Wine or Why Not?

The question has been asked, how can drinking be a sin when Jesus turned water into wine?

Yes, Jesus turned water into wine. What do you suppose the alcohol content was of that wine? Wine can have a very low proof, you know. The governor of the feast remarked that it was good wine, and, if he was anything like most of the people I know that consume alcohol, that means it had a high alcoholic content. He may have honestly simply meant that it tasted good, though. Of course, this is God manifest in the flesh we are talking about. He could very easily have made wine that tasted strong, but really wasn’t. Keep in mind also, a couple of cultural things: One, most of their water was just plain dirty. Granted, most of the population of Israel had probably developed immunity to whatever bacteria were prevalent in the river Jordan, but, still. Some have suggested that wine really meant grape juice. I don’t think so, because grape juice needs to be refrigerated. Even modern day grape juice, with all the preservatives they add to it, still needs to be kept cold to keep from spoiling. Of course, the citizens of Ancient Israel would not have understood the idea of lukewarm grape juice attracting insects, which would then leave bacteria in the juice, which, in turn, would make people sick. They also would not have understood that allowing the grape juice to ferment would create an alcohol content that would kill the germs. They would have understood, though, that drinking grape juice often made people sick, while drinking wine almost never did.

The Bible also says that wine is a mocker (Proverbs 20:1): Let’s face it, whether you subscribe to the theory that alcohol causes you to do strange things, or whether it just lowers one’s inhibitions so that people can do what they really wanted to do all along anyway, or maybe just causes enough cranial impairment that things that would normally be obvious bad ideas suddenly seem like flashes of brilliance; let’s face it, people act different when they are drunk. I don’t know anybody that acts better when they are drunk, either. Part of the problem is that almost anybody can take a drink, and the most serious effect that it has is that drink will convince him or her that a second drink will not seriously impair them, either. Of course, two drinks can easily convince one that a third drink is a good idea…

On the other hand, Paul told Timothy to take a little wine, for his stomach's sake (1 Timothy 5:23). In the days before Tums, Rolaids, and Pepto-Bismol, wine was one of a very few things known to settle a stomach. I personally don’t recommend the “medicinal use” of alcohol, because I know that it is more often misused or abused than actually used for medicinal purposes. Besides, in modern days, there really isn’t much excuse. There are a number of things that are considerably more effective.

I think that the best response really comes from Romans 14:21: “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.” For me to tip back a little wine might not (probably would not) send me to Hell, but if you see me imbibing and you are not a Christian, or you are young in the faith--and you have no way of knowing how much I have consumed--my few sips of wine could result in you (or someone like you) to sin grievously. Even if you understand and appreciate that I have had very little, there are many people that believe that if a little is good, then more is better. I will not be a party to that. I am a long-time teetotaler.

Genesis 9:25

Genesis 9:25 talks about Noah cursing Canaan, and this particular verse has been used to suggest that Africans, including African-Americans, are under a curse, and therefore should not be afforded the same rights as other human beings. Some churches have even taught that they cannot be saved. Let’s examine that for a few moments.
First of all, Noah had three sons, and their wives, in the ark. These sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth, are generally considered to be the forerunners of modern race. For the most part, Japheth’s descendents settled in Europe, Shem’s in Asia, and Ham’s in Africa. There are some exceptions, of course. The name Ham actually comes from the Hebrew word for burnt, so it stands to reason that Ham was the darkest of the three, and, apparently, his wife was dark-skinned, also (we don’t know, the Bible doesn’t say anything about the wives).
It seems a little odd, though, that Canaan, Ham’s son, was cursed, even though he didn’t have anything to do with the incident that upset Noah. It seems that, after the ark landed, Noah planted a vineyard. After the grapes grew, he made wine. In the meantime, Noah’s sons were busy repopulating the earth. Anyway, when Noah got some wine made, he and his wife celebrated. Hard. Sometime later, Ham wandered by the tent door and got an eyeful. The King James Version says that he “saw the nakedness of his father.” He went and told his brothers, and they got a covering, and went backwards into their father’s tent, and covered up their parents. When Noah woke up, and realized what had happened, he cursed Ham’s son, Canaan.
Having said that, let me point out that in Leviticus we are told that one should not uncover one’s father’s wife, because it is your “father’s nakedness.” So, it would appear that the actual incident involved Ham’s mother being exposed, more than Ham’s father. Even with that understanding, we should consider that what Ham did was accidental, and probably could have been easily forgiven had he handled it differently. After all, he didn’t have to go and tell his brothers, “Hey! Guess what I just saw!” He could have done the respectful thing and covered up his parents himself, and not involve anyone else.
It also seems odd that Noah cursed Canaan, and not Ham; Ham was the one he was upset at. I’m not sure if Ham had any other children yet (Canaan is the only one mentioned so far), it’s possible that Canaan was an only child, so by cursing Canaan, Noah was cursing Ham’s lineage. In any case, Ham eventually had four sons, Canaan, Cush, Mizraim, and Put. Leviticus tells us that, when the Children of Israel came up out of Africa, they found the Canaanites living in the Promised Land. As a matter of fact, to everyone else, that land was known as Land of Canaan. The Canaanites had built up great cities, and planted fields full of crops. The Bible describes it as a land flowing with milk and honey.
Perhaps Noah cursed Canaan because he had already realized that Ham’s other three sons were good kids, but that Canaan had the worst traits of his father. I don’t know for sure. I do know that using Canaan’s curse to justify racial prejudice is just plain ignorant. Even if there are any descendents of Canaan living today, they would not have to worry about the curse, because Jesus became a curse for us. Let’s face it, without the sacrifice of Christ, we were all under a curse, and those of us who were not descendants of Canaan were not any less cursed. We have been redeemed from the curse, there is no more curse.

