Good for a man not to touch a woman...

I guess we would need to do a word study on the word used for "touch," which I don't have time for that right now!

But I can tell you this much - as a woman, I do not like a man I don't know well to touch me at all. I have many women friends with abuse in their background that are very sensitive on this - one friend does not like holding hands in prayer with a man (I don't either unless he's a good friend, and even then I'm still not wild about it).

Some men don't realize their strength, and in giving me a friendly punch on the shoulder or hearty high-five, have actually caused me a little pain. Yes, I'm very much a girly-girl in those areas! :flower:

 

Hands off of the woman who is not your wife----that includes your eyes' "hands"-----don't even "touch" her with your eyes--don't even let your mind go there!!!!!

 

It's hard to see how any woman would ever become any man's wife is we followed that.

 

To be attracted to someone and to "undress" them with their mind are 2 different things.

Physical attraction does NOT have to involve "dirty" visions.

Furthermore, I believe the verse means to touch with the intention of "going farther" or in the hopes of something intimate to happen. If we were to say absolutely "NO" touching...then I better switch doctors, or not allow a gentlemen to help me out of a car.

I believe that when Paul wrote that passage he was speaking on one of the "few" weaknesses of men (males). This weakness is both physical and mental. Men relate to other people more on a physical level...whereas women do so on a more emotional level.

Don't get me wrong. As a woman, touch is a very powerful thing to me. However, I can read into it totally different then what the "toucher" meant for me to. A man could "touch" me with the intent to do more, and I might just see it as a protective move or a caring move on his part.

Touching with this intent causes a lot of confusion.

 

It is not proper for a man to touch a woman (unless she extends her hand for a handshake at church for example).

However, this verse isn't speaking of touching a woman physically, but according to the context, it is saying:

"It is good for a man not to concern himself with a woman, nevertheless to avoid fornication. . ." et al.

 

This passage is often taken out of context.

 

I am inclined to believe that the "touch" in Greek while having an obvious denotative meaning would also have a connotation of marriage and the physical intimacy associated with it. It seems to me that the Corinthian church would not have to question Paul about whether it is good to not physically touch a woman. Paul, like Al Mohler, constantly exhorted people to get married. The Corinthians questioned Paul whether he believed that it was actually wrong for a believer to purpose to stay single (and thus not touch a woman) for his whole life. Paul answered that yes, it is a good thing to remain a perpetual virgin; however, knowing the nature of man, it is advisable to seek a spouse.

Kind of like Genesis 19:5:

This phrase has an obvious denotative meaning functioning as a euphemism of sorts to imply something deeper without explicitly stating it. Even today people might use a similar expression like "Hey, baby, want to come to my place tonight? I'd really like to get to know you a little better," and the implication is clear.

I think what Paul was implying was marriage and referencing the physical intimacy which such a relationship entails. I think it can literally reference physically touching with the hands, but I don't think it should be limited to that idea.

 

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

First keep in mind that Paul is beginning to answer questions that were sent to him by the Church. So in these next few chapters he is clarifying their concerns regarding marriage, singleness, eating meat offered to idols, propriety in worship, orderliness in the Lord's Supper, spiritual gifts, and the resurrection.

He begins in verse one by saying it is ok for a man to remain single or celebate. That is what he means by, "it is good for a man to not touch a woman." He is speaking to a man remaining a virgin and saying there is nothing wrong with it. He then goes on to say in verse 2 that there is nothing wrong with marriage either. But if you get married, a man ought to have one wife and a wife should have one husband.

 

Good for a man not to touch a woman.....

I see it as touching what does not belong to me. God gave me my wife. God gave me my daughter. I do not "possess them" like I do my lawnmower, yet they are mine in spiritual accountability, and protection. I do not have the "right" to touch anyone who does not belong to me. I taught my daughter that she does not have the right to give herself to anyone, God gave her to me. (I know that will get a rise out of the libertine libbers, male or female). It even goes back to the wedding vows almost universally used today......."Who giveth this woman to this man?"
She is mine until the Lord provides the right man in her life according to his purpose. Her choice first, seconded by her daddy.

Blackbird, one more time brother we are sittin together on the high power lines.......you nailed it again. Keep shuckin' the corn, I'm in your amen corner.

He came to me.....at a sinner's plea. Bartimaeus/Ky/Look Away!

 

You sure about this? :laugh: :laugh: :wavey:

1Co 11:3*But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

1Co 11:8*For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

1Co 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

1Ti 2:12*But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Eph 5:22*Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Col 3:18*Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

1Ti 2:11*Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

1Ti 3:4*One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

1Pe 3:1*Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

1Pe 3:5*For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

 

These guys will never understand----until its their wife or daughter that the other man is touching!!!

 

Good for a man not to touch a woman....

ScarletO,
I really appreciate your heart in what you said. Whatever you are, I believe you are a person who can listen and think and respond in a great spirit allowing for differences in people. I am not patronizing you, it is evidenced by your posts.
I am not so traditionalized that everything is set in stone. If a tradition is wrong it needs to be changed. If it is set on principle or on scripture correctly used then we should hold the line. The marriage ceremony tradition (as far as I know) is set on righteous principle and/or scripture correctly applied.
The idea that a man could give away his daughter in marriage goes back to the patriarchal scriptural position of the father and the daughter. Now, I know what will be said next, the patriarch had the power of life or death, "is that what we should have today?" Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The principles of this system of family government that are good and sensable can be used and lives can be saved from the wickedness and cruelty of this present world.
If folks reject this they must have their reasons.
Now for you in your life it may not be possible to apply this principle. My wife and I were not taught what the scriptures said until later on in our married life. (15 -20 yrs) We can't go back for our sakes, but we could apply them for the future.

Yours for Christ's Sake Bartimaeus/Ky/Look Away!

 

Well Scarlet;
I believe my wife is a posession but the problem is she don't believe it. Now that is funny and if you don't think so then ask me.

 

Scarlett

When you choose to consider marriage a painful endurance, I can truly sympathize for you.

That was what I considered my tours in Korea. One year, my unit had a 5% attempted suicide rate, 30+% divorce rate, soldiers murdered, many soldiers killed accidently . . . We were caged in . . . and the enemy had our addresses (we were literally targeted with and by enemy artillery) . . .

I painfully endured, and I can truly sympathize for you. No one should have to live like that.

The funny thing tho', the kid that 'illegally' brought his wife over always had a smile on his face. Come to think of it - so did she. Now that is the way everyone should live.

 

Back to this passage, it is often taken out of the context that it was written to. These words were written in response to a question that we do not have and do not know.