Encourse Wiki

Moral Theology — Topic 12. Moral Aspects of the Sacraments_ Marriage, Family Life, and Child-Raising.

Properties3
tagstopic
courseMoral Theology
unitTopic 12. Moral Aspects of the Sacraments_ Marriage, Family Life, and Child-Raising.

49 min read

Moral Theology — Topic 12. Moral Aspects of the Sacraments_ Marriage, Family Life, and Child-Raising.

As already mentioned in the chapter on asceticism, asceticism in and of itself is not purely negative; rather, it is a practice aimed at achieving the true measure of the fulfillment of God’s plan for humanity. Given that in most cases passions exceed proper measure, they must be restrained—a process that could be called negative[1] asceticism. However, there are situations in which the powers of the soul need to be strengthened and manifested—a process that could be called positive asceticism. A truly biblical view of marital relations never pits married life against asceticism. Even before the Fall, the blessing given to our first parents to “be one flesh”—by the very meaning of this expression—was intended by God as a pure and unblemished, holistic communion of soul and body between a man and a woman. The realm of sexuality was devoid of any corrupting traits or the pursuit of sinful pleasures. After the Fall, the relationship between husband and wife is described with the terms “dominion” and “submission” (Gen. 3:16). Physical relations were viewed through the lens of procreation, the primary purpose of which was childbearing. At the same time, the special emphasis on childbearing by no means implies that marital relations themselves were limited to this and had no value outside of this context.

The conclusion of the fifth chapter of Proverbs is devoted to a description of the physical love between spouses (Prov. 5:15–23), which is viewed as having intrinsic value outside the context of procreation. Moreover, it is worth remembering that for centuries this text was read as one of the parables during Great Lent, that is, it was used as part of catechesis. This, in turn, means that even in the early Church, the sphere of physical love between spouses was consciously cleared of any suspicion. Marital love is often perceived as sensual love; however, it is important to understand that sensual does not equal passionate. In Christianity, sensual love is evaluated not according to the criteria of passionate versus dispassionate, but according to the criteria of sinful versus sinless. In other words, sensual—and, by extension, physical—love between spouses in a lawful marriage is viewed as entirely acceptable, whereas outside of a lawful union, these same feelings and relationships are condemned as adulterous.

The practical purpose of marriage in the Old Testament is presented as procreation, as the fulfillment of the commandment to “be fruitful and multiply”. At the same time, the moral purpose was to teach people to refrain from promiscuous relationships. Even at that time, the ideal was monogamous marriage, based on the Creator’s words: “A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife.” From time immemorial, Jewish tradition has held that these words affirm monogamy as the norm. At the same time, marriage was no less oriented toward comfort, which is why divorce was a perfectly legitimate phenomenon. The schools of Rabbi Shammai and Rabbi Hillel argued only about how serious a reason for divorce could be, but they did not doubt the very possibility of divorce.

In the context of a discussion about asceticism in marital relationships, two passages from the New Testament prove to be significant. The first deals with negative asceticism, and the second with positive asceticism. In His conversation with the Pharisees about the possibility of divorce, the Savior emphasized that “He who created them from the beginning as male and female… said: ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh, so that they are no longer two, but one flesh’” (Matt. 19:4–6). The Lord did not in the least degree diminish the value of marriage, nor did He speak of it as a tolerable evil or a distortion of God’s plan. Furthermore, a dialogue took place between the Lord and the apostles regarding the inadmissibility of divorce except in cases preceded by adultery. Horrified by the commandment forbidding divorce, the disciples say, “If such is a man’s duty toward his wife, it is better not to marry” (Matthew 19:10). To this remark, the Savior replies, “Not everyone can accept this saying, but only those to whom it is given.” He goes on to say that there are various kinds of eunuchs, among whom are those who “have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 19:12). Which word, exactly, is more difficult to accept, according to the Savior? “Do not divorce” or “do not marry”? And who are these eunuchs to whom it has been given to accept this difficult word for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven? Indeed, the dialogue itself can clearly be interpreted in two ways.

First, by “the word”, Christ may have been referring to the command “not to divorce”, which filled the apostles with dread. This was indeed something difficult for them to imagine, since their entire tradition—and indeed the Law of Moses itself—considered divorce to be permissible. In this case, a eunuch could be defined as a person who, having been abandoned by a spouse and unable to live a married life, lives as a eunuch “for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven” out of fidelity and to preserve the indissolubility of marriage. However, this applies not only to those who remain faithful after being abandoned, but also to those who remain faithful during illness and in any other circumstances that make married life impossible. A clear illustration of this approach can be found in the prophet Hosea, whose wife left him and whom he took back when she returned. In this case, by forbidding divorce, the Lord emphasizes that Christian love in marriage entails faithfulness and service to one’s neighbor no matter what, just as God remains faithful to His covenant relationship with His people. It is noteworthy that immediately after this dialogue, children are brought to Christ, and He blesses them. Second, the Savior may have meant the phrase “not to marry.” In this case, by “celibates”—those who made themselves such for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven—He meant virgins who, from the very beginning, placed their relationship with God above all earthly relationships. They completely renounced marriage in order to devote their lives to prayer and contemplation.

Although at first glance these seem to be diametrically opposed concepts, in reality they are united in one essential point: the sphere of sexual relations should not occupy a dominant place in a person’s life. It is possible to live as a “eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” both in marriage and in celibacy, if you attain a state in which your relationship with others is not defined by the realm of sexuality. This does not mean that sexuality is denied, but in marriage, the relationship with one’s wife is defined not by ἔρως but by ἀγάπη.

