Deuteronomy 25:5–10

In the rest of Deuteronomy 24, and in Deuteronomy 25, we again find many rules of mercy and goodness for the people, even in the most ordinary matters of household life. They cover not the wife only, but one's fellows, servants too, strangers, harvests and vineyards, down to the care of the cattle.

This law applied only where brothers lived together. If one of them was married but died with no son, his brother was not to marry an outsider. He was to take his dead brother's widow as his wife (v.5). (Of course, this was only where the living brother had not married before.) If the new couple then had a son, that son was to be the successor of the first husband, so that his name would remain in Israel (v.6). Any sons born after that would be sons of the second husband.

There was a merciful provision in the law (Deut. 25:5-10) that no man's family should be allowed to die out, while a brother survived to carry on the line. In Israel, to be childless was a disgrace. For a man's name to be blotted out — his family to die out — was regarded as a special mark of God's displeasure... It was provision for the earthly life, not the future one, that God had made... His provision also seems to recognise the hope in the heart of every Hebrew woman: that through her, in some way, the promise of "the woman's seed" might be fulfilled.

A marked exception was needed to keep up tribal inheritance in Israel: a levirate, or brother-in-law, marriage. Such marriages existed elsewhere, but they applied to no other people as they did to Israel, and still less to a Christian. This applied when a man died childless, and his brother or next of kin was called to raise up offspring for the dead man. The aim was to bind up the family line and the inheritance. So much so, that if the nearer kinsman refused, the widow had the right to loose his shoe in public and spit in his face.

This is why, in Ruth 4:1-8, a closer relative than Boaz had his sandal taken off when he could not take the place of husband to Ruth. This relative represents the law, which was in close relationship to Israel, but was helpless to redeem that nation. Boaz pictures the Lord Jesus, the only One who can redeem, to build up the house of one whose hope was gone.

Our Lord Jesus made Himself our Kinsman, and He has done a Kinsman's part in ways that outshine every comparison. Like a more self-sacrificing Boaz, at a price that cost Him everything, He has relieved not only a childless, penniless kinsman, but one who was guilty and ruined and sold into dishonourable captivity.

The Sadducees of that day, like many people since, could imagine nothing different from what they had known. Here marriages take place. So in their thinking, if there was a resurrection, marriages must happen in heaven too. Their conclusion was wrong. Marriages do not take place among the saints in heaven. Death does not reign there; so marriage, by which the race is continued on earth, has no place on high... How simply the tables were turned. Deut. 25:5 showed, in their eyes, the folly of looking for a resurrection. Ex. 3:6 clearly implied a resurrection. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had died long before God spoke to Moses like this; yet He was still their God. So they did exist, for He is not a God of that which has no existence.

This law applied only where brothers were living together. If one of them was married but died with no son, his brother was not to marry an outsider. He was to take his dead brother's widow as his wife (v.5)... But if that new marriage produced a son, the son was to be the successor of the first husband, so that his name would remain in Israel (v.6). After that any sons born would be those of the second husband.

The law made a merciful provision (Deut. 25:5-10) that no man's family should die out while a brother was still alive to carry on the line. In Israel, being childless was a disgrace. For a man's name to be blotted out — for his family to die out — was seen as a special mark of God's displeasure... His provision also seems to recognise the hope in every Hebrew woman's heart that through her the promise of "the woman's seed" might somehow be fulfilled. That was fulfilled literally in the family line kept alive through Ruth.

This required marriage followed the provision made in Jehovah's law (Deut. 25:6), so that the family name would continue together with the family's own land, even though its head had died with no heir. That had happened to both Elimelech and his two sons. And it was Jehovah's will that the inheritance of each family of the righteous people should stay theirs for ever (Lev. 25:23).

The law did not say that a man who ignored such claims must die or be stoned. But deep reproach and lasting shame were to rest on the Jewish brother in a case like this... Suppose the brother refused this duty and would not raise up the name of his dead, childless brother on his inheritance and among the families of the land. Then the widow was to come, pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face. From then on his house was to be called "the house of him who had his sandal pulled off."

