We are discussing marriage by examining the recent book of John Piper's called This Momentary Marriage: A Parable of Permanence. "Marriage," Piper says, "is more wonderful than anyone on earth knows" (29). And he argues that we need God's grace to know this and that as fallen humans we will not grasp this fully on earth. So much for the intr to chp 2, which is called "Naked and Not Ashamed."
He summarizes his previous chp and brings in once again his contrast of love with covenant keeping. "If a spouse falls in love with another person, one profoundly legitimate response from the grieved spouse and from the church is 'So what! Your being 'in love' with someone else is not decisive. Keeping your covenant is decisive" (31). (I don't like playing off "love" with "covenant keeping" because the former and the latter are nearly synonymous in the Bible, but he gets better in this chp where he speaks of "covenant keeping love." Here he might be distinguishing "romantic" from "covenant keeping" love.)
Anyway, what about this nudity stuff in Genesis 3?
Piper is big on arguing that Adam and Eve were "not" not ashamed because they had perfect bodies. His argument is that perfection is not the foundation for lack of shame. Instead that lack of shame emerged from their covenant commitment. (Actually, I think he twists himself into unnecessary polarities here: their lack of shame was connected to their innocence, their genuine and uncontaminated love for God, self, and others, and to their clear covenant commitment to one another). I agree that covenant commitment is at the heart of their absence of shame.
When they sin and declare independence from God and one another, which is a retreat into the Ego Self (my expression), they experience shame. Why? Because their covenant-keeping love (this is better than his distinction of the two terms) collapsed (35). Their shame is connected to personal vulnerability and it springs from the realization that the other (Eve or Adam) is no longer trustworthy and because the "I" (Eve or Adam) is also no longer trustworthy. The distinction now grows between what "I am" and what "I ought to be."
God clothes them. Why? To reveal that they are no longer what they were and not what they ought to be. And to reveal that God himself will provide and that there is a future glory that awaits them -- and he ties this all to Christ's redemptive work.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
How long should you stay in a marriage if your partner refuses spiritual guidence or therapy and continues to break the covenants of the marriage with adultry, verbal and physical abuse. I was forced to kick him out of the house hoping this would get him to go to a therapist or our pastor but we just continued on with his life style and now has told all our friends we are seperated. He is a christain and has been since he was a teenager. He is 51 now. He protrays himself as the victim since I kicked him out of the house. We have no children and have been married 10 years. We have gone to therapy on and off but never consistently. There is a lot of shame on both our parts do to the physical abuse. I have not told anyone except a therapist about the physical abuse which he is in complete denial about. He refuses to acknowledge it or apologize for it.
will we all be naked in "the new heavens and earth" since innocence and covenant-keeping love are restored and eternal?
John (#3), No we won't. We will be clothed in Christ, wearing pure robes, robes of light, and a host of other metaphors. This is, of course, one of the flaws of those who perceive the garden story as "perfect" man and God's work as the restoration to that former state. Obviously they were not perfect. Had they been perfect they could not have "fallen". Rather, they were immature with the potential for both mortality and immortality. We are not be restored to some idyllic prior state. In Christ we are being remade into something that transcends our origin.
I'm also not big on reading too much "covenant" into the story. I'm not clear that I see where in the first two chapters they make contracts or vows or covenants with each other. Seems to me to be something that is read into the story, not something that is actually present in it.
Nudity in heaven . . . that is an interesting thought. While I agree with Scott (#4) in saying that we will no longer be in the naive state of Adam and Eve, that may not reflect on the clothing matter. In heaven there will be no marriage (as I interpret the discussion with Jesus and the Sadducees) and no sin (and therefore no lust).
Will there be temptation in heaven? I would assume not, or at least no temptation beyond the simple knowledge that we could sin (which Adam/Eve may have lacked originally) that we can dismiss without even considering because of the whole new-body-and-God-reigning-supreme thing. If there is no temptation, would everyone being naked be a bad thing? I could argue not. However, will people, having remembered their previous lives (also an assumption, but I would assume they could), find this somehow offensive (or something to that effect)? Perhaps not, but its an interesting thought.
I suppose my final thought it simply -- who cares at this point? If we do, it will be perfect. If we don't, it will still be perfect. Let's solve this one after we figure out the furniture of heaven ;)
Susan G (#2),
It is now later in the day and I see no one commented on your painful marital situation. First, I am sorry that your marriage has conveyed so much disappointment and that your spouse does not seem to be making responsible decisions. Second, in these kinds of situations it is important to guard your own heart and be alert to your own safety. You are in our prayers.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.