What do you think?
Rate this book
Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective
This excellent study on Christian marriage, John Meyendorff examines marriage in the Orthodox Christian Church from the contexts of Judaism and the New Testament, the early Church and Roman law, sacramental life, and contemporary society. Specific issues discussed include: second marriages, 'mixed' marriages, divorce, abortion, family planning and responsible parenthood, married clergy, celibacy, and the monastic life. Essential reading for all pastors, it is also useful for parents, newlyweds and those preparing or the sacrament of marriage.
144 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1975
6 people are currently reading
233 people want to read
About the author
John Meyendorff
60 books40 followersFr John Meyendorff (1926-1992) was a Professor of Church History and Patristics at St Vladimir s Orthodox Theological Seminary, and a professor of History at Fordham University, NY. He was a Fellow of the National Endowment for the Humanities (1976-77), and a Guggenheim Fellow. He held honorary doctorates from the University of Notre Dame and General Theological Seminary, was a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy, and a Senior Fellow at Dumbarton Oaks. In 1990 The Diploma of Honorary Member of the Leningrad Theological Academy was bestowed upon him.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
November 26, 2022
Learned a lot; learned mostly that I need to learn more. It was great until one of the end quotes which ruined the peace and the vibe of the whole book, especially since there was zero exposition on it earlier. Having a grounding in dogmatic and liturgical theology always makes me happy though. :)
January 5, 2025
John Meyendorff was a French-born theologian of Baltic-German heritage who spent most of his time in the OCA on the East Coast and died in 1992, so he never saw the dominance of Postmodernism taking over America. So here he spends little time talking about Protestants, the Reformers or Dispensationalism and their children- Modernism and Postmodernism, but rather spends most of the text arguing for a return to a pre-Roman perspective on marriage by re-linking it as a function of the Eucharistic Liturgy. Certainly, it is well known that this is how ancient Christian marriages were performed, but he wants marriages to be more heavily correlated to the Eucharist, as it was in Apostolic times. For, in the same way that we have bread and wine in the Eucharist, in the right of baptism, we have water, and in the sacrament of marriage, we have the Man and Woman, icons of Adam and Eve, being Ontologically changed by the intersection of realities through the sacramental rite of marriage. From the spear that pierced His side flowed the blood of the Eucharist and the waters of Baptism; As Eve came from the side of the Old Adam, so the new Eve (the church), came from the New Adam. Meyendorff notes:
Mentioning Jung and Freud on the first page, Meyendorff only briefly speaks about Western history and its impact on modern perspectives on marriage- only commenting on Roman Catholic perspectives, which have driven the various Protestant views. But to understand modern secular perspectives on marriage we have to understand about Luther's deliberate edits to the Bible, his Penal Substitutionary Sola Fide Soteriology, his metaphysically Atheistic position of Claritas Scriptura, his re-interpretation of marriage as merely a contract so he could defend his benefactors' Polygamy (Philip of Hesse), the broad Protestant denial of the Third Ecumenical Council’s teachings on the Theanthropos (removing the Theology of the New Eve), the Iconography of the 16th century destroying the Archetypes of Adam and Eve and the distinctions between them, Zwingli's desecration of the Eucharist collapsing the Subject-Object paradigm, the radical Reformation's Anabaptist "believer's baptism" concept and it's retroactive impact on Sacramental theology, John Nelson Darby's Dispensationalist Eschatology and re-interpretation of Biblical prophecy resurrecting the ancient heresy of Marcionism, and the deeper metaphysical shifts these new theologies represent. For without conservative"Bible-Believing" Evangelicals, who are a Frankenstein amalgamation of all of these theologies, there would be no Postmodern religion. Modern Protestants are Modernists in their metaphysics, and the purple-haired gender relativity theorists are Postmodernists; the natural evolution of "Conservative Christians" (i.e.Fundamentalists); today's Neo-Puritans. Orthodoxy watched this evolution from Puritanism to these New Puritans over the last two hundred years, and is utterly unaffected by it, but Protestant churches, with no Apostolic succession and institutional anchor, are thrown about by the opinions of society, and eventually adopt them. And this is because Protestantism has unanchored itself from the faith and the body (church) of Christ. It is tethered to nothing but a subjective, personal interpretation of the Bible,severing the metaphysical connections between the natural and the supernatural, rendering even the possibility of Sacraments null and void.
