ROMANS CHAPTER 7
IN MORE DETAIL
REMARRIAGE AFTER DIVORCE IN THE BIBLE.

This is for those who may have further questions about Rom 7, the marriage covenant, and Holy Matrimony. It is a good thing to want to have proof of things and to have a better understanding, but at the same time one must be willing to be taught, and to receive, the truth. For those who have need of more detail, I hope to give enough for you to understand. But of course, even though I prove these things there will always be those who cannot, and will not, be taught or receive the truth. And unfortunately these days it is not the minority but the majority who reject the truth, though it be made as plain as the nose on your face. It is a good thing to ask for proof, but I fear that people will more readily accept what they want to hear without proof rather than to accept the truth though it be proven. Do question what you hear, but at the same time be open to the truth.

WHAT IS ROMANS 7. ABOUT?

Many people do not know what the topic of this chapter is and therefore have a poor understanding of it. First of all it is important to know what the subject is, then we can gain an understanding as to why Paul has given this example and exactly what it means. There are many cases of parables and allegories in the Word of God, they help us to understand spiritual things by an earthly example that we can relate to. Here we have one of these earthly examples given to us by Paul. It helps us gain an understanding of what he is teaching us. Perhaps all examples may not line up 100% in every aspect, because after all they are only examples. But they are given that we may compare this to what is being taught, so that we may gain an understanding of the subject in question. Therefore for this example to be of any value it must teach us somewhat of the subject. Furthermore this example, (unlike some others) is even more closely related to the subject. Just as the example is a marriage so is the subject. Therefore one would expect that the example would be even closer to the subject. The subject discussed here in Romans is not divorce and remarriage. Nor is the example given that we may understand that one must die to end a covenant. Certainly from this we can see that there must be the death of one or the other to end a covenant, but the subject is deeper and the example more specific. So what is the subject? The apostle Paul is teaching us about the 1st and 2nd covenants, and how that under the 1st covenant the Jewish people were under the law. This law was good in some ways but failed in others. This law was given to them for a reason, but the time came for God to bring his people out from under this law and to allow all who would to enter into covenant with him. It is a well-documented fact that God's relationship with Israel is portrayed in God's Word as a marriage. God is the husband, and Israel is the wife. As we said, God wanted to make a new covenant with His people and He wanted to include all mankind. The problem was that although the gentiles, being free of any covenant would have no problem entering into this covenant with God, but Israel was already in a covenant relationship. Israel had made a covenant with God to keep the law, and she was bound to do so. Therefore she could not enter into the second covenant with everyone else until the first covenant was finished. God did not want Israel to be left out so He had to end the 1st covenant to allow her to enter into the second. So how could God do this? Well, letís look at the example, which strangely enough looks very much like the reality of it all. A woman who is married is bound by the law of her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband is dead then she is loosed from the law of her Husband, and free to marry another. The reality of the situation was the same; Israel was in a covenant relationship with God. He wanted them to be free from this covenant. He wanted them to be free not so much from the husband, but from the (law). He wanted to free them from the 1st covenant, in which they were bound to keep this law, (this is the subject). He wanted his beloved wife to be able to partake with us all in the 2nd and better covenant. This covenant could be ended in two ways: the death of the husband or the death of the wife. Although as we shall see, and as common sense would suggest, the death of the wife would kind of be defeating the purpose of the whole exercise. Whilst looking into these things it is important to remember that we must be able to distinguish the difference between the example and the reality of the situation, don't get them mixed up. A real problem needs a real answer not a figurative one. This is the main problem people have; they do not see the difference between the two and they do not comprehend what a covenant really is. Because of this they cannot see the truth. But we will look at this later. By looking at other translations and different Commentaries, it seems to be a common thought that the law was the husband and that we, including the Jewish nation, died with Christ on the cross and so putting an end to the law and the 1st covenant. I will now seek to prove them wrong using the Old King James without which one would have a difficult task to find the truth.

WHAT IS THIS LAW?

