In 1 Corinthians chapter 7, Paul deals with the subjects of sex, marriage, divorce, and singleness, and he reveals his mutualist (or egalitarian) views. There is no hint here of the male authority, leadership, or privilege that many Christians assume is part of God’s design in marriage.
Here are some of Paul’s statements taken from the NIV. (I’ve highlighted some words in bold.)
Each man should have his own wife.
Each woman should have her own husband. (1 Cor. 7:2)
The husband should fulfil his [marital] duty to his wife.
Likewise the wife to her husband. (1 Cor. 7:3)
The wife’s body does not belong to her alone, but also to her husband.
The husband’s body does not belong to him alone, but also to his wife. (1 Cor. 7:4)[1]
Neither should deprive the other except by mutual consent and for a time. . . (1 Cor. 7:5)[2]
The wife must not separate from her husband, but if she does, she should remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.
The husband must not divorce his wife. (1 Cor. 7:10–11)
If a brother has an unbelieving wife and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her
If a woman has an unbelieving husband and he is willing to live with her, she must not send him away. (1 Cor. 7:12–13)
The unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife [3]
and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband . . . (1 Cor. 7:14)
If the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances. (1 Cor. 7:15)[4]
How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband?
How do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? (1 Cor. 7:16)
An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs…
An unmarried woman is concerned about the Lord’s affairs… (1 Cor. 7:32–34)
A married man is concerned about the things of the world: how he may please his wife
A married woman is concerned about the things of the world; how she may please her husband (1 Cor. 7:33)
Philip B. Payne makes this comment about 1 Corinthians chapter 7.
The strikingly egalitarian understanding of the dynamics of marital relations expressed in Paul’s symmetry throughout this passage is without parallel in the literature of the ancient world. It is all the more impressive because it is focused on the marriage relationship, a relationship that traditionalists regard as intrinsically hierarchical based on the “created order.” Against a cultural backdrop where men were viewed as possessing their wives, Paul states in 7:2, “let each woman have her own husband.” Against a cultural backdrop where women were viewed as owing sexual duty to their husbands, Paul states in 7:3, “Let the husband fulfill his marital duty to his wife.” It is hard to imagine how revolutionary it was for Paul to write in 7:4, “the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does.”
Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 106–107.
Some food for thought here!
Footnotes
[1] The CSB does a good job of translating 1 Corinthians 7:4:
“A wife does not have the right (exousia) over her own body, but her husband does. In the same way, a husband does not have the right (exousia) over his own body, but his wife does. ”
I have written about the context and meaning of this verse, here.
[2] The idea that the husband is the final arbiter in difficult decisions has no biblical basis whatsoever. The only biblical precedent I can find for decision-making in marriage is here in 1 Corinthians 7:5 where it speaks about husbands and wives making a mutual decision. I’ve written about the flawed concept of “male headship,” here.
[3] “For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife” (1 Cor. 7:14a). How do Christians who believe that husbands have some sort of spiritual authority over their wives, or some kind of sanctifying role (cf. Eph. 5:26–27) explain 1 Corinthians 7:14a? I have more on the sanctifying role of believing spouses in a postscript, here.
[4] Not being “bound” means, in effect, that the believer is free and released from his or her wedding vows (cf. 1 Cor. 7:39). I have more about Paul’s words on divorce in 1 Corinthians 7, here.
© Margaret Mowczko 2010
You can support my work for as little as $3 USD a month at Patreon.
Become a Patron!
Image Credit
Image via Pixabay
Explore more
1 Corinthians 7:4, in a Nutshell
Paul’s Words on Divorce and Leaving an Abusive Marriage
Leading Together in the Home
5 Flawed Ideas about “Headship” in Marriage
Paul’s Main Point in Ephesians 5:22–33
A Suitable Helper
All my articles on divorce are here.
10 thoughts on “Mutuality in Marriage: 1 Corinthians 7”
Pure scripture, no opinion, simplicity at its best. How can this be so misunderstood?
It can be difficult to understand the situation Paul is addressing in 1 Corintians 7, but his even-handed advice speaks for itself.
Still, I guess if someone reads the Bible with a masculinist bias, a bias taught and reinforced in many churches, these verses about mutuality can be misunderstood, explained away, or ignored.
A woman insists vs 6 here, the concession, clearly refers to verse 7 about not marrying and not the preceding verse(s) about mutuality and denial of sex by partners. The “But” which begins vs 6 in the King James and Paul propensity for run-on sentences makes me think it applies to the former or perhaps to either or both. Can you provide insight? Thank you!
Hi Barbara, I had another look at the passage (in Greek). I can’t see, in terms of both grammar and logic, that the concession is verse 7. Paul presents singleness and celibacy as the ideal. The concession or allowance is that people have sex.
The Greek conjunction de at the beginning of verse 6 is extremely common. Many Greek thoughts, sentences, and paragraphs begin with de. The word occurs 31 times in 1 Corinthians 7. It often means “and” but can also have a soft adversative sense. That is, it can mean “but” with a soft sense. Sometimes it’s translated as “now” or left untranslated.