Into Soteriology: Luther's De-Sacramentalization of Marriage
Meyendorff assumes the reader understands how Catholicism and Orthodoxy use the word Mystery- but secular or Protestant readers might understand the word as "something hidden" or unknown, not as a Gestalt phenomenon. The Apostolic phasing of the Sacraments as "mysteries" conflicts with the flat modern definition of the word. In the ancient sense, the sense in which Paul and the apostles used the word , a mystery is a participation in a higher reality, are conciliation of the material and the immaterial within the present phenomenological experience of reality. It designates an ontologic change in the subject who is engaging in the mystery. But in the modern usage of the term, it usually refers to something cryptic, something hidden or something that is not understood. It is not an initiation into something greater than yourself. Thus, when the Orthodox say marriage is a mystery which initiates one deeper into the cosmic mystery of Christ, changing the nature of the soul and bringing one closer to Christ through the process of theosis, a Puritanical or Anabaptist mind cannot track any part of this apostolic formula.
There isn't much commentary on the Protestant understanding of marriage in this book. Meyendorff is explicit and comedic in his condemnation of Roman Catholic marriage, which Protestantism is the de-evolution and simplified version of, so he does not bother addressing the30,000+ denominations of Protestantism and the millions of individualized views on marriage in self-described "Bible-believing" (i.e. Fundamentalist) churches:
The various Protestant views are looped in under this. Butto be fair to the reformers, the roots of the de-sacralization of marriage started in the conflict between the Patristic teachings (including the early church cannons) and Roman law's concept of nuptias non concubitus, sedconsensus facit, which already characterized marriage as a type of agreement between two parties. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD to the Germanic chieftain Odoacer, the Christianized Eastern Roman Empire,centered in Constantinople, had new responsibilities to comment on the validity of marriage given to it by the Christianized Emperor, even for the non-Baptized, which unintentionally secularized parts of church practice out of necessity. Due to Emperor Diocletian's implementation of the Tetrarchy system a century earlier, dividing the empire into four regions, each ruled by a separate ruler (two senior emperors"Augusti" and two junior emperors "Caesares"), the Eastern Roman empire continued on with business as usual, despite the fall of Rome.Here, Christian canon law co-existed with the Roman definitions of state marriage- and for the first time- the Empire forced the church to produce marriage certificates so the State could track marriages for legal reasons. In the 9th century, especially around Leo VI, the church was given a new position as the institution which also determined the valid legal status of the marriage, a new social responsibility that it had never had in history before. Instead of merely coexisting with the state institutions and maintaining its own sacred understanding of the validity of marriage separately, it now had to involve itself and to "secularize its pastoral attitude towards marriage and practically abandon its penitential discipline." This was the first time marriage was wrongly intertwined with the state, taking the edge off of its Sacramental nature, because "Until the 9th century the church did not know any rite of marriage separate from the Eucharistic liturgy". In the far East, the Orthodox Christian churches which never were influenced by the Roman empire, such as the St. Thomas Christians, never enforced marriage for the state like this, and still do not, maintaining a "purer"Christian understanding of marriage that has never had to concern itself with the government.
In the periods of persecution, marriage was flattened down to it's core elements out of necessity- participation in the Eucharist, and the blessing of the clergy with legitimate Apostolic succession. He emphasizes that in both Roman persecution and Soviet persecution, the church used communion as the church' recognition of the Sacrament of marriage, without the ceremony of crowning and the rest of the ancient marriage liturgical service. St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote to Polycarp in 100 AD " Those who get married must unite with the knowledge of the bishop, so that marriage may be according to the Lord, and not by human desire". And this is a critical intersection that defines a Sacrament, and why a Priest or Bishop with legitimate Apostolic succession is the only way a Christian marriage can take place. "Pastor" is not a Biblical category, and getting married by a Pastor has the same legitimacy as getting married by a friend:
This Roman history set the stage for the Medieval Catholic understanding of marriage, which became purified and abstracted in the Reformation. This confusion over what a sacrament and what a mystery is pervades all of the texts of the reformers. Reformation's definitions of theological categories were informed by the materialistic rationalistic definitions from the enlightenment, not from first century Mesopotamia. And still to this day the Baptist understanding of sacrament stems from these same enlightenment fallacies. Even though Western with theologians, like CS, Lewis or NT right? Have studied enough history to understand these flaws, because Christianity was rendered “institutionless” and “traditionless”, it is also permanently embedded in these flaws, and can never return or restore the apostolic Christianity of the New testament.
Part of the ignorance which drove the Reformation is textual. 4th Ezra and the other books removed by Luther contain critical texts to understand the relationship between the Old and New testament. Paul's constant references to the first and second books of Enoch in the Gospels, and the deliberate Enochic patterns of atonement used by Paul, context which is fundamentally absent from the infinite debates on the nature of salvation between Protestants.
