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.

[Cal]

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.

[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.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by awareness

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.

Hi Awareness--

Before we can say these verses are an example of "Deputy Authority" we first have to provide evidence that the LC "Deputy Authority" teaching is in fact Scriptural.

Certainly there are men who legitimately act with authority in the Bible. However, this is not what the LC "Deputy Authority" teaching is about. This LC teaching is an attempt to do an end-run around accountability for the sinful behavior of its leadership. When the "Deputy Authority" card is played, it usually means abuse to the membership.

This teaching makes a mockery of the gospel. In effect, this non-scriptural teaching answers the question "shall we sin that grace may abound?" with the answer "Yes".

Is this your understanding of the teaching?

Nell

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Nell

Hi Awareness--

Before we can say these verses are an example of "Deputy Authority" we first have to provide evidence that the LC "Deputy Authority" teaching is in fact Scriptural.

Certainly there are men who legitimately act with authority in the Bible. However, this is not what the LC "Deputy Authority" teaching is about. This LC teaching is an attempt to do an end-run around accountability for the sinful behavior of its leadership. When the "Deputy Authority" card is played, it can lead to abuse of the membership.

This teaching makes a mockery of the gospel. In effect, this non-scriptural teaching answers the question "shall we sin that grace may abound?" with the answer "Yes".

Is this your understanding of the teaching?

Nell

Is the teaching of Deputy Authority scriptural? Was it taught by Jesus and/or Paul? Is it New Covenant?

More than that, is the practice scriptural? Is the fruit of such authority scriptural?

So far, strictly speaking, in Christian circles, I haven't seen good scriptural fruit come from it.

Just look at the Roman Catholic church, when it had more authority than the standing government.

And look around at Protestant examples of the fruit of authority.

From my neck of the woods for 30+ years, there's the example of the 20,000 mega-church, Calvary Chapel, in South Florida. The governance model of that mega-church was called The Moses Model; in that, God spoke to Moses and Moses ran the show. So pastor Bob Coy's authority wasn't to be questioned, nor could the authority of the 200 pastors under Boy Coy be questioned. A year ago last April Coy had to step down, for affairs with sisters. And other pastors were exposed for affairs with sisters and brothers (gay). It was the non-questioning of authority that allowed such sins to abound. Ring a bell?

And bro Untohim has repeatedly brought up Mars Hill in the Northeast, and pastor Mark Driscoll. Driscoll's sin, as I understand it, was precisely that of his abuse of authority.

Then The Village Church (TVC), a mega-sized Dallas-area church, head pastor, Matt Chandler, who like Driscoll, heads up the Acts 29 network.

There the church wouldn't allow missionary Karen Hinkey to divorce her missionary husband after discovering he had a child porn addiction.

And even here locally, churches based upon authority figures, from what I've seen with family members, at an Independent Baptist Church, bears non-scriptural fruit.

So I have to ask. Is the fruit of Deputy Authority in the local church scriptural? I wouldn't know. I left circa 1980, when the deputy authority shoe began to drop here in America. I couldn't take it back then. I don't know how anyone since can stand it. It only got worse.

But like the Eurythmics sang in ""Sweet Dreams (Are Made Of This)":

Everybody's looking for something
Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to get used by you
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused

[OBW]

Interesting thought.

Was the story about eing wrong to expose Noah's sin?

Does the Bible ever refer to Noah as having sinned?

Or is this just an overlay on his poor behavior under our Temperance Society mentality that Lee latched on to (or Nee before him) declare the sinner (Noah) as some kind of deputy authority rather than simply looking at the only sinner in the story, Ham, who made fun of him (disrespecting his father) for going to bed drunk and naked?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Nell

Certainly there are men who legitimately act with authority in the Bible. However, this is not what the LC "Deputy Authority" teaching is about. This LC teaching is an attempt to do an end-run around accountability for the sinful behavior of its leadership. When the "Deputy Authority" card is played, it usually means abuse to the membership.

Yes, what she said.

Deputy Authority is about dominating others, no ifs or buts about it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Interesting thought.

Was the story about eing wrong to expose Noah's sin?

Does the Bible ever refer to Noah as having sinned?

Or is this just an overlay on his poor behavior under our Temperance Society mentality that Lee latched on to (or Nee before him) declare the sinner (Noah) as some kind of deputy authority rather than simply looking at the only sinner in the story, Ham, who made fun of him (disrespecting his father) for going to bed drunk and naked?

It's clear Noah sinned. He got drunk (a sin) and he verbally abused another person (also a sin). Where does the Bible ever say its okay for leaders to go around cursing others? Where does it say that Noah was right for doing so?

