Does Romans 7:1-3 affirm different rules for women and men regarding adultery?

[Nameless.In.Grace]

I'm struggling to do so...

2) Israel felt oppressed by the Romans and expected the Messiah would deliver them from such.

That is an entirely fresh perspective!

There is so much to what you have just said!

That is a thought that connects the older story of David to the time of Christ. That one thought that you expressed, makes me feel connected to Israel of the time of David and Israel/Palestine of the time of the Son of David (Christ through lineage).

I will think on this.

This will be a beginning parallel.



Sent from my HTC One M9 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Sonnet]

That is an entirely fresh perspective!

There is so much to what you have just said!

That is a thought that connects the older story of David to the time of Christ. That one thought that you expressed, makes me feel connected to Israel of the time of David and Israel/Palestine of the time of the Son of David (Christ through lineage).

I will think on this.

This will be a beginning parallel.



Sent from my HTC One M9 using TheologyOnline mobile app

NIG - I do agree that there is much in the OT that speaks clearly, foreshadowing Christ - but, even so, I still feel uncomfortable with the issue described in the OP.

1 Kings 15:5 remains troubling. I guess we can argue, like you suggested (and others have too), that there were a lot more women compared to men so having more than one wife would appear to be a the least worst in terms of caring for them...but it's rather odd that there isn't any word from God on this.

It just looks peculiar - the 7th commandment and Solomon never rebuked for having a 1000 women.

 

[serpentdove]

Why is Solomon's polygamy never described as adultery?

God said do not multiply wives. Do not multiply horses (e.g. war). Solomon did both.

"Deut 17:16, 17 multiply … multiply … multiply. Restrictions were placed on the king: 1) he must not acquire many horses; 2) he must not take multiple wives; and 3) he must not accumulate much silver and gold. The king was not to rely on military strength, political alliances, or wealth for his position and authority, but he was to look to the Lord. Solomon violated all of those prohibitions, while his father, David, violated the last two. Solomon’s wives brought idolatry into Jerusalem, which resulted in the kingdom being divided (1 Kin. 11:1–43)." MacArthur, J., Jr. (Ed.). (1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic ed., p. 275). Nashville, TN: Word Pub.

 

[Sonnet]

God said do not multiply wives. Do not multiply horses (e.g. war). Solomon did both.

"Deut 17:16, 17 multiply … multiply … multiply. Restrictions were placed on the king: 1) he must not acquire many horses; 2) he must not take multiple wives; and 3) he must not accumulate much silver and gold. The king was not to rely on military strength, political alliances, or wealth for his position and authority, but he was to look to the Lord. Solomon violated all of those prohibitions, while his father, David, violated the last two. Solomon’s wives brought idolatry into Jerusalem, which resulted in the kingdom being divided (1 Kin. 11:1–43)." MacArthur, J., Jr. (Ed.). (1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic ed., p. 275). Nashville, TN: Word Pub.

Yes indeed - but my previous questions still stand. Anyway, some might say a few isn't multiplying - a few horses, not many - a few wives, not many. The warning might be understood more in terms of not doing as Egypt had done - not returning to Egypt's ways.

Don't get me wrong serpentdove - I want you to be right.

 

[jamie]

Well, you still adhere to the 10 commandments don't you?

The Ten were spoken by God and written on stone tablets before the ordinances were given that became the Book of the Law.

The Book of the Law was placed beside the ark of the covenant but not in the ark because the Book of the Law was temporary.

The covenant is defined by the ten covenant parameters that will never pass away as long as heaven and earth last.

After the Last Day the covenant becomes history.

 

[jamie]

2) Israel felt oppressed by the Romans and expected the Messiah would deliver them from such.

And he did.

 

[jamie]

NIG - I do agree that there is much in the OT that speaks clearly, foreshadowing Christ - but, even so, I still feel uncomfortable with the issue described in the OP.

1 Kings 15:5 remains troubling.

Women were property. There was no law prohibiting a man from having more than one house or more than one farm animal or more than one woman.

Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law but to magnify and expand it. Jesus redefined adultery and murder for those who accept him.

 

[Crucible]

Romans 7:1ff says otherwise.

No it doesn't. This is a perfect scenario where people presume something and then try to make the scriptures appear to agree. But if you take an objective look, there is literally nothing in the Bible that condemns polygamy, which is why the Patriarchs had multiple wives.

Your imagination is just running rampant, is all

 

[Interplanner]

Such scriptures as these (and others) are the foundation of my doubt.

It's pretty hard to answer a question about polygamy when its not the intention of that illustration. If you want an answer about polygamy itself, it is more of a product of the impact of tribal wars in the 2nd millenium BC. Lots of men were lost to war. You can see the impact on marriage. It makes polygamy fall into the same category as slavery in the Law. It wasn't the ideal, but was unavoidable (economies scraping the bottom) yet the rules and terms in the Law were so favorable to what modern times would call the victim (the 2nd or 3rd wife or the slave) that those people were better off staying than going.

In 1st century Judaism there were two main rabbis teaching about divorce, but both were thinking in terms of monogamy. The 'permissive' view was that of Shammai while the strict view, closer to Jesus, was Hillel's. What Paul says in Rom 7 reflects Hillel and Jesus. Hillel was very practical and direct, but I am not aware of him building upon Gen 2 or at least not putting that in writing as did Christ.

The earliest of the Gospels, Mark, which went to more Roman audiences, was phrased to reflect that women as well as men could initiate a divorce. The allowed condition was the same: only for infidelity (even that which was found after the fact of their marriage from before it). Matthew (circulated mostly in Judea) makes it sound like only men could initiate. So in Judaism at the time, that seems to have been the case. I Cor 7 shows women initiating, and this is expressed to the wild atmosphere of Corinth.

