Thomas Schreiner, Author at Refcast

Should We Baptize Holy Infants? The Meaning of a Puzzling Passage

By Thomas Schreiner — 4 months ago

One of the more difficult and controversial verses in the Bible is 1 Corinthians 7:14: “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy” (NASB 1995). Christians disagree about the implications of this verse for baptizing infant children. But before we enter that discussion, a word should be said about the context and the wider point of the paragraph.

Contagious Holiness

In 1 Corinthians 7:12–16, Paul addresses the question of mixed marriages, marriages in which one spouse is a believer and the other is an unbeliever. If we look at 1 Corinthians 7 as a whole, we see that matters of purity pressed upon the consciences of the Corinthian believers. Because of this, some of them naturally wondered if they should stay in a marriage with an unbeliever. Should a believer remain married to someone who belongs to Satan rather than God, who lives in darkness instead of light, who worships idols instead of the true and living God? Would it not stain believers to have a sexual relationship with someone who hates the Lord Jesus?

Paul’s answer is astonishing. We expect, based on the Old Testament, that he would say the believer would be defiled and stained by such a relationship with an unbeliever. Instead, Paul turns the argument in the opposite direction. The believing spouse isn’t defiled by the unbelieving partner. Quite the opposite! The unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believer. And it doesn’t stop there: the children are holy as well.

We are reminded of Jesus’s relationship with what is unclean. We know from the Old Testament that touching a leper made someone unclean. Yet when Jesus touched the leper, he wasn’t rendered unclean. Instead, cleanness radiated from Jesus, and by healing the leper, Jesus cleansed him. We see something similar in 1 Corinthians 7. The holiness of the believing spouse transfers, at least to some extent, to the unbelieving spouse and to the children of their union.

Sanctified, Not Saved

A question immediately arises, however: What does it mean for an unbelieving spouse and the children of mixed marriages to be holy? Does it mean they are saved by virtue of their relationship with a believing spouse or a believing parent? If unbelieving spouses are sanctified, and the children of such unions are made holy, then it would make sense, on one level, to say they are saved. On the other hand, we know from Scripture’s teaching about salvation that people are not saved by mere association with believers. The Bible teaches plainly and pervasively that we are saved by personal faith in Jesus Christ. We have no basis for thinking that anyone is saved because he or she is married to a believer or the child of a mixed marriage.

In fact, Paul confirms in this very context that the unbelieving spouse isn’t saved merely by being married to a believer. Paul writes, “For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?” (1 Corinthians 7:16). Scholars debate whether this verse is optimistic or pessimistic about the spouse’s potential salvation. I agree with the optimistic view since the main point of this passage is that believing spouses should not forsake marriage to an unbeliever, and thus, Paul gives a motivation to continue in the marriage. At the same time, optimism isn’t the same as a guarantee. Clearly, by being married to a believer, the unbelieving spouse has a greater opportunity for salvation. Still, the unbelieving spouse is not saved simply because he or she is married to a believer.

So, we return to our initial question: What does it mean for an unbelieving spouse to be “sanctified” through the believing spouse? It is hard to be certain! Perhaps all we can say with confidence is that the unbelieving spouse, by being placed in the realm of the holy, has a greater potential for salvation through the believing spouse.

What About Their Children?

You may be wondering by now if I have forgotten the original question of this article. However, the preceding discussion is necessary to understand what it means when Paul says that the children of mixed marriages are holy.

“If there is no reason to baptize unbelieving spouses, there is no reason to baptize unbelieving children.”

Our Presbyterian friends often appeal to this verse in defense of infant baptism. Of course, infant baptism warrants a wider discussion than simply this verse, and readers are encouraged to consult this article by John Piper and Steve Wellum’s chapter on the matter in the book Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ. Nevertheless, it is also important to consider this particular verse since the holiness posited of children here is often adduced as a defense for baptizing infants.

We see here that the children in a marriage are holy. Does this holiness justify baptism? There are no exegetical grounds in the context to think that it does. We noticed earlier that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified through the believing spouse. We also saw that the sanctification of the unbelieving spouse isn’t saving. Since the unbelieving spouse isn’t saved by means of the sanctification described here, there are no grounds for baptizing him or her. In the same way, the holiness of the children doesn’t qualify them for baptism.

Some may find significance in the fact that unbelieving spouses are “sanctified” and the children “holy.” But such an observation doesn’t carry much weight. The words “sanctified” and “holy” are in the same semantic range, and thus the word “holy” doesn’t signify that the children occupy a different realm than unbelieving spouses. To put it simply: if there is no reason to baptize unbelieving spouses, there is no reason to baptize unbelieving children.

In the Realm of the Holy

Paul is not suggesting or encouraging the baptism of infants or children who have not yet come to faith in Christ. Still, this text does offer encouragement for raising yet-to-believe children. They are in the realm of the holy. The presence of a believing parent gives one a greater hope that the child will turn to Christ for salvation. We don’t have a promise or guarantee of salvation, nor does Scripture give grounds for baptism before belief, but having a believing parent means that the child should be repeatedly exposed to the good news of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

Infants in a marriage between a believer and an unbeliever should not be baptized since baptism is reserved for those who believe. And yet, neither are such infants defiled and unclean, and in that we have hope.

Post Views: 127

Are Husbands and Wives Addressed in 1 Timothy 2:9–15?

