# For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 13, 2006, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-unbelieving-husband-is-sanctified-by-the-wife/383982 "2006-12-13T17:37:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ReggieB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@ReggieB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ReggieB)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2006, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-unbelieving-husband-is-sanctified-by-the-wife/383982/1 "2006-12-13T17:37:31Z")
Does this mean that an atheist gets to go to heaven if he’s married to a Christian? ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2006, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-unbelieving-husband-is-sanctified-by-the-wife/383982/2 "2006-12-13T17:40:28Z")
If so, I can’t wait to wander around annoying everyone by saying, “You know this is all just a relic of an outmoded belief system, right?” ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2006, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-unbelieving-husband-is-sanctified-by-the-wife/383982/3 "2006-12-13T17:42:58Z")
[QUOTE=Lightnin’] If so, I can’t wait to wander around annoying everyone by saying, “You know this is all just a relic of an outmoded belief system, right?” [/QUOTE] : snicker : ---
**Author:** ![Rico](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rico/32/3582_2.png) [@Rico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rico)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2006, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-unbelieving-husband-is-sanctified-by-the-wife/383982/4 "2006-12-13T17:50:56Z")
\ I think you’ll find more answers/snerks in _Great Debates_. Moved \ ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2006, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-unbelieving-husband-is-sanctified-by-the-wife/383982/5 "2006-12-13T17:56:22Z")
**Lightnin’** , that was priceless! To the OP…seems to read that way to me. All the various translations say the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2006, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-unbelieving-husband-is-sanctified-by-the-wife/383982/6 "2006-12-13T18:11:18Z")
Paul was fond of using these little figures of speech, and of course anyone who takes them literally can have a lot of fun with them. For example, “But the woman is saved in childbearing.” God and Paul alone know what the heck he _meant_ by that – perhaps that God’s providence will carry her safely through delivery? – but in the context he wrote it, it sure sounds like a cool-ass out to belief for women capable of bearing children. In this case, I have a hunch that if you unpeel his meaning, it’s something like, “Oh, _Okay_, I’ll come along with you to your ‘church’ thing, just this once! Now, stop nagging!” leading to “Hey, that guy made a lot of sense! Is he addressing the group again next week?” or something of the sort. But yeah, I think virtually every Christian around would sit back and join in the snerking at taking _that_ passage, or a few similar ones, literally. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![SCSimmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e495f1/32.png) [@SCSimmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SCSimmons)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2006, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-unbelieving-husband-is-sanctified-by-the-wife/383982/7 "2006-12-13T18:29:19Z")
Hey–where is that? Maybe I can finally get my wife to quit bugging me about going to church! “It’s OK, honey–you’ve got us both covered!” (And while I’m dreaming, can I have a pony?) ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2006, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-unbelieving-husband-is-sanctified-by-the-wife/383982/8 "2006-12-13T18:37:27Z")
1 Corinthians 7 - 12-14 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2006, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-unbelieving-husband-is-sanctified-by-the-wife/383982/9 "2006-12-13T18:47:01Z")
I always thought that passage just meant that the church recognized the marriage between a believer and an unbeliever as being legitimate in God’s view. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2006, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-unbelieving-husband-is-sanctified-by-the-wife/383982/10 "2006-12-13T18:58:50Z")
[QUOTE=Monty] I always thought that passage just meant that the church recognized the marriage between a believer and an unbeliever as being legitimate in God’s view. [/QUOTE] That’s my take as well. I think Paul is really only trying to say that the _marriage_ is still “sanctified,” even if one of the partners is not a believer. He’s basically telling converts not to leave their spouses just because the spouse is not a convert. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2006, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-unbelieving-husband-is-sanctified-by-the-wife/383982/11 "2006-12-13T19:02:22Z")
[QUOTE=Monty] I always thought that passage just meant that the church recognized the marriage between a believer and an unbeliever as being legitimate in God’s view. [/QUOTE] I’d say you’re right **Monty**. Sanctity of marriage. Occam’s Razor and all that. ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2006, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-unbelieving-husband-is-sanctified-by-the-wife/383982/12 "2006-12-13T20:42:30Z")
[QUOTE=x-ray vision] 1 Corinthians 7 - 12-14 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. [/QUOTE] This was a rebuke to Ezra who counseled people to divorce their non-Jewish spouses. Thus the children of non-Jewish mothers would be considered Jewish. ---
**Author:** ![sturmhauke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e47c2d/32.png) [@sturmhauke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sturmhauke)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2006, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-unbelieving-husband-is-sanctified-by-the-wife/383982/13 "2006-12-13T23:08:13Z")
So what happens if a Christian marries a Hindu, and their child turns to Wicca? ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2006, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-unbelieving-husband-is-sanctified-by-the-wife/383982/14 "2006-12-13T23:24:13Z")
[QUOTE=sturmhauke] So what happens if a Christian marries a Hindu, and their child turns to Wicca? [/QUOTE] Buddha cries. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-unbelieving-husband-is-sanctified-by-the-wife/383982/15 "2006-12-14T04:23:12Z")
[QUOTE=x-ray vision] 1 Corinthians 7 - 12-14 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. **Otherwise your children would be unclean,** but as it is, they are holy. [/QUOTE] This puts a spin I never before imagined on Christian (as opposed to Jewish) theology. Isn’t it Christian doctrine that we’re **all** born unclean (i.e., tainted with original sin), regardless of parentage? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-unbelieving-husband-is-sanctified-by-the-wife/383982/16 "2006-12-14T08:35:15Z")
[QUOTE=sturmhauke] So what happens if a Christian marries a Hindu, and their child turns to Wicca? [/QUOTE] It depends on the direction and speed of the treadmill. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-unbelieving-husband-is-sanctified-by-the-wife/383982/17 "2006-12-14T10:16:28Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] This puts a spin I never before imagined on Christian (as opposed to Jewish) theology. Isn’t it Christian doctrine that we’re **all** born unclean (i.e., tainted with original sin), regardless of parentage? [/QUOTE] Tainted with original sin, yes. But illegitimate no. **Monty** put it best. Please note that at the time they were still dealing with all that stuff about “the children paying for the sins of the parents”. People knew that, for example, the children of prostitutes were more likely to be sickly, and thought it was because of the sin of the mother… even if they’d been able to make the connection between “mother has syphylis (sp?) and that’s what made the kid sick in turn”, they would still have said “ah, but the mother got the syphylis from her sins!” So what if the mother is a perfectly decent wife and the husband gives her syphylis? “Ah, but he got it through _his_ sins!” It’s actually logical in a way that nowadays we find weird. I think that the idea of the person who first said “the children pay for the sins of their parents” was to admonish parents “be careful, because when you screw up, often it’s not you, the guilty, but your innocent child go gets screwed” - but like so many things, it got understood upside-down. Also people, still nowadays, have serious problems understanding that “most molesters were molested as children” does not mean “anybody who was molested as a child will be a molester”. ---
**Author:** ![chrisk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@chrisk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chrisk)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-unbelieving-husband-is-sanctified-by-the-wife/383982/18 "2006-12-14T10:35:44Z")
Sorry, I just _have_ to share this “how I originally read the OP title:” For the unbelieving husband is sacrificed by the wife. That is all. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-unbelieving-husband-is-sanctified-by-the-wife/383982/19 "2006-12-14T11:10:36Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] This puts a spin I never before imagined on Christian (as opposed to Jewish) theology. Isn’t it Christian doctrine that we’re **all** born unclean (i.e., tainted with original sin), regardless of parentage? [/QUOTE] Not all denominations buy into that version of original sin. Some consider children to be completely innocent before they reach what the denomination calls the age of accountability. The LDS, for example, believe that we will not be punished for Adam’s sin. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-unbelieving-husband-is-sanctified-by-the-wife/383982/20 "2006-12-14T14:58:39Z")
[QUOTE=Monty] Not all denominations buy into that version of original sin. Some consider children to be completely innocent before they reach what the denomination calls the age of accountability. The LDS, for example, believe that we will not be punished for Adam’s sin. [/QUOTE] We’re talking about **Christian** doctrine, **Monty.** 😉 [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-unbelieving-husband-is-sanctified-by-the-wife/383982.md?page=2)