5<\/strong>. brethren<\/em> ] of the same mother. In the Sg. passages, as we have seen, brother<\/em> is fellow-Israelite.<\/p>\n dwell together<\/em> ] On the same estate (cp. Gen 13:6<\/span>; Gen 36:7<\/span>); this limitation is striking.<\/p>\n son<\/em> ] LXX seed<\/em>, followed by Jos. IV. Antt.<\/em> viii. 23, and in Mat 22:24<\/span>, Mar 12:19<\/span>. Luk 20:28<\/span> has children<\/em>. So Vulg. and most moderns, A.V. child<\/em>. But the LXX and the quotations in the gospels are evidently under the influence of the later law of P which allowed inheritance by daughters. See introd. note. Son<\/em>, R.V., is the proper rendering.<\/p>\n without unto a stranger<\/em> ] Outside the family. Stranger, ‘ish zar<\/em>, is a man of another family. Cp. Pro 5:10<\/span>, Hos 5:7<\/span>, Lev 22:12<\/span>.<\/p>\n husband’s brother perform the duty of an husband’s brother<\/em> ] Heb. yabam<\/em>, and the demon. verb therefrom, yibbem, to act as a husband’s brother<\/em>.<\/p>\n 5 10. Of Levirate Marriage<\/p>\n If, of brothers dwelling together, one die childless, his widow shall not marry beyond the family, her husband’s brother shall marry her, and their firstborn be the dead man’s heir and continue his name in Israel (Deu 25:5<\/span> f.). But if the husband’s brother decline this duty, even if after it is pressed on him by the elders, then, in their presence, shall the widow formally dishonour him as a recusant to the family, and the dishonour shall adhere (Deu 25:7-10<\/span>). Peculiar to D’s code, but neither in the direct address nor with D’s phraseology. It has the same opening, the same care in putting the case, the same style of introducing conditions ( but if<\/em> and not D’s only<\/em> = rak<\/em>, see on Deu 10:15<\/span>) and of accumulating these, as the other marriage laws, Deu 21:15-17<\/span>, Deu 22:13-21<\/span>, Deu 24:1-4<\/span>; and, like them, it brings in the elders<\/em>. Probably, therefore, as we have suggested in regard to them, it is a law taken by D from a previous code. Cp. Dillmann who also points out that the terms like not to, refuseth<\/em> and go up to the gate<\/em> are not current in D. There is nothing to betray whether D has modified the law. Steuern. assigns it, with those other laws, to his Pl. author.<\/p>\n Heb. had not only a special term for a husband’s brother, yabam<\/em>, but a vb. derived from it, yibbem<\/em>, to express his duty of marrying his brother’s widow; the adj. Levirate<\/em> similarly comes from Lat. levir<\/em>, husband’s brother.<\/p>\n The use of these Heb. terms by this law proves that the practice was already established in Israel.<\/p>\n Levirate marriage in different forms is found among many peoples. Hindoo law sanctions it in case of no male issue by the first marriage, and only till the birth of a son. But in India of course, the re-marriage of even virgin widows has always been strongly opposed (Dubois, Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies<\/em>, trans. by Beauchamp with notes, 2nd ed. 24, 215, 358). Sometimes it is compulsory, sometimes only permissive, sometimes limited to the younger brother, sometimes enforced only where the widow has children, in order to provide for their education. In some Arab tribes ‘when a married brother dies, at the grave his surviving brother asks her relatives to give him the widow in marriage and says, “Give me compensation through her, etc.,” and his request is granted’ (Musil, Ethn. Ber.<\/em> 426). No motive nor condition is stated. The custom has been traced to different origins to the practice of polyandry, to the need of performing rites to the spirit of the deceased (for Levirate marriage and ancestor worship are often found together), and to the principle of ‘Baal-Marriage,’ that the wife was the property of her husband and so passed with the rest of his estate to the nearest of kin. The different forms of the institution among different peoples prove that it had different origins. In Israel there is no trace of an origin in polyandry; and but little evidence of a connection with ancestor worship. On the whole subject see Maine, Early Law and Custom<\/em>, chs. iii. f.; W. R. Smith, Kinship<\/em>, etc., 122 135; Westermarck, Human Marriage<\/em>; Benzinger and Nowack’s works on Hebrew Archaeology; and Driver’s summary notes, Deut.<\/em> 280 285.