1 Corinthians 7:14

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.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 God’s 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 God’s 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 ακαθαρτα and αγια, 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 δουλοι Θεου καθαροι, 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, περιεκαθαρεν, 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 σπερμα αγιον, 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 God’s 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.”

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

7:14 By remaining committed to the marriage, the Christian brings holiness to the unbelieving spouse. Such holiness extends to the children, who also benefit from the holiness of a Christian parent (cp. Mal 2:15).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1Co 7:14. Ἡγίασται) 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.—ἐν τῇ γυναικὶ) [by the wife] in respect to the wife, with whom he willingly remains; so ἐν, 1Co 14:11.—πιστῇ, the believing, is not added to γυναικὶ, in accommodation to human modes of thought [κατʼ ἄνθρωπον]: for an unbelieving husband does not know what faith is.—ἐπεὶ ἄρα, otherwise) For [otherwise] the children would follow the condition of the unbelieving parent. The marriage is Christian, and so also are the offspring.—τέκνα, children) who are born of a believing and an unbelieving parent.—ἀκάθαρτα, unclean) as those who are born of parents, who are both unbelievers, although they be not bastards.—ἅγιά ἐστιν, they are holy) ἡγίασται 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.]

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_7:14.[1116] Forthis justifies the injunction given in 1Co_7:12-13the unholiness of the non-believing partner is taken away in virtue of his personal connection with the believer; he is sanctifiedthis 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. Pauls judgment, therefore, is that the Christian ἁγιότης, 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 φύραμα (Gal_6:16; Rom_11:16).[1117] The clause: ἘΠΕῚ ἌΡΑ ΤᾺ ΤΈΚΝΑ Κ.Τ.Λ[1118], shows that what the ἄπιστος 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 ἐκκλησία Θεοῦ, 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 consorts holiness, the benefit of which he receives in virtue of his fellowship of life with her, so that he is no longer ἀκάθαρτος as hitherto, butalthough mediately after the fashion describeda ἡγιασμένος. The manifold misinterpretations of the older commentators may be seen in Pooles Synopsis and Wolfs Curae (e.g. Calovius and others hold that ἡγ. 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 ἐν τῇ γυν. and ἐν τῷ ἀνδ., comp ἐν σοὶ πᾶσʼ ἔγωγε σώζομαι, Soph. Aj. 519; ἐν σοί ἐσμεν, Oed. R. 314, and the like; Ellendt, Lex Soph. I. p. 597.

ἐπεὶ ἄρα κ.τ.λ[1121]] because according to that (if, namely, that ἡγίασται 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 κόσμος, 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 childrens 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 ἁγιότης 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.

ὑμῶν] 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, Rückert, 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]

ΝῦΝ ΔΈ] but so, as in 1Co_7:11.

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

[1117] In a mixed marriage, therefore, the Christian ἁγιότης 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: νικᾶ ἡ καθαρότης τῆς γυναεκὸς τὴν ἀκαθαρσίαν. Comp. the paraphrase of Erasmus: Non inficit deterioris impietas alterius pietatem, quin illud potius praeponderat quod melius est et efficacius.

[1118] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

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

[1121] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[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 apostles 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 ἀπίστοις, the predicate ἀκάθαρτα 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] Ἀκάθαρτοι is taken by many as equivalent to spurii. See Melanchthon in particular: Si non placeret consuetudo conjugalis, filii vestri essent spurii et eatenus immundi, ἀκάθαρτοι. At filii vestri non sunt spurii; ergo consuetudo conjugalis Deo placet. He interprets ἀκάθαρτοι after מַמְזֵר in Deuteronomy 23.

