Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 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.

14. is sanctified ] In both members of the sentence the original has hath been sanctified, i.e. by the conversion of the believer to Christianity. The sacred character imparted by Christianity has, since it imparts union with Christ the Lord of all, a power to overbear the impurity of the non-Christian partner in wedlock. Meyer’s note is very striking here. He says that “the Christian sanctity affects even the non-believing partner in a marriage and so passes over to him that he does not remain a profane person, but through the intimate union of wedded life becomes partaker (as if by a sacred contagion) of the higher divinely consecrated character of his consort.” And this is because matrimony is “a holy estate instituted of God.” For the much stricter view under the Law, Dean Stanley refers to Ezra, ch. 9, and Neh 9:2; Neh 13:23-28. But these marriages were contracted in defiance of the prohibition in Exo 34:16; Deu 7:3-4, a prohibition rendered necessary by the surrounding idolatry and its attendant licentiousness. They stand upon a different footing to marriages contracted before admission into covenant with God.

else were your children unclean, but now are they holy ] This principle applies also to the children of such a marriage. The sanctity, i.e. the consecration, of the parent possessing the life of Christ, and living in holy wedlock with an unbelieving husband or wife, descends to the child, which from its birth may be regarded as ‘holy to the Lord.’ “Which we may not so understand as if the children of baptized parents were without sin, or grace from baptized parents derived by propagation, or God by covenant and promise tied to save any in mere regard of their parents’ belief: yet to all professors of the name of Christ this pre-eminence above infidels is freely given, that the fruit of their bodies bringeth into the world with it a present interest and right to those means wherewith the ordinance of Christ is that His Church shall be sanctified.” Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, Book v. lx. 6. This holds good, however, only of such marriages as were contracted before conversion. Christians were forbidden in 1Co 7:39 and in 2Co 6:14, to contract such marriages.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

For the unbelieving husband – The husband that is not a Christian; who still remains a pagan, or an impenitent man. The apostle here states reasons why a separation should not take place when there was a difference of religion between the husband and the wife. The first is, that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife. And the object of this statement seems to be, to meet an objection which might exist in the mind, and which might, perhaps, be urged by some. Shall I not be polluted by such a connection? Shall I not be defiled, in the eye of God, by living in a close union with a pagan, a sinner, an enemy of God, and an opposer of the gospel? This objection was natural, and is, doubtless, often felt. To this the apostle replies, No; the contrary may he true. The connection produces a species of sanctification, or diffuses a kind of holiness over the unbelieving party by the believing party, so far as to render their children holy, and therefore it is improper to seek for a separation.

Is sanctified – hegiastai. There has been a great variety of opinions in regard to the sense of this word. It does not comport with my design to state these opinions. The usual meaning of the word is, to make holy; to set apart to a sacred use; to consecrate, etc; see the note at Joh 17:17. But the expression cannot mean here:

(1) That the unbelieving husband would become holy, or be a Christian, by the mere fact of a connection with a Christian, for this would be to do violence to the words, and would be contrary to facts everywhere; nor,

(2) That the unbelieving husband had been sanctified by the Christian wife (Whitby), for this would not be true in all cases; nor,

(3) That the unbelieving husband would gradually become more favorably inclined to Christianity, by observing its effects on the wife (according to Semler); for, though this might be true, yet the apostle was speaking of something then, and which rendered their children at that time holy; nor,

(4) That the unbelieving husband might more easily be sanctified, or become a Christian, by being connected with a Christian wife (according to Rosenmuller and Schleusner), because he is speaking of something in the connection which made the children holy; and because the word hagiazo is not used in this sense elsewhere. But it is a good rule of interpretation, that the words which are used in any place are to be limited in their signification by the connection; and all that we are required to understand here is, that the unbelieving husband was sanctified in regard to the subject under discussion; that is, in regard to the question whether it was proper for them to live together, or whether they should be separated or not. And the sense may be, They are by the marriage tie one flesh. They are indissolubly united by the ordinance of God. As they are one by his appointment, as they have received his sanction to the marriage union, and as one of them is holy, so the other is to be regarded as sanctified, or made so holy by the divine sanction to the union, that it is proper for them to live together in the marriage relation. And in proof of this, Paul says if it were not so, if the connection was to he regarded as impure and abominable, then their children were to be esteemed as illegitimate and unclean. But now they were not so regarded, and could not so be; and hence, it followed that they might lawfully continue together. So Calvin, Beza, and Doddridge interpret the expression.

Else were your children unclean – ( akatharta). Impure; the opposite of what is meant by holy. Here observe:

1. That this is a reason why the parents, one of whom was a Christian and the other not, should not be separated; and,
2. The reason is founded on the fact, that if they were separated, the offspring of such a union must be regarded as illegitimate, or unholy; and,
3. It must be improper to separate in such a way, and for such a reason, because even they did not believe, and could not believe, that their children were defiled, and polluted, and subject to the shame and disgrace attending illegitimate children.

This passage has often been interpreted, and is often adduced to prove that children are federally holy, and that they are entitled to the privilege of baptism on the ground of the faith of one of the parents. But against this interpretation there are insuperable objections:

(1) The phrase federally holy is unintelligible, and conveys no idea to the great mass of people. It occurs no where in the Scriptures, and what can be meant by it?

(2) It does not accord with the scope and design of the argument. There is not one word about baptism here; not one allusion to it; nor does the argument in the remotest degree hear upon it. The question was not whether children should be baptized, but it was whether there should be a separation between man and wife, where the one was a Christian and the other not. Paul states, that if such a separation should take place, it would imply that the marriage was improper; and of course the children must be regarded as unclean. But how would the supposition that they were federally holy, and the proper subjects of baptism, bear on this? Would it not be equally true that it was proper to baptize the children whether the parents were separated or not? Is it not a doctrine among Pedobaptists everywhere, that the children are entitled to baptism upon the faith of either of the parents, and that that doctrine is not affected by the question here agitated by Paul? Whether it was proper for them to live together or not, was it not equally true that the child of a believing parent was to be baptized? But,

(3) The supposition that this means that the children would be regarded as illegitimate if such a separation should take place, is one that accords with the whole scope and design of the argument. When one party is a Christian and the other not shall there be a separation? This was the question. No, says Paul; if there is such a separation, it must be because the marriage is improper; because it would be wrong to live together in such circumstances. What would follow from this? Why, that all the children that have been born since the one party became a Christian, must be regarded as having been born while a connection existed that was improper, and unChristian, and unlawful, and of course they must be regarded as illegitimate. But, says he, you do not believe this yourselves. It follows, therefore, that the connection, even according to your own views, is proper.

(4) This accords with the meaning of the word unclean ( akatharta). It properly denotes that which is impure, defiled, idolatrous, unclean:

1. In a Levitical sense; Lev 5:2.
2. In a moral sense. Act 10:28; 2Co 6:17; Eph 5:5.

The word will appropriately express the sense of illegitimacy; and the argument, I think, evidently requires this. It may be summed up in a few words. Your separation would be a proclamation to all that you regard the marriage as invalid and improper. From this it would follow that the offspring of such a marriage would be illegitimate. But you are not prepared to admit this; you do not believe it. Your children which you esteem to be legitimate, and they are so. The marriage tie, therefore, should be regarded as binding, and separation unnecessary and improper. See, however, Doddridge and Bloomfield for a different view of this subject – I believe infant baptism to be proper and right, and an inestimable privilege to parents and to children. But a good cause should not be made to rest on feeble supports, nor upon forced and unnatural interpretations of the Scriptures. And such I regard the usual interpretation placed on this passage.

But now are they holy – Holy in the same sense as the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife; for different forms of the same word are usual. That is, they are legitimate. They are not to be branded and treated as bastards, as they would be by your separation. You regard them as having been born in lawful wedlock, and they are so; and they should be treated as such by their parents, and not be exposed to shame and disgrace by your separation.

The note of Dr. Doddridge, to which the author has candidly referred his readers, is here subjoined: On the maturest and most impartial consideration of this text, I must judge it to refer to infant baptism. Nothing can be more apparent, than that the word holy signifies persons who might be admitted to partake of the distinguishing rites of Gods people; compare Exo 19:6; Deu 7:6; Deu 14:2; Deu 26:19; Deu 33:3; Ezr 9:2, with Isa 35:8; Isa 52:1; Act 10:28. And as for the interpretation which so many of our brethren, the Baptists, have contended for, that holy signifies legitimate, and unclean, illegitimate (not to urge that this seems an unscriptural sense of the word,) nothing can be more evident than that the argument will by no means bear it; for it would be proving a thing by itself idem peridem to argue, that the converse of the parents was lawful because the children were not bastards, whereas all who thought the converse of the parents unlawful, must think that the children were illegitimate.

The sense of the passage seems to be this: Christians are not to separate from their unconverted partners, although the Jews were commanded to put away their strange or pagan wives; because the unbelieving party is so far sanctified by the believing party, that the marriage connection is quite lawful for Christians. There is nothing in the Christian religion that forbids it. Otherwise, argues the Apostle, your children would be unclean, just as the offspring of unequal and forbidden marriages among the Jews, was unclean, and therefore denied the privilege of circumcision; whereas your infants, as appears from their right to baptism, acknowledged in all the churches, are holy, just as the Jewish children who had a right to circumcision were holy, not internally but externally and legally, in consequence of their covenant relation to God. Or briefly thus – Do not separate. The marriage is quite lawful for Christians, otherwise your children could not be reckoned holy, in the sense of having a right to the seal of the covenant, that is, baptism. The argument for infant baptism is indeed incidental, but not the less strong on that account. And to say there is no allusion whatever to that subject is a mere begging of the question.

To evade this conclusion in favor of infant baptism, the Baptists have strenuously contended, that the proper sense of holy is legitimate or lawfully born. But,

1. The word in the original ( hagios) does not in a single instance bear this sense. The question is not what sense may possibly be attached to the term, but what is its real meaning. It is on the other hand, very frequently used in the sense assigned to it by Doddridge and others.

2. According to this view (namely, of legitimacy), the apostle is made gravely to tell the Corinthians, that the marriage, in the supposed case, was lawful in a civil sense, a thing which they could not possibly doubt, and which must have been equally true if both parties had been unbelieving. It is incredible that the Corinthians should wish or need to be informed on any such point? But if we call to mind what has been noticed above, concerning the command, binding the Jews to dissolve their unequal marriages, and to treat the offspring of them as unclean Ezr 10:3, we can easily imagine the Corinthians anxious to ascertain whether the Christian religion had retained any such injunction. No, says the apostle, you see your children are holy, as the children of equal or allowed marriage among the Jews were. Therefore you need have no scruples on the point; you require not to separate. Any obscurity that rests on the passage arises from inattention to the Jewish laws, and to the senses in which the Jews used the words unclean and holy. In primitive times these terms, applied to children, would be readily understood, without any explanation such as is needed now.

3. As Doddridge in the above note has acutely remarked, the supposition that the apostle proves the lawfulness of the marriage in a civil sense, from the legitimacy of the children, makes him argue in a circle. The thing to be proven, and the proof, are in reality one and the same. If the Corinthians knew that their children were legitimate, how could they think of applying to Paul on a subject so simple as the legality of of their marriages. It is as if they had said, We know that our children are legitimate. Inform us if our marriages are legal!

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

1Co 7:14-16

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife.

The sanctification of an unbelieving partner

The Christian wife lays her heathen husband upon the altar of God; and in all her intercourse with him acts as Gods servant, striving ever to accomplish His purposes. Therefore, whatever the husband may be in himself, he, in the subjective world of her thought and life, is a holy object; and her treatment of him is a sacrifice to God. Such intercourse cannot defile. Therefore his heathenism is not in itself a reason for separation. (Prof. Beet.)

The sanctification of mixed marriage relations

The unbelieving husband (or wife) is externally sanctified. His status is a hallowed one. For he dwells no longer in the profane and godless world, but stands upon the sacred threshold of the Church. Both he and his wife are in Gods commonwealth: she incorporated, he merely attached; hers is a dedication of self, his a consecration of position; his surroundings only are hallowed; brought oat of darkness he is in the light, but the light is not in him. United to a saintly consort he is in daily contact with saintly conduct; holy association may become holy assimilation, and the sanctity which ever environs may at last penetrate; for it is drop upon drop that hollows the rock and makes it a cistern; the circumstances are such that the mans will may be reached by Gods grace, which by a Divine law moves in the sphere of theocratic consecration. But the mans conversion is not a condition necessary to the sanctity of the subsisting conjugal union. This being so, the children being the offspring of a hallowed union are themselves hallowed, i.e., in a position meet for dedication to Gods service in Holy Baptism. It is not easy to sound the deeper sense of this. We may imagine three concentric circles: the innermost circle of spiritual light, environed by a margin of theocratic twilight, the suburbs of the city of God; embracing this twofold sphere is the immense margin of outer cosmic darkness. Better the twilight than the outer darkness, for it is a state of hope and transition from the bad to the good, and one that furnishes opportunities of grace, and makes salvation accessible. The deeper causes of these boundary lines lie in the secret laws of the Divine government of the universe, and in the unknown partition of mundane realms among angels and spirits, good and evil. (Canon Evans.)

For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband?—

The conversion of an unbelieving husband or wife

1. Especially concerns those to whom they are united by marriage ties.

2. Should be intensely desired.

3. Should be earnestly attempted.

4. Confidently hoped for.

5. Thankfully acknowledged. (J. Lyth. D. D.)

Advice to a pious wife

A lady in Germany, who was a sincere follower of ChriSt, but whose husband was still unrenewed, was very much afflicted on his account, and told a clergyman that she had done all in her power in persuading and beseeching him to turn from his evil practices, to no effect. Madam, said he, talk more to God about your husband, and less to your husband about God. A few weeks after, the lady called upon him, full of joy that her prayers to God had been heard, and that a change was wrought upon her husband.

Earthly relationships sanctified to heavenly uses

There were several weighty reasons why a Christian husband or wife should not leave an unbeliever partner; and the same hold good to-day.

1. An obligation has been undertaken from which only flagrant immorality can liberate either party.

2. Children may have been born during the union whose welfare depends upon its continuance.

3. Affection may have sprung up which it would be an outrage to check.

4. The continuance of the union may make the Christian the minister of spiritual blessing to the unconverted consort.

I. An attractive representation may be furnished of the Christian character. Moral excellence, as presented in the Bible or any other book, or from the pulpit, is far less impressive than when, embodied in a life, it speaks from the domestic hearth: Some virtues are peculiarly Christian, and their exhibition is likely to give rise to the inquiry, What is the secret of such a life? How many a husband has been won to Christ by his wife!

II. An unconscious influence may be exercised. Who can know, unmoved, that a dear consort is seeking his spiritual welfare? There is a tone imparted to the intercourse of daily life by the habit of prayer. And there is a dignity, gentleness, and spirituality of manner and language which cannot fail to be observed and to have due effect.

III. An opportunity is given for express persuasion which may issue in spiritual good. In many instances it is unwise to make formal effort; it may be better to leave religion to tell its own tale and do its own work. But Providence not unfrequently will open the way for effort. There are few ministers who could not tell of instances in which God has blessed the effort of husband or wife so that both have become heirs together of the grace of life. Yet all this being said, the mere hope of exerting such influence should never lead to an unequal union. (Prof. J. R. Thomson.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 14. The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife] Or rather, is to be reputed as sanctified on account of his wife; she being a Christian woman, and he, though a heathen, being by marriage one flesh with her: her sanctity, as far as it refers to outward things, may be considered as imputed to him so as to render their connection not unlawful. The case is the same when the wife is a heathen and the husband a Christian. The word sanctification here is to be applied much more to the Christian state than to any moral change in the persons; for , saints, is a common term for Christians-those who were baptized into the faith of Christ; and as its corresponding term kedoshim signified all the Jews who were in the covenant of God by circumcision, the heathens in question were considered to be in this holy state by means of their connection with those who were by their Christian profession saints.

Else were your children unclean] If this kind of relative sanctification were not allowed, the children of these persons could not be received into the Christian Church, nor enjoy any rights, or privileges as Christians; but the Church of God never scrupled to admit such children as members, just as well as she did those who had sprung from parents both of whom were Christians.

The Jews considered a child as born out of holiness whose parents were not proselytes at the time of the birth, though afterwards they became proselytes. On the other hand, they considered the children of heathens born in holiness, provided the parents became proselytes before the birth. All the children of the heathens were reputed unclean by the Jews; and all their own children holy.-See Dr. Lightfoot. This shows clearly what the apostle’s meaning is.

If we consider the apostle as speaking of the children of heathens, we shall get a remarkable comment on this passage from Tertullian, who, in his treatise De Carne Christi, chaps. 37, 39, gives us a melancholy account of the height to which superstition and idolatry had arrived in his time among the Romans. “A child,” says he, “from its very conception, was dedicated to the idols and demons they worshipped. While pregnant, the mother had her body swathed round with bandages, prepared with idolatrous rites. The embryo they conceived to be under the inspection of the goddess Alemona, who nourished it in the womb. Nona and Decima took care that it should be born in the ninth or tenth month. Partula adjusted every thing relative to the labour; and Lucina ushered it into the light. During the week preceding the birth a table was spread for Juno; and on the last day certain persons were called together to mark the moment on which the Parcae, or Fates, had fixed its destiny. The first step the child set on the earth was consecrated to the goddess Statina; and, finally, some of the hair was cut off, or the whole head shaven, and the hair offered to some god or goddess through some public or private motive of devotion.” He adds that “no child among the heathens was born in a state of purity; and it is not to be wondered at,” says he, “that demons possess them from their youth, seeing they were thus early dedicated to their service.” In reference to this, he thinks, St. Paul speaks in the verse before us: The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife-else were your children unclean; but now are they holy; i.e. “As the parents were converted to the Christian faith, the child comes into the world without these impure and unhallowed rites; and is from its infancy consecrated to the true God.”

