A Soul Character Study 1-13-21
Before the “Law” was given to Moses at Mt. Sinai, there was the character of God and God’s revelation of himself to his creation by what God did, what God said, and upon what (or whom) God showed his favor or discipline. God was, himself, the sole purveyor of truth. I have come to this as a student of the Word of God and after being in relationship for some time with God in Christ Jesus who the Gospel writers tell us IS the Word Incarnate, the Spirit of Truth.
John Stonestreet writes today about the posthumous reports of the truth of previously only rumored accusations of Ravi Zacharias’ sexual sins. I, like many Christians, was surprised by the reports, since acknowledged to be true. I can’t honestly say, though, as a human being, that I am shocked, much less “devastated,” as Stonestreet reports. I have seen the depraved dark hearts of many people in working with those in addiction recovery and, in fact, from time to time throughout my life of association with and engagement among other human beings.
But the depraved dark heart with which I am most acquainted, after years of study and experience, is my own. I think Ravi Zacharias knew that, too. But he, like many others wanted to retain his image, his place on the stage. And it cost him dearly.
Today as I was looking for a paper that I often give my students in their 2nd and 3rd Twelve Step work, I came across a devotional I had saved from over 4 years ago written by Ravi Zacharias. I have long been a fan of some of his ministry’s writers- Jill Carattini, among them. As some are known to say, “She gets me!” Or more likely, “I get her,” as that which we seem to understand and believe about ourselves is what we generally embrace and trust.
When the darkness of one’s depraved heart is exposed, as the Bible says it always will be, it is easy to think that as long as one can keep the lips zipped or can simply “deny, deny, deny” that truth can never come out. Or more often what is believed and used to keep others silent, is that to be overcome by temptation to sin and felled from one’s pedestal while living in this realm is a fate worse than death. For some, the thought of our deepest, darkest sins being found out by other people is such a fearsome prospect that they would rather carry their secrets to their graves, lying all the way, than be exposed to the shame, ridicule and rejection of people by confessing them, repenting of them, and being healed from them. But, as Ravi well describes in his devotion a few years ago, he knew the truth: “Sooner or later, a duplicitous life reveals the cost. The soul is not forever invisible.”
I have come to understand that justification, such that one obtains freedom from the penalty of sin(spiritual death) through trusting in Jesus Christ does not automatically impart sanctification. By the latter process, which is accomplished over time through the refining presence of the Holy Spirit within one’s soul, one receives freedom from the power of sin to bend us into yielding to the temptations that “are common to man” and “so easily ensnare us” and destroy the joy of abundant living that Christ also came to restore and exemplify.
Once an older gentleman in ministry shared with me, as he had with a few others, as well, that even in age the desires of a man’s heart are often not entirely conquered and that he himself, as he had become an older gentleman had found it necessary to continue to pray for purity so that he would never become a “dirty old man,” and asking the Lord to guard his eyes, his ears, his lips, and his affections. And, as a woman, let me hasten to add that women are no less exempt from temptation to sexual sin – or any other sin- whatever one’s age.
Many pastors I know have a very stand-offish demeanor with members of the opposite sex because they, too, know the danger of getting entangled in unexpected emotionally and physically lustful thoughts that can undo one’s ministry. President Jimmy Carter was mocked for the guards he set on his mind and heart in repeating scripture’s caution that “if you have even thought it in your heart, you are guilty of adultery.” Vice President Pence’s careful practice of “avoiding even the appearance of wrongdoing” through his care in contacts with women has also been mocked. Yet, we are seldom shocked when yet another seeming “paragon of virtue” is exposed as having slipped from the pedestal on which others have put them or onto which they themselves have chosen to climb. The human condition, the brokenness of our state of being, is with us still. Is that the Truth? Or is it that we simply do not believe that a high enough moral standard is possible to be acceptable to God? Or do we not wish to consider what such a standard would look like or demand of us if we honestly looked at our own failings? Or is it simply easier to write off caring about God and choose one’s own Truth?
I was in conversation last week with someone with whom I meet periodically to compare personal spiritual journeys. One of the things on her list to “discuss over coffee” was an observation by a friend of hers from a different Christian faith tradition about Noah’s son, Ham.
Here are the cliff notes of The Legacy of Noah’s Sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth (learnreligions.com) compliments of Jack Zaveda and learningreligions.com
“Noah’s son’s names were Shem, Ham, and Japheth according to the book of Genesis. After the Flood, God purposed Noah’s sons and their wives and offspring with the task of repopulating the world.
The Sons of Noah
- Shem, Ham and Japheth, and their wives, accompanied Noah and his wife on the ark to escape the flood.
- After the flood, Noah’s sons and their wives and offspring repopulated the earth.
- The offspring of Shem inherited the Promised Land, displacing the Canaanites, the descendants of Ham.
- Shem and Japheth received Noah’s blessing because they had covered their father’s drunken nakedness, while Ham, on the other hand, violated their father by looking at his nakedness. As result, the descendants of Ham were cursed.
Who Was Oldest and Who Was Youngest?
