The Sin of Noah?

[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.

I recently took another look at these verses and I would like to make a few observations about what the verses actually say.

Rather than “deputy authority” the verses are the obvious account an interaction between a father and his sons…its a family matter.

“The sin of Noah”? This passage does not contain the word “sin”. The Bible doesn’t call what Noah did “sin”. He and his family were just off the boat and the earth had been wiped clean. He was apparently new to the vineyard business. What these verses discuss may have occurred at Noah's first harvest of wine when he drank too much and it put him to sleep. Then, he was uncovered “within his tent”.

Speaking to "deputy authority", Noah may have been uncovered in his tent, but to the outside world, Noah was covered ... by his tent.

He didn’t go bar-hopping. He didn’t go out carousing around with the boys, get drunk and take his clothes off. He was drunk and naked in the privacy of his own tent. Since the Bible doesn’t call it sin, should we presume to call sin what the Bible does not? Even though sin is implied, is there enough evidence to convict? Since it is not specifically stated in the Word, Noah's actions could have been unintentional so I can give him the benefit of the doubt.

Noah’s son Ham saw his father’s nakedness and went out and talked about it to his brothers. Shem and Japheth respected their father by simply covering him up. If there is a lesson to these verses, IMHO, here it is. In a family, you’re always going to see things you wish you hadn’t seen. There will be things you don’t want to see. In a family, “nakedness” is always a possibility. Parents aren’t perfect and their behavior will be exposed to the children. Of course, this doesn't excuse bad or sinful behavior of parents toward young children. In this passage though, Noah's sons are adults, so that's the context I'm addressing. This may imply that honoring your father and your mother as adults may be more difficult...not sure.

Later, as you know, honoring your father and your mother became the 5th Commandment given by God to Moses. It also carries a promise.

I now believe that today, as we’ve seen the breakdown of the family, and the serious results throughout the world, the 5th Commandment looms large. Especially the promise: "...that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee."

In Genesis 9, Noah’s sons weren’t young children, they were adults. Shem and Japheth, by their actions, respected their father. They likely weren’t thinking “deputy authority”. Their actions honored their father. This probably wasn’t the first time they had seen questionable behavior in the family. There had also likely been sin for which Noah needed to repent to his sons. They had been cramped up together on a boat for at least 1 or 2 years! It seems that Shem and Japheth had learned a lesson that Ham had not learned.

“And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.” This is interesting. How did he know what Ham had done? Regardless, Ham paid a heavy price for his behavior. Ham was the father of Caanan and Caanan was cursed and became a servant to Shem.

So, the "deputy authority" interpretation overshadows a more obvious look at the behavior of three sons toward their father...two sons who respected and honored their father, and one son who did not and got himself and the entire land of Caanan into big trouble.

Nell
____________________________________________

Exodus 20:12 (KJV)
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

Ephesians 6 (KJV)
1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
2 Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise;
3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.
4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Nell

Rather than “deputy authority” the verses are the obvious account an interaction between a father and his sons…its a family matter.

So, the "deputy authority" interpretation overshadows a more obvious look at the behavior of three sons toward their father...two sons who respected and honored their father, and one son who did not and got himself and the entire land of Caanan into big trouble.

I would have to find scripture as basis for my opinion, but I see the deputy authority as a family matter; with the father being the deputy authority. It doesn't lie with elders and coworkers. If it did, then there's an inherent conflict of interest if an elder/coworker tries to veto how a father raises his children.
Rather I see the LC interpretation of deputy authority being Asian culture integrated into Christianity.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Terry

I would have to find scripture as basis for my opinion, but I see the deputy authority as a family matter; with the father being the deputy authority. It doesn't lie with elders and coworkers. If it did, then there's an inherent conflict of interest if an elder/coworker tries to veto how a father raises his children.
Rather I see the LC interpretation of deputy authority being Asian culture integrated into Christianity.

Terry,

I see "deputy authority" as a fallacy. It isn't in the Bible. It's yet another teaching based on misinterpretation of scripture. A father isn't a "deputy authority". He's a father. We know what "father" means. You can read scriptures on parental responsibility. God is our Father.

