Someone recently sent me an email asking about this and it seemed like a good topic for an article.
This is something of a continuation of my recent crusade against the idea that Christians can have sex outside of marriage, which I covered various aspects of in the following articles:
- Yes, The Bible CLEARLY Says Sex Outside of Marriage is Wrong
- What are Concubines in the Bible? Were They Wives or Unmarried Mistresses?
- What is Betrothal in the Bible? Is it the Same as Modern Engagement?
Today, we’ll look at another verse that touches on this, and this verse weighs in quite clearly on what Christians cannot do sexually/physically before marriage.
The One Clear Passage
The only passage that appears to weigh in on this clearly is 1 Corinthians 7:1, though I’ve included verse 2 for context.
1 Corinthians 7:1-2
1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 But because of sexual immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.
Please notice the two highlighted words because they will be important, and we’ll look at them one at a time.
Also noticed that part of the concern here is “sexual immoralities”. I go to great length defining the underlying Greek word in my article: Yes, The Bible CLEARLY Says Sex Outside of Marriage is Wrong, so see that article for the evidence. Basically, it means: “all sex outside of marriage”; see the article for details.
Now we’ll look at the words highlighted above, starting with “touch”.
“Touch”
You should know that some poor translations don’t translate verse 1 literally. The most common mistranslation is translating the word Greek word “ἅπτομαι” (haptomai) as “sexual relations”. We’ll look at its definition in a moment, but here are a few examples of mistranslation first:
1 Corinthians 7:1
NIV: Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”
NLT: Now regarding the questions you asked in your letter. Yes, it is good to abstain from sexual relations.
ESV: Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”
(Yes, I consider the ESV to be a poor translation because it mistranslates with alarming frequency, even completely flipping the meaning of some passages; more details in my article on Bible translations.)
Again, the Greek word translated “touch” is “ἅπτομαι” (haptomai), and here’s a slightly truncated definition from Thayer’s Greek lexicon:
1. properly, to fasten to, make adhere to; hence, specifically to fasten fire to a thing, to kindle, set on fire,
2. Middle (present ά῾πτομαι); imperfect ἡπτομην (Mark 6:56 R G Tr marginal reading); 1 aorist ἡψάμην; in the Sept. generally for נָגַע , הִגִּיעַ ; properly, to fasten oneself to, adhere to, cling to (Homer, Iliad 8. 67);
a. to touch, followed by the object in genitive (Winers Grammar, § 30, 8 c.; Buttmann, 167 (146); cf. Donaldson, p. 483): Matthew 8:3; Mark 3:10; Mark 7:33; Mark 8:22, etc.; Luke 18:15; Luke 22:51 — very often in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
…
In classic Greek also ἅπτεσθαι is the stronger term, denoting often to lay hold of, hold fast, appropriate; in its carnal reference differing from θιγγάνειν by suggesting unlawfulness. θιγγάνειν, is used of touching by the hand as a means of knowledge, handling for a purpose; ψηλαφαν signifies to feel around with the fingers or hands, especially in searching for something, often to grope, fumble, cf. ψηλαφινδα blindman’s buff. Schmidt, chapter 10.)).
A few things to notice:
- The word can be used to mean to kindle something or to set something on fire. Think about that in this context for a moment…
- Often, the word simply means “touch”. It’s a normal word for this and is used — for example — of Jesus touching people to heal them.
- In a sexual context, as it’s used here, it suggests “unlawfulness” and can mean “to feel around with the fingers or hands, especially in searching for something, often to grope“
Did you notice that last word?
How about that highlighted phrase?
Do I really need to spell out the application?
“Good”
Now, the phrase “it is good for a man not to touch a woman” is liable to be misunderstood by English speakers because of how we use the word “good”. We tend to use it as a mild word, often opposed to words like “great” or “excellent”. However, Greek has more than one word for “good” and the one used here is quite illuminating.
