Sexual Transmission of Holiness?

[RedFan]

In 1 Cor. 7:14 we find Paul’s comment, made in the mixed-marriage context, that an unbelieving partner is made holy by his or her believing partner, and that the children of the union are likewise holy. Is holiness somehow sexually transmitted, and genetically passed on to the next generation?

On its face, this notion of communicable holiness runs contrary to Paul's teaching elsewhere of individual justification by faith. (Perhaps it is coincidental, but only in this letter do we encounter vicarious baptism on behalf of the dead, 1 Cor. 15:29 – which is the very antithesis of individual justification by faith.) But it is the flip side of the view that unholiness is genetically transmitted -- the sin of Adam is passed on to his descendants in the same way as holiness is passed on from the believing spouse to his/her children.

Where does this leave us? “Unless a man be born again . . .” or marry someone who has? It is almost impossible to conclude that the answer is to be found in v. 16, which suggests the possibility that the believer might save the unbeliever. Use of the perfect indicative in v. 14 and of the future indicative in v. 16 excludes that gloss.

 

[lforrest]

Nope.

It is by serving one another, and caring for one's children that they learn of the love of God. Which leads them to Jesus.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Nope.

It is by serving one another, and caring for one's children that they learn of the love of God. Which leads them to Jesus.

good post.
Makes me think of
1 Peter 3:1-2 Likewise, you wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
I still don’t know what it means “be in subjection” or what “conversation” it means wives should have. But I love your reply to the OP.

 

[GISMYS_7]

ROFL!!! Get real!!!
Sexual Transmission of Holiness?==ROFL!!! Get real!!!

 

[lforrest]

good post.
Makes me think of
1 Peter 3:1-2 Likewise, you wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
I still don’t know what it means “be in subjection” or what “conversation” it means wives should have. But I love your reply to the OP.

Subjection here I take to mean a wife differing to her husband's authority.
Conversation could be polite conversation, and insistence. Or it could be by demonstration of keeping her new-found beliefs in front of her husband.

 

[Aunty Jane]

In 1 Cor. 7:14 we find Paul’s comment, made in the mixed-marriage context, that an unbelieving partner is made holy by his or her believing partner, and that the children of the union are likewise holy. Is holiness somehow sexually transmitted, and genetically passed on to the next generation?

“Holiness sexually transmitted”? Seriously?

The apostle Paul urged married Christians not to leave their mates. (1 Corinthians 7:10-16) In view of Paul’s words, if an unbelieving mate chooses to remain with his Christian marriage partner, the believer should try to help him spiritually. (1Peter 3:1-4) The partner’s conversion would do much to make the home a place of rest and peace. Yet, if the unbeliever objects to the faith of his believing mate so strongly that he chooses to separate, what can the Christian do? If the believer tried to force him or her to stay, the unbeliever might make the situation so disagreeable that the Christian would be totally robbed of peace. So in the interests of peace, the believer can let the unbeliever depart. (Matthew 5:9)

Only when an unbelieving marriage partner leaves can it be said: “God has called you to peace.” These words cannot rightly be used to justify separation of two Christian mates on unscriptural or frivolous grounds.” God hates divorce. (Malachi 2:16) Marriage is a lifelong commitment.

On its face, this notion of communicable holiness runs contrary to Paul's teaching elsewhere of individual justification by faith. (Perhaps it is coincidental, but only in this letter do we encounter vicarious baptism on behalf of the dead, 1 Cor. 15:29 – which is the very antithesis of individual justification by faith.) But it is the flip side of the view that unholiness is genetically transmitted -- the sin of Adam is passed on to his descendants in the same way as holiness is passed on from the believing spouse to his/her children.

Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all we have to understand what 1 Corinthians 15:29 actually means....this is not a “vicarious baptism on behalf of the dead”, because there is no such provision in scripture. Baptism has to be undertaken by the living, of their own free will....not the dead. This is not some “proxy” arrangement. What Paul alludes to here is baptism into Christ’s death, which is what all of God’s elect undergo.....to live as Christ did and to die as he did.....being assured of a heavenly resurrection.....but that is only for the elect. (Romans 6:3-5)

Where does this leave us? “Unless a man be born again . . .” or marry someone who has? It is almost impossible to conclude that the answer is to be found in v. 16, which suggests the possibility that the believer might save the unbeliever. Use of the perfect indicative in v. 14 and of the future indicative in v. 16 excludes that gloss.

The believer may, just by their Christian conduct, win their mate over to the truth of God’s word. It means no more than that. It is still the choice of the unbelieving mate to make that decision. The spiritual standing of their children rests with the believing parent. The sanctification of the unbeliever is to facilitate that standing, until the children are of age to make their own choices, which is then up to them. No one is born a Christian.