Luther abolished the possibility of a real sacrament with his new theology of the "Universal Priesthood" of all believers. With this convenient re-definition of sainthood designed to allow his benefactors, especially Landgrave Philip of Hesse who wanted to marry multiple women. No"Bible-believing" Christian has any right to speak about Gay marriage desecrating marriage; for it is Protestant theology's desecration of the Holy which is the sole cause of the LGBT ideology of the '90s, and the postmodern gender ideology of the present day 10's, '20's and 30's. Evangelicalism has been unable to coherently explain what about same-sex marriage by a secular government is wrong; for as soon as they start using the words "holy" or"sacred", the glaring metaphysical bankruptcy of their tradition becomes apparent to all. Luther's de-sacritization of marriage and the related Iconoclasm dovetailed with Zwingli's de-sacralization of the Eucharist, rendering the Protestant view of Marriage conflicted, confused, and unanchored. John Calvin continued this desecration and referred to marriage as "a sacrament falsely so-called". Huldrich Zwingli utilized Luther's re-definition of Christianity as merely accepting aset of intellectual statements to render the Eucharist as merely a way to remember Christ, not metaphysically participate in divine energy, and thus further laid the anti-metaphysical foundations of the desecration of marriage. Meyendorff notes:
The misunderstanding of Jewish history, basic facts about the Bible and Christian history and the other errors that led to Protestant theology should not be surprising considering that both Calvin, Luther and the other reformers all believed that the Heliocentric theory was blasphemous, to the point where they stated that anyone who believed that the earth revolved around the sun was not a Christian; Calvin was an unrepentant murderer and Luther called for the extermination of all Jews. Both men literally modified the Bible to make it fit their supposedly "traditionless" tradition;Luther to the point of removing entire books. Yet the wild theories about where iconography and the veneration of saints created by these men still persists as the dominant narrative among low-church Protestants. Calvin and Luther had the same understanding of Christian history, Conta-Christian Rabbinic Jewish history, and the original languages of the Bible as a modern 6th grader who goes to Sunday School has. Yet, their opinions, rooted in historically false assumptions, are the unquestioned foundation of "non-denominational"evangelicalism which now exist in bumper-sticker format. These thought-ending cliches like "Constantine started Icons" or"prayer to saints is what replaced the pagan roman gods", remain the norm in Protestantism, even though these beliefs fall apart with the slightest amount of research. All more nuanced Protestant historical arguments are arguments from silence.
But there can be no Protestantism without these factual misunderstandings; because recognizing the historical fact that Icons, prayer to saints and the veneration of the Theotokos is not only Apostolic, but rooted in Second-Temple Judaism, completely destroys the foundational historical narrative of a "reformation", it exposes that the delusional anachronistic misrepresentation of what the Reformers thought 1st century Christianity looked like actually never existed. The "original"pre-Catholic ideal that they were attempting to restore Christianity to never actually existed. Protestantism is a deviation, not a restoration.
Then, the religious wars of the 17th century drove a further de-evolution of the Christian concept of marriage. Both the materialism of the enlightenment, which drove the reformation, also drove the bloodshed of the 17th century and the 30 years war, which altogether stripped marriage down as a government function. The Treaty of Westphalia also drove anachronistic re-interpretations of Christ's mention of Iconography in the Temple in Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, and Luke 20:25. Over the next two centuries, Protestantism would continue to de-evolve and re-interpret the Bible through the social changes of the day.
In light of this simplified sola fide we see today, especially in the dispensationalist (i.e. Marcionite), low-church American Baptist de-evolution to a "once saved, always saved" Soteriology, salvation is merely an intellectual ascent to a set of axiomatic presuppositions, marriage also becomes an ascent to an agreement. The understanding of marriage as a sacred function, integral to working out one's salvation with fear and trembling before the Lord, becomes untenable. Salvation is nothing more than belief in a set of dogmas. Then this whole apostolic purpose of marriage as an icon of Christ in the Church, leading one to God, simply becomes irrelevant at best. Marriage then becomes nothing more than a function of happiness. It becomes nothing more than a socio-political and socio-sexual function. The normative Soteriological view, a bizarre mixture of narcissism and unchristianized platonic realm of forms, means that marriage cannot be a holy or sacred thing. Yet conservative Protestants will insist that it is "sacred," even though their own theology contradicts it. But because of Luther's universalization of the papacy, those who deny the Trinity are not excommunicated, but they just break off and form their own church, and Protestantism and continues to schism endlessly. If one's salvation is based upon nothing but ascension to the correct set of presuppositions, then finding out which set of theological axioms one must believe in to be saved- Baptist, Calvinist or which one of the hundreds of thousands of "Christian" creeds are correct. It renders Christianity as a matter of intellectual competence. Those who study the most books, are the most intellectually robust,are the most revered, not those who are the most Holy and fools for Christ. Salvation in Protestantism is a matter of intellectual talent- one must be smart enough to correctly interpret the bible and pick the "correct" church out of over 30,000 active denominations.
