COVENANTALHOLINESS

“For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by thewife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were yourchildren unclean; but now are they holy” (1 Corinthians 7:14).

TheApostle Paul was discussing the subject of marriage and divorce, and he hadcome to the point of discussing how unequally yoked marriages should behandled. It is clear that Paul forbade the marriage of a believer with anunbeliever (1 Cor 7:39c), but there were cases when a husband or a wife was convertedafter their marriage. In such cases, the believing spouses would be naturallyconcerned whether their marriages were lawful and whether they should leavetheir unbelieving spouses. Paul advised: “If any brother hath a wife thatbelieveth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased todwell with her, let her not leave him” (1 Cor 7:12–13).

Asis often the case, the Apostle does not leave a dogmatic statement without anyrationale. Christianity is not irrational! He gives them an argument: “For theunbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife issanctified by the husband” (1 Cor 7:14a). Then, to prove or strengthen this statement,he adds a further argument: “else were your children unclean; but now are theyholy” (1 Cor 7:14b).

Itis this last clause that catapults this otherwise seemingly obscure verse intothe arena of debates in theological textbooks, in the discussion of covenanttheology and infant baptism.

TheBaptist View

Baptist theologiansgenerally contend that Paul is simply arguing that the children are holy inthat they are legitimate, or that they are holy in that they come under theministry of the Gospel through the believing spouse.

PaulK. Jewett is representative of the first position:

Let not the believer, heenjoins, forsake the unbeliever. Why? Because the unbeliever has been andcontinue to be sanctified through the covenant of marriage by him/her who hassince become a believer. Otherwise, your children would be “unclean,” that is,illegitimate. But you know this is not so; rather they are “holy,” that is,legitimate (Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace[Eerdmans, 1978],136).

Onecould understand how ‘unclean’ could mean ‘illegitimate.’ But how Jewett couldequate being ‘holy’ with being ‘legitimate’ is hard to conceive. One needs onlyto realise that ‘to sanctify’ (aJgiavzw, hagiazô) is the verb form ofthe adjective ‘holy’ (a{gio", hagios),and do some substitution into 1 Corinthians 7:14 to see how unlikely hisinterpretation is: “For theunbelieving husband islegitimised bythe wife, and the unbelieving wife is legitimised by the husband: else were yourchildren illegitimate; butnow are they legitimate.”How a believing spouse could legitimise an unbelieving spouse is beyond me.

DavidKingdon, who is another greatly respected Baptist polemist, holds to the secondposition:

…the offering up of thebelieving spouse sanctifies the whole, not in the sense of making inwardly holybut in setting the family apart for the operation of the grace of God insalvation through the witness of the believing partner (1 Cor 7:16). Paul isconfident of the power of the Gospel to exert, in many cases, a truly convertingand sanctifying influence through a Christian father or mother. Therefore, thebeliever should on his part not break the marriage bond if the unbelievingpartner is willing to continue in it (Children of Abraham: A ReformedBaptist View of Baptism, the Covenant, and Children [Carey Pub. Ltd. and Henry E.Walter Ltd., 1973], 90).

Thisis probably the most common view. I had myself taken this view earlier, beforeI came to understand how God views the Christian family. But there are severalproblems to this view. In the first place, if this is what Paul meant, then howwould his answer have allayed the concerns of the believing spouses as towhether their marriages were legal? If the primary reason for a spouse toremain married to an unbeliever is that he has a sanctifying influence on her, then one who is working in aturf club might well justify his remaining in that work in order to exercise asanctifying influence. In the second place, if Paul were talking about thesanctifying influence of a Christian in verse 14, then he would be repeatinghimself in verse 16. In the third place, it would be rather odd for Paul toargue as suggested that: “You should remain married to your spouse because youhave a sanctifying influence on him/her for you have a sanctifying influence onyour children.” Why should the believing spouses, knowing that they have asanctifying influence on their children, need the fact as an argument that theyhave a sanctifying influence on their spouses too? In the fourth place, the tensesand words used in the Greek, of the 1 Corinthians 7:14, simply do not allow forthis view. Literally translated, the verse read: “For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified [perfect passive] by the wife, and theunbelieving wife has beensanctified [perfect passive]by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.” Paulis not talking about continual influence, but about astate or status that has begun. In the fifth place, itseems forced to equate “unclean” with “not having the sanctifying influence ofthe parent” and “holy” with “having the sanctifying influence of the parent.”

PedobaptistView

Pedobaptists(those who believe in infant baptism), on the other hand, believe that Paul isspeaking about covenantal holiness, which is the theologicalbasis for infant baptism (note the use of 1 Corinthians 7:14 in WSC 95; WLC 62, 166;WCF 25.2, 28.4).

Analysingthe verse, we see that Paul is arguing for something less well-known andestablished with something already established. What is already established isthat children of the members are holy and not ‘unclean’ like the children ofthose outside the church.