What does "deputy authority" mean? It's a man-made term. Where in scripture can we find a clear understanding of such a teaching? There are verses where authority was given by Jesus to specific people for a specific purpose. Luke 9:1 Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases."

Here Jesus gave his disciples authority...not "deputy authority".

Here's what Paul told Timothy:
2 Timothy 2:14 Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers. 15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Nell

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Terry

I see the deputy authority as a family matter; with the father being the deputy authority.

I see deputy authority of any kind as bunkum. If anyone claims anything except as on par with me I consider them a laughingstock. But that's just me.

Deputy Authority? What an evil concept! We see it clearly in the military; the biggest brainwashing authority cult on the earth; a cult of killing and dying.

[Freedom]

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.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

I see deputy authority of any kind as bunkum. If anyone claims anything except as on par with me I consider them a laughingstock. But that's just me.

No, that's not just you. It's me, too.

I remember one time an elder in Austin discussing Sun Myung Moon, the self-proclaimed Messiah and leader of the Moonie cult. He said, with appropriate concision, "If you are talking to a Moonie and he can't say 'Moon is a wet noodle', walk away."

That's what I say now. If you are talking to a LCMer and he can't admit deputy authority is the brain-child of wet noodles, walk away.

This isn't to say that God doesn't give some members authority. But that's a far cry from the LCM model of authority, which is really nothing more than an instrument of control and intimidation, and the work of wet noodles.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

No, that's not just you. It's me, too.

I remember one time an elder in Austin discussing Sun Myung Moon, the self-proclaimed Messiah and leader of the Moonie cult. He said, with appropriate concision, "If you are talking to a Moonie and he can't say 'Moon is a wet noodle', walk away."

That's what I say now. If you are talking to a LCMer and he can't admit deputy authority is the brain-child of wet noodles, walk away.

This isn't to say that God doesn't give some members authority. But that's a far cry from the LCM model of authority, which is really nothing more than an instrument of control and intimidation, and the work of wet noodles.

And if a Buddhist can't admit that he must kill the Buddha walk away.

Why? because there's no room for anything but kool-aid in them.

[Cal]

It is possible we and many Bible students have had the interpretation of this passage way wrong for many years.

Noah got drunk, naked and was probably hungover. He was so angry and out-of-sorts when he awoke that he did not just curse his son, Ham, who was the one he was mad at, but he cursed Ham's son, Canaan, of whom the Bible records no wrongdoing.

Would any Christian these days excuse that kind of behavior? No way! So why do we excuse Noah?

Interpreters have jumped through hoops for years trying to make sense of this passage, vindicating Noah because Canaan's descendants were, it seems, cursed, becoming the Canaanites whom Israel routed and enslaved. So they seek to find ways to exonerate Noah, ways which in the end don't jibe with the nature of God.

"Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, that they not be discouraged. Col 3:21"

That's the clear, plain word of the New Testament. Noah did just the opposite in the extreme. Yet teachers, over-spiritualizing things, for years have attempted to clear him.

But think about this, and the nastiness of Noah's curse. Imagine if you were a dad yourself and your older father got drunk, did something embarrassing, and finding out you talked about it, got so angry that he went beyond cursing you--he looked you in the eye and cursed your son.

That's some serious nastiness.

What effect would this legacy have on your son? The same thing, to the extreme, would happen to Canaan. He lived his whole life knowing his grandfather, the one who is supposed to love and cherish him, and even the top guy on earth at the time, had cursed him for life. You think it would discourage him and make him bitter? You think it would "provoke him to anger?" You think, knowing he had done nothing wrong, it would turn him against the God his grandfather supposedly represented?

Get out of your hyper-spiritual brain for a minute and just think about it.

You'd better believe it would.

Yes, Noah cursed Canaan. Yes, the curse had effect. But not in the way we have traditionally looked at it. Noah produced the rebel Canaan became by his harsh, reckless words. That's the lesson, I believe.

Fathers, watch what you say and how you say it. By speaking in anger, you may produce the very bad child you think you are trying to prevent.