It’s the Greek word “καλός” (kalos), and here’s the definition from Thayer’s Lexicon:
καλός, καλή, καλόν (probably primarily ‘sound,’ ‘hale,’ ‘whole ;’ cf. Vanicek, p. 140f; Curtius, § 31), the Sept. for יָפֶה beautiful, but much more often for טוב good; beautiful, applied by the Greeks to everything so distinguished in form, excellence, goodness, usefulness, as to be pleasing; hence (according to the context) equivalent to “beautiful, handsome, excellent, eminent, choice, surpassing, precious, useful, suitable, commendable, admirable“;
a. beautiful to look at, shapely, magnificent: λίθοις καλοῖς κεκόσμηται (A. V. goodly), Luke 21:5.
b. good, excellent in its nature and characteristics, and therefore well adapted to its ends: joined to the names of material objects, universally, 1 Timothy 4:4 (equivalent to pure);
c. beautiful by reason of purity of heart and life, and hence praiseworthy; morally good, noble,
d. honorable, conferring honor:
Thus, while “good” is an accurate translation, it falls short of the scope of the word because it means more than just “good”. It means morally good, praiseworthy, excellent, and noble. Thus “noble” seems to capture the nuance better.
Putting it together
Here’s the verse again, and bear in mind what we just saw.
1 Corinthians 7:1-2 (modified)
1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is noble for a man not to touch a woman.
Remember, “touch” can mean “to feel around with the fingers or hands” or “to grope“. Also remember that it can refer to kindling a fire, which has an obvious sexual application. Thus, God is saying that it’s noble for a man not “to feel around with the fingers or hands” or to “grope” a woman.
Do I need to clarify the application of this? Probably not; you all are smart. 🙂 (I will later for the skeptics anyway though)
I translated the verse this way, and I think it captures the essence of the verse without over-translating: (The italicized word “sexually” indicates a translator addition for clarity’s sake)
1 Cor 7:1 (My translation)
Now, about what you wrote. It’s noble for a man to not touch a woman sexually.
Here’s the footnote that I wrote for “touch”:
“touch” this Greek word has the basic meaning of “touch” It’s most often used to indicate a simple touch, like Jesus “touching” various sick people to heal them. However, it can vary considerably in nuance depending on the context. At the other end of the spectrum, it can mean to “touch sexually”, which is interesting considering the same word can also be used of kindling a fire. It can also mean to “fasten or adhere to” perhaps in an affectionate sense, like how we would use the words “snuggle” or cuddle”. It can also mean to feel around with the fingers; i.e. to “grope”.
I would imagine that you’re getting a pretty clear idea of what scripture is saying, but we’ll look at two other, less clear passages before tying it all together.
Other, Less Clear Passages
There are two other places (or four, depending on how you count) where the Bible gives an indication, though both are less clear than 1 Corinthians 7:1.
1 Timothy 5:2
This verse isn’t on the topic of sexuality, but there’s perhaps some tangential connection.
1 Timothy 5:2
1 Do not sharply rebuke an older man, but rather appeal to him as a father, to the younger men as brothers,
2 the older women as mothers, and the younger women as sisters, in all purity.
Contextually, this is about rebuking someone, not sexual matters. You could also argue that it’s about how to appeal to someone, but again that’s still not about sexual matters.
However, the admonition to treat younger women as sisters “in all purity” seems like it would apply in all areas of life, not just rebuking and appealing. However, then we would need to get into a discussion on what “purity” means. (I kid you not, I’ve had people tell me that sex outside of marriage is “pure”.)
There’s no help from the Greek word definition either, since it simply means “pure” with no almost no additional nuance from the lexicons. That’s why I consider this an “unclear” passage on this topic, since it doesn’t give us direct clarity like 1 Cor 7:1 does.
Song of Solomon
In three places, we have the same admonition in the Song of Solomon:
2:7 I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem,
By the gazelles or by the does of the field,
Do not stir up nor awaken love
Until it pleases.
3:5 I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem,
By the gazelles or by the does of the field,
Do not stir up nor awaken love
Until it pleases.
8:4 I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem,
Do not stir up nor awaken love
Until it pleases.