It is clear that a Christian is called to ascetic effort when it comes to his or her own spiritual life and the struggle against passions. However, when it comes to marriage and two people becoming one flesh, each is called not only to care for their own salvation but also to support their spouse on this path. The general contours of this mutual support are close to the exhortations the apostle addresses to Christians in general. For example, having written extensively about humility, the apostle always has mutual humility in mind and never speaks of one person being humble toward another. On the contrary, disciples are called to walk the path of the Christian life “with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love…” (Eph 4:2). In the context of marital relations, this forbearance is expressed for him in the fact that each spouse must take into account not only their own desires but also the desires of the other: “Husbands, fulfill your marital duty toward your wives, and likewise, wives toward your husbands” (1 Cor. 7:3). Moreover, the word ὀφειλή in the Greek text does not simply mean “due regard,” but in fact refers to the marital relationship as a marital duty. In fact, this becomes even more evident from what he writes next: “The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband; nor does the husband have authority over his own body, but the wife. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to fasting and prayer; then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. However, I say this as a concession, not as a command” (1 Cor. 7:4–6). It is often claimed that the apostle commanded spouses to abstain “for the sake of fasting and prayer”; however, it is clear from the apostle’s own words that this is not a command but rather a permission that married Christians may heed when necessary. Speaking of wives who refrain from marital relations for the sake of abstinence, St. John Chrysostom writes: “Marriage is given for the procreation of children, and even more so for the quenching of natural passion. Paul bears witness to this, saying: ‘But to avoid fornication, let each man have his own wife…’ (1 Cor. 7:2). He did not say: for procreation. And then he commands them to “come together” (1 Cor. 7:5) not so that they might become parents of many children, but for what purpose? “Lest Satan tempt you,” he says. And continuing his argument, he did not say: if they wish to have children, but what? “If they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry” (1 Cor. 7:9)”[2]. Emphasizing the innocence and purity of the marital relationship itself, in a conversation with a wife who wishes to abstain against her husband’s will, St. John Chrysostom says: “If he sleeps with you, there is no sin… That is why you (the wife) have a husband, and that is why you (the husband) have a wife—to preserve chastity”[3].

Reducing asceticism in marriage solely to sexual abstinence is a complete misunderstanding of its meaning. True asceticism implies not merely renouncing something, but mastering those energies or abilities of one’s nature that were instilled in a person by God. As already mentioned in the discussion on sin, sin did not introduce anything new into human nature, but merely disrupted what had been created by God. In turn, this means that in marriage, just as in monastic life, there can be a specific form of asceticism characteristic of the conditions under which a person is being saved. In the case of marital relations, a person is called to transform not only their feelings toward their spouse but also to purify the desires of their body. An example of this understanding of marital relations is provided by St. Andrew of Crete, who wrote in his penitential canon: “Marriage is honorable and the marriage bed is pure; for Christ blessed both of them while He was in the flesh, turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana, performing His first miracle, so that you might be transformed, O soul.”

Based on the words of the Cretan saint, Christ, while in the flesh, blessed not only marriage itself but also the marriage bed. But why does Christ do this? So that the soul might be transformed. In the Fall, the powers of the human soul were defiled. However, the defilement of all that is fallen lay not in physicality, as the Gnostics believed, but in the fact that man—called to holiness through the fulfillment of God’s will—chose to fulfill his own will and turned away from God. Into marriage, which is meant to be a free union of two persons, entered the desire for selfish pleasure, which became its foundation in a world of sin. In turn, this means that a Christian who has entered into marriage is called to transform marital relations—including physical relations—by eradicating from them everything consumptive that is connected with the desire to selfishly use another person for one’s own sake. Passionate and self-seeking erotic love must be transformed into agapic love, which seeks not consumption but sacrifice, not exploitation but service. Such a transformation is beyond the spouses’ own power; that is why they strive for their union to be a union in the Lord—a union in which Christ Himself, by His presence, will sanctify and transform their unity.

However, the path of transforming sensual love is not an easy one—nor, for that matter, is any path to God. Thus, according to Prot. J. Bear, who analyzes St. Gregory of Nyssa’s theology of marriage: “If one enters into marriage with the idea that the relationship with one’s spouse will be a means of satisfying one’s senses and achieving unity, reliability, and constancy, then that marriage will inevitably become a source of tragedy, for another person cannot provide the desired constancy, no matter how ‘moderate’ the sexual relations may be”[4]. The “moderation” the author refers to aims to shift the focus from consumption to service. The author goes on to write: “When people enter marriage not out of self-interest but as a ‘liturgy’—for example, for the purpose of having children—it becomes an act of generosity and benevolence, rather than an attempt to create one’s own immortality”[5].

[1] In this context, “negative asceticism” is not used in the sense of a negative evaluation, but in the sense of its restrictive, reductive purpose.

[2] St. John Chrysostom. On Virginity 19

[3] A Discourse on the Inscription of Psalm 50, on David’s Repentance and on Uriah’s Wife…

[4] Ber, J. Marriage and Asceticism. // The Orthodox Doctrine of the Church Sacraments, Vol. 3. — Moscow: Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission, 2009. — p. 44.

[5] Ibid., p. 45.

