Romans 7:2

[Casslan]

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.

Could someone please explain this in the light of Eternal Marriage. A non-member has put this scripture forward [amongst others] as evidence that eternal marriage is not warranted.

[NeuroTypical]

Hi there,

Interesting choice of scripture your critic picked. Usually they go for Matthew 22:23-30. But anyway, here we go. Here's the context:

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?

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.

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.

This section is talking about the law - and not any celestial law either, but earthly law. And it's talking about how to know if someone is guilty of adultry - it's not saying anything about the nature of marriage.

In short, when humans get together and marry under earthly law, it's not something that lasts past death. In order for that to happen, someone would have to have the sealing power Christ gave to Peter:

Matthew 16:19 - And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Ask your critic people for the bible verse referencing Matt 16:19 that says "Yep, you can bind whatever you want - except for marriages"

LM

[Justice]

Yep, Loudmouth hit it perfectly. You can also apply this to the other verse about a lady marrying 7 brothers, each in turn, and they all die one at a time.

[bert10]

HI Cassian...

In the verse below...the Law of the husband refers the Husband authority over the wife. For it is written that the head of woman is man and that the head of Man is Christ just as the head of Christ is the Father.

The husband is responsible unto God for:

1. Supporting the Family.

2. Spiritual teaching to the Family.

3. the family's happiness.

Peace be unto you

bert10

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.

Could someone please explain this in the light of Eternal Marriage. A non-member has put this scripture forward [amongst others] as evidence that eternal marriage is not warranted.

[Casslan]

Thank you all for your replies.

[prisonchaplain]

Hi there,

Interesting choice of scripture your critic picked. Usually they go for Matthew 22:23-30. But anyway, here we go. Here's the context:

This section is talking about the law - and not any celestial law either, but earthly law. And it's talking about how to know if someone is guilty of adultry - it's not saying anything about the nature of marriage.

In short, when humans get together and marry under earthly law,

IF I'm not mistaken, the "earthly law," being referred to here is the Law of Moses, given directly by God, at Mt. Sinai. What the Apostle is discussing is not civil law, but what the norms shall be in the church. So, marriage and divorce are being discussed here. It might still be argued that Paul is discussing temporal marriage, rather than eternal heavenly marriage...but such a discussion would require a discussion of LDS revelations that go beyond the Bible.

Ask your critic people for the bible verse referencing Matt 16:19 that says "Yep, you can bind whatever you want - except for marriages"

LM

If I'm not mistaken, the Matthew passage is pretty specific about the topic...forgiveness. The "Whatever" in that verse should not be divorced (pardon the pun) from the context of the Savior's discussion.

IMHO biblical references alone cannot sustain the doctrine of Eternal Marriage. A discussion about the veracity of Joseph Smith's revelations must come first.

[rameumptom]

Paul spoke a lot concerning the Law of Moses, as the early members were primarily Jews, and the early Christian Church was a Jewish sect. Only later, as the Gentile members swarmed in, did the Church break off from Judaism.

Paul spoke on issues of circumcision, dietary laws, etc. Each of these pertained to the Law of Moses, which Jewish members were encouraged to continue obeying, but were not required for the Gentile Christians.

The Law of Moses, being a terrestrial law, and designed as a "schoolmaster to lead us to Christ" does not contain eternal marriage as one of its precepts. It was based upon the preparatory gospel (Levitical/Aaronic priesthood), which contains the outward ordinances - the ordinances which prepare us for the Celestial ordinances and the fullness of Christ's gospel.

[NeuroTypical]

IMHO biblical references alone cannot sustain the doctrine of Eternal Marriage.

That is a fair and reasonable statement as far as I'm concerned. Eternal marriage is one of the things we figure got "restored" with the 'restored gospel'.

But there's a difference between the bible alone sustaining the doctrine of eternal marriage, and the bible saying such a thing doesn't exist. Which was the claim in the opening post.

A non-member has put this scripture forward [amongst others] as evidence that eternal marriage is not warranted.

LM

[Hemidakota]

Adding to other comments, some background about what is given according to The Pentateuch;

The Pentateuch, for instance, contains the principles on which the Jewish theocracy was founded, a dispensation that was, according to prophetic declarations, only to last for a certain time. In the first eleven Chapters of Genesis we find an outline of the Patriarchal Dispensation, and some of the ordinances of that Dispensation are referred to without any detailed account. The last Chapters of Genesis contain merely a brief historical sketch of the transition from the Patriarchal Dispensation to the Mosaic Dispensation. The remaining Books of Moses (as indeed all of the Old Testament) are chiefly an incomplete history of the dealings of God with that one nation which He had chosen for the purpose of communicating His will to mankind until the appearance of the promised "Seed." But the Dispensation itself was a transient one. The principles upon which it was founded must necessarily also be subject to such modifications as a new dispensation would require.

Paul, the greatest Jewish scholar of his age, is very emphatic on this point. It (the Mosaic Law) was added because of transgression, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made. "Before faith came we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster." (Galatians 3:23-25.) "(God) also has made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death (the Mosaic Law), written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the Children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance, which glory was to be done away, how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious? . . . For if that which is done away (the Law) was glorious, much more that which remaineth." (II Corinthians 3:6-11.)

What happen to the Mosaic Dispensation?

The laws of the Mosaic Dispensation have, according to the same Apostle, no more claim or binding force relative to the members of the Christian Dispensation than a dead husband has to a living wife: "For the woman which has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband; . . . wherefore my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ." (Romans 7:2-5.)

[prisonchaplain]

That is a fair and reasonable statement as far as I'm concerned. Eternal marriage is one of the things we figure got "restored" with the 'restored gospel'.

But there's a difference between the bible alone sustaining the doctrine of eternal marriage, and the bible saying such a thing doesn't exist. Which was the claim in the opening post.

LM

Let's split the difference. The key phrase "Bible doesn't warrant," could mean that the Bible opposes, or, that the Bible does not support the doctrine. I'm not sure the Bible could be used to DISprove a doctrine that it simply does not address.

[rameumptom]

Let's split the difference. The key phrase "Bible doesn't warrant," could mean that the Bible opposes, or, that the Bible does not support the doctrine. I'm not sure the Bible could be used to DISprove a doctrine that it simply does not address.

This is correct. I do not think the Bible addresses Internet pornography or gambling addictions....

But that doesn't mean the Bible opposes them, either.