Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 7:3
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.
3. she shall be called ] The Gr. verb indicates a deliberate “calling;” the winning of a title. Same word as Act 11:26.
that law ] Lit. the law; i.e. of her husband.
married ] Lit., in this ver. and 4, the verb is merely be, or become: if she be [joined] to another husband lawfully or not.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
So then if … – compare Mat 5:32.
She shall be called – She will be. The word used here chrematisei is often used to denote being called by an oracle or by divine revelation. But it is here employed in the simple sense of being commonly called, or of being so regarded.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 3. So then, if, while her husband liveth] The object of the apostle’s similitude is to show that each party is equally bound to the other; but that the death of either dissolves the engagement.
So – she is no adulteress, though she be married to another] And do not imagine that this change would argue any disloyalty in you to your Maker; for, as he has determined that this law of ordinances shall cease, you are no more bound to it than a woman is to a deceased husband, and are as free to receive the Gospel of Christ as a woman in such circumstances would be to remarry.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Ye also are become dead to the law; i.e. ye are taken off from all hopes of justification by it, and from your confidence in obedience to it, Gal 2:19. The opposition seems to require that he should have said, the law is dead to us; but these two phrases are much the same.
Question. What law does he mean?
Answer. Not only the ceremonial, but the moral law, for in that he instances, Rom 7:7. The moral law is in force still; Christ came to confirm, and not to destroy it; but believers are freed from the malediction, from the rigid exaction, and from the irritation thereof. Of this last he speaks, Rom 7:8,9, and from it we are freed but in part.
By the body of Christ; i.e. by the sacrifice of Christs body upon the cross; thereby he delivered us from the law, in the sense before mentioned.
Fruit unto God; i.e. fruits of holiness and good works, to the glory and praise of God.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
3. she be married“joined.”So Ro 7:4.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
So then if while her husband liveth,…. True indeed it is, that whilst her husband is alive, if
she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; she will be noted and accounted of as such everybody, except in the above mentioned cases:
but if her husband be dead; then there can be no exception to her marriage:
she is free from the law; of marriage, by which she was before bound:
so that she is no adulteress; nor will any reckon her such; she is clear from any such imputation:
though she be married to another man; hence it appears that second marriages are lawful.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
While the husband liveth ( ). Genitive absolute of present active participle of .
She shall be called (). Future active indicative of , old verb, to receive a name as in Ac 11:26, from , business, from , to use, then to give an oracle, etc.
An adulteress (). Late word, in Plutarch, LXX. See on Mt 12:39.
If she be joined ( ). Third class condition, “if she come to.”
So that she is no adulteress ( ). It is a fact that and the infinitive is used for result as we saw in 1:24. Conceived result may explain the idiom here.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
She shall be called [] . See on Act 11:26.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “So then if, while her husband liveth,” (ara oun zontos tou andros) “Therefore, while the husband lives,” to whom she has been married; 1Co 7:10, “Let not the wife depart from her husband if she depart, let her remain unmarried or let her be reconciled to her husband.” 1Co 7:11.
2) “She be married to another man,” (ean genetai andri hetero) “if she become married to another (a different) man,” Luk 16:18.
3) “She shall be called an adulteress,” (moichalis chrematisei) “She shall be called an adulteress,” or publicly referred to as an adulteress, Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9.
4) “But if her husband be dead,” (ean de apothane ho aner) “But if the husband (her husband) dies.”
5) “She is free from that law,” (eleuthera estin apo tou nomou) “She is free (released) from the law;” 1Co 7:39.
6) “So that she is no adulteress,” (tou me einai auten moichalida) “So that she is not (exist not as) an adulteress;” but is free, released from life-marital bonds, Rom 7:2.
7) “Though she be married to another man,” (genomenen andri hetero) “When she has become married to another (a different) husband,” or a new husband, 2Co 6:14.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Rom 7:3. Ifshe be married to another man Ifshe become the property of another; or become another man’s. The Apostle here speaks in the general, not entering exactly into every excepted case which might be imagined. To infer therefore, contrary to our Lord’s express decision elsewhere, that adultery is not a sufficient foundation for divorce, seems very unreasonable.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Rom 7:3 . ] See on Rom 5:18 .
] she shall (formally) bear the name . See Act 11:26 ; Plut. Mor. 148 D; Polyb. v. 27, 2, 5, xxx. 2, 4. The future corresponds to the following: ] if she shall have become joined to another husband (as wife). Comp Deu 24:2 ; Rth 1:12 ; Jdg 14:20 ; Eze 16:8 ; Eze 23:4 . It is not a Hebraism; see Kypke, II. p. 170; Khner, II. 1, p. 384.