Communion

I have been, up until the past week, very involved in the multimedia department of my church. Yesterday was the first Sunday morning service in years that we did not videotape. That means that it was the first time in years that I have actually been "in service." As a result, yesterday was the first time in years that I have received communion. Some of you will probably be shocked by this; I know that some churches teach that if you haven't received communion within at least the last year, then you are in trouble with God. Personally, the cynical part of my nature suspects that has more to do with the offering than it does with communion...

The rite of communion has its roots in the Last Supper, where Jesus broke bread with the Apostles, and gave them wine, and told them that the bread was his body, and the wine was his blood, and that they should eat and drink to remember Him. Now, the Last Supper was, itself, an observance of the Passover. Later on, God commanded Israel to keep the Passover on an annual basis (maybe that's where the idea that you must take communion at least once a year comes from). Clearly, the Passover foreshadowed the crucifixion (at Passover, a lamb without blemish was sacrificed so that the death angel would pass over the households that were sanctified with the blood of the lamb, while a the crucifixion, the perfect Lamb of God was sacrificed so that anyone who is sanctified with the blood of the Lamb will have eternal life).

The word communion is used only four times in the New Testament, and two of those times it is used simply to mean fellowship (in fact, the Greek word, koinonia, is translated as communion four times, but is used sixteen other times--twelve of those times it is translated as fellowship). In First Corinthians, the term is used twice (in the same verse) in a clear reference to what is now termed as the rite of communion. I can't find anywhere in the New Testament where a timetable is given for how often one should (or must) receive communion, although, in the very next chapter of First Corinthians, Apostle Paul describes the rite of communion, and tells the Corinthians that, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come."

By the way, some churches use grape juice instead of wine in their communion services. I don't think it really matters, personally. Of course, I don't believe in transubstantiation or consubstantiation, either (quite frankly, the fact that there is a debate over transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation puzzles me. There isn't that much difference between the two beliefs). Maybe if I did, I would be offended by the idea that people think that grape juice can be used instead of the blood of Christ. I think it is fairly obvious (although, to some, less obvious, because they have a twenty-first century mindset and can't stop to think about what life was like before refrigeration), that, in Biblical times, grape juice wasn't a viable beverage, because sometimes when people drank it, they became violently ill, and no one knew why. Wine, on the other hand, could be stored at room temperature (even when room temperature was in the eighties) for years without going bad (and when it did "go bad" it simply turned to vinegar--not exactly tasty, but not particularly harmful, either, especially when ingested in the small amounts that are conceivable for "wine" that doesn't taste like wine any more). We, of course, know that grape juice can be kept for a very long time, as long as it is refrigerated so that bacteria don't have a chance to grow in the juice, while wine can be kept at room temperature for a very long time, because the alcohol in the wine kills the bacteria. We have options that the early church didn't have.