We have all heard stories about (and yes, even endless jokes about) rowdy sailors and their drunken exploits in port when on liberty from their ships. After weeks, and even months, at sea, these seamen are more than ready to get back on dry land and have some fun. It is that last word that often lands them in some trouble, however, for the "fun" they seek can at times prove destructive to both themselves and to others. Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) was quite right when he noted, "There is nothing more like a Fool than a drunken Man" [Poor Richard's Almanack, November 1733]. William Shakespeare (1564-1616), in his play "Othello," has Cassio lamenting, "O God, that men should put an enemy in their mouths to steal away their brains! That we should, with joy, pleasance, revel, and applause, transform ourselves into beasts!" F. Scott Fitzgerald (1896-1940) perhaps said it best when he made this astute observation: "First you take a drink, then the drink takes a drink, then the drink takes you." Most of us have lived in this fallen world long enough to recognize the truth of these statements. We have witnessed firsthand the many horrors associated with the abuse of alcoholic drinks, and yet that abuse continues unchecked, as do the horrific consequences inflicted upon self and others by this abuse.

I don't know of anyone who would approve of the misuse and abuse of alcohol (or any other substance). On the other hand, some disciples of Christ Jesus teach that it is a "sin" in the sight of God to even take a tiny sip of a beverage containing alcohol. If a person chooses never to take a drink of any alcoholic beverage, that is fine. To suggest this restriction must apply to the rest of mankind, and that such is the will of God Himself, is a different matter. The reality is, and those who have truly taken time to study the Scriptures know this: Nowhere within either the OT or the NT writings has the Lord ever forbidden the use of drinks containing alcohol. Indeed, just the opposite. It is applauded, approved, and even prescribed on occasion. It is not the use of any substance God forbids; rather, it is the abuse of a substance that can prove costly to us. I would urge the reader to carefully consider my following studies on this: "'Behold, A Winebibber!' May A Christian Drink Wine?" (Reflections #134) and "Leaders and Libations: May Shepherds and Servants Consume Alcoholic Beverages?" (Reflections #563).

The very first mention of wine in the Bible is found in Genesis 9:18-21a. The Flood has come and gone, and Noah and his family have exited the ark and are resuming their lives on dry land. "Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and Japheth; and Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah; and from these the whole earth was populated. Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard. And he drank of the wine." There is not a single statement made anywhere in this whole account against the fact that Noah "drank of the wine" he made from the grapes in his vineyard. Why? Because there was nothing sinful about him doing so. "Noah indulged in a perfectly legitimate gratification. There was nothing wrong in Noah eating of the ripe grapes which grew upon his vines or drinking of their juice when transformed into wine. Nor is the drinking of wines and other fermented liquors condemned in Scripture as a violation of the law of God" [The Pulpit Commentary, vol. 1, p. 152]. After all, "Who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it?" (1 Corinthians 9:7). Dr. J. B. Phillips has translated the passage this way: "Does any man plant a vineyard and have no share in its fruits?" (The NT in Modern English). This was Noah's vineyard. He had planted it and nurtured it, and he then literally enjoyed the fruits of his labor, as he had every right to do. In Judges 9:13 we are informed that the wine made from the grapes of a vineyard "cheer both God and men." In Psalm 104:14-15 the psalmist writes, "God causes the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man." Solomon wrote, "Men prepare a meal for enjoyment, and wine makes life merry" (Ecclesiastes 10:19).