The Bible simply records the story. Ham was wrong, but so was Noah. Human interaction is rarely black and white. Noah was wrong for getting drunk and lolling around naked. Ham was wrong for exposing him. Noah was wrong for cursing Ham. It was one big nasty meltdown that wrecked a family and produced a rebellious tribe--the Canaanites. Hardly a high point for spiritual leadership. So why try to pretend it is?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's clear Noah sinned. He got drunk (a sin) and he verbally abused another person (also a sin). Where does the Bible ever say its okay for leaders to go around cursing others? Where does it say that Noah was right for doing so?

The Bible simply records the story. Ham was wrong, but so was Noah. Human interaction is rarely black and white. Noah was wrong for getting drunk and lolling around naked. Ham was wrong for exposing him. Noah was wrong for cursing Ham. It was one big nasty meltdown that wrecked a family and produced a rebellious tribe--the Canaanites. Hardly a high point for spiritual leadership. So why try to pretend it is?

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.

[Cal]

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.

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?

The NT does say "be not drunk with wine, which is excess" (Eph 5:18). I think that is a principle which spans ages (Proverbs 20:1). I'm not against drinking (that would make me hypocrite), just excess in any form.

Now just what is excess, or being drunk, is a matter of judgment. But I think if you pass out naked and wake up so surly that you curse your grandson who did no wrong, then you probably got drunk by any reasonable measure.

To me, if you step back and consider human nature and your own human experiences it isn't hard to see what happened here. Noah screwed up, his screw-up became known, which embarrassed him, which made him angry, and he flew off the handle and took it all out on Canaan, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I don't see anywhere where the Bible says Noah's curse was proper or honorable. Just that he did it and it resulted in the rebellious Canaanites. Did God want to produce that? If so maybe I should get drunk and naked and go around cursing people who have a problem with it and when they turn against God I can pat myself on the back for a job well done.

[Nell]

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.

[Cal]

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."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The NT does say "be not drunk with wine, which is excess" (Eph 5:18). I think that is a principle which spans ages (Proverbs 20:1). I'm not against drinking (that would make me hypocrite), just excess in any form.

Now just what is excess, or being drunk, is a matter of judgment. But I think if you pass out naked and wake up so surly that you curse your grandson who did no wrong, then you probably got drunk by any reasonable measure.

To me, if you step back and consider human nature and your own human experiences it isn't hard to see what happened here. Noah screwed up, his screw-up became known, which embarrassed him, which made him angry, and he flew off the handle and took it all out on Canaan, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I don't see anywhere where the Bible says Noah's curse was proper or honorable. Just that he did it and it resulted in the rebellious Canaanites. Did God want to produce that? If so maybe I should get drunk and naked and go around cursing people who have a problem with it and when they turn against God I can pat myself on the back for a job well done.

Read Nell's response. I think that she has it right. Or at least she is not reading something into it that is not there.

I agree that Noah's response to Ham/Canaan might be something worthy of the title of "sin." But you are jumping past the alleged "sin" that set the whole thing in motion. Noah got drunk and was naked in his own tent. Without that being a sin, there is nothing sinful to be covered. Instead, the actions of the other brothers would be viewed as simply honoring their father. Not as covering a sin.

Leave what Noah did after he found out about the thing out of the equation. That was not the "sin" that Ham spoke about or that his brothers covered. It is not part of the discussion.

Unless you need to bundle it together with what went before to make Noah a sinner.

Ham didn't say anything about his dad cursing Canaan. And the brothers didn't cover that. It is not part of how we get to deputy authority. Deputy authority needs an ancient Biblical patriarch to sin and then have that sin be excused, or "covered" by some while exposed by others who are then cursed.

It didn't happen. The basis is a reconstruction of history and of the Bible's account.

This is one of the reasons that I have been so strong to ask what it actually says in so many places. Nee and then Lee were masters at telling us that certain things mean what they want them to mean and we swallowed it. Hook, line, and sinker. Just like Nee's declaration that power = authority (as the opening salvo for Spiritual Authority / Authority and Submission). It just isn't so. But he said it and so many of us believe it.

And to this day we are convinced that Noah being drunk and naked in his own tent was a sin that proves deputy authority. But it doesn't say that. Yet even here you are continuing to say it is so. Why? Because Nee/Lee said it.

And I know that will irk you because I know you do not do anything intentionally because either of them said anything.

But none of us ever did. At one time we were ignorantly believing it. We accepted it as true. We would never have admitted that it was because Nee or Lee said it. We would have said because the Bible says it.

But it doesn't.

Sometimes you have to stop and read it without thinking you know what it means. Look at where being drunk is labeled as sin. And see the examples where someone is drunk and it is not labeled. Find that Noah is never mentioned in relationship to any sin of his own.

