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