[Note: WHAT ABOUT 1 CORINTHIANS 7:29 versus Romans 7? Answer. 1 Corinthians may look the same but there is a major difference in the context. 1 Corinthians 7 context is NOT speaking of the Old Testament Law. Romans 7 is. 1 Corinthians 7 is speaking of Christians under the NT, specifically of widows of faithful Christians. See the menu for 1 Corinthians 7:
CONTEXT OF Romans 7:1
"Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. 4 wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God."
1. Was Paul speaking a current and universal law in Romans 7:1,2 for marriage?
A. What is an universal law? In this context it is a law that involved everyone from the beginning until the end. For example, Jesus spoke the universal law about marriage in Matthew 19. “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder”
(Matthew 19:4-6). The universal law stated is the rules surrounding “one flesh.”
This would have been given to Adam and Eve and it applies to us. Jesus reaffirmed that for us in Matthew 19.
Another example of an universal law is the covenant made with Noah about the destruction of the world again by water. The covenant is symbolized by the rainbow. Noah's family were the only ones on earth when this was given, but God's promise is also to us, Noah's descendants. It's an universal law.
We know that the passage in Romans 7 does not refer to the "beginning" that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 19. The passage speaks of death. Matthew 19 refers back to the creation record in Genesis 1 and 2. Man did not sin until Genesis 3. Death did not enter the world until sin was committed. Paul is talking about a Law under which death had been pronounced.
We know that the passage in Romans 7 does not refer to the "beginning" that Jesus referenced because woman did not become servient to man until after sin entered the world. One of the tragic consequences of disobeying God's initial Law was that her "desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee" (Genesis 3:16). In the beginning initially woman was only man's helperH5828. The Hebrew is simply one who "aids, surrounds, succors."*
Why isn't Romans 7 restating an universal law? Paul explains that it is from the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law was not given universally. It did not apply to Abraham or any of Israel's “fathers.”
Moses said that the Law, the covenant was given to them at Mt. Horeb. It was not, he said, given to their “fathers.”
“The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day”
(Deuteronomy 5:2,3).
B. In Romans 7:1, 2, Paul was not stating a New Testament Law concerning marriage. If this is true then those that select this passage to apply it to the citizens of the Kingdom of Christ obviously are in error. They are either ignorant of the teaching of the New Testament on the abrogation of the Law of Moses or have an agenda to twist the passage for a proof text for their evil use. Wesley's Notes correctly makes this comment concerning the "law of the husband": "From that law which gave him a peculiar property in her." What "law" made the woman property of the husband?
Rather, Paul is on the subject of the the Mosaic Law versus the Gospel of Christ. The gospel is "God's power to save" and it contains "the faith" that saves (Romans 1:16,17). For example, Romans 2:24: "You take pride in the Law" (CEV); Romans 3:1, 2: "Unto them [Jews, called "the circumcision"] were committed the Oracles of God."
What Law was given to the Jews? Was it not the Law of Moses? "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). Law versus Grace and Truth.
The Law given by Moses had been "nailed" to the cross of Jesus. Colossians 2:14: "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." Even the Jewish Christians had to be taught this fact. In fact, the Law of Moses versus the Law of Christ was a common theme of Paul's epistles. For example, Galatians 5:4: "whosoever of you are justified by the Law; ye are fallen from grace."
The new Law is called the "Law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2) as well as "grace and truth."
In chapter 7 of Romans, Paul gives an illustration for the need for the end of the Law of Moses. The Law given to the Jews had dominion over each Jew as long as he lived. He was "bound" to the Law of Moses. This Law did not provide for a Jew being released from his/her obligation in order to obey any other scheme or philosophy of living. A person had to die to be free from that Law.
C. Paul chooses the illustration of the Law's requirements for a married woman to teach a Truth to those that "knew Law". She was "bound by the Law to her husband so long as he lived." This was a general conclusion from the Law of Moses. It is a necessary assumption that the reader would relate to this comparison. Genesis 1 is not in the context. If the wife took another husband, she was called an adulteress. Under the Law of Moses! Nothing is said about an adulteress in Genesis 1-3. This occurs after the fall and sin enters the world and people multiply. This illustration then is not taken from the Law of Christ (1 Corinthians 7:39 is a different matter). We are talking about Romans 7. Marriage is not the subject. Dying to the Law is. This illustration is taken from the Law of Moses to demonstrate a requirement that should occur so that a person can be under a different Law than that of Moses.