<\/p>\n An early instance is given by J, Genesis 38<\/span>, which ( Deu 25:8<\/em><\/span>) uses the same term for the duty of a husband’s brother, but implies that if brothers fail the duty might be assumed by another agnate and even by the husband’s father; further that not the firstborn only, but all the children of the new marriage, belonged to the dead man. In Rth 1:11-13<\/span>; Rth 1:4<\/span>, where the Heb. term for Levirate marriage is not used (though the cognate sister-in-law<\/em> occurs in Deu 1:15<\/span>), the right of Na‘omi’s widowed daughters-in-law to any further sons she might have had is implied; and in the want of these, regarded as a divine affliction, the right of marrying Ruth passes to the next of kin, with that of the redemption of the dead husband’s property; and again the son of the widow’s marriage with the kinsman is regarded as his son and not that of her first husband. In D’s law the duty of marrying the childless widow is limited to that brother of her dead husband who had been living with him, on the same estate; and the right of succession to the dead man is limited to the firstborn of the new marriage. In H, Lev 18:16<\/span>, marriage with a brother’s wife is forbidden, and, Lev 20:21<\/span>, is a defilement, cursed with childlessness. By some this has been regarded as the general rule, to which D’s provides in the interest of the family a carefully limited exception (Driver, Deut.<\/em> 285, Levit<\/em>. 88). It seems more likely that D’s law is (as we have seen) a modification of the old practice, entirely independent of H’s law. P, by allowing daughters to inherit (Num 27:1-12<\/span>), abolished part of the need for Levirate marriages; but obviously D knows nothing of P’s law; for his own is limited to sons. Among the later Jews the law of D was observed but with the difference introduced by P. Not a sonless, but only a childless, marriage was now its occasion. See on Deu 25:5<\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\n The law of levirate marriage. The law on this subject is not unique to the Jews, but is found (see Gen 38:8<\/span>) in all essential respects the same among various Oriental nations, ancient and modern. The rules in these verses, like those upon divorce, do but incorporate existing immemorial usages, and introduce various wise and politic limitations and mitigations of them. The root of the obligation here imposed upon the brother of the deceased husband lies in the primitive idea of childlessness being a great calamity (compare Gen 16:4<\/span>; and note), and extinction of name and family one of the greatest that could happen (compare Deu 9:14<\/span>; Psa 109:12-15<\/span>). To avert this the ordinary rules as to intermarriage are in the case in question (compare Lev 18:16<\/span>) set aside. The obligation was onerous (compare Rth 4:6<\/span>), and might be repugnant; and it is accordingly considerably reduced and restricted by Moses. The duty is recognized as one of affection for the memory of the deceased; it is not one which could be enforced at law. That it continued down to the Christian era is apparent from the question on this point put to Jesus by the Sadducees (see the marginal references).<\/P> Deu 25:5<\/B><\/span><\/P> No child – <\/B>literally, no son. The existence of a daughter would clearly suffice. The daughter would inherit the name and property of the father; compare Num 27:1-11<\/span>.<\/P> Deu 25:9<\/B><\/span><\/P> Loose his shoe from off his foot – <\/B>In token of taking from the unwilling brother all right over the wife and property of the deceased. Planting the foot on a thing was an usual symbol of lordship and of taking possession (compare Gen 13:17<\/span>; Jos 10:24<\/span>), and loosing the shoe and handing it to another in like manner signified a renunciation and transfer of right and title (compare Rth 4:7-8<\/span>; Psa 60:8<\/span>, and Psa 108:9<\/span>). The widow here is directed herself, as the party slighted and injured, to deprive her brother-law of his shoe, and spit in his face (compare Num 12:14<\/span>). The action was intended to aggravate the disgrace conceived to attach to the conduct of the man.<\/P> Deu 25:10<\/B><\/span><\/P> The house … – <\/B>Equivalent to the house of the barefooted one. To go barefoot was a sign of the most abject condition; compare 2Sa 15:30<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n Brethren; <\/B>strictly so called, as is evident from Deu 25:7<\/span>; Gen 38:8<\/span>; Rth 1:13<\/span>; Mat 22:24<\/span>,25<\/span>. Dwell together; either, <\/P> 1. Strictly, in the same house or family; which is not probable, because the married brother may be presumed to have left his fathers house, and set up a family of his own. Or, <\/P> 2. More largely, in the same town or city, or, at least, country. This is added for a relief of their consciences, that if the next brother had removed his habitation into remote parts, or were carried thither into captivity, which God foresaw would be their case, then the wife of the dead had her liberty to marry to the next kinsman that lived in the same place with her. One of