Steve Owen
Puritan Board Sophomore
A number of brothers have based their adherence to paedo-baptism to their understanding of 1Cor 7:14, which seems to them to indicate that the infant children of believers are "˜holy´ (NKJV) so as to be in some way in covenant with God. I thought it might be helpful to take a closer look at this verse in context to see if it really will bear that interpretation.
1Cor 7:14.´For the unbelieving husband is sanctified (Gk. hagiazo) by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband : otherwise your children were unclean, but now they are holy (Gk. hagios). We may see at once that the "˜sanctification´ of the unbelieving spouse is the same as the "˜holiness´ of the children. The same word root is used, although the NKJV translates them differently.
Yet Calvin sees a massive difference between the spouse and the children. Writing of the adults, he says:-
Fair enough. I don´t think Baptists would have any problems with that. But when Calvin reaches the part of the verse dealing with children, there is a huge change in his tone:-
This is going even further than the church of Rome! Calvin is asserting that all the children envisaged in 1Cor 7:14 should be baptized because they are holy, the curse of nature (that is, presumably, the effects of original sin) having been removed because they were born of a believing parent. Is this what members of this board believe, that the children of believers are free from original sin because they are connected by blood to an unbeliever? Surely not! Moreover, if Calvin´s claim for the children is true, why does the same not apply to the unbelieving husband?
James Bannerman also wrote on this verse:-
Leaving aside the temptation to adapt the question so often asked of Baptists; "˜How do you know that the parent is a true believer and what difference does it make if he/she isn´t?´, this quote is a totally unjustified deduction from a verse which says nothing whatsoever about baptism or church membership.
Before turning to look at the text in-depth, I want to draw attention to a particular point in the writing of 1Corinthians. Paul writes to the whole church (1:2 ) and addresses them in the Second Person plural- "œyou", occasionally joining himself to them by using the First person, "œwe" (eg.6:14; 8:4 ). However, when he writes specifically to a section of the church, he uses the Third Person; for example, 3:4; 4:1; 6:16; 7:36 etc. It is important to keep this in mind as we approach Chapter 7.
It is clear from 7:1 that in this section of the letter, Paul is answering some questions that the Corinthians have written to him. In verses 1-9, he is answering then on the subject of marital relations in general and the advisability of marriage. In verse 10-11, he is addressing the married section of the church and therefore uses the Third Person. "˜A wife is not to depart from her husband´. In verse 12ff, he addresses those believers who have an unbelieving spouse, again using the Third Person. Clearly, there was a concern within the Corinthian church as to whether a marriage could continue when one partner had been converted and the other remained an unbeliever. Obviously they had Old Testament Scriptures in mind like Exodus 34:15-16, Ezra 9 & 10 and Nehemiah 13:23-28.
Whilst it is undoubtedly true that Christians should not marry non-Christians, in the circumstances where a couple had married as unbelievers and one partner had become converted, Paul states that the Christian is not to instigate divorce proceedings, "˜For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband.´ As we saw earlier, the Greek word for "˜sanctified´ is hagiazo. This is the very word and the same grammatical construction used in 1:2 to describe the church members at Corinth, save that they are,´sanctified in Christ Jesus'. However, in 7:14,although the same expression is used, Paul must have had something else in mind. Whatever "˜sanctified´ unbelievers might be, they are not those who are "˜called to be saints´, nor do they, "˜call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.´ . By definition, they are still in their sins since they have not trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. There is no suggestion that they possess any spiritual benefits conferred by their unbelieving partners save perhaps that mentioned in 1Peter 3:1-2.
To understand the apostle´s teaching, it is necessary to bear in mind that the basic meaning of sanctification is to set apart or to be set apart for some special purpose. For example, in 1Tim 4:4-5, the word is used with reference to food: ´For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer´ (NASB). Obviously the food receives no special qualities from this sanctification which will lead to its salvation! It is made suitable for its purpose (being eaten!) by prayer and by God´s word that declares it to be so.
So all Paul is saying in the first part of 7:14 is that there is no need for a believer to separate himself from an unbelieving spouse. As Calvin says, the believing party is not contaminated by contact with the unbeliever, but there is certainly no salvific benefit for the non-Christian. Just a little further on (v16 ), Paul asks, "˜For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband?´. She doesn´t!