Then look at the reconstruction of the Genesis account required to arrive at deputy authority.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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?

Igzy,

I look at this account as a descriptive event in Biblical history. I don't believe it is a prescription for teachings about "DA", drunkenness, curses, etc.

I didn't say Ham sinned. I said he disrespected his father. That seems obvious. Call it what you will, but to me it was disrespect by any standard you want to apply. I don't know but I think this could be the precursor to the law given to Moses, because of the promise "that your days be long on the earth". That's just what I think.

Well...you could be wrong! I don't claim to be right. I'm trying to stick to the actual text and not say more than it says. This is just a conversation.

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.

Just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts.

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.

Me neither.

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."

I'm not convinced that this is what God did either. I pretty much take the verses at face value and reject any teachings of men which were spawned with them as their basis.

Nell

[Ohio]

Nee used this OT story to develop a Bible leadership construct suitable for the NT. But is this not contradictory in principle and application to the Lord's own instructions to the Twelve? Contrary to the selfish wishes of Peter, James, and John, the Lord never elevated one over the others. The very concept of a unique Deputy Authority obliterates every instruction the Lord gave concerning not ruling like the Gentiles.

Unfortunately the story of Noah's vineyard is open to diverse interpretations. But there are many positive lessons to learn here. Paul clearly shows us (I Cor 10) that these stories are written for our instruction, the interpretation of which must be guided by the rest of scripture. As Peter instructs us, no prophecy of scripture is of one's private interpretation. Nee and Lee's interpretation not only does not pass the test of the NT, but violates it. The awful fruits of these systems, starting with the RCC's "vicar of Christ," is proof enough.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

By what standard did Ham "sin?" Uncovering the nakedness of his father? That wasn't established as a law until the time of Moses.

This is more evidence that this story is being written long after the fact, and the writer is writing his cultural rules into the text.

The question is why. Why is the Noah story being written in such a way?

Is it as Lee claimed? Was the writer even thinking of authority? Is the Noah story -- in the writers mind -- some kind of lesson of "deputy authority?" ; to be used thousands of years later -- as a cargo cult method -- to bring the cargo (blessings) down from God?

Does God require such methods? Has God been waiting for someone to figure out the combination lock -- a hierarchy of authority -- before He's gonna open up the floodgates of His blessings? Is that really the right method to prepare the bride for the bridegroom ... a cargo cult method? Who's fooling who here?

Does anyone else see the absurdity of using the Noah story to support a man structured authority system? Isn't this, in the end, just an effort to use the Bible, to convince believers your top down church governance is Bible based, and from God? It looks to me to be a slick sleight of hand, and mind, trick.

But if you're a sincere believer, seeking to be committed and absolute for "God's eternal purpose," it's a easy sell. And it works/ed.

Look, there's lot's of suckers out there. When it comes to religion it's obvious us humans will fall for anything.

And that's what is happening for the local church. Lee tapped into this inclination, this weakness (I had it). But Lee is possibly today's Joseph Smith Jr. Will his movement become as large and successful as the Mormon church? Time will tell ... but I doubt it.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by awareness

This is more evidence that this story is being written long after the fact, and the writer is writing his cultural rules into the text.

The question is why. Why is the Noah story being written in such a way?

Is it as Lee claimed? Was the writer even thinking of authority? Is the Noah story -- in the writers mind -- some kind of lesson of "deputy authority?" ; to be used thousands of years later -- as a cargo cult method -- to bring the cargo (blessings) down from God?

Does God require such methods? Has God been waiting for someone to figure out the combination lock -- a hierarchy of authority -- before He's gonna open up the floodgates of His blessings? Is that really the right method to prepare the bride for the bridegroom ... a cargo cult method? Who's fooling who here?

Does anyone else see the absurdity of using the Noah story to support a man structured authority system? Isn't this, in the end, just an effort to use the Bible, to convince believers your top down church governance is Bible based, and from God? It looks to me to be a slick sleight of hand, and mind, trick.

But if you're a sincere believer, seeking to be committed and absolute for "God's eternal purpose," it's a easy sell. And it works/ed.

Look, there's lot's of suckers out there. When it comes to religion it's obvious us humans will fall for anything.

And that's what is happening for the local church. Lee tapped into this inclination, this weakness (I had it). But Lee is possibly today's Joseph Smith Jr. Will his movement become as large and successful as the Mormon church? Time will tell ... but I doubt it.

"Cultural rules" notwithstanding, I don't think the issue is the way the Biblical account was written. The issue is the way men have interpreted the Bible. Maybe that's what you meant, but just to clarify...

