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.
And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe drawn off.
This verse gives the penalty for a man who refused to marry his dead brother's widow: a nickname that stuck to his whole household. Why did Israel treat that refusal so seriously, and why was the penalty shame instead of death?
The nickname is the last step in a law that starts at verse 5.
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.
This law had a name, and its reason lay in Israel's tribal land.
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.
A family line dying out was no private sadness in Israel.
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 penalty here stops short of death.
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.
The sandal and the spitting mean different things. Only one of them turns up again in the story of Ruth.
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.
One writer carries this into the Christian life, where the penalty is gone but not the reproach.
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.
- Duty. A living brother had to marry the childless widow. The firstborn son then carried the dead man's name and inheritance.
- Mercy. The law kept families in Israel from dying out. A name blotted out was seen as a special mark of God's displeasure.
- Refusal. The man who would not build up his brother's house lost his sandal and was spat on — open contempt, and weakness confessed.
- Reproach. God did not stone him. He marked him, and the mark passed to his whole household as a name.
- Reach. In Ruth, the nearer relative has his sandal taken off because he cannot redeem. Boaz pictures Christ, the only One able to build up a house whose hope was gone. The same reproach still rests on anyone who shuts his heart against his brother.