Quote:
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."