We see here two laws. The 1st is the law of Moses that God sought His people to be free from. The second is the law which binds a wife to her husband. These two are different in some ways yet similar in others, which of course is why one is used as an example to show what has happened to the other. Neither of these two laws are a covenant and a covenant is not the law, so how does it all work? Well, a covenant basically is a promise. A promise which is a bit more binding than, "I promise to take the kids to the park tomorrow." It is better not to promise or swear things anyway. But what we are talking about is a more important matter, a covenant such as we make when we get married and promise to be only with the one we marry until death do we part. Which is of course the same covenant that is now in question. When we make this covenant we make certain promises to each other and make an agreement to keep those promises. We promise to keep ourselves only for our partner, we promise to love each other in sickness and in health, etc. These are what we call our vows. In doing this we make an agreement to keep these promises. This is a covenant. We make a covenant to keep our promises we have made, and not only them, but all the obligations that naturally go along with the responsibility of marriage, whether they are mentioned or not. God under similar circumstances entered into a covenant relationship with Israel. This relationship God actually calls a marriage. God promised to be their God, and to bless His people, and look after them. And they promised to love and obey Him, and to keep His laws. They were bound by this covenant which they made with God to keep the law. The law was their promises. They promised to obey these laws as long as they lived. So this was how Israel was bound by the law to her husband. Of course, God could not consummate the marriage (another reason why their relationship was a betrothal and not a marriage). And Israel is not a woman but a nation, however because of these similarities, and to help us understand things, God portrays this relationship as a marriage, because it is a covenant relationship between two parties who love each other. Now as for the example of an earthly man and wife, what is this law which bound the wife to the husband as long as he lived? This law of the husband, which his wife was bound by, is of course not the law of Moses. This law was the vow they made to each other. But a husband and wife are not only bound by the vow they personally made to each other; it is more than this. As we said, apart from our personal vows we made to each other there are certain obligations that naturally go along with a marriage.


SO THE LAW IS

All things that bind a husband and wife together such as:

[1] Promises made at the time.

[2] The covenant.

[3] What God expects from a married couple. In Matt 19 The Pharisees came to Jesus tempting him and asked, is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Starting from Vs 4 He answers them, have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female. And said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. We will discuss the law later, but even though the law may have allowed divorce and even though we may have our own clauses in our vows, no matter what man may say or allow, Jesus took them right back to the beginning even before the law. God said concerning the 1st married couple that they are no more twain but one, and let not man put asunder what God Himself has joined together. This also is part of that law which binds a wife to her husband. This supersedes all; they asked him about the law and he ignored it completely because it doesn't matter what the law says. He rather than commenting on the law, at this stage, took them way back to the beginning. This first marriage is as it seems the building block for all marriages. So it did not matter what these Pharisees thought the law meant. It doesn't matter what we think. It doesn't matter what our customs are, or what we might say in our vows. The simple fact is that God from the beginning intended for all marriages to be until the death of one or the other. This is clearly God's mind on the issue. As Jesus pointed out, God's intentions for marriage are clearly outlined in this passage of scripture in God's Word for all to see and obey. So this also forms part of the law which binds a wife to her husband.


[4] And lastly it also included some of what was written in Moses' law, because in the law there were some rules and regulations for a married couple to observe. So all these things together make up what is known as the law, which binds the wife to the husband.

Under the law the wife was to serve and obey her husband, to be faithful etc. The wife of Jehovah, (Israel), was under the authority of her husband. She was bound by the law of her husband, part of which was of course keeping the law to the letter, right down to the smallest detail. She was bound by this 1st covenant to God until death. And this is what God sought his people to be free from. This is not figurative but a fact, the example given was of a man and wife so we can understand the facts which was that Israel was bound to her husband by the law. And just as it would take the physical death of the husband for the wife to be free from the law of her husband so, too, it would take the physical death of God (the husband) for Israel to be free from the law. So my point is that the law for many reasons could not be considered to represent the husband in this example. Also it is not our figurative death that ended the covenant for these simple reasons.

REASONS WHY THE LAW COULD NOT BE THE HUSBAND

[1] The law is not a person one could enter into a covenant with, nor is it a person to literally die to end one.

[2] It is a well-documented fact that God himself is known as the husband of his people Israel. As we have just discussed this part is the reality of the situation, so I am not teaching any new thing here, God is the husband. Whereas to say the law is the husband is a new and unfounded theory whether you are speaking literally or figuratively. There is not one scrap of evidence to support this theory except a couple of misinterpreted verses in Rom 7:4+6. So it is not really up to me to prove the law was not the husband, but it is up to those who believe it was to prove this unfounded theory.

[3] It does not line up with the example.

[4] It does not even make sense, as we shall see later that it was the law that BOUND the wife TO the husband. So it does not make sense to say that the law WAS the husband. It would be like saying that the wife was bound by the law to the law? Which does not make any sense.

WHY THE WOMAN DID NOT DIE.

[1] It does not line up with the example.

[2] There is no proof of this except one misinterpreted verse (Vs 4) Which we will look at later, and this is not a good foundation at all to base their theory on.

[3] One can not spiritually die to end a covenant, it needs to be a physical death, which is of course the whole point Paul is trying to make. If it did then you are saying, when a man is born again and dead to his old self he can go and marry someone else because his 1st marriage is over, in fact if this were true, he would have to renew his vows. We are also saying that this covenant was not real because a figurative death ended it. I wonder if we can trust God that our current covenant is real?

[4] It does not even make sense because if you think about it, verse 4 is not the example but what has happened in reality so this is like saying that Israel died to end the covenant. Which defeats the purpose of the whole exercise. Because Jehovah's beloved wife would now be dead. Unless you say (as most do) that it was speaking figuratively which as we have just looked at would be like saying that Gods covenants mean less than our marriage covenants, as a figurative death can end a covenant that God makes with us. And since it would take a real physical death to end a covenant our figurative death could not achieve this. Our figurative death is in the likeness of Christís real death, he is the only one who really died. It was either God or the Jewish nation and although Hitler tried to wipe them out they are still alive. But Jesus died in the flesh, and by this the Word says we are dead to the law, or in other words it has no more power over us. And if we were to accept that our figurative death ended the covenant then we must also accept those who say since they are born again they may marry another. And what would we do with verses like one to three in this chapter Romans 7 which plainly state that we are bound until death, is this true or not? did God lie? And what do we do with scriptures like these.

Jer 33:19  And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying,
Jer 33:20  Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my
covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and
that there should not be day and night in their season;
Jer 33:21  Then may also my covenant be broken with
David my servant, that he should not have a son to
reign upon his throne; and with the Levite's the
priests, my ministers.

There are so many scriptures that prove that Gods
covenants are 100% unbreakable. To argue that they
are not is to call God a liar. The only thing that can end a
covenant is death, a real death or God is a liar. If she had
died then she would not have been there to get remarried,
unless she could come back to life again which she could
not. Jesus can rise from the dead and enter into covenant
with us in the spirit but we can not. God makes a covenant
with man while he is in the flesh so that we might keep his
commandments while we are here on earth. A covenant
might be made in the spirit but although Jesus is in the
spirit we are in the flesh, we can see this because if we
look into a mirror we actually have a reflection, it can be
scientifically proven that this is so because we are alive in
the flesh and not dead.

[5]And last of all, we know that Israel did not have to miraculously come back to life in the flesh because she did not die in the first place.

WHICH BRINGS US TO WHO DID DIE? AND HOW DOES ALL THIS FIT INTO ROMANS CHAPTER 7?

KEEP THIS IN MIND WHILST READING.

VS [1] States the facts of how the situation was.

VS [2] The 1st part of the example.

VS [3] The 2nd part of the example.

VS [4] - [6] How this example relates to what God has done to fix the situation.