Although the Old Testament perception of children is traditionally described with the words of the psalm—“Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward” (Ps 126:3-5)—the relationship between parents and children in the world after the Fall proves to be complex. Alongside pious children who continue the faith of their fathers (Seth, Shem and Japheth, Solomon, and others), we see children who continue, and sometimes multiply, the sins of their ancestors. For example, Lamech already justifies himself by the example of Cain (Gen 4:24), and Absalom rises up against David (2 Sam 15:10).

In the pre-covenant period nothing is said directly about the upbringing of children; they simply grow up and choose one path or another. Thus, concerning the children of Isaac and Rebekah, Moses writes: “The children grew (גָּדַל gāḏal); Esau became a skillful hunter, a man of the field; but Jacob was a quiet man, dwelling in tents” (Gen 25:27). One of the first calls to the upbringing of children is contained in the book of Deuteronomy. Addressing the commandments to the people, God says: “and you shall teach them to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise… and you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates” (Deut 6:4-9). The Hebrew term that Moses uses, שָׁנַן (šānan), means not only “to repeat and constantly remind” but also “to engrave.” In turn, the Greek term προβιβάζω is translated as “to urge to fulfillment.” Some commandments of the Decalogue speak indirectly about the upbringing of children. In the second commandment God says that He curses and blesses the descendants who hate or love Him following their fathers (Ex 20:5). The fourth commandment of the Decalogue speaks of the importance of rest on the Sabbath day for all, including children (Ex 20:10). Finally, the fifth speaks of the necessity for children to honor their parents (Ex 20:12), to which, of course, children are also accustomed from childhood. Finally, the well-known warning that God addresses to the prophet Ezekiel can be extended to the upbringing of children: “When I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you do not warn him or speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand” (Ezek 3:18). The books of Proverbs of Solomon and the deuterocanonical “Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach” speak in considerable detail about the upbringing of children. Moreover, in addition to oral instruction, the author clearly and unambiguously insists on the necessity of physical punishment. Thus Solomon writes: “The rod and reproof give wisdom… Discipline your son, and he will give you rest and joy to your soul” (Prov 29:15, 17). At the same time, the goal of upbringing is not simply that the child become obedient, but that he become like-minded: “My son! Give your heart to me, and let your eyes observe my ways” (Prov 23:26).

In the New Testament there are several direct and indirect indications concerning the upbringing of children. Continuing the Old Testament tradition of a good attitude toward children, the Lord at the same time sees their value not so much in the continuation of the family line, since the Messiah in His person has already come. Blessing the children, Christ says: “Let the children come to Me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven” (Mt 19:14), and the reason for such an attitude is their special purity and humble readiness for discipleship: “Truly I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven; whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven” (Mt 18:3-4). It is noteworthy that the Lord Himself, having become man, went through the path of upbringing. The well-known Gospel account of the boy Jesus visiting Jerusalem during the days of the feast speaks of the fact that the Savior was brought up in the Law of Moses. The point is that He was obliged to observe the law of the annual visit to the temple from the age of 13. Visiting it before that age was considered an important part of bringing children up in the law of the Lord. Moreover, from the assumption of Joseph and the Mother of God that the boy was traveling a day’s journey with other pilgrims, it may be said that He grew up in freedom and that the Virgin Mary and Joseph did not strive to control Him all the time. However, it is said of the Lord that He “was submissive to them” (Lk 2:51) and that in Nazareth He “was brought up” (Lk 4:16).

Continuing the logic of the Old Testament, the Apostle Paul addresses children with a call to obey their parents and honor them (Eph 6:1-3). However, reminding children of the commandment, he also addresses parents: “And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph 6:4). The verb παροργίζομαι is usually translated as “to anger, to irritate.” According to researchers, in this case “not to provoke” means «to avoid attitudes, words, and actions that could drive a child to a state of angry despair or bitterness; thus.” Thus “this is a prohibition of excessive severity in upbringing, unreasonably inflated demands, abuse of power, injustice, dishonesty, constant reproaches and condemnation, humiliation of the child, and any kind of inattention to the child’s needs and feelings»[1]. The apostle expresses a similar thought in the epistle to the Colossians, although he uses different terminology. Here he already directly explains that children should not be provoked, “so that they may not become discouraged” (Col 3:21). Of course, such attention to the inner world and feelings of children is completely uncharacteristic of the ancient world, which practically did not pay attention to childhood. In turn, the humanistic pedagogy of the 20th century decided to abandon what it called patriarchal remnants and arrived at such a child-centrism that proves to be no less a problem than the ancient neglect of childhood. In these conditions, believing parents find it difficult to apply traditional approaches to the upbringing of a child living and growing up in an environment that may be not only indifferent in matters of faith but also aggressively immoral in matters of the use of harmful substances, sexual depravity, cruelty, deceit, financial dishonesty, and so on. Orthodox pedagogy first encountered many of these problems in the 1920s–30s of the 20th century, finding itself compelled to reflect on the upbringing of children in conditions radically different from the traditional order. In this sense their situation was similar to that in which the fathers of the ancient Church found themselves, preaching in the conditions of a pagan society. However, unlike them, the pedagogues of the 20th century relied on the rich pedagogical experience of the Church of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Moreover, the experience was obviously not only positive but quite tragic, for many children who received upbringing in church-parish schools at the beginning of the 20th century ultimately abandoned the faith.

__

Principles of Christian upbringing

First of all, parents are called to be aware that before them is a quite real, living person, even if not fully formed. The child is given to them not for their own sake, but so that they may create conditions in which he, with God’s help and with their direct participation, may grow up to the full measure of the stature of Christ (Eph 4:13-15). In the process of upbringing they must always remember that their child is called to correspond to God’s design for him, and not to their temporary and momentary ideas oriented toward the world and its values. It is no accident that God says through the prophet Jeremiah: “For I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, plans for good and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope” (Jer 29:11), and the Apostle Paul calls: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may know what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom 12:2).

