It is good for a man not to TOUCH a woman (1 Cor. 7:1)
B. Ward Powers
bwpowers at optusnet.com.au
Tue Jun 18 09:30:46 EDT 2002
At 08:42 AM 020617 -0400, Hartzell, Brooks (LNG) wrote:
>TOUCH here is a present middle infinitive. I would have expected the
>aorist tense. What do you suppose is the significance of the present
>tense here?
>Thanks!
>Brooks Hartzell
First, the simple answer. It could have been aorist instead. That would
have been the default form. As either aorist or present is possible, the
author's choice indicates where he is putting the nuance of meaning. If he
had used the aorist, the nuance (negating a punctiliar) would be: "Don't do
it at all, not even once." As he chose instead the present (durative)
alternative, I see the nuance as, "Don't go on engaging in doing this,
don't make it a practice." (More on the significance of this below.)
But in asking this straight-forward question Brooks has actually raised
some very significant issues, as is evidenced by the various responses
which his post promptly drew on-list.
This verse is in a passage which I have researched in some depth and
written about in some detail (in my book "Marriage and Divorce: the NT
Teaching").
To understand it we need to see this verse in context. Indeed I would
encourage my fellow-list members to see this verse in its total context of
chapters 6 and 7, which will clarify some ambiguities in the Greek and
assist in pointing towards its meaning.
Those who establish a break between chapter 6 and chapter 7 confuse the
issue thereby. The continuity is important.
In chapter 6 Paul deals with every kind of sexual activity between two
human beings - except one kind. The ones Paul mentions in chapter 6 he
condemns as meriting God's judgement. The one kind he has not dealt with
thus far is sex within marriage. And so this is what he discusses in 7:2-5.
Paul has a very positive view of marital sex: he does not relate it to
procreation, but deals only with its relational dimension, between husband
and wife. He stresses that each spouse should fulfil their contribution in
this department towards the marital relationship. Desisting from sex is
depriving one another and is not to be done "except perhaps by agreement
for a limited time" for a special reason. Then resume the sexual
relationship. It is noteworthy that in this passage everything he says
about the husband he says also about the wife, showing full recognition of
her as a sexual being. His positive attitude towards marital sex in this
way is unique, unparalleled in the ancient world. We have to come to recent
centuries before we see anything comparable.
And in the middle, between these two passages, comes our verse:
PERI DE hWN EGRAYATE, KALON ANQRWPWi GUNAIKOS MH hAPTESQAI.
First we note, as has been pointed out by Kevin Woodruff (and I concur with
him completely), hAPTESQAI, "touch", is a sexual term. It is a euphemism
for having sexual intercourse, as we would these days refer to a person
sleeping with someone else, and literally "sleeping" is not really what we
are talking about.
Next, we note that 7:2 (indeed, the whole of 7:2-5) completely contradicts
7:1. The first verse of the chapter says in effect, "Don't have sex with a
GUNH", and 7:2-5 says every man should have his own GUNH and has a
responsibility to fulfil her sexual nature, and is not to neglect this. You
can't get more opposite than that.
The explanation is that when Paul says "Now concerning the matters about
which you wrote", he then quotes the Corinthians: "'It is good for a man
not to have sexual relations with a woman.'" This has been pointed out by
Jeffrey Gibson. And this is how the passage is translated by the English
Standard Version. (My above wording is straight from the ESV.)
In 1 Corinthians there are between ten and fifteen quotes of what was being
said at Corinth, which Paul cites and then contradicts. As the ESV takes
it, this verse (7:1) is to be recognized as one of them.
But there is more. In PERI DE hWN EGRAYATE, Paul indicates that he is
turning to a new topic (the one which some of the Corinthians have written
to him about). And then he goes on to discuss sex in marriage as God's
purpose. Each man in to "have" his own GUNH (in contrast to the other
alternatives of chapter 6). So we are to see, in context, that the meaning
of GUNH in 7:1 is the same as in 7:2-5. That is, what some of the
Corinthians were proposing to Paul in their letter to him, was that husband
and wife are better off if they give up their sexual relationship within
their marriage: "It is better for a man not to have sexual relations with
his wife (GUNH)." (Present tense because they are not referring to an act
of intercourse but to the ongoing sexual relationship, for which the
present is more appropriate.)
An ascetic party at Corinth is urging an ascetic attitude in marriage upon
Paul. With which he then (7:2-5) totally disagrees, pointing out instead
God's intention for sex within the marriage relationship.
This is, I affirm, the understanding of 7:1-5 which accords with its
context within chapters 6 and 7, and with the Greek of what Paul writes in
7:1 and indeed in these two chapters.
Thus let it be said. Thus let it be taught. Thus let it be done.
Regards,
Ward
http://www.netspace.net.au/~bwpowers
Rev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-8714-7255
259A Trafalgar Street Phone (Australia): (02) 8714-7255
PETERSHAM NSW 2049 email: bwpowers at optusnet.com.au
AUSTRALIA. Director, Tyndale College
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list