Else were your children unclean...

[Anon]

That passage about saved spouses staying with the unsaved spouse says that the saved spouse sanctifies the unsaved spouse, which in turn makes the children "holy" rather than "unclean".

I am sure we have had this thread before, but...

What exactly does this mean? Could this mean that, say, during the rapture, children of at least one saved person will be considered "holy" and be taken up, whereas children of two unsaved parents would be "unclean"?

Any other ideas?

[Jerry]

Holy means "set apart" - it doesn't mean saved. I mentioned on the other thread that it could very likely mean that God could use that child - ie. is set apart for Him - in a way that a child in a lost home wouldn't be. I have seen God use unsaved children that knew the Gospel (but didn't understand it yet) to witness to lost family members - and have an impact. But a lost child in a lost home wouldn't be able to be an influence for God - no true Bible knowledge, no knowledge of how God works, no child-like faith in seeing God answer prayers - have you ever heard a young child pray? It's neat to see their child-like trust and expectance in God responding to their prayers.

[Anon]

I thought that "sanctified" meant "set apart".... "holy" can't mean that can it, because God is holy...?

[Guest Guest]

I have always heard that passage is using the word "holy" as legitimate. The implication being that if the unbelieving spouse was not "sanctified" by the believing one the children would be illegitimate. Seems a reasonable interpretation to me.

[Jerry]

I thought that "sanctified" meant "set apart".... "holy" can't mean that can it' date=' because God is holy...?[/quote']

Holy and sanctified mean the exact same thing.

These are the definitions Webster's gives:



God is holy because he is set apart from all sin, set apart from this world, set apart from all false gods. Our Bible (the Scriptures) is holy because it is set apart from all other writings on this planet - there is no other book like it. Jesus is holy because He is set apart from all other men - He is the only Saviour. I'm sure there are more reasons, but these are the examples that came to mind.

[Colin Stolzer]

Holy and sanctified mean the exact same thing.

They are not the exact same thing:
Holy is the root word, it is a state of being-

?????
hagios
hag'-ee-os
From ???? hagos (an awful thing) compare G53, [H2282]; sacred (physically pure, morally blameless or religious, ceremonially consecrated): - (most) holy (one, thing), saint

Sanctification is a different word built off of the root word hag'-ee-os (holy), it is a process or action of becoming holy-

????????
hagiasmos
hag-ee-as-mos'
From G37; properly purification, that is, (the state) purity; concretely (by Hebraism) a purifier: - holiness, sanctification

I figured I better include G37 from strongs-
??????
hagiaz?
hag-ee-ad'-zo
From G40; to make holy, that is, (ceremonially) purify or consecrate; (mentally) to venerate: - hallow, be holy, sanctify

Being in the state or condition of something is not the same as the process of getting to that point, in this case holiness. Through a process or action (sanctification) the unsaved spouse can become holy (can be led to the Lord), but the children are already pure (holy) because of the saved spouse. I believe it comes back to raise them up in the way that they should go, if the saved parent is doing their job regardless of the lost spouse then the child will come to have a knowledge of Christ through the saved parent. This doesn't gaurantee salvation of the child because that is a personal choice after an age of understanding.

C

[Anon]

I have always heard that passage is using the word "holy" as legitimate. The implication being that if the unbelieving spouse was not "sanctified" by the believing one the children would be illegitimate. Seems a reasonable interpretation to me.

Hmmm no I don't think God would call the child from a saved/unsaved union illegitimate.....

[Anon]

Being in the state or condition of something is not the same as the process of getting to that point, in this case holiness. Through a process or action (sanctification) the unsaved spouse can become holy (can be led to the Lord), but the children are already pure (holy) because of the saved spouse. I believe it comes back to raise them up in the way that they should go, if the saved parent is doing their job regardless of the lost spouse then the child will come to have a knowledge of Christ through the saved parent. This doesn't gaurantee salvation of the child because that is a personal choice after an age of understanding.

I do not understand this because the Bible says the spouse IS sanctified...but I would not think "set apart" until they actually get saved.

I would see it more as a special protection, at least, on the family because of the one saved spouse?

[Jerry]

Holy does not mean "can be led to the Lord". The word still means "set apart" - regardless of whether it is a verb or a noun. Consecrated, sanctified, holy/hallowed, set apart all have the same meaning, they are synonyms.

I do not understand this because the Bible says the spouse IS sanctified...but I would not think "set apart" until they actually get saved.

It means the home or person is set apart. God's blessings is on a home even if there is only one saved person in it. There are various verses in Proverbs and Malachi that also refer to this. I am at work, so do not have access to my Bible with the cross references I wrote in it - perhaps you can search for other threads on this subject.

Malachi 2:14-15 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

Proverbs 3:33 The curse of the LORD is in the house of the wicked: but he blesseth the habitation of the just.