Moreover, it is important for parents to remember that, for all their sincerity, they cannot be perfect; they need to be aware of their limitations. In the process of upbringing people are called to do everything in their power, but still to entrust the final results to God, recalling the words with which the Lord answered the Apostle Paul’s prayer: “My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor 12:9).

Sometimes, in communicating with children, parents forget that all upbringing, including religious upbringing, must be gradual. From very simple emotional stories and sensory images one must very gradually move to the upbringing of the will and the awareness of the meaning of life. Addressing the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul wrote: “And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of the flesh, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it” (1 Cor 3:1-2). If such an address to adults is possible, all the more important it is to remember gradualness in upbringing when opening the world of faith to children.

When discussing biblical stories or commandments with children, it is worth remembering that first of all they are guided not by words but by the behavior of those whom they see before them. In this context one can again recall the apostle who, although he begot his disciples through the gospel, asks them to heed not only his words but also his behavior: “I urge you, then, be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor 4:16). At the same time, although the external environment should be churchly, it cannot be sterile. The apostle asked the same Corinthians not to associate with sinners, but he perfectly understood that if this thought were carried to its logical conclusion, one would have “to go out of the world” (1 Cor 5:9-10). Be that as it may, even if until a certain time children can live in obedience, their choice of Christian life can only be personal; it cannot be transmitted as intellectual knowledge. It is made by a person only personally, in the depth of each person’s conscience. This means that in the family discipline begins with the life of the parents themselves, who are called sincerely to fulfill the commandments, showing their children by their whole life that faith fills their life with meaning and that they themselves live in obedience to God and strive to do His will.

In choosing an educational strategy it is important to remember that Christian upbringing must be integral. In the life of a believer, whatever age we speak of, there must be no duality because of which any area of life would be free from Christianity. It is not enough to point out to a child specific rules of Christian behavior, for finding himself in the secular world he may encounter various circumstances. A person must know the rules and understand the importance of observing certain norms, but all of them must be subordinate to the main rule: the law of love of neighbor, in which every life is filled with meaning.

Already in the Old Testament, answering a child’s question about the reasons why believers are called to live according to the commandments, a parent had to tell him about the love of God, which was manifestly shown in the history of the people. This means that what is at stake is the transmission not so much of formal knowledge about God as of a deep personal experience of the presence of God as a loving and caring Father. As of the One who is ready to participate in the life of people and lead them to Salvation. Naturally, a significant part of the faith that the child shows at these moments proves to be a repetition of the parents’ faith. However, in a practical sense at this stage it is also necessary to form the habit of gratitude, forgiveness, good deeds, and sincere turning to God in those simple prayers of which the child is capable.

Growing up, thanks to the thoughtful and delicate guidance of his parents, the child is called to analyze his behavior and notice those difficult-to-control movements of the soul that begin to trouble the conscience and, in the absence of restraints, lead to the violation of the commandments. In adolescence his guidelines change even more strongly, and he begins to serve himself, his body, and his reason. At this stage, having received a religious upbringing, he can look at these egoistic movements in the soul from a correct ascetic point of view and, most importantly, give them a correct evaluation. At this moment “the task and difficulty of religious guidance consists in helping the child, young man, or young woman to preserve the correct relationship between himself and God, not to allow the temptations of sensuality and pride to develop in him, by which the purity of inner sight is clogged”[2]. In the struggle with sin, freedom must be understood not as a given that he already possesses, but as a skill that he must master. In turn, in sins it is important for the child to see not the violation of formal rules but actions that hinder his communion with God. Finally, the practical goal of the path of moral upbringing proves to be the cultivation in the conscience of the habit of discerning good and evil and fulfilling the commandments of God.

Contemporary studies of the Christian life of adolescents show that the most important role in preserving faith and connection with the Church during the adolescent crisis is played by a believing adult who is not a relative. This allows us to say that an important role in the upbringing of children should be played by the church community. It is no accident that Protopresbyter Sergius Chetverikov wrote that for an adolescent «the sense of belonging to the Church is more important than the sense of belonging to the family. The family may be destroyed—the Church never. One who is conscious of himself as a member of the Church will never feel lonely in the world, without shelter: he feels himself in the strong hand of Christ, in the hand of God»[3]. At the same time, parents should remember that there is no guaranteed means that will prevent the crisis of a child’s faith and guaranteed help the adolescent to remain in the Church. Sometimes in crisis moments parents, literally fallen into despair, are inclined to force their children to go to church, to try to blackmail them with good treatment, to remind them of impending punishments. It is obvious that in a state of crisis of faith an adolescent will not take such things seriously and the price of his consent will be small. God needs the human heart, not the formal presence of the child at the service. In former times the majority of adolescents were kept within the bounds of generally accepted behavior by the Orthodox culture common to all. Today, living in a secular state, people are called to understand that they have no means of restoring the trust of an adolescent and that all that remains to them is to pray for his admonition, trying to preserve good personal relations. In the 15th chapter of the Gospel of Luke the Savior tells three parables that beautifully demonstrate the peculiarity of God’s perception of man. In the first parable it is said of a shepherd who, in order to find the lost sheep, finds himself compelled to set out in search of it and to carry it back to the flock on his shoulders. In the second—of the finding of the lost drachma, for which the housewife needed simply to search for it more attentively; the coin did not possess free will and could not resist its being found. However, in the parable of the prodigal son the father cannot simply find his son or bring him by force into his house, because the son is free. He may starve and try to eat food together with the swine, but he can return only himself, when, in the beautiful expression of the Gospel, he “comes to himself.” The father, for his part, proves to be a beautiful example of what parental behavior can be in this case: he loves his son and waits for his return.