] from the law , so far, that is, as it binds the wife to the husband. From that bond she is now released, Rom 7:2 .
. . [1532] ] Not a more precise definition (Th. Schott); nor yet a consequence (as usually rendered), which is never correct, not even in Act 7:19 (see Fritzsche, a [1533] Matth. p. 845 ff.); but rather: in order that she be not an adulteress . That is the purpose , involved in the divine legal ordinance, of her freedom from the law.
[1532] . . . .
[1533] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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.
Ver. 3. So then if ] The sects then are out that say today, that if they have husbands and wives that will not turn saints, that is, sects, they may leave them, and marry others.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
3. ] And accordingly ( , ‘ from the same consideration, it follows that ’) while her husband lives she shall be called (see ref. and on this use of the future, as declaring what shall follow on a condition being fulfilled, Winer, edn. 6, 40. 6) an adulteress, if she attach herself to (become the wife of) another man: but if her husband die, she is free from the law ( ), so that (it matters little whether is the result or the purpose : it is better always to keep the latter in view, and to regard the result in such sentences as for the moment spoken of as the purpose to which its constituents contributed) she is not an adulteress, though she have attached herself to another man .
So far all is clear. But when we come to the application of the example, this must carefully be borne in mind, as tending to clear up all the confusion which has here been found by Commentators: that the Apostle is insisting on the fact, that DEATH DISSOLVES LEGAL OBLIGATION: but he is not drawing an exact parallel between the persons in his example, and the persons in his application. The comparison might be thus made in terms common to both: (1) Death has dissolved the legal obligation between man and wife: therefore the wife is at liberty to be married to another : (2) Death has dissolved the legal obligation between the law and us: therefore we are at liberty to be married to another . So far the comparison is strict. Further it will not hold: for in the example , the liberated person is the survivor , in the thing treated , the liberated person is the dead person . And so far from this being an oversight or an inaccuracy, it is no more than that to which, more or less, all comparisons are liable; and no more can be required of them than that they should fit, in the kernel and intent of the similitude. If it be required here to apply the example further, there is no difficulty nor inconsistency in saying (as Chrys. al.) that our first Husband was the Law, and our second is Christ; but then it must be carefully borne in mind, that we are freed, not by the law having died to us , (which matter here is not treated,) but by our having died to the law . It is not necessary with Calv. and Tholuck, to suppose that in Rom 7:4 there is an euphemistic inversion, ‘we are dead to the law,’ instead of ‘the law is dead to us;’ indeed such a supposition would, from what is said above, much weaken the argument, which rests on our being slain with Christ , and so freed from the law .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
be married to. Literally become for.
another. App-124.
man. App-123.
be called. Greek. chrematizo. See Luk 2:26.
that = the.
no = not (App-105) an This is an illustration of the fact that death breaks all bonds; husband and wife, master and servant.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
3.] And accordingly ( , from the same consideration, it follows that) while her husband lives she shall be called (see ref.-and on this use of the future, as declaring what shall follow on a condition being fulfilled, Winer, edn. 6, 40. 6) an adulteress, if she attach herself to (become the wife of) another man: but if her husband die, she is free from the law ( ), so that (it matters little whether is the result or the purpose: it is better always to keep the latter in view, and to regard the result in such sentences as for the moment spoken of as the purpose to which its constituents contributed) she is not an adulteress, though she have attached herself to another man.
So far all is clear. But when we come to the application of the example, this must carefully be borne in mind, as tending to clear up all the confusion which has here been found by Commentators:-that the Apostle is insisting on the fact, that DEATH DISSOLVES LEGAL OBLIGATION: but he is not drawing an exact parallel between the persons in his example, and the persons in his application. The comparison might be thus made in terms common to both: (1) Death has dissolved the legal obligation between man and wife: therefore the wife is at liberty to be married to another:-(2) Death has dissolved the legal obligation between the law and us: therefore we are at liberty to be married to another. So far the comparison is strict. Further it will not hold: for in the example, the liberated person is the survivor,-in the thing treated, the liberated person is the dead person. And so far from this being an oversight or an inaccuracy, it is no more than that to which, more or less, all comparisons are liable; and no more can be required of them than that they should fit, in the kernel and intent of the similitude. If it be required here to apply the example further, there is no difficulty nor inconsistency in saying (as Chrys. al.) that our first Husband was the Law, and our second is Christ; but then it must be carefully borne in mind, that we are freed, not by the law having died to us, (which matter here is not treated,) but by our having died to the law. It is not necessary with Calv. and Tholuck, to suppose that in Rom 7:4 there is an euphemistic inversion, we are dead to the law, instead of the law is dead to us; indeed such a supposition would, from what is said above, much weaken the argument, which rests on our being slain with Christ, and so freed from the law.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Rom 7:3. ) viz. , she will come under the appellation of an adulteress, and that too by the power of the law. She shall bring upon herself the name of an adulteress.- , LXX. Deu 24:2.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Rom 7:3
Rom 7:3
So then if, while the husband liveth, she be joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress:-[To be joined to another man during the lifetime of her husband would make her an adulteress, which would subject her to the severest punishment of the law-stoning. (Lev 21:10; Joh 8:5).] So if, while the law of Moses was in force, the Jews served according to another law, they would be guilty of spiritual adultery.
