Law, Marriage, Adultery
Romans 7:1-3 · Bob Eckel · Sep 24, 2006
Romans (2005-07), No. 50
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://www.hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/49260347478

Transcribed from the recording by SermonAudio, so expect the occasional misheard word.

We've reached kind of a point in Romans today that's a transition. And I've got a couple of things just up front to kind of introduce the rest of Romans. Now, Romans 6-7 transition isn't kind of like jumping off the edge of a cliff here. But, you know, the passages we've studied for the last year and a third here or something, or whatever we've been at this, and the projected finishing of this book is in, I think, the fall or up 2007.

Isn't that correct? So whether we're going to make that or not, I don't know. But Jim and Roger and I have looked at the schedule ahead, and we're going to continue to be covering about two to four verses a week. We feel that that's kind of a right amount of scripture to look at from a week-to-week basis, and not too much, it's not too little.

We're trying to divide the teaching into thematics, but unfortunately sometimes those get broken down a little bit just by the schedules and things like this. But the transition from 6 to 7 now is a transition that is an important one, and I think we're going to see that also from 7 to 8. So let's just start with just kind of a description here of where we're at.

Jay Vernon McGee is someone that I particularly like. I don't necessarily feel like 100% of the time I'm kind of right with him, but he's just a funny guy who's got a real practical life experience. I listen to his tapes every morning on the way to work.

And I'm in Zephaniah right now. I was sharing with the men yesterday, maybe I wouldn't share it with you, I shared it on Friday night at Bible study. That's something that Guy had done recently with Zephaniah relating to the Vietnam War. I won't go tangential, but it was kind of interesting because this tape was made during the Vietnam War. But anyway, J. Vernon and I looked at a lot of commentaries here. A couple things that I thought he really revealed about Romans 7 that were at least worthy of attention. He's divided the book really into two sections.

The first is what he calls the shackles of a saved soul. And shackles in kind of common terms would be chains or irons or things we're bound up in. And he divides that into Romans 7, 1 through 14. Now, it may well be that that ultimately you could look at verse 7 maybe as a part of this shackles of a saved soul.

And then we transition into the second part that McGee has labeled the struggle of a saved soul. So you could look at the struggle as from 7 to 24 rather than 15 to 24. But anyway, the idea of the book is is divided by J. Vernon in this way. And I think whether verse 7 or verse 15 is the dividing point, we could discuss in more detail. But anyway, interesting just for a point of thought to start things off with. Now, I think before we move into the study today, which is chapter 7, verses 1 through 3, let's just ask a couple of questions. What's preceded Romans 7?

That's a question. And you are the people to provide the answers. Chapter six. I like the way we're off to a good start here. I actually told Rod for this yesterday so he could prepare. Ruth, would you like to add anything to this? And you're going to say chapter five, aren't you? All right, we're moving right ahead here. Chapter 5 and then 4, okay. So somebody kind of just free associate a little bit in terms of what precedes Romans 7. Nobody has been thinking about this, I can tell.

Now, see, you're as bad as responding to Roy's questions the other night in Bible study. Roy did a beautiful job outlining Hebrews 4. And as he did this, he provided a series of questions. He gave us a handout, actually. I've never had that in a Bible study before. Provides his handout. All the answers to the questions are there. And he asked this first very provocative question. And nobody was smarter than Gail to say, well, here's the answer. It's written right. Go ahead, Gail. It says, we're dead to sin and alive to God and from slaves of sin to God. Okay. Maybe a more specific question. Is the order of the chapters of the Book of Romans relevant or important? What's chapter one about? Remember chapter one a year ago, a year plus ago? I think it's important. OK, Jim, expand on that a little bit. Take us in your summary of 1 through 6 and where we've come and where we're at right now.

Well, 1 through 3 presents the whole world as condemned before God. So if you're going to talk about, say, 6, freedom from the power of sin, written to believers, and you haven't seen that the whole world is condemned before God, and that's really getting the carpet before the horse. And so it can get real confusing. So yeah, I think it's critical the way that is laid out. Remember Romans 1 very graphically describing the nature of man being separated from God and kind of the heinous kinds of positions that the human creation is in. And then we get revealed in Romans 1 ultimately and 2 particularly is how God in his creation has made himself apparent to all men.