The traditional Christian understanding of this verse is that we shouldn’t “stir up” sexual desire until after marriage. That does seem to be the intended sense, though it’s not stated as clearly as 1 Cor 7:1 is. This makes perfect sense in light of 1 Cor 7:1, and it makes the most sense contextually, so that’s how I take it.
However, I have heard other interpretations that aren’t impossible, even if they don’t fit the context as well. That’s why I sort this into the “less clear” category.
Now, we’ll look at the application.
Application
Based almost entirely on 1 Cor 7:1, but also taking into account the other two verses, what God wants seems clear: no sexual contact before marriage.
None.
No groping, no “petting”, and definitely no “heavy petting”, even when those things are done over clothes. No touching each other sexually in any way whatsoever. This might come as a “shock”, but Christian standards of purity exist for a reason, even if some fail to meet them.
Now, while that’s clear from scripture, it does leave a host of things up in the air. For example, what about non-sexual kissing before marriage, or cuddling/snuggling in a non-sexual way? (While watching a movie for example.)
I don’t plan to address anything like that in this article, but I will suggest one thing to think about:
1 Corinthian 10:23
All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.
Just because you can do something doesn’t mean that you should do that thing. This applies to both doing things and also to forbidding things. You can do the thing, but that doesn’t mean you should; you can decide to not do something, but again, that doesn’t mean you should become dogmatic about it if the scriptures aren’t. (The Pharisees fell into this latter trap.)
Much about our lives is left to wisdom and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Pray about it if you aren’t sure, and honestly ask God to give you wisdom.
(And since I know someone will ask my opinion, I’m of the “if you aren’t 100% sure, wait until you are sure” camp with things like this. Better to wait and feel sure, than to do something you’re unsure about and have it bother your conscience later. I would get some clarity before acting, and wouldn’t act without that clarity.)
Conclusion
According to 1 Cor 7:1, it’s noble for a man not to touch a woman. The word translated “touch” seems to apply to any kind of sexual touch whatsoever. The word “noble” indicates moral good and something that’s beautiful because it’s good. Thus, God is pretty clear that a Christian should not touch a woman sexually until he has married her. This is supported by two other passages, though admittedly they are less clear than 1 Corinthians 7:1.
Please notice that this one verse completely prohibits sex outside of marriage.
There’s a hard limit about no sexual touching, but other touching isn’t much commented on. My guess that’s because Christianity must fit into many cultures. In some cultures, kissing someone when you meet is normal. (either on the cheeks or even lips in some places) However, in other cultures it’s a taboo.
This article’s intent isn’t to wade into the quagmire of what non-sexual touching should and shouldn’t be allowed before marriage. That’s left to wisdom, with the caveat that just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should do something. When in doubt, ask God for wisdom. If you aren’t sure, my personal opinion is that it’s wise to avoid doing something until you are sure if it’s a wise thing to do. (Which applies to many other areas, not just this)
Are you on the autism spectrum?
Eric,
Are you on the dog/(little)b****, spectrum? I only ask because you continuously return to your vomit.
Do us all a favor and stop being the center (narcissist spectrum?) of attention with your long-form foolishness (vomit).
Sincerely,
The Readers of BP
The Readers (plural) of BP?
Do you have multiple personalities?
BP Reader, I appreciate the defense, but I don’t allow profanity in the comments section. To BP Reader and Eric both, you are both welcome to express your opinions, but you must do so respectfully. Your comments are at the edge of what I will tolerate; you have been warned.
How do you plan on bringing back Polygamy and arranged marriages?
You still won’t answer this and I think it’s because you can’t answer it.
Do you believe that Ephesians 5:3–4 prohibits sexual humor even between married Christians? Does it apply to non sexual humor?
Yes the verse would apply to non-sexual humor. It applies to crude humor of most any type, though admittedly that does tend to be sexual in nature.
