One of the obvious differences between the Orthodox and Western understanding of marriage is that in the West, marriage is what two people do, while in the East, it is something that is done to them. This difference is expressed in the wedding service. In the West, the two people give a set of vows, thus entering into a contract with each other. In the Orthodox service, no vows are exchanged; after the initial inquiry as to whether they want to be married to each other (more on that later), they say absolutely nothing. They also do nothing - everything is done to them: crowns are placed on their heads, they are led by the priest around a stand with the Gospel book on it, the common cup is given to them, even their wedding rings are placed on their fingers by other people. Whatever the historical development of the Orthodox rite may have been, its form points to the belief in the sacramental nature of marriage. In this way, the rite of marriage is similar to the Eucharist. One does not produce the Body and Blood of Christ the way that one would negotiate and produce a contract. All of the actions of the priest and the congregation are not aimed at the production of the Gifts, but at preparing their own hearts and souls for the reception of the sacrament.
When we speak of the sacramental nature of marriage, I think that we mean something very specific. Marriage is not a sacrament because it is listed as such in the catechism; it is not a sacrament because God blesses the couple in some general way. One possible definition of a sacrament, to be more precise for the purposes of this study, is a change (μεταβολή)- it is not quantitative (whereby vows, blessings, certificates, etc. are added to the couple) but qualitative - the couple does not remain the same two people they were before the wedding but is changed ("changing them by Your Holy Spirit" in the Eucharistic sense - Μεταβαλὼν τῷ Πνεύματί Σου τῷ ῾Αγίῳ) into something they were not - a specific icon of Christ and His Church.
Just saying this, however, does not make it so. Many Orthodox marriages do not resemble the icon of Christ and look very similar to whatever model of marriage that the contemporary society presents. If our theology is not having much practical effect in the actual marriages, then it must be made relevant to the lives of Orthodox spouses. The sacramental nature of an Orthodox marriage and the real presence of God as the third Person in the "trinity" of God, man and woman, needs to be made real in order to help move toward the sacramental change of the spouses.
One way to do that is to shift focus from marriage being an arrangement where one receives, into an arrangement where one gives. The secular understanding of marriage very often is as a means by which things are to be gained: love, companionship, children, financial security, a trophy, etc. Orthodoxy could present a model which focuses on the giving, the "emptying" of self. (This would probably help make Orthodox marriages stronger.) The Orthodox model for marriage could begin with the vision of marriage as a witness (μαρτύριον) to Christ's self-sacrifice. In fact, when we speak of marriage being an icon of Christ and His Church, perhaps, we could clarify that it is specifically the self-sacrificial love of Christ that should be reflected through marriage. And just as an ‘Orthodox heritage club’ is changed into the Church by the Eucharistic presence and action of the Holy Spirit, the married couple is no longer just a socio-economic unit or an instrument of reproduction but a “small Church,” the Body of Christ, His image in and to the world.
One aspect of the wedding ceremony which may be interesting in this context is the question about the free and unconstrained will that is asked in the beginning of the marriage service. It would seem that historically, there rarely was “free and unconstrained” mutual consent in most Christian marriages. In Russia as in many other cultures, marriages were arranged by the parents. Undoubtedly, mutual attraction may have been a factor in some marriages, but the "freedom to marry" did not exist as an institution until very recently. Even nowadays, various circumstances - from an unplanned pregnancy to economic considerations - place constraints on people’s freedom to decide. So, if the words about the free and unconstrained will truly mean an absolute freedom and a complete lack of constraints, then either few marriages rise to this standard, or the words must mean something different - not what we think of initially. Perhaps at that moment, the free and unconstrained will is to be "created" - the person makes a choice to say "I do." In other words, the question is not so much whether the couple came to the temple under a complete lack of any constraints, but whether they are willing to put their free and unconstrained will into this relationship from this point forward. This is not a meaningless choice, since on the other side of it is a rejection. In other words, what is happening will be happening regardless of whether the two people have lingering reservations - the wedding will take place. But it is within the couple's power to make the marriage work or not. And even though the context of the wedding service seems to suggest otherwise at first glance, this very act of putting human will into the ceremony is a necessary intrinsic element of the sacrament.
Elsewhere, I have written about a distinction between miracles, works of man, and sacraments. When God acts alone, it is a miracle; when man acts alone, it is works of man; when the wills and acts of God and man intersect in synergy, it is a sacrament. The “free and unconstrained will” of the human participants then, is necessary in order for a marriage to become a sacrament. And it cannot be some general will to marry; it has to be specific and immediate - the will to take "this person whom you see here before you" as your spouse. Again, there is a Eucharistic parallel to this mystery: man cannot become the Body of Christ by his will; God cannot turn man into the Body of Christ against man’s will; only at the intersection of God’s will and man’s will, in their co-laboring, the sacrament of the Body is realized: “Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us [first and foremost] and these gifts here presented.”
On the other hand, the question must be asked: what exactly the two people are consenting to or willing to do? It is certainly not the matter of living together or having babies - people have been doing that without the Church's blessing for thousands of years, and many continue to do so. So, when we speak of marriage as an icon of Christ and His Church, it is not the icon of cohabitation or procreation but of martyrdom. The crowning, the central element of the service, has only one meaning: the bestowal of martyrs' crowns. The real question to which the spouses respond "I do," is not whether they want to live together and make babies, but whether they are accepting the cross and making the sacrifice: "Do you have the free and unconstrained will to give your life for this person whom you see here before you? No lists of vows or contracts with small print to negotiate - because when you give away your life, you give it all and you lose it all, expecting no barter, no deal, no benefit in return." In other words, it is the same “I do” as that of Christ at the pre-eternal Council of the Holy Trinity (совет превечный).
It may be that this is the only way that the question about the free will makes sense. Marriage may be pre-arranged or the decision is constrained in some way - and such are the realities of earthly life; but the self-sacrifice in the image of Christ can never be pre-arranged or constrained - it is always a free choice, just like His.
How is this concept expressed liturgically? The connection between wedding rites and the Eucharist is not a mistake - it makes intuitive sense, even if it lacks historicity. Thus, ideally, every Liturgy should point to Christ's sacrifice to us and compel us to reflect this image back to our spouses and to the world. And when Christ’s self-sacrifice is realized as the model for our marriages, the Eucharist becomes the liturgical expression of answering "I do," which then changes that brief moment at the beginning of the wedding service from something seemingly-unimportant and not altogether memorable into something which is connected to the timelessness of the Eucharist and to the image and likeness of Christ in the spouses.
Last but not least, this is a reader-supported publication; please share it with your friends and family! And if you would like access to all our posts, please consider becoming a paid subscriber - it is only $5 per month ($4 if you subscribe for a year); getting married will cost incomparably more than that and may even cost you your very life.
Share this post