Whydo we say that Paul is referring to “children of the members of the church,”rather than, as commonly supposed: “children of the families with one believingspouse”? The reason is simple: Paul has been referring to the unequally yokedcouple in the third person; so consistent grammar would require him to say,“else were their children unclean,” if he was referringto their children. Instead he says: “else were your children unclean,” which would make ita reference to all the children in the church. It is possible that Paulswitched to the second person pronoun suddenly in order to personalise hisstatement. It is also possible that Paul is unable to use the second personpronoun for the most part without making his arguments in verses 12–15 veryconfused.

But,it would be strange that the children of unequally yoked couples are holywhereas the children of believing couples are not. In any case, it would be aless than convincing argument if Paul had argued that the unbelieving spouse issanctified because their children are sanctified (verbal formof ‘holy,’ i.e., ‘sanctify’ is to ‘holy,’ what ‘purify’ is to ‘pure’). For, howwould they know their children are holy in the first place? Someone may say,they are holy because the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believingspouse. But if that is so, then Paul would in effect be arguing circularly: thechildren are sanctified because the unbelieving spouse is sanctified, and theunbelieving spouse is sanctified because if he/she is not, then the childrenwould not be sanctified.

Whatis more likely is that the Corinthians knew or took it for granted already thatthe children in the church are holy. So Paul would essentially be saying: “Youknow and believe that all the children in the church, including those who haveonly one believing parent, are holy. If that is so, then surely you will agreethat your unbelieving spouse is holy (sanctified) too.” We must note that Paulis not arguing that if the unbelieving spouse were not sanctified, then thechildren produced would be unclean. He is rather, arguing by analogy orparallel, namely: if the unbelieving spouse be not sanctified on account ofhis/her union with the believing spouse, then it cannot be that the childrencan be sanctified on account of the fact that they are the children ofbelievers. Of course, Paul’s argument can only make sense if the holiness ofthe children in the church is a known and unquestioned fact.  

Afew questions arise that must be answered however. First, how would theCorinthians know that their children are ‘holy’? Secondly, why are they holyand in what sense? We mentioned that they are “covenantally holy,” but whatdoes that mean? Thirdly, if the children are “covenantally holy” and so shouldbe baptised,—according to the pedobaptist view,  then what about the unbelievingspouse, since he/she must be covenantally holy too, according to ourinterpretation of what Paul was saying?

YourChildren Are Holy

Whywould the church believe or accept the assertion that their children are holy?I would suggest that it is because the Corinthian church regularly baptisedtheir children and newborn infants. Paul told the Corinthians: “but ye arewashed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified” (1 Cor 6:11). Washingrefers to baptism. To be sanctified is to be consecrated or set apart. When theCorinthians brought their children to be baptised, they knew that the childrenwere being consecrated to God. They would also, no doubt, have been taught thatthe basis for their consecration is the Abrahamic covenant: “For the promise isunto you, and to your children” (Acts 2:39). So, we can expect that there wouldgenerally be no question when it came to the issue of the consecration of thechildren to God.

Itis true that there is no one statement in the New Testament, which may directlyprove that infant baptism was apostolic. However, the doctrine of infantbaptism is really the doctrine of household baptism, which can be shown fromScripture (e.g., Acts 16:14–15; 30–34). It has also been quite conclusivelyestablished that the Early Church practised infant baptism with the samesignificance as circumcision. The Church Father Cyprian, writing circa A.D. 250, about 100 years after thelast Apostle died, indicated that a North African council of 66 bishops, ofwhich he was one, was unanimous in holding that infant baptism was a practiceof the Apostles (Epistle 58 To Fidus, On the Baptism of Infants, in Early Church Fathers: Ante Nicene,vol. 5). The fact that infant baptism was not treated theologically in earlierwritings is simply because it was never an issue of contention. Even inCyprian’s letter the contention was about whether the child may be baptisedbefore he is eight days old! Baptists may point to Tertullian (circa A.D. 145–220) to support their case,but Tertullian did not deny the validity of infant baptism, even though hepersonally preferred that baptism of little children be delayed (seeTertullian’s On Baptism,in Early Church Fathers: AnteNicene, vol. 3).

CovenantallyHoly

Whydo we contend that Paul is referring to covenantal holiness when he says thatthe children are holy?

Firstof all, it must be noted that a person who is included under the appellation‘saints,’ i.e., ‘holy ones’ in the Scriptures, is not necessarily a justifiedperson. In other words, a person may be said to be ‘holy’ or ‘set apart’without implying that he is a justified or true believer. For example, 2Corinthians was addressed to “the church of God which is at Corinth, with allthe saints [i.e., ‘holy ones’] which are in all Archaia“ (2 Cor 1:1). Yet, inthe letter, Paul urges his readers to examine themselves whether they be in thefaith (2 Cor 13:5). It is highly unlikely that this call to self-examination isrestricted to the church at Corinth and not for the saints in Archaia. What ismore likely is that comprehended under the appellation ‘saints’ would beunregenerate, unjustified persons as well.