All of this should come after our understanding that the provision in the Law for a certificate for a woman divorced was a huge advance on anything in surrounding culture.

I therefore doubt if Paul meant to convey a suppression of women in Rom 7. It simply reflects the Judaism he grew up in and often had to address. To make a point to those in Judaism concerned about the status of the Law in his teaching, Paul explained it in the terms they were familiar with. A person "dies" while believing the Gospel (or rather, their "mate"--the Law--dies), so they are not obligated to it as in the past; they have a new husband. Those raised in Judaism should not feel like they are 'cheating' on the Law. There is a new romance.

 

[Crucible]

Right, Paul was concerned about the 'suppression' of women.

:rotfl:


I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Paul was no feminist.

 

[Sonnet]

No it doesn't. This is a perfect scenario where people presume something and then try to make the scriptures appear to agree. But if you take an objective look, there is literally nothing in the Bible that condemns polygamy, which is why the Patriarchs had multiple wives.

Your imagination is just running rampant, is all

1 Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? 2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. 3 So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

Tell me Crucible, in v.3 - the sexual relations the woman has (ie marrying another) whilst her husband is still alive - that's polygamy isn't it?

 

[Crucible]

1 Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? 2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. 3 So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

Tell me Crucible, in v.3 - the sexual relations the woman has (ie marrying another) whilst her husband is still alive - that's polygamy isn't it?

Again, you're not actually deducing the scriptures you are putting up.

Polygamy is having multiple spouses, not sexual partners.

 

[Sonnet]

Again, you're not actually deducing the scriptures you are putting up.

Polygamy is having multiple spouses, not sexual partners.

It's clear from the text that marrying another is the focus:

So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

The emboldened clarifies that if she had married whilst her husband was alive (polygamy) then she would also be considered an adulteress - because the converse (that which is actually stated - the case of her husband dying) does not result in adultery.

 

[Crucible]

It's clear from the text that marrying another is the focus:

So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

The emboldened clarifies that if she had married whilst her husband was alive (polygamy) then she would also be considered an adulteress - because the converse (that which is actually stated - the case of her husband dying) does not result in adultery.

:doh:
Women cannot initiate marriage.

This is where you pretty much prove that the Bible is anti-feminist, because God recognized polygamy. He outright acknowledged it and allowed it.

 

[Sonnet]

:doh:
Women cannot initiate marriage.

Why is that relevant? Paul didn't think it relevant. Please address my post.

 

[Crucible]

Why is that relevant? Paul didn't think it relevant. Please address my post.

How about you address that God acknowledged polygamy and allowed it. You're arguing in utter futility, which I suppose is normal for you

 

[Interplanner]

1 Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? 2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. 3 So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

Tell me Crucible, in v.3 - the sexual relations the woman has (ie marrying another) whilst her husband is still alive - that's polygamy isn't it?

'To consort with' is adultery. It's not about polygamy.

 

[Interplanner]

Right, Paul was concerned about the 'suppression' of women.

:rotfl:


I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Paul was no feminist.

To do what the Law said about the certificate for women divorced was a huge advancement for women for that time (the 2nd mill BC). Nothing in Judaism at Christ's time took issue with that. So just by being part of Judaism, Paul was in an institution that took care of divorced women far better than cultures around it.

 

[Sonnet]

How about you address that God acknowledged polygamy and allowed it.

"But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man."

1. What would the woman be called in the case of her marrying another man whilst her husband was still alive?
2. How many husbands does she now have if she does as 1?
3. Is polygamy defined as having more than one spouse?

 

[Sonnet]

It's pretty hard to answer a question about polygamy when its not the intention of that illustration. If you want an answer about polygamy itself, it is more of a product of the impact of tribal wars in the 2nd millenium BC. Lots of men were lost to war. You can see the impact on marriage. It makes polygamy fall into the same category as slavery in the Law. It wasn't the ideal, but was unavoidable (economies scraping the bottom) yet the rules and terms in the Law were so favorable to what modern times would call the victim (the 2nd or 3rd wife or the slave) that those people were better off staying than going.

In 1st century Judaism there were two main rabbis teaching about divorce, but both were thinking in terms of monogamy. The 'permissive' view was that of Shammai while the strict view, closer to Jesus, was Hillel's. What Paul says in Rom 7 reflects Hillel and Jesus. Hillel was very practical and direct, but I am not aware of him building upon Gen 2 or at least not putting that in writing as did Christ.

The earliest of the Gospels, Mark, which went to more Roman audiences, was phrased to reflect that women as well as men could initiate a divorce. The allowed condition was the same: only for infidelity (even that which was found after the fact of their marriage from before it). Matthew (circulated mostly in Judea) makes it sound like only men could initiate. So in Judaism at the time, that seems to have been the case. I Cor 7 shows women initiating, and this is expressed to the wild atmosphere of Corinth.

All of this should come after our understanding that the provision in the Law for a certificate for a woman divorced was a huge advance on anything in surrounding culture.

I therefore doubt if Paul meant to convey a suppression of women in Rom 7. It simply reflects the Judaism he grew up in and often had to address. To make a point to those in Judaism concerned about the status of the Law in his teaching, Paul explained it in the terms they were familiar with. A person "dies" while believing the Gospel (or rather, their "mate"--the Law--dies), so they are not obligated to it as in the past; they have a new husband. Those raised in Judaism should not feel like they are 'cheating' on the Law. There is a new romance.

Thank you very much for this.

Do you not see that the woman's polyandry (implied, not stated - but, nonetheless, the actuality) is described as adultery?