Quote:
In the Garden of Eden, Adam fell. In the vineyard, Noah also was defeated, but because of his righteousness God saved the family of Noah. In God’s plan Noah was the head of the family. God put the whole family under Noah’s authority; He also set Noah as the head of the world of that time.
But one day Noah became drunk in his vineyard and he uncovered himself in his tent. His youngest son, Ham, saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers outside. So far as Noah’s conduct was concerned, he certainly was wrong; he should not have been drunk. Yet Ham failed to see the dignity of authority. The father is God’s instituted authority in the home, but the flesh delights in seeing a defect in authority so as to throw off all restraint. When Ham saw his father’s improper conduct he did not have the slightest sense of shame or sorrow, nor did he try to cover his father’s fault. This reveals that he had a rebellious spirit. He went out instead and told his brethren, pointing out to them his father’s ugliness and so adding to himself the sin of reviling. Observe, though, how Shem and Japheth managed the situation. They entered the tent backwards—thus avoiding seeing their father’s nakedness—and covered their father with the upper garment which they had laid on their shoulders.
It is seen then that the failure of Noah became a test to Shem, Ham, Japheth, and Ham’s son, Canaan. It revealed who was obedient and who was rebellious. Noah’s fall unveiled Ham’s rebellion.
Watchman Nee, Spiritual Authority, pg 25-26
|
I posted the above excerpt in order to make mention of some of the notions W. Nee had. He says Noah was the family authority, and he even says that Noah was the "head of the world". I can understand the view of Noah being a family authority, however, I think the idea of Noah being the "head of the world" is Nee reading too much into the text.
Nee goes on to say that "the flesh delights in seeing a defect in authority so as to throw off all restraint." Maybe in certain cases, yes, but I don't think it's fair to say that people are sitting around waiting for authority figures to mess up so they can "throw off all restraint". People who don't want to respect authority aren't going to do so regardless of whether or not authority figures make mistakes. It's easy to find faults in authority figures, but many people respect them regardless.
When Nee said that what Ham did was an act of rebellion, there is no clarification provided as to what is meant by that. Rebellion could very well be part of the issue, but for what purpose was Ham rebelling? People don't rebel for no reason, and the purpose of rebelling is what determines whether or not it is justified. Rebellion can be a problem, but it must be qualified. If it isn't, then we can consider alternative theories with the same weight. For example, some people take the view that what Ham did was an act of incest (with his mother or even his father). They will correlate the phrase "
covered the nakedness of their father" (Gen 9:23) and the statement "
The nakedness of your father or the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover." (Lev 18:7). Of course, it's all speculation, but what if Ham really did commit incest? Then the issue isn't rebellion at all, it was taking advantage of a situation for his own gratification.
If we read the story as it appears, Ham was making fun of his father, so he wasn't necessarily "rebelling", it was more of an act of disrespect. Rebelling is more of a consistent effort to oppose authority. Ham's action was a single situation. When Noah awoke, he still spoke his curse on Canaan, so if there was any significant rebellion on the part of Ham, it had little to no effect on Noah as an authority figure.