And all men are guilty before God simply because of creation. And then the idea that there's this human conscience. And the problem with conscience is leading you to God is that conscience can vary based on culture and ethnicity and other things. But there is a conscience that every man has. And so the conscience isn't making it. And then the third C, of course, is the Lord Jesus Christ. And so we lead up to the fact in 1 through 3 that all are condemned.

And then we see the beginning of this idea of the response that is required as one by faith. And Abraham is a great example in chapter 4. And then five, we find that, gee, praise God. As Martin Luther found out in the 14th century, we're justified by faith.

I mean, there's no other principle by which justification occurs. So Romans 1 through 5, it's all men guilty before God. And we see the various examples about how men try to please God. And we've all fallen short. And then we have the principle in Abraham's life of response by faith. And then ultimately, we find we're all justified by our faith.

Then Romans 6 takes us on to kind of another level, another plateau, and that's the idea that our sins are just not forgiven. but in fact, we have been crucified with Christ. And that's an important fact of the Christian faith that I think many believers either know just intellectually or just don't have that ownership of. I mean, we got to see the fact that it's just not our sins, it's the source. And Romans 6 very carefully and very specifically identifies that our source of sin has also been crucified. Now, we know that sin nature is still alive and well, but before God, it's meaningless. has no power, no relevance.

He seizes in Christ. And so we've kind of transitioned from this God's creation, conscience and all men becoming guilty before him to our justification by faith and now recognizing that we've been co-crucified. So this co-crucifixion means that we've been risen with newness of life and we're going to be leading up to Romans 8 where in fact that life is energized by the Holy Spirit.

Romans 7 is kind of a side road to go down here, and that relates to kind of the next question on your handout. What follows Romans 7? Well, I mentioned just briefly that Romans 8 is the spirit-led life. The question that I think for us all is, do we have to go through Romans 7 to get to Romans 8? And that's a question I'm going to leave for you to be working on on your own. And this is a question that will come up in the study. It will come up in your lives. And this is a question that you need to be thinking about.

Now keep in mind, the Romans 7 shackles of a saved soul and struggles of a saved soul, the way J. Vernon McGee has put it, is something that I think is very important in the recognition of who we are in Christ and the growth to recognize the power of the Holy Spirit working in the life. But it may not be necessary for most of us to be there much of the time. I mean, we may in fact be so accepting of the fact we've been co-crucified, so energized by the power of the Spirit working through the new man that 7 becomes just a nice story for those who need to be there. I'm going to let you kind of work through that on your own.

But Romans 7 is our text, and we're going to be at this for about the next seven or eight weeks. So let's go into it today. Before we read Romans 7. Let's start with chapter 6, verse 14. And we're going to spend a little time reading today, because I think to start just at 7.1 is not an appropriate place to start. So, Jim, could you read that for us? 6.14 through 7.6. Let's take it all the way down to 6 today.

For sin shall not master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace. What then shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? It may never be. Do not know that when you present yourself to someone as slaves of obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death or of obedience resulting in righteousness.

For thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed. And having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification. For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.

Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. result in a sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life, and Christ Jesus our Lord.

Do you not know, brethren, for I am speaking to those who know the law, that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So if then, while her husband is living, she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is freed from the law, so that she is not an adulteress, though she is joined to another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit for God. for while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the law, were a work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." Okay, good.

So I think it's really important that what Jim and I and others said, I think Jim and I did all the teaching in the six, that that teaching now is the foundation for where we're beginning in Romans 7. If you just start at Romans 7.1, you're really tempted to interpret out of context.

And the context of what Romans 7.1 through 6 is all about reflects what's preceded it. And so let's go ahead and look at this now.

OK, that's interesting. It seems like the arrows have been switched. OK, so I'm using the Darby translation here to start off with in 7.1. Are ye ignorant brethren, parenthetically, for I speak to those knowing the law. This is kind of important because the brethren are identified here. We're going to come back to that in a second. That law rules over a man as long as he lives. Interpret ignorant. Well, it's pretty straightforward that I stole this from Strong's.

