Is The Wife Married, or Married And “Under A Husband?”
Posted by Pastoral Musings on May 10th, 2011
Image by jimforest via Flickr
Note the passage in the KJV:
“For the woman which hath a 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 the husband. ” (Romans 7:2)
Now note it as it is found in the UBS:
“ἡ γὰρ ὕπανδρος γυνὴ τῷ ζῶντι ἀνδρὶ δέδεται νόμῳ· ἐὰν δὲ ἀποθάνῃ ὁ ἀνήρ, κατήργηται ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ἀνδρός. ” (Romans 7:2)
ὕπανδρος is a compound word that is literally “under husband.” Now the question is this: Is the woman under the husband as under the law? Does this speak anything to the issue of male headship in the home? Does it only speak to the issue of the binding nature of marriage? Does it speak according to the laws and customs of the time only?
I’m not so much worried about egalitarianism vs. complementarianism as I am the Greek and the meaning of ὕπανδρος in this context.
Anyone wish to take this one on?
May 12th, 2011 at 8:37 am
I looked at a few translations and none of them seem to translate the Greek word you are considering as ‘under husband’. That word could be utilised in other contexts in that way. But it doesn’t seem to be the focus here in Rom 7.
For me, it seems the larger context is a comparison between the law-binding nature of marriage between husband and wife and that of the relationship between the Christian and the law. Of course, one could argue that one can be ‘under’ the law if not ‘under’ Christ, and so the wife is also ‘under’ the husband. But it might be reading too much into this particular context and the comparison Paul is making here. Places like Eph 5 are a little more clear.
So I feel complementarians would be better served sticking with the normal passages rather than trying to suggest Rom 7 speaks of male-husband ‘headership’.
[Translate]
May 12th, 2011 at 8:47 am
Scott,
Thanks.
I’m not looking at this from a complementarian point of view. I’m trying to determine if Paul was indeed drawing a parallel between the issue of authority of law and marriage in that sense, too.
Personally, I think he’s simply speaking of the binding influence of the law for all of one’s life, as you do.
[Translate]
May 12th, 2011 at 8:49 am
Look at the NET.
Paul is not speaking about marriage, but about Law and the effects of the Cross on the Covenant.
[Translate]
May 12th, 2011 at 9:05 am
Joel,
I understand that. I’m simply looking at the Greek word, and wondering about the parallel between marriage and the law. Is it simply the life-long issue? I think it is. Is it the issue of authority in marriage and under law? I’m thinking it’s irrelevant to this passage. Still wondering about the word, though.
[Translate]
May 12th, 2011 at 9:10 am
The issue of authority is irrelevant to the passage. Further, I think that the use of the word is more than likely a legal term meaning only that the wife (used a symbol) is bound to the husband by law. Paul didn’t condone, or nor condemn, the term, but used it for his example.
[Translate]
May 12th, 2011 at 9:24 am
Technically you’re right. The words hupo (under) and aner (man) are combined. So if we were examining the parts it would be the Those Under Man or Those Subject To Man. But I wouldn’t take it as a word-argument for or against headship. It’s like when Ekklessia is formed of two words (Called and Ones) and then some people argue that these are the Called Out Ones. That’s not really right. Ekklessia is just the assembly of people. So you can have an angry mob which is an ekklessia. You can have soldiers which are an ekklessia. You can have believers who assemble called an ekklessia.
The binding AND the subjection is being underscored though. The law demands a continued binding AND subjection to it and what annuls that binding AND subjection is death: that’s the broader context. Closer in, death allows the wife to live a new life, as it were. So maybe the reason that this word for marriage is used is because she is still legally with him. So she’s not (1) entering into a marriage covenant, nor (2) receiving this current husband. She is really still legally married and bound to that husband as husband. So you’ll see something like Proverbs 6:24 in the LXX showing that the wife is definitely legally married and still doing wrong things by hunting for a man to be on top of her when she already has a man on top of her (crude imagery, sorry, but that section is doing that on purpose: a prostitute is bad enough since she’s not legally bound to anyone but this wife is worse).
So maybe, the reason they combined the words is because marriages were things where the woman was under the man and he had prerogatives with her but that’s pulling an NT Wright and making words mean all types of things because the culture might have had these ideas.
Scott is wrong about complementarians not-using Romans 7 though. No need to listen to Egalitarians on what passages are and aren’t allowed. I wouldn’t use the Greek word argument though. It’s something I’ve charged Scott with often enough because it is the root-word fallacy. But the broader contextual argument from Romans 7 might very well be justified.
[Translate]
May 12th, 2011 at 9:29 am
Thanks.
That’s what I’m looking for.
