“A man shall not take his father’s wife
so that he will not uncover his father’s skirt.”
-Deuteronomy 23:1
(Or Deuteronomy 22:30 depending on the translation)
Today I want to talk about the original wording of Deuteronomy 23:1, specifically the part where it says…
…”shall not uncover his father’s skirt”.
There are two important reasons why we should have a proper Hebraic understanding of this verse.
First, the phrase is actually a common Hebrew idiom that one will encounter frequently in the TANACH.
Second, understanding this Hebrew idiom will give you deep insight into the mindset and culture of the Biblical Israelites, especially as they pertain to marriage.
Now I’m sure you’re aware of the other variations of this idiom to be found in our English Bibles.
For example, I’m sure you’ve heard of the phrase “to uncover one’s nakedness”.
However, at first glance, it doesn’t mean what you probably think it means.
We’re not talking about a situation where at night some young and lust-filled 14-year old teenager holding a pair of binoculars strategically perches himself at his bedroom window sill and tries to catch an eyeful of a young female neighbor undressing in her bedroom next door for instance.
No.
The phrases “seeing someone’s nakedness” or “uncovering one’s nakedness” mean to have sexual relations.
That’s exactly what that means.
The second point is that according to idiomatic Hebrew symbolism, a man’s wife was considered to be his garment.
That’s right.
In the Biblical era, a man’s wife was thought of as his “covering” or his “skirt”.
A “skirt” was actually a common men’s garment in those days.
Understand that this metaphorical reference was in no way considered insulting or demeaning to women.
Quite the opposite actually.
The idea being expressed is that a man’s wife is so dear and valuable to him it’s as if he wears her like a garment.
A man’s wife is a treasured covering for him.
Hence, for a son to uncover his father’s garments or skirts (meaning a father’s wives and concubines) is to steal that which is most intimate and meaningful to his father and cover himself with them.
For a son to commit such an act is to partake in a sexual union or unions meant exclusively for the father.
Again, this goes back to the idea of the illicit mixtures or the forbidden unions we discussed earlier.
Now the OPPOSITE of this phrase is also true.
Just as to “uncover one’s nakedness” or “remove one’s skirt” means to have forbidden sex with someone, to “cover over” one’s nakedness with a garment means to enter into a proper God-ordained engagement that leads to marriage.
In fact, we find just this exact situation with Ruth, our Messiah’s ancestor.
Check out Ruth 3:6-9
“And she went down unto the floor,
and did according to all that
her mother in law bade her.
And when Boaz had eaten and drunk,
and his heart was merry,
he went to lie down at the end of the heap of corn:
and she came softly, and uncovered his feet,
and laid her down.
And it came to pass at midnight,
that the man was afraid, and turned himself:
and, behold, a woman lay at his feet.
And he said, Who art thou?
And she answered,
I am Ruth thine handmaid:
spread therefore thy skirt
over thine handmaid;
for thou art a near kinsman.”
-Ruth 3:6-9
The NIV uses the phrase…
...”Spread the corner of your garment over me”.
And the Complete Jewish Bible says this…
…”Spread your robe over your handmaid”.
I doubt there are few gentile Christians in the world who have any idea what that verse means.
What Ruth is REALLY SAYING to Boaz here is…
“Be engaged to be married to me“.
Man, I swear this is like the PERFECT example of why so much misunderstanding results from our English Bible translations.
You take a gentile Christian Bible translator who thinks he’s hot stuff because he’s got a good understanding of Hebrew and Greek but that academic knowledge means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
Why?
Because he has zero understanding of Hebrew culture and most likely possesses an anti-Jewish mindset from all the Christian indoctrination he’s been exposed to ever since his Sunday school days.
Martin Luther is a prime example of someone who was a tremendous scholar but was anti-Semitic to the core.
What is the result of not having an understanding of the Hebrew mindset or the common Hebrew idioms of the day?
The result is you will be totally lost when it comes to understanding BOTH the symbolic and traditional nature of the way things went on in the Holy Scriptures.
There are so many things you’ll miss.
I’ve already mentioned that a ton of Scriptural vocabulary revolves around sex and marriage.
And if you’ve been following me from the beginning of our study of Deuteronomy, you should be well aware that Holy War and its accompanying protocol is THE central theme of the Bible.
It is the Lord’s mission at the end of history to establish His HOLY Kingdom that will encompass the whole earth with the capital of this kingdom to be situated in Jerusalem where the Messiah will sit on his throne AND…
…will rule the nations according to this very Torah we are studying.
You will miss ALL OF THIS fundamental understanding at your own peril if you don’t understand the ancient Hebrew mindset and vocabulary used simply because…
…it is through this Hebrew culture and through this vocabulary…
…that the Creator of Universe expresses the desired relationship He seeks to have with us and what our response to Him should be.
Wow!! Thank you….very enlightening
Glad you liked this! Please share with others. Be blessed and SHALOM!
I can accept the term Uncovering his nakedness, as explained concerning having sex with someone, and that fits well with Leviticus 18: with commands related sex with blood relative- relationships. I wonder about is Gen 9:21-24 Ham seeing Noah’s nakedness him while he was in a drunken sleep, and the other two sons go into the tent walking backwards to cover Noah’s body up with a covering, in order that they not see his nakedness; seems to insinuate that there is more to the terminology than what I’m understanding surrounding the term “nakedness” in it’s fuller meanings. The term Nakedness seems to be a reference to something that has a very sacred connection due to blood relationship. Because in Lev. 18, when not having sex with someone not related to them, the term changes into having “intercourse” rather than uncover nakedness. so what is seeing one’s nakedness -vs- uncovering it? when the first of all: Noah got drunk and uncovered himself. then: Ham “saw” the nakedness of Noah, saw not “uncovered” it, and it was a condemning offense. Followed by shem and japheth backing in to cover him up with a garment so as to not see his nakedness. it seems that just seeing their father was a cursed thing. If so then, the fact that Noah uncovered himself would seem to have been something he shouldn’t have done, but no way Noah knew that Has only looked at him while he slept. There is clearly more going on there than is clear in the text.
The last sentence of your comment indeed says it all: “There is clearly more going on there than is clear in the text.”
Great article – thanks and I fully agree, literary context is not enough – we need cultural context to be able to get to the deep meaning of Scripture!
Regarding the Noah nakedness stuff…
Actually, it’s really interesting that it wasn’t Ham, but his son, Canaan, who was cursed. You’d expect that if Ham had merely seen his father naked and laughed about it to his brothers, Ham himself would be cursed by Noah. But no… strangely Ham’s son is cursed. Why?
Well, if we follow the idea that “seeing the nakedness” of a man is a reference to sexual intercourse, look at Leviticus 18:7,8, where we read:
“You are not to uncover the nakedness of your father or your mother. She is your mother. You shall not uncover her nakedness. You are not to uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife, for it is your father’s nakedness.”
Strangely, to uncover your father’s wife (mother, whether maternal or step by the generic wording of the text), means to have sexual intercourse with your father’s wife.
So, instead of Ham either just seeing his father naked and his son being cursed because of him telling his brothers about it, it seems that an interpretation could be that Ham saw Noah drunk, and took advantage of the situation by having sex with his mother (uncovering the mother’s nakedness is achieved by uncovering the father’s nakedness.
As such, this means that Shem and Japheth walked backwards into the tent, not because of any shame that their dad was naked and they went to cover him up, but because their mother was there and needed covering – and they wanted to show utter respect, having being defiled by her own son, Ham, by not even seeing her in that state, nor being tempted themselves to lust.
This is the only interpretation which makes sense of why Ham’s son, Canaan, was cursed… Canaan was the product of the sexual union between his father, Ham, and his grandmother!!! Ham had attempted to usurp his father’s authority over the family clan by having a child by his wife – a standard practice across the ancient near east, and a reason for various practices done to women by victors in battles / political scheming against those in authority etc…
Hope this makes sense.
Well stated. Finally after hearing hundreds of preachers mis-speak on this subject. Most never even refer to Leviticus. One doesn’t need to be steeped in Hebraic training to understand. Just read the two books rarely looked at Numbers and Leviticus. Thanks to Matt Arnold and Richoka for this.
Thanks for reading!
