https://youtu.be/-a2tRRVfcHg
In our verse-by-verse study of Romans we are in Rom 7:3; our expanded translation so far: " So then if, while her husband is living she has become intimate with another man."
In the instrumental of association a second party must furnish the means of association. So that tells us that the other man has initiated to her and she has responded.
The third class of condition of "if" tells us maybe she will and maybe she won't.
One thing is certain; the congregation in Rome to whom this was originally addressed has already wandered into this area of thinking so Paul in his genus wanders along with them to make a point.
The principle is that when a sheep wanders from the flock you have to go out, or send the dog out, because something has to cause the sheep to wander back into the flock. You have to go out and get the sheep because it will not wander back on its own.
The audience has wandered in their thinking, and Paul just takes a little short trip with them to bring them back in. The short trip is in verse 3 where he discusses the iffy possibilities of the situation.
"she shall be called an adulteress" from the future active indicative of "chrematizo" (categorized) that tells us that Paul is minding his own business and he not criticizing or judging anyone.
The NASB and KJV translators translate it "called" but called is translated from the Greek word " kaleo" (to call) and that does imply minding someone else's business but this word is "chrematizo" (to classify or categorize). In fact categorize is almost a transliteration of the word.
Chrematizo (categorize) does not mean to call anyone anything, so the verb should be translated "to categorize" or "she shall be categorized." He is simply illustrating a point he is not judging her.
The future tense is a gnomic future for a statement fact that may be rightfully expected under these conditions, it is a statement of fact that is not critical but recognizes the reality of the situation.
The active voice: the married woman who is unfaithful to her husband produces the action of the verb.
However as we noted when we started on this verse this is how the illustrative principle does not work in the analogy, but it also presents the principle that we cannot learn doctrine if we are subjective.
The more triggers that we have from subjective arrogance the more difficult it is to learn doctrine when doctrine crosses the area that triggers arrogant subjectivity.
The indicative mood is declarative, expressing the verbal idea from the viewpoint of objective reality. Then the nominative of categorization from "moichalis" (adulteress).
Since the nominative case is the classification case it is not unusual for this categorization to remain in the nominative. This can also be called the independent nominative that is a grammatical play on words.
So we have "So then, if while her husband is living if she has become intimate with another man she shall be categorized as an adulteress.
We see here that while this information is necessary for the analogy it is not the way the analogy works out in the passage. Because of retroactive positional truth the believer who corresponds to the wife is actually divorced and/or dead to the old sin nature that is represented by her first husband.
"but if her husband be dead" the postpositive conjunctive particle "de" (but) again sets up a contrast that connects two antithetical clauses where a contrast is intended. The contrast is between how the analogy does not work compared with how the analogy does work.
The conditional particle "ean" (if) introduces the protasis of a 3rd class condition, the condition of possibility. With it a supposition from a viewpoint of probability. The subject is the nominative singular from "anar" (man) with the definite article "ho' (the) that references her husband who is a specific man making it monadic so we translate it "but if her husband."
Then the aorist active subjunctive of "apothnesko" (dies). This is a constantive aorist that considers the action of the verb in its entirety, and this use of the aorist refers to the momentary action at salvation where the divorce occurs from retroactive positional truth.
The active voice: the first husband produces the action of the verb by dying and or being the object of divorce. The subjunctive mood is for a potential subjunctive in a 3rd class condition "but if her husband has died (physical death or divorce)."
This corresponds to the baptism of the Holy Spirit at salvation and resultant retroactive positional truth.
"she is free from the law" from the present active indicative of "eimi" (she is). The present tense is a static present that describes a condition or circumstance that perpetually exists from that point forward.
He is dead after the divorce is final. It is finalized instantly at the moment of salvation. The active voice: the wife, who is analogous to the believer, produces the action. She is dead to her first husband. The indicative mood is declarative representing the verbal idea from the viewpoint of reality.
Plus the predicate nominative feminine singular from the adjective "eleutheros" (free), describing the result of divorce or death; it refers to freedom, with the idea of being independent and not bound.
In this case she is obviously free from the husband, but the law as the marriage counselor also says she is free. In the second marriage to Jesus Christ God the Holy Spirit is the new marriage counselor.
Next we have "apo" (from) plus the nominative from "ho nomos" the law). The definite article 'ho" (the) making it monadic referring specifically to the Mosaic Law.
"so that she is" this is a result clause made up of the infinitive "eimi" (she is) plus the definite article, "tou" (the). This is used for a conceived result that follows the sequence of a case so it is assumed to be a logical consequence.
Next is another infinitive is the present active infinitive of "eimi" (she is) with the negative "un" (not)." The accusative singular of general reference for the subject "autos" (she or her) that is an intensive pronoun in the accusative case for infinitive that must have a subject.
This is "auten" that is the feminine form of "autos" (she or her)) that can also be translated "the same one," referring to she who is the same one who was divorced from her husband by retroactive positional truth.
Plus the negative adverb "mh" (not) which denies the idea that she could now be so classified. Then the present active infinitive of "eimi" (she is), the customary present plus the negative denotes what does not habitually occur.
This classification is not possible and in this way Paul has taken his wandering mind congregation and brought them right back to the subject at hand. The active voice: the wife does produce the action of the verb of being an adulteress.
The infinitive is conceived result that follows the logic of the case. It is assumed as the logical consequence from the previous illustration in verse 2. She is not an adulteress, the accusative singular of "moichalis."
The actual situation in the analogy is now presented. The believer is married to Jesus Christ through current positional truth and is not an adulteress because of their relationship with Jesus Christ.
"though she be married to another (man)" - the aorist active participle of the verb ginomai" (be or become). The culminative aorist views the event in its entirety but regards it from the viewpoint of the existing results of current positional truth that corresponds to marriage to the second husband that immediately followed the divorce represented by retroactive positional truth.
The active voice: the wife of the first husband who represents the old sin nature that is now dead produces the action of the verb of being married to a second husband, the Lord Jesus Christ. This is a concessive participle so it is translated "though she has become."
Then is added the word "married" to clarify the analogy, to "heteros anar" (another man), the Lord Jesus Christ.
Expanded Translation Rom 7:3;"So then if, while her husband is living, she has become intimate with another man, she shall be categorized as an adulteress: but if her husband has died (or divorced) she is free from that law; so that she is not an adulteress, though she has become married to another man."
As far as the analogy is concerned the first husband, that corresponds to the old sin nature does not actually die. Death in this case is divorce.
This is the presentation of an illustrative analogy, that recognizes the fact that arrogant subjectivity causes people's thinking to wander from the subject at hand, and their subjective thinking does not work out according to the analogy being made in the verse. This pattern must be understood for the proper interpretation of the verse.
It is the believer who corresponds to the wife who dies/divorces the first husband at salvation. The wife or the believer dies or divorces through the principle of retroactive positional truth.
While the wife dies to the first husband by divorcing him at salvation the husband, (the old sin nature), does not die to the wife in the sense he wants her back, and therefore remains very active in trying to seduce her back into the first relationship.
Remember that good and evil is the function of the old sin nature as the ruler of human life at physical birth.
The believer's union with Christ in His spiritual death corresponds to the wife who has positionally rejected good and evil, positionally been separated from good and evil, positionally been divorced from good and evil, and has married the Lord Jesus Christ in current positional truth.