[1] Lincoln, A. T. Ephesians / A. T. Lincoln. – Dallas : Word Books, 1990. – P. 406.

[2] Chetverikov S., “On the Difficulties of Religious Life in Childhood and Youth,“Put’[The Way], 1932, no. 34, p. 56.

[3] Ibis p. 60

The original ideal of marriage, as we see it in paradise, envisaged an indissoluble union between a man and a woman. After the Fall, marital relationships underwent significant changes, and polygamy and divorce became possible. Regarding the latter, it is traditionally pointed out that the Law of Moses permitted a man to give his wife a “letter of divorce” if she “fails to find favor in his eyes, because he has found something objectionable in her” (Deut. 24:1). Furthermore, a wife could leave her husband if he took a second wife and ceased to care for her as he had for the first (Exodus 21:10–11). On this basis, it is often concluded that the Old Testament as a whole viewed divorce as the norm. However, even in the prophetic literature, there are quite harsh words spoken by the Lord regarding divorce. He does not wish to accept sacrifices because husbands act treacherously toward the wives of their youth, their companions, and their covenant wives. The prophet asks: “But did He not unite them as one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why into one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore, guard your spirit, and let no one be unfaithful to the wife of his youth”. According to the prophet, “The Lord hates divorce, for it covers a person’s garment with violence” (Mal 2:13–16). One might think that it was precisely this thought of the prophet that the Savior continued in the aforementioned dialogue with the Pharisees, when He forbade divorce except in the case of adultery (Matt. 19:9; cf. Matt. 5:31–32). It is important to emphasize that the union of two people is brought about by the Lord Himself: for “what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Matt. 19:6).

The Apostle Paul also expresses a similar approach to divorce. However, he distinguishes between Christian marriages and mixed marriages. Addressing married couples who believe in Christ, he says: “To the married I give this command—not I, but the Lord—that a wife must not separate from her husband… nor a husband divorce his wife” (1 Cor. 7:10). Moreover, a believing spouse is called in any case “not to seek a divorce” (1 Cor. 7:12, 27), because through their Christian life they can sanctify the unbelieving spouse (1 Cor. 7:16) and lead them to salvation (1 Cor. 7:16). However, the situation is different if the unbelieving spouse desires a divorce. In such a case, according to the apostle, divorce is permissible, and “in that case, the brother or sister is not bound” (1 Cor. 7:15). Similarly, a believer is not bound by obligations to a spouse who has died. In both cases, remarriage is possible, but only “in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39).

Adultery and rejection by a spouse of a different faith are the two reasons underlying the Orthodox Church’s contemporary stance on divorce[1]. Based on these, the document outlines a number of grounds that may constitute sufficient—though not mandatory—reasons for dissolving a marriage. In any case, even while articulating these reasons, the Church continues to affirm the value of the bonds of marriage and calls on believers whose marital lives have encountered difficulties to strive for the healing and transformation of their broken relationships.

[1] See https://www.patriarchia.ru/article/98910

Before discussing the moral aspects of the sacrament of marriage, it is necessary to say a few words about the very fact of humanity’s division into two sexes. As is well known, upon assessing the state of the world after the completion of creation, God declares that it is “very good” (Gen. 1:31). From this, a fundamental conclusion necessarily follows: that the existence of both the male and female sexes is also good and was part of God’s plan, which He brought to fruition. There are several important nuances in the existing descriptions that are worth noting. Although the text refers to “man” in the singular at the time of creation, the author immediately clarifies, “male and female He created them.” It is noteworthy that the Hebrew text uses adjectives rather than nouns, and literally reads “male and female.” Thus, gender is a natural attribute that both men and women possess equally. They are equally made in God’s image and equally created to “rule” (Genesis 1:28). The commonality of male and female within human nature is expressed even more clearly in Chapter 5: “Male and female He created them, and He blessed them and named them ‘man’ on the day they were created.”

This allows us to say that both the image of God and the dominion mentioned in the first chapter belong equally to men and women. However, the separate account describing the creation of the wife also proves to be very important, for it is precisely this account that emphasizes the special status of humanity. Based on New Testament revelation and affirming that the purpose of human life is to know God (John 17:3) and to share in His divine life (2 Peter 1:4), we nevertheless see that, in order to achieve all these goals, a human being needs another human being. The Lord Himself, who is present at the naming of the animals, says that without “a helper like himself,” a person is alone (Gen. 2:18). While agreeing with the traditional view that the division of the sexes arose because God foresaw the Fall, death, and the need for procreation, contemporary theology also asserts that gender appears as a symbol of what connects humans to the animal world—that is, it speaks to “the cosmic nature of humanity”— while on the other hand “it turns out to be a profound marker of createdness, lack of self-sufficiency, and incompleteness”[1]. At the same time, he emphasizes that this incompleteness should not be viewed negatively, because in a positive theological context it can be understood as “a striving toward Life, toward the Good, expressed as a longing for one’s ‘other-half,’ for the other”[2].