By Thomas Schreiner — 10 months ago

When husbands and wives are intended, the context makes it clear, but there is nothing in the context of 1 Tim. 2:9–15 to indicate that husbands and wives are in view. Paul could have easily added words like “your wives” or “your husbands” to clarify that wives and husbands are intended, but we find nothing of the kind. The references to men and women in 1 Tim. 2:9–15 are quite general, which is why the majority of commentators agree that men and women are the subject of the admonition, not husbands and wives per se.

Editor’s Note: The following article is Part II of a response to Christianity Today’s April 2024 cover story on gender and appears in the Spring 2024 issue of Eikon. Parts I and III can be read here and here.
Gordon Hugenberger rightly reminds us in his essay in Christianity Today of the many areas where complementarians and egalitarians agree. In addition, we have all benefited from his excellent scholarship over the years. Still, I would dissent from his claim that 1 Tim. 2:9–15 speaks of the relationship between husbands and wives instead of men and women generally. If we accept Hugenberger’s interpretation, the text doesn’t prohibit women from serving as pastors or from preaching the word when the church gathers for worship. Still, his reading of the text is quite unconvincing. There are decisive reasons for thinking that Paul speaks of men and women generally, not husbands and wives specifically, in 1 Tim. 2:9–15.
Hugenberger’s reading is flawed because the context in 1 Timothy 2 is clearly public worship, not the individual relationship between husbands and wives. When we read 1 Timothy as a whole, the focus in the letter is the public assembly of the church, the right teaching of the word and the refutation of false teachers. Paul often speaks of teaching in the letter, and it invariably refers to what occurs when the church gathers together (1 Tim. 1:3, 10; 4:1, 6, 11, 13, 16; 5:17; 6:1, 2, 3). A quick look at the letter verifies that we have a public setting. False teachers are threatening the church (e.g., 1 Tim. 1:3–7), and Timothy is charged to resist their influence (e.g., 1 Tim. 1:18–20), by proclaiming the gospel (1 Tim. 1:12–17; 2:3–7). First Timothy 2:8–15 is followed by a command to appoint overseers and deacons in the church (1 Tim. 3:1–13), and both are offices that relate to public ministry in the church. The Pauline instructions are designed to make the church a bulwark against the false teaching (1 Tim. 3:14–15). Paul immediately returns to the threat of false teaching and the need to resist it (1 Tim. 4). The role of elders is addressed again in 1 Tim. 5:17–25, and the letter ends as Paul emphasizes the importance of resisting false teaching and pursuing what is good and right and true (1 Timothy 6). The idea, then, that Paul addresses husbands and wives in chapter 2 doesn’t fit the aim and purpose of the letter. Hugenberger individualizes and privatizes a text that addresses the church which is gathered for worship and instruction.
Hugenberger claims that the terms used for men and women in the New Testament typically refer to husbands and wives, and thus, in his judgment the same is true in 1 Tim. 2:9–15. That sounds like an impressive argument, but when we examine the matter more closely Hugenberger’s reading fails.
Read More
Related Posts:

Post Views: 200

3 Things You Should Know about Galatians

By Thomas Schreiner — 1 year ago

If righteousness could be obtained through the law, then Christ died for nothing (Gal. 2:21). Righteousness could never come through human obedience since God demands perfect obedience, and a curse impinges on all who fail to do everything God commands (Gal. 3:10). The curse is only removed through the death of Jesus who took the curse for us when He was hung on a tree (Gal. 3:13). Galatians, then, stands out as the first letter that declares that believers are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone.

1. Galatians Defends Paul’s Gospel as Being from Christ
Some readers may not know that Paul’s Apostolic legitimacy was attacked by opponents in Galatia. They claimed that Paul was not truly an Apostle. After all, he wasn’t a follower of Jesus during His earthly ministry. Furthermore, they asserted that Paul’s gospel contradicted the gospel taught in Jerusalem by Peter, John, and James. In other words, the agitators said that Paul’s gospel was dependent on the Jerusalem Apostles, but there’s more: they also accused Paul of distorting the gospel taught by the Apostles in Jerusalem.
In the first two chapters, therefore, Paul defends the legitimacy of his gospel. He emphasizes that the gospel he proclaimed was revealed to him supernaturally on the road to Damascus by Jesus Christ Himself. Paul’s gospel can’t be ascribed to his own thinking but was given to him independently by Jesus. But that’s not all—when Paul traveled to Jerusalem fourteen years later, the Apostles Peter, James, and John ratified Paul’s gospel. They acknowledged that Paul’s gospel was the true gospel, the same gospel that they preached. In fact, Paul even reproved Peter when the latter compromised the gospel in Antioch (Gal. 2:11–14). In the first two chapters of Galatians, then, Paul shows that he received his gospel directly from Jesus and that he did not distort the message taught by the Jerusalem Apostles. They all taught the same gospel.
2. Galatians Teaches That We Are Justified through Faith, Not by Works
Galatians is the first letter in which Paul trumpets the truth that believers are justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. His opponents insisted that one must keep the law and be circumcised to obtain salvation (Gal. 5:2–4; 6:12–13; see also Gen. 17:9–14; Acts 15:1–5). What these adversaries did not understand was that the new covenant had dawned with the death and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Believers were no longer under the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant, including circumcision.
Read More
Related Posts: