1 Cor 7:14

by peacefulpete 19 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  A Paduan

  If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?

  • Husband is her Word - ie. her intelligent spirit
  • ....though I was their husband, says the Lord
  • the husband is head of her house, the whole self
  • Christ is the bridegroom, patient
  • Some people are without direction - You are right in saying, `I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not your husband

  "She" is the soul, and subject to the husband through whom she recieves her teaching (let them ask their husbands at home) - when married the two become one in the flesh and even the belief of one produces fruit, works that are holy - The believing soul produces good works though she knows not why - and the believing spirit can produce works of holiness when one's soul isn't really in it. Being married though they may begin to concern themselves over things of the flesh (such as how one should be dressed) - anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife... or the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband

  It may also be that the husband's way goes against what is good - whosoever speaks a word against the holy Spirit has not forgiveness - and the soul is dragged along. But unable to believe anything about that husband as for real, the soul is freed - if her husband dies she is free from that law...and so it is that Paul says....let the church not be burdened, so that it may assist those who are real widows.

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  with Christ one is betrothed and free
• 

  Narkissos

  hmike,

  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?

  As to the article I haven't noticed, but I don't see what difference it should make: the text obviously refers to living children, and if it recommends the marriage to be maintained there might be other children to be born.

  In any case, it should be clear that Paul uses a circular reasoning: how do we know the unbelieving mate is "sanctified"? Because we know the children are "holy". How do we know the children are "holy"? Because they are accepted in the community. Bottom line: theological rationalisation of a social phenomenon for the sake of a conservative policy.

  Opposed to the above, however, would be the Judeo-Christian stance that in cases of porneia repudiation is required for religious-ritual motives (which might well be the original meaning of Matthew 5:32 etc.)

  A Paduan,

  Were'nt you in Alexandria in some of your past lives?
• 

  hmike

  Sorry, Narkissos, but I can't see the circular reasoning. I checked this verse in several translations, and then in the original Greek (of which I don't admit to being any kind of scholar). The most literal rendering seems to be:

  "For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified by the brother; since then the children of you are unclean, but now they are holy."

  All translations use the word "otherwise" to connect the phrases, which says to me that the children are holy BECAUSE the unbelieving spouse is sanctified because the partner is a believer, that is, the status of the children is based on the status of the parents, not the other way around.

  Also, in a practical application, I see at least four possible situations that would evoke concern:

  1. Children born when both parents were unbelievers, and subsequently one became a believer,

  2. One of the natural parents has died, and the believer has remarried an unbeliever,

  3. One spouse became a believer and then children were subsequently born,

  4. One spouse became a believer with no children yet born, but are anticipated.

  So, does it apply to children already alive--are they "set apart" when at least one of the parents becomes a believer? And up to what age does this apply? One or more of these situations may have applied to an individual family. All of these issues would have been relevant.

  (In denominations that practice infant baptism, isn't a special dispensation imputed to the child based on at least one parent's profession of faith until they reach an age of accountability? Could this passage be the basis for that doctrine?)

  This issue may have arisen out of a concern by believers for the status of their children in the eyes of God, considering the other parent was not a believer. It would have been inconsistent with Paul's teaching that a person could marry into the faith (as some in the article have suggested). I don't know what the earliest church teaching was in regard to the spiritual status for infants and small children, but consider the relatively high mortality rate for children back then.
• 

  A Paduan

  A Paduan,

  Were'nt you in Alexandria in some of your past lives?

  I don't know what character you are pointing to

  I continue to plod along, bearing up to my bewilderment in the fundamentalist mind.
• 

  tijkmo

  ***

  w76 9/15 pp. 575-576 Questions from Readers ***

  Questions

  from Readers

  ?

  First Corinthians 7:14 states that children of a believing parent "are holy." Is baptism involved in such a child?s ?holiness? in God?s sight? What if the child is retarded?

  The apostle Paul is here discussing problems in a divided family. He encouraged the believing mate not to leave the unbeliever and, as a strong reason for keeping the marriage intact, said this: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in relation to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in relation to the brother; otherwise, your children would really be unclean, but now they are holy." (1 Cor. 7:14) This shows that God views such children according to the principle of family merit. By family merit is meant the holiness that God credits, or imputes, to minor children who are obedient, to the extent that the child is unaccountable. This comes about due to the valuable record of holiness and good deeds that "parents in union with the Lord" have in God?s sight. (Eph. 6:1) This family merit applies even when only one of the parents is a believer, as Paul?s above-quoted words indicate.