Boaz redeems her inheritance, and marries her. He is not afraid of spoiling his own inheritance. He gives himself to the interests of his dead relative and of the childless, penniless widow he had left behind. This marriage, and the redemption of the inheritance that went with it, brings the house of Mahlon back to life and lifts it to royal honour... David, who sat on the throne of Israel, came from it in the third generation.

No, the law certainly cannot raise up the name of the dead on his inheritance. Only the power of God in grace can meet the need pictured here. The relative hands over his sandal — the sign of taking possession — to the One who has the power. The law gives its witness and yields its rights to Christ, and He is declared the only possible Redeemer.

Next the Sadducees came forward with their question, which they thought denied the resurrection. They had referred to Deut. 25:5. He answered them from Ex. 3:6. They thought the rule about marrying a brother's widow showed that a bodily resurrection was impossible. But they left out two important things: the power of God, and the teaching of the Scriptures (Mark 12:24). People in the resurrection state will be equal to the angels. They will never die, and marriage is unknown there. Also, God's word to Moses (Ex. 3:6) implied resurrection. So they were badly wrong.

There was a merciful provision in the law (Deut. 25:5-10) that no man's family should die out while a brother was alive to carry on the line. In Israel, to be childless was a reproach. If a man's name was blotted out and his family died out, people took it as a special mark of God's displeasure. There seems, too, to be a recognition in His provision of that hope in the heart of every Hebrew woman: that through her, in some way, the promise of "the woman's seed" might be fulfilled. This was to happen literally in the line preserved through Ruth.

If the new marriage produced a son, he was to be the successor of the first husband, so that his name would remain in Israel (v.6). Any sons born after him would belong to the second husband.

It might be, however, that the man would not want his brother's wife. In this case the wife could bring the matter to the court at the gate of the city. The elders could then call the man and try to persuade him to marry the widow (vs.7-8).

The law did not say that a man who ignored such claims must die or be stoned. Instead, deep reproach and lasting shame were to lie on the Jewish brother in such a case... If the brother refused to raise up the name of his dead and childless brother on the inheritance, the widow was to come to him. She was to pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face. From then on his house was to be called "the house of him who had his sandal pulled off." He was not to be stoned; he was to carry a mark instead.

Spitting speaks of the contempt of one man for the other. The removed sandal signified the weakness the man confessed in the presence of someone greater.

The law is really the next of kin to man; but he is dead, and it cannot raise him from the dead.

No, the law certainly cannot raise up the name of the dead on his inheritance. The power of God in grace alone can meet the need pictured here. The kinsman passes his shoe — the sign of entering upon possession — to him in whom power is. The law testifies and yields its rights to Christ, and He is declared the only possible Redeemer.

So with us. In the New Testament the Holy Spirit may not write a sentence of death against a believer who is indifferent to the duties of brotherhood, or to the claims of his new family in Christ. But, as under the law, He puts reproach on him. "But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?" The spitting in the face was a vivid mark of God's distaste toward the Jew who refused the claims of his brother. This challenge — "How does God's love abide in him?" — shows in the same way the distance between the mind of God and such a Christian brother.

The law made a merciful provision (Deut. 25:5-10): no man's family should die out while a brother was still alive to carry on the line. In Israel, being childless was a disgrace. If a man's name was blotted out and his family died out, people saw it as a special mark of God's displeasure… His provision also seems to recognize the hope in the heart of every Hebrew woman: that through her, in some way, the promise of "the woman's seed" might be fulfilled. That was fulfilled literally in the line preserved through Ruth.

The law did not say that a man who ignored such claims must die or be stoned. But deep reproach and lasting shame were to rest on the Jewish brother in such a case… He was not to be stoned. Instead he carried a mark, left standing like a pillar of salt.

The law itself grew out of an old custom, one we already find in Genesis 38:8-11. Moses recognized here that the custom was not compulsory.

