| From the TeachingtheWord Bible Knowledgebase |
Part 7 of a series. Read part 6.
The position on baptism presented in this series is the author's personal doctrinal position, and is not part of TTW's official doctrinal statement.
|
|
As was the case with the other two foundational proof-texts for paedobaptism, 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 actually speaks not for the paedobaptist position, but against it.
To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord... (1 Corinthians 1:2)
The third foundational paedobaptist premise is that water baptism is to be administered to infants who have at least one believing parent, because that parent's position as a believer confers New Covenant membership upon the child. The text most often cited as the foundation of this premise is First Corinthians 7:12-16:
But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. 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?
The Often-Ignored Context
It is perplexing that many paedobaptist theologians, in commenting on this passage, ignore its context. The passage says absolutely nothing about baptism or visible church membership. Neither is at issue in Paul's discussion. In this section of the epistle, Paul is answering a number of questions about specific situations within the local church. His theme is, "Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called" (7:24) - whether in regard to remaining married to an unbelieving spouse (12-16), circumcision or uncircumcision (18-20), slavery or freedom (21-22), or being married versus single (25-40). But several commentators ignore or gloss over the contextual theme of First Corinthians 7:12-16 to focus on those verses as support for infant baptism, and for the New Covenant membership of the children of believers. Orthodox Presbyterian Church scholar G. I. Williamson is typical:
As might be expected, then, the evidence that children were baptized in the early New Testament Church is circumstantial. We will here give a mere sample of this kind of evidence. In 1 Corinthians 7:14 Paul says that children born to marriages in which at least one parent is a Christian are holy. The word translated holy is the standard word in the New Testament for professing adult Christians (often translated saints). Paul calls these infants saints.[1]
An Unsupportable Assertion
The Greek text does not support this assertion. The word hagia, here translated "holy," is the adjective form of hagios, meaning "set apart." It is used elsewhere as the modifier for "holy prophets," a "holy covenant," "the holy Scriptures," "a holy kiss," and so on. Hagia is not, as Williamson asserts, the standard New Testament word for "saints." It is true that hagios in its noun form, either preceded by a definite article or used as a direct object, is typically translated "saints." But the assertion that "Paul calls these infants saints" is totally unsupported by the Greek text. Even in this era of myriad versions and translations, the Christian will not find even one English Bible that translates hagia to describe the children of 1 Corinthians 7:14 as "saints."
Also, Williamson and others seem to ignore the fact that Paul also calls the unbelieving spouse in this passage "sanctified" (hegiastai, a form of hagiazo, a word related to the forms above, and also meaning "set apart"). If Williamson and others insist that unbelieving children are entitled to baptism because they are hagia, why is the unbelieving spouse not entitled to baptism because he or she is hegiastai? The obvious answer is because the spouse is an unbeliever, and therefore is not a member of the New Covenant unless he or she comes to saving faith. To classify the unbelieving spouse and the unbelieving children differently is both grammatically and contextually inexcusable.
Why the Question at Corinth?
We also must keep in mind why the essential questions - whether a believing spouse should remain married to an unbeliever, and the status of the children of a mixed marriage - would have arisen at Corinth in the first place. The Corinthian believers would have been using the Old Testament (and such portions of the New as might have been available at the time) as their authority for faith and life. This question would arise: Now that they had believed on Christ, should they follow the pattern of the Jewish remnant in Ezra chapter 10, by divorcing their pagan spouses and separating themselves from their mixed-marriage children?
Paul is instructing them not to do so. He is telling them that under the New Covenant believers should stay with unbelieving spouses, and that both the unbelieving spouse and the children of the mixed marriage are in a special set-apart relationship in the eyes of God.
It is especially significant, in this connection, that Paul says the children are not "unclean" (akatharta). Here he uses the Greek equivalent of the term that would have described such children under the Old Covenant, along with the contrasting words, "otherwise [they would be]...but now [i.e., under the New Covenant, they are not]."
Considering the context, the Old Testament teaching on the same subject, and the Greek language and syntax of the Corinthian text, the set-apartness of the children could refer to one of two things. It could refer to the legitimacy of the children within what Paul declares to be a legitimate marriage under the New Covenant, whereas under the Mosaic Law both the marriage and the children would have been considered illegitimate. Or, it could refer to the privileges of the influence of the Word and the Gospel within the home upon the children of such a marriage, because of the presence of a believing parent in the household. Actually, both things could be in view.
And once again, the passage says absolutely nothing about infant baptism or visible church membership. Those issues are not even in the background, much less at the forefront, in Paul's discussion. However, New Covenant, invisible church membership is clearly in view, as evinced by the contrast between believer and unbeliever in the marriage. This brings us full-circle to our earlier discussion of Acts 2:38-41 and other passages: Scripture defines one and only one qualification for New Covenant membership - saving faith in Jesus Christ, through the effectual calling of God and regeneration by the Holy Spirit.
In summary: The Corinthian passage provides no support for paedobaptism or for New Covenant membership of believers' children based on their parental connection. In fact, 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 speaks in the opposite direction.
References:
1. G. I. Williamson, The Shorter Catechism, Volume 2, Questions 39-107 (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1975), 103. Emphasis added.
Next: Four Conclusions
sac0203-7
Copyright 1998-2025
All rights reserved. This article may be reproduced in its entirety only,
for non-commercial purposes, provided that this copyright notice is included.
We also suggest that you include a direct hyperlink to this article
for the convenience of your readers.