In a revelation from 1830, now canonized as section 74 of the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith received an inspired interpretation of 1 Cor 7:14:
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 are they holy. Now, in the days of the
apostles the law of circumcision was had among all the Jews who believed not
the gospel of Jesus Christ. And it came to pass that there arose a great
contention among the people concerning the law of circumcision, for the
unbelieving husband was desirous that his children should be circumcised and
become subject to the law of Moses, which law was fulfilled. And it came to
pass that the children, being brought up in subjection to the law of Moses,
gave heed to the traditions of their fathers and believed not the gospel of
Christ, wherein they became unholy. Wherefore, for this cause the apostle wrote
unto the church, giving unto them a commandment, not of the Lord, but of
himself, that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever; except the law
of Moses should be done away among them, that their children might remain without
circumcision; and that the tradition might be done away, which saith that
little children are unholy; for it was had among the Jews; But little children
are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ; and this is
what the scriptures mean
This is a text whose meaning has been debated for centuries, including both the patristic and Reformation eras, such as whether it is support of infant baptism. Here are some excerpts of works I have recently read on this passage that others might find interesting, too:
David F. Wright on the Reception of this Text among the Reformers
Texts
and Translation
Before proceeding to review a
selection of Reformation expositions of 1 Corinthians 7.14, we should look
briefly at the text itself and some of its sixteenth-century translations. In
later medieval works the Vulgate most commonly reads as follows:
sanctificatus est enim vir
infidelis per mulierem fidelem, et sanctificata est mulier infidelis per virum
fidelem; alioquin filii vestri immundi essent, nunc autem sancti sunt.
The clarifying addition of fidelem,
twice (there is a little early support for this), is of no moment, since the
meaning in each case is not in doubt. (Wolfgang Musculus is the only
commentator who thinks otherwise, as we shall see.) Much more significant is
the adoption of per mulierem/virum where the Greek has εν τη γυναικι etc. The
version unquestionably undergirds what is probably the dominant interpretation
during the pre-Reformation era as a whole, which focuses on the influence of
the Reformation era as a whole, which focuses on the influence of the believing
partner on the unbelieving, whose conversion is contemplated with varying
degrees of confidence.
Also noteworthy in the Vulgate is
the variation in the last part of the verse between essent and sunt
(the Greek has εστιν in both places). This variation predates
the Vulgate being found in Augustine and Ambrosiaster, for example. In the
latter the reading essent clearly facilitates, if it does not require,
and interpretation which would exercise long-lasting influence:
immundi essent filii eorum, si
dimitterent volentes habitare secum et aliis se copularent, essent enim
adulteri ac per hoc et filii eorum spurii, ideo immundi. (H. J. Vogels [ed.], Commentarius
in Epistulas Paulinas, vol. II [CSEL, 81], p. 76 of loc.)
Alioquin
as understood by Ambrosiaster denotes not, more immediately, the unbelieving partner
remaining unsanctified, but the separation of the partners (partly, no doubt,
as a consequence of this). That is to say, this exegesis of the last sentence
of verse 14 has reference not so much, or not chiefly, to the earlier part of
the verse as to verses 12-13. Ambrosiaster’s interpretation is clearly recognizable
in the Glossa Ordinaria ad loc., and in Gratians’ Decretum is
ascribed to scripture itself.
Finally, in the Vulgate’s text, mundi
is a not infrequent variant for sancti, being found, for example, in the
Glossa. I also note, without being able to comment further, that the
only change made in Wittenberg’s corrected Vulgate of 1529 (apart from the
inconsequential dropping of fidelem) was sanctifactur (twice) for
sanctifactus/a est.
Erasmus’ treatment of this verse
is intriguing. His new translation of 1516 was as follows:
Sanctifactus est enim maritus
infidelis, in uxore, et sanctifacta est uxor infidelis, in
marito, Alioqui filii vestri inmundi sunt, nunc autem sancti sunt.