Bible scholars debate over who was the oldest, middle, and youngest of Noah’s sons. Genesis 9:24 calls Ham Noah’s youngest son. Genesis 10:21 says Shem’s older brother was Japheth; therefore, Shem had to be born in the middle, making Japheth the oldest. The issue is confusing because birth order is usually the same as the order of names listed in the Bible. However, when the sons are introduced in Genesis 6:10, the passage reads “Shem, Ham, and Japheth.” Shem was probably listed first because it was from his line that the Messiah, Jesus Christ, descended. (CBB note: Bold italics are mine. This observation on sibling order is an interesting ‘aside’ but not necessarily relevant to the current topic under review, it would seem, unless one considers the abuse that youngest siblings often take at the hands of older siblings who, in the view of the youngest, may seem to enjoy their parent’s approval and favor, especially in patriarchal societies in history.)
The Story of Noah’s Sons
It’s logical to assume that Noah’s three sons and perhaps their wives helped build the ark, which took over 100 years. Scripture does not give the names of these wives, nor of Noah’s wife. Before and during the Flood, there is nothing to indicate Shem, Ham, and Japheth were anything but loyal, respectful sons.
Everything changed after the Flood, as recorded in Genesis 9:20-27:
Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked.
When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said, “Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers.”
He also said, “Praise be to the Lord, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend Japheth’s territory; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.” (NIV)
Shocker! Did any of us see that one coming when we first began to engage with Scripture as children? I don’t recall that story until maybe early middle school years when the issue of modesty might have been approached by a youth pastor or Sunday School teacher or diligent parent.
Out of respect for their father, Shem and Japheth had covered his drunken nakedness, earning them Noah’s blessing. But Ham had disrespected and violated their father by looking at his nakedness. As a result, Ham’s descendants were cursed to endless slavery. Wow! Harsh punishment, it seems at first blush.
Canaan, the son of Ham and grandson of Noah, settled in the area that would later become Israel, the territory God had promised to the Jews. They became known as the Canaanites. Later, when God rescued the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt, he ordered Joshua to wipe out the idolatrous Canaanites and take possession of the land.” (CBB: Bold italics are my own.)
The scripture says of Ham that “When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers.”
Zavada’s commentary is that Ham “violated their father by looking at his nakedness. As a result, Ham’s descendants were cursed.” This is suggested by contrast with the actions of the other two brothers who, unlike Ham, walked backwards and covered their father out of respect.
There are lots of speculative points written and preached on this text. My conversation with my friend raised what her friend called “3 possibilities” of what Ham could have done to Noah that might have caused such a harsh judgment upon his progeny’s destiny. Either:
- Ham circumcised Noah, or
- Ham sodomized Noah, or
- Ham had incestuous sex with Noah’s wife, his mother.
Could it have been as simple as Ham “looking at his nakedness?”
It’s clear that this happened some decent time period after the flood, since Noah had time to plant and harvest grapes. Such an endeavor is a process that can take a full three years, during which time this little family was seemingly isolated in their Mt. Ararat (or other unknown vicinity) whereabouts. There is no indication that Noah’s sons had ever been anything other than respectful and obedient. They may have even been involved in helping him build the ark. So why now, after all they had seen of humanity’s depravity, of God’s wrath and mercy, and of having been given the privilege of being the reboot of humankind 2.0? Did Ham succumb to something so terrible as to warrant a curse upon his child, Noah’s own grandson, who could have perhaps been a toddler at this point, possibly conceived during the flood and it’s immediate aftermath, considering how long they were cooped up with limited activities to pursue other than animal care and husbandry and the monotony of another dreary day.
When I heard my friend’s description of “3 possibilities”, I listened carefully to consider what could be behind each of them.
Possibility #1: Circumcision of Noah by Ham
What could be at work in such an act by Ham? Was Noah overly authoritarian with Ham in a way that incited his resentment and caused him to want to do something that would “mark” his father as different from his children, something that was not a part of their own practice and tradition? Was it done to humiliate Noah, to put another person’s mark on his body, making him different than his children? Circumcision seems to have existed in the ancient world among many people, practiced for a variety of reasons long before the covenant between Abraham and God included circumcision of the flesh as a sign of obedience in submission to God and furthering the cause of group identification under God’s authority. Was it disdain for his father’s slovenly, immodest drunkenness? Was it a desire to leave a permanent physical reminder of Noah’s excess in imbibing that would remind him forever of his vulnerability in such a position of incoherence and incapability of defending himself, sort of like David cutting off the hem of Saul’s robe as he squatted in a cave to relieve himself just to show his father what COULD have happened? Was it jealousy in Noah having consumed all of the first crop’s wine himself, leaving none for others? One would need to know a lot more about the cultural inferences of circumcision among the people of Noah’s epoch to say with assurance that this was a real possibility of what “Noah’s youngest son had done to him?
Possibility #2: Sodomizing of Noah by Ham
Sodomy/rape is an alternative and punitive action by Ham that would have been less obvious later to others than circumcision, but still a physical assault on an incapacitated person, bringing shame and challenging and weakening Noah’s authority among them. In this, too, is Ham showing that he could do anything he wanted to his father during such a drunken stupor? Was this purely a power play, an act of violence against his father? Here’s where the lines get blurry with regard to rape/sodomy and circumcision.
In the following commentary by Lyn M. Bechtel we get some additional potential insight into the Hebrew mind of a later epoch under Jacob, the grandson of Abraham and the father of the twelve tribes.
