My interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:14

For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. (ESV)

The overall context of the passage (read verses 10-24) is clear enough – Paul is giving the Corinthians direction regarding spiritually mixed marriages. This is significant to the proper interpretation of verse 14. Paul is clearly talking about a marriage where one spouse is a believer and the other is NOT. This must guide our thinking when we come to verse 14. We must deal with the verse as it stands and not begin here by putting on our covenant-colored glasses (as I would argue the paedos do). Paul says, “For the unbelieving husband is made holy”. In the Greek, “is made holy” is one word. It is the verb form of the adjective “holy” Paul uses at the end to refer to the children. Recognize, the unbelieving spouse is UNBELIEVING! What can Paul mean, then, by “is made holy”? He CANNOT be saying that the unbelieving spouse is fit to be considered saved, for that goes against what he has just stated – that the spouse is unbelieving! So there must be some other usage Paul has in mind for “is made holy”.

This is a good place to note the argumentation of the paedos. Many of them I have read interpret this verse as an argument for infant baptism, arguing that the latter part of this verse clearly implies that children of even one believing parent fall under what they call “the pale of the church” (huh? I haven’t found that in the Bible either). A cornerstone of paedobaptist theology is that “the covenant” is the sole basis of infant baptism and that the ground of baptism is thus identical for adults and children. What they have neglected in their interpretation of verse 14 is to deal sufficiently with the text! What EXACTLY is the holiness that the children possess? What EXACTLY is the holiness that the unbelieving spouse possesses? And is there any difference between the sense of the two? If we draw a distinction and try to make the holiness of the children different from that of the unbelieving spouse, it clearly detracts from the logic of Paul’s argument in the verse. Paul’s argument is based upon a similarity between the two parties! He’s directing the believer to remain with the unbelieving spouse because of the POWER of the Gospel in the believer’s life! “Covenant” status of the children is no encouragement to remain with the unbelieving spouse if it does not apply to the unbelieving spouse. Paul’s argument overall is illogical if there is a distinction drawn between the possession of holiness on the part of the children over against the unbelieving spouse. It is my humble opinion that the paedos are guilty of eisegesis at this point. Let’s get back to exegesis.

Paul says: “the unbelieving [spouse] IS made holy” (emphasis mine). Recognize that within this small phrase is a paradox. “Holy” and “unbelieving” are commonly contradictory terms. So the question is what does Paul mean? Look at the verse. It appears clear from the text that Paul considers the case of the children parallel to the case of the unbelieving spouse. Here is the clear logic: IF the unbelieving spouse is holy, THEN the children are holy – NOT because one is CAUSED by the other, but because they are LIKE CASES – THEY ARE BOTH ALIKE. John L. Dagg says this in his Manual of Theology (by the way, he’s one of the best systematic Southern Baptist theologians, and he’s buried in Hayneville!):

a believer and an unbeliever may lawfully dwell together...The intercourse of a married pair with each other, and that of parents with their children, must be regulated by the same rule. An unconverted husband or wife stands on the same level with unconverted children. If intercourse with the former is unlawful, intercourse with the latter is equally unlawful. [The contrary decision] would sever the ties that bind parents to their children, and [force them to leave their children]. By showing that this monstrous consequence legitimately follows from the doctrine, he has furnished an argument against it which is perfectly conclusive.

This interpretation assigns an identical meaning to the holiness of the children and the sanctification of an unbelieving spouse. If the holiness of an unbelieving spouse falls short of qualifying him/her for baptism, then according to Paul’s reasoning, the holiness of believers’ children fall short as well. I believe this to be the true meaning of the text and commend it to you.