The Sin of Noah?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It is possible we and many Bible students have had the interpretation of this passage way wrong for many years.

Noah got drunk, naked and was probably hungover. He was so angry and out-of-sorts when he awoke that he did not just curse his son, Ham, who was the one he was mad at, but he cursed Ham's son, Canaan, of whom the Bible records no wrongdoing.

Would any Christian these days excuse that kind of behavior? No way! So why do we excuse Noah?

Interpreters have jumped through hoops for years trying to make sense of this passage, vindicating Noah because Canaan's descendants were, it seems, cursed, becoming the Canaanites whom Israel routed and enslaved. So they seek to find ways to exonerate Noah, ways which in the end don't jibe with the nature of God.

"Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, that they not be discouraged. Col 3:21"

That's the clear, plain word of the New Testament. Noah did just the opposite in the extreme. Yet teachers, over-spiritualizing things, for years have attempted to clear him.

But think about this, and the nastiness of Noah's curse. Imagine if you were a dad yourself and your older father got drunk, did something embarrassing, and finding out you talked about it, got so angry that he went beyond cursing you--he looked you in the eye and cursed your son.

That's some serious nastiness.

What effect would this legacy have on your son? The same thing, to the extreme, would happen to Canaan. He lived his whole life knowing his grandfather, the one who is supposed to love and cherish him, and even the top guy on earth at the time, had cursed him for life. You think it would discourage him and make him bitter? You think it would "provoke him to anger?" You think, knowing he had done nothing wrong, it would turn him against the God his grandfather supposedly represented?

Get out of your hyper-spiritual brain for a minute and just think about it.

You'd better believe it would.

Yes, Noah cursed Canaan. Yes, the curse had effect. But not in the way we have traditionally looked at it. Noah produced the rebel Canaan became by his harsh, reckless words. That's the lesson, I believe.

Fathers, watch what you say and how you say it. By speaking in anger, you may produce the very bad child you think you are trying to prevent.


Obviously, there is an application to Witness Lee which I won't even go into now.

Some great exegesis Igzy. What a realistic way of looking at Noah.

Two things:

1) How did Noah come by divine powers strong enough to curse father and descendants? Seems to me he was under the influence of the wrong spirits for those kinds of powers.

2) Considering this Noah story was written long after Noah, and by those that annihilated and conquered the Canaanites, wouldn't it make sense that the writer had an ax to grind, and reversed engineered the curse, to explain why they had to commit genocide of the Canaanites?

And to add a third thought ... if Noah is an example of Deputy Authority it's an example of Deputy Authority gone wrong. After all, it produced the Canaanites, that had to be slaughtered to take God's "gift" of the Promise Land.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by awareness

Some great exegesis Igzy. What a realistic way of looking at Noah.

Two things:

1) How did Noah come by divine powers strong enough to curse father and descendants? Seems to me he was under the influence of the wrong spirits for those kinds of powers.

2) Considering this Noah story was written long after Noah, and by those that annihilated and conquered the Canaanites, wouldn't it make sense that the writer had an ax to grind, and reversed engineered the curse, to explain why they had to commit genocide of the Canaanites?

And to add a third thought ... if Noah is an example of Deputy Authority it's an example of Deputy Authority gone wrong. After all, it produced the Canaanites, that had to be slaughtered to take God's "gift" of the Promise Land.

Hi Awareness--

Before we can say these verses are an example of "Deputy Authority" we first have to provide evidence that the LC "Deputy Authority" teaching is in fact Scriptural.

Certainly there are men who legitimately act with authority in the Bible. However, this is not what the LC "Deputy Authority" teaching is about. This LC teaching is an attempt to do an end-run around accountability for the sinful behavior of its leadership. When the "Deputy Authority" card is played, it usually means abuse to the membership.

This teaching makes a mockery of the gospel. In effect, this non-scriptural teaching answers the question "shall we sin that grace may abound?" with the answer "Yes".

Is this your understanding of the teaching?

Nell

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Nell

Hi Awareness--

Before we can say these verses are an example of "Deputy Authority" we first have to provide evidence that the LC "Deputy Authority" teaching is in fact Scriptural.

Certainly there are men who legitimately act with authority in the Bible. However, this is not what the LC "Deputy Authority" teaching is about. This LC teaching is an attempt to do an end-run around accountability for the sinful behavior of its leadership. When the "Deputy Authority" card is played, it can lead to abuse of the membership.

This teaching makes a mockery of the gospel. In effect, this non-scriptural teaching answers the question "shall we sin that grace may abound?" with the answer "Yes".

Is this your understanding of the teaching?

Nell

Is the teaching of Deputy Authority scriptural? Was it taught by Jesus and/or Paul? Is it New Covenant?

More than that, is the practice scriptural? Is the fruit of such authority scriptural?

So far, strictly speaking, in Christian circles, I haven't seen good scriptural fruit come from it.

Just look at the Roman Catholic church, when it had more authority than the standing government.

