I CORINTHIANS 7:14 

A Proposed Translation  
With Criticism of Traditional Translations

 Stephen M. Reynolds, Ph. D.

"For the unbelieving man has been made a legitimate husband through the (believing) wife, and the unbelieving woman has been made a legitimate wife through the believing husband. Otherwise your children would be illegitimate, but as it is they are legitimate." 

The original (with a variant) is:
h`gi,astai ga.r o` avnh.r o` a;pistoj evn th/| gunaiki,( kai. h`gi,astai h` gunh. h` a;pistoj evn tw/| avdelfw/  @ or avndri. or avndri tw/ pisto/ #\ evpei. a;ra ta. te,kna u`mw/n avka,qarta, evsti( nu/n de. a[gia, evstinÅ 

As for the variant readings, a large number of manuscripts have the word avdelfw/ and a large number have the word avndri, and a few have avndri tw/ pisto but the ones that have avdelfw are judged by critical scholars to be the best, that is the most likely to be the original. Nevertheless because "through the brother" does not seem to be as acceptable as "through the husband" most versions render the expression "through the husband," or "through the believing husband." 

As the criticism of the traditional versions is not directed at this point, but at the translation of h`gi,astai, a[gia, and avka,qarta,, a typical example of the traditional translation—that of the King James Version—is given as follows: "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." 

If the reading "through the brother" is accepted, this could mean that Paul was in this way saying that a man who has an unbelieving wife is still a brother and has all the rights and privileges of any Christian brother. Some Christians may have been inclined to put such a person in an inferior class from those who have believing wives. This would be a loving and gentle way of comforting anyone who had an unbelieving spouse. 

If the original was "through the husband" there would be less chance that anyone would think the brother was someone other than the woman's husband. After weighing both possibilities, the Foundation agrees with the majority of translators and decides in favor of "through the husband." 

Of far more importance is the decision as to how h`gi,astai, a[gia, and avka,qarta should be translated. For reasons set forth below the Foundation decides to translate h`gi,astai as "has been made legitimate", a[gia,  as “legitimate" and avka,qarta as “illegitimate." 

Experience has shown that the translation proposed has met with great opposition.  Some say they can't understand it, although it is plain enough. There are those who imply that it is only acceptable to those who deny that infants should be baptized, but this does not make sense. Paul wrote it to prove that a Christian ought not to divorce his unbelieving spouse by reason of the latter's unbelief. The status of the children of such a marriage was recognized as legitimate and this was good for reasons apart from any question of baptism 

As opposition to the view presented has been persistent over the centuries it must be resisted with vigor, at length and with great patience. An opponent of the nineteenth century was James Bannerman. He wrote: 'That the contrasted terms, `unclean' and `holy' are to be understood in the Old Testament sense of not to set apart and to set apart to the service and fellowship of God., seems to be undoubted. And the assertion of the Apostle is, that one of the parents being a believer, although the other is not, avails, so that the infants are to be accounted clean, or fit for the service of God and the fellowship of His Church. The holiness of one parent that is a member of the Christian Church, communicates a relative holiness to the infant, so that the child also is fitted to be a member of the Church, and to be baptized. The forced and unnatural interpretation put upon this passage by the Antipaedobaptists cannot stand a moment's investigation. They interpret the `cleanness' of the infant to be the legitimacy of the infant—a construction plainly forbidden by the consideration that marriages are lawful, and the children legitimate, whether the parents be believers or unbelievers. In this passage, then we have a very express avowal of the principle of representation, proved to obtain in the case of circumcision under the Old Testament. The child is counted clean because the parent is clean; or to translate the phrase into ecclesiastical language, the child is entitled to Church membership because the parent is a Church member."¹ 

Bannerman takes it for granted that the “marriages are lawful” whether the parents are believers or unbelievers." Before Paul under divine inspiration wrote this chapter Christians were unsure and some were inclined to put away their unbelieving spouses who wished the marriage to be preserved. Perhaps these Christians wished to divorce them or have a church court annul the marriage. In any case Bannerman makes a serious error in assuming the Christians were required to consider the marriages lawful for Christians until Paul in this chapter, speaking for God, declares them to be so. 

The first sentence of the quotation from Bannerman is very wrong because he ignores the fact that Paul writes that the unbelieving husband of a believing wife and the unbelieving wife of a believing husband have received a status which Bannerman says, when applied to children, is that of being "set apart to the service or fellowship of God." All Christian theologians agree that an unbeliever, whether married to a believer or not, has not been "set apart to the service or fellowship with God." Since this is true of the unbelieving spouse of a believer it follows that this passage does not teach that the children of such a marriage have received such a status, since a word from the same root is applied to them. 

