Ellicott's commentary on Romans 7:1-3

[Wheat Field]

Ellicott's commentary states that the marriage bond: 'is dissolved by the death of one of the parties to it.'

This is important because Paul explicitly defines adultery (whilst using the case of the woman in a marriage) in verse 3:
'So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress.'

The commentary means Paul could have equally cited the case of the man:
'So then, if he has sexual relations with another woman while his wife is still alive, he is called an adulterer.'

Do members agree?

 

[GodsGrace]

Ellicott's commentary states that the marriage bond: 'is dissolved by the death of one of the parties to it.'

This is important because Paul explicitly defines adultery (whilst using the case of the woman in a marriage) in verse 3:
'So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress.'

The commentary means Paul could have equally cited the case of the man:
'So then, if he has sexual relations with another woman while his wife is still alive, he is called an adulterer.'

Do members agree?

Hi Wheatfield
Welcome back.

Yes, I agree.
Whatever command that can be common to both male and female, certainly is. I can't think of any offhand that would not apply.

 

[Wheat Field]

Hi Wheatfield
Welcome back.

Yes, I agree.
Whatever command that can be common to both male and female, certainly is. I can't think of any offhand that would not apply.

Thanks wondering

Such an interpretation (as you have agreed with) is problematic I think. When one compares the OT with the NT on this issue there does seem to be a conflict - and I do find it rather troubling. For example:

2 Samuel 5:13
After he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him.

1 Kings 5:15
For David had done what was right in the eyes of the LORD and had not failed to keep any of the LORD’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.
(my emphasis)

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts,
(my emphasis)

If we say that Romans 7:1-3 applies to both women and men, then David was an adulterer when he consummated his second marriage.

 

[Wheat Field]

EDIT: Should be 1 Kings 15:5

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Do members agree?

I don't agree.
Paul starts off by saying he is speaking to those who know the law:

1Do you not know, brothers (for I am speaking to those who know the law)... Romans 7:1

And so they know that the law does not prohibit a man from having more than one wife:

10If he takes another wife... Exodus 21:10

15If a man has two wives... Deuteronomy 21:15

So, in Paul's illustration using the law of marriage, the man who joins himself to another woman is not considered to have committed adultery. From the standpoint of the law, the illustration only applies to a wife who joins herself to another man. Which is more appropriate anyway, since the believer is the one that fulfills the role of a wife in the relationship between Jesus and the believer. Jesus, the husband, is joined to many 'wives', while the believer, the 'wife', is only bound to one husband, Jesus.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

When one compares the OT with the NT on this issue there does seem to be a conflict - and I do find it rather troubling. For example:

2 Samuel 5:13
After he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him.

1 Kings 5:15
For David had done what was right in the eyes of the LORD and had not failed to keep any of the LORD’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.
(my emphasis)

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts,
(my emphasis)

If we say that Romans 7:1-3 applies to both women and men, then David was an adulterer when he consummated his second marriage.

It need not trouble you.
Jesus explains how divorce and multiple wives was a Rabbinical concession that Moses made to men under the law because of the hardness of their hearts (the Holy Spirit not being given to the common man during that time):

7“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses order a man to give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?c”

8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives (and remarry) because of your hardness of heart; but it was not this way from the beginning. 9Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery.” Matthew 19:7-9

Head Rabbi, Jesus, reverses Moses decision in accordance with the real truth about the matter and the fact that hardness of heart is no longer an issue in the time of the New Covenant in which the Spirit is given to all men.

 

[GodsGrace]

Thanks wondering

Such an interpretation (as you have agreed with) is problematic I think. When one compares the OT with the NT on this issue there does seem to be a conflict - and I do find it rather troubling. For example:

2 Samuel 5:13
After he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him.

1 Kings 5:15
For David had done what was right in the eyes of the LORD and had not failed to keep any of the LORD’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.
(my emphasis)

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts,
(my emphasis)

If we say that Romans 7:1-3 applies to both women and men, then David was an adulterer when he consummated his second marriage.

Why would you want to compare the OT with the NT?
The OT was written 4,000 years ago and the NT 2,000 years ago.