We also note in the Scriptures that there is a medicinal purpose (both physical and psychological) for alcoholic beverages. "Give strong drink to the one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress {Hebrew: those bitter in soul}; let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more" (Proverbs 31:6-7, English Standard Version). Paul gave this advice to Timothy: "No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments" (1 Timothy 5:23). "And God Himself employs wine as a symbol of the highest and choicest blessings, both temporal and spiritual" [The Pulpit Commentary, vol. 1, p. 152], which can be seen in Isaiah 25:6, "On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined." Wine was the center piece of our Lord's first miracle at Cana (John 2:1-11), it was on the table at His last Passover, and it was to become one of the key elements of the Lord's Supper. Our Lord Jesus most certainly did not refrain from drinking wine, nor did He do it in private so as not to be seen, thus causing some of His critics to condemn Him, a criticism of which Jesus Himself spoke, "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a wine-drinker, a friend of tax-gatherers and sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds" (Matthew 11:19; cf. Luke 7:34-35). Was Jesus a drunkard? Of course not. Did Jesus drink wine? He most certainly did, and without apology!

Returning to that very first mention in the Bible of drinking wine, we find that Noah planted a vineyard, made wine from the grapes, and drank some of the wine he had made. Had the story ended there, then all would have been well. A problem develops, however, when we are told that he drank to excess: "And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent" (Genesis 9:21, King James Version). The "uncovering" of himself literally means he took off his clothes (not all that uncommon among drunks - e.g., "The cup will come around to you as well; you will become drunk and make yourself naked" - Lamentations 4:21b). A number of translations spell this out a bit more graphically: "...he became drunk and lay naked inside his tent" (New Living Translation), "...he became drunk, and took off his clothes in his tent" (Common English Bible), "...he got drunk, went into his tent, and took off all his clothes" (Easy-to-Read Version), "...he became drunk, and he exposed himself in the midst of his tent" (Lexham English Bible). This gives another level of meaning to the blessing pronounced in Revelation 16:15, "Blessed is the person who remains alert and keeps his clothes on! He won’t have to go naked and let others see his shame" (International Standard Version).

This Noah narrative has understandably troubled many Christians. What was Noah thinking?! What would have motivated him to do such a thing? "Well, at least he did it in the privacy of his own tent," some have said (seeking to "soften the sin"). Some are convinced that there wasn't any "sin" at all on Noah's part here (a view somewhat bolstered by the fact that nowhere in this narrative is Noah himself ever rebuked or condemned for what he did). Thus, one will find many scholars and theologians refusing to assign any blame to Noah. After all, hadn't the Lord Himself declared Noah to be both blameless and righteous in his time; a man who walked with God? (Genesis 6:8-9; 7:1), and isn't he listed in Hebrews 11:7 as one of the giants of faith who were approved by God?! "Some scholars seek to relieve Noah of any blame for becoming drunk by arguing mankind had had no experience with wine prior to this time, and thus Noah could not have known that it would make him inebriated" [Dr. John T. Willis, Genesis, p. 181]. Drs. Keil and Delitzsch characterize this event in Noah's life "a trifling fall," and that it was "in ignorance of the fiery nature of wine" that Noah inadvertently and innocently consumed too much [Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 1 - The Pentateuch, p. 155]. Drs. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown write, "This solitary stain on the character of so eminently pious a man must, it is believed, have been the result of age or inadvertency" [Commentary Practical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, p. 24]. Just "old age," right? He was over 600 years old at the time (Genesis 9:28-29), so "let's give the old guy a pass on this one!" Dr. Adam Clarke opined that Noah drank this wine "at this time without the least blame, as he knew not till this trial the effects it would produce. ... This I presume to have been precisely the case with Noah; and no person without an absolute breach of every rule of charity and candor, can attach any blame to the character of Noah on this ground" [Clarke's Commentary, vol. 1, p. 82].