The changes are italicised. But
from the second edition of 1519 onwards. Erasmus backtracked, reinstating per
uxorem/maritum and essent. The only new element was incredulous/a
for infidelis. Correspondingly, from 1519 his Annotationes,
although retaining form 1516 a direct translation of the two Greek phrases—i.e.,
in muliere, in viro—added an endorsement of the Vulgate which
reflected his change of mind:
Atque hoc sane loco recte mutavit
interpres praepositionem, quod tamen alias aut veretur aut negligit facere.
Furthermore, the vernacular
translation largely reflected Erasmus’ second throughts rather than his first.
All the English versions I have examined down to the King James Version of 1611
, have ‘by’, and the French of Olivétan-Calvin likewise renders it ‘par’.
Similarly, Luther in 1522 and still in 1546 has ‘durch(s)’. In addition, these
various vernacular translations all reflect essent/sunt rather than the
Greek’s εστιν/εστιν. So much for the recovery of the original
languages! (David F. Wright, “1 Corinthians 7.14 in Fathers and Reformers,” in Infant
Baptism in Historical Perspective: Collected Studies [Studies in Christian
History and Thought; Milton Keynes, U.K.: Paternoster, 2007], 195-97)
Sanctification
as Converting Influence
One interpretation of the first
part of 1 Corinthians 7.14 is shared by virtually all the patristic authorities
whose influence was felt in the sixteenth century. This view interprets the
sanctification that is wrought in or through the Christian wife or husband as
an influence that makes for the other partners’ conversion. As we have noted,
Augustine is careful to respect the tense of the Greek ηγιασται, referring to instances that had
presumably already occurred. Pelagius, citing 1 Peter 3.1, likewise says that ‘it
has often happened that a husband was won (lucre fieret) through his
wife’. This is preserved in both Pseudo-Primasius (PL 68, cols. 521-22)
(The Cassiodoran expurgated Pelagius), where it precedes the similar sentiment
from Augustine’s De Sermone Domini in Monte, and Pseudo-Jerome (the
interpolated Pelagius) (PL 30, cols. 736-37). John Chrysostom’s homily
uses the present tense throughout: ‘the purity of the believing husband overcomes
the impurity of the unbelieving wife . . . Hence there is hope that the lsot
partner may be saved through the marriage . . . What harm is there, tell me,
both wne the requirements of piety remain unimpaired and when there are good
hopes about the unbeliever? . . . The wife is to lead her man to desire the
truth’ (PG 61, cols. 154-55).
Ambrosiaster’s comment is more
elusive:
Habere illos [i.e.
the unbelieving partners] beneficium bonae voluntatis ostendit [i.e.
Paul], qua (quia) horrorem nominis Christi non habent, et ad tuitionem
hospitii pertinent, in quo signum fit crucis, quo mors victa est; sanctifacatio
enim est. (CSEL, 81, p. 76)
Some of Ambrosiaster’s wording is
picking up in Erasmus’ Paraphrases, which mediated to the sixteenth
century an influential and attractive expression of this sense of
sanctification. The baptized wife non admiscetur Ethnico, sed obsequitur
marito: nec amat impium, sed tolerat futurum pium. The husabdn who does not
yet profess Christ gives grounds for ‘this hope about himself’, since in
uxore non horret Dei cultum. He is not wholly a pagn, but to some degree
already a Christian, since he compliantly lives with a wife who professes the
name of Christ, and crucis signum communi lectulo praefixum videt aequis
oculis (LB 7, cols. 880-81).
In addition to the evident on
Ambrosiaster, Eramus may here be echoing Chrysostom’s reiterated note of hope,
and even Augustine’s mention of tolerance, although this last element with one
or two others is found in Pseudo-Oecumenius. Btu this interpretation of our
verse became very common in the medieval centuries. It is found, for example,
in Haimo of Auxerre in the ninth century, Bruno of Charteux in the eleventh,
Hervé of Bourgdieu (Pseudo-Anselm) and Peter Lombard in the twelfth century,
Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth, Nicolas of Lyra in the fourteenth, and
Dionysius the Carthusian in the fifteenth. And on the way it lodged in the Glossa
Ordinaria. Here, as often in other commentaries, it is not the only
interpretation offered, he is invariably the first in order.