"the very notion of marriage as a sacrament presupposes that man is not only a being with physiological, psychological and social functions, but that he is a citizen of God's Kingdom, i.e., that his entire life- and especially its most decisive moments- involves eternal values and GodHimself...the "eucharistic" understanding of marriage clearly illustrates what is the essential Christian claim for man- an image of God,destined to participation in divine life itself... The Christian faith is not only the truth about God and of his kingdom, it is also the truth about man."
Mentioning Jung and Freud on the first page, Meyendorff only briefly speaks about Western history and its impact on modern perspectives on marriage- only commenting on Roman Catholic perspectives, which have driven the various Protestant views. But to understand modern secular perspectives on marriage we have to understand about Luther's deliberate edits to the Bible, his Penal Substitutionary Sola Fide Soteriology, his metaphysically Atheistic position of Claritas Scriptura, his re-interpretation of marriage as merely a contract so he could defend his benefactors' Polygamy (Philip of Hesse), the broad Protestant denial of the Third Ecumenical Council’s teachings on the Theanthropos (removing the Theology of the New Eve), the Iconography of the 16th century destroying the Archetypes of Adam and Eve and the distinctions between them, Zwingli's desecration of the Eucharist collapsing the Subject-Object paradigm, the radical Reformation's Anabaptist "believer's baptism" concept and it's retroactive impact on Sacramental theology, John Nelson Darby's Dispensationalist Eschatology and re-interpretation of Biblical prophecy resurrecting the ancient heresy of Marcionism, and the deeper metaphysical shifts these new theologies represent. For without conservative"Bible-Believing" Evangelicals, who are a Frankenstein amalgamation of all of these theologies, there would be no Postmodern religion. Modern Protestants are Modernists in their metaphysics, and the purple-haired gender relativity theorists are Postmodernists; the natural evolution of "Conservative Christians" (i.e.Fundamentalists); today's Neo-Puritans. Orthodoxy watched this evolution from Puritanism to these New Puritans over the last two hundred years, and is utterly unaffected by it, but Protestant churches, with no Apostolic succession and institutional anchor, are thrown about by the opinions of society, and eventually adopt them. And this is because Protestantism has unanchored itself from the faith and the body (church) of Christ. It is tethered to nothing but a subjective, personal interpretation of the Bible,severing the metaphysical connections between the natural and the supernatural, rendering even the possibility of Sacraments null and void.
Into Soteriology: Luther's De-Sacramentalization of Marriage
Meyendorff assumes the reader understands how Catholicism and Orthodoxy use the word Mystery- but secular or Protestant readers might understand the word as "something hidden" or unknown, not as a Gestalt phenomenon. The Apostolic phasing of the Sacraments as "mysteries" conflicts with the flat modern definition of the word. In the ancient sense, the sense in which Paul and the apostles used the word , a mystery is a participation in a higher reality, are conciliation of the material and the immaterial within the present phenomenological experience of reality. It designates an ontologic change in the subject who is engaging in the mystery. But in the modern usage of the term, it usually refers to something cryptic, something hidden or something that is not understood. It is not an initiation into something greater than yourself. Thus, when the Orthodox say marriage is a mystery which initiates one deeper into the cosmic mystery of Christ, changing the nature of the soul and bringing one closer to Christ through the process of theosis, a Puritanical or Anabaptist mind cannot track any part of this apostolic formula.