Taking off the shoe was also an ancient custom. According to Ruth 4:7, people used it in cases of redemption and exchange, to confirm a business deal. The custom began this way: a man took possession of land by treading on the soil, claiming his right to it by standing on it in his shoes. So taking off the shoe and handing it to another became a symbol of giving up a man's position and property.

The wife could bring the matter to the court, at the gate of the city, and the elders could call the man and try to persuade him to marry the widow… This is why, in Ruth 4:1-8, a relative closer than Boaz had his sandal taken off when he could not take the place of husband to Ruth. Taking off the sandal had become a custom in Israel, but spitting in the face is not mentioned there. Spitting speaks of one person's contempt for another. The removed sandal confessed weakness in the presence of someone greater — just as the law must confess its weakness next to Christ, the Man of strength and of infinite grace.

No, the law certainly cannot raise up the name of the dead on his inheritance. The power of God in grace alone can meet the need pictured here. The kinsman passes his shoe — the sign of entering into possession — to the one in whom power lies. The law testifies and yields its rights to Christ, and He is declared the only possible Redeemer.

The nearer kinsman was more closely related to Naomi than Boaz was. So he seems to picture our fellow man rather than the law. Man has no nearer kinsman than those of his own flesh and blood.

In the New Testament the Holy Spirit may not write a death sentence against a believer who ignores the duties of brotherhood, or the claims of his new family in Christ. But, as under the law, He puts reproach on him. "Whoever has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?"… This challenge shows the distance between the mind of God and such a Christian brother.

The law in Deuteronomy 25 teaches us that an Israelite had to marry his brother's widow if that brother had died childless. He was to raise up seed to his brother, so that the firstborn of that marriage would secure his brother's name and inheritance. If he refused this service to his dead brother, he faced public shame, and a mark of disgrace was fixed on him.

Israel needed a special exception to keep up tribal inheritance: levirate marriage, that is, marriage to a brother-in-law. The custom existed elsewhere, but it applied to no other people as it did to Israel, and still less to a Christian.

The law made a merciful provision (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). No man's family was to die out while a brother lived to continue the line. In Israel, to be childless was a reproach. A man's name blotted out — his family gone — was seen as a special mark of God's displeasure. The Sadducees, in our Lord's day, might try to ridicule the truth of resurrection by bringing in this merciful provision. But they only showed their ignorance of "the Scriptures and the power of God." God had made this provision for the earthly life, not the future one.

The law did not say that a man who left such claims unanswered must face death or stoning. Deep reproach and lasting shame were to lie on him instead. If the brother refused this duty, and would not raise up the name of his dead and childless brother on the inheritance and among the families of the land, his house from then on was to be called "The house of him who had his sandal pulled off." He was not to be stoned, but to have a mark put on him.

If he firmly refused to marry her, the widow was allowed to remove the sandal from his foot and spit in his face. At the same time she said, "So shall it be done to the man who will not build up his brother's house." This is why, in Ruth 4:1-8, a closer relative than Boaz had his sandal taken off when he could not take the place of husband to Ruth. This relative stands for the law. The law was in close relationship to Israel, but it was helpless to redeem that nation. Boaz pictures the Lord Jesus, the only One who can redeem and build up the house of one whose hope was gone. By that time, taking off the sandal had become a custom in Israel, but spitting in the face is not mentioned. Spitting speaks of one person's contempt for another. The sandal removed signified weakness confessed in the presence of a superior, just as the law must confess its weakness compared with Christ, the Man of strength and of infinite grace.

So with us. In the New Testament the Holy Spirit may not write a sentence of death against a believer who is indifferent to the duties of brotherhood, or to the claims of his new family in Christ. But, as under the law, He puts reproach on him. "If anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?" The spitting in the face was a vivid mark of God's distaste toward the Jew who refused his brother's claims in this way. This challenge — "How does God's love abide in him?" — shows the same distance between the mind of God and such a Christian brother.