Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom
... 1) Do the cases in the Bible that Nee referenced mean what he claims they do? 2) Is this practice something in the Bible? 3) Is this teaching practiced outside the LC? Those questions have to be considered in conjunction with one another. Just because a practice isn't in the Bible doesn't mean you can't do it. By the same token, practices that aren't in the Bible should probably be more heavily scrutinized.
|
Here's my scrutiny of Genesis 9:19-27:
Genesis 9
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.
So these are the verses that support “deputy authority” according to W Nee’s book Spiritual Authority, both printings.
To summarize:
1. Noah drank too much wine and became drunk.
2. He was drunk and naked in his tent and uncovered.
3. Ham 1) saw Noah naked and 2) told his brothers. Two problems for Ham.
4. His brothers covered Noah’s nakedness without laying eyes on him.
5. Noah woke up and “knew what his younger son had done to him”, that being 1) he saw Noah naked and 2) told someone about it.
6. For this Ham, the father of Canaan was cursed by becoming a servant to his brothers.
Out of this account, Nee comes up with “deputy authority”:
* Noah apparently is not personally accountable for being drunk and naked in his tent. This fits Nee’s premise that elders are not personally accountable for their sins.
* Nee’s premise is that either Ham should not have seen his father’s nakedness; or, Ham should not have told his brother’s about Noah’s naked condition, or both.
* Regardless, according to Nee, the sins of “deputy authorities” should be covered and not exposed.
Question: Was Noah’s drunken and naked condition actually “covered”?
* According to the verses, at the time it happened, yes.
* However, there’s a problem:
We know about it!
* If it was God’s intention that Noah’s drunken/naked condition be forever covered by Noah's 2 sons...
why are we talking about it 2000+ years later?
Noah’s sin wasn’t covered…it was exposed to the ages.
It was written up in the Bible! If Noah was a Deputy Authority and his sin was covered,
we wouldn’t know about it.
Instead:
1 Timothy 5:20 (NIV)
20 But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning.
Therefore, Nee’s teaching to “cover the brothers”, i.e. “deputy authorities”, is
debunked. This account in Gen. 9 is not "prescriptive" as a prescribed teaching or belief. Rather, Gen. 9 is "descriptive". It simply describes an event that occurred in the Bible.
What do you think?
Nell