1 Cor 7:14

peacefulpete

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are ( L ) holy.

What in the world does he mean? Countless commentaries have struggled to make sense of the word "holy" in this context. Clearly it does not mean "saved", a different greek word, used in verse 16: "For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife? "

Perhaps I stumbled upon something of an explanation from the Babylonian Talmud Yebam. 78a which argues whether the children, born and fetal, are viewed as 'part' of the Gentile mother or the father in matters of purity and conversion to Judaism. Some schools of Judaism insisted upon both circumscision and baptism as rites for gentiles to become a proselyte. Among the things at issue was whether a baptised pregnant Gentile proselyte woman's child would need be baptised or was it covered by it's mother's baptism. It was decided that the child would NOT need to be baptised through rangling with the wording from a couple OT passages. It reads in part:

"What, however, of the following statement of Raba. 'If a pregnant gentile woman was converted, there is no need for her son to perform ritual immersion'. 63

I think this may bear on 1 Cor 7:14. Perhaps Paul (asssumed author) was retaining this Rabbinic outlook on baptism dispite his declaring that circumscision was not needed (vss18,24)and his differing view of what baptism was.

The husband was "sanctified" to the extent that divorce was not required, it was OK for the Christian to live with the 'unclean unbelieving' (assumedly gentile) man under the arrangement of marriage. The child of such a union was "sanctified" in that the mother's baptism satisfied it's need for ritual cleaness. If this is so, then Paul was saying that children born of Christain parents had no need to be baptised themselves!

thoughts?

Euphemism

I always read the text as a reference to legitimacy. I.e. "If your marriage were void, then your children would be illegitimate; therefore, the marriage is still in force." But that's just a surface reading, not based on any research.

hmike

Well. Pete, rather than explore the historical and literary background of the texts, I will simply say that I see myself as a living example of this passage. My father was not a believer; my mother was ( but not a JW), and had lived it out under some of the harshest of circumstances. When I was little, she is the one who told me Bible stories; she is the one who taught me the Lord?s prayer in her native German. I think when at least one of the parents is an active Christian, it does make affect the life of the child in a way far deeper than we can understand--beyond just the teaching and example aspects. I know many here will disagree with me about the reality of a true spiritual realm, and many could give examples that would seem to contradict this passage, such as cases where children of believing parents rejected God, or where children of two unbelieving parents became Christians. I'm fully aware of that; I know some myself. All I'm saying is that there is something different with children of a believing parent, although it may not play out that way later, because there are a lot of other factors at work.

peacefulpete

Euph, some commentators share that interpreation, yet it doesn't fit. Is the father legitimate? (same word used) Note to,the verse does not say that the "holy" state of the children is dependent upon the marriage at all, but upon the mother's being a believer. The passage continues (vs 15) allowing for the dissolving of the marriage (called to peace) without any labling the child as unholy or illegitimate.

hmike, well, I'm not sure just what you were telling us but glad you feel you can share.

Narkissos

A parallel has been pointed to in the Qumran "halakhic letter" (4QMMT) as to the priests' children born of illegitimate unions (according to the very strict priestly laws, cf. Leviticus 21).

As a very general remark, I would say that both Palestinian Pharisaism (as echoed by your rabbinical quote) and Hellenistic Judaism/Christianity have borrowed their religious mental structure, concepts and dichotomies (sanctified-holy / profane, clean / unclean) from the priestly milieu and temple ritual; only what was once meaningful in relation to temple worship is now applied to a non-priestly religious community (whether the Synagogue or the Church). The language "Paul" uses in a Hellenistic context is clearly priestly in origin, even though no priestly ritual is involved anymore. When you think of it, the same goes for a lot of theological concepts, such as sin, expiation, sacrifice, holiness, cleanness, sanctification... The spectres of the Sadducee or Essene priests are haunting the Pharisaic and Christian "lay" theology.

hmike

hmike, well, I'm not sure just what you were telling us but glad you feel you can share.

I think that this passage is at least partially based on Malachi 2:15--

"Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit and do not break faith with the wife of your youth." (NIV)

2 Timothy 1:5 may have been considered a fulfillment of this--

"I have been reminded of your sincere faith, which first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice and, I am persuaded, now lives in you also." (NIV)[As far as we know, Timothy's father was a Greek.]

Now the author (Paul?) may have been referring to a passing on of teachings by word and example, but I think there is a kind of "spirirual DNA" that is passed to children. I can't give you any citations to back it up--it's just my own personal hypothesis based on personal convictions. Of course we know the story of Cain, so, as I said, it may not always play out that way later.

The scripture in 1 Cor. was most likely prompted by the fact that many people joined the Way while their spouses did not. The author (Paul?) did not want to encourage break-ups--many people may have been aware of the teaching of Jesus about putting him ahead of even their own family members. (Notice I said "Jesus," not the WT or any other organization.)

peacefulpete

Narkissos, thnks for the reply. I'm not sure of the 4QMMT parallel, all i could find was this partial line:78} "And concerning the mixed marriages that are being performed among the people, and they are sons of holy [seed]....,"

But the context was seeming to forbid mixed marrriages because the sons of Israel were 'holy seed', not that there children were holy. Is there another line?

hmike, perhaps you could get a government grant to search for the mitochondrial DNA gene that inspires religiosity.

Narkissos

PP,

See Gillihan's article on http://www.sbl-site.org/Publications/JBL/JBL1214.pdf

peacefulpete

interesting, If these were the influences then Paul was breaking from all Jewish precedent again while retaining some of it's lingo. Also interesting was the suggestion that chapter 7 was written to balance the effect the fragment now at 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 may have had in producing separations.

hmike

Interesting article.

Narkissos, Pete.

We know that some parts of the letters were addressed to issues that arose, even though the issues aren't always stated. Thus, understanding the meaning is like playing Jeopardy--we have the answer and have to figure out the question.

Considering the entire context of 1 Cor. 7, is it possible this kind of question arose:

"My spouse is not a believer. Should I divorce my spouse and marry a believer?"

To which Paul answers, "In marriage, the two have become one flesh. What God has joined together, let man not separate. Therefore, according to the word of the Lord, you are one flesh with your spouse. Your unbelieving spouse, while not in Christ, is considered set apart for your sake and the sake of your children, who have no say in this matter. To divorce your spouse because he or she does not believe is not proper cause. Thus, you would be committing adultery were you to remarry, even to a believer, and the children born to you would be from an illicit union. For the sake of your children, you should remain with your spouse if this person is willing."

I don't think the article clarified whether the passage referred to children already living, or yet to be born, or did I miss that?

1 Cor 7:14

Share this