A T h e o l o g i c a l I n t r o d u c t i o n t o M a r r i a g e | 81

A Theology of Marriage: An Introduction

A. N. Dacanay, S.J.

This section, while probably not as extensive as the first, is the core of the course. We often hear the
phrase "sacramental marriage" or the "sacrament of marriage". What we would like to do in this
chapter is to understand more accurately what exactly is meant by that expression. The chapter is
divided into four unequal parts. The introduction is intended to collocate the discourse on marriage
in a proper historical context; the second part, entitled Marriage as a Human Reality, emphasizes the
fact that marriage is, first and foremost, a human reality before it is interiorly transformed into a
sacrament and elevated into the economy of salvation; the third part treats the sacramentality of
marriage in a two-step process: its sacramental potential as found in SS and as it is realized as a
specifically Christian sacrament in Eph 5; the fourth and the last part is a theological reflection on the
sacramentality of marriage. This section attempts to understand and present a reasonable account of
the teaching of the Church that marriage is a sacrament.
0. Introduction
0.1 Traditional View of Marriage. There is a certain strain in the tradition of western Christianity to
see marriage as an inferior response to the fundamental vocation of all men to love and holiness.
This view can be verified in the theological literature of the period as well as in many monastic
practices such as what we have seen in the earlier part of the course. This position, as we have said
previously, is connected with a certain world view which saw the world and anything connected with
it as evil, an opportunity for sin, a distraction from man's ultimate destiny with God.
0.1.1 Origins of this Doctrine and basis of this doctrine may be found in 1 Cor. 7, and its
understanding and interpretation by subsequent authors and spiritual writers, particularly in the
following verses:
1-2: It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immorality,
each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
5: Do not refuse one another except perhaps by mutual consent and only for a time so that
you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then, come together again lest Satan tempt you
through lack of self- control.
8-9: To the unmarried and the widows, I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am.
But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to
be aflame with passion.
It was because of these texts, and others similar to them, that we say that it is certainly clear that Paul
did not have a very flattering opinion of marriage. It was on the basis of this teaching, as it was
understood, that the doctrine we call traditional arose and was taught in the Church for many
centuries. In many ways, it was also because of this, and a certain understanding of it, that marriage
and sexual relations were not understood properly.

82 | A d o l f o D a c a n a y , S . J .

0.1.2 Why did Paul teach what he taught in 1 Cor. 7? The following verses in the same chapter of 1
Cor. may be a clue to the reason why Paul taught what he taught. They can assist in the proper
understanding of this doctrine.
26: I think that in view of the impending distress, it is well for a person to remain as he is.
29: I mean bretheren, the appointed time has grown short. From now on let those who have
wives live as though they have none.
31: For the form of this world is passing away.
In other words, it would seem that Paul taught what he taught because of the expectation that the
end of the world was near, very near, as a matter of fact. This is what biblical scholars and exegetes
call the belief in the imminent parousia. His teaching on marriage should therefore be seen in the
context of the fact that he thought, as many others at that time believed, that the end of the world was
very near. It was the imminence of the last judgment that colored his teaching, and that he would not
have taught what he taught were it not for this belief as we shall see infra.
Parousia simply means the end of the world. This belief was rather common in the NT. Mark 9, 1:
Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the
kingdom of God come with power. Jesus is recorded as believing that the end of the world would
come within the lifetime of his listeners, or at least of some of them. As Jesus exhorts and encourages
his followers, he strengthens their resolve against the prospective persecutions by saying that the
end of the world is near, and so is their relief and reward for their fidelity to him. In Mt 10, 23: If
they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will have gone through all
the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes.
This belief in the imminent parousia is closely connected with messianism. This term refers to the
faith in the power and will of Yahweh to save, and takes form as Israel learns more clearly what that
power is and how it is exercised, how it is moving force of history, and what it means to be saved.
Through its history, Israel learns that salvation is not achieved through cultural and political
institutions; salvation is achieved only through the intervention of Yahweh, and since the obstacle to
salvation is man's refusal to accept it [that is to say, it is not ignorance but malice and contumacy],
the intervention of Yahweh frequently takes the form of judgment. Messianism precisely understood,
that is to say with reference to a personal human agent in deliverance, brings out the human factor in
deliverance. While it is the work of Yahweh, it is a work in which man must share. It was a common
belief that the arrival of the messiah clearly signals the long-awaited salvation of Israel and thus the
consummation of the world. Therefore, when Jesus makes his messianic claims, even if only
guardedly because of a common misconception that the messiah will restore the political fortunes of
Israel, it is to be expected that many of his followers, including probably himself, believed that the
end of the world was likewise approaching.
There are some problems that are raised in the wake of the fact that Jesus seems to have fallen into
error on some basic point when he believed that the end of the world was imminent when, as a
matter of fact, it was not. There are various theories to explain the difficulty away--for example
Charles Dodd and the evangelist Mark. The problem is complex, and the solutions proposed by some
are involved. It is not immediately germane to the matter at hand, and it is not necessary nor fruitful
at this point, to enter into it. It is sufficient to be aware of the problem and the complexity of the
"solutions and interpretations" that have been proposed.
But in the context of the imminent parousia, it would seem that Paul is saying: we should spend what
little time we have left to us to prepare ourselves for the last judgment. This seems to be what Paul

