Quote:
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.