Holding Hands

The word for touch there is not referring to hand holding, it is referring to sexual contact. So to say no hand holding and base it off of this verse is not being faithful to the text.

 

I think you're completely distorting 1Cor:7:1 You're only 15, and have a lot of growth yet.

Don't get me wrong, if you feel that simply "touching" a person of the opposite gender is going to lead you to fornication, then by all means refrain. However, don't put that same mandate on other persons.

1Cor 7:1 is contextually referring to sexual contact.

 

Clean1,

I think you are right in your conviction. Though Id also agree that the "not to touch" is referring to more than just hand holding, when you are not married hand holding will lose its thrill real quick. Then where do you go? Its that "next step" that becomes more and more dangerous.
A very good verse about this would be "flee youthful lusts." 2 Timothy 2:22 and James 4:7, about resisting the devil. Keeping a standard in order to keep yourself pure is always the best.


ps. don't worry, when the moderators find this thread they will graciously move it to the proper forum. Don't be embarrassed.

 

Listen to bapmom. In fact, every good teacher on purity and "dating standards", like Elisabeth Elliot, would advise young people to abstain even from holding hands.

Though marriage is the topic of the passage, not mere sexual contact as asserted by others, they are missing the subtleties implied in these verses. Matthew Henry understood and said:

Despite the cavils of the more liberally minded, we all know the Beatles wanted to do more than just "hold your hand." And as the apostle said, it is GOOD, not even to do that, unless it's under the auspices of marriage.

 

You are taking that verse out of context! The greek word implies touching someone of the opposite sex sexually.I have many friends who have dated for a year or more and hold hands and have never committed fornication!

 

If you want to push the fact that teens should not be holding hands that is fine by me. Let's just not play like it is found in this passage of Scripture. That is clearly reading into the text something that is not there. All I ask is that we be faithful to the text.

 

nate,

you're still in high school.....a year or more and this is what they are already used to. When they get older, holding hands won't be enough.

I sincerely hope that they never DO commit fornication. But their examples are not any reason to say that it ought to be allowed for everyone.

PastorSBC,
I agree with ya.

 

May I recommend a great book for teenagers regarding this subject.

Joshua Harris's

I KISSED DATING GOODBYE and
BOY MEETS GIRL say hello to courtship

 

Paul already dealt with sexual immorality in 5:1, 6:13, 6:18. But in all the places that the Greek word haptomai (Strong's 680) is used in the NT, it is never in the context of anything sexual. I mean, what was Christ doing touching (same Greek word) all those people?

And it isn't used in sexual sense in 1 Cor. 7:1 either. According to Spiros Zodhiates, it

When a man touches a grieving woman's shoulder to console her, that's touching her in the sense of 680. When a man is doctoring a contusion or an abraision on a woman's body, that's also touching in the sense of 680. There's nothing sexual about it, but it's good for a man not to do that, not because it's wrong in and of itself, but because of the lusts that dwell in our members.

It's a very real danger. Consider this report: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/02/earlyshow/living/main586338.shtml

About the only time it is naturally safe for men and women to physically or emotionally interact are when their respective spouses are present, or if it's with one's sister or mother. When the Union army advertised for nurses during the Civil War, they specificed "unnattractive" women over the age of thirty. http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/ The reasoning was basic. They didn't want soldiers falling in love with their care-givers.

Widows being taken "into the number," I Tim. 5:9 had to be at least 60 years old and have no other living relatives. Widows served by offering aid and comfort to the sick and the poor. http://www.reformed.org/books/institutes/books/book4/bk4ch03.html#nine.htm The temptation for men to fall in love with younger widows is too great. But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry...

Another way to state 1 Cor. 7:1 is as the NIV states it...It is good for a man not to marry....

Here's how You, Johnv and SBC are reading this passage.

"It is good for a man not to fornicate. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

See how absurd that sounds?

