Romans 7:3

So then if, while the husband liveth, she be joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if the husband die, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be joined to another man.

'Joined to another man' -'She be married' (KJV). Clearly divorce in inferred in Paul's example. Paul isn't talking about. woman that is having an affair, but rather. woman that divorces her husband (without Scriptural cause- Matthew 19:9) and marries another. The second use of the word 'joined' demands that it means 'marry'. The person that argues that 'joined' in the first part of the verse means 'have an affair/unlawful sexual relations with', would have Paul saying in the second part of the verse, 'but if the husband die...she is no adulteress, though she be having unlawful sex with another man.' She may not be an adulteress, but she is. FORNICATOR! Certainly Paul is not advocating fornication or making it less sinful than adultery.

'Called an adulteress' -what 'law' would make such. 'call'? (Matthew 19:8; Matthew 5:32; Mark 10:11). For how long is she 'called' an adulteress? The inference is that she is an adulteress as long as she remains with the second husband. The same is true with any other sin, i.e. one is. fornicator as long as they remain the relationship. (1 Corinthians 6:9; Colossians 3:5)

'but if her the husband die' -I don't think that Paul is dealing with the "adulteress". If that were the case under consideration then Paul should of said, 'she is no longer an adulteress'.. think Paul is simply dealing with the case of. widow.. woman that marries again, that isn't an adulteress, why? Because her first husband is dead.

SOME SIDE ISSUES BEFORE WE MOVE ON:

Since these verses have become. focal point in the Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage Issue,. would like to take the time to respond to some views expressed concerning these verses.

1. 'The passage in Romans 7:1. is dealing with the law of Moses and not marriage...To apply this to the marriage as Jesus spoke about it is erroneous..We need to realize that Paul is not even talking about marriage in the Gospel age..it is not. discussion of divorce and remarriage..to apply this to the marriage relationship in the Gospel Age is erroneous.'

'Appealing to Romans 7:1 in an effort to establish an adulterous relationship of. married couple today is. misuse of Paul's illustration.'

'It may surprise many students of the Bible to learn that there are those who do not believe this passage has any bearing or relevance to. study of God's marriage law. They contend that the teaching here concerning marriage is only used as an illustration to show freedom from the law of Moses, and that it is an abuse of the passage to use it to teach about marriage.'

In response:

A. First of all, what is untrue about Paul's illustration? What point in Romans 7:2 is erroneous?

Do men and woman have the right to marry? (Romans 7:2) Yes- 1 Corinthians 7:2. Do widows have the right to remarry? (Romans 7:2) Yes- 1 Corinthians 7:39. Does an unlawful divorce and remarriage result in adultery? (Romans 7:3) Yes- Matthew 5:32 /Romans 19:9. Can. married couple be guilty of adultery? (Romans 7:3) Yes- Matthew 5:32. Can one be bound to one man and married to another? (Romans 7:3) Yes- 1 Corinthians 7:11; Matthew 19:9 (that's why the second marriage involves adultery!) What point in Paul's illustration contradicts other verses that deal with such issues?

If Romans 7:2 isn't dealing with God's marriage law during the Gospel Age, then why does it agree with God's marriage law during the Gospel Age?

B. If using something as an illustration negates it's truthfulness, then we had better stop using Ephesians 5:22. in teaching husbands and wives how to properly treat each other. Because LIKEWISE in these verses, Paul was only using the marriage relationship AS AN ILLUSTRATION. (Ephesians 5:32)

2. 'He shows that Christ's law in Romans 7:2 and Matthew 19:9 is for two believers '

A.. find. major problem in trying to exclude the non-Christian from Jesus'(and Paul's) teaching about marriage.