It's not to know. It's lack of information or intelligence. It's by implication actually to ignore. It doesn't have to be just the absence of knowledge. It can actually be some knowledge with a desire to ignore something that may be previously known, at least in part. So we can look at this term as being maybe a bit accusatory. Are you ignorant either through lack of knowledge or your decision not to acknowledge?

It could be looked at either way. Who are the brethren here? Well, again, if you look at the detailed Greek here in terms of describing it, first of all, in parenthesis, it relates the brethren to those knowing the law. And knowing here is gnosis, but as Jim has pointed out previously, gnosis often we talk about as experiential knowledge, but sometimes it can be just a head knowledge. It can just be facts. So we don't want to overly interpret that here.

But it's interesting to look at the derivation of nomos, which is from a nemo to parcel out, especially food or grazing to animals. I thought that was really kind of interesting in terms of the law, the parceling out is the root word. And the idea here is a kind of a prescriptive usage. So, in general, this could be a regulatory issue. It could be figurative. It's kind of a law principle.

This, interestingly enough, is not the law here. It's knowing kind of a regulatory system, a legal system that may, in fact, not be the Mosaic Law. There is no nominative before this. It's not the law. It's a law system, as I think is the best interpretation. Now, are these brethren necessarily converted Jews, do you think? Or could they also be converted Gentiles who have a knowledge of law systems?

What are your thoughts here? And by the way, the commentaries are split on this one. By the way, I said this before here, and I think Jim and Roger would agree, commentaries are useful to some extent. But the commentaries presumably are done by men, sometimes by women, who are led by the Spirit of the Lord. And we're all seeking His perfect truth, but the fact that there's disagreement means none of us have a perfect corner on exactly what everything means. But yet, you know, God is not meaning to confuse us. I mean, we still seek His perfect truth and wisdom in the Word. So what are your thoughts here? I'm asking a question because I'm not sure that there's a perfect answer. Thoughts? Dave, what are your thoughts?

Is this a Jewish convert, or is this could be a Gentile convert who knows the law, or law system? It seems like the Jews would be the ones that actually knew the law, whereas the Gentile, possibly, but not necessarily. That wasn't their way of life. They weren't into the law.

And describe a Jew who knew the law. Now, I think, again, we want to keep in mind that this is a law system here. We're describing a regulatory kind of either figurative and or law principle rather than the Mosaic law. But I think you could extend the law system to include the Mosaic law because it is a law system.

So what would this Jew likely be here who's, in fact, being accused of being ignorant? Why would a Jew in the day that Paul was writing a letter to the Roman converts, whether they be Jewish or Gentiles, let's think about the Jew here a second, what would Paul be addressing in them in terms of ignorance? Do you think this is lack of knowledge or do you think this is willful disobedience or willful neglect or ignorance?

If he's speaking to the Jewish people, There's a lot about that in the law, right? So he's kind of, not quite sarcastically, but kind of rubbing it in their face like, don't you know? They should have known, right? Correct. Do you think this is a Jew? Again, keep in mind, this is a Jew who's come to Christ. I mean, this is a unique kind of individual for that time. I mean, it's unique today. It was unique then, too. A Jew who accepts the Lord Jesus Christ and all that he is for salvation.

So this Jew, in fact, could have been ignorant or, in fact, being willfully disobedient to the legal system. But yet Paul is accusing him now of how the law system is related to his or her life, presumably. It doesn't necessarily say the Jewish law. Correct. Meaning general law system that would apply to everyone, Jew, Gentile. Because we're all, as we've talked before, subject to law systems, whether it's Jewish law or our own games in our head with our own little list of do's and don'ts or whatever.

All right. Good. So this could be, in effect, just a reminder of what they should have known and just bringing each other attention. And by the way, in context, Wendy, I think you're absolutely right. We're going to take that law system and we're going to get rid of it here. I mean, so the presumption is that this believer, whether it be Jew or Gentile, knows of law systems. Because if he were writing to them and they had no idea about the law, this is an irrelevant text. Right? Now, I think we all as believers today know law systems.

I mean, we can make our own little law system or there's the legal system of the government around us and all these other kinds of things. We know regulatory systems. And Ruthie has a system in her classroom. I'm sure if a kid's out of line, that kid's in big trouble. I wouldn't want to be in her classroom. OK.

