Deuteronomy 25:5

Deuteronomy 25:5-6 . If brethren dwell together — In the same town, or, at least, country. For if the next brother had removed his habitation into remote parts, or were carried thither into captivity, then the wife of the dead had her liberty to marry the next kinsman that lived in the same place with her. One — Any of them, for the words are general, and the reason of the law was to keep up the distinction of tribes and families, that so the Messiah might be discovered by the family from which he was appointed to proceed; and also of inheritances, which were divided among all the brethren, the firstborn having only a double portion. A stranger — To one of another family. That his name be not put out — That a family be not lost. So this was a provision that the number of their families might not be diminished.

Deuteronomy 25:5-10 . LEVIRATE MARRIAGES. (5) If brethren dwell together.—This law is made the subject of a whole treatise in the Talmud, called Yebâmôth. The object of the law was held to be attained if the family of the dead man was perpetuated, and did not become extinct. And therefore the marriage specified was not necessarily between the brother and the brother’s wife, but might be between other representatives of the two persons in question. (See Ruth 4) The law is older than Moses. We first hear of it in the household of Judah the son of Jacob (Genesis 38:8). The violation of the law then was punished with death, not with disgrace only. But that which makes the law most memorable, is the teaching elicited from the lips of our Saviour by the question which the Sadducees raised upon it (see marginal reference). It is worth while to observe that the law itself demands that in some sense there should be a resurrection. Boaz puts it thus (Ruth 4:5), “to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance.” Why should the name of the dead be kept up, if the dead has passed out of existence? We may well believe that this law was partly intended (like baptism for the dead, or like giving children the names of their departed progenitors) for the express purpose of keeping alive the hope of resurrection in the minds of the chosen people. (11,12) When men strive together. . . .—Another precept of humanity.

In Exodus 21:22, “If men strive and hurt a woman with child,” punishment or compensation must follow. The law in this place is the counterpart of that. Men must be protected as well as women. Putteth forth her hand and taketh him.—“Him,” i.e., him that smiteth her husband. The precept is to enforce modesty as well as to protect humanity.

Verses 5-10. - Levirate marriages . If a man who was married died without issue, his surviving brother was required to marry the widow, so as to raise up a successor to the deceased, who should be his heir. The brother who refused this duty must be publicly disgraced. The design of this institution - which was not originated by Moses, but came down from early times ( Genesis 38:8 ), and is to be found amongst ether nations than the Jews, and that even in the present day - was to preserve a family from becoming extinct and to secure the property of a family from passing into the hands of a stranger. The notion that the usage "had its natural roots in the desire inherent in man who is born for immortality, and connected with the hitherto undeveloped belief in an eternal life, to secure a continued personal existence for himself and immortality for his name through the perpetuation of his family, and in the life of the son who took his place" (Keil), seems wholly fanciful. Verse 5. - Dwell together ; i . e . not necessarily in the same house, but in the same community or place (cf. Genesis 13:6 ; Genesis 36:7 ). And have no child ; literally, have no son; but this is rightly interpreted as meaning child ( so the LXX.; Vulgate; Josephus, 'Antiq.,' 4:8, 23; Matthew 22:25 ; Madmen., 'In Jibbum.,' 2:6-9); for, if the deceased left a daughter, the perpetuation of the family and the retention of the property might be secured through her (cf. Numbers 27:4 , etc.). Deuteronomy 25:5

If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her {d} husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. (d) Because the Hebrew word does not signify the natural brother, and the word that signifies a brother, is taken also for a kinsman: it seems that it does not mean that the natural brother should marry his brothers wife, but some other kindred that was in the degree that might marry.

