The Allegory of the Husband and the Wife



The Allegory of the Husband and the Wife

in Romans 7:1-6

Introduction

In this short article, I wish to defend an older interpretation of Paul’s illustration or “little story” at the beginning on Romans Ch. 7 of the husband who dies and the subsequent re-marriage of his wife. This famous but controversial illustration occurs in connection with Paul’s teaching regarding the freedom brought through Christ to those who were previously under the law.

The “little story” has been variously described as an example (Origen), a “similitude” (Augustine) and an allegory (Clement of Alexandria). Other exegetes use terms like illustration, analogy and comparison. [Note: The above sentence is a very approximate quotation from start of Peter Spitaler’s article Analogical Reasoning in Romans 7:2-4—a Woman and the Believers in Rome in JBL 125, (2006)]. There are no doubt various important “technical” distinctions in the precise meaning of each of these terms, but it seems to me that, essentially, the interpretations of the illustration fall into two main groups depending on whether the exegete believes that the “little story” corresponds “point for point” with aspects of Paul’s teaching (i.e. allegory) or whether it illustrates a single main principle—for which words like example or comparison would be more appropriate. As indicated in the title of this article, I am arguing for an allegorical interpretation. There are two main directions or “tendencies” of the allegorical interpretations, but only one of these main tendencies can, I suggest, be consistently carried through, and it is this particular “family” of interpretations—of which I was initially made aware by reading N. T. Wright’s commentary on Romans in the New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary Series—which I hope to discuss in what follows.

Although allegorical interpretations are not widely held by modern exegetes, this type of interpretation, or variants of it, were widely held in earlier times. The direction of allegorical interpretation which I currently support—and held by Augustine, Melanchthon, Beza, and others—says (in essence): ‘The husband is our corrupt nature, the wife is the soul, or our members. When, therefore, the corrupt nature (or old man) dies, the soul is free from that husband, and is at liberty to marry another, namely Christ' The other direction, (held by many to have much more regard to the context), say that the wife is humanity or the Church, the husband the law; so Origen, Chrysostom, Calvin, Olshausen, Philippi etc.” [Note: Some

of the above is an approximate quotation from the Commentary on Romans by the American Presbyterian Charles Hodge]. I personally think that this second direction of allegorical interpretation cannot be sustained however.

The order of topics in this essay is as follows:

1) A brief discussion of the text and an initial attempt at a structural analysis of Romans 7:1-6.

2) An initial attempt at an interpretation of Paul’s analogy.

3) A more detailed structural analysis and interpretation

4) Some comments regarding allegorical (and other) interpretations of our passage from Evangelical writers.

5) A very brief discussion of the proposed interpretation in the wider context of Romans particularly Chs. 6-8.

6) Conclusion

1) Discussion of Romans 7:1-6 and Initial Structural Analysis

The interlinear text is given on the next page:

Structurally, the passage seems to me to consist of several “paired” antithetical statements, with the exception of v. 1 which consists of a single statement. Thus we can broadly represent the passage as shown in the diagram on the next page but one:

Notes on the diagram:

1) Section A just deals with “the man” - so only a single statement.

2) All the other sections involve paired contrasts.

3) Paul’s argument follows a logical progression—first he gives the illustration (or allegory) involving the law and marriage. Then he “translates” the individual components into the corresponding components of the Christian life and the marriage of the believer (or, collectively, of the Church) to Christ. (The “you” in v. 4 and of course the “we” in verses 5 and 6 are both plural.)

4) The A, B and C sections are in the third person—”he” and “she”, the D sections are second person (“you”) and the E sections are first person (“we”). Paul thus “homes in” on the believers in Rome and emphasises his unity with them.

5) In A there is one person, in B there are two people and in C there are three people. Paul thus introduces each person one at a time as he builds up the illustration.