Okay see I was heading to this study myself. God led me there and now I understand. Although I have he saw his father’s private parts, but then I remember that when a man knew his wife it meant they had sex, so now it nakes so much more sense. So was our brother right on it? Because it makes sense and I was thinking before I read this, was Noah’s wife in the tent with him? Because then that means he was with his wife and then Ham did, oh man yeah that makes sense. I love learning the word of Adonai.
This makes a lot of sense and has sparked a Bible study on this subject between me, my pastor, and our church. This has had a great impact on my own understanding of scripture because I was ignorant about the Jewish culture, idioms, etc.
I think your presentation of the practical application of the term being examined is easier to understand than the original information. All of it is helpful, however not knowing exactly which act Ham committed which was equal to uncovering, So it’s still a matter of interpretation as to which of the possible acts put forth, which he actually committed. (it doesn’t really matter which of the possible acts it was, the guilt is there regardless. Only reason to know in technicolor is for special knowledge to be prideful of or obtaining the sensual insight for inner lustful gain; bottom line to be understood, whatever he did was sin and condemning to him for doing it, be it looking, touching, fantasizing, or the commission of incest. However, if incest was the act, and conception occurred so that a child was a result, the question of the cursing of this child rather than Ham fit’s human logic, I might note that i would expect the curse to be like an unclean thing resulting from a sin, rather than a person and family linage being cursed for something they had no personal responsibility in. the sin. Again, this curse better fits with God’s loving one son while hating the other, simply because of God’s Sovreign choosing and nothing to do with them personally or any action on their part. That stirs up some good thought fodder for a mind to meditate upon. Thanks for sharing information, wisdom, culture, and conjecture to stimulate further opportunity to spend time with The Holy Spirit of God in assigning the actual intended meaning and correct application of its intent as He inspired Moses as he recorded it for all mankind to be enlightened as to God’s Glory and benefit to the Objects of His Divine Love.
Thank you so much for this! I’ve heard it halfway explained, but never in cultural context, the way you’ve explained it. I find myself having to keep looking things up while reading either the Torah or the Bible (I read both daily) when I get the feeling something’s not quite as it would seem just by reading. I dig until I’m satisfied, and I’m satisfied with this explanation.
Glad you found this helpful Terry.
This gave great insight! Thank you so much. Do you have any books to recommend for Hebrew idioms?
Can’t think of any great books off the top of my head. But I study with Hebrew podcast 101. They’re great to learn conversational Hebrew including idioms and some Bible stuff as well. Be blessed!
Yeah I don’t think that’s what it means *at all*. I do think it has to do with sexual relations, but not in the way you described. You know what a jezebel spirit is right? How does it destroy congregations? Isn’t jealousy a prime component?
To “uncover ones nakedness” is to give knowledge of your intimate body parts to a common person you have a relationship with. If your mother has had sex with both you and your father, it gets a little weird being together doesn’t it?
I’m reaching into personal experience with this one, don’t discard it frivolously
Hi Mike,
It is wicked to give knowledge of intimate body parts to a common person you have a relationship with. Totally agree with your wording, and your experience.
BUT. That is not what the phrase “uncover nakedness” means.
If you and I spoke Hebrew natively we would not even need any explanation — it would be obvious that it means to have sexual relations with.
To clarify: Uncovering a man’s nakedness means to have relations with his wife, daughter, etc. Not necessarily with *him*. Yes, if your mom or step-mom has sex with both you and your dad, it *is* weird, and it is wicked, and that is why Leviticus forbids it using the phrase “uncover nakedness”.
“We’re not talking about a situation where at night some young and lust-filled 14-year old teenager holding a pair of binoculars strategically perches himself at his bedroom window sill and tries to catch an eyeful of a young female neighbor undressing in her bedroom next door for instance.”
That’s a bit detailed–yikes!
Yeah, I gotta bit graphic there, didn’t I? Don’t know what came over me…lol
I totally connected with that part of the article, because it reminds me of that Judy Blume book “Then Again, Maybe I Won’t” —
about the boy who asks his parents for binoculars for Christmas so he can watch birds (actually, spy on the girl next door when she undresses).
His folks give him what he requests, with a note attached: “To our son, the bird watcher” LOL
The book has a great ending . . .he decides not to watch his neighbor undress.
As a lust-filled 14-year-old boy, I found the ending entirely unrealistic.
Great comment. Makes sense. Thanks for sharing. Be blessed!