We will accordingly round off this
view of sixteenth-century Protestant exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7.14 by looking
at some Reformers who consider this interpretation in terms of a converting
influence. Zwingli provides two meanings for sanctifactus est, first
attracted to faith by the demeanour of the Christian wife, and second, reckoned
among the family and people of God, although infidelis. (Zwingli also
notes that in the New Testament, but not the Old, mulier viro aequatur.)
The Zürich Reformer had cited our verse in this first defence of infant baptism
in the letter to Strasbourg of December 1524. Since the children even of one
Christian parent are sancti, that is, fideles, what can prevent
their receiving baptism? For the parnets he prefers the conversion interpretation.
Bullinger follows a different
tack. Correctly discerning the sequence of Paul’s thought (ignotius demonstrate
per notius, nempe per illud quod erat indubitatum apud omnes), he makes the
children’s status as sancti rest upon their being children of promise in
terms of Genesis 17.7, and on their being born of a mixed marriage in which one
partner’s uncleanness is sanctified by the other’s faith. He concedes nothing
more to the unbeliever’s sanctifactus (which he carefully distinguishes
from sanctus) than the neutralizing, as it were, of the impediment of
impiety. He quotes Erasmus’s Paraphrases, unacknowledged, but none of
the Fathers I can recognize.
The Lutheran Erasmus Sarcerius
(1501-59), superintendent and chaplain to Count William of Nassau, weighs up
the sense of sanctificari pro converti, but decides instead that the
apostle uses the word politice . . . , pro servari ab ignominia et
dedecore. Likewise sancti is applied to the children politice,
of their legitimate birth from a legitimate marriage. (Ibid., 205-7)
1
Corinthians 7.14: Holiness, Federal or Real?
With some relief, we turn to some
contested exegesis. In one of his letters from Westminster Robert Baillie wrote
home as follows:
We have ended our Directions for
baptisme. Thomas Goodwin one day was exceedinglie confounded: He has undertaken
a publicke lecture against the Anabaptists: it was said, under pretence of
refuting them, be betrayed our cause to them: that of the Corinthians, our
chief ground for the baptisme of infants, ‘Your children are holy’, he exponed
of a reall holiness, and preached down our ordinare and necessare distinction of
reall and federal holiness. Being posed hereupon, he could no wayes cleare himself,
and no man took his part.
The Directory ended up with the
statement that the children of believers ‘are Christians, and federally holy
before baptism, and therefore are they baptized’. John Lightfoot was unfortunately
absent from the Assembly on 16 July 1644, when the meaning and implications of
1 Corinthians 7.14 were rehearsed at length and in depth. We may judge it one
of the company’s better days. The minutes are ample but not clear at every
point.
Goodwin kept up his end from first
to last.
It is such a holynesse as if they
dy they should be saved/whether a holynesse of election or regeneration I know
not; but I thinke it is they have the holy ghost.
Lazarus Seaman spelt out the alarm
that others showed: ‘all agree that this holynesse is the ground of baptisme .
. . except he can make out this, the baptizing of infants is gone as toutching
his judgment’. Goodwin in effect denied any distinction between real and federal
holiness: the holiness predicated of the children of a single Christian parent
by Paul is the same as that of ‘I will be your God and you shall be my people.
Therefore be holy.’ If 1 Corinthians 7.14 speaks of any other holiness, then
baptism is the seal of some other holiness than the holiness of salvation.
But saving holiness is what
infallibly saed, commented Stephen Marshall anxiously. As Rutherford put it, ‘wher
ther is reall and inherent holynesse ther must be a seeing of god, and being in
the state of salvation’, But ‘the Lord hath election and reprobation amongst
Infants noe lesse than those of age’. This emerged as the main objection to
Goodwin’s interpretation, which was alleged to imply that all such infants
would indubitably be saved (so Marshall) and that the decrees of election and reprobation
could not stand (Rutherford).
So argument ensued on the
difference between an indefinite proposition and a universal proposition.
