Joel M Bradshaw

5“If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 6And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.–Deuteronomy 25

Today’s passage formed the undercurrent of the story in the book of Ruth. It also formed the basis for the parable the Sadducees tossed at Jesus as they tried to prove the doctrine of the resurrection to be false. Mark 12…

19“Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. 20Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. 21The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. 22In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. 23At the resurrection  whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”

So it all came down to the dead brother not having a son to continue his name. If he had a son then the wife we assume was free to marry (especially if her children were young) or remain a widow. The son would eventually take care of her needs.

The living brother would have to take on the responsibilities of a husband to another wife. He provided for her and her children. The first son they bore just wasn’t his. That son belonged to the dead father (who was thus considered HIS father). This means that as the living brother took on the dead brother’s house and property and could enjoy the fruits of the ground, that property would thus transfer to the son that technically was his, but was legally his brothers.

There were some that refused this arrangement. The rest of the chapter not quoted above spoke about if the living brother said NO. There would be discussions and eventually he would be publicly shamed with his name tarnished. The city elders would force the man’s sandal off his foot and spit in his face.

Interesting, in the Ruth story, the unnamed kinsman redeemer took his sandal off to ratify Boaz being the redeemer. I’m sure the situation was different, but maybe it’s because he didn’t want his sandal pulled off in shame! No, the text in Ruth told us that giving a sandal is what they did.

The honor the dead brother meant providing for his family and continuing his name. Some jerks would accept the perks, but refuse the duty. That was Judah’s son Onan’s error and it cost him his life. Genesis 38…

8Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.

This is an odd law by today’s standards. Most families would understand the ‘circle the wagons’ mentality of taking care of the widow and her children. Families take care of each other that way. They do not usually do the marriage and ‘produce an heir’ part of the matter. In the day remember the land stayed with families and was a spiritual connection to God as a daily reminder of his faithfulness to provide. It was exceedingly important that it remained in families.

God cared about the dead man without an heir. God wanted that man’s name to continue and have a legacy. God thus cared for families and provided a means to continue his connection with them. To do so required a brother and his family to sacrifice for another. A sacrificial attitude honors God because it denies the self for the sake of another. To continue your brother’s name meant that you cared less for your own for a season. Humble sacrifice honors God.–JMB