 

[Lambano]

I still don’t know what it means “be in subjection” or what “conversation” it means wives should have. But I love your reply to the OP.

Subjection here I take to mean a wife deferring to her husband's authority.
Conversation could be polite conversation, and insistence. Or it could be by demonstration of keeping her new-found beliefs in front of her husband.

"Conversation" is a horrible artifact of King James's English.

The word in used in 1 Peter 3:1-2 is ἀναστροφή ("anastrophe"). It means:

1. manner of life, conduct, behavior, deportment

The adjective ἁγνός ("hagnos") comes from the same root as the word for "holy" and it means "reverent, pure". So he's talking about the wife's holy behavior.

This is why I usually prefer modern translations.

 

[Lambano]

ROFL!!! Get real!!!
Sexual Transmission of Holiness?==ROFL!!! Get real!!!

“Holiness sexually transmitted”? Seriously?

While I find RedFan's choice of words amusing (if intentionally inflammatory), I have also been a bit baffled by 1 Corinthians 7:14's assertion that the believing spouse ἡγίασται ("hegiastai"), "has sanctified, has made holy" (past-perfect tense) the unbelieving spouse.

ἁγιάζω ("hagiazo"):

1. to render or acknowledge, or to be venerable or hallow
   
   
2. to separate from profane things and dedicate to God
   
   1. consecrate things to God
      
      
   2. dedicate people to God
      
3. to purify
   
   1. to cleanse externally
      
      
   2. to purify by expiation: free from the guilt of sin
      
      
   3. to purify internally by renewing of the soul
      

I have a Mormon aunt and uncle, and my understanding is that family ties are hugely important in Morman theology. See Genealogy is important to Mormons because they believe in eternal families (churchofjesuschrist.org). A Latter-Day Saint I ain't, but I have to wonder if 1 Corinthians 7:14 might actually provide Biblical support to this view.

 

[RedFan]

While I find RedFan's choice of words amusing (if intentionally inflammatory), I have also been a bit baffled by 1 Corinthians 7:14's assertion that the believing spouse ἡγίασται ("hegiastai"), "has sanctified, has made holy" (past-perfect tense) the unbelieving spouse.

And let's look at the juxtaposition Paul uses in 1 Cor. 7:14 ("otherwise your children would be unclean"). Here he uses akatharta – generally translated “unclean” – rather than hamartoloi (a la Rom. 5:19), generally translated "sinful." The word appears only two other times in Paul’s writings, 2 Cor. 6:17 where he admonishes believers not to touch anything akathartou and Eph. 5:5 where he declares that the akathartos will have no inheritance in the kingdom.

Sexual contact is a subset of physical contact. The transmission of holiness by physical contact is much less discussed in the OT than the transmission of uncleanliness by physical contact, but both can be found there. Ex. 29:37 mentions the holiness contagion of the altar; Ex. 30:29 of anointing oil; Lev. 6:27 of the flesh of the sin offering. Ezek. 44:19 suggests possible holiness contagion from a garment. I would not go so far as to include the laying on of hands (Num. 27:23) or the removal of sandals when treading on holy ground (Ex. 3:5) as examples, but the point is arguable.

None of this proves a parallel between the physical transmission of holiness and uncleanliness in Paul’s mind, much less of holiness and sinfulness. But it is food for thought. If sanctification by contact with the holy is merely the flip side of defilement by contact with the unclean, then 1 Cor. 7:14 starts to take on a different sense. And it need not be a sexual matter at all. Still, I suspect that the sexual aspect is foremost for Paul here. Mere physical contact between spouses of an asexual sort would do nothing to separate marriage from general friendships and interpersonal relations, and marriage (in particular, marriage so as not to be consumed by lustful desire) is clearly the context here.

 

[RedFan]

First of all we have to understand what 1 Corinthians 15:29 actually means....this is not a “vicarious baptism on behalf of the dead”, because there is no such provision in scripture. Baptism has to be undertaken by the living, of their own free will....not the dead. This is not some “proxy” arrangement. What Paul alludes to here is baptism into Christ’s death, which is what all of God’s elect undergo.....to live as Christ did and to die as he did.....being assured of a heavenly resurrection.....but that is only for the elect. (Romans 6:3-5).

The Corinthian practice of being baptized on behalf of the departed was neither condoned nor condemned by Paul -- only mentioned by him as a point of argument ("how can you deny bodily resurrection when you yourselves do this baptism-on-behalf-of-the-dead thing, which would be pointless if bodily resurrection were impossible?").

