What does it mean that a believing person makes their unbelieving spouse holy?

Explanation:

When Paul says that the unbelieving spouse is made holy by the believing partner, this aligns with the biblical tradition. In the Old Testament God established criteria that marked out when objects or people were set apart as holy. Once an object was set apart as holy, other objects could participate in the holiness of that object through association.⁵ For example, in Exodus 29:35–37 we read that Aaron and his sons were to consecrate the altar by anointing, purifying, and atoning for the altar for seven days. Once this process was complete, the altar was considered most holy, and whoever touched the altar would be made holy (Exodus 29:37). We find another example in Leviticus 6, where God explains that after grain offering is burnt on the altar for the Lord, Aaron and his sons were authorized to take some of the offering and eat it in a holy place (Leviticus 6:16). God concludes by explaining that whoever touches Aaron and his sons after they have eaten from the grain offering are made holy (Leviticus 6:18). Thus, because the altar and the priests are holy, whatever touches them is made holy by association.

Paul extends the notion of an object or person being made holy by association to Christian marriage.⁶ In other words, because a Christian is holy through faith in Jesus Christ, an unbelieving spouse is made holy by association.

Counterargument:

The woman is only a human being so it is hard to see how she could make her husband holy.⁷ We know from Hebrews that the Old Testament sacrificial system was only a matter of outward appearance and could never make anything truly holy (Hebrews 9:6–10). The only way to be made holy is to be sprinkled by the blood of Christ. This implies that unless the unbelieving spouse puts their faith in Christ, they are not really holy.

Response to counterargument:

This counterargument misunderstands the author of Hebrews. In that letter we learn that the blood of animals does make the flesh holy, but not the conscience. In Hebrews 9:13 the author writes, For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh… In other words, the blood of bulls and goats was able to purify the flesh. Of course, to be purified in the flesh is only an outward adornment, whereas the blood of Christ purifies the conscience from dead works to serve the living God (Hebrews 9:14). In other words, there is a difference between outward and inward purification. Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 7:14 is not that the spouse is inwardly purified, for that can only happen through faith in Christ. Rather, the spouse is outwardly holy, and therefore the believer can continue in the marriage in good conscience.

Explanation:

What does Paul mean when he says that an unbelieving spouse is made holy through their believing partner? 1 Corinthians 7:16 implies that this does not mean that the person is saved, so what is Paul trying to get at? The broader context of 1 Corinthians 7:7 gives us an answer.⁸ In 1 Corinthians 7:1 we learn that Paul is responding to a letter from the Corinthians. In all likelihood, they suggested in their letter that it is good for a man not to touch a woman. In other words, the Corinthians suggested that it is good to be celibate because sexual relations can have a defiling effect. Paul explains that married couples should not follow this line of thinking because sexual relations in marriage are part of the institution of marriage, and acceptable in God’s sight.

But what about people who are married to unbelievers? As Paul himself expressed in 1 Corinthians 6:16, a person who lies with a prostitute defiles himself because the two become one flesh.⁹ If a believer is defiled by a prostitute, is he not also defiled by an unbelieving spouse? Paul says no; rather, the unbeliever is made holy. So why is the person who unites with the prostitute defiled, while the person united to an unbeliever is not? Underlying Paul’s instruction is the fact that marriage is instituted by God. As long as the married couple accords with God’s design for marriage, the marriage is consecrated as holy, and the unbelieving spouse comes under the sphere of God’s holy influence in marriage.¹⁰ This does not mean that the unbeliever will believe in Jesus Christ and be saved, but it does mean that the marriage and the unbeliever are consecrated as holy in God’s sight.

Counterargument:

While it might be that the believer can make the unbeliever holy, Paul himself explains in 1 Corinthians 5:6–7 that a little bit of leaven leavens the whole lump. In other words, exposure to immorality can make something that is considered holy, unholy. This implies that the unbeliever might pollute the believer, just as well as the believer might make the unbeliever holy. Thus, Paul is not saying that the unbeliever is made holy through marriage, but that the believer might influence the unbeliever such that the unbeliever comes to repentance and believes.

Response to counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that when Paul says that the unbelieving husband is made holy, the verb ἁγιάζω (to sanctify) is in the perfect tense. The perfect tense is used to denote an action that occurred in the past that has ongoing effects in the present.¹¹ The use of the perfect tense rules out the notion that Paul has some future holiness in mind due to the influence of the believer. Rather, his point is that the unbeliever was made holy when the believer became a Christian. God instituted marriage and as long as the mixed couple continues to live out their vows in a way that aligns with God’s design for marriage, both parties are holy.

Explanation:

Why does Paul say that a believer makes his spouse holy? He wants to Corinthians to understand that if a believer and unbeliever are married, they should not divorce, because the unbeliever is holy in God’s sight. In other words, the marriage has God’s approval. How do we know that this is Paul’s meaning? Paul says that if it were not the case that the unbeliever is made holy, then the children of the married couple would not be holy. Since they are holy, the unbeliever must also be holy. While it might not be right away obvious, Paul has made an argument ad absurdum.¹² An argument ad absurdum is when you hypothetically deny the truth of something and see that such a denial leads to an absurd conclusion. Therefore, what was denied as true is in fact true. In this case, it must have been absurd to the Corinthians that the children of a believer were not considered holy, even if one of the spouses was an unbeliever. Since it is absurd to think that the children are not holy, both parents must be considered holy. Paul is helping the Corinthians see that, as the children of a mixed marriage are not expelled from the believing community, so the mixed marriage should not end in divorce.¹³

Counterargument:

Paul does not mean to say that the children are holy in the sense that they are sanctified, but that the mixed marriages should not divorce because if they stay together, the children are set apart for God’s influence. In the Greco-Roman context, children nearly always ended up with the father. If the father was an unbeliever, the child would no longer be under the influence of a believing parent. God wants the children to be set apart for godly influence, so Paul instructs the Corinthians who are in mixed marriages to stay together.¹⁴

Response to counterargument:

Of course, no one would deny that God wants the children to have the influence of godly parents. Still, Paul does not say that the children will become holy, but that they are holy. In Greek, he uses the clause νῦν δὲ ἅγιά ἐστιν (but as it is, they are holy). He puts the verb to be in the present active indicative, which indicates a present ongoing action. Thus, it is not that Paul hopes the children will be influenced by their believing parent so they will eventually be holy before God. Rather, they are already holy before God.

Possible weaknesses:

It is hard to see what the weakness of this view might be. We know from the Old Testament that objects could be holy by association. We also know that Paul does not say that the unbeliever is holy in the sense that they have placed their faith in Christ. The only difficulty is in determining exactly what it means to be holy. If the unbeliever is holy, does this mean that God looks favourably upon them in spite of their unbelief? Does it mean that God offers more of his special grace on the unbeliever? Unfortunately, this view does not attempt to answer these questions.

Explanation:

We want to understand why Paul would say that an unbeliever is made holy through his spouse. To see what he means, we need to see that holiness is a dynamic concept. We can see that holiness is a dynamic concept through the Levitical priesthood. One became a priest by being set apart for God. This being set apart is the dynamism of holiness. Similarly, holiness in 1 Corinthians 7:14 is not a static label but an openness to embracing possibilities. Paul’s point here is that by staying with the believer, the unbeliever puts himself in a position where he will be influenced by his believing spouse.¹⁵ The influence of the believing spouse is the dynamic process of holiness that the unbeliever endures. And to endure the dynamic process of holiness is to be called holy.

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that it overlooks the perfect tense of the verb to sanctify. When Paul says that the unbelieving husband is made holy, the perfect tense indicates a past action that has ongoing effects (see Interpretation 1, argument b), response to counterargument). This rules out the notion that Paul has a dynamic view of holiness in mind. His point here is that when the believer put their faith in Christ, their unbelieving spouse was made holy. Since the couple remains together and they treat their marriage with respect (possibly because of the influence of the believer), the unbelieving spouse continues to carry the status of holy. If Paul’s point were that holiness was a dynamic process in which the unbeliever has opportunity to participate, he would have put the verb to sanctify in the present tense. The present tense is used to denote ongoing action, while the perfect denotes completed action with ongoing effects.¹⁶

Possible weakness:

The problem with this view is that it overlooks the context. It is important to remember that Paul addresses the Corinthians who seem to contend that it is good for a man not to touch a woman. The Corinthians demonstrate a low view of marriage and sexual relations within marriage, and this must have been especially true of marriages between believers and unbelievers. With this in mind, it was important for Paul to explain that the unbelieving spouse was considered holy in order to dispel the notion that divorce was an option.