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

14. sanctifiedThoseinseparably connected with the people of God are hallowedthereby, so that the latter may retain the connection withoutimpairing their own sanctity (compare 1Ti4:5); nay, rather imparting to the former externally some degreeof their own hallowed character, and so preparing the way for theunbeliever becoming at last sanctified inwardly by faith.

by . . . byrather, “in. . . in”; that is, in virtue of the marriage tie between them.

by the husbandTheoldest manuscripts read, “by the brother.” It is the factof the husband being a “brother,” that is, a Christian,though the wife is not so, that sanctifies or hallows the union.

else . . . childrenuncleanthat is, beyond the hallowed pale of God’s people: incontrast to “holy,” that is, all that is within theconsecrated limits [CONYBEAREand HOWSON]. Thephraseology accords with that of the Jews, who regarded the heathenas “unclean,” and all of the elect nation as “holy,”that is, partakers of the holy covenant. Children were included inthe covenant, as God made it not only with Abraham, but with his”seed after” him (Ge17:7). So the faith of one Christian parent gives to the childrena near relationship to the Church, just as if both parents wereChristians (compare Ro 11:16).Timothy, the bearer of this Epistle, is an instance in point (Ac16:1). Paul appeals to the Corinthians as recognizing theprinciple, that the infants of heathen parents would not beadmissible to Christian baptism, because there is no faith on thepart of the parents; but where one parent is a believer, the childrenare regarded as not aliens from, but admissible even in infancy assharers in, the Christian covenant: for the Church presumes that thebelieving parent will rear the child in the Christian faith. Infantbaptism tacitly superseded infant circumcision, just as the ChristianLord’s day gradually superseded the Jewish sabbath, without ourhaving any express command for, or record of, transference. Thesetting aside of circumcision and of sabbaths in the case of theGentiles was indeed expressly commanded by the apostles and Paul, butthe substitution of infant baptism and of the Lord’s day were tacitlyadopted, not expressly enacted. No explicit mention of it occurs tillIRENUS in the thirdcentury; but no society of Christians that we read of disputed itspropriety till fifteen hundred years after Christ. Anabaptists wouldhave us defer baptism till maturity as the child cannot understandthe nature of it. But a child may be made heir of an estate: it ishis, though incapable at the time of using or comprehendingits advantage; he is not hereafter to acquire the title and claimto it: he will hereafter understand his claim, and be capable ofemploying his wealth: he will then, moreover, become responsible forthe use he makes of it [ARCHBISHOPWHATELY].

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife,…. That is, “by the believing wife”; as the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions read, and so it is read in some copies; and likewise in the next clause the same is read,

by the believing husband; this is a reason given by the apostle why they should live together. This cannot be understood of internal sanctification, which is never the case; an unbeliever cannot be sanctified by a believer in this sense, for such a sanctification is only by the Spirit of God; nor external sanctification, or an outward reformation, which though the unbelieving yoke fellow may sometimes be a means of, yet not always; and besides, the usefulness of one to another in such a relation, in a spiritual sense, urged as a reason for living together, in 1Co 7:16 nor merely of the holiness of marriage, as it is an institution of God, which is equally the same in unbelievers as believers, or between a believer and an unbeliever, as between two believers; but of the very act of marriage, which, in the language of the Jews, is expressed by being “sanctified”; instances almost without number might be given of the use of the word , in this sense, out of the Misnic, Talmudic, and Rabbinic writings; take the following one instead of a thousand that might be produced s.

“The man , “sanctifies”, or espouses a wife by himself, or by his messenger; the woman , “is sanctified”, or espoused by herself, or by her messenger. The man , “sanctifies”, or espouses his daughter, when she is a young woman, by himself or by his messenger; if anyone says to a woman, , “be thou sanctified”, or espoused to me by this date (the fruit of the palm tree,) , “be thou sanctified”, or espoused to me by this (any other thing); if there is anyone of these things the value of a farthing, , “she is sanctified”, or espoused, and if not she is not , “sanctified”, or “espoused”; if he says, by this, and by this, and by this, if there is the value of a farthing in them all, , “she is sanctified”, or espoused; but if not, she is not , “sanctified”, or espoused; if she eats one after another, she is not , “sanctified”, or espoused, unless there is one of them the value of a farthing;”

in which short passage, the word which is used to “sanctify”, or be “sanctified”, in the Hebrew language, is used to espouse, or be espoused no less than “ten” times. So the Jews t interpret the word “sanctified”, in Job 1:5 he espoused to them wives; in the Misna, the oral law of the Jews, there is a whole treatise of “sanctifications” u, or espousals; and in the Gemara or Talmud w is another, full of the disputes of the doctors on this subject. Maimonides has also written a treatise of women and wives x, out of which might be produced almost innumerable instances in proof of the observation; and such as can read, and have leisure to read the said tracts, may satisfy themselves to their heart’s content. Let it be further observed; that the preposition , which is in most versions rendered “by”, should be rendered “in” or “to” or “unto”, as it is in the next verse, and in many other places; see Mt 17:12 Col 1:23 if it be rendered in the former way, “in”, it denotes the near union which by marriage the man and woman are brought into; if in the latter, it designs the object to which the man or woman is espoused, and the true sense and even the right rendering of the passage is this: “for the unbelieving husband is espoused to the wife, and the unbelieving wife is espoused to the husband”; they are duly, rightly, and legally espoused to each other; and therefore ought not, notwithstanding their different sentiments of religion, to separate from one another; otherwise, if this is not the case, if they are not truly married to one another, this consequence must necessarily follow; that the children born in such a state of cohabitation, where the marriage is not valid, must be spurious, and not legitimate, and which is the sense of the following words:

else were your children unclean, but now are they holy; that is, if the marriage contracted between them in their state of infidelity was not valid, and, since the conversion of one of them, can never be thought to be good; then the children begotten and born, either when both were infidels, or since one of them was converted, must be unlawfully begotten, be base born, and not a genuine legitimate offspring; and departure upon such a foot would be declaring to all the world that their children were illegitimate; which would have been a sad case indeed, and contains in it another reason why they ought to keep together; whereas, as the apostle has put it, the children are holy in the same sense as their parents are; that as they are sanctified, or lawfully espoused together, so the children born of them were in a civil and legal sense holy, that is, legitimate; wherefore to support the validity of their marriage, and for the credit of their children, it was absolutely necessary they should abide with one another. The learned Dr. Lightfoot says, that the words “unclean” and “holy” denote not children unlawfully begotten, and lawfully begotten; but Heathenism and Christianism; and thinks the apostle alludes to the distinction often made by the Jews, of the children of proselytes being born in “holiness”, or out of it, that is, either before they became proselytes or after; but it should be observed, that though the word “holiness” is used for Judaism, yet not for Christianity; and besides, the marriages of Heathens were not looked upon as marriages by the Jews, and particularly such mixed ones as of a Jew and Gentile, they were not to be reckoned marriages; for so they say y,

“he that espouses a Gentile woman, or a servant,

, “they are not espousals”; but lo, he is after the espousals as he was before the espousals; and so a Gentile, or a servant, that espouses a daughter of Israel,

, “those espousals are no espousals”;”

nor do they allow children begotten of such persons to be legitimate. This learned writer himself owns such a tradition, and which he cites z,

“that a son begotten in uncleanness is a son in all respects, and in general is reckoned as an Israelite, though he is a bastard, , “but a son begotten on a Gentile woman is not his son”;”

all which are just the reverse of what the apostle is here observing; and who, it must be remarked, is speaking of the same sort of holiness of children as of parents, which cannot be understood of Christianity, because one of the parents in each is supposed to be an Heathen. The sense I have given of this passage, is agreeable to the mind of several interpreters, ancient and modern, as Jerom, Ambrose, Erasmus, Camerarius, Musculus, c. which last writer makes this ingenuous confession formerly, says he, I have abused this place against the Anabaptists, thinking the meaning was, that the children were holy for the parents’ faith; which though true, the present place makes nothing for the purpose: and I hope, that, upon reading this, everyone that has abused it to such a purpose will make the like acknowledgment; I am sure they ought.

s Misn. Kiddushin, c. 2. sect. 1. t Vajikra Rabba, sect. 7. fol. 152. 1. u Massech. Kiddushin. w T. Bab. & Hieros. Kiddushin. x Hilch Ishot. c. 3. & 4. & 5. & 6. & 7. & 8. & 9. y Maimon. Hilch. Ishot, c. 4. sect. 15. z Maimon. Hilch. Issure Bia, c. 12. sect. 7. Vid. Ib. Hilch. Nechalat, c. 2. sect. 12.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Is sanctified in the wife ( ). Perfect passive indicative of , to set apart, to hallow, to sanctify. Paul does not, of course, mean that the unbelieving husband is saved by the faith of the believing wife, though Hodge actually so interprets him. Clearly he only means that the marriage relation is sanctified so that there is no need of a divorce. If either husband or wife is a believer and the other agrees to remain, the marriage is holy and need not be set aside. This is so simple that one wonders at the ability of men to get confused over Paul’s language.

Else were your children unclean ( ). The common ellipse of the condition with : “since, accordingly, if it is otherwise, your children are illegitimate ().” If the relations of the parents be holy, the child’s birth must be holy also (not illegitimate). “He is not assuming that the child of a Christian parent would be baptized; that would spoil rather than help his argument, for it would imply that the child was not till it was baptized. The verse throws no light on the question of infant baptism” (Robertson and Plummer).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Is sanctified [] . Not, made morally holy, but affiliated to the Christian community – the family of the agioi saints – in virtue of his being “one flesh” with his Christian wife.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife. The term sanctified (Greek hagiastai) means has been set apart. The unbelieving or unsaved husband, by the believing wife. The twain, being one, are accounted as holy in matrimony, or Scripturally married.

2) And the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband. The unbelieving wife on the other hand has been set apart by the believing husband, who is a brother (Greek adephos) in the Lord. However, union or marriage of a saved person to an unsaved person is later forbidden, 2Co 6:14.

3) Else were your children unclean. (Greek epei ara ta tekna humon akatharta estin) Since then even the children of you are unclean.

4) But now are they clean. (nun de hagia estin) But now and here after they are holy, or set apart. This means they are begotten in Scriptural wedlock, not as unclean or bastards.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

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, (Tit 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. (Psa 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, (Rom 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 (402) 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 Rom 10:1 the Epistle to the Romans; and I have handled this point there.

(402) “ Auec Abraham, et auec la semence;” — “With Abraham and with his seed.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(14) The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife.Any scruple which a Christian might have felt as to whether matrimonial union with an unbeliever would be defiling is here removed, and the purity of the former teaching justified. In contrast to that other union in which the connection is defiling (1Co. 6:16), the purity of the believing partner in this union, being a lawful one, as it were, entirely overweighs the impurity of the unbeliever, it being not a moral, but a kind of ceremonial impurity. The children of such marriages were considered to be Christian children; and the fruit being holy, so must we regard as holy the tree from which it springs. It must be remembered that the sanctification and holiness here spoken of is not that inward sanctification which springs from the action of the Holy Spirit in the individual heart, but that consecration which arises from being in the body of Christ, which is the Christian Church (Rom. 9:16.)

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

14. Sanctified A Jew marrying a pagan is desecrated, and his marriage a sin, and so void; but, reversely, if a Christian marry an antichristian his sacredness is conceived as extending to and covering the unbeliever, so far, at any rate, that the marriage is still “holy matrimony,” and the tie must not be broken.

Unbelieving If under Christianity, as under Judaism, the infidel desecrated the believer by marriage and the marriage was void, then, by parity, the children would be illegitimate, and by inheritance, infidel.

Now Under the Christian law.

Holy Undesecrated and legitimate.

During the old dispensation the pagan child had, under the common atonement of Christ, the same right to circumcision that the Jewish child had; but his misfortune was, that not being born within the chosen seed, where the institution was imperative, he failed to inherit it as a performed rite, with the accompanying nurture that followed. He was, therefore, ritually not holy. Under the new dispensation, similarly, all children being under the common atonement have an equal right to baptism. They stand in a common justification and salvability, which baptism now, as circumcision of old, does not create, but recognises; holding the infant as a virtual believer. The child of Christian parents inherits, as did the child of the Jewish, not a special right to baptism, but a special inherited probability of receiving the rite, with its consequent recognition by the Church as being her nursling, to be embodied into her full membership when, at responsible age, the responsibilities of such a membership are properly accepted.

Hence, by parity, the child of Christian parents, like the child of Jewish parents, may be called holy. Yet the child under the new dispensation has this advantage over the child of the old, that under the latter the infidelity of either parent disfranchised him.

It will be seen that the words sanctified, holy, and unholy, are here used, not in reference to inward holiness of heart, but in the sense that Jerusalem is called the holy city, that the temple, and even its consecrated vessels, were called holy, and even the Jewish race was holy; namely, in the sense of sacred, chosen, consecrated to a special divine purpose. So St. Paul says, “If the root be holy, so are the branches,” (Rom 11:16😉 a holiness which, in view of ultimate restoration, he considers as still inherited by the Jewish race. The child of Christian parents is here called holy in the same sense that the child of the Jew was holy, namely, as providential heir, and probably recipient, of the consecrating ordinances of the Church.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

1Co 7:14. Is sanctified The words sanctified, holy, and unclean, are used here by the Apostle in the Jewish sense. The Jews called all that were Jews holy, and all others unclean. Thus proles genita extra sanctitatem, was, “a child begotten by parents, while they were yet heathens.” Genita intra sanctitatem, was, “a child begotten by parents after they were proselytes.” The meaning of this verse is as follows: “For, in such a case as this, the unbelieving husband is so sanctified to the wife, and the unbelieving wife is so sanctified to the husband, that their matrimonial converse is as lawful, as if they were both of the same faith, otherwise your children, in these mixed cases, were unclean, and must be looked upon as unfit to be admitted to those peculiar ordinances, by which the seed of God’s people are distinguished: But now they are confessedly holy, and are readily admitted to baptism in all our churches, as if both the parents were Christians; so that the case, you see, is in effect decided by this prevailing practice.” This one passage is of great force to establish the use of infant baptism, and prove it even an apostolical practice; and this is the sense in which the ancient Christians understood and explained the text. Should those who are against infant baptism think this explication to be a modern invention, merely to support a system, the commentaries of St. Augustin, and others who lived long before the rise of the people called Baptists, will be a sufficient refutation of such a suspicion. Should it be supposed that holy signifies legitimate, and that unclean denotes illegitimate or bastards;not to urge that this sense of the phrase is not warranted by Scripture,the argument will not bear it: for it would be reasoning in a circle, and proving a thing by itself, to say that the marriage of the parents was lawful or not dissolved, because the children were not bastards; whereas all who thought the marriage of the parents to be unlawful or dissolved, must of course esteem the children to be bastards. See Locke, Hammond, Bingham’s Antiq. Wall on Infant Baptism, part 1 Chronicles 19 and Elsner, vol. 2: p. 94.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

1Co 7:14 . [1116] For this justifies the injunction given in 1Co 7:12-13 the unholiness of the non-believing partner is taken away in virtue of his personal connection with the believer; he is sanctified this sanctification having its causal basis in the person of the Christian consort with whom he stands in married union, and the possible stumbling-block of self-profanation through continuing in such a marriage being thereby removed. Paul’s judgment, therefore, is that the Christian , the higher analogue of the Jewish theocratic consecration to God, affects even the non-believing partner in a marriage, and so passes over to him that he does not remain a profane person, but through the intimate union of wedded life becomes partaker (as if by a sacred contagion) of the higher divinely consecrated character of his consort, who belongs to the Israel of God, the holy (Gal 6:16 ; Rom 11:16 ). [1117] The clause: . . [1118] , shows that what the is here said to have entered upon is not the moral holiness of the new birth (the subjective condition of which is nothing else but faith), but the holy consecration of that bond of Christian fellowship which forms the , of which holiness, as arising out of this fellowship, the non-believing husband, in virtue of the inner union of life in which he stands to his Christian consort, has become a partaker (not, of course, without receiving a blessing morally also). The non-believer is, as it were, affiliated to the holy order of Christians by his union of married life with a Christian person, and, so soon as his spouse is converted to Christ and has thereby become holy, he too on his part participates in his own person (not “simply in his married relationship,” to which Hofmann, following older interpreters, unwarrantably restricts the meaning of the text) in his consort’s holiness, the benefit of which he receives in virtue of his fellowship of life with her, so that he is no longer as hitherto, but although mediately after the fashion described a . The manifold misinterpretations of the older commentators may be seen in Poole’s Synopsis and Wolf’s Curae ( e.g. Calovius and others hold that . refers to the usus conjugalis as sanctified per preces fidelis conjugis; Tertullian, Jerome, Theodoret, Castalio, Estius, al [1119] , think that it points to his being destined to be converted afterwards, so that the meaning would be candidatus fidei est ). Observe, moreover, in how totally different a way Paul regarded the relation of the Christian who had connected himself with a harlot (1Co 6:15 ). In that case the harlot is the preponderating element, and the members of Christ become unholy, members of an harlot.

With . and ., comp , Soph. Aj. 519; , Oed. R. 314, and the like; Ellendt, Lex Soph. I. p. 597.

. . [1121] ] because according to that (if, namely, that did not hold good; comp 1Co 5:10 ), i.e. because otherwise your children are unclean , profane. That Christians’ children are not profane, outside of the theocratic community and the divine covenant, and belonging to the unholy , but, on the contrary, holy , is the conceded point from which Paul proves that the non-believing husband is sanctified through his believing wife; for just as in the children’s case, that which makes them holy is simply the specific bond of union with Christians (their parents); so, too, in the case of the mixed marriage, the same bond of union must have the same influence. [1123]

Had the baptism of Christian children been then in existence, Paul could not have drawn this inference, because in that case the of such children would have had another basis. [1124] That the passage before us does not even contain an exegetical justification of infant baptism, is shown in the remarks on Act 16:15 (against de Wette in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 669 ff., Neander, Olshausen, Osiander, and older expositors). Neither is it the point of departure, from which, almost of necessity, paedobaptism must have developed itself (Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 423); such a point is rather to be found in the gradual development of the doctrine of original sin.

] should not be restricted, as is done by most expositors, following Chrysostom (so recently, Pott, Flatt, Ewald, Harless), to those involved in mixed marriages ; [1125] but, as Paul himself makes clear by changing the person, referred to the readers as Christian in general [1126] (de Wette, Schrader, Rckert, Olshausen, Osiander, Neander, Maier, Hofmann; Billroth is undecided), not, however, to the exclusion of the children of a mixed marriage, since it must be logically inferred that these, too, could not fail to have from their Christian father or mother at least “quandam sanctitatis adsperginem” (Anselm). In how far the offspring of mixed marriages were counted holy by the Jews, may be seen in Wetstein and Schoettgen in loc [1127]

] but so , as in 1Co 7:11 .

[1116] Comp. on this verse, Otto against Abrenunciation , 1864.

[1117] In a mixed marriage, therefore, the Christian forms, in relation to the non-Christian unholiness, the preponderating element, extending the character of sanctity even to what of itself would be profane; as Chrysostom expresses it: . Comp. the paraphrase of Erasmus: “Non inficit deterioris impietas alterius pietatem, quin illud potius praeponderat quod melius est et efficacius.”

[1118] . . . .

[1119] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1121] . . . .

[1123] The essence of this bond of union, as regards the children, does not lie in their being born or begotten of Christian parents; for the children, although holy for their parents’ sakes, might be born or begotten before the father or mother had embraced Christianity. Nor are we warranted in saying, with Hofmann, that the child, as the gift of God , is holy for its relation to its parents , who, so far as that is concerned, do not regard the sin with which it is born . That is arbitrarily to limit the apostle’s thought, and to read all the most essential points of it from between the lines. On the contrary, the relationship which Paul here enunciates simply and without any artificial saving clause is one which consists in the immediate close fellowship of life , by virtue of which the consecration of Christian holiness attaching to the parents passes over from them to their children also, to whom otherwise, as being still , the predicate would rightly belong. Equally close and cordial is the fellowship of life between husband and wife, while every other kind of mutual connection is less intimate, and forms a more distant degree of vital union. It is upon this paritas rationis that the validity of the argument depends.

[1124] Comp. Jebamoth , f. lxxviii. 1 : “Si gravida fit proselyta, non opus est, ut baptizetur infans quando natus fuerit; baptismus enim matris ei cedit pro baptismo.”

[1125] is taken by many as equivalent to spurii . See Melanchthon in particular: “Si non placeret consuetudo conjugalis, filii vestri essent spurii et eatenus immundi, . At filii vestri non sunt spurii; ergo consuetudo conjugalis Deo placet.” He interprets after in Deu 23 .

[1126] Comp. Mller, v. d. Snde , II. p. 383, Exo 5 . Our passage, however, ought not to be adduced to prove the universal pollution of men by nature and birth, for must denote, not moral, but theocratic uncleanness, like the of Act 10:28 . This against Ernesti also, Ursprung der Snde , II. p. 16 ff. The children of Christians are, it is plain according to this verse, holy already (without baptism) at a time of life at which it is as yet inconceivable that the uncleanness should be removed through fellowship with the Redeemer by faith .

[1127] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

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.

Ver. 14. But now they are holy ] With a federal holiness, and are therefore to be baptized, as being partakers of the covenant of grace. The Habassines (a kind of mongrel Christians in Africa) have an odd conceit, that the souls of infants departing before baptism, are saved by virtue of the eucharist received by the mother after conception, which sanctifieth the child in the womb. Anabaptists play the devil’s part (saith a late writer) in accusing their own children, and disputing them out of the Church and covenant of Christ; affirming them to be no disciples, no servants of God, not holy, as separated to him, when God saith the contrary, Lev 25:41-42 Deu 29:10-15 Act 15:10 , and here.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

14 .] Ground of the above precept .

] The meaning will best be apprehended by remembering (1) that holiness , under the Gospel, answers to dedication to God under the law; (2) that the under the Gospel are the body of Christian men , dedicated to God, and thus become His in a peculiar manner: (3) that this being so, things belonging to, relatives inseparably connected with, the people of God are said to be hallowed by their : so Theophylact, . , , . Chrysostom well shews the distinction between this case and that in ch. 1Co 6:15 , that being a connexion , in and under the condition of the very state , in which the other party is impure : whereas this is a connexion according to a pure and holy ordinance, by virtue of which, although the physical unity in both cases is the same, the purity overbears the impurity .

. , . ] in , i.e. his or her is situated in , rests in, the other (see reff.: and note, ch. 1Co 6:2 ).

] as ref., but here elliptically: since in that case (i.e. as understood, the other alternative, the non-hallowing ).

, not , nor [E. V.], but pres. : because the supposed case is assumed , and the ind. pres. used of what has place on its assumption.

] as above: holy to the Lord . On this fact, Christian children being holy , the argument is built. This being so, they being hallowed, because the children of Christians, it follows that that union out of which they sprung, must as such have the same hallowed character; i.e. that the insanctity of the one parent is in it overborne by the sanctity of the other. The fact of the children of Christians, God’s spiritual people, being holy , is tacitly assumed as a matter of course, from the precedent of God’s ancient covenant people. With regard to the bearing of this verse on the subject of Infant Baptism, it seems to me to have none , further than this: that it establishes the analogy, so far, between Christian and Jewish children, as to shew, that if the initiatory rite of the old covenant was administered to the one, that of the new covenant, in so far as it was regarded as corresponding to circumcision, would probably as a matter of course be administered to the other. Those, as Meyer, who deny any such inference, forget, as it seems to me, that it is not personal holiness which is here predicated of the children, any more than of the unbelieving husband or wife, but holiness of dedication , by strict dependence on one dedicated . Notwithstanding this , the Christian child is individually born in sin and a child of wrath; and individually needs the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, just as much as the Jewish child needed the typical purifying of circumcision, and the sacrificial atonements of the law. So that in this of the Christian child there is nothing inconsistent with the idea, nor with the practice, of Infant Baptism.

On , see note, ch. 1Co 5:11 .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1Co 7:14 obviates the objection which the Christian wife or husband (for the order , see note on 10 f.) might feel to continued union with an unbeliever ( cf. Paul’s own warning in 2Co 6:14 ff.): “Will not the saint,” some one asks, “be defiled, and the ‘limbs of Christ’ (1Co 6:15 ) be desecrated by intercourse with a heathen?” To such a protest . . . replies: “For the husband that is an unbeliever, has been sanctified in his wife,” and vice vers . is a paradox: it does not affirm a conversion in the unbeliever remaining such whether incipient or prospective (D. W [1045] , and some others) the pf. tense signifies a relationship established for the non-Christian in the past, sc . at the conversion of the believing spouse; but man and wife are part of each other, in such a sense ( cf. 1Co 6:16 f., by contrast) that the sanctification of the one includes the other so far as their wedlock is concerned. The married believer in offering her- (or him-) self to God could not but present husband (or wife) in the same act “sanctified in the wife, brother,” respectively and treats him (or her) henceforth as sacred. “Whatever the husband may be in himself, in the wife’s thought and feeling he is a holy object. Similarly the Christian’s friends, abilities, wealth, time, are, or should be, holy” (Bt [1046] ). Marriage with an unbeliever after conversion is barred in 2Co 6:14 .

[1045]. W. De Wette’s Handbuch z. N. T.

[1046] J. A. Beet’s St. Paul’s Epp. to the Corinthians (1882).

The (relative) sanctity of the unconverted spouse is made more evident by the analogous case of children : “Else one must suppose that your children are unclean; but as it is, they are holy!” P. appeals to the instinct of the religious parent; the Christian father or mother cannot look on children, given by God through marriage, as things unclean. Offspring are holy as bound up with the holy parent; and this principle of family solidarity holds good of the conjugal tie no less than of the filial derived therefrom. See the full discussion of this text in Ed [1047] ; it has played no small part in Christian jurisprudence, and in the doctrine of Infant Baptism; it “enunciates the principle which leads to Infant Baptism, viz . that the child of Christian parents shall be treated as a Christian” (Lt [1048] ). On , alioqui certe, si res se aliter haberet , see 1Co 5:10 and parls.; , as in 1Co 5:11 , is both temporal and logical ( cf. 1Co 15:20 , Rom 6:22 ).

[1047] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2

[1048] J. B. Lightfoot’s (posthumous) Notes on Epp. of St. Paul (1895).