Lee/Nee did what they did and the results are before us. We know Genesis 9 was written by God and penned by, probably, Moses....the same guy who penned the 10 Commandments. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are generally known as the books of Moses. Of course, there's always discussion and disagreement, but that's another topic and beyond the scope of this discussion. I'm going with Moses. So we can't know the order in which these books were penned or the scribe who penned them with absolute certainty, but it was likely Moses and likely chronological.

More importantly, we know that in the mind and heart of the eternal God, honoring your father and your mother was always there. As such, the Noah/Ham account in Genesis 9 is consistent with Mosaic Law which was yet to be given. That's what I believe.

Early on, Witness Lee taught something I still appreciate. You have to study the Bible with the Bible. I believe he got that right.

Nell

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

And to this day we are convinced that Noah being drunk and naked in his own tent was a sin that proves deputy authority. But it doesn't say that. Yet even here you are continuing to say it is so. Why? Because Nee/Lee said it.

I haven't been back since I wrote my last post, so I'm just reading all this now.

OBW, where do you get that I am continuing to say that something proves deputy authority? Why would you gather such a thing? I neither believe, said, nor implied anything of the sort. And you think I'm saying "it" because Nee/Lee said "it?" Well, I never said "it."

All I said was that Noah had a certain status at the time, and that his words carried weight. Surely that was the case. He built the ark and was the leader of the human survivors of the earth. But that doesn't mean I believe in "deputy authority." You said we should read the passage without bias. When I try to do that, I see what I said I saw.

I can assure you I'm not confirming deputy authority. But I am saying that people who other people look up to should watch their words, because they carry weight in those that look up to them, especially in families. All my human experience says that speaking vicious personal negativity to children and young people often produces the very behavior you are trying stop. I have four step siblings. They were all verbally abused by their father, my stepfather. He called them stupid and dispirited them. I think he meant well, he just didn't understand that his approach was all wrong. All of them have dealt with self-esteem issues and issues with their father throughout their lives. I would say they all to some degree became what he accused them of being. His words were fulfilled because they believed him, because he was their father. He had some influence on me too, but not as much. I think my mother warned him about talking to me that way.

I doubt Noah wanted Canaan to be the father of a godless, rebellious tribe. But I believe his reckless words did nothing to prevent it and probably encouraged it. And I think most experts in human behavior analyzing this incident would agree with me.

And I'm not sure why you said we should leave Noah's cursing out of the discussion. Noah's cursing is the "teeth" of his ostensive deputy authority. The reason some people believe in this authority is because the curse seems to have come true. Canaan was indeed cursed, or so it seems. If Canaan had gone on to be a great godly patriarch in his own right, then the idea that this passage proves deputy authority could have never gotten wings. So the curse and what came after is an important part of the whole picture.

The fundamental question is: Did God approve of Noah's cursing and back him up? Some teachers have said that since it seems Canaan did become "cursed" that God did indeed back it up. That's what Lee believed, obviously. I don't.

So when Noah cursed Canaan, what was really going on? Was it the righteous judgment of a man defending the honor of God's deputy authority, with God applauding in the background? Or was it the rantings of a imperfect man who was simply unbearably embarrassed, with God sadly shaking his head in the background? Given all I know at this point and all I believe about what God is truly like, I have to believe it's the latter.

[Cal]

Here's the story as I see it.

• Noah got drunk and was seen lying in his tent naked.
• Two of his sons attempted to cover this up.
• Another son, Ham, exposed it.
• In response, Noah cursed Canaan, the son of Ham.

Now, there are lots of ways of interpreting this:

• Whether Noah was wrong or not was irrelevant because Ham had no business exposing him.
• The two covering sons were right and Ham was wrong.
• Noah was wrong but Ham was more wrong.
• Ham was wrong but Noah was more wrong.
• Noah appreciated the two covering sons, because they hid his embarrassing behavior. He was mad a Ham because he exposed it. But this does not imply that the two were right and Ham was wrong, but rather that Noah reacting in his own embarrassed self-interest.
• Noah's curse was righteous.
• Noah's curse was not righteous.
• Noah's curse influenced Canaan to become a rebel.
• Noah's curse and the history that followed proves God backed Noah.
• Noah's curse and the history that followed proves the power of parental words.
• The story is about deputy authority.
• The story is about how no matter how great you become, you can still stumble.
• The story is about the power of words, for influencing good and evil.
• The story is about how God is okay with us cursing the son of someone who offends us, provided we are important holy persons like Noah.

All these ideas and more are in play.

Now, why do many people think Noah was in the right here, or that we should look at it that way. Isn't it because he is supposed to be the man of God, and so we give him the benefit of the doubt? And isn't it because the curse seemed to come true? But the Bible never tells us to take this approach. It simply tells the story. It's up to us to interpret it. Other men of God have failed late in life. Solomon for one. Do we believe that because that Solomon was so blessed that God approved of his having hundreds of wives and concubines? If we don't believe that why do we need to paint Noah in the right here?