I can't conclude, as you do Aunty, that "this is not a 'vicarious baptism on behalf of the dead', because there is no such provision in scripture." No doubt it offends your theology. (It offends mine too, not because it isn't mentioned elsewhere in Scripture but because it is inconsistent with what IS mentioned elsewhere in Scripture). But it does not follow that because none of the later-written gospels or letters in the NT mentions the practice, it wasn't being used in Corinth for its hoped-for vicarious effect. Paul must have thought they were trying to use it that way, for otherwise he could not make the argument he did, an argument which would be nonsensical if the Corinthians were attaching any other meaning to the practice.

But I am curious to know why you think the Corinthians engaged in the practice.

 

[Taken]

In 1 Cor. 7:14 we find Paul’s comment, made in the mixed-marriage context, that an unbelieving partner is made holy by his or her believing partner, and that the children of the union are likewise holy. Is holiness somehow sexually transmitted, and genetically passed on to the next generation?

On its face, this notion of communicable holiness runs contrary to Paul's teaching elsewhere of individual justification by faith. (Perhaps it is coincidental, but only in this letter do we encounter vicarious baptism on behalf of the dead, 1 Cor. 15:29 – which is the very antithesis of individual justification by faith.) But it is the flip side of the view that unholiness is genetically transmitted -- the sin of Adam is passed on to his descendants in the same way as holiness is passed on from the believing spouse to his/her children.

Where does this leave us? “Unless a man be born again . . .” or marry someone who has? It is almost impossible to conclude that the answer is to be found in v. 16, which suggests the possibility that the believer might save the unbeliever. Use of the perfect indicative in v. 14 and of the future indicative in v. 16 excludes that gloss.

Every Text IN Context, has a Caveat, an “IF”...”THEN”.

1 Cor 15 Continues the “IF” conditions, IN Context.
Paul continues with the “IF” conditions, IN Context.

The CONTEXT continued IS first found in 1 Cor 11:3
1 Cor 11:
[3] But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

A man and A woman JOINED in MARRIAGE ARE “ONE”.
The man or The woman JOINED with Christ IS suitable for JOINING with Christ, the ajoined man AND woman...

IOW - matters not IF it be the wife or the husband (who themselves ARE ONE) - submitting individually unto the Lord God - that individual by default HAS submitted BOTH, (husband and wife, who are ONE), unto the Lord God.

The Condition IS...THEY BE, “husband and wife”, and “remain” husband and wife. As long as they BE and REMAIN Husband and Wife and ONE submits unto God, THEY AS “ONE” are both WITH God and God WITH them.


1 Cor 15:
[12] But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
[13] And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
[14] 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 they no longer BE “husband and wife”, they no longer BE “Joined”, they no longer BE “one”. One no longer “speaks for them”.

 

[Lambano]

None of this proves a parallel between the physical transmission of holiness and uncleanliness in Paul’s mind, much less of holiness and sinfulness. But it is food for thought. If sanctification by contact with the holy is merely the flip side of defilement by contact with the unclean, then 1 Cor. 7:14 starts to take on a different sense.

You may be on to something there. Then "has sanctified" takes on meaning 3.1, "cleansed (ceremonially)", rather than 3.2, "Freed from the guilt of Sin". Then, what is significance of the children of such a union being "holy"?

[Postscript: What also is the meaning and significance of 1 Corinthians 7:16? 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?]

Certainly the Jewish people of the Second Temple era believed in the contact transmission of "uncleanness"; it's built into the Levitical system, and it's one of the reasons they did not associate with Gentiles and Samaritans (Acts of the Apostles 10:28, John 4:9). Yet it would surprise me that Paul still thought that way when he wrote 1 Corinthians. Paul would later write in Romans 14:14:

I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

and in Colossians 2:20-22:

If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?

 

[RedFan]

IOW - matters not IF it be the wife or the husband (who themselves ARE ONE) - submitting individually unto the Lord God - that individual by default HAS submitted BOTH, (husband and wife, who are ONE), unto the Lord God.

The Condition IS...THEY BE, “husband and wife”, and “remain” husband and wife. As long as they BE and REMAIN Husband and Wife and ONE submits unto God, THEY AS “ONE” are both WITH God and God WITH them.

Point taken. But the question remains whether the unbelieving spouse, while ONE with the believing spouse, is somehow saved despite his/her nonbelief.