So Paul says in verse 1, don't you know that the law rules as long as a man lives? And you know, the idea of rules here is a very strong Greek term. It means having dominion over, or lord of, or exercise lordship over. And the interlinked Greek, I like the way it reads here, lords it over the person.

I mean, this is no subtlety. We're talking about a system that's overwhelmingly commanding in terms of what the expectations are from the believer. And man here is the broad term anthropos, which doesn't give you ladies an excuse here. So this is not just the Jewish Pharisee that this is written to. This is all of mankind. a general command. And then it says, as long as he lives.

And this is kind of interesting, because in the Greek, there are a number of words for time. Chronos is what's used here, and that's of uncertain derivative, a space of time in general. And that's properly distinguished from other words like kairos, which makes a fixed or special occasion, and ion, which denotes a particular period or interval. So kairos and ion define intervals, or periods, or exact times. whereas Cronus, as long as he lives, it could be 40 years or it could be 140.

I mean, so we have a lot of room here in terms of the earthly existence. Now, transitioning the two, we're getting into the issue that's before us in terms of this comparative analogy between law systems and grace. And I think 1 through 3 is a passage that has really great room to be interpreted incorrectly out of context.

So that's why, back to what Jim read in 6.14 through Romans 7.6, we've got to make sure that we understand this statement and why it's here.

For the woman who has a husband, this is the New King James Version, for the woman who has a husband is bound by parenthesis, the law, to her husband as long as he lives. Now keep in mind, the law is legal systems. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.

So Nyalji, it's a married woman. A woman who has a husband is a married woman. She's bound. Interesting. That's a perfect passive indicative. That means it's continuing. It means she ain't got no choice here. It's being done unto her, passive. She is the recipient of this legal system. And it's imperative, which is simply, this is the way it is. It's factual. To the living husband, literally, the living husband, that guy who you're hanging around legally with, who's declared to be your husband here.

All right, so we got this condition now, but if the husband be dead, and this is a third-class condition, that means it's a supposable case. It's possible that your husband would die. And we're not going to have any votes here today, but anyway, we trust everyone's happily married in the Lord Jesus Christ. Then this third-class condition allows her to then be released from this legal system. and be freed from her husband once he's in the grave.

We could spend a lot of time with that too, but we won't. Again, this is perfect passive indicative. It's an ongoing truth which is received by her in the way of a factual statement. Indicative means, again, that this is the rule of the land. And one way to kind of, you know, interpret this very kind of crudely is it's made void.

This marriage relationship then is voided. by his death. Now, it seems to make obvious sense, doesn't it? I mean, if you're married to somebody and they die, you know, you're no longer married. But I mean, I guess it's possible somebody might misinterpret that, but it seems like that's not very easily done.

So let's kind of look at this marriage framework a second in terms of what's really revealed about it in the Old Testament, and then we'll kind of bring us forth into the New Testament. Just parenthetically, as I prepared for today's lesson, and I mentioned this to some men we gathered yesterday, was that the Old Testament says a tremendous amount about adultery and the consequences thereof. But the Old Testament doesn't say much about marriage itself. Interesting. It talks about the betrothal to some extent, often refers to the betrothal process. It's hard to find Romans 7, 2 particularly, and 3, per se, in the Old Testament. But that principle is really revealed much more evidently in New Testament text. Interesting, looking back.

So God said in Genesis 2.24, therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife and they shall become one flesh. Obviously declared before any legal system, right?

And 1 Corinthians 7.39 says a wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives. Same kind of statement. But if her husband dies, she's at liberty to be married to whom she wishes only in the Lord. Notice that's conditional, only in the Lord. So Jacqueline, pay attention to that, please. All right. Now, are there exceptions? So let me just raise that. We're not going to spend too much time here. But I mean, yes, there are exceptions.

Whoops, that's not what we wanted to do here. So let's turn to Matthew 19 and look at 3 through 9. Now remember, this text is not meant for us to really have a detailed discussion about marriage. But yet, the opportunity is here to clarify some things. And I think in context, we need to do that. The marriage situation is described as an example that precedes 4 through 6 that deals with law and grace. So let's look at this in a little bit more detail. Matthew 19, 3 through 9. Gail, could you read that for us, please? Matthew 19, 3 through 9.

