Romans 7 Does Not Teach “Marriage Ends Only at Death”
One argument against divorce that I hear occasionally goes like this: Romans 7 says a wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives, so marriage can only end at death. Therefore divorce is not really possible, and remarriage is always adultery.
That sounds strong until you actually read Romans 7 in context.
Dr. David Instone-Brewer points out that Romans 7 is not a full teaching passage on divorce. Paul is using marriage as an illustration for another point: the believer’s relationship to the law. His point is about release through death, so of course he mentions death. The fact that he does not mention divorce in that illustration does not prove that divorce is impossible. Instone-Brewer says plainly that Romans 7:2 and 1 Corinthians 7:39 mention death ending marriage, but that should not lead us to conclude that a valid divorce does not also end a marriage. (Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible (DRB) p. 210)
That matters because people often turn Romans 7 into something Paul was not trying to say. They read it as if Paul were giving a complete theology of all possible ways a marriage can end. He is not. He is using one obvious example, death, to make a different theological point.
Instone-Brewer also argues that this “death only” reading depends on an argument from silence. In other words: “Paul did not mention divorce here, so he must have been denying it.” But silence does not equal denial. He says that just as readers sometimes mentally supply an obvious exception in other texts, they should do the same here: Romans 7 is speaking of a wife being bound to her husband while he lives, unless she is his ex-wife. DRB p. 282
That is not twisting Scripture. It is simply refusing to make one verse carry more weight than Paul intended.
Dr. David Instone-Brewer, a biblical scholar whose work focuses especially on first-century Judaism and how it sheds light on the New Testament. In Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible, he is identified as Senior Research Fellow in Rabbinics and New Testament at Tyndale House, Cambridge. In Divorce and Remarriage in the Church, he is also described as a research fellow at Tyndale House and as someone who had previously served as a Baptist minister. That matters here because Romans 7 is not just a pastoral hot-button issue; it is a question about how the New Testament would have been heard in its original Jewish setting. Instone-Brewer’s expertise is precisely in that area, which is why his work is especially relevant when people make sweeping claims about divorce and remarriage from a modern reading of a single verse.
If someone wants to argue that divorce is impossible, they need more than Romans 7. They would need to prove that Paul was deliberately overturning the Old Testament’s own recognition of divorce, and that he was doing so here without ever saying it directly. Instone-Brewer’s point is that Romans 7 does not do that. It mentions one way a marriage certainly ends, but it does not say that death is the only way it can end. DRB pp. 210, 282
So when people use Romans 7 as a weapon against divorced people, or against anyone who believes Scripture allows divorce in limited cases, they are leaning on a verse that is being asked to do too much. Paul’s purpose in Romans 7 is not to erase every other biblical text on marriage and divorce. His purpose is to illustrate release from the law through death.
That is why Romans 7 should not be used as a blunt instrument to shame people, silence discussion, or bully those who are trying to read Scripture carefully. It is one thing to say, “Death ends a marriage.” Everyone agrees with that. It is another thing entirely to say, “Therefore death is the only possible end of marriage.” Romans 7 does not say that.
And people should stop pretending it does.
If you want to go deeper on how Paul uses separation language elsewhere, see
1 Corinthians 7:10 Explained: What Paul Meant About Separation and Remarriage.
And if someone is also leaning on Jesus’ words in Matthew 19 as if divorce were impossible, see
“Let No Man Separate” Doesn’t Mean No Divorce for Any Reason — Matthew 19:6.
Further Reading
- 1 Corinthians 7:10 Explained: What Paul Meant About Separation and Remarriage
- “Let No Man Separate” Doesn’t Mean No Divorce for Any Reason — Matthew 19:6
- Can the Innocent Spouse Remarry? This Biblical Scholar Says Yes
- Abuse, Abandonment, and Adultery Are Biblical Grounds for Divorce
- Marriage Is a Conditional Covenant (Not an Unbreakable Promise)
:
:
Buy PDF