“Dinah is the daughter of Jacob, the father of twelve sons (and thus the twelve tribes) in the ancestor narratives of Genesis. She is born to Leah after Leah has given birth to six sons. Leah names her (Gen 34:21), as biblical women often did as part of the maternal role. Of Jacob’s daughters (others are noted in Gen 46:15), only Dinah is mentioned by name. (CBB note: For a reason that will be apparent later.)
The story of Dinah deals with the Israelites’ attempt to establish social boundaries for marriage. It seems to advocate an inclusive perspective (represented by Dinah and Jacob) in which, when mutual respect and honor characterize the relationship, cooperation and bonding (“give and take”) with outsiders (represented by Shechem, Hamor, and the Shechemites) can take place.
The story is set during the ancestral period in the city of Shechem, the geographical center of a movement in which people of diverse backgrounds, customs, and religious beliefs merged to become the community of Israel. Dinah goes out “to visit the women of the region” (the indigenous people, 34:1). The phrase implies an openness to and acceptance of outsiders. Dinah’s subsequent sexual intercourse with Shechem, the Hivite prince of the region, is the ultimate symbol of acceptance. And Hamor speaks to Jacob about “giving” his daughter in marriage to Shechem, in the same way that the Jacobites and Shechemites will “give and take” wives, live and trade in the same region, and hold property together peacefully.
But separatist tendencies within Jacob’s community (represented by Simeon, Levi, and the other sons of Jacob) (CBB note: compared to the sympathizing pacifist tendencies of Jacob and Dinah) are threatened by this possibility and by Shechem’s intercourse with Dinah. They want to resist intermarriage. Their idea of “give and take” is “taking” the sword, killing all the Shechemite males, plundering the city, and taking their wives and children. The story passes “judgment” (the meaning of Dinah’s name) on their friendly attitude. (CBB note: “Really?” Only, it seems, if viewed through the lens of a would-be disrupter to the existing cultural tradition of the Hebrews in their then-present time and with their then-present level of ability to hear and understand and be obedient to the Word of God individually and collectively.” Could it not also be that the story is passing judgment on the disobedience of the Hebrews to the word of God that was given to them in that epoch and season and within their tradition to remain their religious tribe and not form alliances with or take wives from among “idolatrous” pagans? So, what is the REAL issue, God’s call on these ancient Hebrew people or the fact that they were disobedient?)
The story invites two opposing interpretations. The traditional understanding is that Dinah has been raped by Shechem. Her brothers Simeon and Levi retaliate by violently slaying and plundering Shechem, Hamor, and the Shechemite community. (CBB note: Through a seriously devious plot to deceive them first before murdering to stop anymore intermingling or allegations of “rape”- by them, not necessarily by Dinah herself, however.) But the retaliation puts Jacob’s group in jeopardy by making subsequent social intercourse and peaceful coexistence impossible. Jacob thus reprimands his sons for their behavior. (CBB note: However, due to their perception of and objection to Jacob and Dinah’s pacificistic and tribe-threatening disobedience to God and their tradition, some among them took matters into their own hands.) But concerning the question of whether Dinah has been raped, the final clue comes in the last sentence of the story. Simeon and Levi say, “Should our sister be treated like a whore?” (34:31). Prostitutes engage in sexual intercourse for financial gain, and their sexual actions involve mutual consent. Rape therefore does not characterize either prostitution or what has happened to Dinah. Furthermore, one of the purposes of sexual intercourse in the ancient world was to create permanent bonding and obligation; (CBB note: and still is in cultures that promote arranged marriages within castes or to climb social or financial ladders.) but in prostitution, there is no bonding or obligation. By saying that Dinah has become like a prostitute, Simeon and Levi might be suggesting that, from their perspective, Dinah and Shechem’s intercourse could never lead to bonding and obligation. They are not suggesting that she was raped. (CBB note: Perhaps only that obedience to God and the Hebrew tradition required that men take wives from only among their own people and that the friendly attitudes of Jacob and Dinah toward Shechem violated both?)
Upon hearing the news about his daughter, Jacob is at first silent; then he negotiates Dinah’s marriage to Shechem. If Dinah has been raped, Jacob ignores his obligation to protect the women of his household and ignores Dinah’s suffering. This seems peculiar—does it suggest that Dinah was not raped? In the Hebrew Scriptures, rape is generally indicated by a cry for help from the woman (showing lack of consent) and violence on the part of the man (indicating a forcible, hostile act). (CBB note: However, even Tamar’s protests over the rape by her half brother Amnon did not stop the attack or stir her father, David, to act compassionately or protectively on her behalf, it seems. 2 Samuel 13)
But the intercourse of Shechem does not fit this pattern. Genesis 34:2 reports that he sees Dinah, takes her (the Hebrew word for “take” is often used for taking a wife), lies with her (a euphemism for sexual intercourse), and shames her (the NRSV combines the last two verbs, rendering “lay with her by force,” a reading that should be contested). Then the text (v. 3) provides three expressions of affection: first it says he bonds with her (the NRSV uses “was drawn” to her, but the word bonds more appropriately represents a word used for marital bonding), then that he loves her, and finally that he speaks tenderly to her. From this description Shechem appears to be a man in love, not a man committing an exploitative act of rape. Rapists feel hostility and hatred toward their victims, not closeness and tenderness. (CBB note: Contrast this again with the way Amnon lured her in by deception then the contempt with which Amnon treated Tamar after having forced himself on her.)
