John Calvin Commentary 1 Corinthians 7:14

"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." — 1 Corinthians 7:14 (ASV)

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified. He addresses an objection that might cause anxiety for believers. The relationship of marriage is singularly close, so that the wife is half of the man; so that they two are one flesh (1 Corinthians 6:16); so that the husband is the head of the wife (Ephesians 5:23); and she is her husband’s partner in everything. Therefore, it seems impossible that a believing husband could live with an ungodly wife, or the reverse, without being polluted by such a close connection.

Paul therefore declares here that marriage is, nevertheless, sacred and pure, and that we must not be apprehensive of contagion, as if the wife would contaminate the husband. Let us, however, bear in mind that he speaks here not of contracting marriages, but of maintaining those that have been already contracted. For where the matter under consideration is whether one should marry an unbelieving wife, or whether one should marry an unbelieving husband, then that exhortation is relevant:

Be not yoked with unbelievers, for there is no agreement between Christ and Belial (2 Corinthians 6:14).

But he who is already bound no longer has freedom of choice; therefore, the advice given is different.

While this sanctification is understood in various senses, I refer it simply to marriage in this sense: It might seem (judging by appearances) as if a believing wife contracted impurity from an unbelieving husband, making the connection unlawful. But the reality is different, for the piety of the one has more power to sanctify the marriage than the impiety of the other has to pollute it.

Therefore, a believer may, with a clear conscience, live with an unbeliever. For concerning the use and intimacy of the marriage bed, and of life in general, the believer is sanctified, so as not to be infected by the unbeliever's impurity. Meanwhile, this sanctification is of no benefit to the unbelieving party; it only serves to this extent: that the believing party is not contaminated by association with the unbeliever, and marriage itself is not profaned.

But from this a question arises: “If the faith of a husband or wife who is a Christian sanctifies marriage, it follows that all marriages of ungodly persons are impure and are no different from fornication.” I answer that to the ungodly all things are impure (Titus 1:15), because by their impurity they pollute even the best and choicest of God’s creatures. Therefore, they pollute marriage itself, because they do not acknowledge God as its Author and are therefore incapable of true sanctification; through an evil conscience, they abuse marriage.

It is a mistake, however, to conclude from this that such marriage is no different from fornication. For, however impure it is to them, it is nevertheless pure in itself, since it is appointed by God, serves to maintain decency among people, and restrains irregular desires. Therefore, it is approved by God for these purposes, like other parts of civil order. We must always, therefore, distinguish between the nature of a thing and its abuse.

Regarding the phrase, Else were your children unclean. This is an argument taken from the effect: “If your marriage were impure, then the children who are its fruit would be impure; but they are holy; therefore, the marriage also is holy. Just as, then, the ungodliness of one parent does not prevent the children born from being holy, so neither does it prevent the marriage from being pure.” Some grammarians explain this passage as referring to a civil sanctity, meaning that the children are considered legitimate, but in this respect, the condition of unbelievers is no worse.

That interpretation, therefore, cannot stand. Besides, it is certain that Paul intended here to remove scruples of conscience, lest anyone should think (as I have said) that he had contracted defilement. The passage, then, is remarkable and drawn from the depths of theology, for it teaches that the children of the pious are set apart from others by a kind of exclusive privilege, so as to be considered holy in the Church.

But how does this statement correspond with what he teaches elsewhere—that we are all by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3); or with the statement of David, Behold I was conceived in sin, etc. (Psalms 51:5)? I answer that there is a universal propagation of sin and damnation throughout the offspring of Adam, and all, therefore, without exception, are included in this curse, whether they are the children of believers or of the ungodly. For it is not as regenerated by the Spirit that believers beget children according to the flesh.

The natural condition of all is therefore alike, so that they are all equally liable to sin and eternal death. As for the Apostle assigning a special privilege here to the children of believers, this flows from the blessing of the covenant, through which the curse of nature is removed; and those who were by nature unholy are consecrated to God by grace.

Therefore, Paul argues in his Epistle to the Romans (Romans 11:16) that all of Abraham’s posterity are holy because God had made a covenant of life with him: If the root be holy, he says, then the branches are holy also. And God calls all who were descended from Israel His sons. Now that the partition is broken down, the same covenant of salvation that was entered into with the offspring of Abraham is communicated to us.

But if the children of believers are exempted from the common lot of humankind, so as to be set apart to the Lord, why should we keep them back from the sign? If the Lord admits them into the Church by His word, why should we refuse them the sign?

In what respects the children of the pious are holy, even while many of them become degenerate, you will find explained in the tenth and eleventh chapters of the Epistle to the Romans; and I have dealt with this point there.