Goodwin’s case rested on the former: ‘an indefinite faith founded upon an
indefinite promise’. Herbert Palmer could not concur: Paul’s answer to the ‘inconvenience’
to a child form one parent’s infidelity must be ‘a universal proposition and de
fide we are bound to believe it de omnibus et singulis’. To be sure,
Goodwin did not entertain every notion that some divines read into his potion. He
denied that he was speaking of a holiness received by the child by tradition
from the parent, as Richard Vines had supposed (‘and so they shall be borne regenerate
and really holy’), but only of a holiness by way of designation. Calamy came
back at Goodwin: ‘he judges of the reall holynesse of the infant by the reall
holynesse of the parent’. But this is how we all proceed, rejoined Goodwin: it
is the children of believers that we baptize.
The combined learning and piety of
the Westminster theologians did not resolve the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7.14.
The verse had inevitably engaged the attention of previous generations of
expositors, and had found the early Fathers and the Reformers of the sixteenth
century espousing a variety of theories that, if not universally comprehensive,
was at least indefinite. But whereas the earliest exegetes had been especially
preoccupied with avoiding the attribution to the children of a holiness which
they could not comfortably credit also of the unbelieving partner, the dominant
concerns of the divines at Westminster led in other directions. The irony lay
in their vary captivity to this verse in the first instance, for at least one
thing can be incontrovertibly deduced from it—that the children in question who
are declared ‘holy’ had not been baptized, nor, if the parallel with the
unbelieving spouse extends this far, is their imminent baptism implied. This
is, I think, the only place in the New Testament where children are in view of
whom we know for certain whether they have or have not been baptized. They have
not—but are said to be already ‘holy’. (Ibid., 252-54)
David F. Wright (himself a proponent of infant baptism): 1 Cor
7:14 is not a valid “proof-text” for infant baptism:
The most intriguing New Testament
text is 1 Corinthians 7.14, which is popularly viewed as one of the clearer
warrants for infant baptism. The structure of Paul’s reasoning is widely
understood. When Paul asserts ‘Otherwise your children could be unclean, but as
it is, they are holy’ (RSV, NIV), he is not basing the children’s holiness on
their having two holy parents, one a believer and the other sanctified
through the believer. Rather he is adducing the same principle both in what he
says about the unbelieving partner in a mixed marriage and in what he says
about the children of a mixed marriage. The holiness of the believing spouse
covers both the unbelieving partner and their children. Paul is not interested
in on the relation between the children and the unbelieving parent. A parallel
obtains between the unbelieving partner and the children in their relations to
the believing mother/wife or husband/father.
Furthermore Paul’s argument moves
from the children to the unbelieving spouse. The holiness of the children of a
single Christian substantive assertion about this parent’s unbelieving spouse,
an assertion which clearly does not possess the self-evident validity of what
he says about the children.
The next step is to note that the
argument holds water only if the children, like the unbelieving partner, are unbaptized.
It is inconceivable that, if they had been baptized, their holiness should have
been grounded not on the fact of their baptism but on their relationship to a
Christian parent—which it must be if the analogy is to retain its force.
Furthermore, it follows that if the children of a single Christian parent in a
mixed marriage are holy, so a fortiori, on the basis of their Christian parentage.
This exegesis has the broad support of the Fathers, as well as generally of exegetes
today, including both Jeremias and Aland.
It suggests a parallel with Jewish
proselyte baptism, which was given to children born after the
conversion-baptism of their parents(s).
We must not obscure possibly
important distinctions. Paul says nothing directly about baptism, although it
is unquestioned that the unbelieving husband or wife was unbaptized. Exegesis
can establish only that the presupposition (the holiness of the children) of
the main argument (the holiness of the unbelieving spouse) is not grounded in
the children’s baptism. There exists, however, the strongest presumption that
the children had not in fact been baptized. Moreover, Paul is obviously alluding
to a matter of common practice rather than to a specific instance. The verse is
therefore of unique relevance to this enquiry, for no other material in the
New Testament enables us to be so confident that any child or children were or
were not baptized.