The argument that

x is holy;
x is one with y; therefore
y is holy

will be valid if “one with” is understood such that the amalgam is homogeneous. Add some food coloring to a lump of dough, knead it in thoroughly, and voila, we have colored dough. Marry a holy spouse to an unholy one, let the two become one flesh, and voila, we have a holy couple capable of producing holy kids.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

"Conversation" is a horrible artifact of King James's English.

thank you for pointing that out. Usually I look the verse up in the lexicon but it was late last night. Strong's Greek: 391. ἀναστροφή (anastrophé) -- behavior, conduct

so I do get what you mean by translations. But I still prefer conversation because it has helped me in the past get some clarity. It seems to say by conversation that it is not what one talks about in a “conversation” but a “manner of life” being put off the old man and his manner of corruption whose end is death and not Life.Ephesians 4:23-32 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; [24] And that you put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. [26] Be you angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: [27] Neither give place to the devil. [28] Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth. [29] Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. [30] And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. [31] Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: [32] And be you kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

Ephesians 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Ephesians 4:22 That you put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

1 Peter 1:18-19 Forasmuch as you know that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation (manner of life?) received by tradition from your fathers; [19] But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

Philippians 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

2 Timothy 3:2-10 speaks of “manner of life”

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

to me the above links to the OP and the question of is holiness sexually transmitted or “that it may minister Grace unto the hearers”
The verse that says “unto Christ be formed in you” is Christ being formed in you sexually transmitted?


Conversation
Communication
Unto Hearers
minster
Seems to suggests what?

 

[Ferris Bueller]

In 1 Cor. 7:14 we find Paul’s comment, made in the mixed-marriage context, that an unbelieving partner is made holy by his or her believing partner, and that the children of the union are likewise holy. Is holiness somehow sexually transmitted, and genetically passed on to the next generation?

No.
What he's saying is the believer's contact with their unbelieving spouse is sanctified (made clean) by virtue of the believers marital relationship with that unbeliever.

We don't understand this passage for two reasons: 1) We instantly think 'sanctified' means saved. It does not. It's most fundamental meaning is 'to be set apart as clean'. Like how common everyday articles were cleansed and set apart for use by the priesthood in their service to God in the Temple. And 2) the church of today has thoroughly dismissed the Bible's counsel to not have inappropriate relationships with unbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14-18). The exception being, according to Paul, the believer who was already married to an 'unclean' unbeliever when they were saved who they normally would not be allowed to have fellowship with.

So, truthfully, in the context of how you're looking at it, it has much more to do with what the unclean, unbelieving spouse is transmitting to the believing mate. The believing spouse is not made unclean and unfit for fellowship with God by being married to an unbeliever. God allows and sanctifies the unbeliever in that case. Though Paul makes it clear that a believer is not to enter into such a relationship on purpose after they are saved.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

You may be on to something there. Then "has sanctified" takes on meaning 3.1, "cleansed (ceremonially)", rather than 3.2, "Freed from the guilt of Sin". Then, what is significance of the children of such a union being "holy"?

The reference escapes me at the moment, but Paul is making reference to something in the law.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Certainly the Jewish people of the Second Temple era believed in the contact transmission of "uncleanness"; it's built into the Levitical system, and it's one of the reasons they did not associate with Gentiles and Samaritans (Acts of the Apostles 10:28, John 4:9). Yet it would surprise me that Paul still thought that way when he wrote 1 Corinthians.

But he did:

14Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership can righteousness have with wickedness? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness? 15What harmony is there between Christ and Belial?c Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16What agreement can exist between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

“I will dwell with them

and walk among them,

and I will be their God,

and they will be My people.”d17“Therefore come out from among them

and be separate, says the Lord.

Touch no unclean thing,

and I will receive you.”e

18And:

“I will be a Father to you,

and you will be My sons and daughters,

says the Lord Almighty.”f

2 Corinthians 6:14-18
​

As soon as a person gets saved they are no longer among the unclean people that you are to be unequally yoked with (in business, marriage, etc.). The exception being the unsaved spouse you are already married to.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Yet it would surprise me that Paul still thought that way when he wrote 1 Corinthians. Paul would later write in Romans 14:14:

I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

and in Colossians 2:20-22:

If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?

Romans 14 is in regard to legitimately disputable matters. Colossians 2 is in regard to the illustrations of the law that, in and of themselves, have no capacity to be clean or unclean, spiritually speaking. People most certainly do!

 

[Lambano]

But he did:

Indeed. Paul's thinking may have changed between 1 Corinthians and Romans/Colossians.

In any case, Jesus said nothing outside a man can make him unclean; it's what's inside us that makes us unclean:

And He said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding as well? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the person from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and goes out into the latrine?” (Thereby He declared all foods clean.) And He was saying, “That which comes out of the person, that is what defiles the person. For from within, out of the hearts of people, come the evil thoughts, acts of sexual immorality, thefts, murders, acts of adultery, deeds of greed, wickedness, deceit, indecent behavior, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile the person.”