Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom
The Bible doesn't tell the whole story of what happened, so people should be careful about how they attach meaning to it.
|
I agree. I just have a problem with interpretations that whitewash Noah and say that God honored his curse because Noah was "the man." I don't see that supported biblically.
Rather I see that Noah abused his position, the weight of which served to produce the curse he pronounced.
I have heard it taught several times that for most of us,
our basic view of God is based on how we view our father. If our father was mean, we tend to see God as mean. If our father was loving, it is easy to see God that way, too.
How do you think Canaan viewed God, based on the behavior of his grandfather, God's rep? Canaan was responsible for his behavior as an adult. Anger with imperfect parents is no long-term excuse for rebellion against God. But Noah's curse is 180 degrees contrary to how the NT tells us to treat children.
We don't know everything, but based on what we do know Canaan got a bum deal. So that's the logical interpretation. What doesn't make sense is an interpretation that doesn't jibe with the loving and just nature of God. And things like "God backs up deputy authorities no matter what" or "the curse of Ham, Canaan, or whomever" do not.