So why does the text include the verb to shame (or to humble, put down), and why does it record that Jacob’s daughter has been “defiled” (34:5; compare 34:13, 27)? Shame, or intense humility, usually relates to failure to live up to societal goals and ideals. Because sexual intercourse should be part of marital bonding, it is shameful for an unmarried woman like Dinah to have sex. The declaration of love and desire for marriage comes after she and Shechem have intercourse. Furthermore, Dinah’s intercourse with Shechem makes her “defiled,” a term (Hebrew tm’) indicating here an unacceptable sexual act. The unacceptability of premarital sex in this case is intertwined with the response of Dinah’s brothers, who insist that Shechem’s requested marriage with her would be an unacceptable union. (CBB note: This concern with the cultural view of marriage ‘out of wedlock’ and prohibition of ‘adultery’ is also seen in Joseph’s initial reluctance to continue in his betrothal to Mary, something he overcomes quickly when his concerns are allayed by the dream of an angelic visitation.)
Ironically, if there is a rape in this story, it is Simeon and Levi who “rape” the people of Shechem’s city. It is their behavior that is violent, hostile, and exploitative. Shechem’s desire for marital bonding stands in tension with Simeon and Levi’s determination that no such liaison take place. The tension between marriage within a group (endogamy) and marriage with outsiders (exogamy) is dramatized in this story of love and violence. The premarital sexual act is the narrative’s representation of the violation of group boundaries. (CBB note: And therefore relates to a threat to the power of one person group and the exercise of power by another person group. One must, it seems to go back to the fuller view of what has been directed by God and what has been the tradition that the boundaries protect?) Also, the fact that Shechem figures prominently first as a friend and then as a victim of Jacob’s group may prefigure what another biblical narrative reports—that Shechem is peacefully incorporated into Israel but then is violently destroyed (see Judges 9)”
My read on this piece is that the wrong questions are being asked and answered in an attempt to make several cases for politically charged issues of THIS day that were not necessarily politically charged issues of that day, but were a matter of obedience to what people knew and understood of God at the time and what their traditions had been adapted to protect. Have we learned nothing about God or humankind and God’s engagement WITH humankind in the millennia since the patriarchal era that we can only reinterpret their times, motives and actions in light of our own instead of understanding theirs better and applying those lessons to our own?
My reason for raising the issue of the circumcision (ameliorative, disguised pre-assault) and the subsequent slaughter of the Shechemite men by the Hebrew brothers in this discussion of rape/sodomy as a possibility for the action done to Noah by Ham points to some principles at play. The conflict within the Hebrews over how to handle the cultural taboo of intermariage, the escalating conflict that erupted between the Hebrews and the Shechemites allegedly over the matter of differences in intermarriage boundaries between the groups is actually more about obedience to God and the authority under which they were currently living (patriarch)by the Hebrews again. It is also about the use of rape(or the implication or allegation of rape) as a physically or emotionally violent tool to leverage power and control by those seeking to maintain a desired order and be rid of a foe or as is later seen in the story of Joseph and the wife of Pharoah, to hide the evidence of seduction by one party by another. It further points to the incorporation (but not assimilation) and subsequent violent destruction of the defeated Shechemites, who are also referred to in biblical history as “idolators.”
Judges 9:1-6 says that Abimelech was made king by the Shechemites. Abimelech went to Shechem unto his mother’s brethren —( That is, her relatives, He was from a mixed marriage)- and communed with them — To see if he could encourage their favour and gain their help in a plan to take over the government of Israel, in opposition to his father’s will, who had declared no son of his should rule over Israel. His mother had, like others before, perhaps put some ambitious thoughts in his mind, along with his own egotistical opinion that may have arisen from the royal-sounding name his father gave him. Abimelech was not called by God to the office and honor of king, as Jerrubabel had been, nor did any judge arise to deliver Israel, as had occurred when his father became king. In pursuit of his own self-gratification. “Abimelech the son of Jerubbaal went to Shechem—The idolatry which had been stealthily creeping into Israel during the latter years of Gideon was now openly professed; Shechem was wholly inhabited by its adherents; at least, idolaters had the ascendency.” (Benson Commentary at biblehub.com)
When time is pressed to make a point by someone afraid of losing to the other side and God’s desires are not sought, are not honored, and are not carried out in an orderly manner by those within a group, as is seen between Jacob and Dinah on one side and some of the brothers on the other side, one group taking within its hands to stretch and manipulate the truth, deceive others, and commit mayhem to get its way in the short term may will end up with far worse consequences in the long run and a “win or lose all” proposition for everyone instead of a win-win proposition which I believe God is ultimately about. So the heart of the matter is lack of inclusion of God in the process, disobedience to what IS known of God’s desires early on and every step along the way in the process, and an unwillingness to seek course correction after the fact through repentance and change.