6) There is a single textual issue in this passage. In Scrivener’s 1894 version of the Textus Receptus the word apothanontos (“it being dead”) in Rom. 7:4 replaces the word apothanontes (“we having died”) which is found in Stephanus 1550 version of the Received Text and all other manuscripts. This variant, apothanontos, was apparently the result of an error of Beza and Erasmus in interpreting a comment of Chrysostom’s in which they inferred that the word apothanantos rather than apothanontes must

have been the reading in manuscript with which Chrysostom was working all those centuries ago, and this error was unfortunately used in the KJV version of Rom. 7:4, (and so the corresponding (mis-)translation appears in the right hand column of the interlinear Greek-English version of our passage given previously.

2) An Interpretation of Paul’s Analogy in Romans 7:1-6

I suggest that the initial husband and wife in the analogy correspond to a single person—the Christian - in the application. The husband represents the flesh or the old nature of the Christian and the wife represents the part of the person that acknowledges goodness and longs for holiness. The Christian’s self is thus divided. This is exactly what we see later in Romans 7 where Paul is a divided self: in his inner man he longs for holiness (7:22) but he also, in his flesh (7:18)/in his “members” (7:23), has an opposite tendency. In desperation, he cries out (7:24) to be delivered from “this body of death” (i.e. the evil tendency). When the old nature dies , the other part of the Christian, which loves goodness and holiness, is free to be joined to Christ and to bear Spiritual fruit for God. This aspect of the application of Paul’s allegory is described in Romans Ch. 8. Thus I suggest that the older theologians were right in seeing Paul’s illustration as an allegory or analogy in which each part corresponds to something in the application.

If this is a correct “direction” of interpretation, we should now attempt to see where the law aspect fits in. I think that the law in sections A, B and C could, in principle, really be pretty much any legal system—the truths that Paul describes are generally true, not just under the Mosaic Law. However, I suggest that Paul is nevertheless speaking with reference to the Mosaic Law. This is surely the case in v. 1 where Paul refers to the “brothers who know the law”, and also in sections D and E where the application again deals with the Christian’s relationship to the law.

In the illustration however, Paul is not dealing with the law in general, but one component in particular—what he calls “the law of the husband”, whereas in the application (sections D and E) the whole Mosaic law is in view. Likewise, in the illustration, the failure to adhere to the law concerns the specific issue of adultery, whereas in the application, Paul refers to the “passions of sins”—a more general description of failure to adhere to the law. I’m not sure how the “traditional” subdivision of the Mosaic Law into moral, civil and ceremonial aspects might “work” here: certainly the moral aspects would appear to be primarily in view, as is the case elsewhere in Romans when the law is under discussion. Nevertheless, the law as a whole is surely a unity.

Perhaps I could mention here that I think that Paul is not here describing all Christians; after all, the Law was only given to Israel. However, Paul is talking specifically to brethren “who know the law” (Rom. 7:1). I think then that Paul’s words apply to Christians who either have been under the law (as Jews or as proselytes), or those who have come under the influence

of the law. (As evidence of this, Acts 2:10-11 specifically mentions both Jews and proselytes in connection with visitors from Rome to Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. Many of these would presumably have formed a significant component of the “founding fathers” of the church at Rome post-Pentecost.) As an aside, I would see this as contrasting, for example, with people like the Galatians (I hold to the North Galatian Hypothesis which sees the recipients of Paul’s letter to the Galatians as former pagans) who had been converted directly to Christ from paganism without first coming under the influence of the Mosaic law.) I attempt to discuss this matter further, including the case of people who have become Christians in countries where there is a knowledge of a legalistic form of Christianity, in my book The North Galatian Hypothesis.

3) A More Detailed Structural Analysis of Romans 7:1-6

Let us now have a second look at the passage, and attempt a more detailed structural analysis of the various sub-sections already given. Please see the diagram on the next page:

Notes:

1) The passage as a whole uses several different Greek words to describe the attachments of the husband, the wife and the believer to the law and of the woman to the husband while he is alive.

Thus the law is described as “having dominion over” (kurieuo) the man (v. 1) and the woman is said to be “bound” (deo) by law to the husband while he is alive, and she is cleared from (katargeo) or free (eleutheros) from the law when the husband dies (vs. 2-3). The believer is said to be held fast (katecho) in “something” and having died in respect of that same something in v.6 (I argue later from structural and other considerations that the “something” in question is the law), and the believer is “made dead” to the law in v. 4 as well as cleared from (katargeo) the law in v.6. In v. 3, the expression used of the woman who re-marries whilst her husband is still living is “she will be called (chrematizo) an adulteress”. I wish to look at this verb chrematizo, translated “called”, later.

