And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
And he drank of the wine, and was drunken. This unhappy incident has been viewed in two ways:
(1) As the result of ignorance. Vines were grown in the antediluvian world, as may be inferred from Matthew 24:38. But Noah, it is alleged, having been hitherto accustomed to express the juice directly from the grape, and to use it in that form as a delicious and wholesome beverage, like the peasants in vine-growing countries at the present day, did, probably from a superabundance of the liquor, reserve a portion of it for another occasion, when, drinking it as water or milk, he was overpowered by its potent influence. But the sacred narrative says nothing either of wine-making being a novelty, or of Noah's becoming inebriated the first time of his tasting it.
(2) As a sin. If the conjecture is well founded, that Noah had in earlier years been inured to the culture of the ground, and familiar with the vine, it is scarcely possible that he could have been a stranger to the natural property of grape juice to ferment when kept for a time in a vessel; and therefore the amiable zeal evinced by some writers to remove this great blot from the character of so eminently pious a man, by attributing his intoxication to inadvertency or the weakness of age, must be considered as entirely misdirected.
At the same time there is no reason to imagine there was anything approaching debauchery or criminal excess. The Hebrew word "drank" is used in reference to Joseph's entertainment of his brethren, who, though they drank and were merry, certainly would not exceed the limits of propriety in presence of the unknown governor of Egypt (Genesis 43:34). Like them, Noah might drink freely, plentifully, until, through the influence of a warm climate, he fell asleep; and the loose form of the Oriental dress might, by a slight derangement, occasion the exposure of his person. The historian records the incident conformably to his usual manner, without either censure or apology; but the latter view we have given seems to be the correct one. 'They,' says Luther, 'who would defend the patriarch in this, wantonly reject the consolation which the Holy Spirit deemed necessary to the Church-the consolation that even the greatest saints may at times stumble and fall.'
Was uncovered within his tent. This incident could scarcely have happened until about 18 or 20 years after the flood; because Canaan, who probably discovered the disordered condition of Noah, and whose conduct in exposing it seems to have been more offensive than that even of his father, was not born for some years after exposing it seems to have been more offensive than that even of his father, was not born for some years after the deluge.