"It is good for a man not to touch a woman." How far does this go?

[ChrisHolland619]

So, I am currently in a relationship. She is 22, I am 23. We have never kissed or held hands, and we plan on getting married someday. That is in the future, nowhere near now.

We both do not date to just "date", and we both have made it clear that we want to be with each other. Our relationship is amazing, with God as the focus. We read our Bible's daily, pray together, and we go doorknocking and soulwinning together. God is #1 in both of our lives.

My question, however, stems from this verse:

"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: it is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let ever man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." 1 Corinthians 7:1-2

Paul tells the church in Corinth that it's GOOD for a man NOT to touch a woman. But what does this mean? Is this a baseline, blanket statement regarding any physical contact whatsoever?

If this is so; have you ever shaken hands with a pastors wife? Every helped a woman not fall by bracing her back? Ever given your mother a hug? I mean, if the verse means a man can NOT touch a woman EVER, isn't that kind of absurd? Why is that a sin?

If it does NOT mean ALL contact then, where is the line drawn? Me and my girlfriend hug. We do not hold hands, we do not kiss (we plan on kissing for the first time at our wedding day) and we honestly have ZERO conviction regarding our hugs. They aren't 10 minute hugs, but they are embracing hugs. It's not a side hug. But my question is, why would that be a sin?

We have never done anything remotely sexual. We have chose to abstain from that from the beginning of our relationship. We think holding hands is a little too "intimate" for two people who are not married to do, and I think that's fine. Kissing as well. But the Bible says "It is good for a man not to touch a woman."

Where is the line drawn? What is Paul saying?

 

[joey_downunder]

The bible is very polite and understated when it comes to mentioning intimate relationships between men and women.
Look at genesis 4:1. It is obvious a mere chat, holding hands or a kiss is not the meaning of the word "knew".

Probably this verse is a good guide for both of you. Instead of food think of physical affection. romans 14:13-23

 

[ChrisHolland619]

I understand that a man and a woman are not to "know" (have sex) each other before marriage, and that's not what this is about.

I'm simply asking if this verse from Paul is to be taken literal, as in no man should EVER touch (literally) a woman before marriage? And if not, what's the line?

The only touching me and my girlfriend have is hugging, which is brief, and we have both prayed about it and feel no conviction at all.

 

[joey_downunder]

The ESV version is more matter-of-fact. 1 Corinthians 7:1-13
The whole passage is about marriage. If the way you touch each other starts to cause any passionate feelings start to stir in either of you you have crossed that line. I think the apostle Paul is explaining if a person regularly experiences those physical longings they should get married (if possible) so they do not sin.

 

[znr]

Seriously, Chris?! :o

If you saw me about to get assaulted by a herd of large domesticated cats (really big fat Maine Coons, Chris) and the only way you could stop them from taking me out was to place your hand on my back and push me out of the way, you wouldn't?

 

[MountainofGod1]

the line should be drawn at a place where you are still a normal part of society that hugs, kisses, holds hands, otherwise you'll be suppressing your urges and that will produce things you definetly don't want...

be a man, don't be a part of the church that puts regulations and rules down as their gospel

 

[hedrick]

First, NRSV, ESV and CEB treat "it is well not to touch a woman" as a statement Paul is quoting from the letter and responding to. That is, it's not his opinion. I believe the implication of the statement is that it's best not to have sex. From the context it seems to include married people, and maybe even is implying that it's best to be a lifelong virgin.

Note Paul's response. He says, first, that it's best to marry. This is not exactly a ringing endorsement of marriage. He says that this is because of sexual immorality, i.e. there are so many temptations for unmarried people that you're safer to be married. In other places he has more positive things to say about marriage.

Then he says that within marriage it's best to have sex, because otherwise you're going to frustrate your mate. These two statements together make me think that the comment he was responding to implied both not marrying and not having sex within marriage. I.e. that it was from someone who thought that sex was, if not evil, at least a second-class option. As you can see, Paul disagrees.

The other possibility is that the quotation actually is Paul's opinion. In that case the passage would say that he'd rather everyone remain single, but he realizes that this isn't practical for most people, and so most people should get married, and have sex with their mate.

 

[WilliamB]

I understand that a man and a woman are not to "know" (have sex) each other before marriage, and that's not what this is about.