[An aside: we note that the woman is never said to die, neither to the law nor to anyone or anything else. It is only the husband who dies. (Some commentators attempt to explain Paul’s illustration by claiming that the woman figuratively dies because her husband dies, and then this paves the way for saying that the woman alone corresponds to the believer in Paul’s application of the illustration in verses 4-6. But the text does not say this:

the woman never dies in these verses!)

Neither is the law ever said to die in these verses—and so the view of some commentators that the first husband is (or represents) the law is, to me,

also very questionable! (This “reversal” manoeuvre, described in the previous paragraph, is employed in this instance: thus, the death of the law (i.e. the husband) with respect to us (i.e. the wife) is seen by these commentators as the equivalent of our death with respect to the law in v. 4).]

2) Let us look at how some of these words function in these verses. First, consider how the woman is described in relation to the law in verses 2-3 using the Greek words katargeo and eleutheros: when the husband dies, the woman is cleared from (katargeo) the law of the husband in v.2 but free (eleutheros) from the law in v. 3. Why does Paul use two different words here?

Well, I’m not sure, but here is a suggestion! Katargeo in v. 2 is being contrasted (note the word de (= however) in the middle of the verse) with deo, and deo refers to being bound. Thus, katargeo—which means “to render completely inoperative” - here emphasises the act of “untying” or “disentangling” the woman from the law of the husband thereby nullifying this law in so far as it applies to her: it is the removal of a “negative”!

However, the word eleutheros in v. 3 means free or liberated, and so emphasises the result of the earlier unbinding. This is appropriate because v. 3 emphasises that, as a free, unbound woman, the law (relating to adultery) now cannot touch her if she is “for another man”.

When we move on in verses 4-6 to consider the application of the illustration, the woman now corresponds to “you” (the Roman Christians) or “we” - the Roman Christians plus Paul. This aspect of the interpretation of Paul’s illustration is basically agreed upon by all commentators: the woman represents the Christian (or the Church), and the Christian is freed from the law so as to belong to Christ. The key question from the perspective of the present article is whether the man, the husband, also represents the Christian.

3) Well then let’s now consider the man, the husband in the illustration and application. I think the words used here are pretty straightforward. In the illustration, the man is under the dominion (kurieuo) of the law whilst he is alive in v. 1. In the application there are several references: “ye also are made dead to the law” (v.4), the “passions of sins worked in our members” through the law (v.5) and “we died to that (i.e. the law) in which (i.e. the law) we were held or bound” (v. 6) (I provide a justification for this understanding of v. 6 later.) Paul here thus applied the situation of the man in relation to the law (i.e. that the law only applies to the man when the man lives) to the Christians at Rome (“ye”) or to the Christians at

Rome plus Paul (“we”). From the perspective of this article, a most important point is that the man in the illustration corresponds to the Christians in Rome in the application: thus, both the woman and the man correspond to the Christian(s).

4) As promised earlier, let us look at the word for “called” in v. 3. Here we read that the woman is “called” an adulteress if she re-marries whilst her husband is still alive. I don’t think this word is simply “calling” her or describing her as an offender. Rather the particular Greek word used for “called” is chrematizo and according to the HELPS notes on the Biblehub website:

chrēmatízō (from chrēma, "a legal agreement for transacting business") – properly, to admonish on the basis of a valid standard (what has true worth);

Thus, this verb has a quasi-legal meaning, and is used in reference to a valid standard. Most translations do not pick up this “nuance” of meaning. Two exceptions are the Weymouth New Testament which says that the woman would be “stigmatized” as an adulteress rather than simply “called” an adulteress, and the Amplified Bible which has “designated” as an adulteress. Whilst these translations are perhaps not ideal, they at least attempt to recognise Paul’s distinctive word choice here.

Evidence that a quasi-legal word is being used here is provided by the “panel” (i.e. parallel) analysis of v. 3 in the section labelled X in the diagram. In sub-section c) of this section, parts c) ii) and iii) are chiastically matched by parts c) iii`) and ii`). Thus, “she will be called” is matched by “she is free of the law”. This again points to a quasi-legal “flavour” for chrematizo.

5) Let us look at sections X and X` considered together. Although section X is longer than X`, we can see that they are closely connected since X`, (the application) consists of two lines which correspond to the opening and closing lines of Paul’s illustration in X. I have indicated this by the two red arrows in the diagram. Thus Paul seems to be saying here that the application of the entire illustration is summed up by these two lines. We note also that Paul develops the application in X` by pointing to its Christological basis in each of the two line.

Now, if this is correct, we can see that the first line of X` corresponds to the man, and the second line corresponds to the wife. Yet Paul uses the same second person pronoun, “ye” for both of these. This is, in my view,

strong evidence that it is the man/husband and wife jointly who in the illustration represent the Christian as that Christian passes from being “in the flesh” and under the law to being in Christ in the application.

6) In E1)q), Paul describes the central role of the law in activating the passions of sins for those “in the flesh”. The chiastic structure of E1)q) emphasises this point. Thus, “when we were in the flesh” and “in our members” (which are approximately equivalent concepts) in a) and a`) lie at the beginning and end of the chiasm, “the passions of sins” and their being “at work” (en-ergeito) (i.e. b) and b`)) lie within this—the development from b) to b`) being from the passions themselves i.e. feelings) to the outworking of those passions i.e. actions - and “through (dia) the law” , (i.e. c) is emphasised since it lies at the centre of this chiasm.

Finally, E1p) and E1p`) which speak about contrasting types of fruit, form an inclusio for the chiasm as a whole in E1.

This exactly corresponds to what Paul says, in expanded form in Rom. 7:7-25. Here, he describes, amongst other things, sin as a principle, “activated” or made alive through (dia) the law, and which actually does the wrongdoing.

7) There is a connection between the end of X` (Christ being raised) and the beginning of E1 (us bringing forth fruit) which isn’t really represented in the structural analysis shown in the diagram, but which is clear when reading the passage: this connection between Christ’s resurrection and our fruitfulness is pointed to in Old Testament types and shadows. For example, just as Christ was raised on the third day, so in Genesis 1, the earth was raised on the third day and brought forth fruit-bearing plants.

8) Let us look a little more closely at section E2, (Rom 7:6) and in particular at the first half of that passage, E2q). So far, we have analysed E2q) as follows:

Here (next page) is E2q) again, this time showing its chiastic aspect:

a) and a`) clearly correspond—one referring to us being cleared (or “untied” and the other referring to us being bound. c) comes in the middle of the chiasm, so this leaves b) and b`). b) consists of the preposition

apo followed by “the law”. Following this pattern, b`) consists of the preposition en followed by the relative pronoun ho meaning which or that and is masculine singular. It seems most reasonable to me, bearing in mind the chiastic structure, the proximity of the reference to the law (nomos), the fact that, in Greek, nomos is masculine singular, (and that there are no other masculine singular nouns in the vicinity1) that “which” here refers to the law.

Finally, I wish to look a little more closely at the Greek of this second half of E2q) as it seems to me to be a somewhat “compressed” structure which I suggest “works” in Greek but is a bit awkward in English. The last part of this chiasm, lines c), b`) a`), consists of two clauses which I think overlap as follows:

. . . we having died in which we were bound.

This doesn’t actually make sense in English, and the translators, very properly in my opinion, have inserted another couple of words. Here, for example, is the relevant section from the World English Bible:

(we) having died to that in which we were held;

What this excellent translation does is to recognise that the words en ho (i.e. “in which”) simultaneously refer back to “we having died” and forwards to “we were bound”:

. . . we having died in which we were bound.

(or to that)

So, if all this is correct, then this little section of Romans 7:6 tells us that

“we” died in in relation to the law—the law in which or to which we were previously bound..

Well, this little section corresponds both to the “you were made dead to the law (through the body of Christ)” in v. 4 (though this time, in v. 6, the verb “we having died” is active rather than the passive of v. 4) and it also corresponds to the husband who dies in verses 2 and 3 and especially to the “dominion” of the law over the man so long as he is alive in v. 1. The particular verb for being bound here, katecho means to hold fast, so this verse speaks of us dying to the law which held us fast.

[As a little aside, the Greek preposition en usually simply means “in”, and so “en ho” is most naturally translates as “in which”, but I think that here a better translation might be “in relation to that to which . . ” An analogy to this might be the Latin expression “in re” where the Latin preposition “in” here means “in relation to” a certain matter or thing.]

9) Word counts in E1:

If we just consider Romans 7:5 (rather than the whole of E1 which in our earlier analysis includes the final clause of Rom 7:4), we have a structure in which word counts are significant as illustrated in the diagram below:

Again, as with the previous analysis of E1, the central, facilitating role of the law is emphasised.

10) Word counts in E2.

E2 (i.e. Rom 7:6) consists of statements which are also balanced by word counts as illustrated in the diagram below:

4) Some Comments Regarding Allegorical (and other) Interpretations of our Passage from Evangelical Writers.

We have been proposing an allegorical interpretation of Paul’s “husband and wife” illustration in Romans 7:1-6 in which both the husband and the wife correspond to aspects of a single person, the believer, in the application. (The other main candidate for allegorical interpretations is the view that the wife represents the believer and the husband represents the law.) This allegorical style of interpretation is frequently criticised in modern commentaries, and is contrasted with the view, more popular currently, that Paul’s illustration is not an allegory, but rather it is an illustration of a single general principle, namely that a death can result in liberation from the law. The adequacy or inadequacy of this illustration, as an illustration, of the transformation in the life of the believer as he or she emerges from being under the law and into Christ is also frequently discussed in these commentaries.

Let us look briefly at these in reverse order.

John Stott is representative of commentators who recognise that Paul’s illustration, regarded as an allegory, is open to the charge that the allegory is not exact—since it is the husband who dies in the illustration but it is the believer (who corresponds to the to the wife) who dies in the theological application. Thus, in his Romans commentary, he says:

“Every reader notices that . . Paul’s metaphor has undergone a shift. In the marriage metaphor the husband dies and the wife remarries; in the reality it is the wife (formerly married to the law) who does both the dying and the remarrying”.

(In order to avoid charging Paul with this kind of inexatitude (or worse), John Stott holds the view that Paul must have intended the illustration as just that—an illustration—i.e. a general principle rather than an exact allegory. He goes on to say,

“We must allow Paul to be himself and to do what he is intending to do. He is not writing a parable. But neither is he developing an allegory in which every detail of the picture corresponds exactly to something in the reality. His purpose is admirably served by the essence of the illustration, which is that death has secured our release from the law and our remarriage to Christ”.

So we see that John Stott recognises that the allegorical interpretation in which the first husband is the law doesn’t work, and so he concludes that the allegorical approach per se is to be rejected, and that Paul’s illustration is precisely that—simply an illustration which has an “essence” which “serves Paul’s purpose admirably”. Well, OK, but he does not appear to have considered the alternative allegorical interpretation which we are defending in this article! It would have been interesting to hear his views on that!

One Evangelical commentator who has taken on board the allegorical interpretation supported here, and rejected it, is Douglas Moo. In his highly regarded Romans commentary he first draws attention to the same apparent problem with the allegorical interpretation noted by John Stott:

“If we assume that the details of the illustration in vv. 2-3 are parallel to the application in v. 4, then the first husband must represent the law, the “second husband” Christ, and the woman the Christian. Why, then, does Paul have the first husband dying in the illustration and the Christian (= the woman) [dying] in the application”?

However, he goes on to consider a second allegorical interpretation, namely the one defended in this present article:

“In order to maintain an “allegorical” interpretation of vv. 2-3 while explaining this apparent discrepancy, interpreters have resorted to a number of alternatives. The most likely takes the wife in the illustration as the “true self,” the first husband as the “old man” and the second husband as Christ. But this explanation and others of its kind that maintain an allegorical relationship between vv. 2-3 and v. 4 must import concepts into the text that are not there. Probably, then, Paul does not intend us to find significance in the details of vv. 2-3”.

I am not sure that I really support the idea that Paul, or Scripture generally, would contain details that are not significant; after all, if they are not significant, why would they be there in Scripture in the first place? Be that as it may, Douglas Moo maintains that the allegorical explanation must “import concepts into the text that are not there”. However, he doesn’t tell us what these concepts are that need to be imported into the text—it would have been helpful, to me anyway, if Douglas Moo had developed this theme in his commentary. Without knowing his reservations in this area, it seems to me that the structure of Romans 7:1-6 (as described in this present article) as well as the subsequent development of Paul’s arguments

in the remaining verses of that chapter in terms of the “divided self” both show that the interpretation of the passage that we have put forward stands on its own intrinsic merits without the need to import extraneous concepts.

5) A very brief discussion of the proposed interpretation in the wider context of Romans particularly Chs. 6-8.

In this section of the article, I would like to suggest some possible ways in which our passage, Rom. 7:1-6 links to what has preceded and to what follows in Romans. I haven’t looked at this topic properly, and these are just some thoughts which I have taken from commentaries etc.

1) The relationship between the law and sin.

It seems to me that one strand weaving its way through Paul’s reasoning in Romans chs. 6-8 is the way Paul shows that sin and the law both appear to operate in similar ways that produce similar unsatisfactory results. This is well documented in both John Stott’s and Douglas Moo’s commentaries. For example, here is a helpful quotation from John Stott:

“There are, in fact, many parallels between Romans 6 (freedom from sin) and Romans 7 (freedom from the law). [Note: although John Stott refers to Romans 7 here, the examples given below are all from Rom. 7:1-6, not from the whole chapter. SF] As we died to sin (6:2), so we also died to the law (7:4). As we died to sin by union with Christ’s death (6:3), so we died to the law through the body of Christ (7:4). As we have been justified and freed from sin (6:7, 18), so we have been released from the law (7:6). As we have also shared in Christ’s resurrection (6:4-5), so we belong to him who was raised from the dead (7:4). As we now live in newness of life (6:4), so we now serve in newness of Spirit (7:6). As the fruit we reap leads to holiness (6:22), so we bear fruit to God (7:4).

This comparison of sin and the law enables Paul to deliver the absolutely “outrageous” line . . .

“What then shall we say, is the law sin?” (Rom 7:7)

Whatever else, Paul certainly knows how to grab the attention of his audience!!

However, now that Paul now has his listeners’ full attention he goes on to explain in the remainder of the chapter, the way in which sin and the law

whilst obviously not the same, nevertheless interact in a complicated way to produce death, and then in Ch. 8 Paul explains how Jesus Christ and the Spirit are the solution to this problem. Thus our Passage, Rom. 7:1-6 is something of a “Janus” section—it looks both backwards to Ch. 6 and forwards to the rest of Ch. 7 and into Ch. 8.

2) In 1) above, we have looked briefly at the “backwards” view. What about the “forwards view”? Here is a suggestion for how Rom. 7:5-6 in particular sets the scene for Rom 7:7-25-8:17. The following diagram is taken from The Place of Romans 7 in the Argument of Romans – (Yet) Another New Look… by Dan Wu in The Churchman).

3) Finally (just to complicate matters!!) Douglas Moo, in discussing the structure of this section of Romans offers a variant in which he argues that Rom. 6:15-23 can be seen as “belonging” with Rom. 7:1-6 as a discrete section, whilst “other factors indicate that the dividing line should be drawn at 7:1 rather than 6:15” [i.e. at the “traditional” chapter break between chs. 6 and 7. SF] Included in his defence of the first of these structural divisions is a reference to C. D. Myers’ suggestion of the following chiastic arrangement:

6) Conclusion

I hope that you have found this “defence” of the traditional, allegorical interpretation of Paul’s illustration in Rom. 7:1-6 interesting. I would greatly value any comments and criticisms!

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download