The Pharisees also came to him, testing him, and saying to him, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason? And he answered and said to them, Have you not read that he who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother can be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.

So then, they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate. And they said to him, why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce and to put her away? And he said to them, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wife.

But from the beginning, it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery. And whoever marries her is divorced, or is divorced, commits adultery. All right. So that seems pretty clear in terms of how the Lord Jesus Christ views the Jewish law on marriage. So the idea here is that it is potentially possible to see a divorcement occur within the setting of the legal system if in fact adultery had in fact occurred.

So that then sets us up for Romans 7.3. And this is New King James Version again. So then if while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she's free from that law so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. So we see this again, this principle of death.

And I think that raises the question that I put before you and I just answered. Where should the emphasis be placed here in this verse? And I think I'm going to defend the fact that let's just take a peek ahead. But I think in 7.4, then, we're going to come back to the concept that death is really the term that requires the emphasis. So let's look at 7.4 again here to make sure we see in transition where we're going next week with this.

In 7.4 it says, wherefore my brethren, ye have also become dead, like that husband, by the way. ye brethren, Jewish brethren or maybe Gentile brethren who are well knowledgeable about legal systems, you have become dead to the law.

So this here is the Mosaic Law. So presumably, again, this is probably targeted more to the Jew and less so to that Gentile and maybe exclusively to the Jew, although I think the Word of God is You know, it's all for us, right? And whether it's all specifically about us is unclear, but this principle really is a principle that I think transcends the Jewish tradition. Anyway, for the ignorant Jew who's being addressed here, you're also dead to the law by the body of Christ, just like the husband was dead, that you should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Now, we're going to deal with that in much more detail next week. But the concept here is dead is where the focus is. This husband is dead. And you know, there's no argument. The text is perfectly clear on a husband being dead in terms of what the position of the wife is, right? She's totally free now to seek out and marry again. No issues, no courtroom, no Jewish Pharisee in review. Everything is particularly capable in terms of legal aspects for her to move on.

Now, let's spend just a few minutes, I think. A bit of syncopation there. Let's spend a little time on the Jewish law about adultery, because again, there's much more written about this than there is the marriage itself. And I find that kind of interesting. And in a sense, How might you reflect on that? Let's just make the statement, you have to believe me, but again, I tried to really take a close look at this yesterday in terms of the Old Testament supporting the marriage issue.

And there's much more about adultery than there is marriage. What would be your conclusion about that general statement in context in terms of what we're studying 7, 1 through 6 all about? If there's much more about adultery than there is marriage, what does the law do? What's the purpose of a legal system? The purpose of the law is to show manners.

I'll never forget this trip to Australia a year ago with this Orthodox Jew. This guy had been in New York for a year at Yeshiva University, going back to Sydney to carry on what he'd learned, and telling me he was keeping all 623 aspects of the Jewish law. We had a nice conversation, actually. I think it was revealing to both me and him.

But I remember, if in fact the emphasis is on adultery and what happens if an adulterous situation occurs and not on marriage itself, we've got a problem here. But that's perfect for the law, isn't it? What's the law there for? It's to convict man of sin. And you know, a favorite verse that I didn't kind of put in here, Margaret's, and I'll just turn to it just a second.

I mean, Galatians 2.21 is one, but I think it's in 5.2. I do not make void the grace of God, for if righteousness comes by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

I mean, the legal system was never intended for this guy on this flight from Denver to, I guess it was Los Angeles, to Sydney to be keeping it. But anyway, he seemed like he was doing pretty well according to what he was saying. All right, so as we look at this now, I don't know that we want to go back and look at all of numbers 5, 11 through 31.

But this really deals with a jealousy offering. And if you go back and read this, this doesn't result in the woman, or by the way, the man, I mean, it happens both ways, taken to be stoned, which was really the Jewish legal system. If a married couple or one of the two would be entering into an adulterous relationship, She and the guy with whom, you know, the adulterous relationship occurred would be taken out, convicted of the stone. The numbers 5, 11 through 31 is really about a jealousy offering, which in fact she may not be guilty, but she's being accused of being guilty. And they go through, she goes to the high priest, and he kind of sprinkles her, and there's the whole ceremony about the fact that the husband's jealous about something. It may not in fact be that she's in fact committed adultery, but he's suspicious that she has.