Can we deduce anything further—in particular,
whether the children were subsequently baptized, and if so, at what age? The
Greek itself can give us little clue as to their age. Whether, in addition to
being ‘holy’ by birth, they were also baptized, already or subsequently, is an
issue on which Jeremias changed his mind. In the German edition of his first
work, he endorsed that view that, according to the text, the Pauline churches
did not baptize children born to Christian parents. By the time of the English translation
he had ‘begun to doubt the validity of this reasoning’, for it ignored ‘the
important fact that in Judaism all boys, whether their birth was “in holiness”
or not, were circumcised on the eight day’. Since baptism replaced circumcision,
the holiness from birth of the children of 1 Corinthians 7.14 did not preclude
the possibility that they were already baptized. The holiness of the unbelieving
spouse did not make it unnecessary that he or she be subsequently conceived and
baptized. But Jeremias affirms only that ‘the baptism of children on the eighth
day [sic!], in place of circumcision’ is no more excluded by the
verse than is the later baptism of the unbelieving spouse. . . . Aland exposes
the weakness of Jeremias’ argument that Jewish proselyte baptism provides the
background to 1 Corinthians 7.14 when he points to the totally non-Jewish
character of the notion that the unbelieving partner in a marriage may continue
in his or her unbelief and yet be regarded as holy. Jeremias’ response does not
attempt to counter this objection. Furthermore, the parallel Jeremias draws
between the exclusion of the subsequent baptism of the unbelieving spouse and
the prior baptism of the children is not the most obvious one to draw. A true
parallel would be between the non-exclusion of the subsequent baptism of
both unbelieving spouse and children. We must remember that the
weight-bearing element in Paul’s argument is the holiness of the children which
is already self-evident in a way that does not hold for the holiness of
unbelieving spouses. (David F. Wright, “The Origins of Infant Baptism—Child’s
Believers’ Baptism?” in Infant Baptism in Historical Perspective: Collected
Studies [Studies in Christian History and Thought; Milton Keynes, U.K.:
Paternoster, 2007], 14-15, 16, italics in original)
Benjamin Keach (Baptist) writing in 1869 vs. paedobaptists:
Object.
From whence ‘tis asserted, That the Children of Believers are hoy with a
Federal or Covenantal Holiness and therefore to be baptized.
Answ.
To this we answer, That the same sort of Holiness which is ascribed to the
Children, is to be understood in reference to the unbelieving Husband, or the unbelieving
Wife, who are both said to be sanctified by their respective Yoke-fellows;
which cannot be meant of a federal or a Covenant-holiness, but that which is
matrimonial: For if we must understand it of a Covenant-holiness, then it will
follow, that the unbelieving Wife, or unbelieving Husband may, upon the same
ground lay claim to Baptism as well as their Children, which yet your selves
will not grant. Besides, it is evident from the words themselves, in which the
Term Husband and Wife are twice used, which shews, that the
Holiness is from the conjugal Relation, and cannot be meant of any other than
Legitimation. And the term Unbeliever is also twice used, and said to be
Sanctified, which can have no other sence but this, that the unbelieving Yoke-fellow
is sanctified, or made meet in respect of conjugal use, to his or her Yoke-fellow:
And so tough the one be an Unbeliever, yet they might comfortably enough live
together in lawful Wedlock. See our late Annotators; I rather think (say
they) it signifies brought into a State that the Believer, without Offence
to the Law of God, may continue in a married Estate with such a Yoke-fellow; for
else, saith the Apostle, your Children were unclean, that is, would be
accounted illegitimate. But now this being determined, that he Husband is thus
sanctified to the wife, and the Wife to the Husband, though the one be an Unbeliever,
hence it follows, that your Children are holy; that is, lawfully
begotten, which is the only sense opposite to the Determination, ver.
12, 13. It was, ‘tis plain, about this matter those Saints at Corinth
wrote to the Apostle, and therefore according to the scope of the place it
cannot intend any thing else. And as for the use of the word Holy for
Legitimate, that it is in this sense used else-where in the Scripture is
evident from Mal. 2.15, where a Seed of God, or a Godly Seed, can be
understood in no other sense than that of a lawful Seed, in opposition to those
born by Polygamy.
Neither out any man to infer Federal
Holiness to be intended here, unless he can prove form some other Text in
the New Testament any such Holiness to be in Children, i.e. because Parents
are Believers are in the Covenant of Grace, their natural Seed must therefore
be so esteemed, and have the like Right to Gospel-Baptism, as the Children under
the Law had to Circumcision, which is no where to be found in all the New
Testament, but the quite contrary, as has been proved; and therefore this
Interpretation ought not to be admitted, but utterly to be rejected in regard
to what the Apostle Peter asserts.
How false and ridiculous therefore
is that which Mr. Smythies hath lately affirmed: Whensoever, saith
he, God enters into Covenant with the Parent, he enters into Covenant with
the Children of that Parent; that Is, the Children were included in the covenant,
and the Blessings of that Covenant belonged to the Children as well as to the
Parent. They that will build their Father upon such kind of Men deserve to
be deceived, who speak what they please, and prove nothing; as if this was so
because Mr. Smythies says it. I must charge it upon him as false
Doctrine, (1.) As being quote contrary to the Nature of the Gospel-Dispensation
and Constitution of the New Testament Church, wherein the Fleshy Seed are
rejected and cast out in respect of Church Privileges and Ordinances. (2.) What
is this but to intail Grace to Nature, and Regeneration to Generation? in
opposition to what our Saviour saith, John 3.3 and Paul, Ephes.
2.1,2. (3.) It also contradicts all Mens Experience. How palpable is it that
Godly men have wicked Children now adays as well as in former times? What,
wicked Children, and yet in the Covenant of grace? Or, were they in it, and are
they now fallen out of it? What a Covenant then do you make that sure and
everlasting Covenant of Grace to be?
Besides, we have many learned Men
and Commentators of our Mind upon this Text, as Mr. Danvers observes and
quotes them.
Austin,
saith, it is to hold without doubting, whatsoever that Sanctification was, it
was not of Power to make Christians and remit Sins.
Ambrose
upon this place, saith, the Children are Ambrose, holy because they are born of
lawful Marriage.
Melancthon
in his Commentary upon this same Text saith thus, “Therefore Paul answers,
that “their Marriages are not to be pulled asunder for their unlike Opinions of
God; if the impious Person does not cast away the other; and for comfort he
adds as a Reason, The unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the believing Wife.
Meat is sanctified; for that which is holy in use, that is, it is granted to
Believers from God; so here he speaks of the use of Marriage to be holy, to be
granted of God. Things prohibited under the Law, as Swines Flesh, and a Woman
in her Pollution, were called unclean. The connexion of this, if the use of
Marriage should not please God, your Children would be Bastards, and so
unclean: But your Children are not Bastards, therefore the use of Marriage
pleaseth God: And how Bastards were unclean in a peculiar manner the Law shews,
Deut. 23.
Camerarius
in his Commentary upon this place also faith, (for the unbelieving Husband hath
been sanctified, an unusual change of the Tense, that is) “sanctified in the
lawful use of Marriage; for without this, saith he, it would be that their Children
should be unclean, than is, infamous and
not legitimate, who so are holy, that is, during the Marriage are
without all blot of Ignominy.
Erasmus
saith likewise, “Infants born of such Parents as one being a Christian, the
other not, are holy legitimately; for the Conversion on either Wife or Husband
doth not dissolve the Marriage which was made when both were Unbelievers. . . .
But, after all, should it be
allowed that the Holiness in this Text is indeed to be taken for a Federal or
Covenant-Holiness, yet we cannot therefore grant that this is a sufficient
Proof for Infant-Baptism; for let the Holiness be what it will, whether Moral,
Federal, or Matrimonial, neither of these is any where assigned to
be a ground of baptizing Infants; the Institution, Commission, and Practice of
the Apostolical Church being that alone that can warrant the same: ‘This God’s
Word only, not Mens Reason, conceited Grounds and Inferences, that can justify a
Practice, or make a Gospel Ordinance; if all therefore was granted which you
affirm of the Covenant made with Abraham or Circumcision and Federal
Holiness, yet Infant Baptism is gone, unless you can prove God hath from
this ground commanded you to baptize your Children, or that they were for this
Reason admitted to Baptism in the Apostles Time (for all your Arguments from
thence prove as strongly, that your Infants may partake of the Lord’s Supper, &c.)