As for within marriage vs outside of one, it’s entirely possible for the same action or speech to be appropriate in one situation but not another. For example, it’s entirely normal and righteous for a woman to be naked with her husband. It’s lewd and sinful for her to be naked publicly. Likewise, sexual humor that would be entirely inappropriate in public could (potentially) be entirely appropriate in private between a husband and wife. That said, some jokes — both sexual and non-sexual — are certainly lewd/crude in and of themselves regardless of context. Really, sex doesn’t need to be so serious; it can be fun and joking/teasing can certainly be a part of that. There are jokes and innuendos that aren’t crude that would be entirely appropriate between a husband and wife. 🙂
It is interesting that you say the “ONLY CLEAR TEXT is found in 1 Corinthian 7 and then quote the verse “it is good for a man not to touch a woman.” I learned a long time ago that the fastest way to misinterpret the Bible is by reading only one sentence. Here is you read the entire text, it is clear that Paul is “suggesting” that a man refrain from sex based upon his OWN choices. In fact, he makes it clear in verse 6 and 7 when he says: “But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself.
Taking verse 1 out of context and then attempting to make is sound like a commandment to refrain from sexual activity outside of marriage is a bit suspect, especially when Paul clearly states it is NOT a commandment, but his personal choice.
If that is not yet clear enough, as he continues to preach his personal choices, he once again states in verse 12: “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord..”
The root of this entire conversation has to begin with the basic fact that Paul is talking for himself, comparing others to his personal choices and suggesting that others do as he does. This conversation has nothing to do with what is sexually moral or immoral based upon God’s sexual sins found in Leviticus 18. God is the only lawgiver, and God has not included sex outside of marriage in the list of sexual immorality. Man cannot make up new sins that God has not declared.
I would like to suggest that you begin at the point of the entire dialog in Chapter 7 – Paul’s personal choices and “not from the Lord.” Reread the entire chapter with the view that it is just Paul suggesting something, much like suggesting a meal from a menu. It is NOT the only choice God is giving us.
I agree that only reading one verse is a recipe for disaster, which is why I spent a lot of time supporting the fact that God doesn’t allow sex outside of marriage in the other articles I linked to at the beginning of the article.
You are ignoring the imperative commands in verses 2, 3, and 5, which in Greek are actual imperative commands. In verses 2-4, the command to have sex while married isn’t optional. In fact, denial of sex is clearly stated to be a legitimate reason for divorce elsewhere in the Bible. (See my article on divorce for details). Additionally, in verse 5, it more accurately says “Don’t defraud each other”, not “don’t deprive each other”. The word there clearly means “defraud” with the connotation of sinning, making the command even more clear.
In verse 5, the phrase “εἰ μήτι ἄν” (usually translated “except”) is used to introduce a potential exception to the preceding commands. Please Notice: there would be no need for an exception if there wasn’t a command. Then in verse 6, he says that the exception (pausing sex for prayer and fasting) is not a commanded exception, it’s an allowed exception. Nothing in verse 6 commutes the earlier imperative commands, only the exception.
Verse 9 clearly states that marriage is better than “burning”, with the clear referent being in passion. This is present as a choice: either burn in passion or get married, with no option of “satisfy your burning [passion] outside of marriage”.
Then verse 10, Paul gives a command and then explicitly states that — even though he is giving the command — the command itself comes from God, by saying “I command (not I, but the Lord)” Here, Paul conflates his 1st person imperative commands with God’s commands. (and notice the contrast with verses 7 and 8, which are not commands) Thus, there is no case to be made that this is just “Paul’s opinion” as you asserted.
It’s not until verse 12 that Paul says “(I, not the Lord)”.
“Verse 9 clearly states that marriage is better than ‘burning’ with the clear referent being in passion. This is present as a choice: either burn in passion or get married”.
And what if you can’t get married? It seems like Paul forgot to account for that possibility.
So, the almighty, all-knowing, all-wise God of the entire universe just “forgot” something when inspiring Paul, did He? You already know the answer to the question, and I know this because of the many, many comments that you’ve left on my other articles. If you want to comment, that’s fine. However, If you want to deceptively quote me (or anyone else), I won’t tolerate that. You cut off the end of my sentence, which does actually answer your question:
You’re not required to like that God requires all sex to be inside of marriage. However, on this website, you are required to not be deceptive. You have been warned. (And to others reading this, normally I would chalk it up to something else. However, Eric has displayed a propensity towards deception in his other comments, hence the warning.)