[Translate]
May 12th, 2011 at 9:33 am
Rey,
Thanks. I’m not too worried about using it in a complementarian perspective. I intend to use it as presented in an argument related to the law and the new birth. I was simply wondering about its relevance as far as authority goes.
[Translate]
May 13th, 2011 at 9:10 am
Jason -
I knew you weren’t trying to use the verse as an argument for complementarianism. I’m just not convinced it would be a solid passage to use to argue for such if others decided for it.
Rey -
You crack me up. You must find it your life-long mission to come in and correct anything, if not everything, I post. I simply shared my thoughts. Just like I am not sure egalitarians should use certain passages or theological concepts or illustrations to support their case, I would think the same for complementarians. I simply shared that thought with regards to Rom 7:2. Goodness me.
I am aware of the root-word fallacy. But the only time I can remember bringing up such with compound Greek words is actually in my short ‘church’ series from 3 years ago when I talked initially about the word ekklesia. But you went ahead and posted that whole series on your own blog. I thought church is about the only topic we agree on.
And, even more, you had to throw out a negative comment about NT Wright. I mean, let’s point out all those who don’t handle Greek words appropriately, at least as appropriately as you do. Though I would trust Wright to do it a little better than you and I. But I’m silly that way.
[Translate]
May 13th, 2011 at 9:39 am
Jason asked me to comment via email. That’s why I commented.
[Translate]
May 13th, 2011 at 9:50 am
Scott,
I see. I was just surprised that you would bring it into the discussion, since I had stated in the post that it was not what I was worried about.
I guess I’m still having to get used to the fact that you try to find what you perceive to be balance and apply it to all things. Not that it’s a bad thing to do, mind you.
Thanks for weighing in.
[Translate]
May 15th, 2011 at 12:39 am
Yes – on his thoughts, not mine.
[Translate]
May 15th, 2011 at 12:41 am
Jason -
I saw your disclaimer at the end of the post, but you did ask these pertinent questions:
Now the question is this: Is the woman under the husband as under the law? Does this speak anything to the issue of male headship in the home? Does it only speak to the issue of the binding nature of marriage? Does it speak according to the laws and customs of the time only?
Especially with the first 2, this gets connected in with gender roles. So that’s why I brought it up as not being a solid place to argue for ‘male headship’. That’s how I came about my thoughts.
[Translate]
May 15th, 2011 at 6:17 am
I understand where you’re coming from. I wasn’t paying enough attention to what I was saying, I guess
I hope you’ve had a great Lord’s Day. Mine is just beginning.
[Translate]
June 21st, 2011 at 11:18 am
hay guys, I did a whole study on this…
“Under-man, woman”
Rom. 7:2 this sentence says in Greek, “The for (for the) under-man (under the subjection of her husband) woman to the living man (husband), having been (has been) bound (of or by) law.”
This sentence could better be translated: “For the woman who is under authority of her husband has now been bound by law to her living husband.”
Paul says “under-husband” woman “to” the “living (“as long as lives”) husband” she is bound by law Rom. 7:2. The woman in her relationship to her husband is “under-husband” Rom. 7:2a. So upon becoming married she falls under a principle law to him until he dies. The “law of the husband” Rom. 7:2c is the limitations a wife has to her husband. As seen in the example of Numbers 5:29, “This is the law of jealousy, when a wife while under her husband’s authority…” NKJV
Paul uses a known subject of the husband/wife (physical) to explain a deeper truth (spiritual).
“Under man” was to express her general or specific position of the man (to establish the “lords over” rule in Rom. 7:1b). This was taken similar to Paul’s concept when he said sin “lords over” (Rom. 6:14) a man while “under law.” As “under law” and “under grace” is being used in Rom. 6:15 so we can understand Paul using the term “under-man.”
The principle of under-man is also shown in the first part of the Greek word “(under-) submission (appointed, set)” Eph. 5:23-25 and Col. 3:18 showing the premise of the “head” because of his authority.
The ‘under’ was to establish order, position, or rank in these usages. Under was nothing more than to be understood in general as under something else.
By Paul stating in Rom. 7:1, the principle of law, Paul states anytime someone is “under” something and has “dominion” (lords-over) for life. And the woman cannot become free from the man or loosed by her own will. At one point the woman was under her father (Num. 30:2-16) but is now under her husband upon marriage (Gen. 3:16).
We can see Paul was making the point that upon becoming married under her husband (having dominion over her) she is bound due to principle in Scripture which prevents her from marrying “another” and freeing her upon his death. Romans 7:2-4 is not a teaching about divorce (as 1 Cor. 7) but Paul is using an already known and accepted truth about marriage to explain freedom from the Law of Moses (same principle law applies). Since scripture suggest the authority of a man is over (Num. 30:9) with the Writ of Divorce, we know the man still reserves the freedom to send her away if he wills and this by his will only (having lordship over her).