Possibility #3: Incest by Ham
What additional thing could Noah’s youngest son have “done to him” in his drunkenness that would have led to such a revulsion by Noah that he would condemn Ham’s offspring, and why not just condemn Ham alone? Some have suggested that Ham may have taken advantage of Noah’s drunkenness to have sex with his mother. Canaan is mentioned as a grandson. There is no additional mention of Ham’s wife or other children. Perhaps she died in childbirth leaving Ham with no prospects for additional children at this early stage of flood recovery history. Perhaps Ham felt the pressure of restarting humanity for which he had seemingly been saved and desired more sons. Perhaps, perhaps. What possible reason could a religious group have for raising this possibility as Ham’s wrong? Incest is one of the common storylines in familial destruction stories in virtually every culture, and yet it still exists. One would think that making it anathema to the family patriarch, who is seemingly himself no saint, such that only a curse upon the family lineage could result would have the effect of invoking cultural taboos upon such unproscribed sexual contact. This, once again, goes to the heart of disobedience to principles and virtues to which God was pointing his people that would later become institutionalized in Hebrew law. Where did such a notion come from? One reading scripture at face value would have to assume that such a prohibition would have come from God himself to Noah or the people of God of whom Noah was a part before the Flood. It also gives rationale for the longer lifespans God permitted at the time and gives a bit of social distancing through permitting down-generational familial sexual relations to allow the population to be replenished without reeking excessive emotional havoc within families- i.e. Ham’s son with the daughter of a child of one of his brother’ children- a third cousin, which later became a commonly acceptable civil and social standard. Perhaps Ham didn’t want to wait and decided to take the woman he could most likely take by force from her husband if he had to- his father- as opposed to having to battle one of his own brothers for a mother for additional offspring. Thus, fulfilling both an opportunistic “lust of the flesh” sexual temptation desire and a “pride of life” temptation for significance- through- legacy temptation desire.
Possibility #4? Ham looking upon his father’s nakedness
Zaveda’s commentary that Shem and Japheth received Noah’s blessing because they had covered their father’s drunken nakedness, while Ham, on the other hand, violated their father by looking at his nakedness and going outside to tell his brothers and was cursed for it sets up a more civil, polite, less violent and less titillating possibility to be sure. It seems perfectly sensible on first appearance and establishes a precedent for the virtue of physical modesty, as well as refraining from gossip and mocking the failings of others from a position of moral superiority which was the Pharisee’s error in offering a prayer of thanks that he was not like the publican. And in the modest upbringing among my Southern Baptist roots modesty was, in fact, the explanation I myself had heard. So, of course, that had to be the “correct” response!
But what else does it do? And does it really matter whether a specifically-indicated violent act of defilement had occurred or merely that the two older brothers took one course of action which the youngest son had not taken and that choice by Ham caused the excruciating accursed consequences for Ham’s progeny and legacy?
Any of these acts occurring between Ham and Noah could have pointed to and set precedent for later written Hebrew law given to Moses by God, which arose out of the character and desires of God himself and which people have never gotten the knack of keeping, and actually were never intended to do anything more than point out the impossibility of such self-efforts by broken, disobedient, post-fall creation. The fact that this episode is in the Old Testament demands that we examine it and invite the Holy Spirit to speak to us about the relevance to God’s people, both then and there, as well as now and here. But in fairness to all, can it be done with the knowledge we have in hand though God’s Word, vivified in our experience with the frailty of humanness ourselves and with Christ’s assurance of the Holy Spirit’s presence to guide us, understanding as God has said, that our thoughts are not his thoughts and his ways are not our ways.
When my friend told me that her friend posed this question to her, my friend did not immediately tell me that that her friend had also told her that she already knew the “correct answer”. When I heard her three possibilities, I immediately assumed that her friend was testing her. My friend is an experienced Bible teacher and told me that the two of them often got into discussions about biblical and theological issues. My friend, too, had been taught that the clear and obvious association between the modest and generous act of covering up a drunken and undignified father by the two older sons having brought favor upon them naturally appeared to mean that the failure of the youngest son to do so had brought a curse upon his progeny for him having looked upon his father’s nakedness and that was the violation. Clearly, others with a less matter of fact reading and view have chosen to read the text for much deeper (and also therefore “MORE” sinful?) behaviors in order to explain the harshness of the curse. Does not disobedience to family modesty standards, or family jealousies, or gossiping or mocking instead of protecting the dignity of an elder or whatever other disobedient character defects Ham considered or committed fit the description as WORTHY of such reproach?
When my friend told me a few days later that her friend had told her she knew the “correct answer”, after I’d pondered it myself for those few days, I was surprised. I asked, “What did she say is the answer?” I had the feeling in that moment that her friend wanted to see if my friend’s source of wisdom was as reliable and accurate as her own. I could hardly wait to hear what my friend’s friend had to say was her basis for her “correct answer” and how she had come to that answer since this line of thinking in regard to this passage was not something that had ever occurred to either of us before! As it turns out she had done no study herself to investigate the answer in any scriptures texts. She had not read commentaries or contemplated the answer for herself or in holy conversation with others. Her reply to my friend was that her priest had told their congregation that Ham’s sin was incest. As I was thinking about this from my own experience now as a Wesleyan Methodist adherent and my friend having told me the Christian tradition of the other person, I can see why her friend’s answer actually made sense to both of us and had us both laughing out loud. We laughed because of the reputation for such unexamined belief in the authority of a religious leader who tells one what to believe is such an old and worn tripe about her friend’s particular tradition. We should have seen her answer coming but we both expected something much more…… informed? But the sad thing is that I know many people of many Christian traditions who would look no further for an answer than what they are told by their religious leader (or their political leader, which in a theocracy like the Hebrew patriarchal and monarchal eras, are the same at the practical earthly level.) And hadn’t my friend and I been quite guilty of the same process as her friend, in simply taking someone else’s word as children for what that scripture meant, but had simply listened to different sources and traditions than hers rather than questioning the Scripture itself until we had been presented with this challenge and inviting the illumination of the Holy Spirit? Or by failing to engage our own reason and the traditions of the people with whom our Lord and Savior identified and to whom he preached and taught? Nor even having previously asked for wisdom on the matter? But just having taken the word of those we assumed knew of what they spoke.
So what? It just proves the old adage that opinions are like noses (or other body parts of less modest reknown) ……. Everyone has one. That doesn’t make theirs right and yours wrong. Maybe the correct answer is truly plainer than nose on either one’s face. Maybe the wrong questions are being asked altogether or the wrong conclusions drawn.
Following is John Stonestreet’s commentary on Ravi Zacharias’ misdeeds and the link from which I copied it:
“Two days before Christmas, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries confirmed that its founder had engaged in sexual misconduct over the course of many years. Ravi, a highly regarded speaker, author, and apologist, died a few months ago. In its initial “interim” report RZIM leadership not only confirmed the allegations but promised a full and thorough final report.
Like so many others, I’m devastated. Ravi was not only a significant personal influence for me, he was a great friend of this ministry for years. In fact, he was a guest on one of the last radio broadcasts I co-hosted with Chuck Colson. I remember beginning the interview by apologizing for all the times I inadvertently plagiarized him over the years.
When Ravi died, the Colson Center honored him in a number of ways. At the time, there were initial allegations that had been investigated and dismissed. We trusted the information provided to us. We were wrong. I believed and shared excuses for Ravi’s behavior, and in doing that, I misled others.
There is no sugar-coating, excusing, or explaining away Ravi’s behavior. It was sinful. It was wicked. And, it was folly, which is one of words Proverbs uses to describe sin. Simply put, our sin makes us foolish. Buried in sin, we actually think that, for the first time in human history, we will be the ones to get away with it.
Not only this, but Ravi’s sin left victims. The most harm was done directly to those women he abused, human beings made in the image of God and for whom Christ died. Other victims include family, friends, and the disillusioned around the world who benefitted from Ravi’s teaching.
Recently, a BreakPoint listener emailed us asking how we should respond to cases like this, when a Christian leader or teacher is caught in sexual misconduct. Is it possible to separate the good that they’ve done and the truth they’ve taught, the person and their sin? And, what about in cases such as this, when the perpetrator is gone and has no further opportunity to acknowledge his sins, repent, and seek forgiveness?
[Last week on the BreakPoint Podcast, Shane Morris and I attempted to offer an answer. You can listen at BreakPoint.org or wherever you get your podcasts.]
We need not deny that Ravi’s teaching helped many Christians make sense of the Faith, deal with their doubts, and engage other people with the Gospel, while we also acknowledge the truths revealed by this tragedy, including the truth about who we are as fallen human beings. Pastors and Christian leaders, as Shane pointed out, are not “made of finer clay” than anyone else. So, any sort of righteous indignation or superiority we’re tempted to feel toward the fallen should be quickly overwhelmed by an important and humbling admission: There, but for the Grace of God, go any of us.
Another point to consider, on a Christian worldview analysis level, is that, to borrow a phrase popularized by Christian educator Arthur Holmes, “all truth is God’s truth.” In other words, if Ravi Zacharias ever said anything true in his life, and of course he did, he was not its source but only its medium. Any truth – all truth – comes ultimately from God, outside of time or place or context.
A postmodern worldview, in contrast, relativizes truth to cultural settings or individuals. In other words, truth is not absolute. But, if truth is dependent on the shifting sands of attitudes, beliefs, perceptions of a culture or an individual, anything we build on it must collapse when any of those things do. (CBB note: My highlighted bold italics. This is a subject addressed elsewhere as I described the Exceptionalist Entitlement Attitude Exceptionalist Entitlement Attitude….An Addictive Way of Thinking Observed – Seeking Christ in the World (disciplerofself.com) )
The Christian view is that Truth, even when delivered by sinful creatures, is as eternal and unchanging as God Himself. Of course, that truth about truth doesn’t make what has happened any less painful, disorienting, or consequential. Just because the truth that has been spoken remains true does not mean the privilege of speaking the truth as a ministry or church leader (and it is an incredible privilege) should continue for anyone. Speaking the truth is an enormous responsibility.
Finally, let’s be reminded again, especially those among us granted some degree of leadership, that we must be accountable to others. We must not trust ourselves, but only God and His Spirit. Pray for your pastor, church leaders, spouse, and whomever else God has placed in your life, that He would protect them from the real and ever-present temptations that could harm them, others, and their witness for Christ.
And, please, pray for Ravi’s victims, for his family, and RZIM.
Originally posted at breakpoint.org
From BreakPoint. Reprinted with the permission of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. “BreakPoint®” and “The Colson Center for Christian Worldview®” are registered trademarks of The Colson Center for Christian Worldview.
John Stonestreet is the President of the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and co-host with Eric Metaxas of Breakpoint, the Christian worldview radio program founded by the late Chuck Colson. He is co-author of A Practical Guide to Culture, A Student’s Guide to Culture and Restoring All Things.