The point of comparison is made to the Law of Moses being binding upon any Jew. If he considered the Law still binding upon himself as a Christian, he would be, as Christ's bride, an "adulteress." He had to "die" to the former Law in order to be a faithful Christian. Not literally physically die. This is all a figure of speech. Compare this with the previous chapter of Romans. "Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him" (Romans 6:8).
If the Law was still binding upon the Jew, he could not live with Christ. He could not be "married to Him": "For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh" (Ephesians 5:30). He had to "die" to the Law of Moses in order to be a Christian.
2. Why didn't Paul use the word "person" or "man or" in his illustration?
The Holy Spirit is the only one that can really answer that. But we can make these observations: it could be because such was not equally true for the man. A man had more "rights" than the woman in the marriage relationship. He could divorce her. Moses allowed it (Matthew 19:8). He was not bound to keep her if any uncleanness was found in her (Deuteronomy 24:1). He could multiply wives, add concubines, and even use girl slaves while married. The woman did not have this right under the Law. In the context of Mark 10's version of the controversy, Jesus
legislates, "And if a woman shall put away her husband" - It would seem, from this, that a woman, among the Jews, had the power of divorcing her husband, yet this right is not given her, per se, by the law of Moses. Cases had occurred in which it had been done. Women would solicit the court's intervention which would require the husband to divorce his wife without Mosaic authority. The wife of Herod had rejected her former husband and married Herod. And though instances of this kind “might”
have been attempted to be defended by the example of Pagans, yet the Lord Jesus showed them that it did not free them from the charge of adultery.
The binding (deo) of the woman was unique in the marriage relationship. She could not have multiple husbands. She could not divorce her husband. I understand that she practically got around that during the first century by making her husband despise her so that he divorced her. But generally speaking the woman was truly "bound" to her husband.
3. Although Romans 7's binding rule of marriage sounds absolute, this was not true. It could demonstrate Paul's point but being bound was not an absolute rule in the Law of Moses. There were remedies for an abuse of the wife. The Law gave allowances to protect the woman from an evil husband. One allowance stipulated that if the husband did not provide her with food, clothing, and sex, she could leave him and be free (Exodus 21:10). Another exception was for her to be given a bill of divorcement if the husband did not find favor in her because of some unclean thing (Deuteronomy 24:1). In this case she was free to marry. If this meant guilt of some kind, it did not bar her from marrying someone else.
Paul's illustration has to be a general statement of the Law's assumption that the husband is good to his wife. Otherwise, the being "bound" was not an absolute rule. Those that make it so, do not take into account the Law of Moses' exceptions.
CONCLUSION:
Was Romans 7:1,2 stating an universal law about marriage? The answer is no. He was referring to the Law of Moses. It was a general statement of the Law of the husband. He could divorce her. She could not divorce him. She could leave if neglected.
Why did Paul use a wife instead of the husband in his illustration in Romans 7? First, in the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, Paul was instructed to do so (Acts 8:29). Second, it is talking about the Law of the husband under the Mosaic Law. Third, the woman was bound to a marriage in a different way than men under the Law of Moses. The man was in charge of the marriage. Romans 7 states that death made one “free from the law of the husband.”
The husband is not under consideration. A "law of the wife" is not mentioned.
The point of this paper is that the Holy Spirit is not making an absolute prohibition against severance of matrimony in our age in Romans 7. The illustration is from the Old Testament. The statement is not absolute because the Law allowed separation and divorce and even death by stoning. Sin and abuse of man to woman and woman to man breaks asunder what God has from the beginning ordained as one flesh [see sections on "one flesh".
Divorce was allowed under Moses and Jesus allows it under the New (Matthew 19:9).
Gaylon West
*Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries and Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible
