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 they are holy./ I find this a "hard saying" even references have not truly helped satisfy it for me. I know St. Paul is not writing of a sanctification by "proxy", and even looking at the whole chapter has not truly "opened" this for me. Would LOVE feedback from our PB Pastors and Seminarians though input by armchir theologians is most welcome.

__________________
et

I am neither a pastor nor a seminarian. But let me help. The passage you quoted has been subject to different interpretations, and is especially relevant to the Paedo-Credo baptism debate. Allow me to refer you to some good online resources that discuss the meaning of it.

For the Paedo-Baptist interpretation, please see point #9 of discourse 1 of Prof. Samuel Miller's Infant Baptism Scriptural and Reasonable.

For the Baptist interpretation, see "The Fifth Pearl" of Dr. Fred Malone's booklet, A String of Pearls Unstrung. For an alternative Baptist view, you may also consult Stan Reeves' A Reformed Baptist View of 1 Cor. 7:14.

__________________
Albert, The Republic of the Philippines
Pasig United Covenant Reformed Church (a Reformed church plant)
United Covenant Reformed Churches in the Philippines (UCRCP)
Three Forms of Unity and Westminster Confession of Faith

Psalm 27:1a (AV) The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?
“Perseverance is the badge of true saints. The Christian life is not a beginning only in the ways of God, but also a continuance in the same as long as life lasts.” -

One side note, I am blessed with some good commentaries, IF you line this out for me and use a commentary, amplify why this or that commentator is a good exegesis of the verse. PAX.

-----Added 2/18/2009 at 09:52:51 EST-----

While it MIGHT come into play regarding Baptism, it, in context seems a bit broader than a Sacramental reference.

Arm Chair theologian here. Some quick quotes from a few commentaries.

I think the choice of words here alludes to the fact that the Jews regarded a non-Jew as “unclean,” and all of the Jews as “holy and part of the Holy Covenant with Abraham as well his seed. (Gen_17:7). The children of such a marriage therefore would be part of this eternal covenant. Here Paul is saying the faith of one parent who is a believer gives to the children a near Holy relationship to God, just as if both parents were believers. (compare Rom_11:16). This is the best I can do as an arm chair theologian.

__________________
Rangerus
Southern Baptist
Austin, TX
Teacher and Volunteer
1689 LBCF & BF&M 2000

The bit from the Peoples sums up what a lot of honest commentators state, I have seen SOME VERY honest ones that have called it one of the most CHALLENGING lines of any of St. Paul's Epistles!

I agree. Interestingly enough, the text was discussed here also: 1Cor 7:14

YES, as an Anglican I am of course given to the Sacramental outlook HOWEVER even for ME a Sacramental (Baptism in this case) would really seem to be secondary and by extension. To bring it as a primary does not really resolve the primary focus.

Where are all our Greek Scholars???

Not either of the groups you wanted, just a deacon.

What I would initially state is the context is that of divorce, and that just because a person is Christian, they should not divorce their spouse (context of someone coming to Christ ... this is not an endorsement of a Christian marrying a non-believer). But the basis is rather broad. The reasoning is essentially the reverse of the rule of corruption from the Old Testament - in the OT, if something holy touched something unclean, both became unclean. This appears to be the "clean" touching something unclean and making it clean. The believing spouse makes the unbelieving spouse clean. And the children are made clean because of the believing parent.

The extension to baptism is soft (and I am a paedo-baptist by conviction) compared to other verses, but follows the reasoning that the children are part of the covenant (they are clean) and so they are to receive the sign of the covenant even as children in the OT. Much weaker than other places in scripture, and I would never base the practice off this verse alone.

__________________
Brian Withnell
Deacon, OPC
Leesburg, Virginia

You cannot train for war in the midst of a battle. Prepare before the battle starts; if the battle is long and hard, you will wish you had.

Actually in my tradition a Deacons view is held in high regard! I am glad we agree the Sacrament (Baptism) in this case is as you put it "soft" it is still unclear to me the "extent" of what St. Paul means by the sanctification of the spouse.......(It would be hard to understand it to mean a salvivic sense, an unbelievieng spouse is not not saved by marriage to a believer, that stretches the text, and even the bit about children is not easy to understand, some couples are unable to have children, some that do...the children are not saved on the basis the mother or father believes.)

In my church (the local church here in Leesburg) deacons have to go through a fairly extensive training/exam which includes 4 tests: theology, Bible knowledge, church history and government, practical (the theology test was 303 questions ... ack!) but we are not elders by any stretch. I don't know much Greek (I use software for word study and examination of verbs, parts of speech, etc.) so I'm no Greek scholar. One of these days I'll get back to studying Greek. sigh.

Of course I agree that the spouse is not saved through the faith of the believing spouse (without faith of their own). But the marriage is pure, and the children are part of the covenant family and members of the visible church.

Pastors? Bible Scholars? Sometimes if I type the words Fred Greco he pops up.....

Max, If you have Kistemaker, he provides a good discussion of the verse and the problems it seeks to answer in the context of the Graeco-Roman world. He goes through four meanings of "sanctify" and shows how it carries the meaning of consecration by marriage. The lesson: faith triumphs over unbelief in the family.

The text may be applied to the issue of infant baptism, but should not be construed as if it specifically addresses the issue, because at most it only speaks of covenant inclusion of infants.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

COOL! Got it right by me did NOT check that one! Thank you Matthew.

Kistmaker helped. It is stil a challenging verse F.F. Bruce (I think?) called it one of the most difficult of any sections in the body of St. Paul's Epistles.