the unbelieving husband is 'holy' without baptism

[a mere housewife]

In another thread, this question was asked and Rev. Winzer answered (thusly )

Quote:
Originally Posted by reformedcop
In the case of a marriage where the wife is a believer and the husband is not, is the covenant husband baptized provided he is not an outright scoffer?

That would overturn the natural order.

The references being cited as regards ceremonial headship being extended to women are Lydia's household baptism and 1 Cor 7:13,14. My question is twofold:

1. how the husband in such a case can be referred to as 'holy' or 'sanctified' without baptism,
and
2. why this ability to speak of 'holiness' or sanctity apart from baptism (merely on the basis of relation to a believer) does not apply to the children mentioned in the same context?

Thank you.

 

[toddpedlar]

In another thread, this question was asked and Rev. Winzer answered (thusly )

Quote:
Originally Posted by reformedcop
In the case of a marriage where the wife is a believer and the husband is not, is the covenant husband baptized provided he is not an outright scoffer?

That would overturn the natural order.

The references being cited as regards ceremonial headship being extended to women are Lydia's household baptism and 1 Cor 7:13,14. My question is twofold:

1. how the husband in such a case can be referred to as 'holy' or 'sanctified' without baptism,
and
2. why this ability to speak of 'holiness' or sanctity apart from baptism (merely on the basis of relation to a believer) does not apply to the children mentioned in the same context?

Thank you.

"holiness" there is "set-apartness". It shouldn't be confused with "righteous".

Second, I don't think I see where the husband in a case of a believing wife is said to be "holy", anywhere in Scripture. As Rev. Winzer said, that would be inappropriate (where an unbelieving wife being deemed 'set apart' due to the covenant headship of the believing husband would be appropriate).

Is there an assumption here being made that Lydia was married to a living husband? I'm not sure where that is given in the text - and it would make far more sense if she were an older widow, active in the marketplace as a seller of linens and head of her home.

 

[a mere housewife]

Todd, here is the link to the previous thread, a spinoff from this one.

No, Lydia was cited only as an instance where ceremonial headship was operative with a believing woman over her household, not in regard to an unbelieving spouse. The unbelieving spouse questions comes from the passage in 1 Cor. used to support the argument that ceremonial headship has extended to females.

The ESV uses the word 'holy' --the KJV uses the word 'sanctified'. Is there some difference in the Greek between the term used of the husband and of the children?

 

[toddpedlar]

In all three cases in 1 Cor 7:14 it's a participle of hagiazo (to set apart, sanctify) and/or the adjective hagios - all three having the same meaning of 'set-apartness'.

 

[a mere housewife]

Thanks, Todd. Do you know the paedo position on how the husband is set apart without baptism, and why the children cannot be? (I'm assuming there's one explanation for this, but there might, I suppose, be several?)

 

[larryjf]

The point of the passage is not salvation, but rather the bond of marriage. Instead of Christian women leaving their unconverted husbands for fear of becoming defiled by them, the women are instructed to continue living with them if husband stays.

The child is brought up as a proof. If the husband defiles the marriage, certainly he would have defiled the child, but as it is children of even 1 believing parent are counted as part of the covenant community, so there is no defilement simply by being with the unbelieving husband.

 

[a mere housewife]

Thank you, Larry. That helps, but it doesn't really address the whole baptism question --how the same concept of sanctity can be used of the unbelieving husband as well as of the children by virtue of their relation to the wife, and be argued as evidence that one category of people were and should be baptised (children) while the sanctity was achieved without baptism, and should not have entailed baptism, in another (unbelieving husbands)?

 

[MW]

Thank you, Larry. That helps, but it doesn't really address the whole baptism question --how the same concept of sanctity can be used of the unbelieving husband as well as of the children by virtue of their relation to the wife, and be argued as evidence that one category of people were and should be baptised (children) while the sanctity was achieved without baptism, and should not have entailed baptism, in another (unbelieving husbands)?

"Sanctified" is used in the case both of the spouse and the children, but the sanctification relative to unbelieving spouses is made a means to the sanctification of the children. So the text does not place them on a par. The purpose for which the unbelieving spouse is sanctified is so that the children might be holy. This of course only makes sense in the context of a church which automatically regarded children as holy in the case of two believing parents.

