Romans Chapter 7 – Paul was talking about the Law not Marriage

In this passage “Romans 7” Paul is teaching is an analogy. The hearers understood that like a marriage being binding…………the Law holds sway over us. Freedom from a marriage comes through DEATH. Freedom from the penalty of the law came through Christ.

The law of marriage (God’s universal law of marriage) was not done away with. Jesus didn’t teach that nor did Paul. If you believe that you have a lot of NT scriptures to explain away. It’s interesting to note that Paul used the very same language about the law being binding concerning marriage until one of the spouses died in another passage(I Cor. 7:39). Paul was THE preacher of Grace, yet even he taught that the marriage bond was not dissolved until death. A woman/man was not free to marry another until the death of their spouse.

Rom. 7:2-3 and I Cor. 7:39 deals with the universal law of marriage—-God’s law of marriage. It is not an OT “law”—-it is God’s law for mankind.

The law did permit a writ of divorcement to be given for “uncleanness”—-which I believe is what Joseph was going to do to Mary—BEFORE they came together—- during the betrothal period. Do a little research online. You will find what I did. The marriage itself wasn’t complete until the final ceremony—-yet if “uncleanness” took place prior to the “chuppah”, the groom could give a writ of divorcement instead of stoning his promised bride. Prior to them becoming “one flesh” in the physical, the marriage could be “annulled” by a writ of divorcement.

Rom. 7:2-3 —Trying to fit this into Moses’ law, but it is not there, that’s why you can’t find anything. God’s plan/intent/command for marriage is what Rom. 7:2-3 is speaking of………… well as I Cor. 7:39 which also reinforces the teaching of the permanency of marriage. Considering what Paul taught—-that a remarriage would be adulterous as long as the first lawful spouse lived………Jesus’ supposed “allowance” needs to be looked at a bit closer—-especially before giving someone counsel that they are free to remarry due to adultery. The woman of Rom. 7:2-3 certainly isn’t free and it doesn’t appear her deserted 1st husband is either (his wife is committing adultery too). Mt. 5:32 says “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery”………… does Mk. 10:11-12, Lk. 16:18. There’s a whole lot more scripture that shows remarriage as adultery(perpetual) than there is scripture which “appears” to give an allowance………..

If you’d take the time to READ the chapter (Romans) you’d see there was NO reason for Paul to put the Matthew EXCEPTION clause in there. It wasn’t ABOUT marriage, it was ABOUT the law.

That you reject plain context is YOUR fault, not mine. A woman IS bound to her husband until death under the law. EXCEPT FOR WHAT? If she committed adultery under the law, what would have happened to her? Hardly tied to a man if you’re dead.

THAT is the universal law of marriage.

Is that what Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery? In the same breath, when does one deem if the offending spouse is dead—-because they want to view them as such? What about the spouse who wants to forgive and believes in restoration? Is their spouse “dead” too and thus they are unable to reconcile? No, that is not what Jesus taught at all.

Concerning Rom. 7:2-3, you seem to indicate that all Paul is discussing here is “the law”, yet you can’t seem to find this type of scenario in the OT. One thing you fail to notice is that Paul again uses the same type of language in I Cor. 7:39—-in a passage all about marriage………..he again states that a woman is bound BY LAW to her husband as long as he lives, but if he dies she is able to marry again, only in the Lord. Both Romans and Corinthians were written to GENTILES…………so what “law” was Paul speaking of when told these Gentiles they were bound BY LAW to their living spouses?

Instead we must resolve the discrepancy. And it is simple. Paul refers to the general principle in Romans 7:2-3 that marriage is binding until death. Jesus refers to the specific application of an exception given for immorality in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9.

The problem with that is: Paul gave the example of adultery in Rom. 7:2-3, yet STILL maintained that it was the husband’s DEATH that freed the wife to remarry—-not a divorce.

The problem is, that is the general case in Romans, and you are misapplying it from there.

Why didn’t Paul use a “regular marital situation” then, if his intent was just to show the “general” case of marriage? Why even say that if one marries while a spouse is living, a woman will be called an adulteress? Why would Jesus say if one married a woman put away, they commit adultery? Obviously, neither divorce, adultery, remarriage “dissolve” the one flesh bond. That is why Paul and Jesus both taught this….

I have to use your argument of omission here and state that Paul never says the either of them have fornicated or defiled the marriage bed there.