Other scholars respectfully beg to differ with this view. They believe Noah did, in fact, "stumble" in his walk with God on this occasion, although they suggest quite strongly that this misstep in no way constitutes a soul-damning fall from grace. Not a single one of us is flawless; we all have fallen short of perfection ... and will continue to do so as long as we are in this fleshly body. Noah was no exception, and Scripture does us all a service by sharing these moments of imperfection in those biblical figures we too often deem "the super righteous." The reality is: they are just like you and me: sinners saved by grace through faith (not deeds/works)! "Noah's sin reminds us all of how weak the best of men are; each liable to fall, even after the most marvelous deliverances. But, if our brethren sin, let us not parade or tell their faults, but cover them with the mantle of divine love!" [Dr. F. B. Meyer, Through the Bible Day by Day, e-Sword]. "It was said of Noah that he was perfect in his generations (Genesis 6:9), but this shows that it is meant of sincerity, not of sinless perfection" [Dr. Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, e-Sword]. "This shows that the best of men are not exempted from sin, nor secure from falling. Whereas he was a righteous man, he was not so by the righteousness of works, but by the righteousness of faith" [Dr. John Gill, Exposition of the Bible, e-Sword]. "Scripture does not hesitate to call attention to the failures of even the most saintly of men. Noah, having stood strong against the attacks of evil men for hundreds of years, remaining steadfast in the face of such opposition and discouragement as few men have ever faced, now let down his guard" [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings, p. 233]. Speaking from his own personal experience with spiritual stumbling and faith faltering, the apostle Peter warned, "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour" (1 Peter 5:8).

Whatever the actual circumstances were that led to Noah being intoxicated and unclothed in his tent, there is no denying the reality of that event. The Bible states it happened, and although you and I may be quick to judge and/or assign blame, such was not done within the biblical narrative. We can probably safely assume God was less than pleased with Noah's condition, for on many occasions the Lord warns against drunkenness, yet no divine reprimand was given to Noah. The reprimand, the words of strong rebuke, came from Noah and fell upon his son Ham and his grandson Canaan for their actions and attitudes when they discovered Noah's sad condition. "Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. ... When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him" (Genesis 9:22, 24). We then read that Noah pronounced a curse upon Canaan, the son of Ham, as well as pronouncing a blessing upon his other two sons, Shem and Japheth (vs. 25-27). "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants he shall be to his brothers" (vs. 25). This combination of curse and blessing "is the first prophetic utterance of man recorded in the Old Testament" [Dr. Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible, e-Sword]. The curse fell upon the descendants of Ham through his son Canaan. Some are troubled by the fact that Noah cursed Canaan rather than Ham, yet "in the patriarchal blessings and curses, the action of the father often determines the fate of his descendants. For example, Jacob curses the descendants of Simeon and Levi because they killed the men of Shechem (Genesis 49:5-7 ... an account one may read in Genesis 34:25-30). So, in the present context, Ham's transgression consigns the descendants of his son Canaan (the Canaanites) to a role of subjection and servitude to the descendants of Shem and Japheth" [Dr. John T. Willis, Genesis, p. 183]. Historically, this curse did indeed come to pass, and many of those peoples who descended from Ham through Canaan (many of the darker skinned peoples of Earth) fell into slavery. "It should be noted in passing that some (particularly in North America) have used this verse as a proof text for their prejudice against blacks. ... It has been erroneously contended that God intends for the white man to be superior and for the black man to be his slave. This is a noteworthy example of the danger of a strained literalism in the interpretation of the Scriptures" [ibid].

Back to the question regarding why the name of Canaan should be inserted in this narrative and not any of the sons of Shem and Japheth. Ham's son Canaan is mentioned five times in this account (vs. 18, 22, 25, 26, 27). Part of the reason for this, most scholars believe, is that one of the primary purposes of this whole narrative in Genesis is to show the origin of the curse upon the Canaanites, a curse whose effects would be played out and felt repeatedly within the pages of the OT Scriptures. Another possibility is that both Ham and Canaan were involved in the disrespect shown to Noah on this occasion. So, what was the nature of their sin against Noah? There has been tremendous speculation and debate over this throughout the centuries. The text says, "Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside" (vs. 22). We also are provided a clue in verse 24 - "When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him." So, what exactly did Ham and/or Canaan do to Noah? One cannot really say the sin is that Ham saw with his eyes the condition of his father (or that the grandson had). We often stumble upon things we would rather not see, but such is not in itself sinful. One can't always help what one sees. One's "sin," however, is not in the seeing, but rather in how one reacts or responds to that which is seen, especially if that which is seen is of a shameful nature. Thus, Ham's (and possibly Canaan's) sin was not that he entered his father's tent and saw his father's shameful condition (naked and drunk), but that he then went out and shared what he saw with his two brothers, rather than taking steps to preserve his father from further shame.