And there's a whole series of verses that deal with that. I don't want to look at that because it's long, but let's do turn to Deuteronomy 22, 22 through 24. Doris, could you get that for us, please? Read that. It's in the Old Testament. I'm just teasing you. 22 to 24, right? There are three verses there that kind of deal with this issue. And then we are going to look at Mark 2 through 12.

If a man be found lying with a woman, married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman and the woman, so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. If a damsel, that is a virgin, be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her, then he shall bring them both out into the gate of that city, and he shall stone them with stones, that they die. The damsel, because she cried not, being in the city, and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife, so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

All right, good boy. That says it pretty straightforwardly there, doesn't it? Isn't it amazing how much detail we have on the response to adultery, but yet not the conditions that we see in Ephesians 5 about what marriage is all about? I mean, the contrast is really amazing. And again, I looked hard in the Old Testament yesterday with many helps to try to find succinct passages about marriage and how sacred it is and how important it is.

And other than God's statement in Genesis 2.24 about man and woman being joined together, there really ain't much.

But boy, the legal aspects of adultery, we got a lot of detail on that. And this is reflected also in Mark 10, 2 through 12. Let's look at this because it's starting to show the principle of grace. And this is a very interesting text, and we could have a whole class just on this. But I think it's fun to look at this here today. Mark 10, 2 through 12.

I don't know about when you all go to the gospel, I mean, Mark's kind of one of the, for some reason, one of the last of the four that I go to often. I mean, Matthew and Luke and John seem to, but sometimes Mark, some people describe Mark as kind of like a newspaper writer. I mean, kind of appealing to the Roman reader and ultimately writing as if he's there observing an event and describing it in the way a newspaper journalist would. I kind of like that because Mark is a very practical guy in terms of the way he shared the gospel. I'll read this.

Verse 2, And the Pharisees came to him, meaning Christ, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife, intending to test him? And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses permitted a man to write a bill of divorcement and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

I mean, that's profound enough in just a single verse and statement. But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. Again, the Genesis passage reiterated, right? And they too shall be one flesh, so then they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter, and he said unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another commits adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband and be married to another, she commits adultery." So, Jesus' teaching concerning divorce, I think, clarifies this issue. Now, the principle of grace. So Christ having responded to the Jew in terms of this issue of adultery and divorce, now we see a different setting. And I think this is even more graphic and uplifting. John 8, let's take a look at this. John 8, 3 through 11, I have the terminal aspects of that section here before us. Okay, we see it's early in the morning, and Christ came to the temple, verse 2.

And then in 3, the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said unto her, Master, this woman was taken in adultery the very act. Now Moses and the law commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do you say? And this they said, testing him, that they might have to accuse him.

But Jesus stooped down and with his finger wrote on the ground as though he'd heard them not. That's, by the way, in italics, so therefore not the original Greek. So when they continued asking him, he lifted himself up and said unto them, he that is without sin among you, let him first cast the stone at her. And again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

And they who heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one. beginning at the eldest, even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. And when Jesus had lifted himself up and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more.

So I think we see the issue of divorce being described and adultery being described in a number of different settings in which the Jewish law, because of the hardness of their heart, could be ultimately put aside and ultimately a divorcement could be granted. But interestingly, despite the heinous crime within the Jewish law and or even in legal systems about adultery, look at the age we live in today. I mean, it's perfectly accepted. The government has no... I mean, it used to have laws, there used to be laws about these things, but if they're there, they're impotent, they have no power. We, in fact, see that grace principle really entered into.

And notice he didn't say, continue in adultery, your sins are forgiven, right? I mean, in other words, you know, that's another topic we spend a bit of time with here, too. But it says he doesn't condemn her, but the command is to go and sin no more. So man's responsibility, right Jim? Her responsibility was to heed the fact that her sins were forgiven, then go and sin no more.

So adultery, despite, you know, some sins by the way, let me back up a second, all sin before God. is falling short and unacceptable. But some sins carry consequences that are far greater than the other. And this is clearly one of those sins. So before God, all sin has been crucified. And fortunately, we have that act of communication and trust and working by the power of the Spirit that when we continue to fall because of sins of omission or commission, we're forgiven. But is that a license to sin? God forbid.