There isn't much commentary on the Protestant understanding of marriage in this book. Meyendorff is explicit and comedic in his condemnation of Roman Catholic marriage, which Protestantism is the de-evolution and simplified version of, so he does not bother addressing the30,000+ denominations of Protestantism and the millions of individualized views on marriage in self-described "Bible-believing" (i.e. Fundamentalist) churches:
"Western medieval theology, on the contrary, has created a series of confusions by adopting, as in so many other points- Roman legalism as the basis of Sacramental Theology: Marriage, being a"contract", is concluded by the husband and wife themselves who are there for the ministers of the sacrament, the Priest being only a witness"
The various Protestant views are looped in under this. Butto be fair to the reformers, the roots of the de-sacralization of marriage started in the conflict between the Patristic teachings (including the early church cannons) and Roman law's concept of nuptias non concubitus, sedconsensus facit, which already characterized marriage as a type of agreement between two parties. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD to the Germanic chieftain Odoacer, the Christianized Eastern Roman Empire,centered in Constantinople, had new responsibilities to comment on the validity of marriage given to it by the Christianized Emperor, even for the non-Baptized, which unintentionally secularized parts of church practice out of necessity. Due to Emperor Diocletian's implementation of the Tetrarchy system a century earlier, dividing the empire into four regions, each ruled by a separate ruler (two senior emperors"Augusti" and two junior emperors "Caesares"), the Eastern Roman empire continued on with business as usual, despite the fall of Rome.Here, Christian canon law co-existed with the Roman definitions of state marriage- and for the first time- the Empire forced the church to produce marriage certificates so the State could track marriages for legal reasons. In the 9th century, especially around Leo VI, the church was given a new position as the institution which also determined the valid legal status of the marriage, a new social responsibility that it had never had in history before. Instead of merely coexisting with the state institutions and maintaining its own sacred understanding of the validity of marriage separately, it now had to involve itself and to "secularize its pastoral attitude towards marriage and practically abandon its penitential discipline." This was the first time marriage was wrongly intertwined with the state, taking the edge off of its Sacramental nature, because "Until the 9th century the church did not know any rite of marriage separate from the Eucharistic liturgy". In the far East, the Orthodox Christian churches which never were influenced by the Roman empire, such as the St. Thomas Christians, never enforced marriage for the state like this, and still do not, maintaining a "purer"Christian understanding of marriage that has never had to concern itself with the government.
In the periods of persecution, marriage was flattened down to it's core elements out of necessity- participation in the Eucharist, and the blessing of the clergy with legitimate Apostolic succession. He emphasizes that in both Roman persecution and Soviet persecution, the church used communion as the church' recognition of the Sacrament of marriage, without the ceremony of crowning and the rest of the ancient marriage liturgical service. St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote to Polycarp in 100 AD " Those who get married must unite with the knowledge of the bishop, so that marriage may be according to the Lord, and not by human desire". And this is a critical intersection that defines a Sacrament, and why a Priest or Bishop with legitimate Apostolic succession is the only way a Christian marriage can take place. "Pastor" is not a Biblical category, and getting married by a Pastor has the same legitimacy as getting married by a friend:
"By affirming that the priest is the Minister of the marriage, as he is also the Minister of the Eucharist, the Orthodox Church implicitly integrates marriage into the eternal mystery, where the boundaries between Heaven and earth are broken and where human decision and action acquire an eternal dimension... Outside of the body, there can be no sacraments"
This Roman history set the stage for the Medieval Catholic understanding of marriage, which became purified and abstracted in the Reformation. This confusion over what a sacrament and what a mystery is pervades all of the texts of the reformers. Reformation's definitions of theological categories were informed by the materialistic rationalistic definitions from the enlightenment, not from first century Mesopotamia. And still to this day the Baptist understanding of sacrament stems from these same enlightenment fallacies. Even though Western with theologians, like CS, Lewis or NT right? Have studied enough history to understand these flaws, because Christianity was rendered “institutionless” and “traditionless”, it is also permanently embedded in these flaws, and can never return or restore the apostolic Christianity of the New testament.
Part of the ignorance which drove the Reformation is textual. 4th Ezra and the other books removed by Luther contain critical texts to understand the relationship between the Old and New testament. Paul's constant references to the first and second books of Enoch in the Gospels, and the deliberate Enochic patterns of atonement used by Paul, context which is fundamentally absent from the infinite debates on the nature of salvation between Protestants.