I believe God reveals Himself to man as man can understand Him.
To begin with, God stopped human sacrifices and the persons to whom He revealed Himself sacrificed animals instead.
No sacrifice at all might have been unthinkable at that time and in that place.

Abraham had a child with another woman and his wife was in agreement.
Would that be done today?

David....you think ANYONE could really go their whole lives and not break one commandment?
It was a way of saying how good David was in the eyes of God.
David was an adulterer. He repented.

Call me a blasphemer, call me a herertic, I've learned after many years that not all of the bible could be taken literally.
I see these debaters trying to make sense of the OT...it can only make sense for those living at that time and in that place. In fact hermeneutics demands that these be taken into account - by place I also mean the culture of the moment.

What do you think of all this?

 

[GodsGrace]

It need not trouble you.
Jesus explains how divorce and multiple wives was a Rabbinical concession that Moses made to men under the law because of the hardness of their hearts (the Holy Spirit not being given to the common man during that time):

7“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses order a man to give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?c”

8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives (and remarry) because of your hardness of heart; but it was not this way from the beginning. 9Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery.” Matthew 19:7-9

Head Rabbi, Jesus, reverses Moses decision in accordance with the real truth about the matter and the fact that hardness of heart is no longer an issue in the time of the New Covenant in which the Spirit is given to all men.

Agreed 100% with the above.

I think @Wheatfield is having trouble synchronizing the OT and the NT.
I don't believe this could be done.

Jesus brought with Him the New and Everlasting Covenant.
All of the Law is dead to us except for the Moral Law.
The Civil Law (which you cite above) and the Ceremonial Law have been abolished.

 

[Wheat Field]

I don't agree.
Paul starts off by saying he is speaking to those who know the law:

1Do you not know, brothers (for I am speaking to those who know the law)... Romans 7:1

And so they know that the law does not prohibit a man from having more than one wife:

10If he takes another wife... Exodus 21:10

15If a man has two wives... Deuteronomy 21:15

So, in Paul's illustration using the law of marriage, the man who joins himself to another woman is not considered to have committed adultery. From the standpoint of the law, the illustration only applies to a wife who joins herself to another man. Which is more appropriate anyway, since the believer is the one that fulfills the role of a wife in the relationship between Jesus and the believer. Jesus, the husband, is joined to many 'wives', while the believer, the 'wife', is only bound to one husband, Jesus.

Thanks.

Yes, the bible law does address the case of a man having more than one wife and as you say in your following post, it was not ideal (a 'concession'). I do find it extremely perplexing that such a seeming anomaly isn't explicitly addressed in scripture. Skeptics have and do use this to their advantage I feel.

It need not trouble you.
Jesus explains how divorce and multiple wives was a Rabbinical concession that Moses made to men under the law because of the hardness of their hearts (the Holy Spirit not being given to the common man during that time):

7“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses order a man to give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?c”

8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives (and remarry) because of your hardness of heart; but it was not this way from the beginning. 9Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery.” Matthew 19:7-9

Head Rabbi, Jesus, reverses Moses decision in accordance with the real truth about the matter and the fact that hardness of heart is no longer an issue in the time of the New Covenant in which the Spirit is given to all men.

It continues to trouble me.

As I understand it, there were two main schools of thought - Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel where the former would uphold a stricter interpretation of what constituted legal divorce.

For me, verse 9 reinforces the proscription of polygamy; the woman who is divorced for reasons other than infidelity is still considered by Jesus to be married to her husband - and so therefore, the husband commits adultery when he marries again (and becomes a bigamist / polygamist).

Also we have Matthew 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

This does not sit well with 'allowing' polygyny.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Yes, the bible law does address the case of a man having more than one wife and as you say in your following post, it was not ideal (a 'concession'). I do find it extremely perplexing that such a seeming anomaly isn't explicitly addressed in scripture.

Are you perplexed that the concession was made in the first place, or that Jesus reversed the concession?

I feel that Jesus did address it explicitly for us. You can only be married once, unless your spouse dies, because divorce and adultery don't end a marriage. Paul affirms this in Romans 7:11.