Rom 7:1  Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?                
Rom 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.
Rom 7:3  So then if, while her husband liveth, she be
married to another man, she shall be called an
adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free
from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she
be married to another man.
Rom 7:4  Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become
dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should
be married to another, even to him who is raised from
the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Rom 7:5  For when we were in the flesh, the motions of
sins, which were by the law, did work in our members
to bring forth fruit unto death.
Rom 7:6  But now we are delivered from the law, that
being dead wherein we were held; that we should
serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the
letter.

ROMANS CHAPTER 7:1-6.

States the facts of how the situation was.

Vs [1] Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law), how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

Paul says that the law (the law of Mosses) has dominion over a man as long as he lived. This does not say that the law is the husband, but that the law had dominion over a man or power over him, that he had to obey it all the days of his life. In no way does this verse even hint that the law could even figuratively be considered the husband. We are here speaking as the facts are that a man was bound to keep the law as long as he lived. As we have discussed, God was the husband and Israel as his wife, was bound by covenant to keep the law all the days of their lives. This is the topic and what this whole chapter is about. So verse [1] shows us the situation, that Israel was bound to God by the law for as long as they lived. There were no if's or but's listen to what Paul is saying. He said that a Jew as long as he was alive was bound by the law, this was the reality of it all. People then interpret these things as if it were all figuratively speaking and not really important but let me tell you this is very important and if you cannot understand this then you will not understand the next few verses because this is what the whole thing relates to. Gods covenant with them was every bit as real as the covenant that we make when we marry. To say that it was not is to make little the things of God, it is saying that God's covenant is not real and is unimportant.  

 The 1st part of the example.

Vs[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.
Note how the verse begins (FOR) the woman which hath an husband. What is that FOR, there for? He is saying (for), as in, Israel was bound by the law to God, (for) the reason being, now he gives us an example, and shows us why she is bound to God by the law. She is bound (for) the reason being that just as a wife is bound to her husband by the law of her husband so too is Israel bound to her husband by his law. The similarity between the situation and his example of course is no coincidence, this is an example of the situation and also the answer to the problem. For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as HE liveth but if the HUSBAND be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. This is the exact situation Israel was in, she was married to God, which is not a bad thing, but she was bound by the law of Mosses to him. This was the problem, there is only one way to end a covenant, that is by death, as the example shows. Listen and look at this example, this is an example but also a fact which is why it was given as an example in the 1st place. And he must expect this to be common knowledge, otherwise he would not have used it to be an example. Look and Listen, a woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband for as long as he lives. This is real these are the facts, it is until death do we part, and it is only by the PHYSICAL death of one of the two, that the other may be free from this law. So considering that only by the death of one or the other can one be free from this law. We must then look to the situation, either Israel must die or God, and as Paul has been trying to teach us this death must be real because the covenant was real. If we cannot grasp this then we really do not understand even the basics of what Paul is trying to teach us. So this was a real covenant and either Israel or God had to die to end it, and as we have seen before if Israel was to die God would have no wife, and we know that Israel is not dead. Note also that a woman is bound BY the law TO her husband. As we have studied the law previously we can see that it is the law, which binds a wife TO her husband. In the light of this it should not be terribly difficult to comprehend that it is also the law, which bound Israel TO her husband, who has always been God. This only becomes confusing because of new translations and other peopleís theories. But if we would ignore all this and really look at what the Word is saying it is quite plain that as in this example the law is not the husband, but the husband and wife are bound together BY the law. It is not a person but the binding agent between a husband and his wife. Is it such a strange thing to think that just as a wife is bound to her husband, by the law, that Israel, who is known as the wife, should be bound by the law to her husband, who is known to be God? We can also see from the latter part of this verse that the wife can also be loosed from this law of her husband upon HIS death, this example being a direct reflection of what has happened. That the HUSBAND died and therefore the wife loosed or freed from this law.

The 2nd part of the example.

