Bound by Law (3 of 3)

Could it be that Paul did not mean, “law,” as we Westerners typically understand it, as in a specific “legal code? I believe so. We must remember that Paul is a Hebrew, and in his writings he naturally translates, interprets, and applies many Hebraic concepts to his Gentile audience. He considered the Word of God, the Old Testament fully inspired and profitable for instruction in righteousness (right relationship with God and man, and right living). So how was marriage understood in the Old Testament.

In the Old Testament, and throughout Eastern cultures, marriage was understood as being established by “covenant”. Greek does not have a word that equates perfectly the Eastern concept of covenant. Paul actually uses two words to convey the Eastern concept of covenant, nomos and diatheke. Nomos is often used in general terms to reference the “Mosaic Law”; and diatheke is used to translate the word covenant specifically, as in the Old Covenant, and also implies “testament” as in “will and testament.”

“Covenant” is the Hebrew word “bereeth” in “she is your companion and your wife by covenant” (Mal.2.14). A covenant was an agreement between two parties, a pledge, a binding oath of promise. The word “covenant,” in the Bible and throughout the ancient Near East, was a broad term used to describe a wide variety of relationships: simple contracts, treaties between nations, marriages, indentured slave/master relationships, God’s relationship with the nation of Israel, and God’s promise not to flood the world. “bereeth” also often implies a legally enforceable contract.

Dr. David Instone-Brewer devotes the entire first chapter of his book, “Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible” to discuss the contractual nature of marriage as understood in the Near East in biblical times. I highly recommend this book for further study on this and related issues.
 
For the conclusion of chapter one, Dr. Instone-Brewer writes:
(emphasis mine)

Dr. Instone-Brewer makes a convincing argument supporting the assertion that; “The correct term for a marriage agreement in the Old Testament is a ‘marriage contract.’” However, does the English word “contract” adequately define a marriage relationship? In English, “contract” is most commonly used as a legal term with its strength in its specificity, clarity, and declared penalties for the breaking of the contract. An ironclad contract is one in which there are no loopholes or means of breaking the contract without penalty. The word “contract” usually applies to tangible and measurable elements of a relationship such as finances, responsibilities, and/or material ownership. The word “contract” also has the connotation of an impersonal, cold, calculating, business-type relationship. However, marriage is far more than the English word “contract” can define or connote.

The English word “covenant” is a better term for describing the marriage union, though having virtually the same meaning as the word “contract.” Covenant is more of a relational word that implies a personal commitment of the involved parties to each other that far exceeds the financial, material, or legal aspects of the relationship. The word “covenant” is used as a broad, inclusive, and non-specific relational vow often establishing new “family” ties. Furthermore, although the financial and material aspects of the covenant might be covered by a written contract and enforceable through civil law, the strength of a covenant is almost wholly dependent upon the moral character of the covenanters, the ones making the covenant.

The word “contract” is an integral part of the word “covenant;” but “covenant” is not necessarily implied in the word “contract.” Contracts are specific and legally enforceable covenants, whereas the relational elements of covenants are neither specific nor legally enforceable. For example, mutual love, honor, submission, trust, and faithfulness are all elements of a Christian marriage covenant; but these are intangible, immeasurable attributes that are not legally enforceable due to their attitudinal nature.

Also, “Covenant” is parallel or equivalent to the Hebrew words dabar (“word”), hoq (“statute”), piqqud (“precepts”—Ps. 103:18, nasb), ‘edah (“testimony”—Ps. 25:10), torah (“law”—Ps. 78:10), and checed (“lovingkindness”—Deut. 7:9, nasb). These words emphasize the authority and grace of God in making and keeping the “covenant,” and the specific responsibility of man under the covenant. The words of the “covenant” were written in a book (Exod. 24:4, 7; Deut. 31:24-26) and on stone tablets (Exod. 34:28). [Vine's complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words]

Covenants often also had written documents specifying the expectations of the relationship, as noted above in the quote from Dr. Instone-Brewer’s book. These documents specified the amount of the dowry, and any unique specifications concerning the relationship. For example, if a woman desired a monogamous relationship with her husband, she could have that stipulated in the marriage contract. The husband was then legally bound to that agreement, enforceable by civil authority. If her husband decided to marry another woman, he had to divorce her and pay the full dowry, unless she agreed otherwise.

So, what did Paul mean by “bound by law” in 1 Cor.7.39 and Rom.7.2?  It is very unlikely that Paul meant that a couple is bound by strictly either moral, domestic, civil, Mosaic, or Church statue or law. However, it is very likely, imo, that Paul was referring to the covenant of marriage which was regulated and enforced to a limited degree by civil authority and influenced by the moral teachings of Moses and Christ.  “Bound by law” should be understood and interpreted as “bound by covenant”.


P.S.  Post #1 on this thread has a list of the various topical posts I've made on this thread.

 God divorced Israel. Jer 3:8

Sherman
I watch for your posts to help me keep my sanity.  They are always well thought out and obviously much study goes into them.  I am wondering what sin we have committed to attract all the wacky, "true gospel", "2 gospel" know it all, let me tell you horrible sinners how you should believe and act folks. 

It is heart wrenching to know how many folks are taught that they must stay in a marriage or live alone even if there is abuse and no love.  Thanks for the sunshine in you posts.  Later Johnb   

  It does kind of put a weird spin on the whole MDR thing. It also creates a paradox in which we have to get to the Spirit of the matter rather than the letter of the Law.

 Interesting enough I thought there was a scripture that says God hates divorce.

 excellent point! I like it when I learn something. Thanks

Mr. Nobles--I plan to copy out your lessons and take notes. i am really committed to this study. I've read homer hailey and Samuel Dawson--two devout scholars of God's word. both vilified because of their stand on mdr. Just thinking about the early Lord's Church as well as present day America. Did Jesus really want the dissolvement of marriages before people could enter his kingdom? What consternation, what heart-break, what untold poverty this would have caused the early church. Some churches won't baptise a person until they have started divorce proceedings against an innocent spouse. I can't stand it. By the way, I read your article on the web about God being a divorcee.

This is the first time that I see such a 'warning' on any message boards that I have been on in the past...
However, I believe that this thread should be bumped back up to page 1 so that others may be able to read/consult/or maybe even reply to it eventhough it has been a while since no-one has posted in it for the past almost nine months now...
Personally, I wish I could have known about this particular thread two years ago, but I wasn't a member of this board yet back then...

Sherman, I wish to thank you for writing this book, but especially for sharing some of it on this board...I have read the first page so far...it took me a while for I am a slow reader...I will definitely read the rest of it...and again, I thank you...