I'm simply asking if this verse from Paul is to be taken literal, as in no man should EVER touch (literally) a woman before marriage? And if not, what's the line?

The only touching me and my girlfriend have is hugging, which is brief, and we have both prayed about it and feel no conviction at all.

The short answer, is it means to simply have sex. There is no such thing as sex before marriage. Sex is marriage in the eyes of God.

The long answer requires a deeper understanding. First it's important to understand that Paul was not giving a command or some new law. Paul is not permitted to create new laws as the law was complete and Jesus was the fulfillment of that law.

Paul is giving advice that it's good not to touch a woman (have sex) because it will only take away from ones time with God. According to the Torah (old testament), if you slept with a woman, she was your woman with the exception of prostitutes. You had to care for her for life. Every time you slept with a new woman, she was yours for life and the more women you sleep with, the more women (wives) you would have. This is "marriage". There were no marriage certificates or anything that we do today to claim someone married. That was not started until the 1800's. I'd have to check the exact dates but it's somewhere in that time period.

Sex was the definition of marriage because women were property, either owned by their fathers or by the one she had sex with, who she would be with for life. Unless of course a man gave her a certificate of divorce. Not everyone is able to be without a woman and that's why he goes on to add further advice to say, just have one woman because the more women you have, the less time you have for the Lord and the more time you'll have to be focused on the things of the world to provide for those women.

Its impossible to know what question exactly was being asked of Paul, in the letter he recieved, but in context it most likely would have been the issue over being celebate as he was, multiple wives and/or sleeping with multiple prostitutes. Prostitution (fornication) was a huge deal in the time of Christ. It was even supported and controlled by government. It was everywhere, like a government controlled and administered 7-Eleven of prostitutes.

You have to read the whole letter to fully understand what he was trying to say but don't get hung up on one word, as nothing he's saying is law, its simply advice. Just like any preacher would give to his flock based on the times. This may be hard for you to swallow at first but you have to remember that Paul and his followers are Jews. They study and live according to the Torah and the teachings of Christ and none of Christ teaching contradict the torah. Jesus taught from the torah because he too was a jew.

There was no new testament. They are simply a new sect of Judaism that believes that Christ has already come and the prophecy has been fullfilled. Christians was a term given to them by the Romans to decipher them from traditional Jews. That was the only difference.

Bottomline is this: There is no sin in holding hands, hugging or even sex. The sin would be to have sex with her and then leave her because it is unrighteous. Shes yours for life. Anyone you sleep with, becomes one flesh with you. "And what God has joined together, let no man seperate.". Sex before marriage is a man made term. Sex is marriage, it's what joins two people together.

We have created man made traditions with marriages certificates, weddings in churches and countless other earthly traditions. Marriage certificates only marry you in the eyes of the state. (government). It has nothing to do with God. That's why you don't see any of it mentioned in the bible. It's simply sex. Just look at how people married in the old testament. Simple sex.

So, if you two choose to not have sex before you are married in the eyes of the state, that's your right and there is nothing wrong with that. But physical contact and even sex, is not sin, despite the false teachings of many churches today. My advice, relax. Enjoy each other but be careful. The closer you get to one another the harder it will be to honor your earthly, not biblical, commitment to each other to wait until you're married in the eyes of the state. And if that is important to you, be careful how close you get to one another.

 

[brittany111]

It helps to look at differnet translatinons as well understand the context of which the book was written. Here is a look at two other translations as well as the meaning from the KJV:

The word 'touch' in the KJV means "to fasten one's self to or cling to".

NIV says "....It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman"

NLT says "...It is good to abstain from sexual relations"

The context of the letter is that sexual immoraility was a big problem in the city of Corinth and Paul was instructing the church not to follow the customs of the people around them. Basicly what he is saying here is that sexual relations are good only between a man and a woman who are married.

Btw it sounds to me as if you and your gf are on the right track.

 

[NewUser777]

"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: it is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let ever man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." 1 Corinthians 7:1-2

Paul tells the church in Corinth that it's GOOD for a man NOT to touch a woman. But what does this mean? Is this a baseline, blanket statement regarding any physical contact whatsoever?

