GENESIS 2
The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame
(Genesis 2:25).
It may seem strange to us that Adam and Eve were not ashamed of their nakedness. This statement needs to be understood with what follows in Genesis 3, where we read that after they sinned against God, “the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked” (v. 7). Consider for a minute what this verse does not say. It does not say that their eyes were opened and they realized they had sinned. Rather, the first change in their psychology was the overwhelming realization of their nakedness, and their first impulse was to cover themselves.
When God asked Adam why he was hiding, Adam said it was because he was naked (v. 10). But he had been naked when God spoke with him before. What was different now? Adam was sinful and no longer comfortable being naked in God’s presence. A deep psychological connection exists between nakedness and shame.
Two things stand out in this passage. The first is that all of us have a deep need to find a place of security where we can be naked without shame. We long for a place where we can bare our souls to someone. We need to have a close relationship with a spouse with whom we can be naked in more than one sense of the term. Here is the Good News of the Gospel: in Jesus Christ, we are able to draw near to God, opening our hearts to Him without fear and shame.
Second, God permits us to cover ourselves. He made clothes for Adam and Eve because He recognized that we do not want to expose ourselves. Sin’s continuing reign on earth requires that we cover ourselves physically, spiritually, and psychology. The “let it all hang out” attitude that was popular in the 1960s and 1970s has no foundation in biblical Christianity. Other people are untrustworthy, and if you bare your soul to another sinner, be prepared to pay the consequences. There are only a few people with whom we dare become intimate enough to bare our souls, and the Bible forbids us to join in one flesh with anyone except our spouses.
CORAM DEO
Exodus 25–26
Matthew 21:1–22
Since the 1970s it seems that most “serious” motion pictures must have at least token nudity. Other avenues of artistic expression are increasingly more brazen in their flaunting of nudity. Think about whether such “artistic” nudity actually is a form of active rebellion against God—an attempt to lose our shame and guilt by searing the conscience. Evaluate your own exposure to such expression and ask God to reveal any struggle you may have with it.
For further study: Psalm 91:1–8 • Lamentations 1:8–12
TABLETALK
from ligonier ministries and teaching and encouraging believers • february 1991
TRUTH: THE TEST OF EDUCATION
Daily Studies From The Teaching Fellowship Of R. C. Sproul
publisher Ligonier Ministries editor Robert F. Ingram assistant editor Michael S. Beates art director David K. Freeland
marketing Gretchen L. Suskovic production Felicia T. Calhoun, W. David Fox, Melissa A. Prichard, R. C. Sproul, Jr.
writer Sharon J. Anderson circulation Gwen Weber board of directors Bruce Fogerty, Robert Fraley, G. Richard Hostetter, Robert C. Legler, Stephen H. Levée, Jr., C. G. Mills, Archie B. Parrish, James M. Seneff, Jr., R. C. Sproul, John Thompson, Ralph D. Veerman, Luder Whitlock, Charles Colson (Director Emeritus)
Published by Walk Thru the Bible Ministries. Inc. under license granted by Ligonier Ministries, Inc. Copyright 1991, Ligonier Ministries, Inc. This Bible study is based upon teaching material by Dr. R. C. Sproul. Unless noted, all Scripture quotations in this publication are from the Holy Bible. New International Version, copyright 1973, 1978, 1984, International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishers.
member evangelical press association
Cover: Scott W. Smith
robert ingram • editor
Coram Deo
When I was in college the unspoken principle was that truth equalled creativity. The more outlandish your comment, the nearer it was judged to approximate truth. Students quickly exploited this freedom in the classroom and the dormitory, extolling as virtue everything that students did during the late 1960s.
By and large the college through its teaching faculty applauded this educational approach. Truth, of course, was deemed to be subjective; the greatest affront was to suggest that a person was wrong in his thinking.
Twenty years later I shudder at the judgment such faculty will reap due to their seared consciences and distorted truth. That it was a church-related college with confessional standards will surely make them more culpable. Was it not Christ who indicated quite clearly that it would be better for one to have a millstone hung about his neck and drowned in the depths of the sea rather than cause one of His little ones to stumble in sin? James admonishes us that those who teach will be judged more strictly.
Such judgment according to the truth ought to cause even the most competent Christian educators and theologians to wince at least every now and again. Pastors and Sunday school teachers need reminding of their educator roles. Secular educators at every level and in each field will likewise be responsible for how they have shaped thinking and behavior. God’s righteous demands for truth should give us all pause.
Truth is an integrative concept. It demands that all particular truth coalesce into the universal of Truth itself. It is committed to the belief that all truth is God’s Truth. Because He is its ultimate source, it unifies the truths discovered in the various fields of knowledge. As an integrative principle it abhors the divorce of faith and reason, belief and action. Right thinking must yield right living; orthodoxy must breed orthopraxy.
To champion truth in this fashion is to bring glory to God. It is what Luther had in mind in his phrase Coram Deo. To live life Coram Deo is to live all of life before the presence of God, under His authority and unto His glory. That truth will preach. ■
table of contents