To restate part of Webster's Dictionary, which I have already quoted for the word "holy":

...man is more or less holy, as his heart is more or less sanctified, or purified from evil dispositions...
2. Hallowed; consecrated or set apart to a sacred use, or to the service or worship of God; a sense frequent in Scripture; as the holy sabbath; holy oil; holy vessels; a holy nation; the holy temple; a holy priesthood.

[Guest Guest]

Hmmm no I don't think God would call the child from a saved/unsaved union illegitimate.....

The word for unclean in that passage means impure morally. The only other time that word is used is in 2 Corinthians 6:17:

"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,"

Obviously it means impure morally there too. Now the question is why would the children be impure morally if the saved spouse did not sanctify the unsaved spouse? What could the parents do that would make the children impure morally? So lets look at the passage:

"I Cor. 7:12-14 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. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 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."

It would seem from the context that the issue was over whether a person that was saved should leave the unsaved spouse. Why would this even be an issue?

"2 Corinthians 6:14-16 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."

Now that had not been written at this point but it is quite likely that Paul had mentioned something of the sort in person that had raised this question in there minds. 2 Corinthians 5:17 says:

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."

The OT was an ensample to us and I think it is no stretch to compare what God thought about the Israelites taking heathen wives with what he thinks about a Christian taking a heathen wife. It is also very likely at least part of why the Corinthians had the question they did about the spouses they had.

"Ezra 10:3 Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them , according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law."

Really you should look at all of Ezra chapter 10 to get a good overview of what was going on, but it is to long to post here and this verse is sufficient to illustrate that the children from those marriages were considered illegitimate. This is what Paul is referring to when he says "else were your children unclean", and says that the unbelieving spouse is now sanctified by the believing spouse. Thus it is not necessary to do as the Israelites did in Ezra.

[Jerry]

This is what Paul is referring to when he says "else were your children unclean", and says that the unbelieving spouse is now sanctified by the believing spouse. Thus it is not necessary to do as the Israelites did in Ezra.

Excellent point! But I would also add, now are the children sanctified/holy too.

else were your children unclean; but now are they holy

[Colin Stolzer]

I didn't say that's what it meant. I used the "()" to show the difference between action and a state or condition.

Holy
HO'LY, a.

1. Properly, whole, entire or perfect, in a moral sense. Hence, pure in heart, temper or dispositions; free from sin and sinful affections. Applied to the Supreme Being, holy signifies perfectly pure, immaculate and complete in moral character; and man is more or less holy, as his heart is more or less sanctified, or purified from evil dispositions. We call a man holy,when his heart is conformed in some degree to the image of God, and his life is regulated by the divine precepts. Hence, holy is used as nearly synonymous with good, pious, godly.

Be ye holy; for I am holy. 1 Pet 1.

2. Hallowed; consecrated or set apart to a sacred use, or to the service or worship of God; a sense frequent in Scripture; as the holy sabbath; holy oil; holy vessels; a holy nation; the holy temple; a holy priesthood.

3. Proceeding from pious principles,or directed to pious purposes; as holy zeal.

4. Perfectly just and good; as the holy law of God.

5. Sacred; as a holy witness.

Holy of holies, in Scripture, the innermost apartment of the Jewish tabernacle or temple, where the ark was kept,and where no person entered, except the high priest, once a year.

Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit, the Divine Spirit; the third person in the Trinity; the sanctifier of souls.

Holy war, a war undertaken to rescue the holy land, the ancient Judea, from the infidels; a crusade; an expedition carried on by christians against the Saracens in the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries; a war carried on in a most unholy manner.

Sanctified
SANC'TIFIED, pp.

1. Made holy; consecrated; set apart for sacred services.

2. Affectedly holy.

Huh, look at that even from websters they have two different meaning, one being a state or condition and the other involving action. Couldn't be that, that's why Paul used two different words was cause he meant two different things that are not the exact same thing.

C

[Jerry]

You are arguing the difference between a verb and a noun - with the same basic meaning. Holy means sanctified and sanctified means made holy - so what's the difference? There is none - you are making a mountain out of a molehill for nothing. I am not saying there is no distinction to be made according to the context, but the words mean the same.

[heartstrings]

Did God ordain this?
Ezra 10:3
Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law. Says nothing about God condoning this "putting away". It says "let us" make a covenant. But the Bible says that God hates putting away. Some of these women had children. So these poor kids became fatherless half jews. Was God in agreement with this?

The law says this...
Deu 21:10

[Guest Guest]

Was God in agreement with this?

"Numbers25:7-8And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel."

In the next couple of verses God says he would have an everlasting priesthood for doing this. It was the same situation. Only difference was both parties were killed instead of divorced and no children were involved.

Joseph was given an Egyptian wife

Moses took an Ethiopian wife

Rahab was a Canaanite wife She was not "put away",

Ruth was a Moabite wife

With the possible exception of Josephs and Moses wives(not enough info), the individuals were converts. I think it quite likely that the wives of Joseph and Moses were too, but haven't any proof. God had rules and allowances for converts even in the OT.