# Help me understand 1Corinthians 7:14??????



## etexas (Feb 18, 2009)

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband:else were your children unclean;but now they are holy./ I find this a "hard saying" even references have not truly helped satisfy it for me. I know St. Paul is not writing of a sanctification by "proxy", and even looking at the whole chapter has not truly "opened" this for me. Would LOVE feedback from our PB Pastors and Seminarians though input by armchir theologians is most welcome.


----------



## A.J. (Feb 18, 2009)

etexas said:


> For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband:else were your children unclean;but now they are holy./ I find this a "hard saying" even references have not truly helped satisfy it for me. I know St. Paul is not writing of a sanctification by "proxy", and even looking at the whole chapter has not truly "opened" this for me. Would LOVE feedback from our PB Pastors and Seminarians though input by armchir theologians is most welcome.



I am neither a pastor nor a seminarian. But let me help. The passage you quoted has been subject to different interpretations, and is especially relevant to the Paedo-Credo baptism debate. Allow me to refer you to some good online resources that discuss the meaning of it. 

For the Paedo-Baptist interpretation, please see point #9 of discourse 1 of Prof. Samuel Miller's Infant Baptism Scriptural and Reasonable. 

For the Baptist interpretation, see "The Fifth Pearl" of Dr. Fred Malone's booklet, A String of Pearls Unstrung. For an alternative Baptist view, you may also consult Stan Reeves' A Reformed Baptist View of 1 Cor. 7:14.


----------



## etexas (Feb 18, 2009)

One side note, I am blessed with some good commentaries, IF you line this out for me and use a commentary, amplify why this or that commentator is a good exegesis of the verse. PAX.

-----Added 2/18/2009 at 09:52:51 EST-----



A.J. said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband:else were your children unclean;but now they are holy./ I find this a "hard saying" even references have not truly helped satisfy it for me. I know St. Paul is not writing of a sanctification by "proxy", and even looking at the whole chapter has not truly "opened" this for me. Would LOVE feedback from our PB Pastors and Seminarians though input by armchir theologians is most welcome.
> ...


While it MIGHT come into play regarding Baptism, it, in context seems a bit broader than a Sacramental reference.


----------



## Rangerus (Feb 18, 2009)

Arm Chair theologian here.  Some quick quotes from a few commentaries.



> Robertson's Word Pictures: he only means that the marriage relation is sanctified so that there is no need of a divorce.





> John Gill: this is a reason given by the apostle why they should live together. This cannot be understood of internal sanctification, which is never the case; an unbeliever cannot be sanctified by a believer in this sense, for such a sanctification is only by the Spirit of God; nor external sanctification, or an outward reformation, which though the unbelieving yoke fellow may sometimes be a means of, yet not always; and besides, the usefulness of one to another in such a relation, in a spiritual sense, urged as a reason for living together, in 1Co_7:16 nor merely of the holiness of marriage, as it is an institution of God, which is equally the same in unbelievers as believers, or between a believer and an unbeliever, as between two believers;





> The People's New Testament: This passage has been much debated, and little understood. The unbelieving husband or wife is not made personally holy, not do the children of believers have personal holiness transmitted to them by virtue of birth relation. Sanctification, then, means something besides personal holiness. To sanctify is to separate to a sacred use, or relation (Exo_20:8; Exo_28:38). In 1Ti_4:4-5, food is "sanctified by the word of God and prayer" Here Paul uses the term to denote that one Christian member of a household brings a sanctifying influence to it, so that all the members are to be regarded as separated in part from the great, ungodly, unclean world.



I think the choice of words here alludes to the fact that the Jews regarded a non-Jew as “unclean,” and all of the Jews as “holy and part of the Holy Covenant with Abraham as well his seed. (Gen_17:7). The children of such a marriage therefore would be part of this eternal covenant. Here Paul is saying the faith of one parent who is a believer gives to the children a near Holy relationship to God, just as if both parents were believers. (compare Rom_11:16). This is the best I can do as an arm chair theologian.


----------



## etexas (Feb 18, 2009)

Rangerus said:


> Arm Chair theologian here.  Some quick quotes from a few commentaries.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The bit from the Peoples sums up what a lot of honest commentators state, I have seen SOME VERY honest ones that have called it one of the most CHALLENGING lines of any of St. Paul's Epistles!


----------



## A.J. (Feb 18, 2009)

etexas said:


> While it MIGHT come into play regarding Baptism, it, in context seems a bit broader than a Sacramental reference.



I agree. Interestingly enough, the text was discussed here also: http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/1cor-7-14-a-10944/


----------



## etexas (Feb 18, 2009)

A.J. said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > While it MIGHT come into play regarding Baptism, it, in context seems a bit broader than a Sacramental reference.
> ...