Taken in context with the rest of scripture, it can be assumed that they have left each other for frivolous reasons and are still married in Gods eyes.

So it is your belief that even though the woman in Rom. 7:2-3 is committing adultery (remarriage), the marriage bond is still in tact? Do you believe that the order of things is what dissolves then—not the acts themselves……; the REASON one divorces has to be adultery……..otherwise if the person gets divorced for other reasons— then gets remarried, they should then leave the second spouse in repentance because God doesn’t recognize the second marriage?

You just cant get away from your out of context passage, can you?


But he did speak/teach extensively in I Cor. 7. Do you see anywhere in there were he taught adultery dissolves a marriage? In I Cor. 7:39 the only thing he taught dissolved a marriage, according to law, is death. When he said “not I, but the Lord”……….what did he say the “LORD” taught? If one is separated, they are to remain unmarried or be reconciled—-no allowance is given by Paul for remarriage due to adultery. Don’t you think if there really was an allowance for remarriage outside of death, Paul would have taught on that?

Nice twist.

I’m stating that Paul doesn’t even bring that into the picture in Romans 7:2 Why BECAUSE HE’S NOT TALKING ABOUT MARRIAGE AND ITS RULES…..HES MAKING A POINT ABOUT THE LAW The marriage bond is intact……. EXCEPT for fornication…….defiling the marriage bed.. since I cannot understand this gibberish, Ill make a point here.

Paul gives no other ‘exception’. That would make the analogy he is using meaningless.

look. Your Romans passage is using the analogy of marriage to show that we were bound to the law all our days as a woman is her husband. AGAIN its NOT about marriage………Paul isn’t laying out the rules of marriage there. That’s why he didn’t need to go into detail about issues of divorce.

Paul was using an exact analogy. Death=freedom from marriage, Christ=freedom from the penalty of the law.

If Death is not the only thing which provides freedom from a marriage, ie: lawful divorce which dissolves, being another, then the analogy falls apart. The analogy would then possibly lead people to believe maybe there was another way to gain freedom from the law other than Christ. Yes, Paul wasn’t going into depth concerning marriage, but what he was doing was teaching a very important point—-death and death alone is what frees from the marriage bond. Christ and Christ alone frees us from the penalty of the law. It is the perfect illustration.

In Rom. 7:2-3 the Law clearly states that marriage is until death. But what’s more to remember is that this is still within the exception clause not only made by Christ, but was also given by Moses.

If Paul would have used a different scenario (not used a woman who remarries (committing adultery)) as an example in Rom. 7:2-3 and if Jesus had not used the example of an innocent wife put away committing adultery if she remarries as an example, I may agree with you. However, it is not the case.

It is not by accident or coincidence that Paul uses such a wife as an example instead of a faithful wife. It is also of significance that Jesus in Mt. 19:9 speaks of a husband who puts away his wife to marry another and speaks that whoever marries this wrongly put away woman will be committing adultery. Clearly the husband’s adultery (unlawful second marriage) does not give the “innocent” wife allowance to marry without sin or sin on the part of the man who marries her. It’s a hard thing for those who believe adultery gives allowance for a marriage to be dissolved to answer why Paul and Jesus use the examples they do.

In Romans 7, there was NO ADULTERY, until a woman left her faithful husband and remarried. THAT IS WHY she is called an adulteress.

Possibly you are correct that there is no adultery til the woman remarries (although we know that Jesus expanded the definition of adultery to include much more than just the physical aspect of it). The thing is that neither a divorce nor a remarriage (adultery) dissolves the bond of marriage with her first husband, only death will accomplish this severing. That much is clear in Paul’s words. Notice what is absent in that passage: Paul teaching that a divorce from an adulterous wife will sever the bond. It is just not there, in spite of the fact that Paul uses an adulterous woman as an example when speaking of the bond of marriage.

My point is that many teach today that adultery or divorce dissolve the bond of marriage—-the bond God instituted. Paul clearly shows in Rom. 7:2-3 that this woman will be called an adulteress as long as her husband lives. Why? Because she is still married to her first husband and her new marriage(adultery) does not nullify her previous marriage. What does this do to those teachings which say that one can remain in such a relationship and NOT be in adultery?

This ‘law of the husband’ has never been unconditional…yet it would have to be if you were correct.