[1126] Comp. Müller, v. d. Sünde, II. p. 383, ed. 5. Our passage, however, ought not to be adduced to prove the universal pollution of men by nature and birth, for ἀκάθαρτα must denote, not moral, but theocratic uncleanness, like the κοινά of Act_10:28. This against Ernesti also, Ursprung der Sünde, 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.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 ἡγίασται γὰρ κ . τ . λ . replies: “For the husband that is an unbeliever, has been sanctified in his wife,” and vice versâ . ἡγίασται … ὁ ἄπιστος 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 ἐπεὶ ἄρα , alioqui certe, si res se aliter haberet , see 1Co 5:10 and parls.; νῦν δὲ , 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).

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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: ἡγίασται, 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 Rückert, as being purely negative, is too weak to correspond to the positive term ἡγίασται; 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 ἡγίασται, 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 ἡγίασται 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 ἐν, 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 ἐν, 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 ἐπεί, 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 ἄρα, 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 baptême 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 μὴ ἀφιέτω, let her not put him away, of 1Co 7:13. But in this sense the connecting particle with what precedes would be not ἐπεί, but καὶ δέ, and moreover; then the ἐπεί, since, can in any case only bear on the verb which immediately precedes, ἡγίασται, 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 applied—and it seems at first sight the most natural meaning—only 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: τέκνα ὑμῶν, 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 (ὑμῶν, 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, Rückert, 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 ἡγίασται, is sanctified, into ἅγιά ἐστιν, 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 ἅγια, 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 ἀκάθαρτα, impure, here signifies: yet plunged, like children of heathen parents, in their natural impurity. — The νῦν δέ, 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 ἅγια, holy? If ἀκάθαρτα, 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 ἐστί, 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 ἡγίασται. 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. Ménégoz, 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 (ἅγιος, holy), but yet regarded as destined to enter into it (ἡγιασμένος, 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.

Infant Baptism, in relation to the passage, 7:14.

German commentators are almost unanimous (except Hofmann, who here follows a way of his own) in regarding infant baptism as incompatible with these words of the apostle. The latest English critics (Edwards, Beet), though knowing the German works, do not adhere to the conclusion drawn in them, and do not believe the words to be incompatible with the ecclesiastical practice of baptizing infants. For my part, I do not find Paul’s expressions intelligible except on the supposition that this practice existed.

In his interesting and able work already quoted, Professor Ménégoz has proposed an intermediate way. According to him, when Paul baptized whole families, Jewish or heathen (Act 16:15; Act 16:33; Act 18:8; 1Co 1:16), it is indisputable that the children were included. But 1Co 7:14 proves, he thinks, on the other hand, that in Christian families the children born after the baptism of the parents did not receive it themselves, which M. Ménégoz explains by supposing that their baptism was regarded as included in that of their parents. They were looked on “as baptized in the womb of their mother.” It was not, according to him, till later and gradually that baptism was extended to the children of Christians themselves, because this rite being the mode of enlisting into the Church, it could not in course of time be refused to the descendants of Christians without effacing the line of demarcation between them and the world.

This hypothesis, intended to reconcile the two classes of passages, which M. Ménégoz thinks he finds in the New Testament, seems to me inadmissible. According to it, there were in Paul’s Churches two classes of Christians: the one baptized, those who had passed from heathenism or Judaism to Christianity; the other unbaptized (except in the person of their parents), those who were born of parents already Christian. But where in the New Testament is there a trace of such a difference? Does not the apostle say: “We all (ὅσοι, as many as there are) who were baptized in Christ...?” The same expression, Gal 4:27, and in our own Epistle, 1Co 12:13 : “We all (ἡμεῖς πάντες) were baptized into one Spirit to form one body.” These expressions show that baptism was regarded as the external bond of all the members of the body of which the Spirit was the soul. And why, if M. Ménégoz’ supposition was well founded, was not the baptism of children born of parents not yet Christian regarded as involved in that of their parents, as well as that of the infants born after their conversion, unless we are prepared to ascribe to the Church, and to Paul himself, the most grossly materialistic ideas? Has not M. Ménégoz himself very properly reminded us of the fact that, according to the notions of antiquity, the father’s religion determined that of the family? His personal baptism should therefore have sufficed for all in the one situation as well as in the other. Finally, I think I have shown that the passage, 1Co 7:14, in favour of which so strange a hypothesis is proposed, not only does not require, but excludes it.