The idea as expressed by the NIV is a better and more logical reading than the readings suggested by others in this thread. "It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband." But what is lacking in the NIV wording, is the idea of touching. We can see from the Spirit's choice of the word "touch," or "handle" that this type of intimacy (whether it be for consolation, therapy, or affection) is primarily designed for certain relationships, and dating isn't one of them.

Ask yourself, why are you holding one another's hands?

You might say, "We want to express our affection." Okay. That's also touching in the sense of 680. But the truthful answer is, "Because it feels good and is exciting, and is a prelude to more intimate contact," And Paul's words in 1 Cor. 7:1 are eminently relavent. "It is good NOT to touch."

Necessity demands that I add the next few lines. Those who agree with me can go on if they wish. Much of the problem with the application of this verse is due to the moral condition of our society today, and the narrow definition we have for sex. Folks don't have to "go all the way," to have had sex and have committed adultery or fornication. Any kind of illicit sexual intercouse, e.g. heavy petting and such qualifies. So when Paul uses the term fornication, illicit sexual touching is included. It doesn't follow that he had to use a separate term for sexual touching.

 

Holding hands is dangerous. I held my wife's hand one night on a hayride and 9 months later we were married.

 

Oh my...

Please don't slap anyone for trying to hold your hand unless it's a stranger. Otherwise it's illegal and you could go to jail for assault.

Holding hands doesn't lead to illicit sexual activity. Parents hold their kids hands, pastors hold people's hands when they pray, I hold hands with female friends and even male friends sometimes in conversation. Business people hold hands to shake them, sometimes for about a minute during introductions, and they don't seem to have to be struggling to keep their hormones under control.
I've never had thrills run through my body over hand holding. It's nice, it's comforting, it says "I like you" or "you're safe with me", but it's silly to read sexuality into something you can do everyday with anyone else and not have it be sexual.
What about looking into someone's eyes? Does that lose it's thrill and cause hand holding and then sex?
What about saying hi to someone? Does that lose it's thrill and eventually you start talking and have to look at them, again leading to hand holding and thus sexual activity?

Give unmarried's some credit here. They're not all hormone-driven kids in danger of shedding their clothes at the drop of a hat should they act like any normal human and look at someone, or say hi, or sit next to someone of the opposite sex, or chat, or even hold the hand of a person they're thinking of marrying.
Sometimes I wonder if we drive kids to constant sexual thoughts because we're so obsessed with preventing that activity, we make all these ridiculous rules and relate everything in life to it and warn that everything leads to it?

 

Good Post, Gina

 

Gina is absolutely right! Aaron if we interpet the verse literally you couldn't even touch your wife. It says "not to touch a woman" it gives no exceptions.

 

I was a member at a church once, thankfully I'm far and away now, but they took the verse pretty literally.
They spent a whole church service once deciding how to handle that verse in the situation of if a woman slipped outside in the parking lot, which was very snowy.

It was decided that if she fell down and was decent and there was no women around and she needed help, they'd go get a woman to help her up, or let her get up on her own if she wasn't injured.
If she managed to become indecent after the fall, a man *could* help her stand up, but he had to touch her no longer than it took to pull her up, letting go of her IMMEDIATELY once she was on her feet.

There you have it. Heavy snowfall can lead to intimacy too!

 

You're funny Gina. That is a very funny thought process.

 

Thing is, when a 15 year old girl comes in here and says she wants to remain pure and so has high personal standards, I think we should commend that and encourage it any way we can.

Dont you?

 

That is VERY encouraging, certainly!
Guidance to keep from ridiculous extremes in EITHER direction is needed, especially in impressionable young people. I believe she's got the idea of purity down quite efficiently. That's great! Hopefully she now has the idea of taking it to possibly harmful extremes under control too.
It's not as hard as it all sounds. God gave us some pretty basic and simply guidelines in the scriptures, follow them along with your parents advice and you're good to go.
Concentrate on your heart and on the word. If you're not doing something wrong don't let Satan and his influences make you have doubts, he loves to make you waste your time feeling guilty over dumb stuff that doesn't matter...takes away from our attempts to live right because we're too busy sweating the things that make no difference one way or another!