Jesus making a single exception while the marriage covenant is in place defies this errant view that it would be Unconditional ..

Yes, I want to address this point as I think it is very important. You and I and anyone else who has read the OT knows that DEATH due to adultery is what severed the marital bond. You now say that the marital bond for sexual reasons can be dissolved by divorce. I disagree and I give you Rom. 7:2-3 as evidence. You say this is speaking about the law of the husband, right? Notice WHOSE death is required for the bond to cease in this example Paul gives—-the HUSBAND who is NOT committing adultery. It is not his wife’s death that will dissolve the bond of marriage………it is not a divorce the husband can get that will allow her to remarry——it is only her husband’s death which will allow her to marry lawfully in the sight of the Lord and not be an adulteress.

Now, if you think this is based on some OT law—–besides the creation intent for marriage, can you show me this law?

There are plenty of facts and research that will bear out what I said that this conversation was never meant to be about Divorce and Remarriage…… Romans 7 clearly says “Married Woman”, if divorced then your are not married. SO it doesn’t apply.

Ask yourself this question: Why didn’t Paul chose to use the example of a couple that was married only one time—their marriage ending with one of their deaths? Why bring an adulteress into the discussion of law/Christ?

I choose the straightforward meaning. Jesus spoke plainly and clearly. He meant what He said.

Those that seek God will be guided by Him and in His direction (from whatever viewpoint they may hold). He will direct their paths. All we have to do is listen, follow and trust Him.

I trust God.

As you should. He will not steer you wrong when you have a heart to know the truth. Ask Him why He gave Paul the example of an adulterous wife in the Rom. 7:2-3 passage instead of a faithful wife with an intact marriage? Ask HIM what the significance of this is in relation to what Paul is teaching on “bond”………..Blessings as you seek HIM.

Where I leave it is that remarriage constitutes a state of “living in adultery”. I’ve read the arguments and for every argument given I have read elsewhere something that invalidates that argument.

I can not believe that we serve a God who didn’t allow that there are circumstances in our lives that would cause us to remarry and not expect to keep that marriage covenant.

But have Rom. 7:2-3, I Cor. 7:39 been able to be refuted WITH THE WORD OF GOD…….showing that a remarriage which takes place while one has a living LAWFUL spouse, is NOT adultery? I have looked and looked (Name Deleted), and I have come up empty. All the arguments against the clear words of Paul in Rom. 7:2-3 do not make any sense. Paul did not give the example of a GOOD marriage, he gave the example of an adulteress wife—-a wife who married another…………..and STILL HE MAINTAINS that the bond of marriage with the first husband is in effect—-until HE dies. Only then can she LAWFULLY marry again and she WON’T be called an adulteress.

I believe Paul was using this as an analogy, and we are trying to make something else out of it.

Analogies have to “fit” in order to be understood. If Paul didn’t mean what he said in regards to the marriage bond being permanent until death—even in the face of adultery, then it is a ‘faulty’ analogy and there is some other way besides Jesus (Him being only one means of freedom from the law)…………Think about it………….Nothing said in scripture is without meaning.

I Corinthians 7:39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

This verses is used out of context and you know it. This verse relates our position in regard to the Law. But since Christ has paid the price, we are no longer in slavery to the Law. We are not bound by the Law and our atonement is not found in the Law. Therefore, you used this verse in direct opposite of its main point: our position to the Law vs. position on marriage.

This “law” pertains to the law of marriage, —-one man, one woman—for life. I hope that you are consistent in your application. If we are no longer under the “bondage” of the law of marriage, as created by God, then incestual marriages are ok too……….as are homosexual marriages—-as long as they confess Christ as their savior, right? Think about it. Does that seem to line up with not only the Word of God, but His heart?

Romans 7:2-3 liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 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.

Paul is not talking about “adultery” … His main point is about death. He is saying that if a spouse remarries while their spouse is still alive they are committing adultery. Paul is saying that if you still have a spouse and they want to stay in the marriage and have not committed adultery you should stay …. but if your spouse dies you are free to remarry.

