Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
The NT does say "be not drunk with wine, which is excess" (Eph 5:18). I think that is a principle which spans ages (Proverbs 20:1). I'm not against drinking (that would make me hypocrite), just excess in any form.
Now just what is excess, or being drunk, is a matter of judgment. But I think if you pass out naked and wake up so surly that you curse your grandson who did no wrong, then you probably got drunk by any reasonable measure.
To me, if you step back and consider human nature and your own human experiences it isn't hard to see what happened here. Noah screwed up, his screw-up became known, which embarrassed him, which made him angry, and he flew off the handle and took it all out on Canaan, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I don't see anywhere where the Bible says Noah's curse was proper or honorable. Just that he did it and it resulted in the rebellious Canaanites. Did God want to produce that? If so maybe I should get drunk and naked and go around cursing people who have a problem with it and when they turn against God I can pat myself on the back for a job well done.
|
Read Nell's response. I think that she has it right. Or at least she is not reading something into it that is not there.
I agree that Noah's response to Ham/Canaan might be something worthy of the title of "sin." But you are jumping past the alleged "sin" that set the whole thing in motion. Noah got drunk and was naked in his own tent. Without that being a sin, there is nothing sinful to be covered. Instead, the actions of the other brothers would be viewed as simply honoring their father. Not as covering a sin.
Leave what Noah did after he found out about the thing out of the equation. That was not the "sin" that Ham spoke about or that his brothers covered. It is not part of the discussion.
Unless you need to bundle it together with what went before to make Noah a sinner.
Ham didn't say anything about his dad cursing Canaan. And the brothers didn't cover that. It is not part of how we get to deputy authority. Deputy authority needs an ancient Biblical patriarch to sin and then have that sin be excused, or "covered" by some while exposed by others who are then cursed.
It didn't happen. The basis is a reconstruction of history and of the Bible's account.
This is one of the reasons that I have been so strong to ask what it actually says in so many places. Nee and then Lee were masters at telling us that certain things mean what they want them to mean and we swallowed it. Hook, line, and sinker. Just like Nee's declaration that power = authority (as the opening salvo for Spiritual Authority / Authority and Submission). It just isn't so. But he said it and so many of us believe it.
And to this day we are convinced that Noah being drunk and naked in his own tent was a sin that proves deputy authority. But it doesn't say that. Yet even here you are continuing to say it is so. Why? Because Nee/Lee said it.
And I know that will irk you because I know you do not do anything intentionally because either of them said anything.
But none of us ever did. At one time we were ignorantly believing it. We accepted it as true. We would never have admitted that it was because Nee or Lee said it. We would have said because the Bible says it.
But it doesn't.
Sometimes you have to stop and read it without thinking you know what it means. Look at where being drunk is labeled as sin. And see the examples where someone is drunk and it is not labeled. Find that Noah is never mentioned in relationship to any sin of his own.
Then look at the reconstruction of the Genesis account required to arrive at deputy authority.