At the same time, the account of Eve’s creation from Adam establishes the hierarchy between the sexes. Woman was created as עֵ֫זֶר (ʕḗzer), which is translated as “helper.” However, when discussing this, people often forget that this word is frequently used in the Bible to refer to God Himself. Thus, the psalmist says: “Blessed is the one whose helper is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord his God” (Ps. 145:5; cf. Deut. 33:26, Ps. 69:6). Similarly, in the LXX, the Greek word βοηθός, which is translated as “helper,” is also used by the apostle in reference to God (Heb 13:6). All this simply indicates that woman is not created as a secondary being, called only to help and support man, but as a co-worker on the common path toward those goals of dominion and creativity that God has set before them. In Paradise, there was undoubtedly a hierarchy, just as there is one in the Trinity, but this is a hierarchy of source, not a hierarchy of power and subordination. Responding to the question of whether the Father’s sole authority creates subordination for the Son and the Spirit, V. N. Lossky wrote: “No, for the Beginning is perfect only when it is the beginning of a reality that is equally perfect. … In our everyday experience, the cause is always higher than the effect; but in God, the cause—as the perfection of personal love—cannot produce effects that are less perfect; it wills them to be equally honorable and is therefore also the cause of their equality”. Long before Lossky, the Apostle Paul wrote: “The head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3). Considering that God is called the head of Christ in terms of the household, since the Father and the Son are equal in nature, we can say that a wife’s submission to her husband is of the same nature, while maintaining ontological equality. Reflecting on the fact that the wife was created as Adam’s helper, St. John Chrysostom says: “Not merely a helper, but ‘through him,’ indicating equal dignity”[3]. All the more so because the husband’s authority over his wife is explicitly formulated by God as part of the consequences of the Fall: “To the woman He said: ‘I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth; in pain you shall bring forth children; yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you’” (Gen. 3:16). According to the same saint: “Before her disobedience, she (the wife) was equal in honor to her husband”[4].

[1] Shmaliy, V., Rev. “Gender Issues in the Light of Christian Anthropology” // Moscow-Klin: Synodal Theological Commission, “Christian Life” Publishing House, 2004. — p. 258.

[2] Ibid., p. 259.

[3] St. John Chrysostom. Eight Homilies on the Book of Genesis. Homily 4

[4] St. John Chrysostom. Eight Homilies on the Book of Genesis. Homily 4

  • Gender Differentiation in a Theological Context
  • The Concept of Marriage in the Old Testament
  • New Testament Theology of Marriage
  • Marriage as a Path from ἔρως to ἀγάπη
  • Asceticism in Marriage
  • Christian Upbringing of Children
  • Divorce

Marriage as a Path from _ ἔρως_ _to _ ἀγάπη __

As already mentioned, in the New Testament the concept of love was primarily expressed by the Greek term ἀγάπη, rarely by φιλία, and is not expressed by the terms στοργή or ἔρως. This means that Gospel love is rational and free, rather than sensual and passionate (in the sense of being subject to passion). Despite this terminological—and, most importantly, semantic—selectivity of the New Testament, in the languages of many peoples who have embraced Christianity, the primary terms denoting love have, in their core meanings, remained closely associated first and foremost with a feeling rather than a relationship.

However, there is a certain logic to the primary understanding of love as a feeling, since sensual love is the first kind a person encounters. A child feels love for their parents, just as parents feel love for their children. Marriage, too, often begins with the feeling of being in love. In contemporary literature, there are various perspectives on this phenomenon of human life. There are even authors who strongly support the old-fashioned practice whereby parents selected future spouses for their children, while the young people had no choice but to accept the elders’ choice. When speaking positively of this practice, it is traditionally argued that parental intervention not only allows for a wise decision based on life experience but also eliminates the element of passion from the choice. In reality, however, as in many other cases, Christian virtues are used to replace traditional ones, somewhat refining them. Turning to Sacred Scripture, we can see that coercion in marriage did not exist in either the Old Testament or, even less so, in the New Testament. Naturally, patriarchal societies had their own laws, but these were not given any theological justification or binding status.

Romantic love can be entirely pure, as between Jacob and Rachel (Gen. 29:20), but it can also be sinful, as in the case of David and Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11:2–4). Furthermore, it is quite obvious that elders, too, may be guided by their own preferences, prejudices, or financial gain. It is no coincidence that, before performing the sacrament of marriage, the priest asks the future husband and wife whether their intention is good and free of coercion. To briefly characterize love—or being in love—one might say that it is not a conscious choice made by the person themselves, but rather something that happens to them, and they can control it only to a certain extent. Its object may not conform to generally accepted standards of beauty or behavior. Second, it implies the exclusivity of the object of affection. For example, there may be other women around a man in love, but he pays no attention to them. He seeks to spend time with the one he is in love with; he rejoices in her joys and grieves over her setbacks. The very act of being with her brings him joy and fills him with a tender, reverent feeling. Third, the object of love is idealized; their flaws go unnoticed. The person in love is ready to patiently accept flaws, to forgive and love the other not so much “as they are,” but “beyond who they are,” and sometimes even “in spite of who they are”. Finally, the person in love is self-sacrificing toward the needs of the one they love. For the sake of the real or even imagined well-being of the object of their affection, they may sacrifice their energy, time, resources, possessions, and perhaps even their life.