Shem and Japheth, on the other hand, when they heard their brother's report, "took a garment and laid it upon both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were turned away, so that they did not see their father's nakedness" (Genesis 9:23). They refused to even look upon their father in this condition; they didn't want to see it, for such an image would have been difficult to "get out of their heads." "The word 'saw' in this context implies 'gazed at' - evidently with satisfaction" [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings, p. 235]. "There is nothing sinful in Ham's having witnessed what should never have been exposed to view, but Ham was manifestly wanting in that filial reverence and honor which were due to his aged parent, in that he gazed with delight upon the melancholy spectacle of his father's shame, in singular contrast to the respectful and modest behavior of Shem and Japheth" [The Pulpit Commentary, vol. 1, p. 152]. "The conduct of Shem and Japheth, in its regard for their father's honor, is contrasted with the levity and want of delicacy displayed by their brother" [The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, e-Sword]. Matthew Henry suggested: "Perhaps Ham had sometimes been himself drunk, and reproved for it by his good father, whom he was therefore pleased to see thus overcome. Note, it is common for those who walk in false ways themselves to rejoice at the false steps which they sometimes see others make" [Commentary on the Whole Bible, e-Sword]. "Literally, the ancient Hebrew says that Ham 'told with delight' what he saw in his father's tent. He determined to mock his father and undermine his authority as a man of God" [Dr. David Guzik, Enduring Word Commentary, e-Sword]. "Not content with finding pleasure himself in his father's shame, Ham must proclaim his disgraceful pleasure to his brethren, and thus exhibit his shameless sensuality" [Drs. Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 1, p. 155-156].

Habakkuk 2:15 informs us that there are people who find a perverted pleasure in seeing (and even making) others become drunk, "so as to look on their nakedness." For whatever reason, Ham (and perhaps Canaan) may have done this. Some scholars even go further: they strongly suspect that Ham (and, again, perhaps Canaan) may have committed a perverted sex act upon Noah. "Some Jewish Rabbins say that Canaan first saw Noah, and he then told his father Ham of it; some say that he or Ham committed an unnatural crime with him; others that he castrated him ... that Ham took hold of his father's genitals, and muttering some words, by a magic charm rendered him impotent; and some have it that he committed incest with his father's wife. The text (Genesis 9:24) expressly said there was something done to Noah, but what is not said" [Dr. John Gill, Exposition of the Bible, e-Sword]. Dr. E. W. Bullinger states he believes that "Ham committed a sinful sex act with his mother" [The Companion Bible, e-Sword]. This is based on a comparison of the language in Leviticus 18:8 ("You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness") with Leviticus 20:11 ("If a man lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness"). Thus, based on this Hebrew phrasing, some suspect either Ham or Canaan found Noah drunk in his tent and took advantage of the situation: either by having sex with Noah, or by having sex with his wife. Whatever happened, we are told that when Noah "awoke from his wine," whatever had been done to him was very evident to him - "he knew what his youngest son had done to him" (Genesis 9:24). "The Bible does not make clear what this was, either because the original readers of Genesis already knew, ... or because the activity was too base and delicate to be described explicitly" [Dr. John T. Willis, Genesis, p. 182]. As shocking as this sounds, such things did happen. We see something similar in Genesis 19:30-38, where the two daughters of Lot got their father drunk, and they both had sex with him, and both became pregnant by their drunken father. From these two babies would come the Moabites and the Ammonites.

