But if the man like not to take his brother's wife, his brother's wife shall 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 for me the duty of a husband's brother.
A childless widow stands at the city gate and names the man who will not do a brother's part for her. Her complaint raises two questions: why did a dead man's name matter so much in Israel, and what happened when the one man who could save it refused?
The law she appeals to exists to stop a family line from ending:
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.
The first son of the new marriage stepped into the dead man's place:
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.
The woman is not left helpless. The law gives her a hearing before the elders:
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).
If he still refuses, the punishment is not what you would expect. He is not put to death; he is marked:
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.
The two acts carried different meanings:
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.
Commentators see a larger picture here. The law itself has a limit when it meets death:
The law is really the next of kin to man; but he is dead, and it cannot raise him from the dead.
The sandal does not only shame a man. It passes on to someone with power:
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.
One writer carries this over to believers today:
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.
- Name. The law kept an Israelite's family line and inheritance from disappearing. The first son of the new marriage carried the dead man's name.
- Voice. The widow was not powerless — she could take her case to the elders at the gate, and they were to press the man to act.
- Shame. Refusal brought no death sentence, only a permanent public mark: sandal pulled off, face spat on, house renamed.
- Helplessness. Writers see the man who will not act as a picture of the law itself — closely related to us, but unable to raise the dead.
- Redeemer. The shoe passes to Christ, the only Redeemer with power — and the duty of brotherly love now tests believers toward their own family in Christ.
Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak unto him; and if he stand to it and say, I like not to take her;
A widow's husband has died without a son. The nearest brother will not marry her, so she brings the case to the town's elders. They summon him and reason with him. This verse records what he says when he stands his ground.
A man dies childless. The law then bound his nearest surviving relative to the dead man's family. One writer gives the reason for that rule — and its penalty:
One marked exception was needed to keep up tribal inheritance in Israel. It existed elsewhere too, but it applied to no other people as it did to them, and still less to a Christian: a levirate, or brother-in-law, marriage. It came into force when a man died childless. The law then called his brother or next of kin to raise up children for the dead man. The aim was to bind together the family line and the inheritance. The tie was so strong that if the nearer kinsman refused, the widow had the right to loose his shoe in public and spit in his face.
The rule was also a mercy. In Israel, a family line dying out was a disgrace:
There was a merciful provision in the law (Deuteronomy 25:5-10) that the law would not let a man's family die out while a brother survived to carry on the line. In Israel, to be childless was a reproach. And if a man's name was blotted out — his family dying out — people counted it a special mark of God's displeasure.
The elders met in public, and the place mattered:
Boaz went to the "gate." Everyone recognised it as an open court of justice. There the older men of the city, known for wisdom and good name, examined civil and criminal cases. Moses authorised this form of local government in his final instructions to Israel on the borders of Canaan (compare Deuteronomy 16:18-20; Deuteronomy 25:7-9). So the elders of the city were its civil rulers, and God appointed them to that place. They rewarded and protected the good and punished the evil, with the authority of judges, according to His law.
The elders' first move was persuasion, and the widow started the process:
It might be, however, that the man would not want his brother's wife. In that case the wife could bring the matter to the court in the gate of the city. The elders could then call the man and try to persuade him to marry the widow (vv. 7-8). If he refused outright, the widow could remove the sandal from his foot and spit in his face. At the same time she would say, "So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother's house" (v. 9).
The man who stands his ground goes free — but not unmarked:
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. If the brother refused to raise up the name of his dead and childless brother, 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.
One writer reads this refusal as more than one man's failure. He links it to the story in Ruth:
The failure treated here as possible is, according to Ruth, the failure of the law — an ever-needed lesson. The law is really the next of kin to man; but he is dead, and it cannot raise him from the dead.
Leslie Grant, quoted earlier, reads the sandal and the spitting as pictures:
Boaz pictures the Lord Jesus, the only One who can redeem, and build up the house of one whose hope was gone. Spitting speaks of the contempt of one person for another. The sandal removed showed the confessed weakness of one man in the presence of a superior, just as the law must confess its weakness in contrast to Christ, the Man of strength and of infinite grace.
The same writer turns from Israel to Christians:
So with us. The Holy Spirit in the New Testament may not write a sentence of death against a believer who is careless about the duties of brotherhood, or about 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 towards the Jew who refused his brother's claims like this. That question — "How does God's love abide in him?" — shows in the same way how far the mind of God is from such a Christian brother.
- The claim — a dead man's name and inheritance had a claim on his living relative. No family in Israel was to die out while a brother lived.
- The court — the widow pressed that claim at the city gate. There the elders tried persuasion first, not punishment.
- The choice — the man was free to refuse. The law recorded his own words and did not force his hand.
- The mark — refusal brought no death sentence. It brought lasting reproach: the sandal pulled off, the face spat in, the house renamed.
- The Redeemer — the law is man's next of kin, but it cannot raise the dead. Boaz pictures the One who can.
then shall his brother's wife come near to him before the eyes of the elders, and draw his sandal from his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto the man that will not build up his brother's house.
A man has refused, in front of the town elders, to marry his dead brother's widow and keep that brother's name alive. What the widow then does is not a court sentence but a ceremony of shame.
Before the shame, there is the kindness the man is refusing. One writer explains why Israel took a childless death so seriously, and what hope hung on a family line continuing:
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 refusing brother is not executed, and he is not forced. One commentator marks the limit the law set here:
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 rule also reached back to an older practice, and it left the man a choice:
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.
The shoe carried a settled legal meaning in Israel:
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 widow could take the case to the elders first. If the man still refused, her two actions each said something different:
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.
Read alongside Ruth, this law becomes a picture. The man with the prior claim steps back, and everything passes to another:
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.
Commentators differ on who that nearer kinsman stands for. Reading the same scene in Ruth, another writer sees not the law but ordinary humanity:
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.
The shame attached to that ancient refusal still has an edge for readers today:
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.
- Duty — the law kept families in Israel from dying out. A surviving brother was to keep the dead man's name on his inheritance.
- Refusal — the man could say no. God did not compel him, and the practice itself was older than Moses.
- Shame — instead of death, a public mark. Spitting showed contempt, and the sandal pulled off confessed weakness.
- Transfer — a man took land by standing on it. So handing over the sandal handed over every claim to it, as in Ruth 4.
- Redeemer — the one who cannot redeem gives up his shoe to the One who can. The law yields its rights, and Christ alone raises up the name of the dead.