But that any thing less than a Profession of Faith and Repentance is or can
be a sufficient ground for baptizing any Person, young or old, we do deny, fith
the New Testament is the only Rule or perfect Copy, by the Authority of which
we ought to act and perform all Duties of instituted Worship, and administer Sacraments,
&c. which are mere positive Precepts, and depend only upon the Will and
Pleasure of the Law-maker. So much to this pretended Proof of Infant-Baptism. (Benjamin
Keach, Gold Refined, or, Baptism in its Primitive Purity: Proving baptism in
water an holy institution of Jesus Christ, and to continue in the church to the
end of the world [London: Nathaniel Crouch, 1689], 137-40, 141)
Pelagius on 1 Cor 7:14
7:14 “For
the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the
unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband" [Latin: Sanctifactus
est enim uir infidelis in exore fideli, et sanctifacata est mulier infidelis
per maritum fidelem]. He relates an example because it often happens that a man
is gained by means of the wife. And this is why blessed Peter says, “That if
any believe not the word, they may be gained without a word, by the wife’s
manner of life [1 Pet. 3:1], that is, when they see their wives changed for the
better, they know that nothing but the law of God could change inveterate
habits like this. “Otherwise your children should be unclean; but now they are
holy.” If it were not so, [as] I say, your children would remain unclean still;
for it had often happened that the children followed the parent who was a
believer; that by the hope he wished to be believed, the other was able to be
saved, as much by the example of the children as of the spouse. (Pelagius, Commentaries
on the Thirteen Epistles of Paul with the Libellus Fidei [trans. Thomas P.
Scheck; Ancient Christian Writers 76; New York: The Newman Press, 2022], 145;
first comment in square brackets added for clarification)
John
Calvin (Magisterial Reformer):
14.
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified. He obviates an objection, which might occasion anxiety to believers.
The relationship of marriage is singularly close, so that the wife is the half
of the man—so that they two are one flesh —(1Co 6:16)
—so that the husband is the head of the wife; (Eph
5:23); and she is her husband’s partner in everything; hence it seems
impossible that a believing husband should live with an ungodly wife, or the
converse of this, without being polluted by so close a connection. Paul
therefore declares here, that marriage is, nevertheless, sacred and pure, and
that we must not be apprehensive of contagion, as if the wife would contaminate
the husband. Let us, however, bear in mind, that he speaks here not of
contracting marriages, but of maintaining those that have been already
contracted; for where the matter under consideration is, whether one should
marry an unbelieving wife, or whether one should marry an unbelieving husband,
then that exhortation is in point—
Be not yoked with unbelievers, for there is no agreement between Christ
and Belial.
(2Co 6:14).
But
he that is already bound has no longer liberty of choice; hence the advice
given is different.
While
this sanctification is taken in various senses, I refer it simply to
marriage, in this sense—It might seem (judging from appearance) as if a
believing wife contracted infection from an unbelieving husband, so as to make
the connection unlawful; but it is otherwise, for the piety of the one has more
effect in sanctifying marriage than the impiety of the other in polluting it.
Hence a believer may, with a pure conscience, live with an unbeliever, for in
respect of the use and intercourse of the marriage bed, and of life generally,
he 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 marriage itself is not profaned.
But
from this a question arises—"If the faith of a husband or wife who is a
Christian sanctifies marriage, it follows that all marriages of ungodly
persons are impure, and differ nothing from fornication." I answer, that to
the ungodly all things are impure, (Ti 1:15), because they pollute by their impurity
even the best and choicest of God’s creatures. Hence it is that they pollute
marriage itself, because they do not acknowledge God as its Author, and
therefore they are not capable of true sanctification, and by an evil
conscience abuse marriage. It is a mistake, however, to conclude from this that
it differs nothing from fornication; for, however impure it is to them, it is nevertheless
pure in itself, inasmuch as it is appointed by God, serves to maintain decency
among men, and restrains irregular desires; and hence it is for these purposes
approved by God, like other parts of political order. We must always,
therefore, distinguish between the nature of a thing and the abuse of it.
