Hello Steve,
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. [color:"FF0000"]Otherwise their children would have been regarded as 'hagios' through their baptism and the comparison with an unbelieving spouse would have broken down.[/color]
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...
