If we were to examine Jerome’s verdict in light of the things Paul wrote in his epistles, how would it stand up?
The following passages are no doubt some of the ones that Jerome took into consideration when he made his decision about Fabiola.
And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. (1 Corinthians 7:10-11)
The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:39)
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. 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. (Romans 7:2-3)
This final passage, some would say, should have no bearing at all on this discussion since it is referring only to the Old Testament law, and that simply by way of illustration. Although at first it may appear that this objection has a measure of truth to it, I would like to invite you to at least consider a slightly different way of looking at these verses.
Whenever we see the word “law” in the New Testament, we habitually assume that it is always referring to the Mosaic law. But the truth is that the word “law” is also used numerous times in reference to New Testament commands. They are called, for instance, “the law of faith”, “the law of the Spirit of life”, “the law of Christ”, “the law of liberty”, and “the royal law”. Is it possible that in Romans 7:2-3, Paul was alternating between these two definitions of “law” in order to make his point?
If this is true, then this passage basically is saying, “Just as a woman is bound under Christ’s law to her husband as long as long as he lives, so we are bound to the Mosaic law until we become dead to that law through the body of Christ.” This interpretation seems to make more sense since under the Mosaic law it was not strictly true that death alone could break the marriage bond, as the Romans 7 passage states.
I’m certainly not going to be dogmatic in proclaiming this interpretation to be the correct one. The other verses in Paul’s writings, most notably 1 Corinthians 7:39 (which also uses the word “law”), unquestionably draw us to the same conclusion whether or not we rely on the Romans 7 passage. Paul made it clear that He believed Christ’s commands were meant to be taken literally, no matter how painful it may be to do so.
_______________________
After looking at these passages in Paul’s epistles, let us ask again: was Jerome being unreasonable when he concluded that Fabiola’s marriage was adultery? Or was that a very reasonable thing for him to conclude in light of these verses? Was he being unreasonable to conclude that only death can break the marriage bond? Or was that also a reasonable conclusion?
Was Jerome being unreasonable to conclude that Fabiola’s marriage to her second husband, while her first husband was still living, was continual adultery against her first husband? Was he being unreasonable to conclude that the only remedy for this state of adultery, other than the death of her first husband, would be a separation from this physical relationship?
Be the first to react on this!