 

[Wheat Field]

Why would you want to compare the OT with the NT?
The OT was written 4,000 years ago and the NT 2,000 years ago.

Jesus constantly referred back to the OT. I'm not clear what you are saying.

I believe God reveals Himself to man as man can understand Him.
To begin with, God stopped human sacrifices and the persons to whom He revealed Himself sacrificed animals instead.
No sacrifice at all might have been unthinkable at that time and in that place.

Abraham had a child with another woman and his wife was in agreement.
Would that be done today?

David....you think ANYONE could really go their whole lives and not break one commandment?
It was a way of saying how good David was in the eyes of God.
David was an adulterer. He repented.

Call me a blasphemer, call me a herertic, I've learned after many years that not all of the bible could be taken literally.
I see these debaters trying to make sense of the OT...it can only make sense for those living at that time and in that place. In fact hermeneutics demands that these be taken into account - by place I also mean the culture of the moment.

What do you think of all this?

David's adultery wasn't for his many wives and concubines, but for Bathsheba. As far as I am aware, a concubine isn't a wife and serves a man sexually. David was not explicitly reprimanded for this.

Interesting that you speak about not taking the bible literally. It's something that I have been thinking about recently - especially after finding out the Jordan Peterson does so too. Also, Theodosius Dobzhansky, a pillar, if not the pillar of the new synthesis (ie Neo-Darwinism) was a practising Christian. Clearly, for him, Genesis was not to be taken literally. (I also think that is problematic).

 

[Wheat Field]

Are you perplexed that the concession was made in the first place, or that Jesus reversed the concession?

I feel that Jesus did address it explicitly for us. You can only be married once, unless your spouse dies, because divorce and adultery don't end a marriage. Paul affirms this in Romans 7:11.

Why did God single out polygamy for concession? Polygamy is adultery even if we allow for a particular interpretation of Romans 7:1-3.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Why did God single out polygamy for concession? Polygamy is adultery even if we allow for a particular interpretation of Romans 7:1-3.

Sorry!

I meant 1 Corinthians 7:11. :blush

The point being, divorce does not end a marriage. Which is why a divorced woman is to remain unmarried. And the fact that a divorced woman and her new husband are in adultery shows that not even adultery ends a marriage. Of course, divorce and adultery end the practical aspect of a marriage, but those do not end a marriage in the eyes of God.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Why did God single out polygamy for concession?

Technically, Moses did, not God. And he did it as a concession to hard hearted men, incapable of having spiritually tender and sensitive hearts in regard to their wives failures, because of the absence of the Spirit in the common man during the time of the law.

 

[Wheat Field]

Technically, Moses did, not God. And he did it as a concession to hard hearted men, incapable of having spiritually tender and sensitive hearts in regard to their wives failures, because of the absence of the Spirit in the common man during the time of the law.

If God allowed Moses to grant men concessions in this respect, why would David be described as doing what was right in the eyes of God (with one exception)? Why not explicitly reference the concession?

David had concubines. You don't think this looks awkward?

2 Samuel 12:7-8
Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If God allowed Moses to grant men concessions in this respect, why would David be described as doing what was right in the eyes of God (with one exception)? Why not explicitly reference the concession?

She was married.

Afterward he did marry her.

 

[Wheat Field]

She was married.

Afterward he did marry her.

Dr. Peter Gentry seems to reflect your position: "Why did God allow polygamy in the Bible?"

He points out that though OT figures were cited as great men of faith, they are never held up as figures or morality.

 

[Wheat Field]

She was married.

Afterward he did marry her.

It's been a while since posting on this thread - and I hazard to resurrect it - but the issue still troubles me. At the very least, someone who might otherwise follow Christ surely has some basis for skepticism? David is described by God as having done nothing wrong except for Uriah and yet we know he have multiple wives and concubines. All it would have taken was a verse or two to explicitly state that polygamy was tolerated but was wrong and was still adultery - which it clearly is.

I can understand that people (including myself) are sinful, so unless God made some compromise, then there would be no relationship with man at all - but why not make this transparent?