Love—or being in love—has been fairly well studied from biochemical and neurobiological perspectives. It has its own stages and typically lasts from several months to one and a half to two years. Gradually, it may come to an end or evolve into another form of love based on attachment, friendship, and shared values. However, from a Christian perspective, after passing through all the stages and possible variations of feelings within marriage, a man and a woman are called to strive for the highest form of love, ἀγάπη. Unlike erotic love, which is entirely a feeling independent of the will of the person in love, agapic love—on the contrary—is a state of the will. It does not depend on sympathy or antipathy, on living conditions or circumstances; it is rational, unconditional, and free. Within the context of a marital relationship, it is, first of all, a choice made by the person themselves and is therefore not bound by any conditions other than an inner, free desire to love. Second, such love implies fidelity. When the initial infatuation fades and a person sees that there are other people around who might also spark interest or even a new infatuation, they use an act of will to remain faithful to their choice, to the life they have built within their family, and to those physical, emotional, and spiritual bonds that once arose from love and were forged within the family through mutual effort. Third, love, as the Apostle Paul writes, “bears with” others’ shortcomings, shows mercy toward another’s weaknesses; it is not proud toward others, does not boast, is not irritable… Moreover, it does so quite consciously, demonstrating patience, humility, forbearance, and, ultimately, love itself toward a loved one. In this love, people not only restore the unity that was lost in the Garden of Eden but also root it in unity with Christ. Finally, such love implies self-sacrifice. Like romantic love, it does not seek its own interests but seeks the good of the neighbor. However, in this case, these actions are a conscious and voluntary decision that requires nothing in return and does not create a toxic dependency. Thus, the path that spouses are called to follow in marriage is a journey from sensual and unfree love to rational love, which is connected to the state of the will. Feelings are not denied or destroyed in this process, but are transformed and purified of passionate captivity.

New Testament views on marriage, on the one hand, continue and develop those of the Old Testament; on the other hand, they reveal the value of interpersonal relationships that are not tied to the realm of sexuality. Given that many Gnostics condemned and rejected marriage, it was important for the apostle to emphasize that within the community of disciples, marriage should be “honored” (τίμιος—honorable, valuable) and the marital bed “undefiled” (ἀμίαντος) (Heb 13:4). Emphasizing Christians’ positive attitude toward marriage, St. John Chrysostom wrote: “Paul, the matchmaker of the universe, surpasses every marriage officiant. That is why he is not ashamed to say: ‘Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled’ (Heb. 13:4). After all, the Lord Himself came to a wedding, honoring marriage with His presence, and even brought gifts by turning water into wine”[1]. Knowing that, in addition to the Judaizers, certain communities were being led astray by representatives of various Gnostic movements, he calls those who forbid marriage “deceptive spirits” and their words “demonic teachings” (1 Tim. 4:1–3).

The story of the wedding at Cana in Galilee indeed turns out to be a key narrative that reveals not only a positive attitude toward marriage but also the meaning of marriage as a New Testament sacrament, in which the Lord not only turns water into wine but also spiritually replenishes human strength that has run dry. Every person who enters into marriage desires to be happy in it. And, naturally, those entering marriage devote all their strength, all their human understanding, all the positive aspects of their character—everything they can—to being happy. However, no matter how hard people try, they still cannot create a perfect family; they cannot achieve perfect happiness on their own. In any family—even the most positive one—problems and misunderstandings arise. At the same time, the bridegroom mentioned in today’s reading, like any bridegroom, did everything on his part to ensure that the wedding feast was a success. But wine is not just wine in the literal sense; it is also a symbol of the strength and resources that a person can invest in a new, developing relationship. The newlyweds ran out of wine just as people run out of strength, even when they try very hard. At that moment — when the bridegroom realizes his own weakness, Christ offers him new wine, which is far better than the previous wine made by human hands. The image of the miracle performed at the wedding is an image of marriage itself as a miracle. The transformation of water into wine is the transformation of ordinary human relationships into relationships in Christ.

The very nature of the relationship between a husband and wife who have been married “in the Lord” is explained in detail by the Apostle Paul. Speaking about community life in general, he touches on the relationship between spouses, thereby showing that Christian love in marriage is a specific instance of Christian love in general. The apostle writes that Christians are called to live “submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph 5:21). In particular, wives are called to submit to their husbands “as to the Lord,” “for the husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church” (Eph 5:23). Moreover, the comparison of spouses to Christ and the Church leads the apostle to the conclusion that this submission must be manifested “in everything” (5:24). For the apostle himself, it is evident that husbands may be unbelievers, and consequently, their demands may be sinful.

The husband’s authority over his wife—a consequence of the Fall, in which the husband listened to his wife’s voice (Gen. 3:17)—is quite vividly reflected in all patriarchal cultures, and particularly in Old Testament culture. At the same time, even in the Book of Genesis there are situations in which either the Lord Himself instructs Abraham, “Listen to your wife Sarah” (Gen. 21:12), or the protagonist himself realizes that he must heed his wife’s advice (1 Sam. 1:23; 1 Sam. 25:32) and even simply a woman (Num. 27:7; Judg. 4:8–14) must be heeded. However, in the apostle’s view, a wife’s obedience to her husband is not based on a logic of authority and submission (Eph. 5:22; Col 3:18), but within the framework of authority-service (Eph 5:25; Eph 5:28). According to the apostle, “the husband is the head of the wife” (Eph 5:23), in a situation where “Christ is the head of the husband” (1 Cor 11:3). This means that if a husband’s behavior or demands are not in line with Christian principles, the wife may choose not to obey him.

