SEV Biblia, Chapter 7:14
Porque el marido incrdulo es santificado en la mujer (fiel), y la mujer incrdula en el marido (fiel); de otra manera ciertamente vuestros hijos serían inmundos; pero ahora son santos.
Clarke's Bible Commentary - 1 Corinthians 7:14
Verse 14. The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife] Or rather, is to be reputed as sanctified on account of his wife; she being a Christian woman, and he, though a heathen, being by marriage one flesh with her: her sanctity, as far as it refers to outward things, may be considered as imputed to him so as to render their connection not unlawful. The case is the same when the wife is a heathen and the husband a Christian. The word sanctification here is to be applied much more to the Christian state than to any moral change in the persons; for agioi, saints, is a common term for Christians- those who were baptized into the faith of Christ; and as its corresponding term ywdq kedoshim signified all the Jews who were in the covenant of God by circumcision, the heathens in question were considered to be in this holy state by means of their connection with those who were by their Christian profession saints. Else were your children unclean] If this kind of relative sanctification were not allowed, the children of these persons could not be received into the Christian Church, nor enjoy any rights, or privileges as Christians; but the Church of God never scrupled to admit such children as members, just as well as she did those who had sprung from parents both of whom were Christians.
The Jews considered a child as born out of holiness whose parents were not proselytes at the time of the birth, though afterwards they became proselytes. On the other hand, they considered the children of heathens born in holiness, provided the parents became proselytes before the birth.
All the children of the heathens were reputed unclean by the Jews; and all their own children holy. - See Dr. Lightfoot. This shows clearly what the apostle's meaning is.
If we consider the apostle as speaking of the children of heathens, we shall get a remarkable comment on this passage from Tertullian, who, in his treatise Deuteronomy Carne Christi, chaps. 37, 39, gives us a melancholy account of the height to which superstition and idolatry had arrived in his time among the Romans. "A child," says he, "from its very conception, was dedicated to the idols and demons they worshipped. While pregnant, the mother had her body swathed round with bandages, prepared with idolatrous rites. The embryo they conceived to be under the inspection of the goddess Alemona, who nourished it in the womb. Nona and Decima took care that it should be born in the ninth or tenth month. Partula adjusted every thing relative to the labour; and Lucina ushered it into the light. During the week preceding the birth a table was spread for Juno; and on the last day certain persons were called together to mark the moment on which the Parcae, or Fates, had fixed its destiny. The first step the child set on the earth was consecrated to the goddess Statina; and, finally, some of the hair was cut off, or the whole head shaven, and the hair offered to some god or goddess through some public or private motive of devotion." He adds that "no child among the heathens was born in a state of purity; and it is not to be wondered at," says he, "that demons possess them from their youth, seeing they were thus early dedicated to their service." In reference to this, he thinks, St. Paul speaks in the verse before us: The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife-else were your children unclean; but now are they holy; i.e. "As the parents were converted to the Christian faith, the child comes into the world without these impure and unhallowed rites; and is from its infancy consecrated to the true God."
John Gill's Bible Commentary
Ver. 14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife , etc.] That is, by the believing wife; as the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions read, and so it is read in some copies; and likewise in the next clause the same is read, by the believing husband ; this is a reason given by the apostle why they should live together. This cannot be understood of internal sanctification, which is never the case; an unbeliever cannot be sanctified by a believer in this sense, for such a sanctification is only by the Spirit of God; nor external sanctification, or an outward reformation, which though the unbelieving yoke fellow may sometimes be a means of, yet not always; and besides, the usefulness of one to another in such a relation, in a spiritual sense, urged as a reason for living together, in ( 1 Corinthians 7:16) nor merely of the holiness of marriage, as it is an institution of God, which is equally the same in unbelievers as believers, or between a believer and an unbeliever, as between two believers; but of the very act of marriage, which, in the language of the Jews, is expressed by being sanctified; instances almost without number might be given of the use of the word dq , in this sense, out of the Misnic, Talmudic, and Rabbinic writings; take the following one instead of a thousand that might be produced f114 . The man dqm , sanctifies, or espouses a wife by himself, or by his messenger; the woman dqtm , is sanctified, or espoused by herself, or by her messenger. The man dqm , sanctifies, or espouses his daughter, when she is a young woman, by himself or by his messenger; if anyone says to a woman, ydqth , be thou sanctified, or espoused to me by this date (the fruit of the palm tree,) ydqth , be thou sanctified, or espoused to me by this (any other thing); if there is anyone of these things the value of a farthing, tdwqm , she is sanctified, or espoused, and if not she is not tdwqm , sanctified, or espoused; if he says, by this, and by this, and by this, if there is the value of a farthing in them all, tdwqm , she is sanctified, or espoused; but if not, she is not tdwqm , sanctified, or espoused; if she eats one after another, she is not tdwqm , sanctified, or espoused, unless there is one of them the value of a farthing; in which short passage, the word which is used to sanctify, or be sanctified, in the Hebrew language, is used to espouse, or be espoused no less than ten times. So the Jews interpret the word sanctified, in ( Job 1:5) he espoused to them wives; in the Misna, the oral law of the Jews, there is a whole treatise of ywdyq sanctifications f116 , or espousals; and in the Gemara or Talmud is another, full of the disputes of the doctors on this subject. Maimonides has also written a treatise of women and wives f118 , out of which might be produced almost innumerable instances in proof of the observation; and such as can read, and have leisure to read the said tracts, may satisfy themselves to their hearts content. Let it be further observed; that the preposition en , which is in most versions rendered by, should be rendered in or to or unto, as it is in the next verse, and in many other places; (see Matthew 17:12 Mark 9:13) ( Colossians 1:23 1 Thessalonians 4:7 2 Peter 1:5-7) if it be rendered in the former way, in, it denotes the near union which by marriage the man and woman are brought into; if in the latter, it designs the object to which the man or woman is espoused, and the true sense and even the right rendering of the passage is this: for the unbelieving husband is espoused to the wife, and the unbelieving wife is espoused to the husband; they are duly, rightly, and legally espoused to each other; and therefore ought not, notwithstanding their different sentiments of religion, to separate from one another; otherwise, if this is not the case, if they are not truly married to one another, this consequence must necessarily follow; that the children born in such a state of cohabitation, where the marriage is not valid, must be spurious, and not legitimate, and which is the sense of the following words: else were your children unclean, but now are they holy ; that is, if the marriage contracted between them in their state of infidelity was not valid, and, since the conversion of one of them, can never be thought to be good; then the children begotten and born, either when both were infidels, or since one of them was converted, must be unlawfully begotten, be base born, and not a genuine legitimate offspring; and departure upon such a foot would be declaring to all the world that their children were illegitimate; which would have been a sad case indeed, and contains in it another reason why they ought to keep together; whereas, as the apostle has put it, the children are holy in the same sense as their parents are; that as they are sanctified, or lawfully espoused together, so the children born of them were in a civil and legal sense holy, that is, legitimate; wherefore to support the validity of their marriage, and for the credit of their children, it was absolutely necessary they should abide with one another. The learned Dr. Lightfoot says, that the words unclean and holy denote not children unlawfully begotten, and lawfully begotten; but Heathenism and Christianism; and thinks the apostle alludes to the distinction often made by the Jews, of the children of proselytes being born in holiness, or out of it, that is, either before they became proselytes or after; but it should be observed, that though the word holiness is used for Judaism, yet not for Christianity; and besides, the marriages of Heathens were not looked upon as marriages by the Jews, and particularly such mixed ones as of a Jew and Gentile, they were not to be reckoned marriages; for so they say f119 , he that espouses a Gentile woman, or a servant, ywdyq nya , they are not espousals; but lo, he is after the espousals as he was before the espousals; and so a Gentile, or a servant, that espouses a daughter of Israel, ywdyq hywdyq ya , those espousals are no espousals; nor do they allow children begotten of such persons to be legitimate. This learned writer himself owns such a tradition, and which he cites f120 , that a son begotten in uncleanness is a son in all respects, and in general is reckoned as an Israelite, though he is a bastard, wnb wnya hywgh m bh , but a son begotten on a Gentile woman is not his son; all which are just the reverse of what the apostle is here observing; and who, it must be remarked, is speaking of the same sort of holiness of children as of parents, which cannot be understood of Christianity, because one of the parents in each is supposed to be an Heathen. The sense I have given of this passage, is agreeable to the mind of several interpreters, ancient and modern, as Jerom, Ambrose, Erasmus, Camerarius, Musculus, etc. which last writer makes this ingenuous confession; formerly, says he, I have abused this place against the Anabaptists, thinking the meaning was, that the children were holy for the parents faith; which though true, the present place makes nothing for the purpose: and I hope, that, upon reading this, everyone that has abused it to such a purpose will make the like acknowledgment; I am sure they ought.