Vs [3] So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Continuing with his example we now see what happens if a woman who has married ANOTHER, (take note of this word) husband while the 1st is still alive. Once again Paul speaks of this as common knowledge and quite clearly labels a woman who has done this as an adulteress. The example is given that we might know what God has done and why. Israel could not enter into the 2nd covenant unless (as in the example) the 1st HUSBAND was dead, if she did, this would be adultery. But as the verse says if the HUSBAND is dead then she is not an adulteress, though she be married to ANOTHER, once again take note of this word, (ANOTHER). So the second part of this example is once again strangely enough a direct reflection of what God has done, as we will see in the next verse.

How this example relates to what God has done to fix the situation.

Vs [4] Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to ANOTHER, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. Wherefore brethren, or for this reason, brethren. We must ask what is that (wherefore) there for? He says that just as he has been showing us in his example, we too have become dead to the law. Or in other words this law now has no power over you, as we will discuss shortly. But in saying (wherefore) Paul is pointing us back to the example and now showing us how it relates to what has happened. Wherefore my brethren or for this same reason. YE ALSO or, YOU TOO have become dead to the law, you as the woman are no longer under the power of the law of your 1st husband so that YOU would not be considered an adulteress though YOU TOO, or YE ALSO, are married to ANOTHER. In the example the HUSBAND died not the woman. Yes it is true that the death of either one would end the covenant. But as we have seen it does not make sense that the woman died for several reasons, Now also we see by the way Paul speaks, he is drawing a direct parallel between what has happened and his example, by the use of these words FOR, WHEREFORE, YE ALSO and as we will soon see the use of the word ANOTHER as well. All of which draw attention to the fact that the example is a direct reflection of the facts and if this is so then the wife (Israel) did not die but the husband (God) did. Now we shall look at (ye also are become dead to the law). As we have previously discussed to say that ye are actually dead is to say that the woman is dead, and I have given several reasons why this could not be so. And now as we look at this passage of scripture I will give you more. For a start remember that those who think that the woman is dead, base their belief on this one verse, which is not a good foundation for two reasons.

[1] Often there is not enough information in one verse to gain a full understanding on the subject and therefore one can come to the wrong conclusion.

[2] It is especially dangerous when the verse in question could mean something else. Which of course I now intend to prove that this is the case. As we said the Old King James seems to have its own language which is understandable because it is OLD ENGLISH unlike how we speak today. It has also been translated from other languages. And in the Word of God there is a lot of figurative speaking. In fact we have died in several different ways figuratively, and none of them ended any covenant relationships we were in at the time. So to say that ye are become dead to the law does not necessarily mean that ye are dead even figuratively. Nor does it necessarily mean that the law is dead either. It is a way of speaking to say that we are dead to it, in that it has no more power over us. We say that we are dead (figuratively speaking). For we are crucified with Christ, BUT nevertheless we LIVE, Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Don't forget we are still alive, Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the LIKENESS of his death, we shall be also in the LIKENESS of his resurrection. We are dead and then alive in his LIKENESS, don't forget HE was the one who died. So it is true that we are dead (figuratively speaking) but this is not what is being discussed here. Here and now in Rom 7 we are looking at a real covenant and a real death to end it, and we, as you might have noticed, although we are dead, we are also well and truly still very much alive. It then says how we are dead to the law. It is by the body of Christ, he is the only one who literally died here, not us. And we are dead to the law by the body of Christ. He accomplished the work of setting Israel free from the law and enabled them to enter into another covenant by his death in the flesh. For we are dead to the law (BY), the body of Christ. The covenant was between Israel and God and it was ended by the body or the death of Christ in the flesh. This unmistakably would have to make Jesus God in the flesh. Because if my wife was to remarry I would have to die, not the next door neighbor. Because of course the covenant was between my wife and I, not my wife and the next door neighbor. And now we see why we are dead to the law, That YE should be married to ANOTHER. This once again draws our attention to the facts lining up with the example, because he says that YE ALSO are dead to the law by the body of Christ that YE should be married to ANOTHER. Just as the example said, the HUSBAND died so the WOMAN could be loosed to marry ANOTHER. Paul now says that YOU TOO are dead to the law so that YOU can marry ANOTHER. Another what? Another husband, as in different from the first, this is quite plain, but if there needed to be another to replace the 1st then this would have to mean that the 1st was gone, would it not? So where did Israelís 1st husband go? Quite plainly he was dead which once again lines up with the example. And who was the only person to literally die in all this? JESUS God in the flesh. We will look a little more at this word (ANOTHER) and at who died a bit further ahead when we see a diagram of the situation. In the last part of vs 4 we see that we are married to another even to him, who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. Just as Israel was married to God so too are we, this does not mean that God has forgotten about Israel, not at all, but we all now form part of the New Jerusalem. The apostle Paul says in 2Co 11:2  For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. This says we are espoused which is correct, but Rom 7 says we are married which is also correct. This is as I said only a way of speaking, we are not married as yet, but the Word says we are. Some may disagree that we are said to be married, but for future reference as we continue this study, I would briefly like to point out that a marriage of course usually produces fruit. And it is here stated that we are married to him that is raised from the dead in order that we might bring forth fruit unto God. I would ask when is it that we would bring forth fruit now or after we are dead? I would suggest (now). As we can see from the next verse that we were bringing forth fruit unto death before. Since we were bringing forth fruit then, it would only make sense that we should be bringing forth fruit now. We may only bring forth fruit before we die, and while we are able on this earth to do so, therefore I would suggest that it says we are married now, as it is now that we are bringing forth fruit. It is also interesting to note that this fruit which is said to be brought forth by this marriage is brought forth unto God. If God were not the husband it would not be able to be said that this fruit is brought forth unto him it is his fruit as the husband in this marriage. But who are we married to? To him that is raised from the dead. JESUS CHRIST, our Lord, and husband, and God.

