Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
While for many the mention of Romans 7 calls immediately to mind the problem of the identity of the ἐγώ in w. 7–25, one could argue that Paul's marriage analogy at the outset of the chapter, though receiving less scholarly attention, has proved to be equally perplexing for interpreters of Romans. Stephen Westerholm indicates the complexity of this passage in his comment that Paul's picture ‘is not the most perspicuous in the literature’, while John A. T. Robinson speaks for many in asserting that the details of the analogy are ‘the more difficult the more you inspect them’.p
1 Israel's Law and the Church's Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) 206.Google Scholar
2 Wrestling with Romans (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979) 77.Google Scholar
3 Sanday, W. and Headlam, A. C., The Epistle to the Romans (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1896) 171–3.Google Scholar
4 Räisänen, Heikki, Paul and the Law (2nd ed.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1987) 62 n. 93.Google Scholar
5 Dodd, C. H., The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (MNTC; New York: 1932, reprinted, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1940) 103.Google Scholar
6 Dahl, Nils, Studies in Paul (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977) 83.Google Scholar
7 Räisänen, Paul, 61.
8 Ibid., 46.
9 Cranfield, C. E. B., The Epistle to the Romans (ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975)1.335.Google Scholar
10 Cf. Räisänen, Paul, 62 n. 93: ‘But the και [sic] in v. 6 shows anyway that Paul does think of an analogy between the example set forth in vv. 2–3 and the situation of the Christians.’ So also Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 173: ‘The force of καί here is, “You, my readers, as well as the wife in the allegory”.’
11 Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker, , A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (2nd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago, 1979) 393Google Scholar; Blass-Debrunner-Funk, , A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago/London: University of Chicago, 1961) 236.Google Scholar
12 Other texts in which καί has the sense of ‘so also’ are the following: Matt 6.10; John 6.57; 13.15; Acts 7.51; 1 Cor 15.49; 2 Cor 13.4; 1 Pet 4.1; and 1 John 2.18. Particularly interesting is Luke 6.31, where some MSS replace ὀμοωίς with καὶ ὐμε
ς, while the parallel in Matt 7.12 reads οὕτωςκαὶὑμες; in each case the meaning is the same.
13 Paul's language here has probably been influenced by the LXX, which uses γίνομαι + dative for the act of marrying in, e.g., Ruth 1.12–13 and Deut 24.2.
14 So Räisänen, Paul, 62 n. 93.
15 Dunn, James D. G., Romans 1–8 (WBC 38/1; Dallas: Word, 1988) 358Google Scholar; Little, Joyce A., ‘Paul's Use of Analogy: A Structural Analysis of Romans 7:1–6’, CBQ 46 (1984) 82–3Google Scholar; Nygren, Anders, Commentary on Romans (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1949) 268–9Google Scholar. Although these and other interpreters have noticed this parallel they have failed to see in it the key to the interpretation of the analogy.
16 This way of understanding ὕπανδρος is quite common among exegetes, who are perhaps following Bauer's Lexicon 837: ‘under the power of or subject to a man’.
17 Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1957) 136.Google Scholar
18 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 360.
19 We are of course simply concerned with whether or not the idea of the husband's authority is being highlighted in this particular text. Obviously Paul can say many things on the subject of marriage without having always to make explicit his views on authority and submission. Noteworthy in this regard is 1 Cor 7.3–4, where Paul speaks in terms of the mutual rights of spouses.
20 Lampe, G. W. H., A Patristic Greek Lexicon (London: Oxford University, 1961) 1434.Google Scholar
21 For a discussion on semantically ‘transparent’ words see Silva, Moisés, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983) 48–51Google Scholar. It is entirely possible that ὕπανδρος was once ‘transparent’ and carried the idea of the husband's authority at an earlier stage in the history of the Greek language. Cf. the comment of Maillon, J., French translator of Heliodorus (Les Éthiopiques [2nd ed.; 3 vols.; ParisGoogle Scholar: ‘Les Belles Lettres’, 1960]) 3.103 n. 2Google Scholar: ‘Polybe est le premier auteur à employer ὕπανδρος = mariée; mais cet adjectif dérive naturellement de la phrase d'Homère ὕσσαι νῦν γε γυναῖκες ὑπ᾽ ἀνδράσιν οἶκον ἔχουσιν (Odyssée, VII, 68).’
22 Cf. Polyb. 10.26.3; Aelian N.A. 3.42; Artem. 1.78 p. 74.6; Athen. 9 p. 388c; Heliod. 10.22; Polem. Hist. 59; Plu. Pel. 9.
23 Bibliotheca Historica 32.10.
24 Louw, J. P. and Nida, Eugene A., eds., Greek-English Lexicon (2 vols.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1988) 1.475Google Scholar. A corrective is thus provided to BAGD (see above, n. 13).
25 In the one occurrence of γυνή in 1 Corinthians 7 that refers to an unmarried woman (v. 34), Paul qualifies ή γυνή with the immediately following ἡ ἄγαμος καί ἡ παρθένος to make his meaning clear. In all of the other occurrences of γυνή a modifier is not used, presumably because it was sufficiently clear that γυνή by itself meant ‘wife’.
26 Some MSS (33.629 pc m vgww) add τοῦ ἀνδρός here, thereby reproducing the wording in v. 2 (ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ἀνδρός). It is extremely rare to find a commentator even mentioning the presence of the different reading, no doubt because of the one-sidedness of the evidence. We may safely assume that the longer reading is the result of assimilation to the preceding wording in v. 2; cf. Wilckens, Ulrich, Der Brief an die Römer (EKKNT 6/2; Zürich: Benziger/Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1980) 64 n. 247.Google Scholar
27 The Epistle to the Romans, 1.333. So the NEB: ‘the obligations of the marriage-law’. Cf. Robinson, Wrestling, 77; Gale, H. M., The Use of Analogy in the Letters of Paul (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964) 192.Google Scholar
28 That the similarity of construction was consciously intended by Paul is indicated by the use of ἐλευθέρα instead of καταργέω in 1 Cor 7.39. The former word would seem to be the more natural term to use of one's freedom to remarry. Therefore the use of καταργέω in Rom 7.2 of the wife's release from the marriage law is best explained as an effort on Paul's part to multiply further the number of ‘verbal links’ connecting corresponding elements in the analogy and its application.
29 The similarity between these two verses is noted by Robinson (Wrestling, 77) and Tannehill, R. C. (Dying and Rising with Christ [Berlin: Alfred Tbpelmann, 1967] 44)Google Scholar, who refers to 7.1 as a ‘maxim’.
30 Dunn and others recognize this phrase as a reference to Christ's death (Romans 1–8, 369).
31 Ἐὰνδὲἀποθάνηὁἀνήρ occurs in v. 2 and then again in v. 3; the genitive absolute ζ
ντοςτοῦἀνδρός in v. 3 is a temporal clause, yet clearly involves the idea of condition.
32 Cf. Moule, C. F. D., Essays in New Testament Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1982) 154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33 As Westerholm (Israel's Law, 214 n. 38) notes, the phrase ‘law of Christ’ in Gal 6.2 and 1 Cor 9.21 ‘is used loosely’ and should not be pressed.
