Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadWilliam Burkitt Notes and Observations - 1 Corinthians 7:12 - 7:12
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1. Here we have another case of conscience put by the Corinthians to the apostle; namely, whether such husbands as had heathen and infidel wives might put them away?
And whether such wives as had infidel husbands, might not, and ought not, to depart from them?
The apostle resolves the case, That they ought, according to the intent and end of marriage, to cohabit and dwell together: and he assigns the reason for it, because the unbelieving or infidel wife is sanctified to the believing or Christian husband.
How sanctified?
Not in her nature, but in her use; so that they might lawfully cohabit and converse together, being by marriage made one flesh with him or her that is holy.
"And for our children," says he, "they are not seminally unclean, like the children of Heathens, but federally holy."
How are they holy?
Not with an inherent, internal, personal holiness; for the holiest man's child is born in sin, and by nature a child of wrath; but with an external, relative, and federal holines. They are not common and unclean, like the children of infidels, but fit to be partakers of the privileges of the church, to be admitted into covenant with God, as belonging to his holy people: Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.
Observe, He doth not say, Else were your children bastards, but now are they legitimate, (as the enemies of infant baptism, those duri infantum patres, would make them speak:) but else were they unclean, that is, Heathen children not to be owned as a holy seed, and therefore not to be admitted into covenant with God as belonging to his holy people.
If by holiness here the apostle means a matrimonial holiness, as the Anabaptists dream, then, according to their interpretation of the word holy, the apostle speaks neither pertinently nor truly.
Not pertinently, 1. For then the answer had been nothing to the purpose. The case put was concerning husbands and wives, not concerning men and whores; and the question propounded by the Corinthians, was not, whether a believing husband, and an unbelieving wife, were lawful man and wife together? nobody questioned that: but, whether the Christian husband might put away his heathen, wife?
The apostle answers, he ought not, if she were willing to dwell with him, for she is sanctified to him; not sanctified in respect of her personal condition, but in respect of her conjugal relation, otherwise their children would be looked upon as unclean, like the children of heathens: but now are they holy, that is, to be accounted visible saints, and as such to be admitted to church-privileges.
2. According to this interpretation of the word holy, the apostle had not spoken truly: for the children of heathens born in lawful wedlock, are no more bastards than the children of Christians; for their parents' marriage frees them from the charge of illegitimacy as well as others.
Add to this, that in all the New Testament, though the word holy be used above five hundred times, yet in never once signifies legitimacy, but is always used for a state of separation to God.
Therefore, to make it signify so here, is a bold practising upon scripture a racking and wresting of the word of God, to maintain a private opinion, to make the text speak what they would have, and not what the apostle intends.
But the argument for infant baptism from this text runs thus: "If the holy seed among the Jews were therefore to be circumcised and made federally holy, by receiving the sign of the covenant, and being admitted into the number of God's holy people, because they were seminally holy; for the root being holy, the branches were also holy: then by like reason the holy seed of Christians ought to be admitted to baptism, and receive the sign of the Christian covenant, the laver of regeneration, and so be entered into the society of the Christian church."