People have always sought to find “loopholes” in God’s law. When people do not like what it teaches, they twist it to mean something else. Perhaps nowhere in the 21st century church is this more obvious than in the novel doctrines that have arisen pertaining to marriage, divorce, and remarriage. One person betrothed for an unscriptural marriage allegedly agreed the arrangement was not according to Scripture—adding, “But my dad is a preacher, and he is looking for a loophole.” Consider what those who make such efforts are saying. A “loophole” is defined as “an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.” The New Testament, the law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21), is not ambiguous (Ephesians 3:4; 5:17), nor is it inadequate (Psalm 19:7; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Yet some try to find ambiguity and inadequacy in a statement Paul made in a chapter addressing many different questions about marriage:
And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him….But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace (1 Corinthians 7:13, 15).
Three Key Rules of Interpretation
When determining the Bible’s meaning, one must apply sensible rules of interpretation. Consider the following rules derived from D.R. Dungan’s textbook on Hermeneutics, a standard in laying out Biblical rules for Biblical interpretation.
All Scripture is authored by God (2 Tim. 3:16). God is perfect in His authorship—He does not change His mind about passages He has inspired (1 Samuel 15:29), nor did He forget what He inspired in an earlier passage when inspiring a later passage (Deuteronomy 4:31; Psalm 147:5). Therefore, Scriptures do not contradict each other.
Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away [‘divorce,’ New King James Version] your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matthew 19:8-9; emph. LM).
Likewise, Christ granted one exception allowing divorce and remarriage—fornication by one’s spouse gives the innocent party that right. Any interpretation of another passage that would grant additional exceptions must be rejected.
When we are uncertain as to the meaning of a passage, the best commentary is the Bible. What do other clearer passages have to say on a subject?
The language of Jesus in Matthew 19:9 is very clear. If one divorces for a reason other than the fornication of one’s spouse, and remarries, that subsequent marriage is adulterous. Or if one is divorced by one’s spouse, and remarries, that subsequent marriage is adulterous. Matthew 5:32, Mark 10:11-12, and Romans 7:2-3 are likewise clear in explaining this. While such passages may not tell us exactly what “not under bondage” means in First Corinthians 7:15, they tell us what it does not mean. Other clear passages to be considered later will help us to see what it does mean.
Before one decides he has found himself a Biblical loophole, he must consider the context of the passage. Again, this chapter is addressing various questions the Corinthians had concerning marriage (verse 1).
And the context could certainly not be allowing such remarriages. Just a few verses earlier, Paul had said,
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 explanation given by those who find a loophole in First Corinthians 7:15 is that “not under bondage” means the believer is no longer bound to his unbelieving spouse. However, the word “bondage” has nothing to do directly with the bonds of marriage.
A State That Never Existed
One need not know Greek to know the truth. Yet some Biblical truths are driven home by the smallest “jots” and “tittles,” including the grammatical choices the Holy Spirit made when inspiring the original text of the New Testament. The tense used in the phrase “not under bondage” is known as the perfect tense. The perfect tense “describes an event that, completed in the past, has results in the present time.” This tense is used when Scripture quotes Scripture with the phrase, “It is written” (Matthew 2:5; 4:4; Romans 1:17; et al.). This tense is used to show that, yes, the Scripture may have been written in past time, but it continues to have abiding force today. But notice when Paul uses this tense, he says, “A brother or a sister is not under bondage.” It is not the case as the perfect tense would express. Thus, Paul says in effect, “A brother or sister has not completed the act in the past of being brought under bondage, and thus, could not in the present time continue to have abiding results of bondage.” Paul makes clear that this “bondage” had never existed. Yet the marriage certainly had. And neither party could be permitted to remarry until a Scriptural divorce or death of a spouse occurred (Romans 7:2-3).
Our Lord clearly stated, “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matthew 19:9). Paul never disputed the Lord’s teaching, nor sought a way around it, but rather reinforced it (Romans 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 7:10-11). Some misrepresent Paul by saying he provided the right to remarry to unscripturally divorced persons. It is inaccurate to call this loophole the “Pauline Privilege,” because Paul never granted it. It is a “Pretend Privilege,” fabricated by those who would rather circumvent the word of God than obey it.
 Oxford American College Dictionary, s.v. “loophole.”
 Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1987), p. 303.
 Oxford American College Dictionary, s.v. “bondage.”
 DouloM, in Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2000), p. 260.
 English Study Bible: New Testament, Translation and Notes (Paragould, AR: Harold Littrell, 1994), p. 272.
 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), p. 573.
- The Bible (37)
- The Church (33)
- Holy Spirit (2)
- Bible Authority (11)
- Calvinism (7)
- Nature of God (9)
- Faith (19)
- Family Matters (7)
- Denominationalism (10)
- Attitudes (46)
- Christian Living (57)
It is shameful when a beautiful Biblical portrait becomes warped into a grotesque aberration for the furtherance of false doctrine. Such is often done to the noble thief who stood up for Jesus as they and another thief were crucified together: And ......
Moses asked this question of the tribes of Reuben and Gad, who wanted to claim the land east of the Jordan in which to settle (Numbers 32:6). The reason that they wanted this land was that they had an enormous amount of livestock and they saw that the land of Jazer and Gilead would be a good......
The setting for our lesson is found in Numbers 32:1-33. The children of Reuben and the children of Gad sought their inheritance on the safe side of the river Jordan (verses 1-5). They had great herds of cattle and saw that the land they requested would suit their needs well......