Luther abolished the possibility of a real sacrament with his new theology of the "Universal Priesthood" of all believers. With this convenient re-definition of sainthood designed to allow his benefactors, especially Landgrave Philip of Hesse who wanted to marry multiple women. No"Bible-believing" Christian has any right to speak about Gay marriage desecrating marriage; for it is Protestant theology's desecration of the Holy which is the sole cause of the LGBT ideology of the '90s, and the postmodern gender ideology of the present day 10's, '20's and 30's. Evangelicalism has been unable to coherently explain what about same-sex marriage by a secular government is wrong; for as soon as they start using the words "holy" or"sacred", the glaring metaphysical bankruptcy of their tradition becomes apparent to all. Luther's de-sacritization of marriage and the related Iconoclasm dovetailed with Zwingli's de-sacralization of the Eucharist, rendering the Protestant view of Marriage conflicted, confused, and unanchored. John Calvin continued this desecration and referred to marriage as "a sacrament falsely so-called". Huldrich Zwingli utilized Luther's re-definition of Christianity as merely accepting aset of intellectual statements to render the Eucharist as merely a way to remember Christ, not metaphysically participate in divine energy, and thus further laid the anti-metaphysical foundations of the desecration of marriage. Meyendorff notes:
"Christian marriage is essentially a positive commitment of the couple, not only to each other, but first to Christ, a commitment realized in and through the Eucharist...The Eucharist is what makes the members of the body of Christ.... If this commitment does not occur, the fulfillment of all the legal stipulations concerning Christian marriage will have no meaning at all. But what if such a commitment is not possible and not even desired by the couple? What if marriage is considered as only a social event, or a legal arrangement on property rights, or simply a way of legitimizing sex?"
The misunderstanding of Jewish history, basic facts about the Bible and Christian history and the other errors that led to Protestant theology should not be surprising considering that both Calvin, Luther and the other reformers all believed that the Heliocentric theory was blasphemous, to the point where they stated that anyone who believed that the earth revolved around the sun was not a Christian; Calvin was an unrepentant murderer and Luther called for the extermination of all Jews. Both men literally modified the Bible to make it fit their supposedly "traditionless" tradition;Luther to the point of removing entire books. Yet the wild theories about where iconography and the veneration of saints created by these men still persists as the dominant narrative among low-church Protestants. Calvin and Luther had the same understanding of Christian history, Conta-Christian Rabbinic Jewish history, and the original languages of the Bible as a modern 6th grader who goes to Sunday School has. Yet, their opinions, rooted in historically false assumptions, are the unquestioned foundation of "non-denominational"evangelicalism which now exist in bumper-sticker format. These thought-ending cliches like "Constantine started Icons" or"prayer to saints is what replaced the pagan roman gods", remain the norm in Protestantism, even though these beliefs fall apart with the slightest amount of research. All more nuanced Protestant historical arguments are arguments from silence.
But there can be no Protestantism without these factual misunderstandings; because recognizing the historical fact that Icons, prayer to saints and the veneration of the Theotokos is not only Apostolic, but rooted in Second-Temple Judaism, completely destroys the foundational historical narrative of a "reformation", it exposes that the delusional anachronistic misrepresentation of what the Reformers thought 1st century Christianity looked like actually never existed. The "original"pre-Catholic ideal that they were attempting to restore Christianity to never actually existed. Protestantism is a deviation, not a restoration.
Then, the religious wars of the 17th century drove a further de-evolution of the Christian concept of marriage. Both the materialism of the enlightenment, which drove the reformation, also drove the bloodshed of the 17th century and the 30 years war, which altogether stripped marriage down as a government function. The Treaty of Westphalia also drove anachronistic re-interpretations of Christ's mention of Iconography in the Temple in Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, and Luke 20:25. Over the next two centuries, Protestantism would continue to de-evolve and re-interpret the Bible through the social changes of the day.
In light of this simplified sola fide we see today, especially in the dispensationalist (i.e. Marcionite), low-church American Baptist de-evolution to a "once saved, always saved" Soteriology, salvation is merely an intellectual ascent to a set of axiomatic presuppositions, marriage also becomes an ascent to an agreement. The understanding of marriage as a sacred function, integral to working out one's salvation with fear and trembling before the Lord, becomes untenable. Salvation is nothing more than belief in a set of dogmas. Then this whole apostolic purpose of marriage as an icon of Christ in the Church, leading one to God, simply becomes irrelevant at best. Marriage then becomes nothing more than a function of happiness. It becomes nothing more than a socio-political and socio-sexual function. The normative Soteriological view, a bizarre mixture of narcissism and unchristianized platonic realm of forms, means that marriage cannot be a holy or sacred thing. Yet conservative Protestants will insist that it is "sacred," even though their own theology contradicts it. But because of Luther's universalization of the papacy, those who deny the Trinity are not excommunicated, but they just break off and form their own church, and Protestantism and continues to schism endlessly. If one's salvation is based upon nothing but ascension to the correct set of presuppositions, then finding out which set of theological axioms one must believe in to be saved- Baptist, Calvinist or which one of the hundreds of thousands of "Christian" creeds are correct. It renders Christianity as a matter of intellectual competence. Those who study the most books, are the most intellectually robust,are the most revered, not those who are the most Holy and fools for Christ. Salvation in Protestantism is a matter of intellectual talent- one must be smart enough to correctly interpret the bible and pick the "correct" church out of over 30,000 active denominations.
