It is good for a man not to TOUCH a woman (1 Co r. 7:1)

Jonathan Ferguson jferguson at tabernacleministries.org
Mon Jun 17 16:02:45 EDT 2002


Jim,
     What I said regarding 1 Cor. 7:1 was not "based in a preconception or
worse an a priori decision about women."  I was saying that in 1 Cor. 7:1,
Paul is dealing with marriage and the "pros and cons" of marriage.  He knew
that there would be heretics who would forbid marriage (1 Tim. 4:3), so
certainly he was not forbidding marriage.  Paul clearly teaches that not all
men can go w/o marriage (1 Cor. 7:7,9); being a celibate is a gift
(Matt.19:12).  I believe, if Paul had meant that "touch" in 1 Cor. 7:1
should be in a physical, intimate way, the word "nevertheless" would not
appear in v.2.  Paul was showing that it is easier to serve the Lord if one
does not have a wife (v.32-33).  
     I have no ulterior motive.  I believe 100% that it is sin to have an
intimate relationship w/ someone of the opposite sex before marriage.  I was
not trying to disprove that.  Kevin W. Woodruff just sent something to me
(and the list) regarding this.  He seems to resolve the issue.  I may be
wrong and Keven has helped me to see that I may be.  Of course, I need to
study it more.  Feel free to offer any grammatical reasons, but do not make
false assumptions regarding me personally.

in Christ,
Jonathan B. Ferguson
jferguson at tabernacleministries.org
or
kjvonly16 at aol.com
1 Cor. 9:3,5

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim West [mailto:jwest at highland.net]
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 3:08 PM
To: Biblical Greek
Cc: b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu
Subject: [b-greek] Re: It is good for a man not to TOUCH a woman (1 Co
r. 7:1)


At 01:20 PM 6/17/02 -0400, you wrote:
>After studying this passage a while in the past, I have found that I
believe
>"touch" here means "bother with" in a way.  That is, I think that Paul is
>saying, "It is good that a man does not concern himself with a woman" so
>that he can serve the Lord more fully.  I know this interpretation destroys
>some people's use of this verse, but we need to be honest w/ the text.
>
>Jonathan B. Ferguson

honesty with the text first of all implies reading it in its own language
and context.  your interpretation of the word in question is invalid on
linguistic grounds.  further, it seems to be based in a preconception or
worse an a priori decision about women.

you say, *i believe "touch" here means "bother with" in a way.*  With all
due respect, what matters more than what you believe is what the word means.

best

jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies
Quartz Hill School of Theology

Biblical Studies Resources
http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

*de omnibus dubitandum est*


---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as:
[jferguson at tabernacleministries.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu




More information about the B-Greek mailing list