For example, this is from "Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible":

Noah might be informed how his little son, or rather grandson Canaan, had been in his tent, and seeing him in the posture he was, went very merrily, and told his father Ham of it, who made a jest of it also;

Do you see how this type of interpretation is assuming that Ham and Canaan were wrong, and attempting to justify Noah's reaction? I've read many interpretations like this. Everyone it seems, feels the need to justify Noah's behavior and find reason to fault Ham and Canaan, even to the point of inventing scenarios.

Now, my question is, why the need to interpret it in this way? I might be making some assumptions with my interpretation, but these more prominent interpretations certainly are. Why are they better?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Here's the story as I see it.

• Noah got drunk and was seen lying in his tent naked.
• Two of his sons attempted to cover this up.
• Another son, Ham, exposed it.
• In response, Noah cursed Canaan, the son of Ham.

Now, there are lots of ways of interpreting this:

• Whether Noah was wrong or not was irrelevant because Ham had no business exposing him.
• The two covering sons were right and Ham was wrong.
• Noah was wrong but Ham was more wrong.
• Ham was wrong but Noah was more wrong.
• Noah appreciated the two covering sons, because they hid his embarrassing behavior. He was mad a Ham because he exposed it. But this does not imply that the two were right and Ham was wrong, but rather that Noah reacting in his own embarrassed self-interest.
• Noah's curse was righteous.
• Noah's curse was not righteous.
• Noah's curse influenced Canaan to become a rebel.
• Noah's curse and the history that followed proves God backed Noah.
• Noah's curse and the history that followed proves the power of parental words.
• The story is about deputy authority.
• The story is about how no matter how great you become, you can still stumble.
• The story is about the power of words, for influencing good and evil.
• The story is about how God is okay with us cursing the son of someone who offends us, provided we are important holy persons like Noah.

All these ideas and more are in play.

Now, why do many people think Noah was in the right here, or that we should look at it that way. Isn't it because he is supposed to be the man of God, and so we give him the benefit of the doubt? And isn't it because the curse seemed to come true? But the Bible never tells us to take this approach. It simply tells the story. It's up to us to interpret it. Other men of God have failed late in life. Solomon for one. Do we believe that because that Solomon was so blessed that God approved of his having hundreds of wives and concubines? If we don't believe that why do we need to paint Noah in the right here?

For example, this is from "Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible":

Noah might be informed how his little son, or rather grandson Canaan, had been in his tent, and seeing him in the posture he was, went very merrily, and told his father Ham of it, who made a jest of it also;

Do you see how this type of interpretation is assuming that Ham and Canaan were wrong, and attempting to justify Noah's reaction? I've read many interpretations like this. Everyone it seems, feels the need to justify Noah's behavior and find reason to fault Ham and Canaan, even to the point of inventing scenarios.

Now, my question is, why the need to interpret it in this way? I might be making some assumptions with my interpretation, but these more prominent interpretations certainly are. Why are they better?

Well thought out presentation on Noah. Thanks. Lot's of possibilities of interpretations.

One we know well from the Nee/Lee family, with their self-aggrandizing Deputy Authority.

In the end, I have to ask, what makes the Noah story important to us today? We can't magically curse our children, and their descendants ... and why would we want to? The world doesn't operate like that anymore. Thank God, or somebody, maybe things like the Renaissance, enlightenment, and age of knowledge should be thanked. But in the end, face it, it's just not the same as back then with Noah.

So ... now that we see thru Nee & Lee's Noah-cover-the-deputy-authority crazy doctrine and manipulation, why is the Noah story important today?

Howbeit, the Epic of Gilgamesh, written 1200 yrs circa before the Noah story, is still important today, as from The Age of Antiquity, so maybe the Noah story is important to historians ... and to the Bible is everything bunch, who dream and wish that the world could be like it was back in the days of the book of Genesis & Noah.

But I have no room to talk ... obviously. Still, I'm not gonna let preachers like Lee, or any others, drag me, and the world, back to the bronze age ... or maybe the stone age.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well thought out presentation on Noah. Thanks. Lot's of possibilities of interpretations.

One we know well from the Nee/Lee family, with their self-aggrandizing Deputy Authority.

In the end, I have to ask, what makes the Noah story important to us today? We can't magically curse our children, and their descendants ... and why would we want to? The world doesn't operate like that anymore. Thank God, or somebody, maybe things like the Renaissance, enlightenment, and age of knowledge should be thanked. But in the end, face it, it's just not the same as back then with Noah.