March 4, 2013
We were required to read it before our priest would marry us. Myendorff makes a lot of strong, reassuring points for Eastern Orthodox views on marriage. I enjoyed it and found it useful.
April 17, 2025
“By recognizing in marriage a mystery of the kingdom of God, the Christian gospel, and the church do not proclaim, however, a sort of mystic reality, detached from what man really is. The Christian faith is not only the truth about God and his kingdom, it is also the truth about man. The Christian doctrine of marriage is, indeed, a joyful responsibility; it gives legitimate satisfaction to the soul and the body; it shows what it means to be truly man; it bestows upon man, the ineffable joy of giving life, in the image of his Creator, who gave life to the first man.”
———————————————————————————————
To be totally honest, the requirements of Christian marriage, I already knew, however as the title says, Fr. John brings in the “orthodox perspective.” He uses scripture, church history, church fathers, and church canons to help the reader fully understand marriage and all the challenges that come with it. Even though I’m not married, I feel like, even just a little, I understand more what marriage truly means. The book also includes multiple appendixes, which are great, as they are documents from different church fathers, even some cannons from the sixth ecumenical council, and even the transcripts of the betrothal and crowning ceremony, which were great to read. My favourite chapters in this book would definitely have to be the ones about family planning, divorce/remarriage, and abortion (killing is still killing, but there can be a killing that is a lesser evil if it’s to save another live , such as in war as some church fathers has suggested, then it would be the same for if pregnancy puts the mother in danger). Fr. John also compares orthodox doctrine to Roman Catholic doctrine, to show the differences in view points and development which is also a nice touch as the west is much more Catholic than Eastern Orthodox. However, though, I wish it was a bit more longer, since yk, marriage is for life
———————————————————————————————
To be totally honest, the requirements of Christian marriage, I already knew, however as the title says, Fr. John brings in the “orthodox perspective.” He uses scripture, church history, church fathers, and church canons to help the reader fully understand marriage and all the challenges that come with it. Even though I’m not married, I feel like, even just a little, I understand more what marriage truly means. The book also includes multiple appendixes, which are great, as they are documents from different church fathers, even some cannons from the sixth ecumenical council, and even the transcripts of the betrothal and crowning ceremony, which were great to read. My favourite chapters in this book would definitely have to be the ones about family planning, divorce/remarriage, and abortion (killing is still killing, but there can be a killing that is a lesser evil if it’s to save another live , such as in war as some church fathers has suggested, then it would be the same for if pregnancy puts the mother in danger). Fr. John also compares orthodox doctrine to Roman Catholic doctrine, to show the differences in view points and development which is also a nice touch as the west is much more Catholic than Eastern Orthodox. However, though, I wish it was a bit more longer, since yk, marriage is for life
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 30, 2018
Meyendorff provides a very solid history of marriage in Early Christianity and description of the institution in contemporary Orthodox Christianity. Canon Law and historical context are the focus of this treatise, and the treatment is rather dry. The actual relationship of married couple and couples wishing to marry is not touched upon aside from excerpts from Church Fathers' sermons. A copy of the marriage service is included in the back.
For a fresher, more humanist discussion of marriage and the Orthodox Church, read Love, Sexuality and the Sacrament of Marriage by Fr. John Chryssavgis.
For a fresher, more humanist discussion of marriage and the Orthodox Church, read Love, Sexuality and the Sacrament of Marriage by Fr. John Chryssavgis.
August 23, 2012
الكتاب من وجهة نظر أورثوذكسية أكاديمية، يصحح مفاهيم كثيرة من لاهوت العصر الوسيط
September 24, 2022
So many admirable parts to Meyendorff’s book that gives a holistic understanding of marriage in the Orthodox Church. For example, in the appendix his inclusion of the historical church canons on marriage, biblical passages on marriage, the rites of the Sacrament of Matrimony, and homilies of church fathers St John Chrysostom on marriage and other recommended mentions (Tertullian’s letters to His Wife). Some of the revolutionary focal points of his book include the emphasis on the celebration of the Eucharist as the perfection of the Sacrament of Matrimony and seal of the Mystery - by mention of this Meyendorff encourages the sacrament of Matrimony to be returned and included back again to the liturgical Eucharist. Meyendorff also brings to light the importance of the sacrament, bringing clarity and intentions over Luke 20 passage that ‘neither are married in the resurrection’, explaining in heaven there is no bodily desires but still elaborates on the eternal union of marriage as inscribed in heaven. Meyendorff’s attack approach (starts in introduction even) on the Western Church perspective was a bit out of place, where a comparison would have been more useful. Also his chapter on Family Planning shows the lack of insight and thought on the Orthodox church’s stance on contraception as he leaves it to ‘personal act of conscious’ and ‘individual Christian couple’ solution. However overall great summary from a 1970 published book and the type of deep content you’d benefit from a St Vladimir dean!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 29, 2018
A short read that covers a great deal of the Orthodox Church's beliefs in regards to marriage as more than an earthly relationship. Also includes the marriage ceremony in the back of the book. I recommend reading this as a printed book rather than a PDF. After sending my copy to my Kindle for more portable reading, it jumbled some things together from footnotes and was a bit confusing on a few pages.