but if the husband die, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be joined to another man.-[The same law which renders the wife inseparable from the husband as long as he lives sets her free from this subjection as soon as he dies. The conjugal bond being broken by the husbands death, the wife dies also as a wife. She is dead (to the conjugal bond) in her dead husband.] If the law be dead, or taken out of the way, then they would not be guilty of spiritual adultery, though they served according to another law.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
So then: Exo 20:14, Lev 20:10, Num 5:13-31, Deu 22:22-24, Mat 5:32, Mar 10:6-12, Joh 8:3-5
though: Rth 2:13, 1Sa 25:39-42, 1Ti 5:11-14
Reciprocal: Mat 19:9 – doth Mar 10:11 – Whosoever Joh 4:18 – is not 1Co 7:39 – wife Gal 5:1 – the liberty
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
7:3
Rom 7:3. Jesus taught in Mat 19:9 that fornication of a married person is the only lawful ground for the remarriage of the innocent one. Such a sin virtually causes the guilty one to be dead to the other. Adulteress is used by some to support the notion of “living in adultery,” something the Bible does not teach, since the single act of adultery unites the two permanently. (See the comments at Mat 19:9.) The word italicized is defined by Thayer as a person with “eyes from which adulterous desire beams forth.” It means a frame of mind rather than any physical performance.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Rom 7:3. So then. This being the case it follows. The verse forms a parallelism.
Shall be called an adulteress. This is the formal sentence, with a definite penaltystoning (Lev 21:10; comp. Joh 8:5).
Free from that law; lit., the law, in so far as it binds her to the husband, the binding effect of the law as respects the marriage relation. That law is a good explanation.
So that she is not an adulteress. This clause may express either the result (so that) or the purpose, in order that The latter is perhaps grammatically more exact; the purpose of this freedom was to prevent the woman from being an adulteress in case of a second marriage. In Rom 7:4 the idea of result is evident enough.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Vv. 3. So then if, while the husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if the husband be dead, she is freed from the law, that she may not be an adulteress, though she be married to another man.
This verse is not a needless repetition of Rom 7:2. It serves to draw from the legal prescription explained in Rom 7:2 the conclusion which the apostle has to demonstratethe legitimacy of a second union in the case supposed. What would be a crime during the husband’s lifetime, becomes legitimate when he is dead.
The term strictly signifies to do business, and hence: to bear the name of the profession to which one is devoted. To this day a large number of our family names are names of some trade. Comp. also Act 11:26.
The expression: freed from the law, is defined by the context: it bears special reference to the law on the rule of marriage. But the expression is designedly kept up in all its generality to prepare for the absolute application of it to believers, which the apostle is about to make.
That she may not be an adulteress (if she marries again): the law was really intended to reserve for her such liberty.
Augustine, Beza, and Olshausen have attempted another explanation, according to which Rom 7:2-3 are not the development, but the allegorical application of the maxim of Rom 7:1. In its clearest form it is as follows, as it seems to me: The woman bound by the law to her living husband is the human soul subjected by the law to the dominion of sin (the first husband). The latter, sin, dying (through faith in Christ crucified), the soul is set free from his power, and enjoys the liberty of entering into union with Christ risen (the new husband). But this explanation would carry us back to the idea of the preceding passage (emancipation from sin), whereas Rom 7:6 shows clearly that Paul means to speak here of emancipation from the law. Then the relation between Rom 7:1-2 would require to be expressed, not by for, but by so (), or so that (). Finally, the , so that, of Rom 7:4 shows it is not till then that the moral application begins.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
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. [If such freedom is accorded to the survivor, an equal liberty must be accorded to the deceased. But this liberty can not be enjoyed by him unless, by some means, he be raised from the dead.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
7:3 So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be {a} 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.
(a) That is, she will be an adulteress, by the consent and judgment of all men.