‘For the woman who has a husband is bound by law to the husband while he lives, but if the husband die, she is discharged from the law of the husband. So then if, while the husband lives, she be joined to another man, she will 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.'
He now gives an illustration of the dominion of the Law and of how someone can be delivered from the Law through a death, in an illustration clearly based on Jewish Law. ‘A woman who has a husband is bound by law to the husband while he lives, but if the husband die, she is discharged from the law of the husband.' Whilst both are alive both are under the dominion of that Law. On the other hand if the man dies then the dominion of the Law over them on that point is broken. The woman is free from that particular aspect of the Law, and is free to marry again. She is ‘discharged from the Law of her husband'. And the same applies vice versa. A death provides freedom from the Law, indeed from all law.
Note. Suggested Application' Of The Analogy/Allegory In 7:2-3.
It will have been noted that one of the problems that we have in regard to the application of the illustration in Romans 7:2-3 is that Paul keeps switching from the death of Christ Himself, to the death of His people in Him. Who then does he see as having died? His answer, of course, is ‘both'. Thus in Romans 7:4 ‘the body of Christ' points to Christ's violent death, which is followed by mention of His resurrection, whilst it is Christians who, through His death, have been made ‘dead to the Law'. That this latter signifies their death is made plain in Romans 7:6, ‘we -- having died to that in which we were held'. But that does not obviously tie in with seeing Romans 7:2-3 as an allegory, for in the supposed allegory the woman does not die.
This has caused scholars to seek for other interpretations. But if these interpretations were correct we would have to ask, why then did Paul not make it clearer? Some suggested possibilities are as follows:
· One suggestion is that the first husband is our ‘old man', which has died with Christ, whilst the second husband is the risen Christ, with the wife being our ‘whole self'. But if this was in Paul's mind why does he not mention ‘the old man' and make it clear? Nor does this explain why the whole self has died (Romans 7:4), contrary to the allegory.
· Another parallel suggestion is that the husband who dies is our sinful nature, whereas the woman is our soul, this again then becoming conjoined with the risen Christ. But similar problems ensue as in the suggestion above.
· A third suggestion is that the first husband is ‘the Law' with the second husband being Christ. But it is the woman who dies to the Law through the body of Christ (Romans 7:4), not the Law which dies to the wife. Thus the explanation would be contrary to the ‘allegory'.
· A fourth suggestion is that the first husband was Jesus while on earth, whilst the second was the risen Christ. Here certainly the ‘first husband' dies, and ‘the second' is married to the woman. But once more we have problems with the application.
The real truth is that having the woman die in the application while she does not die in Romans 7:2-3 really cancels out the idea of a full-scale allegory. That being so Romans 7:2-3 are therefore best seen as simply providing an illustration of the fact that death releases someone from being ‘under the Law', a death which results in our case from our dying with Christ, with a further partial application then being found in the idea of remarriage.
End of note.