Yes, Paul was trying to make the point that one cannot be joined with Christ if they are married to the LAW. There must be a death for a “marriage” to take place. The reason Paul used the example of marriage is that one cannot be “married” to another while their spouse is still alive. If they do so, they will be committing adultery—-unless that spouse dies. If the spouse dies, THEN they will be free to be married to another without being called an adulterer/adulteress. Paul never intimates anything other than that. Matter of fact, if he would have only been using “part” of the truth to get his readers to understand salvation through Christ, then his analogy would have been flawed. If there were OTHER ways to be saved (good works, sacrifice, etc), then they would have been confused. However, because they understood DEATH was the ONLY way to gain freedom in a marriage, they also understood that Christ was the ONLY way to gain salvation.

Nothing in Romans 7 mentions divorce. Of course she is an adulterous if she is still married to her first husband. Again you are reading something into the text that simply is not there.

So you say that “if” she divorced, then she would not be an adulteress? Jesus teaches that divorce does NOT dissolve marriage. That is why He states a person is guilty of adultery after a divorce when one marries again, or when a person marries a divorced person. If I am reading into that passage something not there, explain why Paul teaches that it is DEATH which dissolves the bond of marriage……………no mention of divorce, no mention of adultery dissolving the bond of marriage—-even though he gives the example of adultery in the passage. Why do you suppose he used that example instead of a woman who was faithful in her marriage?

It is clear that Paul was NOT trying to give us doctrinal information about divorce and remarriage in this passage, reading this into this passage is taking it completely out of the context for which it was written. In Paul’s example, he had no reason to discuss divorce, and in his example he didn’t address the subject of divorce. In this example he spoke of a married woman (not divorced) as being freed from the Law of marriage at death. I agree with Paul’s analogy!

You’re not answering my question. Why did Paul use the example of an adulterous wife when speaking of the bond of marriage being LIFELONG? You say scripture teaches us that the bond of marriage is NOT lifelong in the case of adultery……..yet, this is exactly the example Paul used. You say he is speaking of a “married” woman, not divorced. How do you know this? We do know from scripture (Jesus’ teachings), that one can be divorced and they WILL commit adultery if they join with another person other than their spouse. How can you REALLY agree with Paul’s analogy, believing that the bond of marriage is NOT permanent—in the case of adultery? Would not Paul’s analogy be flawed then, if there were another way to dissolve the bond of marriage? Wouldn’t that mean then, if the analogy were perfect, that there was another way besides Jesus to escape the penalty of the law?

Which means that I agree that Romans 7 should not be used to address the issue of divorce and remarriage. It has nothing to do with divorce.

Correct. It has to do with remarriage before a spouse has died (adultery, in other words).

We see an interesting thing here, as spoken by Paul………….he uses the example of the death of the NON-adulterous mate that will free the adulterous mate to be with another. In other words, adultery does not give right to dissolve a marriage (as is supposed by the Reformation leaders who changed church thought on that saying the adulterer was to be viewed as “dead”, thus the “innocent” one would be free to remarry). Paul teaches that it is the death of the non-adulterous mate that frees on from being called an adulteress if they are joined to another.

One thing we must not forget when trying to discount Paul was bringing in truth on marriage in Rom. 7:2-3 (believing this was a “kind” of analogy), is that he used EXACTLY the same language of marriage/law when addressing an entirely different church (I Cor. 7:39). Again, he teaches them that marriage is lifelong and only after the death of a spouse may one be free to seek another marriage.

It is clear that Paul was NOT trying to give us doctrinal information about divorce and remarriage in this passage, reading this into this passage is taking it completely out of the context for which it was written. In Paul’s example, he had no reason to discuss divorce, and in his example he didn’t address the subject of divorce. In this example he spoke of a married woman (not divorced) as being freed from the Law of marriage at death. I agree with Paul’s analogy

Why do you keep inserting “not divorced” into your responses. Paul never said that. We have scriptural evidence that even AFTER a woman divorces, she commits adultery (Mk. 10), so why do you suppose that Paul is NOT speaking of a marriage contracted after a divorce? Jesus certainly does teach that divorce does NOT dissolve the bond of marriage.

Because I understand what an analogy is, if we were to interpret the analogies in Jesus’ parables with the same method you have used here we would end up with a very distorted view of who God was. For example in the parable of the talents, do you interpret it to mean that God “reaps where he did not sow”? Is that even possible for an omnipotent, omniscient, and infinite God?

That’s a typical response for someone, in my opinion, who can’t answer the question posed to them. Paul gave a PERFECT analogy—–there is only 1 way to be “loosed” from the law and to be joined with Christ, and that ONE way is through Death. He used marriage as a PERFECT analogy of this, even using an adulterous mate to show, there is ONLY ONE WAY TO EXIT A MARRIAGE—THROUGH DEATH. In each case, only ONE way. Period.

