Holy Children in 1 Corinthians 7:14

S. Joel Garver

First let’s get the text in front of us and then provide some interpretation:

For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified (hgiastai) by the wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean (akaqarta), but now they are holy (agia).

We need to keep in mind the relations between the parents and children in this passage. Paul is not arguing that the children are holy on the basis of having two holy parents, one of whom is holy because he/she is a believer and one of whom is holy in virtue of being sanctified by the believing partner. Rather he is arguing that the same principle is at work both in regard to the unbelieving partner and in regard to the child. The same holiness that extends to the child in virtue of the faith of the believing parent also extends to the unbelieving partner. Paul is taking it to be an obvious and accepted point that the holiness would extend to the child, but he is making an application from the holiness of the child to the holiness of the unbelieving partner.

Since we are safe to assume that the unbelieving partner is unbaptized, we must also assume that the child is unbaptized if we are to preserve the analogy between the unbelieving parent and the child. The situation that is presented is one in which a mixed marriage has resulted from the marriage of two pagans, one of whom was subsequently converted (Christians were not permitted to marry outside the faith; cf. vs. 39; also 2 Corinthians 6:14). We should assume, then, that this statement regarding the holiness of the children is primarily in reference to children of a mixed marriage who were born prior to the conversion of the believing parent. So, the referent of "you" in "your children" should be limited to the particular situation being addressed, as is the case throughout the various situations in rest of the passage (cf. vs. 7:5, 16, 21-23, 27-28, etc.). Also note the statement that "now they are holy," suggesting that at an earlier point, presumably prior to the believing parent’s conversion, the children were not considered holy. It is only, then, by taking these children as born prior to the conversion of the one parent that the parallel between the child and the unbelieving partner is a precise one.

But if this is correct, it would be apparent that even if the children of believers and converts were routinely baptized, this passage does not speak directly to that issue. We are concerned here with a pagan convert whose family did not undergo a "household" baptism (cf. 1:16). Only one member of the family converted and the rest of the family has either rejected the faith (including, perhaps, older children) or the unbelieving partner has objected to and prevented the baptism of the children (assuming that such paedobaptism would have been a normal part of household baptism). It was presupposed by the Corinthian Church that the faith of the believing parent somehow "sanctified" the unbaptized child. Now Paul is extending that principle to cover the unbelieving spouse as well.

The remaining question, then, is the nature of the sanctification conferred in virtue of these various relationships. In respect to the unbelieving partner the immediate context is that of divorce (vs. 12-13). Should the believer get a divorce from his/her partner, lest some taint of uncleanness affect the believer? The broader context is Paul’s earlier reference to the "one flesh" relationship between sexual partners (6:15-20), as well as the mutual authority of husband and wife over each other’s bodies (7:3-5). The question is, then, given these relationships between marriage partners, is there any danger or impropriety in a Christian being joined to an unbeliever in these ways? Paul’s answer is that there is none. So long as the unbelieving partner is willing to live with the Christian partner, he/she has been sanctified in that partner (en th gunaiki / en tw andri). If, however, the unbeliever departs, the believing partner is free (vs. 15).

Part of the sanctification that Paul sees here is undoubtedly the influence of the believing partner (vs. 16), but it is difficult to limit it to that given the context. Rather, Paul’s point seems to be that in virtue of the fact that the one partner is a believer, the marriage is a Christian marriage and under the blessing of God. The relationship has conferred a certain status upon the unbelieving partner within that relationship which he/she would otherwise not possess.

But now how are we to understand the holiness of the children in that relationship? If we are correct in taking this passage to refer primarily to children born before the conversion of the believing parent, then how might the question of the children’s uncleanness or sanctity have arisen? The first thing to note is that Paul is pointing to the holiness of these children as something obvious to and accepted by his Corinthian audience. How ever the issue of the sanctity of these children of converts arose, it was already well-known that they were to be considered holy. Their sanctity, then, is appealed to as an analogous case on which the sanctity of the unbelieving spouse can be established. This also implies that the sanctity of the unbelieving spouse was not well-known, obvious, and accepted in exactly the same way as that of the children. Therefore, to understand why Paul makes this analogy, on what basis it is made, and why it was not an obvious one, it is also important to understand the disanalogies between the child of a convert and his/her partner.

Some important disanalogies are apparent. The unbelieving partner is sanctified only in virtue of the "one flesh" relationship he/she has with the believer. This is underscored in several ways. First, the general context is that of the special relationship between husband and wife as "one flesh" and their wider mutuality. Rather than a source of uncleanness for the believer, Paul’s point is that this is a source of sanctity for the unbeliever. Second, there is the possibility of the unbeliever departing, in which case the believing partner is no longer bound within the marriage relationship (vs. 15). That is to say, the marriage relationship is covenantal and breakable, and that the sanctity of the unbeliever is wrapped up within his/her willingness to "live with" the believer (vss. 12-13). Third, there is the fact that Paul stresses that the sanctity of the unbeliever is "in" the believing partner and not something that the unbeliever is, in and of him/herself, simply in virtue of the marriage.

On the other hand, no such "one flesh" relationship exists between the child and the believing parent. The child is never countenanced, here or elsewhere in Paul, as some kind to danger to the believing parent which might possibly result in a "divorce" or rejection of the child. Thus the sanctity of the child is not something that is transitory or conditional in the way that is the case in regard to the sanctity of the unbelieving partner. Moreover, the sanctity of the child is not one that is possessed by the child being "in" the parent in the way that the unbelieving partner is said to be "in" his/her spouse. Paul’s statement is simply, "now they are holy"--that is, in virtue of the conversion of the one parent. It is something that the child has become in itself in virtue of the parent’s conversion.

Paul’s argument, therefore, might be paraphrased in following way:

You all know that the children of a converted pagan are holy, even if born prior to their parent’s conversion. Now if the holiness of the believing parent makes the child holy, then we must admit that the holiness of a believing marriage partner will make his/her spouse holy, at least within their relationship to one another as "one flesh."

And so both the analogy and disanalogy between parent and child work together to establish Paul’s point.

But if it is the case that the child of a believing parent is holy—even if born prior to that parent’s conversion and not in virtue of being "in" the parent and apart from any special "one flesh" relationship—then we are left with some questions. While the case that Paul is considering is probably one in which the child is unbaptized, what do Paul’s assumptions imply about the appropriateness of baptism for the children of converts? Apart from the protestations of an unbelieving parent, what reason would there be to withhold baptism from a child that is already "holy"? And why was it obvious to the Corinthians that the child of a convert was "holy"? Was it because such children were ordinarily baptized? Was it because Paul had once taught them that these children were holy, in order to comfort those converts who could not baptize their children due to the interference of an unbelieving spouse? While we cannot answer these questions with any certainty, they do indicate that this passage cannot be used to counter the theological and biblical arguments in favor of paedobaptism.