What Paul means is ... if you want to be perfect, never touch a woman ... therefore, never date, therefore, never marry. This will optimize your time with God, and you will be more able to concentrate on your mission here on Earth. Just like Jesus told the rich, young man. If you want to be perfect, go sell all you have, give it to the poor, and follow me.

As you can see, very few of us are perfect. Very few of us can stand being without a member of the opposite sex. Very few of us can make the decision to sell all we have and give it to the poor, then live from there.

Very few.

 

[chaoticfirefly]

Don't have premarital sex, basically. Or do any form of (sexual) foreplay or oral sex. Things of that nature. Hugging and holding hands are cute and platonic signs of a relationship, not sinful.

Trust me, if holding hands and hugging were considered sinful, I'm sure a lot of us would have some owning up to do.

 

[Avniel]

The bible is very polite and understated when it comes to mentioning intimate relationships between men and women.
Look at genesis 4:1. It is obvious a mere chat, holding hands or a kiss is not the meaning of the word "knew".

Probably this verse is a good guide for both of you. Instead of food think of physical affection. romans 14:13-23

Great post if physical contact such as hugging and kissing is sinful to you then don't do it.

But you can't judge other Christian couples for doing that type of affection. If they make you feel weak tell them about it.

 

[Johnnz]

Here is a sensible commentary on that verse.

1 Corinthians 7:1 The Corinthians and Sexual Relations (7:1) It is good for a man not to marry (v. 1; m¢ haptomai , not to touch a woman).

The translation must be challenged on several counts. Because Paul immediately qualifies this statement in verse 2 by declaring that men and women should marry to avoid fornication (immorality), some have supposed that it should be read as a prohibition of marriage, as in the NIV translation (Grosheide 1953:155). Paul then would be understood to be teaching that it is good in a nonmoral, expedient sense, or "better" (in the sense of verse 8 and verses 32-35, Paul's vocational preference for singleness), not to marry (Calvin 1960:135).

In the first place, the expression "not to touch a woman" is not the equivalent of "not to marry." In Hebrew and Greek it is a euphemism for "not to have sexual intercourse with a woman" (Gen 20:6; Prov 6:29). Furthermore, the expression is probably to be taken not as Paul's belief but as another Corinthian slogan, such as we have in other passages (6:12,13,18; 8:1,4; Thiselton 2000:494). Paul's response to this slogan in verses 2-7 is not simply to recommend marriage to avoid fornication but to urge that men and women who marry should continue to have sexual intercourse within the marriage. Thus Paul himself seems to take the rejection of sexual intercourse as the essence of the slogan. Bruce clarifies the matter well:

In chapter 7 he deals with ascetics who, partly perhaps in reaction against the libertines, argued that sexual relations of every kind were to be deprecated, that Christians who were married should henceforth live as though they were unmarried, and those who were unmarried should remain so, even if they were already engaged to be married. Their outlook was summed up in the sweeping judgment, It is well for a man not to touch a woman, which as Origen saw . . . is probably an extract from the Corinthians' letter, and should therefore be placed between quotation marks like "All things are lawful" in 6:12. (1971:66)

Therefore verse 1 is translated correctly in the TNIV, "'It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman,'" indicating the Corinthian slogan by the quotation marks.

When we see that this negative assessment of all types of sexual intercourse, even within marriage, is not Paul's but one he rejects in the following verses, a great deal of misconception that has plagued the church regarding the apostle's negative attitudes toward marriage is dispelled.
(from IVP New Testament Commentary Series © 1992-2004. All rights reserved. For specific copyright information on each volume, see the copyright page.)

John
NZ

 

[ChrisHolland619]

Does anyone know what the word "touch" is in original greek and what it means? Because people take this out of context and I want proof that Paul is not saying you can never TOUCH a woman.

 

[Itagaki]

the line should be drawn at a place where you are still a normal part of society that hugs, kisses, holds hands, otherwise you'll be suppressing your urges and that will produce things you definetly don't want...

be a man, don't be a part of the church that puts regulations and rules down as their gospel

That would be legalism. I'm glad in some ways I don't go to church anymore. Too many rules, laws and things that restrict normal human relationships. 'Don't do this, don't do that.'

I've been seeing some weird things on here lately. In one post, Christians (protestants no less) are saying how they are against birth control, and now I'm seeing this old "don't hold hands till you're married" business. What is going on in churches? Is it a U.S. thing, or something else altogether?

