The Sin of Noah?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Nell

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 sttement 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

By what standard did Ham "sin?" Uncovering the nakedness of his father? That wasn't established as a law until the time of Moses. So you are retroactively applying a standard as well. I'm not saying it doesn't apply. I'm just saying if you are going to retroactively apply that standard, then why not also the one for drunkedness, which is established in both the NT and OT? But you implied I was wrong for retroactively applying it. So which is it?

Where do we get the idea that the curse was applied by God on behalf of Noah's speaking? All we know is that Noah cursed him and it came true. That doesn't mean God "honored" Noah's curse. That just means Noah's words carried a lot of weight, and as grandfather and tribal leader that make sense.

I don't see anywhere where the Bible says you can curse people that offend you and God will honor your curse because of your status, even if you are Noah. You are right that this is about family dynamics. It's also about the weight of words, especially negative words.

What I'm not convinced it's about is how God backs up the curses of spiritual big shots. That's the kind of interpretation which leads to doctrines like "Deputy Authority."

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Igzy

By what standard did Ham "sin?" Uncovering the nakedness of his father? That wasn't established as a law until the time of Moses. So you are retroactively applying a standard as well. I'm not saying it doesn't apply. I'm just saying if you are going to retroactively apply that standard, then why not also the one for drunkedness, which is established in both the NT and OT? But you implied I was wrong for retroactively applying it. So which is it?

Igzy,

I look at this account as a descriptive event in Biblical history. I don't believe it is a prescription for teachings about "DA", drunkenness, curses, etc.

I didn't say Ham sinned. I said he disrespected his father. That seems obvious. Call it what you will, but to me it was disrespect by any standard you want to apply. I don't know but I think this could be the precursor to the law given to Moses, because of the promise "that your days be long on the earth". That's just what I think.

Well...you could be wrong! I don't claim to be right. I'm trying to stick to the actual text and not say more than it says. This is just a conversation.

Where do we get the idea that the curse was applied by God on behalf of Noah's speaking? All we know is that Noah cursed him and it came true. That doesn't mean God "honored" Noah's curse. That just means Noah's words carried a lot of weight, and as grandfather and tribal leader that make sense.

Just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts.

I don't see anywhere where the Bible says you can curse people that offend you and God will honor your curse because of your status, even if you are Noah.

Me neither.

What I'm not convinced it's about is how God backs up the curses of spiritual big shots. That's the kind of interpretation which leads to doctrines like "Deputy Authority."

I'm not convinced that this is what God did either. I pretty much take the verses at face value and reject any teachings of men which were spawned with them as their basis.

Nell

[Ohio]

Nee used this OT story to develop a Bible leadership construct suitable for the NT. But is this not contradictory in principle and application to the Lord's own instructions to the Twelve? Contrary to the selfish wishes of Peter, James, and John, the Lord never elevated one over the others. The very concept of a unique Deputy Authority obliterates every instruction the Lord gave concerning not ruling like the Gentiles.

Unfortunately the story of Noah's vineyard is open to diverse interpretations. But there are many positive lessons to learn here. Paul clearly shows us (I Cor 10) that these stories are written for our instruction, the interpretation of which must be guided by the rest of scripture. As Peter instructs us, no prophecy of scripture is of one's private interpretation. Nee and Lee's interpretation not only does not pass the test of the NT, but violates it. The awful fruits of these systems, starting with the RCC's "vicar of Christ," is proof enough.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

By what standard did Ham "sin?" Uncovering the nakedness of his father? That wasn't established as a law until the time of Moses.

This is more evidence that this story is being written long after the fact, and the writer is writing his cultural rules into the text.

The question is why. Why is the Noah story being written in such a way?

Is it as Lee claimed? Was the writer even thinking of authority? Is the Noah story -- in the writers mind -- some kind of lesson of "deputy authority?" ; to be used thousands of years later -- as a cargo cult method -- to bring the cargo (blessings) down from God?

Does God require such methods? Has God been waiting for someone to figure out the combination lock -- a hierarchy of authority -- before He's gonna open up the floodgates of His blessings? Is that really the right method to prepare the bride for the bridegroom ... a cargo cult method? Who's fooling who here?

Does anyone else see the absurdity of using the Noah story to support a man structured authority system? Isn't this, in the end, just an effort to use the Bible, to convince believers your top down church governance is Bible based, and from God? It looks to me to be a slick sleight of hand, and mind, trick.

But if you're a sincere believer, seeking to be committed and absolute for "God's eternal purpose," it's a easy sell. And it works/ed.

Look, there's lot's of suckers out there. When it comes to religion it's obvious us humans will fall for anything.

And that's what is happening for the local church. Lee tapped into this inclination, this weakness (I had it). But Lee is possibly today's Joseph Smith Jr. Will his movement become as large and successful as the Mormon church? Time will tell ... but I doubt it.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by awareness

This is more evidence that this story is being written long after the fact, and the writer is writing his cultural rules into the text.

The question is why. Why is the Noah story being written in such a way?

Is it as Lee claimed? Was the writer even thinking of authority? Is the Noah story -- in the writers mind -- some kind of lesson of "deputy authority?" ; to be used thousands of years later -- as a cargo cult method -- to bring the cargo (blessings) down from God?

Does God require such methods? Has God been waiting for someone to figure out the combination lock -- a hierarchy of authority -- before He's gonna open up the floodgates of His blessings? Is that really the right method to prepare the bride for the bridegroom ... a cargo cult method? Who's fooling who here?

Does anyone else see the absurdity of using the Noah story to support a man structured authority system? Isn't this, in the end, just an effort to use the Bible, to convince believers your top down church governance is Bible based, and from God? It looks to me to be a slick sleight of hand, and mind, trick.

But if you're a sincere believer, seeking to be committed and absolute for "God's eternal purpose," it's a easy sell. And it works/ed.

Look, there's lot's of suckers out there. When it comes to religion it's obvious us humans will fall for anything.

And that's what is happening for the local church. Lee tapped into this inclination, this weakness (I had it). But Lee is possibly today's Joseph Smith Jr. Will his movement become as large and successful as the Mormon church? Time will tell ... but I doubt it.

"Cultural rules" notwithstanding, I don't think the issue is the way the Biblical account was written. The issue is the way men have interpreted the Bible. Maybe that's what you meant, but just to clarify...

Lee/Nee did what they did and the results are before us. We know Genesis 9 was written by God and penned by, probably, Moses....the same guy who penned the 10 Commandments. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are generally known as the books of Moses. Of course, there's always discussion and disagreement, but that's another topic and beyond the scope of this discussion. I'm going with Moses. So we can't know the order in which these books were penned or the scribe who penned them with absolute certainty, but it was likely Moses and likely chronological.

More importantly, we know that in the mind and heart of the eternal God, honoring your father and your mother was always there. As such, the Noah/Ham account in Genesis 9 is consistent with Mosaic Law which was yet to be given. That's what I believe.

Early on, Witness Lee taught something I still appreciate. You have to study the Bible with the Bible. I believe he got that right.

Nell