The KJV definitely gives the impression that verse 6, beginning with “but,” contrasts with the previous verse, and that temporary, rather than permanent, abstinence (verse 5) is the concession.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a [limited period of] time, …
6 But (de) I speak this by permission [or, concession], and not of commandment.
7 For (de) I would that all men [people] were even as I myself [single and celibate]. But every man [person] hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 (de: untranslated in this verse) I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But (de) if they cannot contain [exercise self-control: egkrateuomai]: let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
1 Corinthians 7:9 and Paul’s used of “if” is another hint that the ideal is singleness and celibacy and that the concession is marriage and sex. The verb egkrateuomai and especially the related noun egkrateia were often used in the context of not having sex and permanent celibacy in early church documents. I have a few articles that look at celibacy in the early church: https://margmowczko.com/tag/celibacy/
I hope this all makes sense. It was a bit tricky to explain.
I explain the context of 1 Corinthians 7:4ff here:
https://margmowczko.com/1-corinthians-74-in-a-nutshell/
[…] Mutuality in Marriage: 1 Corinthians Chapter 7 […]
I appreciate your hard work! Thank you!
While reading 1 Cor. 7, I get the idea that the context is mainly referring to marital relations. Some take it that it gives the husband and wife the right to control each other in physical and other areas. I come from a controlling background and know what it is to live a life of slavery with no voice so I desire more explanation about this. Also, I share the truth with friends who were caught up in that system.
Hello Regina, I’m really sorry you’ve come from a controlling background.
1 Corinthians 7 is all about sex, marriage, and divorce. In particular, it’s about rejecting sex and marriage. I’ve written more about this context here:
https://margmowczko.com/1-corinthians-74-in-a-nutshell/
Controlling or coercing a spouse is the very opposite of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:4. Paul called for “mutual agreement.”
This is beautifully written and shows God’s hearts for mutual love, honour and respect.
Marg, could you talk about your views on 7:33-34 adding “..and his interests are divided” about husbands, but not repeating the phrase for wives?
One translation (TPT) even renders this as “But a married man is pulled in two directions, for he is concerned about both the things of God [I assume because this is the contrast with single people] and the things of the world in order to please his wife. 34…But a married woman is concerned about the things of the world and how she may please her husband.”
So it sets up husbands as looking at “things of the Lord” *and* how to please his wife, while the wife is only concerned for the world and her husband (which is reminiscent of interpretations of Eph 5:22-24 where the husband looks to God but the wife does not.)
Is the phrase about being “divided” implied for wives since it’s otherwise a similar structure? Or is something else going on here?
Hi Noah, I’m not fully understanding your questions, but here’s how I understand the structure of the paragraph.
Paul begins with a short introductory statement to begin his paragraph:
“I want you to be without concerns” (1 Cor. 7:32). This applies to all the Corinthians.
He then gives statements about the men, and he does contrast single people with married people:
“The unmarried man is concerned about the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord.
But the married man is concerned about the things of the world—how he may please his wife” (1 Cor. 7:32b-33)
This is followed by the main point which occurs at the centre of the paragraph. This point is expressed with two just Greek words “καὶ μεμέρισται” which means “and is divided.” Several English translations add a word such as “interest” or “attention”: “his interests/ attention is divided.” And a few translate the two Greek word phrase as “he is pulled in both directions.”
In more than a few passages in Paul’s letters, the main point is at the centre of the passage.
There is a textual variant with the first statement in 1 Corinthians 7:34. This is reflected in a few translations, including the King James Version which has “There is difference also between a wife and a virgin,” instead of “and is divided.” (See here.) But I don’t think this is what Paul originally wrote.
Paul then moves to make statements about the women:
“The unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy both in body and in spirit.
But the married woman is concerned about the things of the world—how she may please her husband” (1 Cor. 7:34b).
The unmarried women, just like the unmarried men, are “concerned about the things of the Lord” but the phrase that occurs after this repeated phrase is different. For the single men it is, “how he may please the Lord.” For the single women it is, “so that she may be holy both in body and in spirit.”
This phrase about being holy may be different for the women because some of the single men may not have been virgins. These men may have had sex before becoming Christian and so are not “holy in body.” (The word “virgins” isn’t used in the statement made about the unmarried single men, but it is in the statement about the unmarried women.) All of 1 Corinthians 7 reflects the situation of some unmarried Corinthians choosing not to marry, and some married Corinthians choosing not to have sex, all because of notion of holiness.
The statements about the married men and women are identical. They are both concerned with the things of the world and how to please their spouse.
Paul then concludes the paragraph with a few lines which include the statement, “so that you may be devoted to the Lord without distraction” (1 Cor. 7:35c). “Without distraction” is another way of saying “is not divided.”
Unlike married people, single people are free to be fully devoted to the Lord and to serve the Lord without concerns or cares (v. 32), without divided interests (v. 34a), and without distractions (v. 35c).
I don’t think it’s significant that Paul say “it is divided” only to the married men in verse 34. I think the position of this phrase, in the centre of passage, is more about Paul making clear his main point. This point has already been made at the beginning of the paragraph and it is made again at the very end where it applies to women, as well as to men.
Here’s 1 Corinthians 7:32-35 in the CSB formatted to show the structure:
~ I want you to be without concerns.
~ The unmarried man is concerned about the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord.
~ But the married man is concerned about the things of the world—how he may please his wife—
~ and his interests are divided.
~ The unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy both in body and in spirit.
~ But the married woman is concerned about the things of the world—how she may please her husband.
~ I am saying this for your own benefit, not to put a restraint on you, but to promote what is proper and so that you may be devoted to the Lord without distraction.