Not so long ago Joe Barnard gave Five Reasons to Reconsider Infant Baptism. The first point he argued was that, ‘the Children of Believers Are “Holy”’. Here’s his reasoning in full.

Biblical writers never use the word ‘holy’ haphazardly. It is always used purposefully in order to indicate special things that belong to God and are welcome in His presence. This makes Paul’s use of the word in I Corinthians 7:14 particular noteworthy. His argument in this verse seems to be that, if one parent is a Christian, the children in the family are holy. In other words, they are set apart for God and belong to Him. They are His children, not our children. We need to ponder the significance of this.

Five Reasons to Reconsider Infant Baptism

Now Joe is reading this passage a little selectively because as Stephen Kneale says in his response, if they don’t baptise the unbelieving husband then they shouldn’t baptise the unbelieving child.

But the point I want to consider is Joe’s understanding and use of the word ‘holy’. I think if you look at what Paul means by saying an unbelieving husband of a believing wife is holy then I think we’ll see that there are different ideas at work.

Here’s Joe’s definition:

• Special things that belong to God and are welcome in His presence
• They are set apart for God and belong to Him

Here’s the relevant section of 1 Corinthians 7:

To the rest I say—I and not the Lord—that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. And 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 made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. It is to peace that God has called you. Wife, for all you know, you might save your husband. Husband, for all you know, you might save your wife.

New Revised Standard Version: 1 Corinthians 7:12–16.

The question that Paul is dealing with is, should a believer divorce an unbeliever because they are an unbeliever? Now why would that be a question? The issue it would seem is how much should believers & unbelievers mix, because unbelievers are unclean. The interesting thing here is that Paul is coming to a different conclusion to Ezra. Here’s the very last verse of the book of Ezra:

All these had married foreign women, and they sent them away with their children.

Ezra 10:44 NRSV

Ezra says they have sinned by marrying foreigners and they need to separate, so should the Corinthians follow the example of Ezra or not?

Paul clearly agrees with Ezra that a believer should not marry an unbeliever (2 Corinthians 6:14-18). Too many Christians today are willing to compromise here but I think Paul’s teaching is clear & consistent: don’t get things mixed up. But what principle applies if one partner comes to Christ and the other doesn’t, what if it is the Gospel that mixes them up, what then, should they separate? Paul says, not. Why?

This takes a little bit of unpacking to make sure we’re using the same categories that Paul is using, and I’ve found James Bejon really helpful here. I recommend reading his post. We tend to think of things being either holy or unholy. But Paul mentions another category, that of ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’. James argues that the Levitical world therefore had four categories of things or person, like this: Clean & common; unclean & common; clean & holy; unclean & holy

This is helpful because it would seem that for Paul the categories of ‘clean’ and ‘holy’ are operating separately from ‘saved’. For most Christians, we tend to think only that which is ‘saved’ is ‘holy’. Yet Paul says the unbelieving husband can be ‘holy’ (verse 14) but not yet saved (verse 16) and presumably that logic applies to the children too.

It is the same principle at work here as in Acts 10:28, Paul is saying we should not call them ‘unclean or profane’. James Bejon says,

For instance, people who worked on the Sabbath ‘made it common’ (KH-L-L)—a verb sometimes translated as ‘desecrated’ or ‘profaned’. That’s not to say they (objectively) desecrated the holiness of the Sabbath (which remained holy to the Lord). Rather, they treated the Sabbath like it was any other day (Exod. 31.14). Similarly, a woman who became a prostitute became ‘common’ (KH-L-L) (Lev. 19.29). She wasn’t ‘holy/dedicated’ (Q-D-SH) to a particular husband. Rather, she was treated (by sinful men) as if she was common property.

So in this context the believing partner must continue to treat both their partner and their children as ‘holy’, ie they must remain dedicated to them. They are holy in this sense not to God but to the believer by virtue of the marriage & family bond. But maintaining that bond regardless of faith is really important to God.

The gospel reverses the way clean & unclean works. Previously if something clean touched something unclean it became unclean but in Christ the opposite happens. Paul is reversing that here and saying that the one that is holy is making the unholy person ‘holy’ and therefore ‘clean’. They can be touched, they do not need separating from.

It is the Gospel at work that makes the difference between Ezra and Paul. And that is how an unbeliever can be called holy.