Matthew Henry Commentary
Verses 10-16 - Man and wife must not separate for any other cause than what Chris allows. Divorce, at that time, was very common among both Jews an Gentiles, on very slight pretexts. Marriage is a Divine institution and is an engagement for life, by God's appointment. We are bound, a much as in us lies, to live peaceably with all men, Ro 12:18, therefor to promote the peace and comfort of our nearest relatives, thoug unbelievers. It should be the labour and study of those who ar married, to make each other as easy and happy as possible. Should Christian desert a husband or wife, when there is opportunity to giv the greatest proof of love? Stay, and labour heartily for the conversion of thy relative. In every state and relation the Lord ha called us to peace; and every thing should be done to promote harmony as far as truth and holiness will permit.
Greek Textus Receptus
ηγιασται 37 5769 V-RPI-3S γαρ 1063 CONJ ο 3588 T-NSM ανηρ 435 N-NSM ο 3588 T-NSM απιστος 571 A-NSM εν 1722 PREP τη 3588 T-DSF γυναικι 1135 N-DSF και 2532 CONJ ηγιασται 37 5769 V-RPI-3S η 3588 T-NSF γυνη 1135 N-NSF η 3588 T-NSF απιστος 571 A-NSF εν 1722 PREP τω 3588 T-DSM ανδρι 435 N-DSM επει 1893 CONJ αρα 686 PRT τα 3588 T-NPN τεκνα 5043 N-NPN υμων 5216 P-2GP ακαθαρτα 169 A-NPN εστιν 2076 5748 V-PXI-3S νυν 3568 ADV δε 1161 CONJ αγια 40 A-NPN εστιν 2076 5748 V-PXI-3S
Vincent's NT Word Studies
14. Is sanctified (hgiastai). Not, made morally holy, but affiliated to the Christian community - the family of the agioi saints - in virtue of his being "one flesh" with his Christian wife.
Robertson's NT Word Studies
7:14 {Is sanctified in the wife} (hegiastai en tei gunaiki). Perfect passive indicative of hagiazw, to set apart, to hallow, to sanctify. Paul does not, of course, mean that the unbelieving husband is saved by the faith of the believing wife, though Hodge actually so interprets him. Clearly he only means that the marriage relation is sanctified so that there is no need of a divorce. If either husband or wife is a believer and the other agrees to remain, the marriage is holy and need not be set aside. this is so simple that one wonders at the ability of men to get confused over Paul's language. {Else were your children unclean} (epei ara ta tekna akaqarta). The common ellipse of the condition with epei: "since, accordingly, if it is otherwise, your children are illegitimate (akaqarta)." If the relations of the parents be holy, the child's birth must be holy also (not illegitimate). "He is not assuming that the child of a Christian parent would be baptized; that would spoil rather than help his argument, for it would imply that the child was not hagios till it was baptized. The verse throws no light on the question of infant baptism" (Robertson and Plummer).