Then Paul goes on to make a hypothetical argument. ´Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.´ The important thing to note is that Paul has switched from the Third Person to the Second Person. It would have been natural for him to continue in the Third Person and say, "˜Otherwise their children would be unclean´ but he doesn´t do that. The reason is that he is addressing the whole church at this particular point.
Paul´s argument is this; if one had perforce to separate physically from unbelievers to avoid contamination from them, then Corinthian parents would have to separate from their own children. ´That which is born of the flesh is flesh´ (John 3:6 ) and all children are born with the contamination of a sinful nature. What was true for the unbelieving spouse would also be true for all children until they were converted. But in fact, Paul is saying that, just as the believer in the marriage sanctifies an unbelieving spouse so as to be able to live together, so believing parents sanctify their children so as to be able to bring them up in a Christian manner and, if God wills, to see them brought to faith.
I suggest that if the baptism of infants were taking place in Corinth, Paul would certainly not have written this way. If children really could be brought into the New Covenant by baptism, he would not have suggested that they might be "˜unclean.´ Therefore I conclude that infant baptism was not being practised in Corinth.
Grace & Peace,
Martin
[Edited on 12-27-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
1Cor 7:14.´For the unbelieving husband is sanctified (Gk. hagiazo) by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband : otherwise your children were unclean, but now they are holy (Gk. hagios). We may see at once that the "˜sanctification´ of the unbelieving spouse is the same as the "˜holiness´ of the children. The same word root is used, although the NKJV translates them differently.
Yet Calvin sees a massive difference between the spouse and the children. Writing of the adults, he says:-
A believer (in the circumstances envisaged by the verse) may, with a pure conscience, live with an unbeliever"¦"¦.[who] is sanctified, so as not to infect the believing party with his impurity. Meanwhile this sanctification is of no benefit to the unbelieving party; it only serves thus far, that the believing party is not contaminated by intercourse with him, and the marriage is not profaned.
Fair enough. I don´t think Baptists would have any problems with that. But when Calvin reaches the part of the verse dealing with children, there is a huge change in his tone:-
According to Calvin, then, the sanctifying effect on the unbelieving husband or wife is a relatively small matter; "˜of no benefit´ as he puts it. But when the child comes into view, suddenly it is "˜the profoundest theology´! Surely this is nothing else but inconsistency and special pleading? He continues:-This passage is a noteworthy one, and based on the profoundest theology. For it shows that the children of believers are set apart from others by a certain exclusive privilege, so that they are regarded as holy in the Church.
"˜"¦..There is a universal propagation both of sin and condemnation in the seed of Adam. All, therefore to a man, are included in this curse, whether they spring from believers or the ungodly, for not even believers beget children according to the flesh so that they are regenerated by the Spirit. Accordingly all are in the same natural condition, so that they are subject not only to sin but also to eternal death. But the fact that the apostle ascribes a special privilege to the children of believers here has its source in the blessing of the covenant, by whose intervention the curse of nature is destroyed, and also those who were by nature unclean are consecrated to God by His grace"¦"¦"¦.In view of the fact that the children of believers are made exempt from the common condition of mankind, in order to be set apart for the Lord, why should we keep them back from His sign [of the covenant]? If the Lord admits them to His Church by His word, why should we deny them the sign?
This is going even further than the church of Rome! Calvin is asserting that all the children envisaged in 1Cor 7:14 should be baptized because they are holy, the curse of nature (that is, presumably, the effects of original sin) having been removed because they were born of a believing parent. Is this what members of this board believe, that the children of believers are free from original sin because they are connected by blood to an unbeliever? Surely not! Moreover, if Calvin´s claim for the children is true, why does the same not apply to the unbelieving husband?
James Bannerman also wrote on this verse:-
The infants are to be accounted clean, or fit for the service of God and the fellowship of His church. The holiness of the one parent that is a member of the"¦..church, communicates a relative holiness to the infant, so that the child also is fitted to be a member of the church, and to be baptized"¦"¦to translate the phrase into ecclesiastical language, the child is entitled to church membership because the parent is a church member.´
Leaving aside the temptation to adapt the question so often asked of Baptists; "˜How do you know that the parent is a true believer and what difference does it make if he/she isn´t?´, this quote is a totally unjustified deduction from a verse which says nothing whatsoever about baptism or church membership.