John Calvin, who of course was a very great theologian, must be opposed in his exposition of this text. He wrote: "Some grammarians explain this passage as referring to a civil sanctity, in respect of the children being reckoned legitimate, but in this respect the condition of the unbelievers is in no degree worse. That exposition, therefore cannot stand. Besides, it is certain that Paul designed here to remove scruples of conscience lest any one should think (as I have said) that he had contracted defilement. The passage, then, is a remarkable one, and drawn from the depths of theology; for it teaches that the children of the pious are set apart from others by a sort of exclusive privilege, so as to be reckoned holy in the Church."` 

We do not agree with the "grammarians" Calvin opposed, but what Calvin wrote cannot be accepted. We do not suppose that this passage refers to "civil sanctity." that is to legitimacy in the eyes of the state, but to the legitimacy of the marriage of a believer with an unbeliever in the sight of God. This marriage is not to be dissolved by the decision of the believing member of the union. A word from the same root is applied to the unbelieving partner in such a marriage as to the children born to it. There is no reason to suppose their relation to God is different. Neither has a passport to heaven. They are legitimate spouses and legitimate children and are not to be repudiated. A Christian may not divorce his spouse because he or she is not a believer, nor can he disown a child born to his union in marriage with an unbeliever merely because this child has one unbelieving parent. 

It is not clear what Calvin meant by writing that "in this respect the condition of unbelievers is in no degree worse," and whatever he meant why the conclusion he derives from it is sound. 

It is certain from the context that the purpose of this passage was to uphold the stability of marriages which some Christians were inclined to believe might be proper to dissolve. The status of children as members of the Church is not in view here. If it were to be taken as the proof of the validity of infant baptism it could also be regarded as the ground for baptizing the unbelieving spouses of believers. As this is unthinkable, it is also unthinkable to use this passage as the ground for infant baptism. It is hoped that believers in infant baptism (paedobaptists) will see this and not use it as a proof-text for their doctrine. Some paedobaptists over the centuries have discerned this and without abandoning infant baptism have seen that Paul is speaking in this passage of the stability of the marriages in question and of the secure position of children born to such marriages. They base their belief in infant baptism on other considerations. 

The problem may be resolved if all Christians will take II Timothy 2:15 very seriously and divide the meaning of a[gia,zw in this context from its meaning in other contexts. If we translate h`gi,astai, as "is sanctified" and a[gia as "holy." and then turn to the Westminster Larger Catechism's definition of sanctification we have a problem This definition is: "Sanctification is a work of God's grace, whereby they whom God hath, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in time. through the powerful operation of his Spirit, applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them renewed in their whole man after the image of God; having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts, and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened, as that they more and more die unto sin and rise unto newness of life." 

It is certain that no unbelieving person has received this grace as here defined or as otherwise defined by any scripturally sound definition. It is certain that not every child of one or two believing parents has received this grace. Therefore the words "is sanctified"" and "holy" as well as "unclean" in I Corinthians 7:14 should be removed and words substituted that make the passage conform to the rest of Scripture. The proper words are "has been made legitimate," "legitimate." and "illegitimate" as indicated in the proposed translation in the beginning of this article. 

It follows that every passage where the King James Version or other versions use the word "sanctified" should be examined to see if translators have "rightly divided the word of truth." 

There are powerful philological arguments in support of the teaching that Paul was using one translation of the Aramaic word meaning both to sanctify and to make legitimate a wife or child previously regarded as illegitimate in Jewish law. It is not strange that Paul should do so because he was trained in Jewish law and custom As the young church was in many respects similar to the synagogue, Paul and the Christians of Corinth would find the terminology of the Synagogue more appropriate than the use of a term derived from pagan civil law. The first century church of Corinth no doubt had members converted from Judaism. In fact, it is believed by many that Sosthenes, who had been ruler of the synagogue became a Christian and was associated with Paul as a brother Christian in the salutation to the Corinthians ( I Cor. l:1). The argument for the Aramaic origin of Paul's use of this word was set forth long ago by the learned John Gill in An Exposition of the Christian Faith, vol. 2, pp. 668-9. Gill has never been refuted. 

Paul K. Jewett in Infant Baptism (c. 1960) has added a new and powerful philological argument to those set forth by Gill. 

1.  James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, Banner of Truth Trust, vol. 2, pp. 90-91.

2. Calvin in his commentary on I Corinthians 7:14