( I read it at Can we separate the good Ravi Zacharias did from his sin? – The Christian Post )
I think Stonestreet was genuine in his shock, but I noticed, too, his comment that in one of the last interviews he had done with Charles Colson, they interviewed Ravi Zacharias and Stonestreet said he remembered, “beginning the interview by apologizing for all the times I inadvertently plagiarized him over the years.
When Ravi died, the Colson Center honored him in a number of ways. At the time, there were initial allegations that had been investigated and dismissed. We trusted the information provided to us. We were wrong. I believed and shared excuses for Ravi’s behavior, and in doing that, I misled others.”
It seems to me that John Stonestreet, like many of us, is prone to the human condition’s tendency to fall under the spell of idolatry of people we admire instead of testing them the way the Berean believers tested Paul’s preaching. They “get us!” or we “get them!”
Jesus gets us. He’s known the truth about each of us from the beginning. He can see straight to our souls’ deepest depths. He was willing to get in here with us and be sullied by association with us and did not waffle when push came to shove to show us the measure of his love and his intention to reclaim us from the enemy’s deceitful ploys.
I can’t speak to Ravi Zacharias’ defense of himself before the Lord and what fate he might have met. But I think I can say he knew what he was doing and that it was wrong, but he seemed powerless over it, like any addict. And we’re all addicted to sin. What it looks like in one life may be different from what it looks like in another, but we are all subject to the human condition. While he may have known the Lord, believed in Christ and trusted him for salvation, Ravi was unable or unwilling to accept the truth about himself, that he had been trapped by the temptation to the pride of life…. to be special, to be important, to be cherished by God, by himself, by someone else..…. anyone. He yielded to that temptation and the temptation to the lust of the flesh for pleasure or to the lust of the eyes for power that are so often used to further that most formidable one… the pride that goes before the fall.
The Portrait of a Soul September 29, 2016 Ravi Zacharias
In the novel The Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde describes an exceptionally handsome young man so captivating that he drew the awe-stricken adulation of a great artist. The artist asked him to be the subject of a portrait for he had never seen a face so attractive and so pure. When the painting was completed, young Dorian became so enraptured by his own looks that he wistfully intoned how wonderful it would be if he could live any way he pleased but that no disfigurement of a lawless lifestyle would mar the picture of his own countenance. If only the portrait would grow old and he himself could remain unscathed by time and way of life. In Faustian style he was willing to trade his soul for that wish.
One day, alone and pensive, Dorian went up to the attic and uncovered the portrait that he had kept hidden for so many years, only to be shocked by what he saw. Horror, hideousness, and blood marred the portrait.
The charade came to an end when the artist himself saw the picture. It told the story. He pled with Dorian to come clean, saying, “Does it not say somewhere, ‘Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow’?” But in a fit of rage to silence this voice of conscience, Dorian grabbed a knife and killed the artist.
There was now only one thing left for him to do; he took the knife to remove the only visible reminder of his wicked life. But the moment he thrust the blade into the canvas, the portrait returned to its pristine beauty, while Dorian lay stabbed to death on the floor. The ravages that had marred the picture now so disfigured him that even his servants could no longer recognize him.
What a brilliant illustration of how a soul, though invisible, can nonetheless be tarnished. I wonder, if there were to be a portrait of my soul or your soul, how would it best be depicted? Does not the conscience sting, when we think in these terms? Though we have engineered many ways of avoiding physical consequences, how does one cleanse the soul?
Today we find a limitless capacity to raise the question of evil as we see it outside ourselves, but often hold an equal unwillingness to address the evil within us. I once sat on the top floor of a huge corporate building owned by a very successful businessman. Our entire conversation revolved around his reason for unbelief: that there was so much darkness and corruption in this world and a seemingly silent God. Suddenly interrupting the dialogue, a friend of mine said to him, “Since evil troubles you so much, I would be curious to know what you have done with the evil you see within you.” There was red-faced silence.
We too, face Dorian Gray’s predicament. Sooner or later, a duplicitous life reveals the cost. The soul is not forever invisible. But there is one who can cleanse and restore us. The Christian way gives us extraordinary insight into this subject of our soul-struggle, as God deals with the heart of the issue one life at a time. Indeed, in the words of the prophet Isaiah to which Oscar Wilde alluded: “‘Come now, let us reason together,’ says the LORD. ‘Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red as crimson, they shall be like wool” (1:18). God upholds the solution asking only that we come “willing and obedient,” ready to “come and wash” (1:19,16). So come, willingly and obediently, and find God’s rejoinder to the marred portraits within. The greatest artist of all speaks even today.
Ravi Zacharias is founder and chairman of the board of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.
Ravi unfortunately did not quote all of Isaiah’s vision in his summary nor delve into the harder side of the truth it holds:
2 Hear me, you heavens! Listen, earth! For the LORD has spoken: “I reared children and brought them up, but they have rebelled against me.
3 The ox knows its master, the donkey its owner’s manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand.”
4 Woe to the sinful nation, a people whose guilt is great, a brood of evildoers, children given to corruption! They have forsaken the LORD; they have spurned the Holy One of Israel and turned their backs on him.
5 Why should you be beaten anymore? Why do you persist in rebellion? Your whole head is injured, your whole heart afflicted.