As for the people who can - and want to - conduct their relationships and lives this way, more power to you. For me, I think maybe dating a non-Christian might be more in line with what I'm looking for. I'm not into having ten kids, nor waiting for years to, gasp, hold hands or kiss. I guess I'm too "modern" to be a Christian, these days.

 

[Nienna_Lady_of_Tears]

I asked my husband, who is studying to be a preacher and taking Greek right now. Here's what he has to say:

Περὶ (concerning) δὲ (then) ὧν (these things) ἐγράψατε (you have written) μοι (to me), καλὸν (good) ἀνθρώπῳ (to a man) γυναικὸς (a woman) μὴ ἅπτεσθαι (not be taken hold of)

According to my dictionary, in the active form it means to light or ignite. This is in the middle form (reflexive), so it would mean to take hold of or touch, but the dictionary also includes harm and injure.
The weird thing I see is that the translations make the man as the subject, but in the Greek, the woman is the subject, the one who does the action. Okay, it's a present passive infinitive, which explains why the woman is the subject. "It is good for a woman not to be taken hold of by a man"

Basically, I would say that it means to take hold of a person in a sexual way. Of course, taking hold is also a euphemism for intercourse

My take on it after reading the Greek is that, because he was writing "concerning what you have written me" that he was bringing up the subject and saying that total abstinence leads to frustration.



At least this is what my husband has to say.

 

[Strider1002]

It is good for a man not to take one Bible verse out of context and base his life upon it.

Seriously, if you take single verses out of context, you can make the Bible support almost any opinion. Read everything the Bible says about the subject, take it all into consideration, and then decide.

 

[Johnnz]

Lexical meanings are important. But words must be seen in their proper contexts, which includes their usage in that place in an argument, whether the word is used in a literal way or as part of a figure of speech, such as a metaphor, symbolically or with a particular local referent in mind.

For example "Adam knew Eve and she ...." Here "know"=sexual intercourse is clearly meant, because the writer was trying to express relationship and intimacy not mere function - no embarrassed euphemism, just using language to convey a deeper meaning.

Insofar as there was very limited public contact between the sexes in many parts of the Roman Empire, any male/female touching would only be with ones spouse, apart from any, very limited, social gesture on public occasions. Paul was therefore saying "unless you are already married, don't give to others any wrong impressions that you are."

John
NZ

 

[MountainofGod1]

That would be legalism. I'm glad in some ways I don't go to church anymore. Too many rules, laws and things that restrict normal human relationships. 'Don't do this, don't do that.'

I've been seeing some weird things on here lately. In one post, Christians (protestants no less) are saying how they are against birth control, and now I'm seeing this old "don't hold hands till you're married" business. What is going on in churches? Is it a U.S. thing, or something else altogether?

As for the people who can - and want to - conduct their relationships and lives this way, more power to you. For me, I think maybe dating a non-Christian might be more in line with what I'm looking for. I'm not into having ten kids, nor waiting for years to, gasp, hold hands or kiss. I guess I'm too "modern" to be a Christian, these days.

My advise, yes these are predominantly American problems. The church in America needs revival, and has gotten pretty confused as you can tell. One moment birth control, the next moment you can't hold hands.

So my advise though, is what I do, to date girls that aren't in church community. Because I find increasingly that churches are not producing fruit, that really, society actually holds people to a higher standard than closed in church communities.

I'd almost go so far as to say you're better off having premarital sex, so long as you know you're going to marry. Does God condone the constitution of marriage as recognized by law? I don't believe so, its more of a government contract than anything else. We assume it's biblical, but really, its just a tax system of benefits and penalties. A system by the way, that at least in north America is heavily biased against men.

My dad took my mom to church and converted her, it worked fine. Most of the women out there have no problem with church I find. So long as you're gentle with them.

 

[Jupiter Drops]

"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: it is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let ever man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." 1 Corinthians 7:1-2

Probably means that just don't do anything that stimulates you two to fornicate. Kissing could easily stimulate it. Bad thoughts? Yeah. Simple, sweet hugs? Hm, don't think so. Holding hands? No, I don't think so.

Just don't go too deeply in physical contact.