them<\/I>; either, <\/P> 1. The first and eldest of them, as it was practised, Gen 38:6<\/span>, &c., and expounded, Mat 22:25<\/span>; one being oft put for the first, as Gen 1:5<\/span>; 2:11<\/span>; Hag 1:1<\/span>; Mar 16:2<\/span>. And the chief care was about the first-born, who were invested with singular privileges, and were types of Christ. Or, <\/P> 2. Any of them, for the words are general, and so the practice may seem to have been, Rth 3<\/span>; and the reason of the law may seem to be in a great measure the same, which was to keep up the distinction, as of tribes and families, that so the Messias might be discovered by the family from which he was appointed to proceed, so also of inheritances, which were divided among all the brethren, the first-born having only a double portion. <\/P> Have no child, <\/B>Heb. no son<\/I>. But son<\/I> is oft put for any child<\/I>, male or female, both in Scripture and other authors; and therefore the Hebrew no son<\/I> is rendered no child here, as it is in effect, Mat 22:24<\/span>; Mar 12:19<\/span>; Luk 20:28<\/span>. And indeed this caution was not necessary when there was a daughter, whose child might be adopted into the name and family of its grandfather. <\/P> Unto a stranger, <\/B>i.e. to one of another family, as that word is oft used. <\/P> Her husbands brother shall go in unto her, <\/B>except he was married himself, as may appear by other scriptures, and by the reason of the thing, and, as some add, from the phrase of dwelling together<\/I>, to wit, in their fathers family. <\/P> <\/p>\n 5-10. the wife of the dead shall notmarry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother . . . shall takeher to him to wife<\/B>This usage existed before the age of Moses(Ge 38:8<\/span>). But the Mosaic lawrendered the custom obligatory (Mt22:25<\/span>) on younger brothers, or the nearest kinsman, to marry thewidow (Ru 4:4<\/span>), by associatingthe natural desire of perpetuating a brother’s name with thepreservation of property in the Hebrew families and tribes. If theyounger brother declined to comply with the law, the widow broughther claim before the authorities of the place at a public assembly(the gate of the city); and he having declared his refusal, she wasordered to loose the thong of his shoea sign ofdegradationfollowing up that act by spitting on the ground thestrongest expression of ignominy and contempt among Eastern people.The shoe was kept by the magistrate as an evidence of thetransaction, and the parties separated.<\/P><\/p>\n If brethren dwell together<\/strong>,…. Not only in the same country, province, town, or city, but in the same house; such who had been from their youth brought up together in their father’s house, and now one of them being married, as the case put supposes, they that were unmarried might live with him, and especially if the father was dead; and so may except such as were abroad, and in foreign countries, or at such a distance that this law coals not well be observed by them; though the Targum of Jonathan, and so Jarchi, interpret it of their being united in an inheritance, all by virtue of relation having a claim to their father’s inheritance; so that it mattered not where they dwelt, it is the relation that is regarded, and their right of inheritance; and the above Targum describes them as brethren on the father’s side, and so Jarchi says excepts his brother on the mother’s side; for brethren by the mother’s side, in case of inheritance, and the marrying of a brother’s wife, were not reckoned brethren, as Maimonides h observes; who adds, that there is no brotherhood but on the father’s side. Some think that when there were no brethren in a strict and proper sense, the near kinsmen, sometimes called brethren, were to do the office here enjoined, and which they conclude from the case of Boaz and Ruth; but Aben Ezra contradicts this, and says that instance is no proof of it, it respecting another affair, not marriage, but redemption; and says that brethren, absolutely and strictly speaking are here meant; which is agreeably to their tradition i:<\/p>\n and one of them die, and have no child<\/strong>: son, or daughter, son’s son, or daughter’s son, or daughter’s daughter, as Jarchi notes; if there were either of these, children or grandchildren, of either sex, there was no obligation to marry a brother’s wife; so, in the case put to Christ, there was no issue, the person was childless, Mt 22:24<\/span>;<\/p>\n the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger<\/strong>; by whom is meant not a Gentile, or a proselyte of the gate, or of righteousness, but any Israelite whatever, that was not of her husband’s family; she might not marry out of the family; that is, she was refused by