6 From the sole of your foot to the top of your head there is no soundness— only wounds and welts and open sores, not cleansed or bandaged or soothed with olive oil.
7 Your country is desolate, your cities burned with fire; your fields are being stripped by foreigners right before you, laid waste as when overthrown by strangers.
8 Daughter Zion is left like a shelter in a vineyard, like a hut in a cucumber field, like a city under siege.
9 Unless the LORD Almighty had left us some survivors, we would have become like Sodom, we would have been like Gomorrah.
10 Hear the word of the LORD, you rulers of Sodom; listen to the instruction of our God, you people of Gomorrah!
11 “The multitude of your sacrifices— what are they to me?” says the LORD. “I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.
12 When you come to appear before me, who has asked this of you, this trampling of my courts?
13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations— I cannot bear your worthless assemblies.
14 Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals I hate with all my being. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands in prayer, I hide my eyes from you; even when you offer many prayers, I am not listening. Your hands are full of blood!
16 Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong.
17 Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed.Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.
18 “Come now, let us settle the matter,” says the LORD. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient, you will eat the good things of the land;
20 but if you resist and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword.” For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.
21 See how the faithful city has become a prostitute! She once was full of justice; righteousness used to dwell in her— but now murderers!
22 Your silver has become dross, your choice wine is diluted with water.
23 Your rulers are rebels, partners with thieves; they all love bribes and chase after gifts. They do not defend the cause of the fatherless; the widow’s case does not come before them.
24 Therefore the Lord, the LORD Almighty, the Mighty One of Israel, declares: “Ah! I will vent my wrath on my foes and avenge myself on my enemies.
25 I will turn my hand against you;I will thoroughly purge away your dross and remove all your impurities.
26 I will restore your leaders as in days of old, your rulers as at the beginning. Afterward you will be called the City of Righteousness, the Faithful City.”
27 Zion will be delivered with justice, her penitent ones with righteousness.
28 But rebels and sinners will both be broken, and those who forsake the LORD will perish.
29 “You will be ashamed because of the sacred oaks in which you have delighted; you will be disgraced because of the gardens that you have chosen.
30 You will be like an oak with fading leaves, like a garden without water.
31 The mighty man will become tinder and his work a spark; both will burn together, with no one to quench the fire.”
The entire vision is a cautionary revelation about truth that crescendos in verses 18-20. God desires willing obedience to what we are called to do. It’s not always the most obvious thing. He doesn’t ask us to understand it or even expect that we can. Nor does he expect us to argue against it, although some friends of God seem to have been able to do so with some apparent measure of success (Abraham and Hezekiah come to mind). Nor are we told that we can simply grudgingly go along to get along with God. He invites us to engage the matter of willing obedience. He asks us to be willing and obedient to his word. If we are, things will go well for us. If we are not, they won’t. Whether our disobedience is evidenced during our lives or only known or acknowledged (to ourselves or others) after our deaths, it is already known to God. It doesn’t get much simpler than that. As I have studied and taught and lived Twelve Steps among individuals with lives wrecked by the dysfunction of addictive behaviors, I have observed that action steps are always preceded by preparation steps. Obedience in action is always preceded by personal desire for willingness to do so.
Steps 1-2- Admitted…. Came to believe 🡪 Step 3- Made a decision to surrender will/life
Step 4- Made a fearful and searching moral inventory 🡪 Step 5- Confessed character defects to God
Self, and another person
Step 6- Was entirely ready….. 🡪 Step 7- Humbly asked God to remove them
Step 8- Made a list and became willing to make amends … 🡪 Step 9- Made direct amends….
Step 10- Continued inventory and admitted when wrong… 🡪 Step 11-Sought through prayer/meditation
To improve conscious contact with God
Step 12-Having had a spiritual awakening………………………………….Sought to carry this message and share these
. principles with others.
If one has a secret sin that is enjoyed too much to surrender (idolatry of the behavior or what one gains from it) or about which there is too much shame to admit to God, ourselves and others, (idolatry of our own stubborn opinion of ourselves as unworthy instead of hearing what God says we are by his word and by the sacrifice of himself for us) there will be no peace. Rule Number One: God will not abide idolatry, no matter the object. And we would do well to remember that gossiping and mocking one in a state of helplessness is a form of prideful self-superior idolatry, by the way. We are all helpless to overcome the failings of the human condition.
One cannot give to others what is not possessed. One may laud the beauty of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and the freedom from the penalty of sin that faith in Christ offers. But if one cannot exemplify in her own life and live into the satisfying peace of soul that comes from making preparation for and actually being obedient to address sin in one’s own life on an ongoing basis, there will be no freedom from the power of sin over her life.
(1/14/21- This meditative exercise took several hours to write after having contemplated the challenge of the meaning of this scripture for several days. It was fun to think about and consider the three options given by the individual to my friend and the option that she and I had been taught. Now, as teachers ourselves, it was helpful to consider the ways in which people might come to their conclusions, oftentimes avoiding the simple and plain truths right before them. This exercise shed some light on the thinking of and preoccupation with sexual sin that some people in ministry (and particularly among some sects and schisms) seem to have at the risk of missing one’s own garden variety venial sins, though such sins are clearly equally egregious to God, as exemplified in many of Christ’s teachings. I felt convicted about some of my own behavior in this regard, as well and have been given a well-deserved parental disciplinary pat.