YES, as an Anglican I am of course given to the Sacramental outlook HOWEVER even for ME a Sacramental (Baptism in this case) would really seem to be secondary and by extension. To bring it as a primary does not really resolve the primary focus.


----------



## etexas (Feb 18, 2009)

Where are all our Greek Scholars???


----------



## Brian Withnell (Feb 18, 2009)

Not either of the groups you wanted, just a deacon.

What I would initially state is the context is that of divorce, and that just because a person is Christian, they should not divorce their spouse (context of someone coming to Christ ... this is not an endorsement of a Christian marrying a non-believer). But the basis is rather broad. The reasoning is essentially the reverse of the rule of corruption from the Old Testament - in the OT, if something holy touched something unclean, both became unclean. This appears to be the "clean" touching something unclean and making it clean. The believing spouse makes the unbelieving spouse clean. And the children are made clean because of the believing parent.

The extension to baptism is soft (and I am a paedo-baptist by conviction) compared to other verses, but follows the reasoning that the children are part of the covenant (they are clean) and so they are to receive the sign of the covenant even as children in the OT. Much weaker than other places in scripture, and I would never base the practice off this verse alone.


----------



## etexas (Feb 19, 2009)

Brian Withnell said:


> Not either of the groups you wanted, just a deacon.
> 
> What I would initially state is the context is that of divorce, and that just because a person is Christian, they should not divorce their spouse (context of someone coming to Christ ... this is not an endorsement of a Christian marrying a non-believer). But the basis is rather broad. The reasoning is essentially the reverse of the rule of corruption from the Old Testament - in the OT, if something holy touched something unclean, both became unclean. This appears to be the "clean" touching something unclean and making it clean. The believing spouse makes the unbelieving spouse clean. And the children are made clean because of the believing parent.
> 
> The extension to baptism is soft (and I am a paedo-baptist by conviction) compared to other verses, but follows the reasoning that the children are part of the covenant (they are clean) and so they are to receive the sign of the covenant even as children in the OT. Much weaker than other places in scripture, and I would never base the practice off this verse alone.


Actually in my tradition a Deacons view is held in high regard! I am glad we agree the Sacrament (Baptism) in this case is as you put it "soft" it is still unclear to me the "extent" of what St. Paul means by the sanctification of the spouse.......(It would be hard to understand it to mean a salvivic sense, an unbelievieng spouse is not not saved by marriage to a believer, that stretches the text, and even the bit about children is not easy to understand, some couples are unable to have children, some that do...the children are not saved on the basis the mother or father believes.)


----------



## Brian Withnell (Feb 19, 2009)

etexas said:


> Actually in my tradition a Deacons view is held in high regard! I am glad we agree the Sacrament (Baptism) in this case is as you put it "soft" it is still unclear to me the "extent" of what St. Paul means by the sanctification of the spouse.......(It would be hard to understand it to mean a salvivic sense, an unbelievieng spouse is not not saved by marriage to a believer, that stretches the text, and even the bit about children is not easy to understand, some couples are unable to have children, some that do...the children are not saved on the basis the mother or father believes.)



In my church (the local church here in Leesburg) deacons have to go through a fairly extensive training/exam which includes 4 tests: theology, Bible knowledge, church history and government, practical (the theology test was 303 questions ... ack!) but we are not elders by any stretch. I don't know much Greek (I use software for word study and examination of verbs, parts of speech, etc.) so I'm no Greek scholar. One of these days I'll get back to studying Greek. sigh.

Of course I agree that the spouse is not saved through the faith of the believing spouse (without faith of their own). But the marriage is pure, and the children are part of the covenant family and members of the visible church.


----------



## etexas (Feb 19, 2009)

Pastors? Bible Scholars? Sometimes if I type the words Fred Greco he pops up.....


----------



## MW (Feb 19, 2009)

etexas said:


> One side note, I am blessed with some good commentaries, IF you line this out for me and use a commentary, amplify why this or that commentator is a good exegesis of the verse.



Max, If you have Kistemaker, he provides a good discussion of the verse and the problems it seeks to answer in the context of the Graeco-Roman world. He goes through four meanings of "sanctify" and shows how it carries the meaning of consecration by marriage. The lesson: faith triumphs over unbelief in the family.

The text may be applied to the issue of infant baptism, but should not be construed as if it specifically addresses the issue, because at most it only speaks of covenant inclusion of infants.


----------



## etexas (Feb 19, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > One side note, I am blessed with some good commentaries, IF you line this out for me and use a commentary, amplify why this or that commentator is a good exegesis of the verse.
> ...


COOL! Got it right by me did NOT check that one! Thank you Matthew.


----------



## etexas (Feb 19, 2009)

Kistmaker helped. It is stil a challenging verse F.F. Bruce (I think?) called it one of the most difficult of any sections in the body of St. Paul's Epistles.


----------