And look around at Protestant examples of the fruit of authority.

From my neck of the woods for 30+ years, there's the example of the 20,000 mega-church, Calvary Chapel, in South Florida. The governance model of that mega-church was called The Moses Model; in that, God spoke to Moses and Moses ran the show. So pastor Bob Coy's authority wasn't to be questioned, nor could the authority of the 200 pastors under Boy Coy be questioned. A year ago last April Coy had to step down, for affairs with sisters. And other pastors were exposed for affairs with sisters and brothers (gay). It was the non-questioning of authority that allowed such sins to abound. Ring a bell?

And bro Untohim has repeatedly brought up Mars Hill in the Northeast, and pastor Mark Driscoll. Driscoll's sin, as I understand it, was precisely that of his abuse of authority.

Then The Village Church (TVC), a mega-sized Dallas-area church, head pastor, Matt Chandler, who like Driscoll, heads up the Acts 29 network.

There the church wouldn't allow missionary Karen Hinkey to divorce her missionary husband after discovering he had a child porn addiction.

And even here locally, churches based upon authority figures, from what I've seen with family members, at an Independent Baptist Church, bears non-scriptural fruit.

So I have to ask. Is the fruit of Deputy Authority in the local church scriptural? I wouldn't know. I left circa 1980, when the deputy authority shoe began to drop here in America. I couldn't take it back then. I don't know how anyone since can stand it. It only got worse.

But like the Eurythmics sang in ""Sweet Dreams (Are Made Of This)":

Everybody's looking for something
Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to get used by you
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused

[OBW]

Interesting thought.

Was the story about eing wrong to expose Noah's sin?

Does the Bible ever refer to Noah as having sinned?

Or is this just an overlay on his poor behavior under our Temperance Society mentality that Lee latched on to (or Nee before him) declare the sinner (Noah) as some kind of deputy authority rather than simply looking at the only sinner in the story, Ham, who made fun of him (disrespecting his father) for going to bed drunk and naked?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Interesting thought.

Was the story about eing wrong to expose Noah's sin?

Does the Bible ever refer to Noah as having sinned?

Or is this just an overlay on his poor behavior under our Temperance Society mentality that Lee latched on to (or Nee before him) declare the sinner (Noah) as some kind of deputy authority rather than simply looking at the only sinner in the story, Ham, who made fun of him (disrespecting his father) for going to bed drunk and naked?

It's clear Noah sinned. He got drunk (a sin) and he verbally abused another person (also a sin). Where does the Bible ever say its okay for leaders to go around cursing others? Where does it say that Noah was right for doing so?

The Bible simply records the story. Ham was wrong, but so was Noah. Human interaction is rarely black and white. Noah was wrong for getting drunk and lolling around naked. Ham was wrong for exposing him. Noah was wrong for cursing Ham. It was one big nasty meltdown that wrecked a family and produced a rebellious tribe--the Canaanites. Hardly a high point for spiritual leadership. So why try to pretend it is?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's clear Noah sinned. He got drunk (a sin) and he verbally abused another person (also a sin). Where does the Bible ever say its okay for leaders to go around cursing others? Where does it say that Noah was right for doing so?

The Bible simply records the story. Ham was wrong, but so was Noah. Human interaction is rarely black and white. Noah was wrong for getting drunk and lolling around naked. Ham was wrong for exposing him. Noah was wrong for cursing Ham. It was one big nasty meltdown that wrecked a family and produced a rebellious tribe--the Canaanites. Hardly a high point for spiritual leadership. So why try to pretend it is?

Getting drunk is a sin as some know it. Yet getting drunk was easily a part of OT life . . . without comment. Being a drunkard was spoken against, but it was also not referred to as being a sin, but more like a serious character flaw.

The sin of haranguing Ham and Canaan (if it actually was a sin) was after the sin of Ham which was the thing that Nee/Lee pointed at as the wrong of exposing the sins of the deputy authority. I think that I am questioning whether Noah being drunk in his own tent was truly a sin other than as we now have it from Paul's writings. (Or more rightly, how we have it as a heritage of our "don't even touch alcohol" evangelical, or more rightly, fundamentalist roots.) It would seem that Boaz was somewhat drunk if someone managed to come into where he was sleeping, uncover his feet, and then lay down nearby until he awakened. But no comment about a sin there.

While there are clearly reference to drunkards, that speaks of being in a fairly constant state of inebriation. Even the command of Paul to be filled with the Spirit rather being drunk with wine does not create an absolute state of sin for being drunk.

Now I am not one to consider being drunk as a good thing. But like a lot of things, there are sins that are a matter of degrees rather than simply black and white.

What I am getting out of this is that we American (mostly) evangelical Protestants tend to have a background of something like the old Southern Baptist position of "don't drink alcohol at all," coupled with a theology that says that the "wine" spoken of in the NT was actually just grape juice.

