If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no son, the wife of the dead shall not marry a stranger abroad her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him as wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her.
A man dies with no son. His family line is about to vanish, and this law hands the problem to his brother. Commentators trace it to Boaz, to Christ, and to a test put to Jesus by men who denied the resurrection.
This law sits among rules that reach into the smallest corners of daily life.
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.
The wording is narrow, and the limits matter.
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.
Losing a family name in Israel carried the weight of God's displeasure. One writer adds that it also touched a hope every Hebrew woman held.
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.
This law is an exception, tied to something only Israel had.
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.
The book of Ruth shows this law in action. Commentators read its two kinsmen as a picture.
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.
Another writer sees the same Kinsman's duty done on a far greater scale.
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, a group who denied that the dead rise, used this law to argue against it. Jesus answered them twice over: from the state of risen people, and from the same books of Moses they were quoting.
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.
- Mercy — the rule sits among laws in Deuteronomy 24–25 about mercy and goodness in everyday household life.
- Name — it applied only to brothers living together when one died with no son, so the dead man's name would remain in Israel.
- Disgrace — Israel saw childlessness and a blotted-out name as a mark of God's displeasure, so God made sure no family need die out.
- Kinsman — Boaz did this duty for Ruth when the nearer relative could not. Commentators read that kinsman as the law, helpless to redeem, and Boaz as Christ.
- Resurrection — the Sadducees used this law against the resurrection. Jesus showed from Moses that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob still exist, since God was still their God.
And it shall be, that the firstborn that she beareth shall stand in the name of his brother who is dead, that his name be not blotted out from Israel.
This verse sets the rule for what happens after a man marries his dead brother's widow: her first son counts as the dead man's son, not his own father's, so the dead man's name is not lost from Israel. That raises two questions — why God cared so much about a family name, and what it pictures beyond Israel.
The provision is narrow, and only the first child carries the dead man's name.
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.
Losing a name in Israel was not a sentimental loss. It carried the weight of God's displeasure, and the law worked to prevent it.
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.
The name was not saved on its own. It stayed with the family's land. That is why this duty later went together with buying back property.
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).
A man could refuse. What followed was not execution but a lasting public brand.
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 is the clearest example of this law kept. The result went far beyond one name on a list.
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.
The relative who hands over his sandal pictures the law itself — able to claim, but unable to give life.
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.
This law was later turned into an argument that the dead do not rise. Jesus answered from a different passage.
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.
- Name first. The firstborn of the new marriage took the dead man's name, so his name stayed alive in Israel instead of ending with him.
- Name with land. The name stayed alive together with the family's land, so each household kept its inheritance for good.
- Name refused. A man could refuse. Then the widow pulled off his sandal and spat in his face, and his house carried that name from then on.
- Name revived. Boaz risked his own inheritance, and the house he revived rose to royal honour — David came from it in the third generation.
- Name only grace can raise. The law cannot raise up the name of the dead. It hands its rights over to Christ, the only Redeemer who can.