Engaging the Doctrine of Marriage. Matthew Levering

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ Orthodox Reality, 132; see also 133–38. Notably, Guroian ties this point to the fact that “Christ is the groom and the church is his bride of the new creation. The referent of the groom is the first man, Adam, and the referent of the bride is the first woman, Eve. The nuptial Adam-Eve humanity of the book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, is the analogue of the heavenly nuptials of the marriage of the Lamb in the book of Revelation (19:7), the last book of the Bible. The creation of nuptial humanity is an epiphany of the eternal humanity of God precedent to its complete revelation in the incarnation. The creation of nuptial humanity is a prophecy of the church, which itself, through its nuptial union with Christ, fulfills the goal and purpose of creation. Human willing and choosing cannot change marriage’s essence or the symbolism that God has ordained for it. Thus in the Orthodox faith there could never be such a thing as same-sex marriage. There is not a same-sex equivalent to bride and groom. To insist that there are such equivalencies and to act on this error not only represents marriage as something it is not but also envisions salvation as something it is not. And because same-sex marriage contradicts the church’s understanding of salvation, specifically of marriage as restoration of the divine image in nuptial humanity, it is a grave heresy” (Guroian, The Orthodox Reality, 135–36).

      84. Bouyer, The Seat of Wisdom, 199.

      85. For discussion see Fagerberg, Consecrating the World, 83.

      Chapter 1

      God and His People

As I have emphasized, behind the creation of the cosmos stands God’s purpose to accomplish the wondrous marriage of God and his people. Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik tells the story that when he was a boy, his Rabbi told him, “the Almighty waits for mankind to appear and kneel before Him, recognize His kingdom and kingship, and give him the crown. This great event of coronation will occur at some point in the future; we do not know when and how. . . . Then the whole world will find its redemption.”86 This crowning of God as King is not merely a case of inferiors (humans) recognizing their true superior (God). Rather, it will be the consummation of an intense and ages-long romance instigated by God, fulfilling the human person’s deepest yearnings for communion with God (and each other). As Soloveitchik puts it, “There is a romance between man and God. Man has an uncontrollable, powerful longing, an invisible craving and desire to unite with God, to be close to Him, to submerge in Him.”87

But is this desire for intimacy with God actually a good thing for human beings? If the graced purpose of creation is the marriage of God and humankind—and Soloveitchik suggests that such profound intimacy does indeed constitute the original purpose, although he does not use the term “marriage”88—is the pursuit of this purpose something that humans should desire? In a rather flippant manner, Hans Küng has called into question the desirability of such intimate union with God: “Does a reasonable man today want to become God?”89 It may be that the lack of desire partly comes about because we know that we are sinners, unworthy of intimate communion with God. Recall the response of the prophet Isaiah to seeing a vision of God (YHWH) enthroned in glory. Far from rejoicing, Isaiah responds in agony: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!” (Isa 6:5). It may also be that, as Jon D. Levenson says, we have lost a proper understanding of love: “where love is understood as primarily a sentiment, the dimension of deeds and of the service that the deeds bespeak is lost or radically transformed.”90 Levenson justifiably fears that the sentimental notion of love has resulted in “the perception that all talk of God’s love or of loving God is, at base, a treacly thing that appeals only to the emotionally weak,” making of religion a mere “crutch.”91

All this is troubling. Even more troublingly, however, it may appear from Scripture that God has acted like an abusive husband toward his covenantal bride whom he professes to love. Levenson observes, “The severity of the punishments that Hosea’s symbolic wife is to endure has understandably attracted the attention of feminist scholars.”92 It may seem that “the dominant position of men is reinforced by God’s role as husband,” even if the male citizens of Israel were “expected to identify . . . also with Israel as God’s wife.”93 In the prophecy of Jeremiah, God complains bitterly against the spiritual adultery of his people Israel.94 Indeed, God threatens to punish Israel in ways that are drawn from the cultural language of powerful husbands threatening unfaithful and powerless wives.95 At the same time, promising restoration, God assures his people, “I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you. Again I will build you, and you shall be built, O virgin Israel!” (Jer 31:3–4). God will do this even though the people of Israel broke their covenant with him—a covenant so intimate that, as God says, “I was their husband” (Jer 31:32). Not only was God their husband, but God in his “everlasting love” and “faithfulness” still is their husband. God will act to place this relationship on an everlasting foundation.

In Hosea’s prophecy, similarly, God warns of a coming tribulation, a dire punishment of his people’s spiritual adultery. The prophet describes God threatening his unfaithful “wife” by stripping her naked and having no pity upon her children.96 Yet, God also promises Israel that “I will betroth you to me for ever; I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love, in mercy. I will betroth you to me in faithfulness; and you shall know the Lord” (Hos 2:19–20).97

The Letter to the Hebrews says bluntly, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb 10:31). In our fallen condition, few people cross the boundary of death lightly, and perhaps even fewer lightly give over their lives to the will of God. Yet, Thomas Joseph White is correct to affirm that nonetheless “the human person is marked by longings for the infinite. Each human being has a hidden natural desire to see God”; we can be satisfied by nothing less than God.98 These longings have to do with the kind of creatures that we are, with the graced call to an intimate dwelling with God that we received from the beginning and to which the whole of Scripture testifies.99 In his Confessions, Augustine perceives that “you [God] have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.”100

      Yet, what if the God who reveals himself through the prophets is not worthy of our love, because he is terrifyingly abusive? Can we still desire the eschatological marriage of God and his people? In response, this chapter proceeds in two steps. First, I survey the New Testament scholar Brant Pitre’s popular book on Jesus as the Bridegroom Messiah who fulfills the marriage covenant promised by God to Israel through the prophets. In this section, I also draw upon Scott Hahn’s work on covenant and kinship, since it influences Pitre’s perspective. Second, I set forth the concerns of the Old Testament scholar Gerlinde Baumann in order to give full force to the fact that the prophets at times portray God in the role of a dominant male who threatens or implements violence against an unfaithful wife or woman. In the face of this abusive imagery, I suggest a twofold solution.

First, I retrieve the allegorical exegesis of such passages advocated by the Church Fathers (notably, in the present chapter, Jerome). Second, I take note of historical-critical research that shows that in its original historical context this imagery primarily indicated the importance of women for the survival of the people. The people of Israel—including the men—were represented by a woman in the prophetic imagery in part because the very survival of the people depended upon women bearing and raising children. Sadly, the people were represented by the image of an adulterous woman (among other images) because in their covenantal relationship to God, the people “are neither a devoted bride nor an obedient son. They are, rather, a people acting like a wife who flagrantly and chronically cheats on her husband, manically pursuing sexual gratification at the expense of covenantal fidelity, or like a son who ungratefully and obstinately refuses to serve his loving, giving father.”101 The Scriptures of Israel portray not a mutually loving marriage between God and his people, but rather an unfaithful people and a faithful God. Levenson comments, “The love, СКАЧАТЬ