“1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “it is good for a man not to marry.” 2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
”
“When I wrote Only the Good Die Young, the point of the song wasn’t so much anti-Catholic as pro-lust,” said Billy Joel. “Come out Virginia, don’t let them wait; you Catholic girls start much too late, aw but sooner or later it comes down to faith; oh I might as well be the one… They say there’s a heaven for those who will wait. Some say it’s better, but I say it ain’t. I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints. The sinners are much more fun… You know that only the good die young.”
That song certainly is pro-lust. It proclaims that the sinners are much more fun because sin is much more fun, but is that the case? Is lust a more enjoyable way to go? Is meeting all your urges however you want the most satisfying way forward? You can answer that question by looking at Billy Joel’s life. Why has his love life been such a disaster? Why has he been married so many times and given so much away in divorce settlements? Why has he been in an endless string of relationships? “I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints. The sinners are much more fun.” Apparently not. Apparently lust isn’t all that satisfying. God could have told you that. God has a pattern for how sexuality and marriage satisfy, and this pattern is for our good. That’s the claim of this sermon: God has a pattern for how sexuality and marriage satisfy, and this pattern is for our good.
We will study this in two points. First: a time for self-restraint. Second: a time for self-giving. Wisdom is about knowing when to do what; that’s Ecclesiastes 3, “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens: a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot.” Here we see that there is a time for sensual self-restraint and a time for self-giving.
First: a time for self-restraint. Paul wrote what we have before us in response to a letter from the Corinthian church. Just as I will hopefully be receiving a number of questions about sexuality and marriage during this series, so Paul received questions. Just as I will start my answers to these questions by reading the questions, so Paul answered those questions by referring to the Corinthians’ questions. That’s what Paul was doing in verse 1; ‘Now for the matters you wrote about—start quotation from their letter—“it is good for a man not to touch a woman”—end quotation from their letter.’ The NIV translates that as, “it is good for a man not to marry,” but it is almost entirely alone in that; almost everyone else translates what the Corinthians wrote to Paul as, “it is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
To understand why the Corinthians would write, “it’s good for a man not to touch a woman,” you need to understand Corinth. The city of Corinth was a debauch place. Think Las Vegas. It was a, “hotbed of vice”, as one scholar put it.
Each of us is profoundly shaped by our time and place; some of us go along unwittingly with what’s around us; others of us fight furiously against it, but both types are shaped by their time and place. The Corinthian church was no different. Some of the members fought furiously against the immorality around them; others were more affected by it than they would like to think.
Some of those who were more affected by this lust came to believe that since the Holy Spirit came what they did in their bodies didn’t matter. This is why they approved of their fellow church member’s intimate relationship with stepmother. They thought it was a sign of spiritual maturity—“the Spirit has come; the body doesn’t matter.” Others thought that since the Spirit had come Christians shouldn’t engage in anything fleshly and therefore everyone should abstain from erotic intimacy. People were falling off ditches on both sides of the road. In the letter to Paul, the second group argued, “it is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
What we have before us in 1 Corinthians 7 is Paul’s response, which is a, “yes, but…”; “yes, it is good for a man not to touch a woman, but only outside of marriage.” It is good for a man not to touch a woman… outside of marriage. This is a helpful correction to the so-called locker talk which pictures physical intimacy as an act of conquest and virgins as weaklings. This is a helpful corrective to the insane message given to young women that nobody loves them unless someone is currently loving them intimately.
The Corinthians who wrote, “it is good for a man not to touch a woman,” assumed that since the Holy Spirit had come, they shouldn’t pay attention to sexual desires. They came to see sexual desire as unworthy of them or even dirty. I thought that in my own way at times when I was younger at times. I was on a spiritual mountaintop after a mission trip and I figured my libido wouldn’t be as strong. These Corinthians took that to the next level believing that celibacy was always holier than physical intimacy and so the truly spiritual remained celibate—and perhaps became priests, monks, or nuns as you see this work itself out, in part, in church history. Paul wanted this group to know that the Holy Spirit didn’t come to eliminate urges; that’s what leads to verse 2, “But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.” Telling everyone to, “just say no,” would only end in immorality. Unmarried people would find no God-given outlet for their urges and so they would turn to sin. If the married people listen to this strange logic they would be denied their God given outlet and may eventually turn to sin or enjoy what was righteous but feel ashamed of it.
Paul didn’t believe that abstinence was better than intimacy. He believed each had their time and place. He viewed both singleness and marriage as gifts from God; that’s verse 7, “each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.” He was simply following Jesus’ teaching, “there are [those] who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” Singleness was a gift from God, just like marriage, and just like the gifts of teaching or giving or leading. They are given by God to build others up. That’s what marriage is about—building others up including our spouse and children.. That’s what singleness is about—building others up.
Paul completely agreed and simply made clear that he was able to receive the singleness and the celibacy of which Jesus spoke; that’s what Paul meant when he said, “I wish that all men were as I am.” He wasn’t saying that marriage was bad; he was simply very happy because his singleness freed him up to serve Jesus in unique ways. He wanted others to be as happy as him in the same way that many married people want their single friends to be married like them. Some can serve God better while married; others can serve God better while single. When I got married, I was freed up to serve God more fully because I didn’t have the same consistent temptations and frustrations.
To the Corinthians who prioritized celibacy as more spiritual than intimacy, Paul reminded them not to heap burdens on people; verse 9, “if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”
This clearly assumes that marriage is the proper outlet for these urges. Now if you aren’t married, this raises the question as to the purpose of these urges. I’ve thought a lot about that because I was a teenage boy and I do believe that if you could somehow harness the libido of all teenage boys in Lyon County and convert that into electricity, you could power the entire nation. These urges are powerful engines. They are meant, in part, to drive us toward the maturity necessary for marriage. If a young man wants to be intimate that badly, he would be wise to mature into what is required to be married. If you know the power of these urges, put energy into planning a career in which you make enough to support a family. Grow in the virtues that would make you a good husband or a good wife. If you want to be intimate that badly, step out of your comfort zone and find communities of like-minded Christians in which you might find a potential spouse or at the very least good, supportive friends who can encourage you to obey God as a currently single person. Consider a shorter engagement; “if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” If you deny yourself until marriage, those urges become an engine to mature you toward marriage. If you don’t restrain yourself in that way, you won’t mature toward marriage, which is what we see all over our culture since the sexual revolution—a failure of young people mature because they’ve decided against all wisdom to become physically intimate before marriage. That’s just one of the reasons we have so much immaturity not only in our twenty and thirty-year-olds and even in our forty and fifty-year-olds.
This idea of self-restraint is increasingly alien to our culture; “they say there’s a heaven for those who will wait. Some say it’s better, but I say it ain’t.” The sexual revolution, which is certainly one of the gods of our age, teaches that those who wait are incomplete. The answer, of course, is Christ. He was the most fully human, human who ever lived. The most fully human male who ever lived was never physically intimate with a woman
God’s pattern for these matters makes much more sense than the world’s. That’s why it makes sense for a minister of the gospel to ask sexually active couples to stop being intimate until the marriage; “if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”
So that’s the place of self-restraint; now we see the other side of the coin, which is not self-indulgence but self-giving; that’s our second point: a time for self-giving. Marriage is designed be a safe place for physical intimacy. Spouses are free to be physically vulnerable with each other because they are stuck together forever. Marriage is also meant to be a guard against immorality. The goal is that spouses find satisfaction in each other so neither looks for satisfaction elsewhere; that’s Proverbs 5:18, “May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful deer—may her [body]—there’s another euphemism—satisfy you always, may you ever be intoxicated with her love.” That’s a word from a father to a son—“don’t compare your wife with other women. Don’t compare her with how she looked ten years ago. Be satisfied with her now.” If for some reason any man finds that chaffing, listen to GK Chesterton, “Keeping to one woman is a small price for so much as seeing one woman.”