all, the design of the law being to secure inheritances, and continue them in families to which they belonged:<\/p>\n her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife<\/strong>; that is, supposing him to be unmarried, and this is indeed supposed in the first clause of the text, by dwelling with his brother; for had he been married, he would have dwelt with his wife and family apart; besides, if this law obliged a married man to marry his brother’s wife, polygamy would be required and established by a law of God, which was never otherwise than permitted. This is to be understood of the eldest brother, as Jarchi, who is in an unmarried state; so it is said in the Misnah k,<\/p>\n “the command is upon the eldest to marry his brother’s wife; if he will not, they go to all the brethren; if they will not, they return to the eldest; and say to him, upon thee is the commandment, either allow the shoe to be plucked off, or marry;”<\/p>\n and such a course we find was taken among the Jews in our Lord’s time, Mt 22:25<\/span>;<\/p>\n and perform the duty of an husband’s brother to her<\/strong>; cohabit together as man and wife, in order to raise up seed to his brother, and perform all the offices and duties of an husband to a wife; but the marriage solemnity was not to take place when it was agreed to, until three months or ninety days had passed from the death of the brother, that it might be known whether she was with child or no by her husband, and in such a case this law had no force; so runs the Jewish canon l<\/p>\n “a brother’s wife may not pluck off the shoe, nor be married, until three months;”<\/p>\n that is, after her husband’s death.<\/p>\n h Hilchot Yebum Vechalitzah, c, 1, sect, 7. i Misn. Yebamot, c. 4. sect. 5. k Yebamot, c. 4. sect. 5. l Ib. sect. 10.<\/p>\n On Levirate Marriages. – Deu 25:5<\/span>, Deu 25:6<\/span>. If brothers lived together, and one of them died childless, the wife of the deceased was not to be married outside (i.e., away from the family) to a strange man (one not belonging to her kindred); her brother-in-law was to come to her and take her for his wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her. , denom<\/em>. from , a brother-in-law, husband’s brother, lit., to act the brother-in-law, i.e., perform the duty of a brother-in-law, which consisted in his marrying his deceased brother’s widow, and begetting a son of children with her, the first-born of whom was to stand upon the name of his deceased brother, i.e., be placed in the family of the deceased, and be recognised as the heir of his property, that his name (the name of the man who had died childless) might not be wiped out or vanish out of Israel. The provision, without having a son (ben<\/em>), has been correctly interpreted by the lxx, Vulg., Josephus<\/em> (Ant. iv. 8, 23), and the Rabbins<\/em>, as signifying childless (having no seed, Mat 22:25<\/span>); for if the deceased had simply a daughter, according to Num 27:4<\/span>., the perpetuation of his house and name was to be ensured through her. The obligation of a brother-in-law’s marriage only existed in cases where the brothers had lived together, i.e., in one and the same place, not necessarily in one house or with a common domestic establishment and home (vid., Gen 13:6<\/span>; Gen 36:7<\/span>). – This custom of a brother-in-law’s (Levirate) marriage, which is met with in different nations, and as an old traditional custom among the Israelites (see at Gen 38:8<\/span>.), had its natural roots in the desire inherent in man, who is formed for immortality, and connected with the hitherto undeveloped belief in an eternal life, to secure a continued personal existence for himself and immorality for his name, through the perpetuation of his family and in the life of the son who took his place. This desire was not suppressed in Israel by divine revelation, but rather increased, inasmuch as the promises given to the patriarchs were bound up with the preservation and propagation of their seed and name. The promise given to Abraham for his seed would of necessity not only raise the begetting of children in the religious views of the Israelites into the work desired by God and well-pleasing to Him, but would also give this significance to the traditional custom of preserving the name and family by the substitution of a marriage of duty, that they would thereby secure to themselves and their family a share in the blessing of promise. Moses therefore recognised this custom as perfectly justifiable; but he sought to restrain it within such limits, that it should not present any impediment to the sanctification of marriage aimed at by the law. He took away the compulsory character, which it hitherto possessed, by prescribing in Deu 25:7<\/span>., that if the surviving brother refused to marry his widowed sister-in-law, she was to bring the matter into the gate before the elders of the town (vid., Deu 21:19<\/span>), i.e., before the magistrates; and if the brother-in-law still persisted in his refusal, she was to take his shoe from off his foot and spit in his face, with these words: So let it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house<\/em>.