No. It (Romans 7) has to do with the Jews relation to the Law and coming into covenant with Christ.

No, it does not have to do with JEWS, it was an epistle written to CHRISTIANS, many of them GENTILES, who did not know Jewish law. They did, however, understand the nature of lifelong marriage and that is probably why Paul used the analogy of marriage.

Incorrect. The Scripture says this, Romans 7:1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?

Concerning the issue of remarriage while a spouse is living, was Paul speaking to Jews in I Cor. 7:39—-as he used the SAME LANGUAGE to them (law of marriage)?

Because Paul never said that she was divorced, the assumption should be made that he was using the example of a married women unless he tells us otherwise, and he did not. The question is why do you keep inserting “divorced” into a passage that never spoke of divorce?

So instead what you are saying is that she is committing polygamy? The issue remains that Paul never says the word divorce in I Cor. 7:15, yet you maintain that the abandoned one can remarry.

The context of that passage is that a woman marries another man while her husband is alive. The context of the passage is that she is not free UNTIL HE DIES. You are right in that there is no talk of divorce by Paul. He only speaks of DEATH as dissolving a marriage, thereby allowing a woman to marry another man.

Not (committing polygamy) unless someone formally married her, otherwise it would be adultery. Either way this is still pushing Paul’s analogy beyond its intended purpose, and is poor hermeneutics.

I think your hermeneutics are severely flawed in regards to this passage. It is clear that Paul is speaking about her marrying another man…….in the first part of verse three and in the second part of verse 3.

The context of this passage (I Corinthians 7:15) was specifically addressing a case of abandonment in a marriage, by the way the passage in Duet. 24 does not use the WORD divorce in it ether, but no one questions what was meant in that passage.

yes, it was addressing abandonment, not remarriage, yet this is what you are saying Paul was giving allowance for. That is what is called “inferred” and that is a dangerous thing to do with God’s Word, especially when we have already had a word on a believer leaving a spouse(I Cor. 7:10-11).

In our discussion concerning Romans 7, we both agreed the passage was not dealing with divorce at all. Remarriage after divorce was a non-issue. In the same way, this passage in 1 Corinthians 7 is not addressing the believer who has remarried after divorce.

I don’t know how I missed this statement, but it is very presumptuous. I don’t think I or any who believe in lifelong marriage ever stated that the woman Paul is speaking about wasn’t divorced. It is clear to me that Paul was not labeling her as a bigamist, but a woman who is divorced and marries another man while her husband is alive—-an adulteress. That is the same sin Jesus spoke of AFTER a divorce when a new marriage was entered into, so Paul is not speaking of anything different.

You must look at Romans 7 and 8 together in context, in its entirety, not just verse 2!! First, the author tells you he is speaking to those who know the law. So he starts out quoting what they are familiar with–the law!! This is not for us to take out of context and say “God says you are bound to your spouse as long as he/she lives”!! That verse is not saying that. It is simply quoting the law as the people believed was enough to save them and to please God. BUT this author, like Jesus, tells these law-minded men that the law is not enough!! It existed to make you aware that you can’t please God without JESUS being the law’s fulfillment.

Let me say that I do not base what I believe on the permanency of marriages God joined together based on Rom. 7:2-3 alone. There are plenty of other passages that show the same thing—that show any other relationship entered into before the death of one’s lawful spouse, is adultery (because God has not separated what HE joined together—He does that through death).

As for your statement on the “law” and those who know the law, Paul used the same exact wording when speaking of the “law” of marriage in I Cor. 7—directed to Christians, not those trying to live under OT law/ordinances. Again, while speaking to Christians, he reinforced the teaching that marriage is for life and once a spouse passes away, the one who is left is free to marry again.

Now why did the author use the law of marriage to make his bigger point that we Believers are under no condemnation?? Because this is one law that they felt most bound to. And even keeping that one was not enough — only Jesus fulfilling all the law for us could ever be enough to please God. Through Jesus, God has now released us from the law of sin and death….the law that put us all under judgement and hell fire.