I didn’t include the last part because I didn’t think it was relevant. It doesn’t matter if it’s included or not, because it same problem presents itself.
Where does Paul, or any other biblical author, address the issue what someone should do if they are a mature adult who is not interested in long term celibacy but hasn’t found a spouse yet?
I have read the Bible over and over and I have never seen the concept even mentioned. The past is a foreign country and the phenomenon of the “adult bachelor” who couldn’t find a spouse was completely foreign to the agrarian 1st century world.
You are a midwit who is probably on the autism spectrum and you seem to enjoy going on petty power trips.
It’s addressed every time the Bible commands us not to fornicate since fornication includes all sex outside of marriage. I realize that you don’t like this, but that’s what God commands.
Go away, Eric.
I have come to suspect that you are on the autism spectrum. Firstly, you have narrow interests. You are very interested in pedantically dissecting the Hebrew and Greek grammar of the Bible. You are comparatively uninterested in historical scholarship, literature, legal theory, or any other field of knowledge I’ve used to make my arguments. In fact, you get mad when I refuse to acknowledge your special interest and won’t argue with you along those lines.
Secondly, you struggle to understand non-literal communication. You did this two comments ago when I said ” It seems like Paul forgot to account for that possibility”. That was sarcastic but you took it literally. You’ve done similar things many times. In real-life face-to-face communication, do you struggle to make eye contact and have difficulty reading social cues?
You really don’t understand the logic of Paul’s argument.
Step by step:
1.I wish everyone could just remain single and content with celibacy like I am.
2. But the vast majority of you can’t. You aren’t cut out for it. Most of you would end up irritable, distracted, and horny if you tried. We don’t want to have vast numbers of people in the church who are going through that.
3. I can’t recommend abusing a slave or a prostitute (who is quite likely also a slave). But most of you are already betrothed (quite possibly since childhood) and if you aren’t then it’s a simple matter to contract a marriage with someone. So, to solve the problem of vast numbers of horny people, I recommend getting married and having sex frequently. It’s better to marry than to burn with passion (aka be irritable distracted and horny).
This is a logical and practical solution to the problems of the day.
But wait a minute Paul.
Nowadays it’s hard enough just getting a first date. Do you realize how difficult it is to get a good enough paying job to support a family? People have to spend years scrolling through dating apps and years of schooling (with the accompanying student load debt) just to find a spouse and a good job.
The result is that in average people don’t get married until their mid thirties. For some that’s even later. Some may never find a spouse.
In the first century, Jews married shortly after puberty and they went into the family business as soon as they were mature. They usually lived in a multigenerational household and if they did establish their own household, homeownership was not difficult.
Greco-Roman women married shortly after puberty like Jews did. Men married around 30, but until then they were free to indulge themselves with slaves and prostitutes.
Paul was addressing a specific issue with the churches he was writing to. Namely, what do you do about large numbers of people who aren’t cut out for long term celibacy and how do you “get them laid” without them raping slaves or prostitutes. Well, marriage was very easily achievable…..
But now it’s not. That’s an important factor which means that Paul’s advice isn’t strictly applicable.
Paul is talking to an audience in society with different social structures.
The Industrial Revolution and the Sexual Revolution destroyed those social structures and replaced them with new ones.
Paul wanted to avoid large numbers of people “burning with passion”. But, ironically, following Paul’s advice to the letter now creates the very problem it was meant to solve.
Marriage is now difficult to achieve.
The result is that you have a lot of people spending 15+ years unmarried and “burning with passion”.
Depending on the stats between 80-90 percent of professed Christians have had sex before marriage. If your moral proscription has a 90 percent failure rate then I think there are some serious problems.
So, you need to account for 2 things if you want to apply Paul’s advice to the present day:
Getting married is now difficult.
There are more avenues to sexual activity than just marriage and raping a slave.
So, if getting married is so difficult and its wrong to rape slaves then why can’t people just have sex with someone they are dating?