The Jews were trying to submit under the Law of Moses and Christ at the same time (Rom. 2:23).
She is being “called” (Greek Future) an “adulteress” if she were to marry again Rom. 7:3a. Since the woman is shown to be “under-man” (Greek word used in Rom. 7:2a) having “dominion” (“lords”) over her by Law, it could help also explain why the woman was not allowed to divorce her husband (Gen. 3:16).
Then according to Rom. 7:3a it uses the Greek words “living the man” in the Genitive or as we may say “possessive.” The woman was “called” an adulteress because she was known by the general public to be already married to another man.
Paul was pointing out the woman is not allowed to practice Polygamy for herself (to be married to more than one husband at the same time).
The man is never under the ‘law’ of his wife. So the Law did not prevent the man from taking another wife at the same time. Nor was he called an “adulterer” if he did so…
Solomon had 700 (multiplied) wives, and King David had many too. Scripture allowed the common man (not for a “king” to multiply wives) to have a second wife, though it was a sin for a woman to marry a second husband (Rom. 7:2-3).
Two wives
God is used as an example of having two wives (two sisters) Jer. 3:8; as Jacob with Rachel and her sister Leah. The Law speaks of a birth rite of a man who has two wives Deut. 21:15. As well as a man who takes on a slave as an additional wife for your son Ex. 21:9-11. Finally, it says seven women will in the last days ask to marry one man for their (name) reproach to be taken away.
“Law of-the”
Paul was using a clear point on a subject that they could comprehend to clear up a spiritual misunderstanding.
The “law of the husband” was what Paul used to show when you become “under” a “law” (as of The Law of Moses) the law “lords-over” you Rom. 7:1, in which you “were held by” (Rom 7:6) until “death” frees you from ‘what’ you are “bound” to.
Paul also used the words “law of the” or “law of” to point out a set of principles stoned in scripture. The “law of the husband” was Paul referencing known facts based out of scripture and not his own opinion.
Paul being studied under the strictest of the Law would have been very familiar with the different Laws in the Old Testament taught by Gamaliel (the Ancestral Law). Many of the Old Testament Laws were broken down by Moses before or after giving the parameters, “This is the law of the…” Such as: “the law of jealousy” Num. 5:29, “law of burnt offering” Lev. 6:9, “law of grain offering” 6:14, “law of sin offering” 6:25, “law of the sacrifice of peace offerings” 7:11, “law of the burnt offering” 7:37, “law of leprous plague” 13:59, “law of the one who had a leprous sore” 14:32, “law of leprosy” 14:57, and “law of one who has a discharge” 15:32.
We also call a set of principles that govern our life as law: the “law of Nature,” “law of Gravity,” and the “law of Physics.”
With Deut. 24:1 being an “if” “then” type of teaching the Jews were able to understand the “permission” Matt. 19:2-6 of Moses and were able to understand that Deut. 25:5-10 allowed the “widow” to remarry. Thus the “Law of the husband” Romans 7:2b allowed the widow, by Law, to marry again and be “free.” This type of extraction from the story type of Law was an ‘implied’ type of teaching. This is what Paul was referring to when he said the woman is “bound” to her husband as long as he lives but is “free” Romans 7:3 from the “Law” when he dies.
The Issue of Case Law
Paul further used the principle of “a law” (Rom. 7:21-8:2) in regards to bondage in his life. As he said a, “law in my members,” “law of sin,” “law that evil is present with me,” “law of the mind.” Paul also referred to the “law of the Spirit” in contrast to the “law of the sin and death.”
Paul said the Jews are not saved by the “law of works,” but through the “law (of) faith.” Paul also referenced the “Law of God” and the “Law of Christ” in 1 Cor. 9:21 when speaking of the principle commands of God. James called the freedom in Christ the “law (of) liberty” James 1:25 and 2:12.
“As long as lives” was a very strong blanket statement to be an all inclusive – no matter what – (no exceptions). As it says in Scripture, “not to forsake the Levite as long as you live…” Deut. 12:19. Saul said to Jonathan in anger, “For as long as the son of Jesse lives…” 1 Sam. 20:31. Or when, Hannah “lent” her son Samuel to the Lord “as long as he lives” 1 Sam. 1:28.
[Translate]
June 21st, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Michael,
You’ve obviously done much work on this.
Thanks for commenting.
What do you think are the practical and theological implications in Rom 7?
[Translate]