But does not ecclesiastical history protest against our exegetical result as false? With the exception of two passages, the one from Origen, the other from Tertullian, it is silent on the point before us. Now, of these two passages, that of Origen is positive in favour of the apostolic origin of infant baptism (Comment. in epist. ad Rom. t. 5.9): “The Church learned from the apostles that it ought to give baptism to infants.” In the second, Tertullian, after his going over to Montanism (De baptismo, c. 18), dissuades parents from baptizing their children; which proves that the practice existed in his time, but that Tertullian himself did not regard it as apostolical. These facts are insufficient, from the historical point of view, to authorize a sure conclusion either on the one side or the other. It is therefore for exegesis to enlighten history rather than the reverse.

The apostle now passes to the opposite case, that of the Christian spouse whose heathen partner does not consent to live with her.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_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 (ἁγιά ζειν), 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 mentioned, 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 priests, the whole theocratical people, are called holy. Persons or things not thus consecrated are called profane, common, or unclean. To transfer any person or thing from this latter class to the former, is to sanctify him or it. What God hath cleansed (or sanctified), that call not thou common, Act_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, 1Ti_4:5. This use of the word is specially frequent in application to persons and communities. The Hebrew people were sanctified (i.e. consecrated), by being selected from other nations and devoted to the service of the true God. They were, therefore, constantly called holy. All who joined them, or who were intimately connected with them, became in the same sense, holy. Their children were holy; so were their wives. If the first-fruits be holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root be holy, so are also the branches, Rom_11:16. That is, if the parents be holy, so are also the children. Any child, the circumstances of whose birth secured it a place within the pale of the theocracy, or commonwealth of Israel, was, according to the constant usage of Scripture, said to be holy. In none of these cases does the word express any subjective or inward change. A lamb consecrated as a sacrifice, and therefore holy, did not differ in its nature from any other lamb. The priests or people, holy in the sense of set apart to the service of God, were in their inward state the same as other men. Children born within the theocracy, and therefore holy, were none the less conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity. They were by nature the children of wrath, even as others, Eph_2:3. When, therefore, it is said that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife by the believing husband, the meaning is, not that they are rendered inwardly holy, 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 connected with it; or the altar the gift laid upon it, Mat_23:17, Mat_23:19. The sacrifice in itself was merely a part of the body of a lamb, laid upon the altar, though its internal nature remained the same, it became something sacred. Thus, the pagan husband, in virtue of his union with a Christian wife, although he remained a pagan, was sanctified; he assumed a new relation; he was set apart to the service of God, as the 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 apostles 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 belonging 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. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, i.e. born out of the pale of the church. To this it is indeed objected 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, Act_16:1-3. The apostle constantly assumes that his readers were familiar with the principles and facts of the Old Testament economy. Comp. 1Co_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 means the children of you who have unbelieving husbands or wives. Whereas this explanation supposes your to refer to Christians generally. In either way, however, this passage recognizes as universally conceded the great scriptural principle, that the children of believers are holy. 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 proselyta fuerit et cum ea filia ejus si concepta fuerit et nata in sanctitate, est ut filia Israelita 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.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The godliness of the wife is of more force, to cause their coupling together to be accounted holy, than the infidelity of the husband is, to profane the marriage.

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

To the faithful husband.

This place destroyeth the opinion of them that would not have children to be baptized, and their opinion also, that make baptism the very cause of salvation. For the children of the faithful are holy, by virtue of the covenant, even before Baptism, and baptism is added as the seal of that holiness.

He answereth an objection: But the faithful is defiled by the society of the unfaithful. The Apostle denieth that, and proveth 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 accounted holy (that is, contained within the promise) for it is said to all the faithful, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

sanctified--Those inseparably connected with the people of God are hallowed thereby, so that the latter may retain the connection without impairing their own sanctity (compare Ti1 4:5); nay, rather imparting to the former externally some degree of their own hallowed character, and so preparing the way for the unbeliever becoming at last sanctified inwardly by faith.

by . . . by--rather, "in . . . in"; that is, in virtue of the marriage tie between them.

by the husband--The oldest manuscripts read, "by the brother." It is the fact of the husband being a "brother," that is, a Christian, though the wife is not so, that sanctifies or hallows the union.

else . . . children unclean--that is, beyond the hallowed pale of God's people: in contrast to "holy," that is, all that is within the consecrated limits [CONYBEARE and HOWSON]. The phraseology accords with that of the Jews, who regarded the heathen as "unclean," and all of the elect nation as "holy," that is, partakers of the holy covenant. Children were included in the covenant, as God made it not only with Abraham, but with his "seed after" him (Gen 17:7). So the faith of one Christian parent gives to the children a near relationship to the Church, just as if both parents were Christians (compare Rom 11:16). Timothy, the bearer of this Epistle, is an instance in point (Act 16:1). Paul appeals to the Corinthians as recognizing the principle, that the infants of heathen parents would not be admissible to Christian baptism, because there is no faith on the part of the parents; but where one parent is a believer, the children are regarded as not aliens from, but admissible even in infancy as sharers in, the Christian covenant: for the Church presumes that the believing parent will rear the child in the Christian faith. Infant baptism tacitly superseded infant circumcision, just as the Christian Lord's day gradually superseded the Jewish sabbath, without our having any express command for, or record of, transference. The setting aside of circumcision and of sabbaths in the case of the Gentiles was indeed expressly commanded by the apostles and Paul, but the substitution of infant baptism and of the Lord's day were tacitly adopted, not expressly enacted. No explicit mention of it occurs till IRENÆUS in the third century; but no society of Christians that we read of disputed its propriety till fifteen hundred years after Christ. Anabaptists would have us defer baptism till maturity as the child cannot understand the nature of it. But a child may be made heir of an estate: it is his, though incapable at the time of using or comprehending its advantage; he is not hereafter to acquire the title and claim to it: he will hereafter understand his claim, and be capable of employing his wealth: he will then, moreover, become responsible for the use he makes of it [ARCHBISHOP WHATELY].

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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 αγιοι, saints, is a common term for Christians-those who were baptized into the faith of Christ; and as its corresponding term קדושים 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."

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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 — (1 Corinthians 6:16) — so that the husband is the head of the wife; (Ephesians 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. (2 Corinthians 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, (Titus 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; (Ephesians 2:3;) or with the statement of David — Behold I was conceived in sin, etc. (Psalms 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, (Romans 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 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 the tenth and eleventh chapters of the Epistle to the Romans; and I have handled this point there.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(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.)

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 Co1 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 Mat 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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 - ἡγίασται hēgiastai. 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 ἁγιάζω hagiazō 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 - (ἀκάθαρτα akatharta). Impure; the opposite of what is meant by holy. Here observe:

That this is a reason why the parents, one of whom was a Christian and the other not, should not be separated; and, 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, 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 (ἀκάθαρτα akatharta). It properly denotes that which is impure, defiled, idolatrous, unclean:

In a Levitical sense; Lev 5:2. 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 God’s 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 parent’s 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 (ἁγιος 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!