So ... now that we see thru Nee & Lee's Noah-cover-the-deputy-authority crazy doctrine and manipulation, why is the Noah story important today?

Howbeit, the Epic of Gilgamesh, written 1200 yrs circa before the Noah story, is still important today, as from The Age of Antiquity, so maybe the Noah story is important to historians ... and to the Bible is everything bunch, who dream and wish that the world could be like it was back in the days of the book of Genesis & Noah.

But I have no room to talk ... obviously. Still, I'm not gonna let preachers like Lee, or any others, drag me, and the world, back to the bronze age ... or maybe the stone age.

Having met with non-LC/LSM assemblies, I can say they don't give nearly as much attention or weight on Noah that the so-called recovery does. I think Witness Lee & LSM have dependence on their interpretation of Noah in order to have any scriptural basis for their deputy authority doctrine.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Terry

Having met with non-LC/LSM assemblies, I can say they don't give nearly as much attention or weight on Noah that the so-called recovery does. I think Witness Lee & LSM have dependence on their interpretation of Noah in order to have any scriptural basis for their deputy authority doctrine.

That's exactly right bro Terry. They use Noah to give Biblical authority to their deputy authority. It's a ruse, and trick, using the Bible to their own egotistical ends. But Bible believers, as we know, buy into it without question.

Take their Noah doctrine out of the LC system and it all falls down.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

OBW, where do you get that I am continuing to say that something proves deputy authority?

I did not say that you supported Deputy Authority. I said that you repeated the presumption that Noah being naked and drink in his own tent was a sin. And without that sin, there isn't even a basis for one of the strongest tenets of DA.

If we refuse them the idea that there was a sin in Noah that warranted covering, then the idea that we have to cover a sinning DA can't be derived from this story.

I would never accuse you of supporting DA. I did note that you were continuing to call Noah's actions a sin.

Ohio also pointed out that cursing Canaan may have been a sin. And that is possibly true. But it is not the "sin" that the other brothers covered, but was the action of lashing out against the one who exposed a so-called deputy authority. As I see it, DA cannot be derived from this story even if you accept that an unexplained OT story could be the basis for a NT doctrine not otherwise spelled out (and contrary to principles otherwise clearly laid out).

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Now, why do many people think Noah was in the right here, or that we should look at it that way. Isn't it because he is supposed to be the man of God, and so we give him the benefit of the doubt? And isn't it because the curse seemed to come true? But the Bible never tells us to take this approach. It simply tells the story. It's up to us to interpret it. Other men of God have failed late in life.

To be honest, I have never taken it this way. Whether or not Noah's actions were acceptable or righteous has not been a basis for any kind of position of righteousness in my post-LCM life. If we only had the curse, by itself, we might have basis for accusing Noah rather than Ham or Canaan.

But in terms of the whole story, it does not provide enough of anything to create a "cover your leader" kind of command or even suggestion in the "they can do no wrong" way that Nee/Lee/BBs push it. Lee did not suggest that cursing Ham was bad. He uses it as excuse to do the same about others. That was not a sin in his eyes either. So the title of this thread aptly questions whether there was a sin of Noah. And if there was, did it support deputy authority.

I think that the answer is that there may have been a sin, but it was not the one that Nee, Lee and the BBs think there was. And within a LCM context, that is the only thing that matters.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

I did not say that you supported Deputy Authority. I said that you repeated the presumption that Noah being naked and drink in his own tent was a sin. And without that sin, there isn't even a basis for one of the strongest tenets of DA.

If we refuse them the idea that there was a sin in Noah that warranted covering, then the idea that we have to cover a sinning DA can't be derived from this story.

I would never accuse you of supporting DA. I did note that you were continuing to call Noah's actions a sin.

Ohio also pointed out that cursing Canaan may have been a sin. And that is possibly true. But it is not the "sin" that the other brothers covered, but was the action of lashing out against the one who exposed a so-called deputy authority. As I see it, DA cannot be derived from this story even if you accept that an unexplained OT story could be the basis for a NT doctrine not otherwise spelled out (and contrary to principles otherwise clearly laid out).

Okay, I see where you were coming from.

Well, Noah certainly reacts as if he had done something wrong. Otherwise why would he curse his grandson who is not shown to be even involved? Noah reaction is the classic reaction of someone who got caught in a compromising position (especially if that someone had a hangover), he lashed out in a very personal way at the person who caught him.

To me it's like a neighbor who get so mad at you that he says, "I hope your damn kid gets sick and dies." What could justify such a pronouncement? Nothing in any time period that I can imagine. So it blows my mind when people trying to paint Noah as on the moral high ground here. It leads to all kinds of convoluted reasoning.

