1 Corinthians 7:14
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife,.... 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 vdq, in this sense, out of the Misnic, Talmudic, and Rabbinic writings; take the following one instead of a thousand that might be produced {s}.
"The man vdqm, "sanctifies", or espouses a wife by himself, or by his messenger; the woman vdqtm, "is sanctified", or espoused by herself, or by her messenger. The man vdqm, "sanctifies", or espouses his daughter, when she is a young woman, by himself or by his messenger; if anyone says to a woman, yvdqth, "be thou sanctified", or espoused to me by this date (the fruit of the palm tree,) yvdqth, "be thou sanctified", or espoused to me by this (any other thing); if there is anyone of these things the value of a farthing, tvdwqm, "she is sanctified", or espoused, and if not she is not tvdwqm, "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, tvdwqm, "she is sanctified", or espoused; but if not, she is not tvdwqm, "sanctified", or espoused; if she eats one after another, she is not tvdwqm, "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 {t} 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 Nyvwdyq "sanctifications" {u}, or espousals; and in the Gemara or Talmud {w} is another, full of the disputes of the doctors on this subject. Maimonides has also written a treatise of women and wives {x}, 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 heart's 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 Colossians 1:23 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 {y},
"he that espouses a Gentile woman, or a servant,
Nyvwdyq Nnya, "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,
Nyvwdyq Nhyvwdyq Nya, "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 {z},
"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 Nm Nbh, "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, &c. 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.
{s} Misn. Kiddushin, c. 2. sect. 1.
{t} Vajikra Rabba, sect. 7. fol. 152. 1.
{u} Massech. Kiddushin.
{w} T. Bab. & Hieros. Kiddushin.
{x} Hilch Ishot. c. 3. & 4. & 5. & 6. & 7. & 8. & 9.
{y} Maimon. Hilch. Ishot, c. 4. sect. 15.
{z} Maimon. Hilch. Issure Bia, c. 12. sect. 7. Vid. Ib. Hilch. Nechalat, c. 2. sect. 12.