Why did Paul use the example of an adulterous married woman and the permanent nature of the bond of marriage until death? I believe because it is the perfect analogy. There is only one way to be joined to Christ—death of the law. One cannot be joined to the law AND Jesus. One can only be joined to Christ when they have been freed from the law of sin and death. One can only be freed to marry another when the “lawful spouse has died. Perfect analogy………..perfect because Paul even uses the example of an adulterous woman and STILL says DEATH alone frees.

You’ve got to see the whole context of Romans 7 and 8 to see that being anti-remarriage is no longer an issue. By preaching anti-remarriage to those of us who are not bound, you are putting us in a bondage that God sent Jesus to free us from.

Jesus came to set us free from the bondage of SIN, not to dissolve the marriages that HE joined together. People seem to forget that when God joins two together as One, He ALREADY KNOWS EVERY SIN THEY WILL COMMIT IN THE MARRIAGE. We seem to think God has this, “oh, and by the way, if someone commits adultery (and gets caught), the one who finds out can leave the marriage lawfully in my sight. Do you honestly think because a person commits adultery (and remember how Jesus defined adultery), that He gave a ticket to divorce and remarry? Is that the “freedom” you believe Jesus bought for us?

I find it interesting that of all the laws God could have chosen to mention in chapters about spiritual freedom in Christ, he chose the marriage law, and even from that Christ can release us!!

Yes, and He speaks how He releases us from marriage—by death, the death of a SPOUSE(not Jesus’ death). I find it interesting in Luke 16:15-18 that the Lord, when speaking about how sinful man justifies himself, tells how it was up until John, then a change—–NOW men are pressing into the kingdom—–then He goes on to tell about marriage—when one puts away their spouse and marries another, they commit adultery. How a person commits adultery if they marry a divorced person.

Concerning Romans 7, Actually, that is the Law of the Law, which is likened unto a marriage covenant….

But it is not addressing God’s breaking of the covenant (as He couldn’t/wouldn’t) Not the same thing.

Actually the law of MARRIAGE is spoken about again in I Corinthians 7:39—the creation law of marriage which states that a woman is bound to her husband until death.

“Law of marriage”… is not in the original texts, what is written is “the law of the husband” … to the best of my knowledge??

The law had authority over man even before they married, so I was wondering what that has to do with the word “marriage”, ??….I am not sure,

NIV: 2For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage

NASB: 2For (A)the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. New Living: 2 For example, when a woman marries, the law binds her to her husband as long as he is alive. But if he dies, the laws of marriage no longer apply to her.

KJV: 2For 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.

ESV: 2For(A) a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.

ASV: 2 For the woman that hath a husband is bound by law to the husband while he liveth; but if the husband die, she is discharged from the law of the husband.

Young’s: 2for the married woman to the living husband hath been bound by law, and if the husband may die, she hath been free from the law of the husband;

Wycliff: 2 For that woman that is under an husband, is bound to the law, while the husband liveth; but if her husband is dead, she is delivered from the law of the husband [soothly if her husband be dead, she is delivered, or unbound, from the law of the husband].

Worldwide English: 2A married woman belongs to her husband by law as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free from the law that made her belong to her husband.

As you can see, the wordage differs from translation to translation, but I believe the same sentiment is there with all……….the “law” spoken of there pertains to marriage as God created it and it’s binding nature and is compared to THE LAW of sin and death that we must be loosed from in order to be joined to Christ. It is an absolutely PERFECT analogy that Paul gave the Roman Church. The people understood because they understood the nature of marriage/covenant. The reason most don’t understand today is that they do not take the entering into a covenant seriously and believe one can come and go at will—-with God’s blessings, yet that is very far from the truth we find throughout God’s Word on the seriousness of covenant/vow.

It looks like you intend to ignore the fact stated in Romans 7 verse 4 (That Jesus married Israel, God divorced wife) so you can defend the doctrine that Paul puts into the category of “doctrines of devils” (1 Tim. 4:1-3). This utterly destroys not only the “no divorce” theory but also destroys the theory that on those who initiate the divorce for adultery may marry. I guess we are done here unless you decide to honestly address this.

Verse 4 is speaking about us being joined TO CHRIST, not to another human spouse. The topic is Still DEATH, not divorce. Paul clearly addresses this AGAIN in I Cor. 7:39 speaking about the EXACT same law—the law of marriage and that a woman was BOUND to her husband until his death. Only THEN is she free to marry another man (same thing he spoke to the Roman Church in Rom. 7). Same thing JESUS spoke in Mt. 19:9, Lk 16:18—that a woman would commit adultery (as would the man who married her) AFTER she was divorced. Divorce does NOT dissolve the ONE FLESH God joined together that Jesus said is, “NO LONGER TWO, but one flesh”.