I find it hard to believe that a culture as primitive as Noah's, which had just escaped a world so corrupt (presumably sexual corruption was a big part of that) that God destroyed it would be squeamish about someone laying naked in his own tent. I think is clear that Noah was exposed for something more than just plain old innocent nakedness, otherwise why the violent reaction when he got caught? I can't prove that, but to me, given human nature, that's where the tea leaves point.

Certainly that conclusion seems more natural than presuming that Noah's reaction was the exercise of Deputy Authority on behalf of God. I agree with you than the LCM's extrapolation of the meaning of this passage is way down the list of plausible meanings.

[awareness]

Nice to see sober thoughts about the drunk Noah.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by awareness

Nice to see sober thoughts about the drunk Noah.

He twernt no drunk! He waz kickin back on a fryday night!

[HERn]

Originally Posted by HERn

He twernt no drunk! He waz kickin back on a fryday night!

What's worse, being drunk on a little booze, or being drunk on your own self-importance? The one wakes up sober the next morning, the other spends a lifetime defrauding the saints.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I did not say that you supported Deputy Authority. I said that you repeated the presumption that Noah being naked and drink in his own tent was a sin. And without that sin, there isn't even a basis for one of the strongest tenets of DA.

As I see it, DA cannot be derived from this story even if you accept that an unexplained OT story could be the basis for a NT doctrine not otherwise spelled out (and contrary to principles otherwise clearly laid out).

This story needs to stand on the story of Moses and the leprosy of his sister Meriam.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Now, why do many people think Noah was in the right here, or that we should look at it that way. Isn't it because he is supposed to be the man of God, and so we give him the benefit of the doubt? And isn't it because the curse seemed to come true?

I can tell you why I believed Noah was right here.

I was convinced (prolly w/o ever really studying the story) that Noah cursed his son Ham (not true!), who then became dark-skinned and would then "serve" his brother, thus justifying the black race and slave ownership.

Sorry, but that's how I was taught the story.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

What's worse, being drunk on a little booze, or being drunk on your own self-importance? The one wakes up sober the next morning, the other spends a lifetime defrauding the saints.

Man: "You're drunk!"

W.C. Fields: "Yeah, well you're crazy. I'll be sober tomorrow, but you'll be crazy for the rest of your life."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by HERn

He twernt no drunk! He waz kickin back on a fryday night!

The first thing Noah did when the ark settled was plant a vineyard. It had to be important to him:

Gen 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
Gen 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken

Ancient civilizations invented beer before they invented an alphabet.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I can tell you why I believed Noah was right here.

I was convinced (prolly w/o ever really studying the story) that Noah cursed his son Ham (not true!), who then became dark-skinned and would then "serve" his brother, thus justifying the black race and slave ownership.

Sorry, but that's how I was taught the story.

At a recent family reunion one of my cousins told a group of us that, God is judging America, because we aren't keeping God's order in the Bible, established by Noah, that, blacks are to be slaves. In other words, God is angry at us for not keeping the blacks as slaves. Don't you love how some Christians interpret the Bible to support their bigotry.

[UntoHim]

I knew I shoulda waited till the morning to read this thread..

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I knew I shoulda waited till the morning to read this thread..

Hahahaha ... the title should have tipped you off.

[Freedom]

It is easy for anyone to be humble, admit the failure, and confess it. But if Noah had been like that, what would have become of God’s government on this earth? What about his descendants? What about God’s economy, God’s administration? It would have been all right for Noah to make such a confession, but it would have meant the ruin of God’s government on earth.

Witness Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Message 33, pg. 443

I came across this quote. It really says a lot about some of Lee’s attitudes on authority. For him confession/repentance equaled ruining God’s authority, which he obviously felt had been vested to him. There is just so much wrong with that kind of mindset. It is dangerous. It allows for a leader to be justified in anything they do, right or wrong. I feel sorry for those bound to this teaching. They will be abused by it sooner or later.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I came across this quote. It really says a lot about some of Lee’s attitudes on authority. For him confession/repentance equaled ruining God’s authority, which he obviously felt had been vested to him. There is just so much wrong with that kind of mindset. It is dangerous. It allows for a leader to be justified in anything they do, right or wrong.

Wow! What a quote. Quite shameful actually. It is this type of concept that propels deputy authority doctrine to be abusive. For responsible brothers to conduct themselves irresponsibly.

[awareness]

It is easy for anyone to be humble, admit the failure, and confess it. But if Noah had been like that, what would have become of God’s government on this earth? What about his descendants? What about God’s economy, God’s administration? It would have been all right for Noah to make such a confession, but it would have meant the ruin of God’s government on earth.

Witness Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Message 33, pg. 443

Isn't this what bro. OBW called 'Eisegesis' on AltVs, or, the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions?

