Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: bnr-fos!bmers58!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: I Cor. 7:1 (was Re: Seventeenth Century Language) Message-ID: Date: 7 Oct 89 23:23:09 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada Lines: 62 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu [I have appended together two postings from Dave on the same subject. --clh] In article geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) writes: >-- ... There are plenty of other verses in the Bible that tell >us not to fondle someone else's wife. Again, let's keep it in Biblical >context. I don't think anyone who does that will come up with your >interpretation of the NIV's wording. Please permit me to clarify myself even further. I believe this passage is telling a man that it is good for him not to touch any woman whatsoever if she is not his wife. This would include not only physical contact with someone else's wife, but also physical contact with any other woman whom we are not married to. It would even include our present girlfriends, fiances, etc. To water this meaning out of the verse is doing a major injustice to God's teachings. Before immediately jumping to the conclusion that I am wrong, be sure that your reasoning is not being obscured by either your own desires or the social norms of this present evil world. It is God, and not they, whom we must obey. The watering down of God's actual intentions is a major tool of Satan which many fall for. In article hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) writes: >I think we should pay more attention to something the moderator >mentioned about this verse, namely the first phrase "Now concerning >the things whereof you wrote unto me..." > >We have the interesting situation here that we have Paul's response >to something the Corinthians wrote to him - that is we have the >answer but we don't have the question. One question (which the >moderator mentioned) is: Is the second phrase (It is good for a man >not to touch a woman) part of the question, or part of Paul's >response? I'm inclined to believe it is part of the question but I >would not be surprised if I were proven wrong. I would suggest that 1 Corinthians 7:2 completely clarifies 1 Corinthians 7:1. Taken together, they say "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: {It is} good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, {to avoid} fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.". The fact that verse 2 starts with the word "nevertheless" means that the statement that it is good for a man not to touch a woman is part of the answer. The fact that the solution to the problem, i.e. "to avoid fornication", is to marry. This indicates that he is discussing the relationship between two people who are eligible to marry one another. It is, therefore, not discussing either a married man or a married woman. If I am unmarried then it is not acceptable before God for me to touch any woman, even one who is unmarried, and even one whom I wish to have more intimate relations with and who desires the same of me. If I am married then the only woman whom I may touch is my own wife. Let us not permit our sinful physical desires contort God's commandments. Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3 [I am posting these as is, because attempts to reach Dave asking for a minor revision kept bouncing at an intermediate site. However in the future, I'd appreciate it if authors would avoid the implication that people with which they disagree are doing so because of a desire to continue sinning. --clh]