Does Romans 7:2–4 resolve the covenant-marriage issue posed by Jeremiah 3 and Deuteronomy 24 from a biblical-theological perspective?

**Question** I am not asking for all Christian interpretations; I am asking from a biblical-theology perspective. **Romans 7:2** says that a married woman is bound (by the law) to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies, she is released from that marital bond and may belong to another (the law ceases to have jurisdiction). My question is not whether Christ’s death makes the Law itself void, abolished, or of no effect. In Paul’s marriage analogy, when the husband dies, the marriage law does not cease to exist. What ceases is the woman’s legal status as bound to that particular husband under the law within that particular marriage. Given this distinction, I am asking whether **Romans 7:2–4** can be understood as addressing the legal termination of the old covenant-marriage bond. The Old Testament presents YHWH’s relationship to Israel in covenant-marriage terms; **Jeremiah 31:32 says Israel broke the covenant, though YHWH was her husband; **Jeremiah 3:8** says YHWH gave faithless Israel a certificate of divorce; **Jeremiah 3:1** invokes the **Deuteronomy 24:1–4** problem, where a divorced and defiled wife may not return to her former husband; and finally **Jeremiah 31:31–34** promises a new covenant (marriage), not simply a repaired old-covenant. Within a Pauline biblical-theology context, does the cross address a covenant-legal problem (as well as the atonement for sin)? More specifically, does Christ’s death terminate the old covenant legal claim of a bond between Israel as bride and YHWH as husband, thereby making a new covenant union possible, without implying that the Law itself has ceased to exist?