(1) Then the Sermon on the Mount is only directed to Christians (because it contains teaching on marriage, divorce, remarriage that agrees with what Paul said in Romans 7:2; Matthew 5:32). Is so then the non-Christian doesn't commit sin when he lusts upon. woman (Romans 5:28), when he hates (Romans 5:22), when he lies (Romans 5:33), when he violates the law of love (Romans 5:44ff), when he worships God hypocritically (Romans 6:1-18), when he prays using vain repetitions (Romans 6:7), when he tries to serve two masters (Romans 6:24), when he doesn't trust God (Romans 6:25-32), when he doesn't seek first the kingdom (Romans 6:33), when he acts hypocritically in judging (Romans 7:1-5)

In saying that two people in. marriage cannot commit adultery, we are playing into the hands of the world. This was the 'standard' of righteousness' that the world (Matthew 5:46) and the Pharisees and Scribes (Romans 5:20) had come up with. Most could see that an 'affair was adultery'. But take the same man, first have him go through the proper 'legal channels' to get rid of his first wife (Romans 5:31), and then have him marry the woman he wants, and all of. sudden the world and the nominal church is fooled. But God isn't. Jesus called such 'adultery'. Going through the proper legal channels may 'sanitize' it in the eyes of some, but not in God's eyes. (Romans 5:32) After all, there is no difference between the man who cheats on his wife, and the man who divorces her, so he can 'legally' cheat on her.

(2) If the non-Christian isn't under Matthew 19:9. then how can he be under: (a) The exception-what Scripture do preachers show to non-Christians or former non-Christians (people who divorced their mates for fornication while outside of Christ and remarried), that their current marriage is scriptural? Matthew 19:9. If the non-Christian isn't under Matthew 19:9. then they don't have the right to divorce their mates for fornication, if as some claim this legislation is ONLY FOR CHRISTIANS. (b) But neither could they be under Matthew 19:4. If the non-Christian isn't under God's marriage law, then what right to do have to get married?

In his book previously cited, Homer Hailey argues:"Where in the Old Testament is there an appeal to Genesis 2:1 establishing. rule concerning marriage-divorce-remarriage addressed to those out of covenant relationship with God. (p. 41)...Therefore, any principle laid down in Genesis 2:1. when man was in fellowship with God, before sin broke the fellowship, is now restored to those in fellowship with God through the blood of his covenant (p. 42)...So, the passage (Genesis 2:24) can apply only to those in fellowship with God under Christ's covenant" (p. 43)

The problem is, when we start removing the non-Christian from God's rules about divorce, adultery, remarriage, we must also remove them from God's rules concerning MARRIAGE! If ANY PRINCIPLE laid down in Genesis 2:1 isn't restored until one enters into Christ, then all non-Christians don't have the right to the marriage relationship (a principle laid down in Genesis 2:1). Then all non-Christian marriages are sinful! The truth is, even in the book of Genesis, after sin entered in, we find sinners who are accountable to God's laws concerning marriage. (Genesis 20:3 -Note Abimelech wasn't planning on having an affair with Sarah, he was just planning on marrying her! (legally!) And yet God called such, 'sin'-a sin for Abimelech! Genesis 39:9; Leviticus 18:20; Leviticus 18:24 -God held non-Jewish nations accountable for adultery. 1 Corinthians 6:9.)

3. 'Let us be reminded, however, that Webster defines adultery as, "voluntary sexual intercourse between. married man and someone other than his wife or between. married woman and someone other than her husband"....even if one adamantly insists that adultery is always. sexual act, it is apparent that Webster's definition, and those of the various Greek lexicons one may wish to consult, do not apply to people married to each other. It is. fact therefore that the expression "adulterous marriage" is simply. contradiction in terms.'

The problem with this view: Webster and the Lexicons only cite one type of adultery, i.e. the affair the married person is having. But unfortunately, like most of the world, people forget about the other kind of adultery that doesn't fool God. The man or woman that unscripturally divorces their mate (Romans 7:3; Matthew 19:9 /Romans 5:32) and marries another (Romans 7:3; Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9) Both Jesus and Paul call that situation "adultery" also (Romans 7:3; Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9). In fact, to claim that. married couple cannot commit adultery with each other is to contradict what Jesus plainly said. 'and whoever MARRIES. divorced woman COMMITS ADULTERY' (Matthew 5:32). Paul agrees, 'She is joined/married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress' (Romans 7:3). BRETHREN, WHO IS THIS WOMAN COMMITTING ADULTERY "WITH"?