I agree that Paul is using an analogy to show that we are free from the law

If we use analogies, they need to FIT the point we are trying to make. We can only be joined to Christ when we are FREED from the Law. We can’t be joined to both of them. In the same way, a woman cannot be joined to another man unless she is FREE.....and Paul said that occurs with DEATH.....THEN she can marry and NOT be called an adulteress.

Romans is speaking of old testament law. Of course it would be adultery for a woman in the old testament to take another husband because in the old testamen women could not divorce. She would only be free if he divorced her under old law.

Jesus spoke of women Mk 10, so he was addressing BOTH sexes divorcing and then remarrying (committing adultery). As a matter of fact, Herodias divorced her husband, Philip and it was quite scandalous......(Josephus, 1st century Jewish historian). Paul’s use of “law” in Rom. 7:2-3 is the same wording he used when teaching the Church of Corinth about marriage. Paul is dealing with CHRISTIANS, not unsaved Jews under the “law” of Moses.

Now Paul was speaking to those who knew the law, he was not speaking to those who claimed to know what Jesus said. He didn't pick a new testament teaching and compare it with an old testament teaching. He is only speaking of old testment law.

These were Roman CHRISTIANS. The Church at Corinth were also Gentile CHRISTIANS and he used the very same language with them (the law) regarding marriage. What “law” would Paul be speaking about to CHRISTIANS in regards to marriage? Could it possibly be the LAW of MARRIAGE which God set up at creation—-the same “law” Jesus took the Pharisees back to when they asked Him? The same “law” that He spoke to His disciples about IN PRIVATE?

In Corinthians he does say what the Lord says...10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord)....12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord)

If Paul is speaking as an Apostle, he IS speaking for the Lord via the Holy Spirit, no? He said, “not I but the Lord” because the Lord already discussed marriage in the Gospels and touched on the “what ifs” if one DID divorce their spouse, the condition they would be in if they married another (adultery). Jesus never addressed believer/unbeliever. He gave the same standard for ALL. In the Church, there was confusion about unbeliever/ NEW believer marriages (and believers being forsaken for their new found faith). Paul was clarifying. No where did he then give permission to marry another person before one’s spouse died.

In this verse, 16 For how do you know, wife, kwhether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? This is referring to the leaving believer. You make this verse also apply to to the deserted believer when Paul does not. John never talks about remarriage to Herod. Paul does not say in Romans that he is speaking of the moral he is speaking of OT law. You place your views into this. It is dangerous to put this kind of bondage on people.

But Paul DOESN’T say such a spouse is free to marry another person, does he? Paul does end his teaching on marriage with: I Cor. 7:39.....a woman is bound by law to her husband until death.

Ok, so you are saying that Paul is teaching CHRISTIANS the MOSAIC law—-both in Rome and Corinth? Hmm, I do not believe so, B. One’s audience will determine the context. A CHRISTIAN does not teach other CHRISTIANS to abide by the MOSAIC law. We are not under Mosiac Law. What Jesus taught in Mt. 19, Mark 10 and Luke 16 was NOT the Mosaic law. There was no such thing as adultery committed AFTER a divorce in Mosaic law. This was a shocking thing to His disciples. They knew the 2 dominant views of the day: you can divorce for ANY cause......and you can divorce for adultery/sexual uncleanness......AND get remarried. Remarriage after divorce was never spoken of in the OLD covenant as ‘adultery’, as Jesus was now teaching.

As for Romans, Paul used MARRIAGE as the perfect analogy. Only one way to be free from a marriage and marry again: Death. Works the same way with our relationship with Jesus. One way to be with Jesus. It was the PERFECT analogy and one that made sense to them because they knew the teachings of Christ on marriage.

As for what is dangerous: it is dangerous to present a FREEDOM to someone when it, in fact, is BONDAGE to sin and takes them away from Jesus, not closer to Him. Paul warns in II Thess 2 that those who do not believe truth, but have pleasure in unrighteousness, will suffer deception/delusion/damnation. Adultery is unrighteousness.....and is something that should not be played with, emotionally, physically, etc.