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

sanctified. Greek. hagiazo. See Joh 17:17, Joh 17:19.

by = in. App-104.

husband. All the texts read “brother”, i.e. believer, or Christian brother.

else = since otherwise.

children. App-108.

unclean. Compare Peter’s use of this word in Act 10:14, Act 10:28.

holy. Greek. hagios. This, as contrasted with “unclean”, must be in the same ceremonial sense, but there maybe a thought of the dedication of the child to God by the believing parent, and the influence he or she would exercise upon it.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

14.] Ground of the above precept.

] The meaning will best be apprehended by remembering (1) that holiness, under the Gospel, answers to dedication to God under the law; (2) that the under the Gospel are the body of Christian men, dedicated to God, and thus become His in a peculiar manner: (3) that this being so, things belonging to, relatives inseparably connected with, the people of God are said to be hallowed by their : so Theophylact, . , , . Chrysostom well shews the distinction between this case and that in ch. 1Co 6:15, that being a connexion ,-in and under the condition of the very state, in which the other party is impure: whereas this is a connexion according to a pure and holy ordinance, by virtue of which, although the physical unity in both cases is the same, the purity overbears the impurity.

., .] in, i.e. his or her is situated in, rests in, the other (see reff.: and note, ch. 1Co 6:2).

] as ref., but here elliptically: since in that case (i.e. as understood, the other alternative,-the non-hallowing).

, not , nor [E. V.], but pres.: because the supposed case is assumed, and the ind. pres. used of what has place on its assumption.

] as above: holy to the Lord. On this fact, Christian children being holy, the argument is built. This being so,-they being hallowed, because the children of Christians,-it follows that that union out of which they sprung, must as such have the same hallowed character; i.e. that the insanctity of the one parent is in it overborne by the sanctity of the other. The fact of the children of Christians, Gods spiritual people, being holy, is tacitly assumed as a matter of course, from the precedent of Gods ancient covenant people. With regard to the bearing of this verse on the subject of Infant Baptism,-it seems to me to have none, further than this: that it establishes the analogy, so far, between Christian and Jewish children, as to shew, that if the initiatory rite of the old covenant was administered to the one,-that of the new covenant, in so far as it was regarded as corresponding to circumcision, would probably as a matter of course be administered to the other. Those, as Meyer, who deny any such inference, forget, as it seems to me, that it is not personal holiness which is here predicated of the children, any more than of the unbelieving husband or wife, but holiness of dedication, by strict dependence on one dedicated. Notwithstanding this , the Christian child is individually born in sin and a child of wrath; and individually needs the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, just as much as the Jewish child needed the typical purifying of circumcision, and the sacrificial atonements of the law. So that in this of the Christian child there is nothing inconsistent with the idea, nor with the practice, of Infant Baptism.

On , see note, ch. 1Co 5:11.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

1Co 7:14. ) has been sanctified, so that the believing party may hold intercourse with the other in the exercise of holiness, and ought not to put him or her away: comp. 1Ti 4:5. A very significant word is here used, because Scripture wishes to guarantee to us conscience being left everywhere unencumbered.- ) [by the wife] in respect to the wife, with whom he willingly remains; so , 1Co 14:11.-, the believing, is not added to , in accommodation to human modes of thought [ ]: for an unbelieving husband does not know what faith is.- , otherwise) For [otherwise] the children would follow the condition of the unbelieving parent. The marriage is Christian, and so also are the offspring.-, children) who are born of a believing and an unbelieving parent.-, unclean) as those who are born of parents, who are both unbelievers, although they be not bastards.- , they are holy) differs from this expression as, to become holy, from to be holy; but the holiness itself of the children and of the unbelieving parent is the same. He is speaking of a purity, which not only makes the children legitimate, not bastards, such as those also have, who are born from the marriage of two unbelievers; but which also imports a degree of nearer relationship with the Church, and a more open door to faith itself, just as if both parents were Christians. Comp. Rom 11:16. Timothy is an example, Act 16:1, who was the bearer of this epistle, and there might have been many such among the children at Corinth. [A husband is in other respects preferred; but the faith of the wife has more influence than the unbelief of the husband.-V. g.]

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

1Co 7:14

1Co 7:14

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.-What is meant by the unbelieving being sanctified by the believing companion has been much discussed. Macknight says: When infidels are married to Christians, if they have a strong affection for their Christian spouses, they are thereby sanctified to them, they are fitted to continue married to them; because their affection to the Christian party will insure to that party the faithful performance of every duty; and that if the marriages of infidels and Christians were to be dissolved, they would cast away their children as unclean; that is, losing their affection for them, they would expose them after the barbarous custom of the Greeks, or at least neglect their education. But that by continuing their marriages, their children are holy; they are preserved as sacred pledges of their mutual love, and educated with care. That is, if an unbelieving husband or wife is regarded so unclean that you cannot live with him or her, you must for the same reason regard your unbelieving children as unclean, but now under the rule he lays down, they are holy. The unbeliever is held as so sanctified by being one flesh with the believer, the relation is to be borne by the believer. Both husband and wife in the marriage relationship are sanctified or made sacred to each other. So when the unbeliever is willing, the marriage is to be held sacred. [It means that the marriage relation is sanctified so that there is no need of divorce. If either husband or wife is a believer and the other agrees to remain, the marriage is holy and need not be set asunder. If it is otherwise, their children are illegitimate. If the relations of the parents be holy, the childs birth must be holy also (not illegitimate).]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

children

(Greek – , born ones).

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

the unbelieving husband: 1Co 6:15-17, Ezr 9:1, Ezr 9:2, 1Ti 4:5, Tit 1:15

else: Ezr 9:2, Isa 52:1, Mal 2:15, Mal 2:16, Act 10:23, Rom 11:16

Reciprocal: Lev 12:7 – make Lev 21:15 – profane Deu 29:15 – also with him Jer 32:39 – for the Mat 19:13 – brought Mat 19:15 – General Mar 10:14 – Suffer Luk 18:16 – Suffer Act 2:39 – the promise Act 11:8 – unclean Act 16:1 – but Gal 3:28 – male

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

1Co 7:14. The unbelieving partner is not sanctified by the other in the sense of religious holiness before God, for in that sense no person can sanctify another. It means that the marriage of one person to another makes their cohabitation moral, since the marriage relation is a fleshly one, primarily for fleshly purposes (see the comments at 1Co 7:3). Were this not true, then children born of parents one of whom is an unbeliever would be unclean, which means ceremonially improper, whereas, all children of parents who are married to each other are holy as far as their orgin is concerned.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

1Co 7:14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife That is, so far that their matrimonial converse is as lawful, holy, and honourable, as if they were both of the same faith: and in many instances the unbeliever, whether husband or wife, hath been converted to God by the instrumentality of the believing partner. The former sense, however, and not this latter, seems to be the primary meaning of the apostle. Else were your children unclean And must be looked upon as unfit to be admitted to those peculiar ordinances by which the seed of Gods people are distinguished; but now are they holy Confessedly; and are as readily admitted to baptism as if both the parents were Christians: so that the case, you see, is in effect decided by this prevailing practice. So Dr. Doddridge, who adds, On the maturest and most impartial consideration of this text, I must judge it to refer to infant baptism. Nothing can be more apparent than that the word holy signifies persons who might be permitted to partake of the distinguishing rites of Gods people. See Exo 19:6; Deu 7:6; Deu 14:2; Deu 26:19; Ezr 9:2; Act 10:28, &c. And as for the interpretation, which so many of our brethren, the Baptists, have contended for, that holy signifies legitimate, and unclean, illegitimate, (not to urge that this seems an unscriptural sense of the word,) nothing can be more evident, than that the argument will by no means bear it; for it would be proving a thing by itself, (idem per idem,) to argue that the converse of the parents was lawful, because the children were not bastards; whereas all who thought the converse of the parents unlawful, must of course think that the children were illegitimate. Thus also Dr. Whitby: He doth not say, else were your children bastards, but now they are legitimate, but

else were they unclean; that is, heathen children, not to be owned as a holy seed, and therefore not to be admitted into covenant with God, as belonging to his holy people. That this is the true import of the words and , will be apparent from the Scriptures, in which the heathen are styled the unclean, in opposition to the Jews, who were in covenant with God, and therefore styled a holy people. Whence it is evident that the Jews looked upon themselves as , the clean servants of God, Neh 2:20; and upon all the heathen and their offspring, as unclean, by reason of their want of circumcision, and the sign of the covenant. Hence, whereas it is said that Joshua circumcised the people, chap. 1Co 5:4, the LXX. say, , he cleansed them. Moreover, of heathen children, and such as are not circumcised, they say, they are not born in holiness; but they, on the contrary, are styled , a holy seed, Isa 6:13; Ezr 9:2; and the offspring from them, and from those proselytes which had embraced their religion, are said to be born in holiness, and so thought fit to be admitted to circumcision, or baptism, or whatsoever might initiate them into the Jewish Church; and therefore to this sense of the words holy and unclean, the apostle may be here most rationally supposed to allude. And though one of the parents be still a heathen, yet is the denomination to be taken from the better, and so their offspring are to be esteemed, not as heathen, that is, unclean, but holy; as all Christians by denomination are. Hence, then, the argument for infant baptism runs thus: If the holy seed among the Jews was therefore to be circumcised, and be made federally holy, by receiving the sign of the covenant, and being admitted into the number of Gods holy people, because they were born in sanctity; then, by like reason, the holy seed of Christians ought to be admitted to baptism, and receive the sign of the Christian covenant, the laver of regeneration, and so be entered into the society of the Christian Church. So also Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Vv. 14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother; since otherwise were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

The essential idea is that expressed by the word put at the head of the first and second proposition: , is sanctified. The use of this term is no doubt occasioned by the fear which the Christian spouse might have of contracting defilement by remaining united to a heathen or Jewish spouse. So some interpreters have given the word a a purely negative, or, what amounts to nearly the same, a Levitical and ritual sense. Paul, it is said, means: marriage in this condition does not become an impure state, does not affect the Christian with defilement similar to that which was produced under the law by the touch of a dead body, for example. But this meaning, held by Rckert, as being purely negative, is too weak to correspond to the positive term ; and besides, resting on the theocratical idea of an external and ritual purity, it is not in keeping with the spirit of the New Testament. Others, with different shades, take this term as expressing the hope of sanctifying influence which the Christian spouse will in the end exercise over the heathen or Jewish spouse; so Olshausen: the Christian spirit will distil on him; de Wette, Neander: he will be placed under the beneficent influence of his spouse and of the Church. But the perfect , has been put in a state of holiness, cannot designate a hoped-for result; and 1Co 7:16 precisely contradicts the certainty of such a result. Meyer and Reuss seek to evade these difficulties by making here signify: He is associated, affiliated to the Church by the conjugal bond which unites him to his spouse. But do we not thus come back to the idea of a purely ceremonial holiness, a consecration wholly objective and external? Hofmann thinks that we must here abstract from all influence over the person of the non – Christian spouse, and apply the idea of holiness only to the bond between the two spouses, to their conjugal relation as such. This amounts to saying, as in the first interpretation, that such a union is pure for the two spouses. But if this idea had been that of Paul, he would have expressed it in a less involved way. To get at his thought in this verse, we must take account of the perfect passive and of the preposition , in. The latter indicates that the heathen or Jewish spouse has his holiness in the person of his spouse, and the perfect passive indicates that the communication of this holiness or consecration to God is regarded by Paul as already finished. As the believer is consecrated to God in the person of Christ, and as by faith in Him he gains his own consecration in His (see on 1Co 1:2), so the non-Christian spouse is sanctified in his Christian spouse by his consent to live with her. This consent is in his relation to his Christian spouse what faith is in the believer’s relation to Christ. By consenting to live still with his spouse, the Jewish or heathen spouse also accepts her holy consecration and participates in it. Thus it is so long as he persists in this consent. The apostle of course reckons on the sanctifying influence of such a situation; but the use of the perfect and of the preposition , in, show that the point before him here is not strictly and above all that sanctifying influence, but the position of consecration in which the non – Christian spouse is at once placed by his determination to remain united to his Christian spouse.

Is this consecration of the one in the person of the other really tenable? Certainly; and the apostle proves it by an analogous moral fact and one universally admitted in the Church. The conjunction , since, is frequently used to mean: since, if it were otherwise, this is what would happen (da sonst, Passow); comp. for this meaning in the New Testament Rom 11:22 : since otherwise (that is to say, if thou persevere not) thou also shalt be cut off; and in our own Epistle,1Co 5:10 and 1Co 15:29 : since otherwise (if there be no resurrection), what shall they do…? It is the same in profane Greek; comp. the numerous examples quoted by Passow. The , then, announces an explanatory inference: since if you refuse to acknowledge as true what I have just affirmed… M. L’Hardy, in his book, Le baptme des enfants (1882), has disputed this universally admitted meaning of since otherwise, and has attempted to substitute for it the meaning, seeing that, considering that. The idea, according to him, is this: Ye ought not to separate (1Co 7:13), first, because the unbeliever is sanctified in the believer (1Co 7:14 a); and next, from the consideration that, if separation takes place, your children, deprived of family life, will be impure; whereas, if you remain united, they will be holy. We should thus have here a second reason to justify the , let her not put him away, of 1Co 7:13. But in this sense the connecting particle with what precedes would be not , but , and moreover; then the , since, can in any case only bear on the verb which immediately precedes, , is sanctified, twice repeated, and not on the remoter imperative of 1Co 7:13. It is in this case an argument whereby the apostle demonstrates the truth of the affirmation enunciated in the first part of the verse: he is sanctified.

The expression, your children, may be understood in two ways. It may be appliedand it seems at first sight the most natural meaningonly to children born of mixed marriages. So Chrysostom, Flatt, Bonnet, L’Hardy, and others. But from 1Co 7:12, Paul, in speaking of spouses placed in this condition, has used the third person. Why would he pass all at once to the second while addressing the same persons: , your children? Then would the argument have been conclusive? Would a mother, who doubted the consecration of her husband by means of her own faith, have admitted more easily the state of consecration belonging to her children by means of her maintaining that conjugal life of whose purity she was distrustful? It is therefore more probable that the expression, your children, contains, as Beet says, an appeal to all Christian parents. Paul addresses them all (, you) as present at the time when his letter is read in the congregation. The argument is this: If it is a thing admitted by you all, that notwithstanding their original pollution, your children, who are not yet believers, are nevertheless already consecrated and holy in the eyes of God, and that in virtue of the bond which unites them to you, their parents, why would you make a difficulty about recognising also that an unbelieving husband may be regarded as consecrated to God in virtue of his union with his believing wife, and that by the fact of his desire to remain united to her? So de Wette, Rckert, Olshausen, Neander, Meyer, Osiander, Hofmann, Heinrici, Edwards. By the form, since otherwise, this reasoning becomes an argument ad absurdum: If you deny this participation of the non-Christian spouse in the consecration of the Christian spouse, you ought, if you are to be consequent, to declare your own children impure, to regard them as polluted beings, heathen children, which your Christian instinct refuses to believe. To give more force to this reasoning, Paul changes the , is sanctified, into , are holy. This second term is stronger than the first. The verb, in the perfect passive, indicated a position in which the subject is placed in the person of another, whereas the adjective , holy, expresses a real quality inherent in the subject, though the latter has not yet any share in the act (faith) which seems to be its condition. Now if this characteristic is indisputable in the judgment of Christian feeling, with stronger reason ought the privilege designated above to be so.

The term , impure, here signifies: yet plunged, like children of heathen parents, in their natural impurity. The , but now, brings out the contrast between the true, only tenable idea, and the absurd supposition conditionally stated.

But what exactly are we to understand by this word , holy? If , unclean, cannot in this case designate either an external and ritual defilement, like those which were contracted under the Old Testament, or a personal moral defilement, since it is infants who are spoken of, and can only consequently apply to natural corruption; in like manner the word holy cannot designate here either a simply Levitical purity, for we are no longer under the Old Testament, or free and personal holiness, like that of regenerated believers. Is it possible then to discover an intermediate between these two alternatives? De Wette, Olshausen, Osiander, Neander, Edwards think that the reference is to the Christian influence of parents by means of their prayers, instructions, example (practical power, Edwards). But this explanation carries us to the future, and to a very uncertain future (see 1Co 7:16); whereas the verb , are, denotes a real and present fact. The Reformers, from their viewpoint of absolute predestination, did not shrink from giving the fullest meaning to the word . According to Calvin (Instit. 4.16, pp. 310-312), the children of Christians are holy from their birth, in consequence of supernatural grace. For this idea of the inward sanctification of the children of Christians from their birth, Beza substitutes that of their assured regeneration in consequence of their election. But it is not by denying liberty that any one will come to understand the notion of holiness in St. Paul. Calvin thinks of a holiness bestowed by supernatural grace on the children of Christians from their entrance into life. But do the facts confirm this theory? Others, like M. Mngoz, explain the idea of the apostle by that of the solidarity and organic unity of the family. But does this law hold also in the spiritual domain? Hofmann understands, holy in the eyes of the parents, who do not see the sin with which the child is born, but only the gift of God which they have received in the child. But how can we discover here the meaning of the word holy? Bonnet and L’Hardy start from the use of this word, Rom 11:16 : If the root be holy, so are the branches; and they think that as there remains in the family of Abraham, even when rejected, a predisposition to the service of God, so the blessed effects of the covenant of grace extend from Christian parents to their children, because these are the fruits of a blessed union in God. Here, then, we have a natural holiness, one of position. Beet, in an analogous sense, adduces the words, Exo 29:37 : Whatsoever touches the altar of God shall be holy. Children laid by the prayer of the parents on the altar of God become a holy thing; and so it is with the husband whom his Christian wife presents to God.

In my opinion there can be no doubt that the matter in question here is a transmitted grace, a consecration of the child to God resulting from the Divine offer of salvation under which it is put from its birth, whether it afterwards accept or reject it. But even in this case the assertion, are holy, still seems extravagant. There is something so firm and precise about it, that one involuntarily seeks a positive fact on which to support it. Certainly, since it is children and non-believers who are in question, it is allowable to hold by a notion of holiness which approaches that of the Old Testament; but in this sense the need of an external objective fact, to account for such a declaration, makes itself the more felt. This fact can only be, as it seems to me, the baptism of the Corinthian children in regard to whom the apostle expresses himself so categorically. No doubt the gravest German commentators find in this very saying an indisputable proof against the practice of infant baptism in the Churches founded by Paul. If, it is said, Christian children had been already introduced into the Church by baptism, their position would no longer have any analogy to that of the heathen spouses of whom St. Paul speaks in the first part of this verse, and he could not logically conclude from the former to the latter. His argument is valid only in so far as both alike lie outside at once of faith and baptism. But this objection rests on the idea that baptism is here regarded by Paul as the principle of the holiness ascribed by him to the children of Christians. From this point of view it would indeed differ totally from that which Paul, by his is sanctified (1Co 7:14 a), can allow to non-Christian spouses. But if Paul regards the baptism of those children, not as the source, but as the proof of the fact, the seal of their state of holiness, the whole thing is changed. He means, not that they are holy because of their baptism, but that their baptism was the sign and proof of the fact of their state of holiness. And whence, then, arises this holiness which rises superior in them from their birth over natural corruption, and which rendered them fit to receive baptism, though they had not yet personal faith? As Jewish children did not become children of Abraham by circumcision, but as it was descent from their parents, children of Abraham, which made them fit to receive circumcision, so it is with the children of Christians. Their consecration to God does not depend on their baptism; but their fitness for baptism arises from the solidarity of life which unites them to their parents, and through them to the covenant of grace founded in Christ, and in which these live. Until Christian children decide freely for or against the salvation which is offered to them, they enjoy the benefit of this provisional situation, and are placed with all belonging to the family in communication with the holy forces which animate the body of Christ. And this is a state superior, though analogous, to that of the non-Christian spouse, who, in virtue of keeping up his union with his Christian wife, is not himself received into the covenant (, holy), but yet regarded as destined to enter into it (, sanctified, consecrated, in the person of his wife, a member of the Church). If this second result were impossible, the first would be still more so.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife [The word “sanctified” is here used in the Jewish sense of being not unclean, and therefore not to be touched], and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother [her husband]: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. [Holy is contrasted with unclean, and means the same as “sanctified.”]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

14. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife by the brother: otherwise are your children unclean, but now they are holy. The children of Christians are born in the covenant, not heathens, but Christians in a conventional sense, and holy to the Lord, antithetical to the polluted idolaters. The children of heathens are considered heathens in a conventional sense because they will be raised up that way. Hence they are polluted with idolatry, and unholy antithetically to the Christians. Now, in case that one is a Christian, and the other a heathen, if the latter is willing to abide, all right; but in that case the children are not heathens, because the Christian parent will rear them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Grace is stronger than sin (Rom 5:20), therefore the insanctity of the one is overborne by the sanctity of the other, and the children do not rank as heathens, but Christians, enjoying the benefit of the covenant through the holy parent.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Verse 14

Now are they holy; that is, the children of the church are holy, being brought within its pale by being of Christian parentage on either side.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

1Co 7:14. Justifies the foregoing advice against a possible objection. The Israelites were forbidden Deu 7:3 to marry heathens. And those who had done so were bidden by Ezra (Ezr 9:2) to put them away: for the seed of holiness must not mingle with the unholy. But Christians also are holy: 1Co 1:2. And it might be thought that contact with a heathen husband, or wife would defile them. Paul says no, the heathen husband in virtue of his wife’s holiness, is himself holy. Just so whatever touches the altar shall be holy, Exo 29:37; Lev 6:18. The Christian wife lays her heathen husband upon the altar of God; and in all her intercourse with him as God’s servant, striving ever to accomplish His purposes. Therefore, whatever the husband may be in himself, he is sanctified in the wife: i.e. in the subjective world of her thought and life he is a holy object; and her treatment of him is a sacrifice to God. Such intercourse cannot defile. Therefore, his heathenism is not in itself a reason for separation. (Similarly, the Christians’ friends, abilities, wealth, time, are, or should be, holy. Else even they will defile him.) Notice the contrast of 1Co 6:16. All intercourse with a harlot is sin; and cannot therefore be a sacrifice to God, nor she a holy object. Consequently, her presence is ever defiling.

Else etc: inference we are compelled to make if the principle involved in 1Co 7:14 a be not admitted. It is an argument, reductio ad absurdum, in proof that the heathen husband or wife is holy, and therefore not defiling.

Your children: an appeal to all Christian parents, in contrast to the special case of 1Co 7:14 a.

Unclean: and therefore polluting; and not to be touched by the holy people. If a wife must leave her husband because intercourse with a heathen is defiling, she may infer fairly that her children also are unclean, and must be forsaken. For some of these may be adult heathens. But all natural and Christian instinct says that she is in every case bound to show to them a mother’s love; and that such love, even towards a heathen, cannot pollute. But on what principle is this? Only that in the Christian mother’s thought and life her children are laid upon the altar of God, and therefore, in relation to her, holy.

But now etc.: in contrast to the absurd inference which would follow a denial of 1Co 7:14 a. That the children are holy, Christian instinct compels us to admit. And their holiness can be explained only by admitting the principle involved in 1Co 7:14 a. Thus from the admitted case of the children Paul argues the case of the husband.

From this verse, Neander, Meyer, Stanley, and others, have inferred that infant-baptism was not usual when it was written; on the ground that, if the children of believers had been baptized, the difference between them and the unbaptized husband would bar all argument from one to the other. And we must admit that the children referred to here were unbaptized. But the word children includes adults; (cp. Mat 10:21; Mat 21:28;) and therefore, in some cases, adult heathens. Indeed the argument suggests such, as being a closer parallel to the unbelieving husband. Consequently, it does not necessarily imply that the infants were not baptized. For, even if they were, the argument from the older children would still remain. That Paul did not find it needful to say your unbaptized children, suggests perhaps that baptism in infancy was not then usual. But on this argument no great stress can fairly be laid. Whether or not the children were baptized, and whether they were infants or adults, they had an indisputable claim to the care of a Christian parent. Therefore, to give them such care, could in no case defile. Consequently, baptism had no bearing at all on the case. And this is sufficient reason for Paul’s silence about it, even though the rite had been administered to some of the children. Similarly, as not affecting the argument, nothing is said about converted children. Yet we cannot infer from this that at Corinth none of the children of believers were themselves believers.

We cannot therefore accept this verse as proof or presumption that infant-baptism was unknown in the Apostolic church.

On 1Co 7:10-14, see further in The Expositor, vol. x. p. 321.

Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament

7:14 {9} For the unbelieving husband is {h} sanctified by the {i} wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the {k} husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they {l} holy.

(9) He answers an objection: but the faithful is defiled by the company of the unfaithful. The apostle denies that, and proves that the faithful man with good conscience may use the vessel of his unfaithful wife, by this, that their children which are born of them are considered holy or legitimate (that is, contained within the promise): for it is said to all the faithful, “I will be your God, and the God of your seed.”

(h) The godliness of the wife is of more force to cause their marriage to be considered holy, than the infidelity of the husband is to profane the marriage.

(i) The infidel is not sanctified or made holy in his own person, but in respect of his wife, he is sanctified to her.

(k) To the faithful husband.

(l) The children are holy in the same sense that their parents are; that is they are sanctified, or lawfully espoused together, so the children born of them were in a civil and legal sense holy, that is, legitimate. (Ed.)

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Even though an unbeliever might affect his or her mate negatively morally or ethically, it was still better to keep the marriage together. This was so because the believing mate would affect the unbeliever positively. "Sanctified" (Gr. hagiadzo) means to be set apart for a special purpose. God has set aside the unsaved spouse of a believer for special blessing, some of which comes through his or her mate (cf. Exo 29:37; Lev 6:18). God will deal with such a person differently than He deals with those not married to Christians.

I do not believe Paul would have objected to a couple separating temporarily if the believer was in physical danger from the unbeliever (cf. 1Co 7:15). What he did not want was for believers to initiate the termination of their marriages for this or any other reason. Paul did not get into all the possible situations that married people face.

Likewise the children in such a marriage would enjoy special treatment from God rather than being in a worse condition than the children in a Christian home. This probably involves their protection in the mixed home and the supply of grace needed for that sometimes difficult situation. "Holy" (Gr. hagios) means set apart as different.

I do not believe Paul was saying unsaved spouses and children of mixed marriages are better off than the spouses and children in Christian families. His point was that God would offset the disadvantages of such a situation with special grace.

"This verse throws no light on the question of infant baptism." [Note: Robertson and Plummer, p. 142.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)