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Is sanctified. The meaning is not that the faith of the husband, or the wife is of itself sufficient to put the unbelieving party, or their children, in the state of grace and salvation: but that it is very often an occasion of their sanctification, by bringing them to the true faith. (Challoner) --- Sanctification which has different significations, cannot here signify that an infidel is truly and properly sanctified, or justified, by being married to a faithful believer; therefore we can only understand an improper sanctification, so that such an infidel, though not yet converted, need not be looked upon as unclean, but in the dispositions of being converted, especially living peaceably together, and consenting that their children be baptized, by which they are truly sanctified. --- How knowest thou, O wife? &c. These words seem to give the reason, why they may part, when they cannot live peaceably, and when there is little prospect that the party that is an infidel will be converted. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Is sanctified; literally, has been sanctified, the status has been rendered (so to speak) theoretically clean. By the wife; literally, in the wife. The bond is still holy; its holiness rests in the believing wife or husband. The reasoning would remove any scruples which Jewish Christians might derive from Deu_7:3, etc. By the husband; rather, in the brother. The liberty implied by these remarks, contrasting so strongly with the rigid rules laid down in the days of Ezra (Ezr 9 Ne 9) recall the change of dispensation. Unclean; i.e. not placed in immediate covenant relation to God. But now are they holy. This does not necessarily imply that they were baptized as infants, but only that they were hallowed as the fruit of a hallowed union. See the remarkable words of Malachi. (Mal_2:15) "If the root be holy, so are the branches". (Rom_11:16)

Christian baptism.

"But now are they holy.

I WHAT IS IMPLIED IN THIS STATEMENT. It is an acknowledgment of their virtual Church membership.

II THE BEARING OF THIS DOCTRINE ON THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS. By this act of baptism the Church

(1) expresses its own evangelical faith;

(2) recognizes the children as belonging to God and to Christ;

(3) testifies its confidence in their present spiritual safety;

(4) pledges itself to train them up in the culture of the Lord.

III GENERAL INFERENCES CONCERNING CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.

1. It is only an external sign.

2. Where persons are not baptized as infants, they should not afterwards be submitted to the rite except as intelligent believers in Christ.

3. As to the mode of baptism, it may be performed in any decent, possible way.

4. It may be administered by any one qualified or appointed to represent the Christian Church.

5. It should be consummated by an early admission to the Lord"s table.

6. The duty of those who were never baptized in infancy. R.T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For the unbelieving husband hath, in many instances, been sanctified by the wife - Else your children would have been brought up heathens; whereas now they are Christians. As if he had said, Ye see the proof of it before your eyes.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

children

(Greek - ὄλεθρος, born ones).

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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."]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified, etc. This passage has been much debated, and little understood. The unbelieving husband or wife is not made personally holy, not do the children of believers have personal holiness transmitted to them by virtue of birth relation. Sanctification, then, means something besides personal holiness. To sanctify is to separate to a sacred use, or relation (Exod. 20:8; 28:38). In 1 Tim. 4:4, 5, food is “sanctified by the word of God and prayer” Here Paul uses the term to denote that one Christian member of a household brings a sanctifying influence to it, so that all the members are to be regarded as separated in part from the great, ungodly, unclean world. Nehemiah commanded Jews to part from heathen wives on the ground that they were ceremonially unclean. Paul insists, rather, that the believer cleanses the other, and that the unbelieving partner, or the children, are rendered ceremonially clean. But now are they holy. Brought into such a sacred relation that the unbelieving partners are under the power of sacred influences, and not to be counted as sources of defilement.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

14. ἀδελφῷ. אABCDEFG, Vetus Lat. ἀνδρί rec. with Peshito and Vulg. Irenaeus however (Lat. vers.) and Tertullian support the rec. They may, however, have been quoting loosely. The word ἀνδρί would naturally occur to the mind of a copyist, while it is difficult to understand the introduction of ἀδελφῷ.

14. ἡγίασται. Hath been sanctified, i.e. by the union of the unbeliever with the believer. The sacred character imparted by Christianity has, since it imparts union with Christ the Lord of all, a power to overcome the unregenerate condition 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. Observe that when in the right path, holiness is a stronger force than evil. But (see 1Co 6:15) when once we overstep its bounds, evil is more powerful than good.

ἐν τῇ γυναικί. ‘By virtue of his union with the (believing) wife.’ Cf. Soph. Aj. 519 ἐν σοὶ πᾶσ’ ἔγωγε σώζομαι i.e. by virtue of my union with thee am I kept altogether free from harm.