The Christian view of marriage takes the one flesh union we studied last week seriously. The two are one; this system is sufficient for satisfaction; verse 4, “The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.” That’s the one flesh union—each belongs to the other.
Now we need to be careful here because the idea behind this is not, “you are commanded to please me when I want and how I want.” The idea is not that satisfaction is a husband’s pleasure and a wife’s obligation as it has been understood. The idea is that the man and wife are a team; they are one. He should make it his interest to please her. She should make it her interest to please him; that’s verse 3, “The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.” This is why I entitled this point “self-giving.” This is about each partner giving of themselves for the other and to the other in all they are and each partner growing to be worthy of that gift; the idea is that both husband and wife should be fulfilled, and each should be more interested in the other’s fulfillment than in their own.
This requires talking about this area of your marriage. This means having a realistic view of how often physical intimacy is expected. This means having an understanding of what leads to amorous satisfaction.
Men need to understand women and women need to understand men. Men need to understand that relational intimacy precedes satisfying physical intimacy. Listening to your wife thoughtfully, taking an interest in what interests her, pursuing unity with her because you actually want to —this is what stirs her affections. Physical intimacy really does start with the dishes.
Women need to understand that while they are, as they say, like a crockpot, warming up slowly in a more holistic way, men are much more like microwaves. They are on immediately and they turn off just as fast. When a man expects his wife to be a microwave, there are problems. When a woman faults her husband for not being a crockpot, there are problems. God has put you together with someone unlike you so that you can learn how to love the other. Isn’t that a Christian ethic—learning to love someone who is unlike you?
It shouldn’t surprise us that this dynamic of fulfilling the other is seen in the mystery behind marriage—Christ and the church. Christ came not to be satisfied but to satisfy; “even Christ did not please himself,” as Paul wrote to the Romans; he pleased the church. If the Son of God didn’t live to please himself, what business do we have living to please ourselves? Rather Paul said that we the bride should, “no longer live for [ourselves] but for him who died for us and was raised again.” Jesus was interested in our satisfaction; we are to be interested in his satisfaction. Even intimacy is a parable of our relationship with God, which is why God so often uses adultery as a way of talking about idolatry.
We give ourselves to the other. This reciprocity—the man’s happiness is in fulfilling his wife and her happiness is in fulfilling her husband—this was totally distinct in the Greco-Roman culture. Paul wasn’t looking around at Cosmo of his day for romantic advice. He just looked back to the one flesh union we studied last week with Adam and Eve.
I hope you can see there is nothing grandiose about Paul’s words on this topic. What he has to say makes sense within the drudgery of day-to-day life. He acknowledges that that we are sexual creatures and celebrates marriage as the context for expressing that. He gives practical wisdom as to how to go about that and warns that troubles will occur if we don’t follow God’s pattern in our marriages. He does offer one piece of wisdom that might surprise you; verse 5, “do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”
Remember, this topic of sexuality isn’t about pleasing ourselves; it is about the one flesh union. Praying together is another manifestation of our union. Paul’s language makes clear that he is calling both husband and wife to pray together. Intimacy is a unifying act. Prayer is a unifying act. You know that if you two have pleaded with God for your children, for your daily bread, or for strength for one or both of you to make it through another day. Paul warns, however, that this can only be done for a time; “then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”
The Bible is incredibly realistic about the human libido. It is incredibly realistic about human nature. It is realistic about you. The question is, “are you realistic about you?” You aren’t realistic if you say with Billy Joel that sinfully expressing those urges is much more fun. You aren’t realistic if you, like those Corinthians, think these urges are unworthy. You aren’t realistic if like the other group of Corinthians you think that what you do in the body doesn’t matter.
The good news is that this God who created this connection we’ve been studying is so into relationship that He sent His Son to die to win us as a bride. He wants that connection with us and does something about our sin to have it. He knows how to satisfy. Amen.