1. We now analyze the
sacramentality of marriage under the aspect of sign.
When we say that the language of the body also enters essentially
into the structure of marriage as a sacramental sign, we refer to a
long biblical tradition. This has its origin in Genesis (especially
2:23-25) and it finds its definitive culmination in the Letter to
the Ephesians (cf. Eph 5:21-33). The prophets of the Old Testament
had an essential role in forming this tradition. Analyzing the texts
of Hosea, Ezekiel, Deutero-Isaiah, and of the other prophets, we
find ourselves face to face with the great analogy whose final
expression is the proclamation of the new covenant under the form of
a marriage between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:21-33). On the
basis of this long tradition it is possible to speak of a specific "prophetism
of the body," both because of the fact that we find this analogy
especially in the prophets, and also in regard to its content. Here,
the "prophetism of the body" signifies precisely the language of the
body.
2. The analogy seems to have two levels. On the first and
fundamental level the prophets present the covenant between God and
Israel as a marriage. This also permits us to understand marriage
itself as a covenant between husband and wife.1 In this case the
covenant derives from the initiative of God, the Lord of Israel. The
fact that he, as Creator and Lord, makes a covenant first of all
with Abraham and then with Moses, already bears witness to a special
choice. Therefore the prophets, presupposing the entire
juridical-moral content of the covenant, go much deeper and reveal a
dimension incomparably more profound than that of a mere "pact." In
choosing Israel, God is united with his people through love and
grace. He is bound with a special bond, profoundly personal.
Therefore Israel, even though a people, is presented in this
prophetic vision of the covenant as a spouse or wife, and therefore,
in a certain sense, as a person:
"For your Maker is your husband,
the Lord of Hosts is his name;
and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer,
the God of the whole earth he is called....
But my steadfast love shall not depart from you
and my covenant of peace shall not be removed, says the Lord" (Is
54:5, 10).
3. Yahweh is the Lord of Israel, but he also becomes her Spouse. The
books of the Old Testament bear witness to the absolute original
character of the dominion of Yahweh over his people. To the other
aspects of the dominion of Yahweh, Lord of the covenant and Father
of Israel, a new aspect revealed by the prophets is added, that is
to say, the stupendous dimension of this dominion, which is the
spousal dimension. In this way, the absolute of dominion is the
absolute of love. In regard to this absolute, the breach of the
covenant signifies not only an infraction of the "pact" linked with
the authority of the supreme Legislator, but also infidelity and
betrayal. It is a blow which even pierces his heart as Father, as
Spouse and as Lord.
4. If, in the analogy employed by the prophets, one can speak of
levels, this is in a certain sense the first and fundamental level.
Given that the covenant of Yahweh with Israel has the character of a
spousal bond like to the conjugal pact, that first level of the
analogy reveals a second which is precisely the language of the
body. Here we have in mind, in the first place, the language in an
objective sense. The prophets compare the covenant to marriage. They
refer to the primordial sacrament spoken of in Genesis 2:24, in
which the man and the woman, by free choice, become "one flesh."
However, it is characteristic of the prophets' manner of expressing
themselves that, presupposing the language of the body in the
objective sense, they pass at the same time to its subjective
meaning. That is to say, after a manner of speaking, they allow the
body itself to speak. In the prophetic texts of the covenant, on the
basis of the analogy of the spousal union of the married couple, the
body itself "speaks." It speaks by means of its masculinity and
femininity. It speaks in the mysterious language of the personal
gift. It speaks ultimately—and this happens more frequently—both in
the language of fidelity, that is, of love, and also in the language
of conjugal infidelity, that is, of adultery.
5. It is well known that the different sins of the Chosen People—and
especially their frequent infidelities in regard to the worship of
the one God, that is, various forms of idolatry—offered the prophets
the occasion to denounce the aforesaid sins. In a special way, Hosea
was the prophet of the "adultery" of Israel. He condemned it not
only in words, but also, in a certain sense, in actions of a
symbolic significance: "Go, take to yourself a wife of harlotry and
have children of harlotry, for the land commits great harlotry by
forsaking the Lord" (Hos 1:2). Hosea sets out in relief all the
splendor of the covenant—of that marriage in which Yahweh manifests
himself as a sensitive, affectionate Spouse disposed to forgiveness,
and at the same time, exigent and severe. The adultery and the
harlotry of Israel evidently contrast with the marriage bond, on
which the covenant is based, as likewise, analogically, the marriage
of man and woman.
6. In a similar way, Ezekiel condemned idolatry. He used the symbol
of the adultery of Jerusalem (cf. Ez 16) and, in another passage, of
Jerusalem and of Samaria (cf. Ez 23). "When I passed by you again
and looked upon you, behold, you were at the age for love.... I
plighted my troth to you and entered into a covenant with you, says
the Lord God, and you became mine" (Ez 16:8). "But you trusted in
your beauty and played the harlot because of your renown, and
lavished your harlotry on any passerby" (Ez 16:15).
7. In the texts of the prophets the human body speaks a "language"
which it is not the author of. Its author is man as male or female,
as husband or wife—man with his everlasting vocation to the
communion of persons. However, man cannot, in a certain sense,
express this singular language of his personal existence and of his
vocation without the body. He has already been constituted in such a
way from the beginning, in such wise that the most profound words of
the spirit—words of love, of giving, of fidelity—demand an adequate
language of the body. Without that they cannot be fully expressed.
We know from the Gospel that this refers both to marriage and also
to celibacy for the sake of the kingdom.
8. The prophets, as the inspired mouthpiece of the covenant of
Yahweh with Israel, seek precisely through this language of the body
to express both the spousal profundity of the aforesaid covenant and
all that is opposed to it. They praise fidelity and they condemn
infidelity as adultery—they speak therefore according to ethical
categories, setting moral good and evil in mutual opposition. The
opposition between good and evil is essential for morality. The
texts of the prophets have an essential significance in this sphere,
as we have shown in our previous reflections. However, it seems that
the language of the body according to the prophets is not merely a
language of morality, a praise of fidelity and of purity, and a
condemnation of adultery and of harlotry. In fact, for every
language as an expression of knowledge, the categories of truth and
of non-truth (that is, of falsity) are essential. In the writings of
the prophets, who catch a fleeting glimpse of the analogy of the
covenant of Yahweh with Israel in marriage, the body speaks the
truth through fidelity and conjugal love. When it commits adultery
it speaks lies; it is guilty of falsity.
9. It is not a case of substituting ethical with logical
differentiations. If the texts of the prophets indicate conjugal
fidelity and chastity as "truth," and adultery or harlotry, on the
other hand, as "non-truth," as a falsity of the language of the
body, this happens because in the first case the subject (that is,
Israel as a spouse) is in accord with the spousal significance which
corresponds to the human body (because of its masculinity or
femininity) in the integral structure of the person. In the second
case, however, the same subject contradicts and opposes this
significance.
We can then say that the essential element for marriage as a
sacrament is the language of the body in its aspects of truth.
Precisely by means of that, the sacramental sign is constituted.
Note
1. Cf. Prv 2:17; Mal 2:14
Taken from: L'Osservatore Romano Weekly Edition in English 17
January 1983, page 3
Return to the Theology of the Body Main
Page...
This page is the work of the Servants of the Pierced Hearts of Jesus and
Mary