The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Thoughts on 1Cor 7:12ff

Hi all,
I have some thoughts on 1Cor 7:12-16 which I'd like to share.
(NKJV) 'If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.....'

One quick point; the words 'sanctified' and 'holy' in v14 NKJV mean the same thing. They come from the same root ('hagiazo', hagios'). If the children are 'holy' enough to be baptized without a confession of faith, so is the pagan husband or wife.

My main question is this; why does Paul suddenly change from the Third Person to the Second Person in v14? Whose children are 'your' children? Why did not Paul write 'their' children which would have been so much simpler and more logical, unless he had a special reason?

Paul is writing to 'the church of God in Corinth' (1:2). Throughout the letter, he writes in the second person ('you') when he is addressing everybody (eg. 1:26; 2:1; 3:1; 9:2 etc., etc.); occasionally, he includes himself and writes 'we' (eg. 8:8). But when he writes to a section of the church, he uses the third person ('he' or 'they' eg. 7:18; 11:29). It may be possible to argue over some instances, but this is his general practice in this letter. Therefore 'your children' in v14 refers to the offspring of all the Corinthian Christians.

The Corinthians had written to Paul (7:1) asking whether a married peson who became converted should separate from his/her unbelieving spouse. They clearly had scriptures like Ezra 10:10 and Neh 10:30 in mind. Paul's answer is that while Christians should not marry unbelievers (2Cor 6:14), a new believer should not separate from an existing spouse.

He says that the unbelieving partener is 'sanctified' by the believer. John Gill and others say that this word ('hagiazo') is used frequently in Jewish wedding rites meaning to 'espouse' or 'set apart in marriage'. The unbelieving partener has been sanctified in that sense. A faithful marriage, which is 'honourable among all' (Heb 13:4), even pagan people, has made the unbeliever acceptable ('sanctified') to the Christian spouse.

To clinch his argument, Paul points to the children of the Corinthian Christians, 'your children'. These children were, like us all, 'conceived in sin' and 'brought forth in iniquity' (Psalm 51:5), yet their parents did not immediately separarte from them because of their sinful condition. Of course not! The parent-child relationship 'sanctified' the sinful child to the believing parent. In just the same way, the pagan husband was 'sanctified' to the Christian wife and so forth.

I suggest that this interpretation is the only one that really does justice to the text, and that it is only possible if the Corinthians were not in the habit of baptizing infants. Otherwise their children would have been regarded as 'hagios' through their baptism and the comparison with an unbelieving spouse would have broken down.

[BTW, I'm informed that this argument was originally put forward by John Dagg]

Blessings to all,
Steve

I agree with you, but don't hope for the same from many others...!

Steve,
It sounds perfectly logical to me, but then I'm biased! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I would like to hear from our esteemed paedobaptist brethren on this, but I don't want it to turn into another baptism war!
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/surrender.gif" alt="" />

Hello Steve,

There is nothing new under the sun! Charles Hodge argued against your exegesis years ago. Read his commentary for more (though some minor alterations to it are needed IMHO). Here is a modified snippet:

Some German writers say that Paul could not attribute the holiness of children to their parentage, if they were baptized — because their consecration would then be due to that rite, and not to their descent. This is strange reasoning. [color:"FF0000"]The truth is, that they were baptized not to make them holy, but because they were holy.[/color] These were God's covenant people! The Jewish child was circumcised because he was a Jew, and not to make him one. The Rabbins say: Peregrina si proselyta fuerit et cum ea filia ejus — si concepta fuerit et nata in sanctitate, est ut filia Israelita per omnia: To be born in holiness (i.e. within the church) was necessary in order to the child being regarded as an Israelite. So children of Christians are not made holy by baptism, but they are baptized because they are holy. They are God's covenant people!

Regarding your question "If the children are 'holy' enough to be baptized without a confession of faith, so is the pagan husband or wife.", please review my other post (two kinds of people/two kinds of administration, et. al.).

The usage of the term holy needs some further definition as well. Any person or thing consecrated to God, or employed in His service, is said to be sanctified. Thus, particular days appropriated to His service, the temple, its utensils, the sacrifices, the priests, the whole theocratical people, are called holy. Persons or things not thus consecrated are called profane, common, or unclean. To transfer any person or thing from this latter class to the former, is to sanctify him or it. “What God hath cleansed (or sanctified), that call not thou common,” (Acts 10:15). Every creature of God is good, and is to be received with thanksgiving, “For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer,” (1 Tim 4:5). This use of the word is specially frequent in application to persons and communities.

The Hebrew people were sanctified (i.e. consecrated), by being selected from other nations and devoted to the service of the true God. They were, therefore, constantly called holy. All who joined them, or who were intimately connected with them, became in the same sense, holy. Their children were holy; so were their wives. “If the first–fruits be holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root be holy, so are also the branches,” (Rom 11:16). That is, if the parents be holy, so are also the children. Any child, the circumstances of whose birth secured it a place within the pale of the theocracy, or commonwealth of Israel, was, according to the constant usage of Scripture, said to be holy. In none of these cases does the word express any subjective or inward change. A lamb consecrated as a sacrifice, and therefore holy, did not differ in its nature from any other lamb. The priests or people, holy in the sense of set apart to the service of God, were in their inward state the same as other men. Children born within the theocracy, and therefore holy, were none the less conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity. They were by nature the children of wrath, even as others, (Eph 2:3). When, therefore, it is said that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife by the believing husband, the meaning is, not that they are rendered inwardly holy, but that they were sanctified by their intimate union with a believer, just as the temple sanctified the gold connected with it; or the altar the gift laid upon it, (Matt 23:17, 19). The sacrifice in itself was merely a part of the body of a lamb, laid upon the altar, though its internal nature remained the same, it became something sacred. Thus, the pagan husband, in virtue of his union with a Christian wife, although he remained a pagan, was sanctified; he assumed a new relation; he was set apart to the service of God, as the parent of children who, in virtue of their believing mother, were children of the covenant.

That this is so, the apostle proves from the fact, that if the parents are holy, the children are holy; if the parents are unclean, the children are unclean. This is saying literally what is expressed figuratively in Romans 11:16. “If the root be holy, so are the branches.” Please remember that the words holy and unclean, do not in this connection express moral character, but are equivalent to sacred and profane. Those within the covenant are sacred, those without are profane, (i.e. not consecrated to God).

• Are your children holy?
• Are your children part of the covenant?
• Do your children have the seal of the covenant?

I apologize if any of this is too wordy, et. al....I am tired and need to get to bed...

Hi Joe,
Thanks for your post. Just to translate Hodge's Latin tag for those who don't speak Latin, it reads:-

'If a foreign woman becomes a proselyte and her daughter with her, if she [the daughter] was conceived and born in sanctity [ie. wedlock] she is as an Israelite girl in all respects.' Clearly this does not concur with our Lord's words in John 3:3-6, nor with Gal 3:7.

At this point, all I would like to say is that Hodge does not address the questions that I asked. In 1Cor 7:14:-

1. If the children are born sanctified and are presumed fit to be baptized, why does the same not apply to the unbelieving spouse who is also 'sanctified'.

2. Why does Paul switch from the third person to the second person ('your'). If, as I am saying, he is referring to the children of all the Corinthians, then he is comparing them to the unbelieving partener. Surely he MUST be saying, 'your children are by nature sinners just like the pagan spouse. But just as he has been sanctified by the marriage relationship, so they are sanctified by the parent-child relationship. If that were not true you would all have to separate from your children as well as from an unbelieving husband/wife.'

There is a lot more I could say. Hodge is mixing up the covenants. The new Covenant is 'not according to the [Old] Covenant (Jer 31:32; Heb 8:9). He is making tabernacles for Moses and Elijah as well as for Christ, when the command from heaven is, 'This is my beloved Son, hear Him.' However, I'd be grateful if you would answer my two points on 1Cor 7:14 before addressing these points.

My answer to all three of your questions about children is, 'No; not until they believe' (Gal 3:7).

Every blessing,
Steve

Steve,

I am one of those paedobaptists who sees no relevancy to 1Cor 7:14 to the matter of baptism. Yet, the covenant sign, being changed from circumcision to baptism, to reflect the fulfillment of the new covenant is certainly relevant and so is the relationship of the children of believers to that covenant. It is my view, that this passage is talking about "associations" with the Church. Because of the intimate association with a believer, the spouse and child(ren) are deemed "clean/holy/sanctified", i.e., they are a privileged group which are given covenant blessings (external), e.g., the faith expressed in life of the believer in their presence, the preaching, reading of the Word, etc. (cf. Rom 3:1, 2; 9:4, 5)

Thus, I see this discussion on this particular text as a proverbial wild goose chase as to the matter of baptism of infants. Children are not to be baptized because they are "holy", but simply because they are the children of believers and are to receive the sign of the covenant which manner has changed, but the practice has never been abrogated and thus remains. IMHO, covenant children are NOT to be presumed, elect, regenerate, or Christians, nor treated as such. They are a privileged group, to be sure, but they are nonetheless conceived in sin and they share in the guilt and corruption of Original Sin which is universal to mankind. They are in dire need of regeneration and conversion no less than any other sinner.

Now, as a Baptist, you will agree with the condition of children born to believers, but you obviously are going to disagree that they should receive the sign of the covenant; baptism, because you bring far more discontinuity into the New Covenant than I do. As it has been said all along and it bears saying again. Our biblical hermeneutics are not the same and thus the end result is not going to be the same. So unless someone is willing to change his hermeneutic, their biblical theology, then we shall always be at an impasse. The differences are great and particularly in practice. For example, you would be accepted as a member in my church upon a profession of faith. I would not be accepted in your church unless I both professed faith AND submitted myself to a rebaptism by immersion; a requirement which I find biblically indefensible and dishonoring to Christ, of whose church we are all members.

Okay, I'll go crawl back into my little hole and let you guys continue with the discussion.

In His Grace,

Please work on your Latin, that was a terrible interpretation. Steve in my post it was clearly explained what holy meant and what the relationship with an unbeliever entailed: the pagan husband, in virtue of his union with a Christian wife, although he remained a pagan, was sanctified (as described in the previous posts); he assumed a new relation[/b]; he was set apart to the service of God, as the parent of children who, in virtue of their believing mother, were children of the covenant. Maybe you can glean something from Hodge here as well:

There are two views which may be taken of the apostle’s argument in this verse. The most generally adopted view is this: The children of these mixed marriages are universally recognized as holy, that is, as belonging to the church. If this be correct, the marriages themselves must be consistent with the laws of God. The unbelieving must be sanctified by the believing partner. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, (i.e. born out of the pale of the church). This is indeed objected by several modern commentators, for it takes for granted that the Corinthians had no scruples about the church–standing of the children of these mixed marriages. But this, it is said, is very improbable so soon after the establishment of the church, when cases of the kind must have been comparatively few. The principle in question, however, was not a new one, to be then first determined by Christian usage. It was, at least, as old as the Jewish economy; and familiar wherever Jewish laws and the facts of the Jewish history, were known. Paul circumcised Timothy, whose father was a Greek, while his mother was a Jewess, because he knew that his countrymen regarded circumcision in such cases as obligatory, (Acts 16:1-3). The apostle constantly assumes that his readers were familiar with the principles and facts of the Old Testament economy.

The other view of the argument is this: “If, as you admit, the children of believers be holy, why should not the husband or the wife of a believer be holy. The conjugal relation is as intimate as the parental. If the one relation secures this sacredness, so must the other. If the husband be not sanctified by his believing wife, children are not sanctified by believing parents.” This, however, supposes a change in the persons addressed. Paul is speaking to persons involved in these mixed marriages. Your children naturally means the children of you who have unbelieving husbands or wives. Whereas this explanation supposes your to refer to Christians generally. In either way, however, this passage recognizes as universally conceded the great scriptural principle, that the children of believers are holy (as described in the previous posts). They are holy in a similar sense in which the Jews were holy. They are included in the visible church, and have a right to be so regarded. The child of a Jewish parent had a right to circumcision, so the child of a Christian parent has a right to baptism. The church is the church, and it is most instructive to observe how the writers of the New Testament quietly take for granted that the great principles which underlie the old dispensation, and are still in force under the new.

Steve as to these other questions they were already answered here. Apparently, you do not believe in the TWO kinds of people and TWO kinds of administration of Gen 17:7, et. al. So please do tell how did children of the covenant “believe unto righteousness, as did Abraham” at 8 days old in order to be circumcised?

But, you can’t ever prove they HAVE believed at ANY age and thus we are left with no baptism at all--but I think you meant profession of faith... Simply put "when speaking of infants," Credos baptize only according to man’s profession—(man’s word that he is saved, of which we can never be sure) and thus will not baptize infants; on the other hand, Paedos baptize according to the covenant promises—(God’s word), which are eternal and sure. Yes, Paedos, do baptize adults upon profession of faith, but look again at the continuity of the covenant--from OT --> NT--in doing so. In either case, baptism is not the the means of, or, guarantee of salvation, just like circumcision was not in the OT (that continuity thing)!

Yes, the Jesus ONLY crowd is another part of the Dispensational mind set, hermetically speaking that is. But, indeed Christ gave us the OT also for examples. Pilgrim though summed it up well:

If you would like to learn more about understanding the OT and how it relates to the NT please read: The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses, by Vern Poythress.

My Latin is very rusty (20-odd years old), but I think my translation is correct. Since you are clearly conversant with Latin, perhaps you would like to give your literal translation of Hodge's tag.

More on the rest of your post later.

Every blessing
Steve
(BA Hons, Classical Languages, London University)

Amen! From my own studies over the years on this issue of baptism, it became evident to me that one of the major differences between the two camps is how they define baptism. The Credo camp wants to define it as something subjective, e.g., it is most often voiced as, "Baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality". Thus, what we visibly perceive outwardly, i.e., (in their case) the immersion in water; the washing of the body, is representative of what has taken place inwardly. The Paedo camp wants to define it as something objective, e.g., what we witness as taking place at baptism is a sign of God's immutable and infallible promise to save all who have faith as did Abraham.

Now, an insurmountable problem arises here for the Credo camp. They are most quick to qualify their definition by saying that there are indeed cases where a person's profession of faith is spurious and thus baptism does NOT signify "an inward reality". But then their definition is spurious. So, it must be asked again, what DOES baptism mean/signify? Is it legitimate to say that the definition of an object changes depending upon the circumstances? For example, does the definition of a Rolls Royce change depending upon who owns it? I would submit, that one cannot define nor truly understand the significance of baptism based upon the recipient of it. But rather the definition and its significance must be based upon something immutable; i.e., the immutable promise of God given to Abraham and his "seed", which is first Christ and then to all who believe. Most simply put, Baptism is the Gospel physically demonstrated; as the water washes away the filth of the body externally, so does Christ's blood wash away the filth of sin internally, to all who have faith.

As you have repeatedly emphasized, and which I too in myriad places and times said, baptism is NOT an infallible indication nor necessarily the sign of the recipient's salvation. But it IS the immutable promise of God to save all who are joined to Christ by faith. Is this promise no longer applicable to children? If it is not, then they should not be submitted for baptism. Are the children to be included in the covenant community as those who have been "sanctified", i.e., set apart unto God having been providentially blessed with all the means of grace which the world is without? If so, then they should be given the sign and seal of the covenant and the gospel pressed upon them, praying that the Lord our God will hear the prayers of their believing parents and bring them to Christ.

What many on both sides of this chasm fail to recognize is the unity which they share with each other. That unity, in many cases, albeit certainly not all, e.g., with those who hold to some forms of presumption, is in the practice in rearing their children. BOTH camps, again with exceptions, believe that their children are in need of salvation and do all in their power to use the means to that end. The parents in both camps pray for their children's salvation, both bring their children to church to hear the Word preached, both impress the child with their need of Christ, etc. The fact that there are abuses on both sides, e.g., Paedo's and their "presumptive: election, regeneration, and/or Christian status, and Credo's a quick and easy salvation by having children simply say, "I love Jesus!", etc. So, for me personally, and I realize that my view is odious to many Paedobaptists as well as Credobaptists, the issue is not nearly as important as others want to make it who put far too much emphasis upon baptism itself and/or the mode because at the end of the day, what is important, again to me personally, is how believing parents rear their children, i.e., in the Lord, doing all within their power to impress upon them the necessity of being united to Christ by faith.

Enough said on my part! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Pilgrim,

You summed that up rather well. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

Is it generally true that Baptists don't see much continuity with the old covenant and the new? How do Baptists view the promise God made with Abraham?


Wes

Steve, I was speaking of your application of the Latin translation to the Bible verses. Your selected Bible verse (Gal 3:7) pointed to an adult’s faith and does not even address children, while the Latin phrase is concerning a child in covenant. Additionally, John 3:3-6 speaks of salvation, and Hodge was speaking of a covenant relationship—not salvation. Thus your interpretation/application was off! My comments were theological not linguistic.

When we use just the terms Old and New in dealing with Covenants, which covenant is the Abrahamic? I’m with John Owen and Arthur Pink and the British Reformed Baptists on this one and hold that the Abrahamic Covenant was the Promise of the New Covenant. It was not the Old Covenant –that was still in the future at Sinai.

Hi Pilgrim,
Just to say that you would be very welcome to come into membership at my church. Although we hold to believers' baptism, we will accept into membership those who show clear signs of regeneration but who, having been 'christened' as babies are reluctant to be baptized. This is quite common in England; perhaps not in the USA?

Every blessing,
Steve

Thanks again, Joe, for your post.
I take it that you agree that my translation of the Latin is correct.

Reference the two views on 1Cor 7:14:-

The first one takes a huge assumption, that any children were 'universally recognized as holy'.
Acts 2:41. 'Then those who gladly received his word were baptized...'
Acts 2:44. 'Now all who believed were together......'.
You are writing in 'and their children', but you have no right to do so. You say that there is a two-fold administration of Gen 17:7. You are absolutely right, but not in the way you think!

Gal 3:16. 'Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds" as of many, but as of One, "And to your Seed," which is Christ.'

When Abraham circumcised Ishmael and his household, he knew for a fact that Ishmael was not part of the Covenant of Grace (Gen 17:20-21) so he could not possibly be bringing him into it. This act of circumcision by Abraham was a looking forward to Christ (John 8:56).

Tom is quite correct that the 'Old Covenant' is the Mosaic one (Jer 31:32; Heb 7:9). The Abrahamic Covenant is an adumbration of the New Covenant which is in Christ.

Pilgrim is right that we both start with radically different hermeneutics, but I must continue to protest at mine being called dispensational. I believe in one Covenant of Grace and one people of God. FYI I am amillennial in eschatology. Nor do I have a 'Jesus only' theology. God forbid! Your using these terms is not helpful and shows (if I may say so) that you do not fully understand Reformed Baptist Theology. I believe passionately in a whole Bible hermeneutic, but the Old Testament must be interpreted in the fuller light of the New (Luke 10:23-24; Col 1:26-27; 1Peter 1:10-12). Since you've been kind enough to recommend some reading to me, perhaps I might suggest to you James Haldane's commentary on Galatians which expands on some of these points. Wonderful book <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

With regard to that old chestnut about not knowing who's in the Covenant, we follow the NT practice of baptizing on profession of faith. If their profession of faith is false then their baptism is void (Acts 8:21). We simply believe the promise of our Lord (Mark 16:16).

With regard to children of believers, they are
Not holy,
Not part of the New Covenant and therefore
Cannot and will not receive the seal of the Covenant until they believe because the seal of the New Covenant is not water baptism but Spirit baptism (Eph 1:13-14).

Doubtless I've not answered all your points. I shall come back again on 1Cor 7:14 and your second interpretation, but right now it's bed-time in England <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/sleep.gif" alt="" />

Every blessing,
Steve

In the U.S.A. and Canada, it is the widespread policy of Baptist churches, spanning all denominations, that ALL who seek membership MUST have been or submit to baptism by immersion. No other mode is recognized as legitimate. Adults who were previously baptized, even as adults, by aspersion or effusion are not qualified for membership. The adamantine fervor which this sectarian policy is held is incredible; the "golden calf" of immersion, despite the fact that it cannot be defended Scripturally.

It's encouraging to know that there are Baptist churches in Great Britain who abide by the scriptural mandate and receive into fellowship all those who give a valid profession of faith and whose lives are commensurate with it. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,