  What, then, of baptism? A young child who is faithfully taught God?s Word will no doubt progress in knowledge and understanding, and in time reach the point where God?s spirit motivates him to make his own dedication to Jehovah and to request baptism. (1 Pet. 3:21) To be prepared for baptism, he must appreciate his need to repent, be converted and come into a proper relationship with God. (Acts 3:19; 8:34-36) After baptism, he would no longer be under family merit, but would be viewed as "holy" on his own account, being responsible before God to pursue a life of dedication.?1 Pet. 1:14-16; Col. 1:21-23.

  Should parents of retarded children feel that baptism is in all cases a requirement for children to be viewed by God as worthy of his protection in times of judgment, as in the foretold "great tribulation"? The degree of retardation is clearly a determining factor, since some of such children remain with the mentality of a four- or five-year-old even when fully grown. The child may be able to grasp certain basic teachings of God?s Word and repeat these when asked. He (or she) may be obedient to the parents and abstain from doing certain things that have been pointed out as wrong and contrary to God?s will. But is the child able to make personal decisions, able to decide from his own mind and heart (not that of the parents) the course in life he wishes to take? Is he capable of comprehending and seeking a personal relationship with God, one that is not dependent upon his parents? Is he able to stand before a judicial body, accountable for any wrongdoing he may commit? If not, then such child is evidently not in position to be baptized but would continue under family merit in God?s eyes, counted by him as "holy" in that sense.

  Hence, the matter should not be viewed emotionally but on the basis of Scriptural teachings. If the retardation is not great and the child is indeed capable of becoming a disciple of God?s Son, serving God with his own ?heart, soul, mind and strength,? then he could be aided to reach the point of baptism. (Mark 12:30) He then should be able to "carry his own load" of spiritual responsibility. (Gal. 6:5) The parents could seek the counsel of the elders if they are in doubt.

  How faith-strengthening and comforting to know that young children, as well as mentally retarded older ones, may be regarded as "holy" due to family merit!
• 

  peacefulpete

  The WT like most christian commentators are simply glossing over the verse and using it for theological purposes of their own. Little effort is made to understand what the writer was saying in Jewish context.
• 

  hmike

  He encouraged the believing mate not to leave the unbeliever

  So what is the WT position in the case of a member married to one who persists in remaining outside?

  A young child who is faithfully taught God?s Word will no doubt progress in knowledge and understanding, and in time reach the point where God?s spirit motivates him to make his own dedication to Jehovah and to request baptism. (1 Pet. 3:21)

  Any examples here of cases where this didn't work out?
• 

  Narkissos

  hmike,

  The relevant casuistical questions you ask are obviously not addressed by Paul. It is apparent from the context of 1 Corinthians 7 that he is not really concerned by the status of children of mixed marriages, rather by the issue of divorce and remarriage.

  As Gillihan's rhetorical analysis shows, the practical point Paul is trying to make is that a believer should not divorce his/her unbeliever mate unless the latter asks for it. For it he works at making a halfway theological point, i.e. that the mixed marriage is "holy" or sacred just as the marriage of two believers. To make this point he uses a factual implicit premise, namely that the children of mixed marriage are accepted within the community of hagioi ("holy ones"). On this only "real" (actually social) basis the abstract reasoning ensues: they are not impure, but holy; ergo (here steps in a second implicit premise, a theoretical one from Jewish casuistics) their two parents have to be "sanctified"; ergo the unbelieving mate is "sanctified" by the believing mate; ergo the mixed marriage is not to be dissolved (just the practical conclusion aimed at).

  Only Paul's reasoning works backwards, because it follows not the consequential order of "fact" (as I have followed above) but the causal order of knowledge (I know the marriage is not to be dissolved because the unbeliever is sanctified; I know the unbeliever is sanctified because the children are holy) -- just as in Descartes' cogito ergo sum, which actually means "because I think I know I am," not "thinking causes me to be".

  A Paduan,

  I was alluding to the Alexandrine allegorical school of interpretation, as illustrated by Philo in Judaism and Clement or Origen in Christianity: your comments which sound so strange to modern ears would very nicely fit into it.
• 

  A Paduan

  Narkissos,

  I suppose for myself it doesn't sound strange, the more familiar I become with speaking that way - strange thing is, one only has to describe what one sees around him and there seems to be a teaching in it - that's really how I see Paul doing what he does - doesn't nature teach you ?

  Am I the only one getting this?

  And he cautioned them, saying, "Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod." And they discussed it with one another, saying, "We have no bread." And being aware of it, Jesus said to them, "Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember?
• 

  hmike

  Narkissos,

  Thanks for the reply.

  If I had either you or Paduan as a teacher, I think I'd have to stay after school on this one.