Before turning to look at the text in-depth, I want to draw attention to a particular point in the writing of 1Corinthians. Paul writes to the whole church (1:2 ) and addresses them in the Second Person plural- "œyou", occasionally joining himself to them by using the First person, "œwe" (eg.6:14; 8:4 ). However, when he writes specifically to a section of the church, he uses the Third Person; for example, 3:4; 4:1; 6:16; 7:36 etc. It is important to keep this in mind as we approach Chapter 7.
It is clear from 7:1 that in this section of the letter, Paul is answering some questions that the Corinthians have written to him. In verses 1-9, he is answering then on the subject of marital relations in general and the advisability of marriage. In verse 10-11, he is addressing the married section of the church and therefore uses the Third Person. "˜A wife is not to depart from her husband´. In verse 12ff, he addresses those believers who have an unbelieving spouse, again using the Third Person. Clearly, there was a concern within the Corinthian church as to whether a marriage could continue when one partner had been converted and the other remained an unbeliever. Obviously they had Old Testament Scriptures in mind like Exodus 34:15-16, Ezra 9 & 10 and Nehemiah 13:23-28.
Whilst it is undoubtedly true that Christians should not marry non-Christians, in the circumstances where a couple had married as unbelievers and one partner had become converted, Paul states that the Christian is not to instigate divorce proceedings, "˜For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband.´ As we saw earlier, the Greek word for "˜sanctified´ is hagiazo. This is the very word and the same grammatical construction used in 1:2 to describe the church members at Corinth, save that they are,´sanctified in Christ Jesus'. However, in 7:14,although the same expression is used, Paul must have had something else in mind. Whatever "˜sanctified´ unbelievers might be, they are not those who are "˜called to be saints´, nor do they, "˜call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.´ . By definition, they are still in their sins since they have not trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. There is no suggestion that they possess any spiritual benefits conferred by their unbelieving partners save perhaps that mentioned in 1Peter 3:1-2.
To understand the apostle´s teaching, it is necessary to bear in mind that the basic meaning of sanctification is to set apart or to be set apart for some special purpose. For example, in 1Tim 4:4-5, the word is used with reference to food: ´For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer´ (NASB). Obviously the food receives no special qualities from this sanctification which will lead to its salvation! It is made suitable for its purpose (being eaten!) by prayer and by God´s word that declares it to be so.
So all Paul is saying in the first part of 7:14 is that there is no need for a believer to separate himself from an unbelieving spouse. As Calvin says, the believing party is not contaminated by contact with the unbeliever, but there is certainly no salvific benefit for the non-Christian. Just a little further on (v16 ), Paul asks, "˜For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband?´. She doesn´t!
Then Paul goes on to make a hypothetical argument. ´Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.´ The important thing to note is that Paul has switched from the Third Person to the Second Person. It would have been natural for him to continue in the Third Person and say, "˜Otherwise their children would be unclean´ but he doesn´t do that. The reason is that he is addressing the whole church at this particular point.
Paul´s argument is this; if one had perforce to separate physically from unbelievers to avoid contamination from them, then Corinthian parents would have to separate from their own children. ´That which is born of the flesh is flesh´ (John 3:6 ) and all children are born with the contamination of a sinful nature. What was true for the unbelieving spouse would also be true for all children until they were converted. But in fact, Paul is saying that, just as the believer in the marriage sanctifies an unbelieving spouse so as to be able to live together, so believing parents sanctify their children so as to be able to bring them up in a Christian manner and, if God wills, to see them brought to faith.
I suggest that if the baptism of infants were taking place in Corinth, Paul would certainly not have written this way. If children really could be brought into the New Covenant by baptism, he would not have suggested that they might be "˜unclean.´ Therefore I conclude that infant baptism was not being practised in Corinth.
Grace & Peace,
Martin
[Edited on 12-27-2005 by Martin Marprelate]