You ask, "How would you interpret 1 Corinthians 7:14?"
I think the NLT renders the meaning of verse 7:14 most plainly and quite accurately.
“For the Christian wife brings holiness to her marriage, and the Christian husband brings holiness to his marriage. Otherwise, your children would not be holy, but now they are holy.”
(1 Corinthians 7:14, NLT)
Rob
I don't think the NLT paraphrase is particularly helpful. The question of what the 'holiness' of the children means is still not explained. Many paedobaptists base their beliefs on this verse. It's important to know what it means.
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- “you”, occasionally joining himself to them by using the First person plural, “we” (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. One assumes that 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’ (Gk.
hagios). 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 just 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 of believers were already ‘sanctified’ by virtue of their birth (
contra John 1:13 ), or if they 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.
[taken from my blog. Read the full article at
http://marprelate.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/holy-infants/ ]
Steve
