Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 7:2
For 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.
2. to her husband so long, &c]. Lit. to the living husband. So it should be rendered; q. d., “to the present, not to a past or future, husband.”
she is loosed ] Lit. she has been cancelled from, &c. The perfect tense indicates the ipso facto character of the release. The obvious equivalent of the phrase is, “the law of her husband has been cancelled ipso facto in respect of her.”
the law of the husband ] i.e. “that special part of the law which affects her husband and his claim;” viz. the sanctions of marriage.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For the woman – This verse is a specific illustration of the general principle in Rom 7:1, that death dissolves those connections and relations which make law binding in life. It is a simple illustration; and if this had been kept in mind, it would have saved much of the perplexity which has been felt by many commentators, and much of their wild vagaries in endeavoring to show that men are the wife, the law of the former husband, and Christ the new one; or that the old man is the wife, sinful desires the husband, sins the children. Beza. (See Stuart.) Such expositions are sufficient to humble us, and to make us mourn over the puerile and fanciful interpretations which even wise and good people often give to the Bible.
Is bound by the law … – See the same sentiment in 1Co 7:39.
To her husband – She is united to him; and is under his authority as the head of the household. To him is particularly committed the headship of the family, and the wife is subject to his law, in the Lord, Eph 5:23, Eph 5:33.
She is loosed … – The husband has no more authority. The connection from which obligation resulted is dissolved.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 2. For the woman which hath a husband] The apostle illustrates his meaning by a familiar instance. A married woman is bound to her husband while he lives; but when her husband is dead she is discharged from the law by which she was bound to him alone.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
He here exemplifies and illustrates the foregoing assertion.
The woman is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth: see a parallel place, 1Co 7:39. This is the general rule, yet there is an exception in the case of fornication or desertion: see Mat 5:32; 1Co 7:15.
From the law of her husband; from the obligation of the law of marriage.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
2, 3. if her husband be dead“die.”So Ro 7:3.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For the woman which hath an husband,…. The former general rule is here illustrated by a particular instance and example in the law of marriage; a woman that is married to a man,
is bound by the law to her husband; to live with him, in subjection and obedience to him,
so long as he liveth; except in the cases of adultery, Mt 19:9, and desertion, 1Co 7:15, by which the bond of marriage is loosed, and for which a divorce or separation may be made, which are equal to death:
but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband; the bond of marriage is dissolved, the law of it is abolished, and she is at entire liberty to marry whom she will, 1Co 7:39.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The wife that hath a husband ( ). Late word, under (in subjection to) a husband. Here only in N.T.
Is bound (). Perfect passive indicative, stands bound.
By law (). Instrumental case.
To the husband while he liveth ( ). “To the living husband,” literally.
But if the husband die ( ). Third class condition, a supposable case ( and the second aorist active subjunctive).
She is discharged (). Perfect passive indicative of , to make void. She stands free from the law of the husband. Cf. 6:6.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
That hath a husband [] . Lit., under or subject to a husband. The illustration is selected to bring forward the union with Christ after the release from the law, as analogous to a new marriage (ver. 4).
Is loosed [] . Rev., discharged. See on 3 3, Lit., she has been brought to nought as respects the law of the husband.
The law of the husband. Her legal connection with him She dies to that law with the husband ‘s death. There is an apparent awkwardness in carrying out the figure. The law, in vers. 1, 2, is represented by the husband who rules (hath dominion). On the death of the husband the woman is released. In ver. 4, the wife (figuratively) dies. “Ye are become dead to the law that ye should be married to another.” But as the law is previously represented by the husband, and the woman is released by the husband ‘s death, so, to make the figure consistent, the law should be represented as dying in order to effect the believer ‘s release. The awkwardness is relieved by taking as the middle term of comparison the idea of dead in a marriage relation. When the husband dies the wife dies (is brought to nought) so far as the marriage relation is concerned. The husband is represented as the party who dies because the figure of a second marriage is introduced with its application to believers (ver. 4). Believers are made dead to the law as the wife is maritally dead – killed in respect of the marriage relation by her husband ‘s death.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “For the woman which hath an husband,” (he gar hupandros gune) “For the married woman,” “the woman to a husband,” attached woman (by law) to an husband, for example, Mat 19:4-6.
2) “Is bound by the law to her husband,” (deditai nomo) “Has been bound by law;” to her husband, by the Divine order of family law and of Moses Law, Gen 1:27; Gen 2:24; and called “their name Adam,” the “twain one flesh,” to be or to exist, Eph 5:31.