The answer to your final question is: Because God commands us not to. I rest my case and probably won’t be engaging with you anymore because (as usual) you simply don’t care what God commands. Please stop clogging the comments section with long comments that basically boil down to: “God’s commands are hard, so we should be able to ignore them.“.
To others reading this, Eric’s “solution” is actually one cause of the very problem he is trying to “solve”; ignoring God’s commands always has consequences.
God does not command us not to because norm is applicable to chaos.
I explained to you in great detail the logic behind Paul’s advice and why it’s not applicable. What is your response to that? Show me why it’s applicable. And show me where the Bible accounts for the social changes brought on my the Industrial and Sexual Revolutions.
Is it a sin to heal on the Sabbath?
Do you struggle with eye contact and non-verbal communication?
No, my solution will not make anything worse.
It’s already over. The Sexual Revolution has ready happened. Christian marriage and family are ready dead. I just want to make things a little easier for those of use who have to live through this. The patient is already terminal, let him have a hamburger and a pack of cigarettes.
You are already married. You have received your reward in full.
All you offer people is Greek lessons and petty moralism.
“if Jesus Christ is the greatest man, you ought to love him in the greatest degree; now hear how he has given his sanction to the law of ten commandments: did he not mock at the sabbath, and so mock the sabbaths God? murder those who were murder’d because of him? turn away the law from the woman taken in adultery? steal the labor of others to support him? bear false witness when he omitted making a defense before Pilate? covet when he pray’d for his disciples, and when he bid them shake off the dust of their feet against such as refused to lodge them? I tell you, no virtue can exist without breaking these ten commandments; Jesus was all virtue, and acted from impulse, not from rules”
Go away, Eric.
Correction: God does not command us not to, because no norm is applicable to chaos.
The Sexual Revolution is the chaos.
Is it a sin to loot a grocery store for food during a natural disaster?
People in the 1st century did not have to wait 15 years past puberty to finally engage in sexual activity.
They didn’t have to wait, so why should we?
Hebrew 13:4
Mark 7:20
1 Corinthians 6:18
Ephesians 5:3
Romans 1:29
Matthew 15:19
Exodus 20:14
God bless you, Eric.
Let [a public alliance between two extended multigenerational families; usually arranged by the parents; for economic purposes and the procreation of children] be held in honor among all, and let the [public alliance between two extended multigenerational families; usually arranged by the parents; for economic purposes and the procreation of children] bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous- Hebrews 13:4
How does that apply to modern relationships and marriage, which is [a private contract between two individuals; freely contracted after a period of dating and falling in love; for the purposes of companionship and personal fulfillment]?
There are two completely different institutions that are commonly called marriage and the Bible only addresses one of them.
Eric, please stop posting false data in the comments. When the New Testament was written, “free marriages” (made and broken solely by the spouses like today, and without a bride price) were normal and common throughout the Empire. A 2-minute Google search will confirm this, and I have numerous scholarly sources confirming it as well.
What books have you read?
There is a wealth of scholarship which shows that the view of marriage as a private romantic partnership between two individuals dates back only to the last few centuries.
Before that, marriage was a public alliance between two extended families made for economic reasons.
There are, at best, anecdotal examples of people getting married “for love”. But the definition and purpose of marriage according to the Ancient worldview and marriage according to the modern worldview are two different things. They are not the same institution. They are two almost entirely seperate concepts confusingly referred to with the same word.
Mt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Just because we want God’s Word to fit into our modern worldly system, does not remove our responsibility to obey what God has said. He does not change his mind about what is a sin. It is anything we do or do not do, say, or think that offends a Holy God. We were sinners from conception, and we will be sinners until the day we die. Jesus is perfect…a rock in our life that desires us to repent of our sin. He is our only salvation. We can win arguments with anyone we disagree with on Earth. However, we cannot win an argument with God. We cannot please God in the flesh. We can only please Him as we live a Spirit filled life of faith that seeks to please God and not ourselves. Praying that God opens your eyes of faith and understanding. Temptation does not come to us from God, but Salvation is from God and freely offered through His Son Jesus Christ.