Else
were your children. It is an argument taken from
the effect—"If your marriage were impure, then the children that are the
fruit of it would be impure; but they are holy; hence the marriage also
is holy. As, then, the ungodliness of one of the parents does not hinder the
children that are born from being holy, so neither does it hinder the marriage
from being pure." Some grammarians explain this passage as referring to a
civil sanctity, in respect of the children being reckoned legitimate, but in
this respect the condition of unbelievers is in no degree worse. That
exposition, therefore, cannot stand. Besides, it is certain that Paul designed
here to remove scruples of conscience, lest any one should think (as I have
said) that he had contracted defilement. The passage, then, is a remarkable
one, and drawn from the depths of theology; for it teaches, that the children
of the pious are set apart from others by a sort of exclusive privilege, so as
to be reckoned holy in the Church.
But
how will this statement correspond with what he teaches elsewhere—that we
are all by nature children of wrath; (Eph 2:3);
or with the statement of David —Behold I was conceived in sin, etc. (Ps 51:5). I answer, that there is a universal propagation
of sin and damnation throughout the seed of Adam, and all, therefore, to a man,
are included in this curse, whether they are the offspring of believers or of
the ungodly; for it is not as regenerated by the Spirit, that believers beget
children after the flesh. The natural condition, therefore, of all is alike, so
that they are liable equally to sin and to eternal death. As to the Apostle’s
assigning here a peculiar privilege to the children of believers, this flows
from the blessing of the covenant, by the intervention of which the curse of
nature is removed; and those who were by nature unholy are consecrated to God
by grace. Hence Paul argues, in his Epistle to the Romans, (Ro
11:16), that the whole of Abraham’s posterity are holy, because God had
made a covenant of life with him—If the root be holy, says he, then
the branches are holy also. And God calls all that were descended from
Israel his sons’ now that the partition is broken down, the same covenant of
salvation that was entered into with the seed of Abraham is communicated to us.
But if the children of believers are exempted from the common lot of mankind,
so as to be set apart to the Lord, why should we keep them back from the sign?
If the Lord admits them into the Church by his word, why should we refuse them
the sign? In what respects the offspring of the pious are holy, while many of
them become degenerate, you will find explained in Ro
10:1-11:21 the Epistle to the Romans; and I have handled this point
there.
George Leo Haydock (Catholic) on 1 Cor 7:14
Ver. 14–16. Is
sanctified. The meaning is not that the faith of the husband, or the wife
is of itself sufficient to put the unbelieving party, or their children, in the
state of grace and salvation: but that it is very often an occasion of their
sanctification, by bringing them to the true faith. Ch.—Sanctification which
has different significations, cannot here signify that an infidel is truly and
properly sanctified, or justified, by being married to a faithful believer;
therefore we can only understand an improper sanctification, so that such an
infidel, though not yet converted, need not be looked upon as unclean, but in
the dispositions of being converted, especially living peaceably together, and
consenting that their children be
baptized, by which they are truly sanctified.—How knowest thou, O wife? &c. These
words seem to give the reason, why they may part, when they cannot live
peaceably, and when there is little prospect that the party that is an infidel
will be converted. (George Leo Haydock, Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary [New
York: Edward Dunigan and Brother, 1859])
Robert Sungenis (Catholic) on 1 Cor 7:14
“sanctified”: Gr: ηγιασται,
perfect passive, denoting a state that began with the baptism of the believing
spouse and continues until the present time. A question may have arisen among
the Corinthians as to whether the Christian spouse in such marriages would be
contaminated in some way. Not only is the supposition not true, but Paul states
the reverse – the Christian spouse put the unbelieving spouse in a holy
relationship with God. Ηγιασται is placed forward in the sentence to emphasize
this startling piece of information. The use of does not mean that the
unbelieving spouse is sanctified in the salvific sense, but in the practical
sense, that is, the unbelieving spouse will enjoy the blessings of a sanctified
marriage that God bestows upon it for the sake of the believer. (Robert A.
Sungenis, The First Epistle to the Corinthians [Catholic Apologetics
Study Bible 5; State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing,
Inc., 2009], 53 n 139)
With all the confusion, past and present, about the meaning of this text, especially as it has often been used to support infant baptism (which itself has other theological ramifications), Latter-day Saints should be thankful we having a living source of authority that can provide a definitive answer to these issues. Of course, does not mean we are right, nor unique to us (think of Catholics and their Magisterium), but definitely a major advantage we have over Protestants.
On Sola Scriptura, see:
Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura