Well, I will do this if you do that.” There is a call to be fully engaged in the marriage. Not in a dominating way and not in a passive way.
Ultimately, not having authority over your own body is rooted in Christian love. The love that puts the interest of others above our own. The willingness to deny our own needs and desires for the good of the other. To say it more clearly in light of this passage, mutual possession knows when to love by having sex and when to love by not having sex.
All of this is wrapped up in verse 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.
Do not deprive one another. Married couples are commanded to not deprive sex from one another. Depriving each other of sex is a perversion of God’s good design for intimacy.
There is an exception: spouses may commit themselves to abstinence for a limited period of time for the purpose of prayer. When abstinence points you to Jesus, it is a good thing. It preserves God’s good design for intimacy. When withholding for a short time brings you to the throne room of God, for mutual prayer for one another, for your family, for God’s good and perfect will to be done in your relationship, this is beautiful. It ultimately reminds us where true intimacy is to be had. In Jesus.
Abstinence in a marriage can be good. However, Paul says come together again. This is for a very important reason: “so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” The reality is that temptation to sexual immorality is something that all of us are susceptible to. We are tempted to sexual immorality because there is a desire for sexual intimacy that we all have. These natural inclinations can result in ungodly ways of fulfilling them. Again, finding intimacy in sexual relationships outside of marriage is a perversion to God’s design. And Satan know this.
Don’t miss the spiritual battle over sexual intimacy that is going on. Satan seeks to kill, steal and destroy. He is the ultimate deceiver, the father of lies. He wants to destroy our marriages by feeding us lies about where true intimacy is to be found that prey upon our lack of self-control. Peter describes Satan as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. We know that lions often choose the weak and vulnerable as their lunch. Paul in effect is saying that we are weak and vulnerable in the area of self-control.
I am afraid that in the culture we live in today, the lack of self-control is celebrated as a value. We see lack of self-control in our diet. We see it as we stick a device in the hands of our kids with no boundaries. We see it in the way we spend and spend and spend money on frivolous things. Of course, none of this is ever called a lack of self-control, but that’s what it is. It’s all about me. I have to satisfy my wants. Moving closer to the theme of this passage, I think this is one reason the porn industry is so big. There is lack of self-control. We have porn available 24/7 on the phone in our pocket. Satan knows this!
Don’t underestimate the importance of self-control. It preserves God’s good design for intimacy.
In these first 5 verses we see the perversion of God’s good design for intimacy in seeking self-gratifying sexual immorality. We also see the perversion within the marriage by spouses depriving one another of sex.
On the flip side, we see the preservation of God’s good design for intimacy when we are a people marked by self-control. We see it in a marriage where there is mutual possession and self-sacrificial love for one another. We also see it in a marriage that seeks Jesus the true giver of intimacy.
There are two more things I want to add to these lists. Let’s look at the last four verses and then wrap it all up.
6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Paul almost unexplainably turns his attention to singleness. We will be returning to this subject in two weeks because Paul deals with singleness at length at the end of the chapter. So, we won’t get into too much detail now.
But notice that Paul calls singleness good. He even says that he wishes that everyone would be single as he is.
He is very sober minded about his view. He understands that the single life is not for everyone and is in fact a gift from the Lord. The Lord gives the grace necessary to live as a single for the edification of the church. What this means is that the preservation of God’s good design for intimacy is seen in singleness. This does not make it easy. There is a burning passion that at times is just simply too strong. And the lack of self-control makes marriage preferable for some.
I want us to see something else. In light of the preference for singleness Paul has, we must realize that at times we can make marriage a perversion of God’s good design for intimacy. Let me be clear. Marriage is good. Marriage is godly. Paul is not attacking marriage. However, at times we make marriage an idol. As if we can only experience true intimacy within the context of marriage. This is a perversion. And unfortunately, we see it in so many ways even within the church as we elevate marriage and inadvertently lower the status of singles.
I am going to refrain from listing out how I see that happening in some churches because I think it would take a lot of nuance and discussion to really understand what I mean. I’ll give you just one example. Think about how some of us have as a pastime playing match maker. Sometimes this is just flat wrong. Sometimes it communicates that a single has not yet reached the more mature level of marriage. All match making is not wrong. Perhaps you are married today because someone introduced you to your future spouse. But we should think about our motives, and what is being communicated before we just go around playing cupid. We don’t want to pervert God’s good design for intimacy by making an idol of marriage. Because God’s design is also preserved by singles who are devoted to the Lord walking in the gift that he has graciously given.
Let’s wrap everything up. We have seen the perversion of God’s good design for intimacy in sexual immorality, in spouses depriving one another of sex, and in making an idol of marriage.
We have seen the preservation of God’s design for intimacy when we exercise self-control, when there is mutual possession between spouses, we see it in a marriage that seeks Jesus the true giver of intimacy, and God’s design for intimacy is preserved in singles who are devoted to the Lord.
One thing we see very clearly in this passage is that sex is a big deal. If it was not important, then this passage really makes no sense. Why forbid it in any form? Why confine it to marriage? Why not just abstain from it even in the context of marriage? Sex is an expression of the union of a husband and wife. It is an expression of the covenant they have entered together. It is something that reflects the union we have with Christ. However, it is not to be equated with intimacy. It is only a picture.
This begs the question, where is intimacy is to be found? We have already hinted at it as it is implied all through these verses. True intimacy is found in Jesus. That desire to be truly known, deeply cared for, and fully loved can only be fulfilled in Christ.
Picking up on the language of giving we saw in verse 3, The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. Who is it that gave himself so completely, so fully that he died in order that we might live? That we might thrive as we live abundant lives. We were lost and now we are found, we were blind but now we see. We were broken but now we have been made whole.
There is a lot of brokenness in marriage that does not preserve the intimacy to be found in Jesus. There is a lot of brokenness and hurt in singleness that does not preserve the intimacy and wholeness we find in the arms of our Savior. But here he stands, ready to embrace us, ready to heal us, ready to walk in a relationship of true intimacy.
Cling to him. Not your wife, not your husband, not your ideal of the completeness you would have if only you were married. Cling to Jesus. Cling to him in your pain, in your brokenness, in your joy, in your wholeness. Grasp hold of him. He is God’s good design for intimacy.
The perversion of God’s good design for intimacy:
Sexual immorality,
Spouses depriving one another of sex
Making an idol of marriage.
The preservation of God’s good design for intimacy:
Exercising self-control,
Mutual possession between spouses,
A marriage that seeks Jesus the true giver of intimacy,
Singles who are devoted to the Lord.
Sermon Discussion questions:
What are ways sexual immorality perverts God’s design for intimacy?
How else might married couples live out the idea of mutual possession?
What dangers of a lack of self-control do you see? How do you see it in your own life?
How do we inadvertently “lower” the status of singles? Why do we do it?