Keeping Fiancée a Perpetual Virgin
1 Corinthians 7:36 (NIV)
36 If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.
This NIV translation alters the meaning of this scripture by saying it is referring to a man who is engaged to a virgin woman. But translating this verse in this manner is a major piece of insanity that makes no logical sense at all!
1 Corinthians 7:37 (CJB)
37 But if a man has firmly made up his mind, being under no compulsion but having complete control over his will, if he has decided within himself to keep his fiancée a virgin, he will be doing well.
The CJB follows the NIV in assuming this is referring to a fiancée. This however would be crazy if a man was engaged to a fiancée but then determined to keep her a virgin. So that would mean that a man was going to remain in a state of “perpetual engagement” and never consummate the marriage. If a woman had a man like this (who has cold feet and is afraid to tie the knot) then she would be better off to dump him and find some other man. If she did not, then she would end up going to the grave as an old maid spinster. Often when kernels of popcorn do not pop, they call them old-maids for this reason. It is because the kernel never realized its purpose and remained in a barren or unpopped condition. So, a woman tied up in a “perpetual engagement” would go to the grave of old age without being married or bearing children. This is the type of nonsense that is promoted by layman theologians who do not see the spiritual principle behind these scriptures.
1 Corinthians 7:36 (NASB)
36 But 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.
The NASB has a better translation here because they realized this scripture is referring to a father who has authority over his virgin daughter. A father is able to sense if his daughter’s suitor is a bum or not and he knows that it is better for his daughter to remain unmarried than to be unequally yoked with an unbeliever or with a reprobate man. Many girls have suffered greatly by breaking the scriptural command not to marry an unbeliever. A man is to provide for his family or he is worse than in infidel so a suitor should have some means to provide for a wife. A father can tell immediately if a man is qualified for his daughter and it should be the father who gives his consent if his daughter will be allowed to marry or if she will be forbidden to marry. This is the authority of fathers in the home and bible translations that miss this principle will alter the meaning by not translating this properly as “virgin daughter” rather than fiancée!
1 Corinthians 11:3 (NASB)
3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
This principle of the man being the head of the household is seen throughout the bible. This complies with other scriptures that state that the man is the head of the household. Christ is the head of the man and man is the head of the wife and the parents are the head over their children. It is no doubt that a father has the full authority to decide who his daughter will marry or even forbid her to marry if there are no suitable men interested in his daughter.
(See the link “Head Covering and Submission” for more details)
Also, when Jesus counted the people, He counted the men only. This was because when a man and woman are joined together in marriage then they become one-person in God’s sight. Everything that is missing in the man is fulfilled by his wife so they are one-person together. When God counts a man, it will automatically include the wife who is one-flesh or one-person together with her husband.
Matthew 14:21 (NASB)
21 There were about five thousand men who ate, besides women and children.
Matthew 15:38 (NASB)
38 And those who ate were four thousand men, besides women and children.
Matthew 16:9-10 (KJV)
9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
There were two separate occasions that Jesus fed a multitude. One time He fed five thousand men and another time He fed four thousand men. In both cases Jesus only counted the men because the women and children were part of the man’s household. When Jesus counted the men this automatically included the wives who were part of their husbands as one-person together. Also, the children of these couples were under the authority of the head of the household as well. So, when Jesus counted the head of the household, He was automatically including the wives and offspring of that man. In other words, Jesus fed 5,000 families on one occasion and He fed 4,000 families on another occasion.
This directly correlates with the Old Testament principle as well because God only counts the male heads of homes and does not see the women and the children as separate individuals.
Exodus 12:37 (NIV)
37 The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Succoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children.
When Moses led the children of Israel out of Egypt during the Exodus, he was leading about 600,000 men on foot and this number did not include the women and children. Again, this is not because the women and children are not worthy of being counted but because they are included under the leadership of the head of the household. The women are one complete person with their husbands and their offspring are part of their parent’s household. So, when God counted the 600,000 heads of home, He was counting the leaders of over 600,000 Jewish families.
The principle that can be seen here is that God does not see things like humans do. Today with women liberation and equal rights, women are considering themselves as individuals and they do not even want to carry their husband’s name but want their own separate identity. But this is contrary to biblical principle found in both Old and New Testaments that God sees the man as the head of the home and the wife and children are to submit to him.
1 Corinthians 7:36-37 (NASB)
36 But 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.
37 But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well.
This same principle is reflected in the proper NASB translation above, by saying that the father has full authority over his virgin daughter to keep her unmarried rather than to allow her to break biblical precedent to marry an unbeliever or other unsuited partner. The overall bible principle shows that under both the Old and New Testaments that the head of the household is the man and the wife and children are to be in submission to him.
If bible translators would consider the overall biblical principles, they would not go into the ditch with insane translations like saying a man is keeping his fiancée a virgin perpetually without marrying her! That is in fact (as the British would say) “Completely barking mad!” If a man is engaged to a woman and decides to keep her a virgin, then what is the purpose of being engaged? Why not break the engagement and let her be free to marry someone who is not afraid to tie the knot and consummate the marriage and fulfill the purpose of why men and women are to marry?
1 Corinthians 7:36-37 (NASB)
36 But 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.
37 But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well.
No, in fact, this scripture is not referring to an engaged man keeping his fiancée a virgin but it is referring to a head of a household using his authority as a father to refuse his virgin daughter to marry someone who is unsuitable! All fathers should meet the proposed groom of their daughter and make the final decision if he will permit them to marry or deny them to be married. A father is not moved by emotions or deceived by romantic words as young women so often are. A father can immediately tell a bum when he sees one and he has a God-given right to decide if he will allow his daughter to marry or not. It is far better for her to remain single as a virgin girl than to marry the wrong one and ruin her life forever! It is the responsibility of the head of the household to make this decision because his virgin daughter is not authorized to determine who she will marry. This is a biblical precedent and this precedent also governs how the scriptures are translated.