3) “So long as he liveth,” (to zonti) “While he lives,” or “as long as he lives.” This is the Divine marriage law principle. Although exceptions were made under Moses Law, because of the hardness of men’s hearts, Mat 19:6; Mat 19:8.
4) “But if the husband be dead,” (ean de apothane ho aner) “But if the husband should die,” “if the husband be dead;” deceased.
5) “She is loosed from the law of her husband,” (Katergetai apo tou nomou tou andros) “She has been released, discharged, or set free from the law of her husband,” to whom she had been married. She is free to be married again, only in the Lord, 1Co 7:39; 2Co 6:14. From the beginning of marriage, by Divine order, no divorce was planned or provided, Mat 19:6; Mat 19:8.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
2. For a woman subject to a man, etc. He brings a similitude, by which he proves, that we are so loosed from the law, that it does not any longer, properly and by its own right, retain over us any authority: and though he could have proved this by other reasons, yet as the example of marriage was very suitable to illustrate the subject, he introduced this comparison instead of evidence to prove his point. But that no one may be puzzled, because the different parts of the comparison do not altogether correspond, we are to be reminded, that the Apostle designedly intended, by a little change, to avoid the invidiousness of a stronger expression. He might have said, in order to make the comparison complete, “A woman after the death of her husband is loosed from the bond of marriage: the law, which is in the place of a husband to us, is to us dead; then we are freed from its power.” But that he might not offend the Jews by the asperity of his expressions, had he said that the law was dead, he adopted a digression, and said, that we are dead to the law (202) To some indeed he appears to reason from the less to the greater: however, as I fear that this is too strained, I approve more of the first meaning, which is simpler. The whole argument then is formed in this manner “The woman is bound to her living husband by the law, so that she cannot be the wife of another; but after the death of her husband she is loosed from the bond of his law so, that she is free to marry whom she pleases.”
Then follows the application, — The law was, as it were our husband, under whose yoke we were kept until it became dead to us: After the death of the law Christ received us, that is, he joined us, when loosed from the law, to himself: Then being united to Christ risen from the dead, we ought to cleave to him alone: And as the life of Christ after the resurrection is eternal, so hereafter there shall be no divorce.
But further, the word law is not mentioned here in every part in the same sense: for in one place it means the bond of marriage; in another, the authority of a husband over his wife; and in another, the law of Moses: but we must remember, that Paul refers here only to that office of the law which was peculiar to the dispensation of Moses; for as far as God has in the ten commandments taught what is just and right, and given directions for guiding our life, no abrogation of the law is to be dreamt of; for the will of God must stand the same forever. We ought carefully to remember that this is not a release from the righteousness which is taught in the law, but from its rigid requirements, and from the curse which thence follows. The law, then, as a rule of life, is not abrogated; but what belongs to it as opposed to the liberty obtained through Christ, that is, as it requires absolute perfection: for as we render not this perfection, it binds us under the sentence of eternal death. But as it was not his purpose to decide here the character of the bond of marriage, he was not anxious to mention the causes which releases a woman from her husband. It is therefore unreasonable that anything decisive on this point should be sought here.
(202) This is a plausible reason, derived from [ Theodoret ] and [ Chrysostom ]; but hardly necessary. Commentators have felt much embarrassed in applying the illustration given here. The woman is freed by the death of the husband; but the believer is represented as freed by dying himself. This does not correspond: and if we attend to what the Apostle says, we shall see that he did not contemplate such a correspondence. Let us notice how he introduces the illustration; “the law,” he says in the first verse, “rules, or exercises authority, over a man while he lives;” and then let us observe the application in Rom 7:4, where he speaks of our dying to the law The main design of the illustration then was, to show that there is no freedom from a law but by death; so that there is no necessity of a correspondence in the other parts, As in the case of man and wife, death destroys the bond of marriage; so in the case of man and the law, that is, the law as the condition of life, there must be a death; else there is no freedom. But there is one thing more in the illustration, which the Apostle adopts, the liberty to marry another, when death has given a release: The bond of connection being broken, a union with another is legitimate. So far only is the example adduced to be applied — death puts an end to the right and authority of law; and then the party released may justly form another connection. It is the attempt to make all parts of the comparison to correspond that has occasioned all the difficulty. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(2) For the woman which hath an husband.The illustration is not quite exact. The Law is here represented by the husband, but the Apostle does not mean to say that the Law dies to the Christian, but the Christian to the Law. The proposition must therefore be understood to be stated in a somewhat abstract form. Relations of the kind indicated are terminated by death (not necessarily the death of one party to them more than another). The relation of wife and husband ceases absolutely and entirely on both sides, and not merely so much of it as affects the person who dies.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
‘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 Rom 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 Rom 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 Rom 7:6, ‘we — having died to that in which we were held’. But that does not obviously tie in with seeing Rom 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 (Rom 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 (Rom 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 Rom 7:2-3 really cancels out the idea of a full-scale allegory. That being so Rom 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.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Rom 7:2. For the woman, &c. St. Paul goes on to explain his meaning by a familiar instance. He chooses to set the Jew in a more honourable light while under the law, than he does the Gentiles while under their heathen state. The Gentiles are compared to slaves, in a state of the lowest and vilest servitude; chap. Rom 6:16, &c.:the Jews to a wife, in a state of subjection indeed, but far more honourable than that of a slave. See Doddridge.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Rom 7:2 . Concrete illustration of the proposition in Rom 7:1 , derived from the relation of the law to marriage and its dissolution, which in the woman’s case can only take place through the, death of the husband, so that it is only after that death has occurred that she may marry another. This example, as the tenor of the following text shows (in opposition to Hofmann), is selected, not because the legal ordinance in question was in its nature the only one that Paul could have employed, but because he has it in view to bring forward the union with Christ, which takes place after the release from the law, as analogous to a new marriage , and does so in Rom 7:4 . The illustration is only apparently (not really; Usteri, Rckert, and even Umbreit in the Stud. u. Krit. 1851, p. 643) awkward , in so far namely as the deceased and the person released from the law through the event of death are represented in it as different . This appearance drove Chrysostom and his followers to adopt the hypothesis of an inversion of the comparison; thus holding that the law is properly the deceased party, but that Paul expressed himself as he has done out of consideration for the Jews (comp Calvin and others), whereas Tholuck contents himself with the assumption of a (strange) pregnancy of expression which would include in the one side the other also; and Umbreit regards “the irregularity in the change of person” as unavoidable . But the semblance of inappropriateness vanishes on considering in Rom 7:4 (see on that passage), from which it is plain that Paul in his illustration, Rom 7:2 f., follows the view, that the death of the husband implies (in a metaphorical sense by virtue of the union of the two spouses in one person, Eph 5:28 ff.) the death of the woman also as respected her married relation, and consequently her release from the law, so far as it had bound her as a to her husband, so that she may now marry another, which previously she could not do, because the law does not cease to be lord over the man before he is dead . So in substance also Achelis l.c [1525] Consequently Rom 7:2 f. is not to be taken allegorically , but properly and concretely; and it is only in Rom 7:4 that the allegorical application occurs. It has been allegorically explained, either so, that the wife signifies the soul and the husband the sin that has died with Christ (Augustine, comp Olshausen); or , that the wife represents humanity (or the church) and the husband the law, to which the former had been spiritually married (Origen, Chrysostom, Calvin, and others, including Klee, Reiche, and Philippi). But the former is utterly foreign to the theme of the text; and the latter would anticipate the application in Rom 7:4 .
] viro subjecta , married; also current in later Greek authors, as in Polyb. x. 26, 3, Athen. ix. p. 388 C; in the N. T. only here. See Wetstein and Jacobs, a [1527] Ael. N. A. iii. 42.
] to her ( ) living husband . has the emphasis, correlative to the in Rom 7:1 . On comp 1Co 7:27 .
] by the law . For by the law of Moses the right of dismissing the husband was not given to the wife (Michaelis, Mos. R. 120; Saalschtz, p. 806 f.). Paul however leaves unnoticed the case of the woman through divorce ceasing to be bound to her husband (Deu 24:2 ; Kiddusch. f. 2, 1 : “Mulier possidet se ipsam per libellum repudii et per mortem mariti”), regarding the matter, in accordance with his scope, only in such a way as not merely seemed to be the rule in the majority of cases, but also harmonized with the original ordinance of the Creator (Mat 19:8 ).
. . .] that is, with respect to her hitherto subsisting subordination under the law binding her to her husband she is absolved, free and rid of it . See on Gal 5:4 . The Apostle thus gives expression to the thought lying at the basis of his argument, that with the decease of the husband the wife also has ceased to exist as respects her legal connection with him; in this legal relation, from which she is fully released, she is no longer existent. Comp on 2Co 11:3 . She is still there, but no longer as bound to that law, to which she died with the death of her husband; comp Rom 7:6 . The joining of with the genitive of the subject concerned (frequent in the LXX.) is very common also in classic authors. Th. Schott, following Bengel, erroneously takes . . as genitive of apposition; the law being for the wife embodied in the husband. The law that determines the relation of the wife to the husband is what is intended, like ; see Khner, II. 1, p. 287.