Obviously, there is an application to Witness Lee which I won't even go into now.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It is possible we and many Bible students have had the interpretation of this passage way wrong for many years.
...
Yes, Noah cursed Canaan. Yes, the curse had effect. But not in the way we have traditionally looked at it. Noah produced the rebel Canaan became by his harsh, reckless words. That's the lesson, I believe.

Fathers, watch what you say and how you say it. By speaking in anger, you may produce the very bad child you think you are trying to prevent.

Interesting perspective. Nell posted something along similar lines: "This probably wasn’t the first time they had seen questionable behavior in the family. There had also likely been sin for which Noah needed to repent to his sons. They had been cramped up together on a boat for at least 1 or 2 years! It seems that Shem and Japheth had learned a lesson that Ham had not learned."

Last year, I watched the Noah movie (with Russell Crowe) when it came out. I was initially a bit bothered by the portray of the family dynamics, however, the more I've thought about it, the more I've realize that it probably wasn't all smooth sailing (pun intended) for Noah and his family.

I don't want to spoil the plot, but I will just say that in the movie, Noah is portrayed as someone who is at odds with his family. Maybe people don't like this view of Noah, but I think there is some truth to it. If family tensions had anything to do with what happened with Ham, then that would be an important part of understanding the meaning of Noah's curse on Canaan.

The Bible doesn't tell the whole story of what happened, so people should be careful about how they attach meaning to it. Nee was all too eager to claim that it was about deputy authority.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It is possible we and many Bible students have had the interpretation of this passage way wrong for many years.

Noah got drunk, naked and was probably hungover. He was so angry and out-of-sorts when he awoke that he did not just curse his son, Ham, who was the one he was mad at, but he cursed Ham's son, Canaan, of whom the Bible records no wrongdoing.

Would any Christian these days excuse that kind of behavior? No way! So why do we excuse Noah?

Interpreters have jumped through hoops for years trying to make sense of this passage, vindicating Noah because Canaan's descendants were, it seems, cursed, becoming the Canaanites whom Israel routed and enslaved. So they seek to find ways to exonerate Noah, ways which in the end don't jibe with the nature of God.

"Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, that they not be discouraged. Col 3:21"

That's the clear, plain word of the New Testament. Noah did just the opposite in the extreme. Yet teachers, over-spiritualizing things, for years have attempted to clear him.

But think about this, and the nastiness of Noah's curse. Imagine if you were a dad yourself and your older father got drunk, did something embarrassing, and finding out you talked about it, got so angry that he went beyond cursing you--he looked you in the eye and cursed your son.

That's some serious nastiness.

What effect would this legacy have on your son? The same thing, to the extreme, would happen to Canaan. He lived his whole life knowing his grandfather, the one who is supposed to love and cherish him, and even the top guy on earth at the time, had cursed him for life. You think it would discourage him and make him bitter? You think it would "provoke him to anger?" You think, knowing he had done nothing wrong, it would turn him against the God his grandfather supposedly represented?

Get out of your hyper-spiritual brain for a minute and just think about it.

You'd better believe it would.

Yes, Noah cursed Canaan. Yes, the curse had effect. But not in the way we have traditionally looked at it. Noah produced the rebel Canaan became by his harsh, reckless words. That's the lesson, I believe.

Fathers, watch what you say and how you say it. By speaking in anger, you may produce the very bad child you think you are trying to prevent.


Obviously, there is an application to Witness Lee which I won't even go into now.

Some great exegesis Igzy. What a realistic way of looking at Noah.

Two things:

1) How did Noah come by divine powers strong enough to curse father and descendants? Seems to me he was under the influence of the wrong spirits for those kinds of powers.

2) Considering this Noah story was written long after Noah, and by those that annihilated and conquered the Canaanites, wouldn't it make sense that the writer had an ax to grind, and reversed engineered the curse, to explain why they had to commit genocide of the Canaanites?

And to add a third thought ... if Noah is an example of Deputy Authority it's an example of Deputy Authority gone wrong. After all, it produced the Canaanites, that had to be slaughtered to take God's "gift" of the Promise Land.