<\/p>\n The taking off of the shoe was an ancient custom in Israel, adopted, according to Rth 4:7<\/span>, in cases of redemption and exchange, for the purpose of confirming commercial transactions. The usage arose from the fact, that when any one took possession of landed property he did so by treading upon the soil, and asserting his right of possession by standing upon it in his shoes. In this way the taking off of the shoe and handing it to another became a symbol of the renunciation of a man’s position and property, – a symbol which was also common among the Indians and the ancient Germans (see my Archologie<\/em>, ii. p. 66). But the custom was an ignominious one in such a case as this, when the shoe was publicly taken off the foot of the brother-in-law by the widow whom he refused to marry. He was thus deprived of the position which he ought to have occupied in relation to her and to his deceased brother, or to his paternal house; and the disgrace involved in this was still further heightened by the fact that his sister-in-law spat in his face. This is the meaning of the words (cf. Num 12:14<\/span>), and not merely spit on the ground before his eyes, as Saalschtz<\/em> and others as well as the Talmudists (tr. Jebam.<\/em> xii. 6) render it, for the purpose of diminishing the disgrace. Build up his brother’s house<\/em>, i.e., lay the foundation of a family or posterity for him (cf. Gen 16:2<\/span>). – In addition to this, the unwilling brother-in-law was to receive a name of ridicule in Israel: House of the shoe taken off<\/em> ( , taken off as to his shoe; cf. Ewald<\/em>, 288, b<\/em>.), i.e., of the barefooted man, equivalent to the miserable fellow; for it was only in miserable circumstances that the Hebrews went barefoot (vid., Isa 20:2-3<\/span>; foundation of his house (vid., my Archologie<\/em>, pp. 64, 65).<\/p>\n Marriage of a Brother’s Wife.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD> B. C.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> 1451.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE> 5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her. 6 And it shall be, that<\/I> the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is<\/I> dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. 7 And if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother. 8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if<\/I> he stand to it,<\/I> and say, I like not to take her; 9 Then shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house. 10 And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed. 11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: 12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.<\/I><\/P> Here is, I. The law settled concerning the marrying of the brother’s widow. It appears from the story of Judah’s family that this had been an ancient usage (Gen. xxxviii. 8<\/span>), for the keeping up of distinct families. The case put is a case that often happens, of a man’s dying without issue, it may be in the prime of his time, soon after his marriage, and while his brethren were yet so young as to be unmarried. Now in this case, 1. The widow was not to marry again into any other family, unless all the relations of her husband did refuse her, that the estate she was endowed with might not be alienated. 2. The husband’s brother, or next of kin, must marry her, partly out of respect to her, who, having forgotten her own people and her father’s house, should have all possible kindness shown her by the family into which she was married; and partly out of respect to the deceased husband, that though he was dead and gone he might not be forgotten, nor lost out of the genealogies of his tribe; for the first-born child, which the brother or next kinsman should have by the widow, should be denominated from him that was dead, and entered in the genealogy as his child, Deu 25:5<\/span>; Deu 25:6<\/span>. Under that dispensation we have reason to think men had not so clear and certain a prospect of living themselves on the other side death as we have now, to whom life and immortality are brought to light by the gospel;<\/I> and therefore they could not but be the more desirous to live in their posterity, which innocent desire was in some measure gratified by this law, an expedient being found out