Comments on: Understanding Romans 7 (Dead to the Law, Married to Messiah)

By: Joseph Mauro

Joseph Mauro — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 02:11:57 +0000

I understand Romans 7:14-25 as Paul telling the tale or giving us a “verbal picture” of the Jew who comes to the end of himself—and who finally confesses that it is the Messiah as the one he needs. This is the Jew who knows that the law is spiritual, and who must admit that he cannot keep the law because he is a sinner. He is bound to the law to obey it, but he cannot obey it because “evil is right there with me”. Who can rescue such a person from “this body of death”? Only Messiah can, “in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us…who live according to the Spirit.”

By: Israel Betzalel

Israel Betzalel — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 01:12:54 +0000

So your premise is that the woman is us, and the husbands are also us? Isn’t that a marriage of one? I disagree, respectfully. You’ve put a lot of thought into your position, but we really don’t need to get creative with this, after all the Torah is clear that the Torah is a feminine word, and the rabbis agree that the Torah is given as a bride to Israel.

By: Thomas Glassey

Thomas Glassey — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 20:23:03 +0000

Hello Israel
Thanks for your explanation of the passage in question. I used to understand it the way you do, but was never completely satisfied with that interpretation. Here is my current take on it:
G-d can see us (the woman) in two different relations. The first husband is what we are before G-d as in the flesh and AS SUCH under Torah. This man has to go, because this man is unable to please G-d. As long as we see ourselves (the woman) as linked with that man (ourselves as we are in the flesh under Torah) before G-d, we are unable to bring fruit for G-d in our lives (because we are then in the flesh, not in the Spirit, see Rom. 8). As long as that man has not gone out of G-d’s sight, it would be unlawful for us to see ourselves in any other relation to G-d. Hence before Messiah’s death, we could not look at ourselves as in any other position before G-d than as being under Torah IN THE FLESH. Messiah put an end to this condition before G-d by substitutionally becoming the man in the flesh under Torah at the cross. What we have to (painfully) find out experientially is that we are powerless as long as we connect ourselves with the first man before G-d – see the experience related later in Romans 7.
Since Messiah has put an end to this first man through his death and is now raised (and glorified) we are lawfully entitled to see ourselves (the woman) as in relation to Messiah raised (the second husband). From this glorified One the Spirit came and gives us the power to bring fruit in our new position before G-d (our being now linked with the new husband, so that we are in Messiah before G-d).
The difficulty with the passage is that we are seen abstractly as the first husband and also subjectively as the woman.
I would appreciate your feedback.

By: Israel

Israel — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:45:24 +0000

Email from a reader:
even though we have known Messiah according to the flesh, yet NOW we know HIM in this way no longer.” 2nd Corinthians 5:16…

excellent verse showing that the HIM is the Torah that the 1st man dies to, and is who the 2nd man lives to.

By: Israel

Israel — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:42:46 +0000

Email from a reader:
Is it not also written in the torah abraham had two wives? Which Paul teaches as “hearing what the law says”?

To stay consistent with Paul’s analogy in Romans 7 where only one two husbands and one wife is mentioned, we must view his explanation in Romans 7 where we die to the Torah and are married in our new natures to Christ, as matching that analogy of two husbands marrying one wife. One can only permit there to be one wife in the entire discourse, and thus by explanation that wife is the Torah, the Messiah which the first husband (our sinful nature) died to, and the second husband (our new nature) married.

The two women represent two covenants. Paul calls this, what the torah says.

The second covenant, which one of the two women are an allegory, is the new covenant in the seed of promise. This is not the woman which genders to bondage at sinai. Paul and the apostles did indeed teach torah. They taught torah as it was revealed to them, from the beginning, not just Sinai. The foundation is apostolic teaching of torah IN CHRIST, not moses. :-)

Yes. Except this is a discussion on Romans 7, but I know where you are going with this. Paul is staying consistent not with the first analogy, but rather with the application of that analogy wherein that the sinful nature is condemned by the Torah (the Messiah), and the new nature is alive to Messiah (the Living Torah). So what you say here is correct! Thanks for responding!

By: Israel

Israel — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:48:10 +0000

Below is an exchange with a reader of this article through another communication medium. It is re-posted here to help address objections other readers may have to this understanding of Romans 7.

I don’t like this, as Messiah is NEVER seen as the wife, but is likened to the husband. ‘Overcomers’ in his body are called ‘the Bride.’ The Bride is seen in Proverbs as the virtuous woman, the unregenerate as the harlot or strange woman.

Correct, the Messiah is our husband, not our bride; however to stay consistent with Paul’s analogy to his explanation, the wife can only be the Torah/Messiah, to which the first husband (our sinful natures) died to, and the second husband (us born of the spirit) could marry. Don’t confuse a sermon illustration exampled from the Torah with an allegorical explanation fitting the rest of scripture. After all, the point Paul is making is self-contained to his prologue “I write to men who know the Torah:”

There is no Torah that prohibits a woman to marry a married man (men can have multiple wives); however the Torah does prohibit a man from marrying a married woman (a woman can only be married to one husband). It is this limitation that Paul is referring to – from the perspective that we are men (new creatures in Christ) and can not marry a married woman until the first husband (our sinful natures) die. That woman, according to the resulting explanation, is none other the Torah/Messiah, and is thus only free to marry us when her first husband dies. When the first husband dies, only then can we, as the second husband (those born of the spirit) can now marry the wife (the Torah/Messiah)!

In fact since it is precisely the point that men can be married to more than one wife, that Paul can’t possibly be referring to the husband being the Messiah in his sermon illustration, since the first wife wouldn’t have to die before another could marry him! In short there would be a conflict in his application since it would effectively mean that our spirit natures, and our sinful flesh nature can both be married to the Torah/Messiah at the same time, and therefore it would make no sense for him to tell us our sinful nature has to die!

Paul is making a very distinct point: we are dead in our sinful natures, so we can be married to the Messiah in our spirit natures. By Torah example, this understanding can only be drawn from the Torah concerning the availability of a widow to marry another man only after her first husband dies; for a man can marry multiple wives, but a wife can not marry again until she is divorced or becomes a widow. This therefore more makes any explanation of the widow as being the Torah/Messiah, and the men she is married to (but only one at a time) first our sinful nature which dies, and then later our born-again spirit nature which lives. If one flips the roles around, then the explanation and the point Paul is making, loses its sense and necessity of our fleshly nature’s death.

I see only one difference between the Old and Renewed Covenants – the venue upon which it is written; i.e., uncircumcised heart of stone vs. circumcised heart of flesh.

Correct. I like the term “venue” or “medium,” or as I am making the claim here: “person.”