Secondly,the Apostle Paul affirms that it is possible for a person to be regarded asholy based on his relationship to someone whose holiness is not questioned.Paul, referring to Israel,the covenant people of God, of old, says: “For if the firstfruit be holy, thelump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches” (Rom 11:16).There are two metaphors in this statement. In the first place, Paul is alludingto the metaphor of a meal offering in which a part,—the firstfruit,—is offeredas representative of the whole lump. The whole lump is regarded as holy and setapart on account of the firstfruit. In the second place, the branches on thetree are regarded as holy on account of the root. The second metaphor,especially, speaks of children being considered holy on account of theirparents’ standing. Naturally, Paul could not be referring to the infusion ortransmission of inward holiness and faith to the children. What Paul must bereferring to is a federal or covenantal consecration in which God regards thewhole lump and the branches as, in a sense, special or distinct from the restof the world. And this is not just a matter of outward privileges which thechildren, or those embraced in the covenant, enjoy but that God has specialregard for them, for “they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes” (Rom 11:28). Inother words, God often deals with the family as an organic whole, so that whena parent is Christian, then the whole family is to be regarded as Christian.

Thishas always been the way that God views His families. It is so in the OldTestament as well as the New Testament. This is why God commanded Abraham tocircumcise his children. Though infants could not exercise faith, they were tobe applied the “sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith”(Rom 4:11), in order to mark them out as being part of the household of faith(cf. Gen 17:13–14). In the NewTestament, the Apostle Peter referring to the Abrahamic promise declares: “Forthe promise is unto you, and to your children…” (Acts 2:39a), thus teachingthat God has not ceased to have covenantal regard for the children ofbelievers.

This,of course, does not guarantee that every member in a Christian family would bydefault be a true Christian. No, the family is regarded organically: like aplant or branch of a tree. Ultimately if the member bears no fruit or marks ofconversion, it is cut off (see John 15:6; Romans 11:19). But we must insistthat such ultimate unbelief would be the exception rather than the rule in afamily which obediently uses the means of grace appointed by God for Hiscovenant members. This is especially so under the New Covenant where there is afar greater effusion of the Holy Spirit when compared to the Old Covenant. Itis with this confidence of God’s promise that we baptise our children.

Statusof Unbelieving Spouse

Ifchildren of Christian families are covenantally holy, then by the same token,based on 1 Corinthians 7:14, the unbelieving spouse would also be covenantallyholy. And if the covenantal holiness of children behoves us to baptise ourchildren, then should not we also baptise the unbelieving spouses?  

Baptisttheologians frequently use this point to debunk the pedobaptist interpretationof the verse. A simple response to this objection would be that covenantalholiness provides the basis for baptising whole households, but does not demandthe baptising of the whole household. The demand to baptise infants comes fromthe command to circumcise infants under the Abrahamic covenant; whereas thedemand to baptise adults come from Acts 2:38, “Repent, and be baptised everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” For infants,their parents’ faith is sufficient warrant to baptise, since they are unable tomake profession of faith. For adults, personal profession of faith, or at leastthe absence of conscious objection, is required.

Inother words, based on the principle of family solidarity, the spouse of abeliever, who cannot show credible profession of faith,—such as being able toarticulate his/her love for Christ,—but is nevertheless willing to conform tothe doctrines and demands of the church can be received or regarded as a memberof the church, simply because he is married to a member of the church. We saythis more theoretically than absolutely because a person who is in such asituation could possibly be already regenerate, albeit with weak faith.

Veryoften, however, the unbelieving spouse consciously objects to Christianity. Insuch a case, though he may be sanctified on account of his marriage with thebeliever, and be no cause for defiling the believer, yet he has cut himself offfrom the covenant community by his unbelief, and so cannot be admitted as amember. Such an unbelieving spouse, however, could cut himself off completely(and be no more covenantally holy) by deserting his believing spouse (1 Cor7:15). The same goes for a child who may be baptised when young, but denies thefaith when he comes of age. In such a case, the church must excommunicate him.Yet, he remains a covenant child, since his parents cannot excommunicate himfrom the family. However, if he marries while in unbelief, he would essentiallycut himself off from his covenantal status.

Conclusion

Thisarticle is not intended to be a defence of pedobaptism. It is an attempt to seethe meaning of a difficult verse and to see its implications. The solidarity ofthe family in God’s sight in not only taught in 1 Corinthians 7:14; it ishinted elsewhere in Scripture too. However, it is most vividly stated here andwe believe that the pedobaptist interpretation can be sustained.                               

—JJ Lim