The difference between the sanctified spouse and the children is specifically stated -- the spouse is unbelieving; but the children are not said to be unbelieving. The unbelief of the spouse adds a distinct characteristic in their case which naturally disqualifies them from baptism.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Furthermore, the choice of terms is illustrative. The words are cognate, however in the case of the spouse, the verbal term lays the focus on the bond, whereas in the case of the child, the nominal term (an adjective) is used as a qualitative description of the person, focus on the status. The unbelieving spouse experiences "holy effect" from the believer; the child is a "holy effect."

 

[a mere housewife]

Thank you. I understand these explanations, and they answer my question.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Let me add one more "furthermore" here to build upon all the answers above. As the focus is on the issue of defilement of the believer being married to an unbeliever there is a clear connection to OT issues of OT Saint marrying foreigners. This is especially an issue for Levites in the Book of Ezra who have disqualified themselves by this practice. I believe the repeated warnings about being married to those outside of the Covenant is the most likely reason for this concern.

Unlike the OC where a ceremonially clean person was defiled by the unclean, the NC in Christ recognizes the bringing in of people that were once unclean (ceremonially and spiritually) but now have access through the veil of Christ's flesh and are sanctified by His blood. The NC believer is not only clean before God but his unbelieving spouse does not defile him. As a side note, it is a wonderful thing to meditate upon all the examples of unclean people touching Christ and then the Apostles and being made clean in the Gospels and the Acts.

Notice, as well, how the believing children are spoken of here as Bruce and others note. It's not an argument that goes to the effect of: "...and furthermore your children are made clean too...." Rather, the emphasis is still upon whether or not the unbelieving spouse defiles. To underline the sanctifying effect upon the unbelieving spouse, he adds: "...if your unbelieving spouse defiled you then the product of your union would be unholy as well but, as it is, look at your children who you know to be holy."

In other words, the children are obviously holy (as it is they are clean), which undergirds the argument for the sanctity of the marriage.

 

[a mere housewife]

Thank you, Rich: I had been thinking along those lines after the explanations last night but not so clearly.

 

[wsw201]

This is an explanation from Charles Hodge that I think is pretty helpful:

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.

“The proof that such marriages may properly be continued, is, that the unbelieving party is sanctified by the believing; and the proof that such is the fact, is, that by common consent their children are holy; which could not be, unless the marriages whence they sprang were holy; or unless the principle that intimate communion with the holy renders holy, were a correct principle.
The assertion of the apostle is, that the unbelieving husband or wife is sanctified in virtue of the marriage relation with a believer. We have already seen that the word (agiazein), to sanctify, means, 1. To cleanse. 2. To render morally pure. 3. To consecrate, to regard as sacred, and hence, to reverence or to hallow. Examples of the use of the word in the third general sense just mention, are to be found in all parts of Scripture. Any person or thing consecrated to God, or employed in his service, is said to be sanctified. Thus, particular days appropriated to his service, the temple, its utensils, the sacrifices, the priest, the whole theocratical people, are called holy. Persons or things not thus consecrated are called profane, common, or unclean. To transfer any person or thing from this latter class to the former, is to sanctify him or it. What God hath cleansed (or sanctified), that call not thou common,” Acts 10:15. Every creature of God is good, and is to be received with thanksgiving, “For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer,” 1 Tim. 4:5. This use of the word is specifically frequent in application to persons and communities. The Hebrew people were sanctified (i.e. consecrated), by being selected from other nations and devoted to the service of the true God. They were, therefore constantly called holy. All who joined them, or who were intimately connected with them, became in the same sense, holy. Their children were holy; so were their wives. “If the first-fruits be holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root be holy, so are also the branches,” Rom. 11:26. That is, if the parents be holy, so are also the children. Any child, the circumstances of whose birth secured it a place within the pale of the theocracy, or commonwealth of Israel, was according to the constant usage of Scripture, said to be holy. In none of these cases does the word express any subjective or inward change. A lamb consecrated as a sacrifice, and therefore holy, did not differ in its nature from any other lamb. The priests or people, holy in the sense of set apart to the service of god, were in their inward state the same as other men. Children born within the theocracy, and therefore holy, were nonetheless conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity. They were by nature the children of wrath, even as others, Eph. 2:3. When therefore, it is said that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife by the believing husband, the meaning is not that they are rendered inwardly holy, nor that they are brought under a sanctifying influence, but that they were sanctified by their intimate union with a believer, just as the temple sanctified the gold connect with it; or the altar the gift laid upon it, Matt. 23:17, 19. The sacrifice in itself was merely a part of the body of a lamb, laid upon the altar, though it’s internal nature remained the same, it became something sacred. Thus the pagan husband in virtue of his union with a Christian wife, although he remained a pagan, was sanctified; he assumed a new relation; he was set apart to the service of God, as the guardian of one of his chosen ones, and as the parent of children who, in virtue of their believing mother were children of the covenant.
That this is so, the apostle proves from the fact, that if the parents are holy, the children are holy; if the parents are unclean, the children are unclean. This is saying literally what is expressed figuratively in Rom. 11:16. “If the root be holy, so are the branches.” It will be remembered that the words holy and unclean, do not in this connection express moral character, but are equivalent to sacred and profane. Those within the covenant are sacred, those without are profane, i.e. not consecrated to God. There are two views which may be taken of the apostle’s argument in this verse. The most natural, and hence the most generally adopted view is this: ‘The children of these mixed marriages are universally recognized as holy, that is, as belong to the church. If this be correct, which no one disputes, the marriages themselves must be consistent with the laws of God. The unbelieving must be sanctified by the believing partner. Other wise, you children would be unclean, i.e. born out of the pale of the church. To this it is indeed object by several modern commentators, that it takes for granted that the Corinthians had no scruples about the church-standing of the children of these mixed marriages. But this it is said, is very improbable so soon after the establishment of the church, when cases of the kind must have been comparatively few. The principle in question, however, was not a new one, to be then first determined by Christian usage. It was, at least, as old as the Jewish economy; and familiar wherever Jewish laws and the facts of the Jewish history, were known. Paul circumcised Timothy, whose father was a Greek while his mother was a Jewess, because he knew that his countrymen regarded circumcision in such cases as obligatory, Acts 16:1-3. The apostle constantly assumes that his readers were familiar with the principles and facts of the Old Testament economy. Comp. 10:1-13.
The other view of the argument is this: ‘If, as you admit, the children of believers be holy, why should not the husband or the wife of a believer be holy. The conjugal relation is as intimate as the parental. If the one relation secures this sacredness, so must the other. If the husband be not sanctified by his believing wife, children are not sanctified by believing parents.’ This, however, supposes a change in the persons addressed. Paul is speaking to persons involved in these mixed marriages. Your children naturally mean the children of you who have unbelieving husbands or wives. Whereas this explanation supposed your to refer to Christians generally. In either way, however, this passage recognizes as universally conceded the great scriptural principle, that the children of believers are holy. They are holy in the same sense in which the Jews were holy. They are included in the church, and have a right to be so regarded. The child of a Jewish parent had a right to circumcision, and to all the privileges of the theocracy. So the child of a Christian parent has a right to baptism and to all the privileges of the church, so long as he is represented by his parent; that is, until he arrives at the period of life when he is entitled and bound to act for himself. Then his relation to the church depends upon his own act. The church is the same in all ages. And it is most instructive to observe how the writers of the New Testament quietly take for granted that the great principles which underlie the old dispensation, are still in force, under the new. The children of Jews were treated as Jews; and the children of Christians, Paul assumes as a thing no one would dispute, are to be treated as Christians. Some modern German writers find in this passage a proof that infant baptism was unknown in the apostolic church. They say that Paul could not attribute the holiness of children to their parentage, if they were baptized – because their consecration would then be due to that rite, and not to their descent. This is strange reasoning. The truth is, that they were baptized not to make them holy, but because they were holy. The Jewish child was circumcised because he was a Jew, and not to make him one. The Rabbins say: Peregrina si proselyte fuerit et cum ea ejus – si concepta fuerit et nata in sanctitate, est ut filia Israelite per omnia. See WETSTEIN in loc. To be born in holiness (i.e. within the church) was necessary in order to the child being regarded as an Israelite. So Christian children are not made holy by baptism, but they are baptized because they are holy.”