In turn, the advice to Christian husbands—which, following the apostle’s logic, one might expect to be phrased as “husbands, rule over your wives as Christ rules over the Church”—is expressed differently: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her” (Eph 5:25). For the apostle, reasoning within the biblical logic of marriage as “one flesh” (Eph 5:31), it is evident that husbands must love their wives “as their own bodies” (Eph 5:28), and all of this occurs by virtue of their unity in the Body of Christ (Eph 5:30). Marriage as a social phenomenon has been known since ancient times, but in Christianity it becomes a mystical union. It is no coincidence that the apostle calls it a great mystery, comparable to the mystery of the unity of Christ and the Church (Eph 5:32).

As a sacrament, marriage is understood as a special liturgical act in which, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, a man and a woman are united in a special oneness in Christ. Its purpose is mutual salvation through love, faithfulness, mutual service, and bearing one another’s burdens, for the sake of fulfilling the law of Christ (Gal 6:2). Nowadays, it is often said that the church should be like a family, but this is because most people, while having experience with family life, lack experience with life in a Christian community. In fact, in terms of the nature of love, family members are called to ascend from natural and sensual love to a love that is supernatural and spiritual.

[1] John Chrysostom, St. A Discourse on the Psalms. Discourse 5. On the inscription of Psalm 50, on David’s repentance and on Uriah’s wife. 8.

Upon seeing Eve after her creation, Adam recognizes in her a human being formed from his own flesh. Following these words in the Book of Genesis come words that are usually taken as a continuation of Adam’s speech: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:3). However, in His conversation with the Pharisees, the Savior attributes these words to the Creator Himself (Matt. 19:5). Nevertheless, this dual attribution perfectly demonstrates that the difference in the understanding of marriage between the Old and New Testaments stems from a deeper understanding of the same theological foundation.

Even in the Old Testament, despite its focus on kinship ties and patriarchy, marriage is conceived as the union of two independent individuals, rather than of families or clans. In order for a family to be formed, a man is called, first, to “leave” his parental family and, second, to “cleave to his wife”. Without leaving behind previous relationships, it is impossible to build new, meaningful relationships. Obviously, this act of leaving does not imply a cessation of the son’s or daughter’s duties related to care and showing respect. The verb דְבַק (dabaq) means a conscious joining and clinging. Moreover, the resulting union takes place on all levels: physical and spiritual. It can be personal, in the sense of the union of two people, and communal, in the sense of entering into a covenant. Based on the meaning of the verb, the nature of the union is understood to be not temporary but permanent. Describing the essence of the marital “union into one flesh,” St. Gregory the Theologian wrote: “Those bound by the bonds of marriage serve as each other’s legs, hands, and ears. Marriage makes the weak twice as strong. The spouses’ shared concerns ease their sorrows; and their shared joys are all the more delightful to them. For spouses of one mind, even wealth becomes more pleasant; and in poverty, that very unity of mind is more pleasant than wealth… They share a single drink from the household spring, which outsiders do not partake of… Forming one flesh, they also have one soul”[1].

The result of marital unity is the birth of children, through which people fulfill the commandment given by God immediately after creation (Gen. 1:22). As already mentioned, in the Garden of Eden this could have been understood as creative partnership with God in the fulfillment of His plan for the world. However, after the Fall, the earthly purposes of marriage—largely related to survival and the continuation of the human race—came to the forefront of people’s minds. It is no coincidence that Abraham, when asking God for offspring, was concerned not so much that no one would continue his covenant with the Creator, but rather that he would have no one to whom he could bequeath his possessions (Gen. 15:2–3). The Lord Himself emphasizes that the one born of Abraham will be his heir (Gen. 15:4). As they grow up, children prove capable of protecting their families and preventing them from being disgraced (Ps. 126:4–5), as well as serving as a support in old age (Ruth 4:15). At the same time, God Himself points to the specific purposes of procreation, which cannot be reduced to the organization of earthly life. Immediately after the Fall, addressing the serpent, the Lord speaks of the “seed”—that is, the offspring of the woman—who will strike the serpent in the head. This passage is traditionally interpreted as a reference to the Messiah who would be born in the future. Furthermore, when speaking to Abraham, God likewise refers not only to an heir but also to the fact that “all the nations of the earth” will be blessed through the seed of the patriarch (Gen. 22:18). All of this led to childlessness being perceived as a punishment resulting in social condemnation. At the same time, most of the instances of infertility found in the Old Testament turn out to be part of God’s special providence. They culminate in the birth of children, which is presented as a response to trust and sincere prayer. At the same time, despite the importance of childbearing in the Old Testament, there is no particular emphasis on having many children as a virtue. The families of the righteous could have few children (1 Kings 1:1–2, Judges 13:2) or many children (Genesis 35:22–26, Job 42:13). Ultimately, in the Book of Jesus, son of Sirach, the question of how many children one should strive to have, is answered as follows: “Do not desire a multitude of worthless children, nor rejoice over the sons of the wicked. <…> Better is one righteous person than a thousand sinners, and better to die childless than to have wicked children, for from one wise person a city will be populated, but a tribe of the lawless will be laid waste (Sir 16:1a, 3–5).

Thus, even in the Old Testament, the purposes of marriage are twofold. First, it speaks of the complete unity of a man and a woman, in which they are called to attain the fullness of communion. At the same time, this very idea already contains notions of the unity between humanity and God, which will be fully revealed in the New Testament and in patristic theology. Second, it refers to childbearing, which must be understood not merely in social terms but theologically, as a continuation of God’s plan and a striving to ensure that God’s blessing extends to as many people as possible.

[1] Gregory the Theologian, Mystical Hymns. Homily 43.

Graph View

Backlinks