[1525] .c. loco citato or laudato .
[1527] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
2 For 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.
Ver. 2. She is loosed, &c. ] And so at liberty to marry again, though Jerome compare such to the unclean beasts in the ark, and to vessels of dishonour in a house, yea, to dogs that return to their vomit; which was his error. Patres legendi cum venia, saith one.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2. ] For (not merely = e.g., but, as Thol., the example is itself the proof) the married (ref.) woman is bound by the law to the living husband: but if the husband die, she is set free from (lit. annulled from) the law of (‘ regarding ,’ compare reff. and . Lev 14:2 ) the husband (no hypallage).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Rom 7:2 f. An illustration of the principle. It is the only illustration in which death liberates a person who yet remains alive and can enter into new relations. Of course there is an inexactness, for in the argument the Christian is freed by his own death, and in the illustration the wife is freed by the husband’s death; but we must discount that. Paul required an illustration in which both death and a new life appeared. : cf. Rom 7:6 , Gal 5:4 : she is once for all discharged (or as R.V. in Gal. “severed”) from the law of the husband: for the genitive , see Winer, 235. = she shall be publicly designated: cf. Act 11:26 . . . .: grammatically this may either mean (1) that she may not be an adulteress, though married to another man; or (2) so that she is not , etc. Meyer prefers the first; and it may be argued that in this place, at all events, the idea of forming another connection is essential: cf. , Rom 7:4 (Gifford); but it is difficult to conceive of innocent remarriage as being formally the purpose of the law in question, and the second meaning is therefore to be preferred. Cf. Burton, Moods and Tenses , 398.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
which hath, &c. Greek. hupandros. Only here.
husband. App-123.
so long, &c. Literally while living.
if. App-118.
be dead = should have died.
loosed = free. Greek. katargeo. See Rom 3:3.
from. App-104.
he = the.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
2.] For (not merely = e.g., but, as Thol., the example is itself the proof) the married (ref.) woman is bound by the law to the living husband: but if the husband die, she is set free from (lit. annulled from) the law of (regarding, compare reff. and . Lev 14:2) the husband (no hypallage).
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Rom 7:2. ) So the LXX.-, is bound) It may be construed with to her husband, and with by [to] the law.- ) It would not be an unsuitable apposition, were we to say, from the law [that is, from] her husband.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Rom 7:2
Rom 7:2
For the woman that hath a husband is bound by law to the husband while he liveth;-[She is united to him and is under his authority as the head of the household. To him is particularly committed the headship of the family, and she is subject to his authority.] The Jews and their obligations to the law are compared to the woman married to a husband.
but if the husband die, she is discharged from the law of her husband.-[If the husband dies, the wife is released; if the wife dies, the husband is released. Death is common to both parties. When the husband dies, the wife dies so far as the legal relation is concerned. The husband is represented as the party who dies, because the figure of a second marriage is to be introduced, with its application to believers. (Rom 7:4). As the woman is not dead, but in respect to her relationship to marriage is situated as dead by the natural death of her husband, so believers have not died a natural death, but are made dead to the law, since they are crucified to the law with Christ.] So the Jews were bound to the law of Moses, under which they had lived, so long as the law had lived or was in force; but since the law was taken out of the way, they were released from their obligation to it and were free to become united to Christ.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
the woman: Rather, a woman. The apostle here illustrates the position laid down in the preceding verse by a familiar instance. Gen 2:23, Gen 2:24, Num 30:7, Num 30:8, 1Co 7:4, 1Co 7:39
Reciprocal: Exo 20:14 – General Num 5:19 – with another Num 30:9 – General Mat 19:6 – God Mat 19:9 – doth Rom 6:7 – For he 1Pe 3:1 – ye
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
7:2
Rom 7:2. A woman cannot be lawfully bound to more than one man at a time, neither can a person be subject to more than one religious law at the same time.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Rom 7:2. For the married woman. This is an example of the principle of Rom 7:1. Married is more fully explained as subject to a husband.
Is bound by the law. The permanent binding is indicated by the form of the original. The Mosaic law made no provision for her releasing herself from the marriage tie, though the husband might put away his wife (Deu 24:1-2).
To the living husband. The paraphrase of the E. V. is correct, but unnecessary.
If the husband have died, or, simply die; a single event is spoken of. The language is plain, out the application has occasioned difficulty. In Rom 7:1 it is not the ruling law, but the man who dies; here it is the ruling man who dies. Allegorical explanations have been suggested, but seem forced. It is better to understand it thus: Death is common to both parties; when the husband dies, the wife dies so far as that legal relation is concerned. The husband is represented as the party who dies, because the figure of a second marriage is to be introduced, with its application to believers (Rom 7:4). As the woman is not dead, but is killed in respect to her marriage relation, or is situated as dead, by the natural death of her husband, so believers have not died a natural death, but are made dead to the law, since they are crucified to the law with Christ. The idea, dead in a marriage relation, is therefore the middle term of comparison (Lange).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Here the apostle doth exemplify and illustrate the foregoing assertion, namely, That believers are freed from the law, by a similitude taken from the law of marriage: As death freeth husband and wife from the law which bound them to each other, and empowereth the survivor to marry to another person; in like manner the death of Christ was the death of the law,, as a covenant of works, holding us under the bond of the curse of it; and so his dying gave a manumission or freedom from that bond, and a capacity of espousal unto Christ; that so living in conjugal affection and obedience to him, we may be made fuitful by his Spirit, doing such things as are agreeable to the will of God, and tending to the glory of God. Ye are dead to the law by the body of Christ: That is, through the offering up of Christ’s body upon the cross.
Learn hence, 1. That he that is under the law, is as strictly bound to the rigour and curse of the law, as a married woman is bound to her husband during his life.
Learn, 2. That one great end of Christ’s death was to purchase our freedom from the law, that we might be capable of being espoused to himself. For whilst we were under the curse of the law, we were not in a capacity of being married unto Christ. He or she that is a slave to another, is not capable to be disposed of in marriage until made free.
In like manner we were in bondage to the law, as well as in slavery unto sin and Satan; but Christ has bought out our liberty, and thereby put us into a capacity of being espoused unto himself.
Behold what manner of love the Redeemer has shewed unto us, that we should be called his spouse, and he our husband! He loved us, but not for any advantage he could have by us; for we had nothing but sin and shame to present him with. Nay, he must purchase us, and that with his own blood, before he could be united to us. Oh incomparable love! Oh fervent desires!
Learn, 3. That though believers are free from the rigour and curse of the law by the death of Christ, yet have they not an undoubted liberty, but are still under government, under an head and guide. As a wife is under the government of her husband, so are believers under the guidance and government of Jesus Christ, who in a special manner guideth them by his word and Spirit; and their being said to be dead to the law, signifies no more than the law’s not having dominion over them, in regard of the curse and condemnation of it.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
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. [If, on the one hand, ye are, as I have shown, emancipated from the horrible tyranny of sin, that ye may serve righteousness, so, on the other hand, are ye likewise emancipated from the more sane and orderly, but still rigorous, dominion of law, whether given by Moses or otherwise, that ye may live under the mild and gentle sway of grace. And would any of you deny this latter proposition? Surely, in order to do so, you must be very crude in knowledge; but I can not think you are so crude, for I am writing to those who know something about law, and hence must at least know this elementary principle, that law rules the living, and not the dead. The apostle might have cited many cases where this principle is applied: for instance, no public duties, taxes, etc., are required of the dead; they are never indicted for their crimes, etc.; but he chooses one illustration which peculiarly fits his argument, for it throws light on this question of dominion, viz.: the release from the law of marriage which is accorded to both the parties to a matrimonial contract, when death releases one of them. In this connection, and before we enter upon Paul’s argument, we should notice the principle to which he appeals, in order that we may not be confused by his application of it. It is the party who dies that is primarily released or freed from the law, and hence left free to contract a second marriage. The party who survives is, of course, likewise freed; but the freedom of the survivor is secondary, and derived from the freedom of the deceased, which has been attained by death. If the living only were free, and the deceased were bound by the marriage contract, the apostle would have nothing on which to base an illustration or found an argument.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 2
The woman, &c. The point of analogy in this comparison seems to be this,–that the connection of the accountable agent with the claims and penalties of law, is like that of husband and wife–one which only death can sever. The death, however, which frees the believer from his terrible responsibility, is that spiritual change which takes place when he is united to Christ,–when he dies to sin, and begins to live unto righteousness.–I speak to them that know the law; meaning that the illustration was drawn from the provisions of the Jewish law in respect to marriage.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
These verses illustrate the truth of the principle stated in Rom 7:1. The law binds a wife to her husband. Paul’s example was especially true in Jewish life where the Mosaic Law did not permit a woman to divorce her husband. In the illustration the wife represents the believer and the husband the Law.
"As a woman whose husband has died is free to marry another, so also are believers, since they have died to the law, free to belong to Christ." [Note: Mounce, p. 160.]