Thursday, April 28, 2022

Examples of Commentaries, Historic and Modern, on 1 Corinthians 7:14

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