How this example relates to what God has done to fix the situation.

Vs [4] Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Vs [5] For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
Vs [6] But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.                                  

Vs 4 and Vs 6 are as we said the only two verses in the whole bible that have been misinterpreted to mean that the law was the husband. Some may think that this part of verse 4 ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ somehow means that either only we are dead or that we and the law (as the husband) are both dead. Then in verse 6 we see the words that being dead. So what does this mean, (ye also are become dead to the law) and (that being dead?). As we have before seen several reasons why the wife did not die and the law could not be the husband, yet many people base their opinion, that the woman died on Vs 4 and that the law was the husband on verses 4+6 which can, and do, mean something else. The law was not physically alive in the 1st place in order for it to die, but it was at one time in use, but when Christ put an end to the law it became obsolete or as we see it described here as dead, figuratively speaking. Something that no longer works is often described as being dead. These are the facts of the situation, the law is finished, but he explains this fact by describing the law as being dead, (figuratively speaking). Or in other words that we are dead to it, in that it no longer has any power over us. So we are not dead, but we are (dead to the law) in that it has no more power over us, and it is also dead its self, (in a manner of speaking).

I THINK I HAVE COVERED JUST ABOUT ALL I CAN AT THIS STAGE THE ONLY OTHER THING I CAN THINK OF IS THESE THREE QUESTIONS WHICH COULD BE ASKED.

(1) How is it possible that the husband, being God, could die?

(2) How is it that God can be two husbands?

(3) How is Israel the same wife even though she now includes us?


(1) How can God die?

This might shock some and also send them into laughter. But it is not as crazy as it sounds when we look at it carefully. Who is Jesus really? Some say a god, others an angel. Many think he is God the son along with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, all having their own spirit soul and body. I believe he is Emmanuel, God with us. He is God, for in him dwelt the fullness of the Godhead. God made us spirit soul and body, and he made us in his image, God is spirit soul and body. Jesus (The Word) became flesh and dwelt among us, he was God in the flesh. unfortunately saying this tends to upset a lot of people. But I don't know why because in saying so I lift up the name of Jesus. I am not going to do a full study on who Jesus is now, but I do hope that after you have read this study on Rom 7, it will in itself be proof that Jesus is God. Although many would argue about who Jesus is, surely we must agree that he died in the flesh. Rev 2:8 These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive. You may say OK so God died in the flesh, but he is still alive. True but then again when we die, and so end the covenant we made with our partners, we only die in the flesh as well, we are no more dead than Jesus is. After our death in the flesh our partners are then free to marry another, even though we will never die in soul and spirit. It only takes the death of a person in the flesh, to end a covenant, so even though God can never die, neither can we. But Gods death in the flesh by (the body of Christ) ended the 1st covenant, just as our death will end ours, though we, as God, will never really die. But before we look at these last two questions, consider this. The example as I said is specific, more so than most people think, but as I also said although it is more specific than most think, it is also still only an example. And for this reason it is not always possible to line up 100%. Now before you pass judgment on my next two points consider that what I am showing you certainly lines up much closer than what is widely accepted. Refer to the diagram below.
Firstly, here is a diagram of the example given in Romans 7 as it is written.

     romans chapter 7 apostle paul
Now here is the theory we are asked to believe, it goes like this.



         divorce and remarriage in the church and bible


Doesn't this seem strange to anyone else? I mean it doesn't look anything like the example.

So they both died? How do we come to this conclusion from this example? The example shows us that in order for a covenant to end so that one may be free to marry another there must be the death of one of the two (in this case the husband), we are shown that there must be the death of one of the couple to free the other, this is the whole point of the example. Now if we were to listen to the argument that they both died then the example becomes useless because one is not then freed to marry another for they are both dead, in this case we are not talking of one becoming free or loosed to remarry but we would be talking about a completely new couple not a new partner and therefore there is not the need to understand the ending and freedom from covenants at all, for a free couple have no covenant to be free from. And what would be the point of using these words FOR, WHEREFORE, YE ALSO, LOOSED and ANOTHER. There would be no use of these words as there would be no similarity between the example and the facts. The whole example then becomes totally irrelevant if they both died.

So I think that the explanation I have given of these verses is infinitely closer to the truth than the more widely accepted interpretation, considering that it is not a normal situation that a wifeís husband dies setting her free to marry another. Only that other is actually her 1st husband who died and then came back to life then married her again. Only she is not really the same person because she is now partly someone else. So what kind of example could one give to explain this situation? I think that the one given is as close as it gets. So don't judge what I now say too harshly.

[2] How is it that God can be the two husbands?

If we stick to the example as I said we should, then how is it that God died to end the 1st covenant and then became another husband in the second covenant. Of course God is not two people (I speak for myself). As I said not all of this may line up as perfectly as we would like, but the main thing is that Israel needed a new covenant where she would be free from the law and able to enjoy Gods grace. She did not so much need a new husband as she did a new covenant. Though she may in reality be joined to the same husband, yet in a way he is new because he died and ordinarily when that happens if you want to get remarried you will need to find another husband. Also this first marriage was according to the flesh but the second of the spirit, so there is a difference between the two. There is no other way to convey this message to us. And could she have married anyone else? God would not allow it, she is his wife whom he loves. But Jesus as the 1st husband who was by the 1st covenant bound to Israel his wife, died. So the 1st husband was dead. Now naturally to enter into another covenant she had to have another husband, he who now in a way was another, as he had died in the flesh and then was risen in the spirit from the dead he is no longer alive in the flesh but lives only in spirit. He then is no longer the same ever again.

[3] How is Israel the same wife even though she now includes us?

Israel is still considered to be the same wife even though she now includes us for these reasons.

[a] The wife still includes Israel.

[b] We can see in Rom 11 that we are graffed in. And in Rev 21:12-14 we can see that the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles form part of the New Jerusalem. Also in Eph 2:11-22 Paul explains how we were once without Christ being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise etc. But now he has made us (Jews and Gentiles) both one. He has made in himself of two one new man. He did this as it says in vs 15, by abolishing in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments. He made an end of the law and made a new and better covenant by his death in the flesh on the cross. So now we are all as one.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
Romans 7 more dtl
NEW STUFF