Isn't Lee doing what my cousin did when he interpreted the Noah story as God's order in the Bible of holding slaves?

To me Lee and my cousin, concerning Noah, is the same-same.

And oddly enough, they both refer to holding slaves.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Wow! What a quote. Quite shameful actually. It is this type of concept that propels deputy authority doctrine to be abusive. For responsible brothers to conduct themselves irresponsibly.

I'm inclined to think that this ideology was at least partly cultural for Lee. Nonetheless, he still knew what power this teaching gave him. It's bad enough that the deputy authority teaching gives leaders unquestioned authority. But to state that confession or repentance from a leader can ruin God's administration?!? How twisted is that? Lee encouraged himself and other leaders to not admit to mistakes.

What this basically means for LCers is that not only can their leaders not be questioned, but when their leaders do wrong, or know about wrongdoing, there will be no admittance of anything. And we can see this pattern. When outsiders call the LC a cult, they are quick to sue. When insiders and ex-members discuss concerns related to LC leaders, there is silence, a deafening silence. They will never put themselves in a position where they are forced to answer to their mistakes, they will only address matters when the discussion can take place on their own terms.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

Isn't this what bro. OBW called 'Eisegesis' on AltVs, or, the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions?

Isn't Lee doing what my cousin did when he interpreted the Noah story as God's order in the Bible of holding slaves?

To me Lee and my cousin, concerning Noah, is the same-same.

And oddly enough, they both refer to holding slaves.

Lee actually did teach that Ham's curse was the curse of slavery. I remembered reading this in the LS of Genesis messages. I actually skimmed through it last night and I would label Lee's teachings on the curse of Ham as bigotry. It should disgust LCers who read it.

Also, I remembered reading something Nigel wrote on the curse of Ham a while back. I couldn't find it on this site, but it's on the concernedbrothers site:
http://www.concernedbrothers.com/Tru...rse_of_HAM.pdf

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

When insiders and ex-members discuss concerns related to LC leaders, there is silence, a deafening silence. They will never put themselves in a position where they are forced to answer to their mistakes, they will only address matters when the discussion can take place on their own terms.

What I have emphasized in bold, absolutely. That's where my analogy of bunker mentality comes in. They will go in silence, until there's an opportunity to counter-attack on their own terms. Case and point with the Harvest House lawsuit. When Harvest House wanted to come to a table of fellowship, there was no response from LSM according to Harvest House representatives.
When Steve Isitt wrote An Examination of A Response to Recent Accusations, RK went on the counter-offensive in Ambato, Ecuador. When Steve called out RK on it by phone and by mail, there was no reply.
Considering current members, suppose a current or former member brings up a valid concern related to LSM leaders to to another current member, what's the expected response?

Is it, "oh that's a misunderstanding. He didn't really mean that."?
Is it, "let's leave it at the Judgment Seat"?
Is it, a somber silence?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

What I have emphasized in bold, absolutely. That's where my analogy of bunker mentality comes in. They will go in silence, until there's an opportunity to counter-attack on their own terms. Case and point with the Harvest House lawsuit. When Harvest House wanted to come to a table of fellowship, there was no response from LSM according to Harvest House representatives.
When Steve Isitt wrote An Examination of A Response to Recent Accusations, RK went on the counter-offensive in Ambato, Ecuador. When Steve called out RK on it by phone and by mail, there was no reply.
Considering current members, suppose a current or former member brings up a valid concern related to LSM leaders to to another current member, what's the expected response?

The fruit of Lee's teachings on authority are evident in how current LC leaders behave themselves. With respect to other Christians, they are so arrogant that there way is right, that they will sue for their reputation. They also pretend to be orthodox to gain membership with Christian organizations.

With respect to insiders, the attitude is my way or the highway. They won't even entertain the idea that someone could have genuine concerns. It is apparent that LC leaders feel that even if they know they have made mistakes or are completely wrong, it's better to move on than to risk "ruining God's government". Of those current BB's, how many had concerns at some point? Many of them did, but they ignored those concerns in order to support Lee.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It is apparent that LC leaders feel that even if they know they have made mistakes or are completely wrong, it's better to move on than to risk "ruining God's government". Of those current BB's, how many had concerns at some point? Many of them did, but they ignored those concerns in order to support Lee.

Especially with blended brothers and maybe other LC leaders I view as:
1. Witness Lee idolators
2. Preserving their own reputations for their unscrupulous roles in turmoils.
3. Preserving financial support for being full-timers.
4. Ensuring the revenue flow for LSM/DCP/BFA etc is not lagging.
Anything less may be regarded as "ruining God's government". Especially if repentance and humility is required.