June 30, 2017
Great study on Orthodox marriage that is perhaps a bit academic.
November 27, 2018
Gave a nice historical perspective on the Orthodox wedding service.
November 30, 2019
This was very insightful and helpful for both the history of the service and the meaning of everything in the service.
January 11, 2020
Although not in an obvious way and I can see it will not be the average laypersons cup of tea, but this is a Revolutionary book and filled in many of the holes I felt were, despite the incredible work of Saint John Paul 2, in Theology of the Body.
I believe it is absolutely essential that we in the west take on board the criticisms and suggestions of the Orthodox Church in general, and the sooner the better!. This is but one key area.
The key point in the book for me is that Marriage is a sanctified ETERNAL Sacrament, a qualitatively different relationship as opposed to a contract for life, otherwise TOB is almost an enormous anti- climax IMHO.
I also found the historical sketches wide ranging and profound- ranging from the views and practices of monastics, and definitions of a Holy life to the western inheritance of Augustine.
Marriage and remarriage is one very serious issue and one area in which the western Church's attitude can disturb even the more ardent believer. This may be juxtaposed with an acknowledgement of the sincere but patronizing approach of celibate priests who for historical reasons explained by Meyendorff, lack the insight to deal with these issues on the whole. (In this I believe we only have a half-story in the West when it comes to sex and Marriage)
I really worry the TOB will only spiritualise historical western mistakes. May we pray not, and that the Church as a whole, Laypeople especially work to unearth the true Christian understanding of sex and Marriage, for this the Eastern Church and this book are essential!
The Pastoral approach offered here by the Eastern Church for me is an excellent example, I sincerely hope we in the west learn from and move in this direction asap! Will re- read, probably a few times. :)
I believe it is absolutely essential that we in the west take on board the criticisms and suggestions of the Orthodox Church in general, and the sooner the better!. This is but one key area.
The key point in the book for me is that Marriage is a sanctified ETERNAL Sacrament, a qualitatively different relationship as opposed to a contract for life, otherwise TOB is almost an enormous anti- climax IMHO.
I also found the historical sketches wide ranging and profound- ranging from the views and practices of monastics, and definitions of a Holy life to the western inheritance of Augustine.
Marriage and remarriage is one very serious issue and one area in which the western Church's attitude can disturb even the more ardent believer. This may be juxtaposed with an acknowledgement of the sincere but patronizing approach of celibate priests who for historical reasons explained by Meyendorff, lack the insight to deal with these issues on the whole. (In this I believe we only have a half-story in the West when it comes to sex and Marriage)
I really worry the TOB will only spiritualise historical western mistakes. May we pray not, and that the Church as a whole, Laypeople especially work to unearth the true Christian understanding of sex and Marriage, for this the Eastern Church and this book are essential!
The Pastoral approach offered here by the Eastern Church for me is an excellent example, I sincerely hope we in the west learn from and move in this direction asap! Will re- read, probably a few times. :)
April 28, 2011
An excellent and brief work on the orthodox view of marriage. Very informative and a joy to read, A must for the Orthodox Christian and any one trying to understand the Orthodox perspective. Includes passages from many sources on the topic. Deep but very readable.
August 2, 2013
If you want to know the history and theology of marriage in the Church, this is your book. If you are looking for something a little more practical to read as a couple and work on some things, this is not your book.
June 19, 2019
كتاب جميل، بيوضح المفهوم الأرثوذكسي السليم للزيجة على أساس الإفخارستيا، بيصحح مفاهيم كتير كانت مبهمة بالنسبة ليَّ، بيشرح بعد تاريخي في غاية الأهمية لإدراك الأفكار الغير سليمة اللي بنعاني منها..
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews