What does Paul mean at I Corinthians 7:36?

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

I'm staring this thread as a result of another thread.
(King James Version)
36But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.


I was told that Paul is here saying that if a couple have had sex before they are married, it is not a sin, provided that they then get married. I disagree with this. i think that he is saying that if a couple can't control themselves, then they should go ahead and get married. bearing in mind the context and other scriptures on the subject.

(I think this translation confims my view:
(Worldwide English (New Testament))
***'And if a man feels that he is doing the right thing for the woman he is to marry, then let him marry her. That is, if she is no longer young, and if he wants her very much. Then he must do as he thinks best. It is not wrong for him to do it.'
However, i know some may say that i'm conviniently choosing a translation that fits my belief. i'm not, just to say that. i'm looking at the bigger picture.)

So i'd like to throw this open. What do you think?

 

[njcl]

you see its this word UNCOMELY,it changes the whole verse,uncomely means innapropiate which means the man could not contain his desires and de flowered his virgin

 

[njcl]

UNCOMELY -[adjective] offensive to good taste especially in sexual matters; "an earthy but not indecent story"; "an indecent gesture"

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

1 Corinthians 7:36-38 refers to a man's handling of his daughter or ward.

 

[njcl]

thats the catholic slant on the verse except its blasphemy

36But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.


so the father marries his own daughter?.................

 

[michel]

As Mr Emu said, there is no mention of 'daughter' in the KJ version......

7:36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
(This evidently is a reference to the virgin's father, who normally determined when, and to whom, his daughter would marry (1 Corinthians 7:38).)

7:37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.

7:38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

My take on this is that if a man 'lusts' after a woman, and she is old enough to marry, then he should marry her. I am not too sure about 37, but 38 indicates that the father who allows his daughter to marry the man is 'doing the right thing' but if the father does not consent to the wedding, he is acting in a better way than if he consents to the marriage

 

[Mister Emu]

Well michel,

the NASB translation goes as thus.

36But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry.

I now realize it is more speaking of letting the daughter marry someone else though. Still, I do not agree with the translation.

 

[michel]

But verse 37 confuses me... any ideas ?

 

[Mister Emu]

Well, I believe it means that you keep your daughter a virgin according to the NASB, not giving her in marriage.

 

[michel]

Well, I believe it means that you keep your daughter a virgin according to the NASB, not giving her in marriage.

Of course you are right *shakes head to engage gears again* - thanks Mr Emu.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

1 Cor. 7:36 is most assuradely not speaking of daughters.

It is difficult to know how much weight to give to your assurances. While I am more than willing to bow to your unshared reasoning and undocumented expertice, I would appreciate your analysis of the following ...

1 Cor 7:36-38. There are two common approaches to understanding the situation addressed in these verses. One view involves a father or male guardian deciding whether to give his daughter or female ward in marriage (cf. NASB, NIV margin). The evidence for this view is: (1) the phrase in v. 37 (Grk) “to keep his own virgin” fits this view well (“keep his own virgin [in his household]” rather than give her in marriage), but it does not fit the second view (there is little warrant for adding “her” in the way the second view translates it: “to keep her as a virgin”). (2) The verb used twice in v. 38 (gamivzw, gamizw) normally means “to give in marriage” not “to get married.” The latter is usually expressed by gamevw (gamew), as in v. 36b. (3) The father deciding what is best regarding his daughter’s marriage reflects the more likely cultural situation in ancient Corinth, though it does not fit modern Western customs. [bible.org]​

I look forward to your thoughtful response.

 

[Mister Emu]

When I posted that Deut, I was under the impression that it said the the father should marry the daughter. I also correct myself in a later post.

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

It is difficult to know how much weight to give to your assurances. While I am more than willing to bow to your unshared reasoning and undocumented expertice, I would appreciate your analysis of the following ...

1 Cor 7:36-38. There are two common approaches to understanding the situation addressed in these verses. One view involves a father or male guardian deciding whether to give his daughter or female ward in marriage (cf. NASB, NIV margin). The evidence for this view is: (1) the phrase in v. 37 (Grk) “to keep his own virgin” fits this view well (“keep his own virgin [in his household]” rather than give her in marriage), but it does not fit the second view (there is little warrant for adding “her” in the way the second view translates it: “to keep her as a virgin”). (2) The verb used twice in v. 38 (gamivzw, gamizw) normally means “to give in marriage” not “to get married.” The latter is usually expressed by gamevw (gamew), as in v. 36b. (3) The father deciding what is best regarding his daughter’s marriage reflects the more likely cultural situation in ancient Corinth, though it does not fit modern Western customs. [bible.org]​

I look forward to your thoughtful response.

Hi,
the question of whether he said that a couple can have sex provided they marry, still stands tho.

 

[jeffrey]

The explained in the Catholic Bible this way; "The passage is difficult to interpret, because it is unclear whether Paul is thinking of a father and his unmarried daughter (or slave), or of a couple engaged in a betrothal or spiritual marriage. The general principles already enunciated apply: there is no question of sin, even he they marry, but staying as they are is "better" (for the reasons mentioned in 28-35). Once again the charisma of v 7, which applies also to the unmarried (8-9), is to be presupposed."

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

The explained in the Catholic Bible this way; "The passage is difficult to interpret, because it is unclear whether Paul is thinking of a father and his unmarried daughter (or slave), or of a couple engaged in a betrothal or spiritual marriage. The general principles already enunciated apply: there is no question of sin, even he they marry, but staying as they are is "better" (for the reasons mentioned in 28-35). Once again the charisma of v 7, which applies also to the unmarried (8-9), is to be presupposed."

All good info. but did Paul talk about a couple who had already had sex??

 

[jeffrey]

Hi,
the question of whether he said that a couple can have sex provided they marry, still stands tho.

Read verse 8-9.

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

yeah, just did. and...?

 

[jeffrey]

Read verse 8-9.

Don't know this is good advise or not. I can't advocate not having sex before marriage, for my wife and I slept with each other before marriage. Sin, yes. Forgivable, yes. The way I looked on it, (Keep in mind this is my view, not the Churches view) Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's. The marriage licence is just a piece of paper. I asked God to bless our union.

 

[jeffrey]

yeah, just did. and...?

The basic theme is it is better not to marry, but if you cannot control your urges, then it is better to marry. In other words, sex outside of marriage is a sin.

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

Don't know this is good advise or not. I can't advocate not having sex before marriage, for my wife and I slept with each other before marriage. Sin, yes. Forgivable, yes. The way I looked on it, (Keep in mind this is my view, not the Churches view) Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's. The marriage licence is just a piece of paper. I asked God to bless our union.

very honest of you. true, the marriage licence is just a piece or paper, but so is a drivers licence. it comes with responsibility. And you could advocate not having sex before marriage if you realise that what you did was wrong. in your words 'a sin'. you could spare people the guilt you may have had. if all was fine then why would you think it was a sin? anyhow, i don't want to sound like i'm condemning you.
and as far as God's things to God, he was the one who instituted marriage so we should play by his rules.