that, though a man had no child by his wife, yet his name should not be put out of Israel,<\/I> that is, out of the pedigree, or, which is equivalent, remain there under the brand of childlessness. The Sadducees put a case to our Saviour upon this law, with a design to perplex the doctrine of the resurrection by it (Matt. xxii. 24<\/span>, c.), perhaps insinuating that there was no need of maintaining the immortality of the soul and a future state, since the law had so well provided for the perpetuating of men’s names and families in the world. But, 3. If the brother, or next of kin, declined to do this good office to the memory of him that was gone, what must be done in that case? Why, (1.) He shall not be compelled to do it, <i>v.<\/span> 7<\/span><\/U><\/span>. If he like her not, he is at liberty to refuse her, which, some think, was not permitted in this case before this law of Moses. Affection is all in all to the comfort of the conjugal relation; this is a thing which cannot be forced, and therefore the relation should not be forced without it. (2.) Yet he shall be publicly disgraced for not doing it. The widow, as the person most concerned for the name and honour of the deceased, was to complain to the elders of his refusal; if he persist in it, she must pluck off his shoe, and spit in his face,<\/I> in open court (or, as the Jewish doctors moderate it, spit before<\/I> his face), thus to fasten a mark of infamy upon him, which was to remain with his family after him, v.<\/I><\/span> 8-10<\/span>. Note, Those justly suffer in their own reputation who do not do what they ought to preserve the name and honour of others. He that would not build up his brother’s house deserved to have this blemish put upon his own, that it should be called the house of him that had his shoe loosed,<\/I> in token that he deserved to go barefoot. In the case of Ruth we find this law executed (Ruth iv. 7<\/span>), but because, upon the refusal of the next kinsman, there was another ready to perform the duty of a husband’s brother, it was that other that plucked off the shoe, and not the widow–Boaz, and not Ruth.<\/P> II. A law for the punishing of an immodest woman, Deu 25:11<\/span>; Deu 25:12<\/span>. The woman that by the foregoing law was to complain against her husband’s brother for not marrying her, and to spit in his face before the elders, needed a good measure of assurance; but, lest the confidence which that law supported should grow to an excess unbecoming the sex, here is a very severe but just law to punish impudence and immodesty. 1. The instance of it is confessedly scandalous to the highest degree. A woman could not do it unless she were perfectly lost to all virtue and honour. 2. The occasion is such as might in part excuse it; it was to help her husband out of the hands of one that was too hard for him. Now if the doing of it in a passion, and with such a good intention, was to be so severely punished, much more when it was done wantonly and in lust. 3. The punishment was that her hand should be cut off; and the magistrates must not pretend to be more merciful than God: Thy eye shall not pity her.<\/I> Perhaps our Saviour alludes to this law when he commands us to cut off the right hand<\/I> that offends us,<\/I> or is an occasion of sin to us. Better put the greatest hardships that can be upon the body than ruin the soul for ever. Modesty is the hedge of chastity, and therefore ought to be very carefully preserved and kept up by both sexes.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verses 5-10:<\/strong><\/p>\n This text regulates levirate marriages, a practice before the Law was given, see Gen 38:6-11<\/span>. If a man died childless, his brother (or next of kin) must marry the widow and raise a child to be is successor and heir. In this way, a family name and heritage would not become extinct.<\/p>\n “Dwell together,” in the same community, see Gen 13:6<\/span>; Gen 26:6<\/span>.<\/p>\n “Child,” either male or female. The Law provided that in event a man had no son, a daughter could inherit her father’s estate, Num 27:1-11<\/span>.<\/p>\n A man was free to refuse to marry his brother’s widow. But if so, she had recourse to the court for redress of grievance. She could bring the man before the magistrates on the charge that he refused to do the duty of his brother and raise up or perpetuate a name in Israel.<\/p>\n The text implies that the man was given opportunity to change his mind and proceed with the marriage. But if he continued to refuse, the brother’s widow had further recourse.<\/p>\n In open court, the woman loosed the man’s shoe, and then spat in his face. Both these acts were highly insulting. Removal of the shoe signified:<\/p>\n (1) That the man was unworthy to stand in his brother’s place.