Yeah, most of us are beyond that. But are we sure that being drunk is simply a sin? Not suggesting it as a regular thing. And surely not giving an "OK" to being a drunkard. But does the Bible actually say (prior to Paul, if you want to take his statement as defining a sin that was not previously defined) that being drunk, in private, on a particular occasion is a sin?

If it is not, then there was no sin of Noah for which deputy authority excused him. The Bible never refers to him as having sinned. (Even with regard to his curse on Canaan.) Therefore the story is not a viable basis for saying that average followers of God should not expose the sins of their leaders. Further, Paul and others directly said the exact opposite, therefore the back-door, tell-a-story method does not create what is otherwise not there, and more importantly, does not override what actually is there.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Getting drunk is a sin as some know it. Yet getting drunk was easily a part of OT life . . . without comment. Being a drunkard was spoken against, but it was also not referred to as being a sin, but more like a serious character flaw.

Yeah, most of us are beyond that. But are we sure that being drunk is simply a sin? Not suggesting it as a regular thing. And surely not giving an "OK" to being a drunkard. But does the Bible actually say (prior to Paul, if you want to take his statement as defining a sin that was not previously defined) that being drunk, in private, on a particular occasion is a sin?

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.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

Getting drunk is a sin as some know it. Yet getting drunk was easily a part of OT life . . . without comment. Being a drunkard was spoken against, but it was also not referred to as being a sin, but more like a serious character flaw.

The sin of haranguing Ham and Canaan (if it actually was a sin) was after the sin of Ham which was the thing that Nee/Lee pointed at as the wrong of exposing the sins of the deputy authority. I think that I am questioning whether Noah being drunk in his own tent was truly a sin other than as we now have it from Paul's writings. (Or more rightly, how we have it as a heritage of our "don't even touch alcohol" evangelical, or more rightly, fundamentalist roots.) It would seem that Boaz was somewhat drunk if someone managed to come into where he was sleeping, uncover his feet, and then lay down nearby until he awakened. But no comment about a sin there.

While there are clearly reference to drunkards, that speaks of being in a fairly constant state of inebriation. Even the command of Paul to be filled with the Spirit rather being drunk with wine does not create an absolute state of sin for being drunk.

Now I am not one to consider being drunk as a good thing. But like a lot of things, there are sins that are a matter of degrees rather than simply black and white.

What I am getting out of this is that we American (mostly) evangelical Protestants tend to have a background of something like the old Southern Baptist position of "don't drink alcohol at all," coupled with a theology that says that the "wine" spoken of in the NT was actually just grape juice.

Yeah, most of us are beyond that. But are we sure that being drunk is simply a sin? Not suggesting it as a regular thing. And surely not giving an "OK" to being a drunkard. But does the Bible actually say (prior to Paul, if you want to take his statement as defining a sin that was not previously defined) that being drunk, in private, on a particular occasion is a sin?

If it is not, then there was no sin of Noah for which deputy authority excused him. The Bible never refers to him as having sinned. (Even with regard to his curse on Canaan.) Therefore the story is not a viable basis for saying that average followers of God should not expose the sins of their leaders. Further, Paul and others directly said the exact opposite, therefore the back-door, tell-a-story method does not create what is otherwise not there, and more importantly, does not override what actually is there.

OBW,

One premise of my first post is that these verses do not call what Noah did "sin". Noah planted a vineyard and drank of the wine and was drunken. This is a simple statement that leaves a lot of room for speculation, which might cause you/us to miss the point of the verses altogether. Noah drank too much wine an ended up naked in the privacy of his own tent. We shouldn't read into it more than is stated IMHO. You're right. Judging an event occurring over 2000 years ago by today's standards can give you a skewed perspective.

We also know that Ham disrespected his father and paid heavily for it. There is no further commentary on Noah's behavior either in the tent, or in his judgment on his son. God didn't judge Noah, at least in these verses, so neither should we. The verses are a description of one event in the Bible.

So what is the point of these verses? The verses are a commentary on the family and what can happen when it breaks down. Not much attention has been paid to this aspect. Look around at the condition of the world today, with the family broken into shambles.

We're talking about this because these verses have been co opted by some men today to justify misusing authority. Did Noah sin by cursing Ham and his decendants? We don't know that. Igzy believes Noah did sin but this is based on today's standards. All we know is that Noah did curse his son and his decendants, making them servants to his brothers.

Without these verses, we wouldn't have context for how Caanan came to be cursed. The history of Caanan after this rocky start ends with Caanan being the Promised Land. What began with a curse of the land ended with a promised land.

Nell

________________________

Genesis 9:18-27
18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.
19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Nell

Certainly there are men who legitimately act with authority in the Bible. However, this is not what the LC "Deputy Authority" teaching is about. This LC teaching is an attempt to do an end-run around accountability for the sinful behavior of its leadership. When the "Deputy Authority" card is played, it usually means abuse to the membership.

Yes, what she said.

Deputy Authority is about dominating others, no ifs or buts about it.