ἐπεὶ ἄρα … ἐστιν. Since in the opposite case your children are unclean, the indicative marking more strongly the natural result of a supposition contrary to that of the Apostle than the subjunctive rendering of the A. and R.V.

νῦν δὲ ἅγιά ἐστιν. 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 marriages with the heathen.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14.] Ground of the above precept.

ἡγίασται] 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 ἡγιασμένοι 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 ἁγιότης: so Theophylact, οὐχ ὅτι ἅγιος γίνεται ὁ Ἕλλην. οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν ὅτι ἅγιός ἐστιν· ἀλλʼ, ἡγίασται· τουτέστι, τῇ ἁγιότητι τοῦ πιστοῦ νενίκηται. Chrysostom well shews the distinction between this case and that in ch. 6:15, that being a connexion κατὰ τὴν ἀσέβειαν,—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.

ἐν γῇ γ., ἐν τῷ ἀδελ.] in, i.e. his or her ἁγιότης is situated in, rests in, the other (see reff.: and note, ch. 6:2).

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

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

ἅγια] as ἡγίασται 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 ἁγιότης, 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 ἁγιότης of the Christian child there is nothing inconsistent with the idea, nor with the practice, of Infant Baptism.

On νῦν δέ, see note, ch. 5:11.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14. ἡγίασται. This refers to the baptismal consecration (1:2, 6:11), in which the unbelieving husband shares through union with a Christian wife. The purity of the believing partner overpowers (νικᾷ) the impurity of the unbelieving one (Chrys.), so that the union is pure and lawful; there is no profanation of matrimony. The principle εἰς σάρκα μίαν holds good in mixed marriages (6:16), but not to the detriment of the believing partner; as an unlawful union desecrates, so a lawful union consecrates: pluris enim est pietas unius ad conjugium sanctificandum, quam alterius ad inquinandum (Calv.). But he goes beyond what is written when he adds, interea nihil prodest haec sanctificatio conjugi infideli.* Note the ἐν in both cases; the Christian partner is the sphere in which the sanctification takes place, and the heathen partner may be influenced by that sphere. There is no such intolerable difference of sphere as to necessitate dissolution of the marriage.

ἐπεὶ ἄρα. ‘Since it would then follow,’ i.e. if it was the impurity of the heathen partner which prevailed on the analogy of Hag 2:11-13; there it is uncleanness that is communicated, while consecration is not communicated. The Apostle argues back from the children to the parents. The child of a parent who is ἅγιος must ipso facto be ἅγιος: that he assumes as axiomatic. 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 ἅγιος till it was baptized. The verse throws no light on the question of infant baptism. He argues from the fact that the Corinthians must admit that a Christian’s child is ‘holy.’ Consequently, it was born in wedlock that is ‘holy.’ Consequently, such wedlock need not be dissolved. But he is not approving such wedlock. Marriages with heathen are wrong (2Co 6:14). But, where they have come into existence through the conversion of one partner in a heathen marriage, the Christian partner is not to seek divorce.

D E F, Latt. add τῇ πιστῇ after γυναικί, אA B C K L P omit. ἀδελφῷ (א*A B C D* E F G P 17, Copt. RV.) is to be preferred to ἀνδρί (א3 D3 K L, Vulg. Syrr. Arm. Aeth. AV.), an unintelligent gloss by one who did not see the point of ἀδελφῷ and wanted to make the usual balance to the preceding γυναικί Vulg., Iren. Tert. add τῷ πιστῷ to ἀνδρί, making it equivalent to ἀδελφῷ. For νῦν δέ, D E F G have νυνί, which at the beginning of a clause is always in N.T. followed by δέ.

With the argumentative use of ἐπεί, ‘since, if that were so,’ cf. 15:29 and see not on Rom 3:6. In v. 10, 11, we have a similar ἐπεί followed by νῦν, as here. See Burton, Moods and Tenses, §§ 229, 230.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Is sanctified [ηγιασται] . 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.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.