A T h e o l o g i c a l I n t r o d u c t i o n t o M a r r i a g e | 83

is, in effect, teaching in vv. 32-34: I want you to be free of anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious
about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord, but the married man is anxious about the affairs
of the world; how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and
the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord so that they may be holy in the body and spirit;
but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please her husband. The
teaching of Paul is valid if seen in the context of the parousia that was thought to have been
imminent.
0.1.3 However, after the elapse of several years, Paul seems to have realized that the parousia was
not as imminent as he thought it would be. In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul presents a different
doctrine on marriage, one that is more positive, more wholesome, certainly more appreciative of the
values of the human relationship and commitment that is possible in marriage. The doctrine
proffered in Ephesians seems to be more aware of the fulfillment of the human person that is
possible in a special way in marriage.
22-24: Wives, be subject to your husband as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the
head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church...
25-26: Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for
her in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word.
31-32: For this reason, man will leave his father and mother and will cling to his wife, and
the two will become flesh. This is a great mystery and I am applying it to Christ and the
Church.
Paul now compares the relationship between husband and wife to the relationship of selfless love
between Christ and the Church. This is certainly a much more positive doctrine of marriage.
0.2 However, it was the doctrine of Paul proposed in 1 Cor. 7 that prevailed as an understanding of
marriage in the Church. It was the doctrine that saw marriage as an inferior response to the
invitation of all men to a life of love and holiness. Without going into the intricate points of the
question, one can say that if it prevailed, it was probably because it was more consonant with the
temper of the people of the times. It prevailed because it probably validated and supported what the
people, or the equivalent of their opinion makers, thought or believed in. The fact that there were
many excesses at that time [e.g. the abuses that were seen in Corinth as a port city, the sexual abuses
associated with fertility cults and some heretical sects as those who believed in the androgynous
character of the creator] certainly contributed to the discomfort of the culture as well as of the
people towards sex.
0.3 A theological critique of the doctrine of marriage proposed in 1 Cor. 7. The following three points
of criticism or clarification may be offered for a proper reading of the text to avoid a simplistic and
uncritical understanding of the doctrine being proposed by Paul.
0.3.1 It is possible to see that an implication of the Pauline doctrine in 1 Cor. 7 seems to be that the
service and response offered to God is individual, and therefore one can say that one response is
better than another. Concerning this point, two observations must be made. First, it must be
affirmed that it is not so much the form of response [whether it is priesthood, religious life, or
married life] that matters, but how faithfully one lives the commitment and responsibility implied in
that state of life. Second, it should also be pointed out that when we speak of the service of God and
the worship we offer him, we do not worship him as individuals but as a community gathered
together by the word of God and around the table of the Lord. In other words, we worship him as
Church, the body of Christ. As a body, there are many members and various functions; different parts

84 | A d o l f o D a c a n a y , S . J .

and functions, but one can hardly claim that one part of function is better than another. In another
context, we had said that we as the baptized constitute the one body of Christ. It is this one body,
precisely as the body of Christ that offers the spiritual sacrifice acceptable to God, in the exercise of
the one priesthood of Christ. It is for the reason that we constitute the one body of Christ, offering
the spiritual sacrifice acceptable to God in the exercise of the one priesthood of Christ that we share
through baptism that we are able to affirm that no service is better than another since our service
and worship of God is corporate rather than individual.
0.3.2 The dilemma that seems to have been implied by Paul arising from a certain reading of vv. 3234 [I want you to be free of anxieties]. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord; how
to please the Lord, but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world; how to please his wife,
and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of
the Lord so that they may be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about the
affairs of the world, how to please her husband ] does not seem to be valid. It is more correct to say
that the service and the love of God is a mediated love. This is to say that one does not and cannot
love God directly, only through the love and service of other people. A genuine love of God requires
and presupposes as the concrete and necessary expression the love and service of other people.
Otherwise, it would not be a genuine love of God. A genuine love and service of other people, on the
other hand, is implicitly a love and service of God.
0.3.3 Another way of expressing the same affirmation is that a genuine commitment to God does not
separate us from people; just as a genuine commitment to other people does not take us away from
God. As a matter of fact, a genuine commitment to God requires a commitment to people who were
created in God's image and likeness. It is not only the God in others that we serve, respect, and are
committed to; but it is only in others that we can find this image and likeness of God. It is for this
reason that one of the Fathers of the Church had written: gloria Dei homo vivens. The glory of God is
man fully alive.
++++