About a dozen years ago I wrote a 50-page booklet on I Corinthians 7. I thought about breaking it up into bit-size pieces for the Messenger, but it was more than could be handled in two dozen articles. So, today I’m sending you what I worked on verse one. If you would like a pdf of the entire booklet, just let me know, and I’ll email you a copy.
The first thing Paul addresses in verse one is abstinence.
I Corinthians 7:1:
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good1 for a man not to touch a woman.
How many people in in the United States would agree with that statement? It’s good for a man not to touch a woman. It could not be said more clearly. It is good! There is something good or beneficial about abstaining from this kind of touch. “Touch” in this context refers not to an appropriate, normal, or compassionate touch like Jesus did when ministering to people or comforting people. “Touch” here refers to touching of a sexual nature, the kind of touch that most husbands and wives would describe as good, if not very good.
This “good touch” is reserved for marriage. Although the scripture says “it is good for a man not to touch a woman,” we have no right to infer that the opposite is true, that touching a woman is bad. So, we cannot conclude from this verse that “touching” is bad. But we do know that “not touching” is good. It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
Because sexual touch is forbidden only outside marriage, the NIV translators rendered verse one as, “It is good for a man not to marry.” The NLT translates it, “it is good to live a celibate life.” While the second translation has some merit, the NIV’s rendition is very questionable in my mind. The Greek text does not have the word “marry” in verse one. Instead, it contains the phrase, “touch a woman,” which explains why the King James Version and most other versions read that way. It is quite obvious that the word “touch” is being used idiomatically2 (to touch in a sexual way, to have intercourse), because men and women “touch” all the time. The verse is not talking about touch in the normal course of daily activity. It is clearly referring to touch of a sexual nature ― having sexual intercourse. The whole context of the chapter is sexual behavior, so it is not unusual that we find a sexual idiom here.
It says touch because it means touch. This is a simple truth. It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Conversely, it is also good for a woman not to touch a man in a sexual way. Abstinence is good. We are not brute beasts; we do not go into heat; we use our intellect and reason to control our sexual appetites. It is good for a man not to touch a woman because “not touching” demands us to control our bodies, to bring them into subjection. It is good not to touch sexually until it is right to touch sexually, and that is once one is married.
Sexual control is important to master, because we humans are sexual creatures. Those who do not learn to control themselves sexually before marriage may not find it easier to master their sexual appetites after marriage. In our society unwanted and unsolicited sexual advances are common. Marriage does not eliminate the need for self-control. Married people must exercise the same vigilance over their sexual impulses, or they will not limit them to their marriage partners. If we do not touch anyone besides our spouses with sexual intent we will never have to regret our actions later.
Touch is a very strong stimulant, and once a person gets aroused and stimulated by touch, it can be difficult to control our thoughts and actions. Satan has always had plenty of sexual distractions for men and women trying to live godly lives. You can go through the Word and document one after the other. And you don’t have to just go to Solomon. Although he was a great example wasn’t he? There will never be a time one will not need to exercise control in this area. How can someone who does not demonstrate control before marriage, profess to be able to do so after marriage vows are spoken.
As a father raising daughters I always told them they would have to draw the line concerning touch and that they could not rely on their boyfriends to do so. However, I think it is a disgrace that many Christian young men, following the lead of our culture, excuse themselves from controlling their desires.
The image that the media portrays is that any young man will gladly participate in sexual activity whenever he is given the opportunity. As if men are base animals in heat and cannot be trusted. Although I warned my girls, I never excused my boys from controlling themselves. Our young men need to think of themselves as honorable men, different from the picture the world paints of them. For a parent to have to say, “You girls better hold the line because the boys won’t,” is a disgrace.
The Bible clearly says it is good for a man not to touch a woman. That is precisely what it means. Do not touch until it is right to touch. Value yourself, the person you are with, and the full expression of your passion more highly than the random coupling of animals in heat. Once you are safely inside the marriage relationship, we will see that God is very clear in His approval of consistent, passionate sexual expression between a husband and wife.
Everyone wants to draw the line somewhere as to what touch is OK and what touch is not OK. If we bring our children up to love God and walk by the spirit, they will be able to direct their own lives and make their own decisions. The Word of God is clear. The marriage bed is to be undefiled. Sexual intercourse was designed for marriage and is only safe and appropriate within a monogamous Christian marriage.3
Pam Stenzel in her DVD presentation, Sex Has a Price Tag, draws the line at genital contact. She says that the only way to protect yourself from STD’s is to avoid genital contact all together.
Have you ever been on a long car trip and heard, “Daddy, Johnny’s touching me.” So, you tell them to move apart and not touch each other. Then you look in the rear-view mirror and you see Johnny teasing closer and closer to see how close he can get without actually making contact.
The key here is recognizing that Christian morality does not consist of defining what sin is, and then getting as close to it as possible without crossing the line. That is not genuine Christian morality. Nor does Christian morality consist of broadening the concept of sin to include lots of things that are not sin, and then avoiding those things, also. That is not Christian morality. That is what the Pharisees did with and to the law. For example, the Mosaic Law stated, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” The Pharisees reinterpreted the law to something like, “Well, you’re not supposed to work on the Sabbath, and oh, by the way, you can’t even walk 1,200 feet.” They established manmade traditions and rules in an effort to protect innocent people from breaking the law. They redefined it. You cannot do that in morality. That is not what we are supposed to do. Telling kids they cannot kiss, or hold hands, or ever be alone with anyone of the opposite sex is absurd.
Christian morality strives for the good. It is becoming Christ-like. It is viewing the sexual relationship between a man and a woman as something lovely, and sanctified, and worth preserving within the marriage relationship.
Christian morality can never consist of trying to see how close we can get to being immoral without doing so. As soon as we have an attitude of “Let’s see how close I can get to sin without falling into it,” we are already in trouble.
- This is the first of three occurrences of “it is good” in this chapter.
- The idiom ‘to touch a woman’ occurs nine times in Greek antiquity, ranging across six centuries and a variety of writers, and in every other instance, without ambiguity it refers to having sexual intercourse. There is no evidence of any kind that it can be extended or watered down to mean, ‘It is good for a man not to marry.’ [Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary, F. F. Bruce, General Editor, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987 [reprint, 1993]),p. 275.] Fee goes on to say of verse 2, “Second, there is no known evidence that the idiom ‘to have a wife’ means ‘to take a wife.’ In fact this idiom is common in biblical Greek and usually means either to ‘have sexually’ (Exodus 2:1; Deuteronomy 28:30; Isaiah 13:16) or simply to be married or to be in continuing sexual relations with a man or woman (see especially 5:1 and 7:29; cf. Mark 6:18; John 4:18).” Fee, p. 278.
- Please do not think that if you do not get pregnant and/or do not get STD’s that sex is safe. That is the lie that the world wants to tell you. Do not ignore the emotional and spiritual consequences that sexual promiscuity can bring upon people. The world wants you to ignore the hurt and the devastation casual sex can work in people’s lives. Sex is not safe even though you don’t get pregnant and you don’t get an STD. There is nothing safe about sex unless you are married and in a permanent, committed relationship.