<\/p>\n (2) The planting of the shod foot on a piece of property symbolized the taking of possession. of it; the removal of a shoe to confirm an agreement signified the surrender of rights, see Deu 11:24<\/span>; Jos 1:3<\/span>; Psa 60:8<\/span>; Psa 108:9<\/span>.<\/p>\n (3) Confirmation of a covenant, Rth 4:7-8<\/span>.<\/p>\n This insult inflicted publicly branded the man, and was a mark of disgrace throughout his life. He would thenceforth be known as one who refused to meet his just obligations, and who disregarded the sanctity of covenants.<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 5. If brethren dwell together, and one of them die. This law has some similarity with that which permits a betrothed person to return to the wife, whom he has not yet taken; since the object of both is to preserve to every man what he possesses, so that he may not be obliged to leave it to strangers, but that he may have heirs begotten of his own body: for, when a son succeeds to the father, whom he represents, there seems to be hardly any change made. Hence, too, it is manifest how greatly pleasing to God it is that no one should be deprived of his property, since He makes a provision even for the dying, that what they could not resign to others without regret and annoyance, should be preserved to their offspring. Unless, therefore, his kinsman should obviate the dead man’s childlessness, this inhumanity is accounted a kind of theft. For, since to be childless was a curse of God, it was a consolation in this condition to hope for a borrowed offspring, that the name might not be altogether extinct. <\/p>\n Since we now understand the intention of the law, we must also observe that the word brethren does not mean actual brothers, but cousins, and other kinsmen, whose marriage with the widows of their relative would not have been incestuous; otherwise God would contradict Himself. But these two things are quite compatible, that no one should uncover the nakedness of his brother, and yet that a widow should not marry out of her husband’s family, until she had raised up seed to him from some relation. In fact, Boaz did not marry Ruth because he was the brother of her deceased husband, but only his near kinsman. If any should object that it is not probable that other kinsmen should dwell together, I reply that this passage is improperly supposed to refer to actual living together, as if they dwelt in the same house, but that the precept is merely addressed to relations, whose near residence rendered it convenient to take the widows to their own homes; for, if any lived far away, liberty was accorded to both to seek the fulfillment of the provision elsewhere. Surely it is not probable that God would have authorized an incestuous marriage, which He had before expressed His abomination of. Nor can it be doubted, as I have above stated, but that the like necessity was imposed upon the woman of offering herself to the kinsman of her former husband; and although there was harshness in this, still she seemed to owe this much to his memory, that she should willingly raise up seed to the deceased; yet, if any one think differently, I will not contend the point with him. If, however, she were not obliged to do so, it was absurd that she should voluntarily obtrude herself: nor was there any other reason why she should bring to trial the kinsman, from whom she had suffered a repulse, except that she might acquire the liberty of marrying into another family. Yet it is not probable that he was to be condemned to an ignominious punishment, without being admitted to make his defense, because sometimes just reasons for refusal might be alleged. This disgrace, therefore, was only a penalty for inhumanity or avarice. By giving up his shoe, he renounced his right of relationship, and gave it up to another: for, by behaving so unkindly towards the dead, he became unworthy of reaping any of the advantages of his relationship. <\/p>\n (18) THE FAMILY NAME: LEVIRATE MARRIAGE (Deu. 25:5-10<\/span>)<\/p>\n 5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married without unto a stranger: her husbands brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husbands brother unto her, 6 And it shall be, that the first-born that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, that his name not be blotted out of Israel. 7 And if the man like not to take his brothers wife, then his brothers wife shall go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husbands brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husbands brother unto me. 8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand, and say, I like not to take her; 9 then shall his brothers wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto the man that doth not build up his brothers house. 