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.
Sanctified. Those connected with the people of God are hallowed thereby, so that the latter may retain the connection without impairing their own sanctity (cf. 1 Timothy 4:5); nay, rather imparting to the former some of their own hallowed character, so, through the believer's holy influence, preparing the way for the unbeliever becoming sanctified inwardly by faith. Contrast legal uncleanness (Haggai 2:12-13). Heathenism, brought face to face with Christianity, must succumb, not vice versa. By the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by - rather, 'in ... in;' in the person of; in virtue of the marriage-tie between them.
By the husband. So C. But A B Delta G 'Aleph (') f g, read 'in the brother.' It is the fact of the husband being a 'brother' - i:e., a Christian, though the wife is not so, that sanctifies the union.
Else were your children unclean - i:e., beyond the sanctified pale of God's people.
But now (as it is) are they holy - within that pale: relatively hallowed, in Providential destination, and by a pious parent's influence. The Jews regarded pagans as "unclean," and all of the elect nation as "holy" - i:e., partakers of the holy covenant. Children were included in it, as God made it not only with Abraham, but with his "seed after" him (Genesis 17:7). So the faith of one Christian parent gives to the children a relationship to the Church, just as if both were Christians (cf. Romans 11:16). Timothy, the bearer of this letter, is an instance (Acts 16:1; 2 Timothy 1:5). Paul appeals to the recognized principle, that the infants of pagan parents would not be admissible to Christian baptism, because there is no faith in the parents; but where one is a believer, the children are not aliens from, but admissible into, the Christian covenant: for the Church presumes that the believing parent will rear the child in Christianity.
Lydia's and the gaoler's households were baptized along with the believing heads of the houses. The faith of the head was regarded as consecrating the family, so that its members, whether children or adults, if interposing no obstacle, were fit recipients of baptism (Acts 16:4). The covenant with Abraham was sealed in infants by a sacrament: why should not Christians also seal it in their children? (Calvin, 'Inst.,' b. 4: 100: 16:6.) Infant baptism tacitly superseded infant circumcision, just as the Christian Lord's day superseded the Jewish Sabbath, without our having express command for, or record of, the transference. The setting aside of circumcision and of Sabbaths in the case of the Gentiles was indeed expressly commanded by the apostles; but the substitution of infant baptism and of the Lord's day was tacitly adopted, not expressly enacted. No explicit mention of it occurs until Irenaeus (b. 2: 100: 22) and Justin Martyr (2 'Apolog.'), in the second century; but no Christians disputed its propriety until 1500 years after Christ. Anabaptists would defer baptism until maturity, as the child cannot understand the nature of it. But a child may be heir of an estate, though incapable of using or comprehending its advantage: he is not hereafter to acquire the title to it: he will hereafter understand his claim, and he capable of employing his wealth: he will then, moreover, become responsible for the use he makes of it. Relative consecration does not dispense with personal regeneration.