And we've seen that already in Romans. And we'll continue to see that a man or a woman living in sin, God forbid. And that's, in fact, even before the truth of the New Testament epistles this woman learned from the Lord Jesus Christ. Now that doesn't look good down there, does it? Sometimes when you move stuff on to here, the formatting does change. So let's look at the handout. I bolded this because I think this is really critical.

Notice how this practical application of a fundamental law about a domestic relationship shows that only death can break a legal bond. So if the Jewish law or if the law system says that one can only be free to remarry with the exception of adultery, remember that exception was because of the hardness of their heart. If the only way one was free to marry again was because of death of the husband or presumably the wife if it's a man, then we're seeing that death is the transcending element. It's the necessary verb here. And this has a lot of relevance to where we're going next week. A lot of relevance. So turn to the last page, if you would.

How might this Romans passage be misinterpreted? Many of you, I'm sure, have heard this passage kind of used as a passage that defines Christian marriage. What are some ways that this passage might be lifted out of context? Well, they tend to ignore what follows.

This is what you're talking about. They tend to ignore that this is setting the stage. It's really a wonderful thing that we're dead to the law. I mean, it shows that this is an example for the rest of the world. And they'll just use it. say, we're speaking about marriage today and about adultery, and they just focus on that and they just forget about that. It's sad. Other thoughts about how this is used out of context and misinterpreted?

I mean, when I first got saved, I mean, some of the early church experiences I had would be that even adultery wasn't an acceptable reason to be divorced. I mean, marriage is final and there's no exceptions. A woman who might be dealing with an adulterous husband repeatedly and would go for advice, etc., there'd be some advice that that was not possible before God. Can you mention the guilt feeling she would have for years to come if, in fact, ultimately, you know, she did get divorced and was put under that kind of a legal system in terms of her life? I mean, this can be very strictly and interpreted to its ultimate detail that there's no room for divorce under circumstances like that.

I mean, there's no question that God has us one in marriage, and that that would be his desire that we grow in grace. And yes, no marriage is just on a flat line. I mean, there are bumps along the road for all of us that are married. Marriage takes a lot of prayer and a lot of communication to work.

But under certain circumstances where a man would be beating his wife repeatedly, committing adultery repeatedly, where there's no desire for forgiveness, or no regret. I mean, we've got situations here where divorce is a very practical solution, and yet there are people in the ministries that I've been exposed to who would say divorce is not an option under any circumstances.

Well, you may have a different opinion, but I think it is. Secondly, is it relevant to anyone but the Jewish believer? Is this something that that if you didn't come from the Jewish background, back to kind of the thing I was dialoguing with David a little earlier, is it relevant to anyone but the Jewish believer? Or is this just to the Jew who is knowledgeable and accused of being ignorant to the word? I'll let you answer that. I think that it's targeted to the Jew, but yet certainly has broader applications.

Why should we keep this simple? Well, I think it's because what's in the next line, let's not dwell here but move on, because as Roger indicated, this is simply an example as a transition into legal systems versus grace. And this is meant to be an example of a principle of how legal systems in marriage, and by the way, marriage, something else could have been chosen here, except marriage is just such a common example of how legal systems influence behavior. I mean, today, again, people live together all the time.

I mean, marriage, you know, the society, the world system has forgotten about the legal aspects of marriage. I mean, you've got to live together with somebody for three or four years before you decide they're the right one for you. Then, oh boy, we're going to get married. And, you know, when you go to those weddings, you kind of go because you know one of the two people and you're honoring their decision to get married. have this kind of heavy heart, and then you're reminded about your own salvation.

That humbles you, too. But anyway, all that aside, I think that the idea here is exemplary, to make a point with a common domestic issue like marriage, to take us on to the contrast between law and grace. And that's where we're going next week. Any comments? You've been kind of quiet today, and I talk more when you're more quiet, but maybe you say I don't give you enough of a chance. All right, great.

Let's close in prayer. Father, we're grateful for your text and how revealing it is, and we're looking so much forward now to to seeing how important this concept is in the day-to-day lives. So we're trusting you to work in our lives in a way that we would continue to live by faith and look at our responsibility to respond to the great truths you've given us. And we're thankful for the Spirit leading us in all truth. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.