Although we may never, this side of eternity, know exactly what happened in that tent that day, we can nevertheless know: (1) Noah drank to excess, and prior to passing out he shed his clothing. (2) His son Ham, and possibly his grandson Canaan, found Noah in this compromised condition, and may have taken advantage of the situation to "do" something to him. (3) Ham seemed to find some perverse pleasure and satisfaction in this whole event, and he couldn't wait to "share the shame" with his two older brothers. (4) Shem and Japheth, however, refused to dishonor and disgrace their father, and they took special care to cover their father. "Ham, like most sinners, was ready to jeer at the failure of others, and to derive a secret pleasure from it. He did nothing to help or relieve his father in his helplessness, but acted in a manner that could only aggravate the fault. ... Shem and Japheth, however, labored, at personal inconvenience, to serve one in need of a covering, with their eyes averted from the sin and shame. This was in contrast to Ham who reveled in the humiliation of his father" [Dr. H. P. Mansfield, The Book of Genesis: A Verse-by-Verse Exposition of the Scriptures, p. 152]. The two older sons "took a covering for their father in a desire to redeem him from his pitiful state. In doing so, these two sons of Noah acted with filial consideration and reverential tact towards him. 'Love,' declared Peter in 1 Peter 4:8, 'shall cover a multitude of sins.' Shem and Japheth, in love, proceeded to do just that, and they therefore acted typically of the Redeemer to come, who would reveal the principles of atonement (covering)" [ibid]. May God help us all to learn from this rather appalling incident in the life of Noah. There are some powerful truths presented therein from which we may all benefit.

Check Out His Books --- Dr. Dallas Burdette, a good friend and a loyal supporter of my Reflections ministry, as well as the man who wrote the Foreword to my book -- One Bread, One Body -- is currently converting his many excellent books and writings to his online archives. He sent me the following email on November 18th: "Al, I have attached a .pdf file of my book 'Old Texts Through New Eyes.' If you wish, please share this with others. I just completed updating my book, and it should be uploaded to my archives before the week is over. I presently have six of my twelve books on this site. I'm also in the process of updating my book 'From Legalism to Freedom,' which update will take about four to six weeks to complete in a .pdf format. Al, I appreciate all you do to help people learn how to read the Word of God more accurately. Since I am 86 years old, I would like to preserve my writings. For this reason, I am updating all my books to .pdf files. Hopefully, I can accomplish this project before I go to be with the Lord." I would encourage you to visit Dr. Burdette's archives. You can read the above book ("Old Texts Through New Eyes") on that site by Clicking Here. If you have any difficulties, Dr. Burdette may be reached at this email address: dburdette22@charter.net. This beloved brother, who lives in Alabama, is an excellent author, and I highly recommend his works to you!

From a Reader in Alabama:

Al, I would like to order your following studies: "Law to Liberty: Reflecting on Our Journey away from Legalism and into Freedom in Christ," and "An In-Depth Study of the Epistle to the Galatians: Magna Charta of Christian Liberty," and your book "From Ruin to Resurrection." I mailed your payment for these materials today. Thanks so much!

From a Reader in Texas:

Dear Brother Al, you always have a way of bringing up subjects that require a shift in one's thinking! This present article, "The High Cost of Seduction: Do the Scriptures Indirectly Support a 'Rape Culture' for Sexual Predators?" (Reflections #812) was no exception. Thank you for your continuing search for interpretations that we may not have considered. I find you fascinating in that sense! Blessings to you and your family during this holiday season and on into the new year. May we all have a return to sanity, safety, and good health.

From an Author in Tennessee:

Thanks for your post today, Al, on "The High Cost of Seduction." Some good thoughts on a subject that has been puzzling to many through the years. Hope you and yours are well and washing your hands often. What a mess China has given to the world!

From a Reader in Georgia:

Good Morning, my friend. What a great way to start out my week! - with another Reflections and my coffee in a completely quiet house! You know, this passage (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) you discussed in your article "The High Cost of Seduction," has never come up in my studies, but I think it will now cause me to further explore the marriage/divorce relationship, various opinions about which so many in the church today have tried to impose and enforce upon others without regard for, in my opinion, the cultural context of that day and time. What struck me was how God used the common law and traditions of that time to ascribe rules of behavior. He didn't come up with the traditions and laws themselves, but He seems to have used them and amended them to get the people to act as He would have liked them to act. It also struck me as interesting that God gave differential treatment to covenant relationships between men, and as husband/wife, as you mentioned in your study, including man's relationship with God. Interesting how time and experience give a person new perspective on well-read passages. Thank you, my friend. Keep up the good work.

From a Minister in Tennessee:

Thanks for your article on seduction and rape. It is sad that some think "contradiction" when reading certain biblical texts, which is due to their refusal to see the context. When one overlooks context, it isn't hard to see why they miss the message of that text. I appreciate your studies! Sometimes an article is hard to swallow if what you present isn't the way we've always been tutored to believe. Too often we don't want to think, because thinking, as we have been repeatedly warned, may take us down "the road to destruction." So, remaining in ignorance is the "safer" path. Sadly, we choose to embrace comfort rather than Truth. Keep on making us THINK, brother, even if we have a tendency to write it off as "foolishness" (1 Corinthians 1:18-25; 2:14).

From a Reader in California:

Al, I was thinking a little more about your latest Reflections ("The High Cost of Seduction"), and it occurred to me that the whole episode in the Scriptures regarding Absalom occurred because David did not follow the law in the matter of illicit sex. It says he was "furious," but he didn't do anything about it. Because of his failure to administer justice in that situation, it culminated in the rise of Absalom, which nearly resulted in David losing his kingdom as a result. That is an example of "rape culture," and David was complicit in it. Anyway, I think this adds a little more light on the Scripture you discussed. Al, I appreciated your analysis of Deuteronomy 22:28-29, as well as your willingness to "jump right in" on a very difficult topic. When confronted with these difficult passages in the Bible, it is easy for some to immediately take a stark "black or white" view of the matter. I think we mistakenly put these passages within the context of modern societies, and thus miss the meaning.

From a Reader in California:

I just read "The High Cost of Seduction." Wow! You absolutely nailed this! I wrestled with this when I did an exposition of Malachi as a treatise for covenants. The Exodus passage actually, in my opinion, is a type of the marriage covenant outlined in Malachi. In Exodus, the father of the girl becomes the guarantor of the marriage, just as God, in Malachi, is the guarantor of the marriage covenant. The father does not have to accept the covenant from the man under those conditions, just as God does not have to accept the covenant of Hebrews marrying foreign wives. In those same verses in Malachi, God proclaims His hatred of domestic violence, proclaiming it to be a covenant breaker (tearing asunder the mantle of protection required). It is a travesty that churches give a "wink and a nod" to domestic violence, and then guilt victims into staying in violent home situations. Shameful. Al, your article is GREAT STUFF!! THANK YOU!!

From a Minister in New Zealand:

Great explanation of this issue, Al. It shows again the importance of the context of a passage, including the culture and circumstances of that time and place. In Deuteronomy 24, the well-known "bill of divorcement" was not an encouragement to divorce, but was rather intended to curb and control what was already happening. As for your comments to the reader who spoke about "contacting the blood" of Jesus, your reply to him was 100% correct. This nonsense of "contacting" the blood of Christ at water baptism is unbiblical. It constitutes some type of magical, mystical transubstantiation. The blood of Christ was shed 2000 years ago on a cross for our sins. Actual "contact" is impossible, but our faith in what Jesus did is what saves us. Either He did it all, or He didn't. I think it is past time that we did a restudy of the then contemporary practice of Jewish baptism as it developed from the OT, and then press the reset button. God bless you, brother, and keep up the great writing.

********************
If you would like to be added to or removed from this
mailing list, Contact Me and I'll immediately comply.
If you are challenged by these Reflections, then feel
free to send them on to others and encourage them
to write for a free subscription. These articles may
all be obtained on a special CD. Check the Archives
for details and all past issues of these Reflections at:
http://www.zianet.com/maxey/Reflect2.htm