10 And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.<\/p>\n THOUGHT QUESTIONS 25:510<\/p>\n 438.<\/p>\n What of the preferences of the husbands wife? Is she not to be considered at all in the second marriage? Discuss.<\/p>\n 439.<\/p>\n Why would the brother of the deceased refuse to marry his brothers widow? Give two or three possible reasons.<\/p>\n 440.<\/p>\n What possible symbolic relation does the loosing of the shoe have with this transaction?<\/p>\n 441.<\/p>\n Why spit in the face?<\/p>\n 442.<\/p>\n Read Gen. 38:6-11<\/span> for the practice of this custom long before it was recorded as law.<\/p>\n 443.<\/p>\n Read also Rth. 4:7-13<\/span> and Mat. 22:23-33<\/span> for further examples.<\/p>\n AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 25:510<\/p>\n 5 If brothers live together, and one of them dies and has no son, his wife shall not marry outside the family to a stranger [an excluded man]; her husbands brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husbands brother to her. COMMENT 25:510<\/p>\n Here we have the first time this instruction is recorded as a law in Israel. But it apparently had been a command of God for several centuries: Gen. 38:6-11<\/span>. And it was still being practiced during Christs ministry Mat. 22:23-33<\/span>.<\/p>\n The law accords with the strong family ties in the Jewish economy, and the great reproach felt by them if no children were born to the marriage. As is so vividly described in the book of Ruth, the later custom in Israel was for another kinsman to assume this responsibility if it was refused by the brother or near kinsman. Thus Boaz purchased (redeemed) this marriage right from Ruths near kinsman (Rth. 4:7-13<\/span>).<\/p>\n LOOSE HIS SHOE (Deu. 25:9<\/span>)Possibly symbolizing a releasing of his authority or rights over his brothers wife.<\/p>\n SPIT IN HIS FACE (Deu. 25:9<\/span>)An expression of utmost contempt, Num. 12:14<\/span>, Job. 17:6<\/span>; Job. 30:10<\/span>. Insult is added to injury by the title with which he would be known (Deu. 25:10<\/span>). By both means he would be publicly disgraced.<\/p>\n The design of this institution was obviously to preserve a family from becoming extinct and to secure the property of the family from passing on to a stranger.<\/p>\n Deu. 25:5-10<\/span>. LEVIRATE MARRIAGES.<\/strong><\/p>\n (5) If brethren dwell together.<\/strong>This law is made the subject of a whole treatise in the Talmud, called Yebmth. <\/em>The object of the law was held to be attained if the family of the dead man was perpetuated, and did not become extinct. And therefore the marriage specified was not necessarily between the brother and the brothers wife, but might be between other representatives of the two persons in question. (See Ruth 4<\/span>)<\/p>\n The law is older than Moses. We first hear of it in the household of Judah the son of Jacob (Gen. 38:8<\/span>). The violation of the law then was punished with death, <\/em>not with disgrace only.<\/p>\n But that which makes the law most memorable, is the teaching elicited from the lips of our Saviour by the question which the Sadducees raised upon it (see marginal reference). It is worth while to observe that the law itself demands that in some sense there should be a resurrection. <\/em>Boaz puts it thus (Rth. 4:5<\/span>), to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance. Why should the name of the dead be kept up, if the dead has passed out of existence? We may well believe that this law was partly intended (like baptism for the dead, or like giving children the names of their departed progenitors) for the express purpose of keeping alive the hope of resurrection in the minds of the chosen people.<\/p>\n (11,12) Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
6 And the first-born son shall succeed to the name of the dead brother, that his name be not blotted out of Israel.
7 And if the man does not want to take his brothers wife, then let his brothers wife go up to the gate to the elders, and say, My husbands brother refuses to continue his brothers name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of my husbands brother.
8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him; and if he stands firm and says, I do not want to take her.
9 Then shall his brothers wife come to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his shoe off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer, So shall it be done to that man who does not build up his brothers house.
10 And his family shall be called in Israel, The house of him whose shoe was loosed.<\/p>\nFuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n