Brethren; strictly so called, as is evident from Deu 25:7 Genesis 38:8 Ruth 1:13 Matthew 22:24,25 . Dwell together; either, 1. Strictly, in the same house or family; which is not probable, because the married brother may be presumed to have left his father’s house, and set up a family of his own. Or, 2. More largely, in the same town or city, or, at least, country. This is added for a relief of their consciences, that if the next brother had removed his habitation into remote parts, or were carried thither into captivity, which God foresaw would be their case, then the wife of the dead had her liberty to marry to the next kinsman that lived in the same place with her. One of them ; either, 1. The first and eldest of them, as it was practised, Genesis 38:6 , &c., and expounded, Matthew 22:25 ; one being oft put for the first, as Genesis 1:5 2:11 Haggai 1:1 Mark 16:2 . And the chief care was about the first-born, who were invested with singular privileges, and were types of Christ. Or, 2. Any of them, for the words are general, and so the practice may seem to have been, Rth 3 ; and the reason of the law may seem to be in a great measure the same, which was to keep up the distinction, as of tribes and families, that so the Messias might be discovered by the family from which he was appointed to proceed, so also of inheritances, which were divided among all the brethren, the first-born having only a double portion. Have no child, Heb. no son .

But son is oft put for any child , male or female, both in Scripture and other authors; and therefore the Hebrew no son is rendered no child here, as it is in effect, Matthew 22:24 Mark 12:19 Luke 20:28 . And indeed this caution was not necessary when there was a daughter, whose child might be adopted into the name and family of its grandfather. Unto a stranger, i.e. to one of another family, as that word is oft used. Her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, except he was married himself, as may appear by other scriptures, and by the reason of the thing, and, as some add, from the phrase of dwelling together , to wit, in their father’s family.

The law of levirate marriage. The law on this subject is not unique to the Jews, but is found (see Genesis 38:8 ) in all essential respects the same among various Oriental nations, ancient and modern. The rules in these verses, like those upon divorce, do but incorporate existing immemorial usages, and introduce various wise and politic limitations and mitigations of them. The root of the obligation here imposed upon the brother of the deceased husband lies in the primitive idea of childlessness being a great calamity (compare Genesis 16:4 ; and note), and extinction of name and family one of the greatest that could happen (compare Deuteronomy 9:14 ; Psalm 109:12-15 ). To avert this the ordinary rules as to intermarriage are in the case in question (compare Leviticus 18:16 ) set aside. The obligation was onerous (compare Ruth 4:6 ), and might be repugnant; and it is accordingly considerably reduced and restricted by Moses. The duty is recognized as one of affection for the memory of the deceased; it is not one which could be enforced at law. That it continued down to the Christian era is apparent from the question on this point put to Jesus by the Sadducees (see the marginal references). Deuteronomy 25:5 No child - literally, "no son." The existence of a daughter would clearly suffice. The daughter would inherit the name and property of the father; compare Numbers 27:1-11.

5-10. the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother … shall take her to him to wife—This usage existed before the age of Moses (Ge 38:8). But the Mosaic law rendered the custom obligatory (Mt 22:25) on younger brothers, or the nearest kinsman, to marry the widow (Ru 4:4), by associating the natural desire of perpetuating a brother's name with the preservation of property in the Hebrew families and tribes. If the younger brother declined to comply with the law, the widow brought her claim before the authorities of the place at a public assembly (the gate of the city); and he having declared his refusal, she was ordered to loose the thong of his shoe—a sign of degradation—following up that act by spitting on the ground—the strongest expression of ignominy and contempt among Eastern people. The shoe was kept by the magistrate as an evidence of the transaction, and the parties separated.

5 . brethren ] of the same mother. In the Sg. passages, as we have seen, brother is fellow-Israelite. dwell together ] On the same estate (cp. Genesis 13:6 ; Genesis 36:7 ); this limitation is striking. son ] LXX seed , followed by Jos. IV. Antt. viii. 23, and in Matthew 22:24 , Mark 12:19 . Luke 20:28 has children . So Vulg. and most moderns, A.V. child . But the LXX and the quotations in the gospels are evidently under the influence of the later law of P which allowed inheritance by daughters. See introd. note. Son , R.V., is the proper rendering. without unto a stranger ] Outside the family. Stranger, ‘ish zar , is a man of another family. Cp. Proverbs 5:10 , Hosea 5:7 , Leviticus 22:12 . husband’s brother … perform the duty of an husband’s brother ] Heb. yabam , and the demon. verb therefrom, yibbem, to act as a husband’s brother . 5–10. Of Levirate Marriage If, of brothers dwelling together, one die childless, his widow shall not marry beyond the family, her husband’s brother shall marry her, and their firstborn be the dead man’s heir and continue his name in Israel ( Deuteronomy 25:5 f.). But if the husband’s brother decline this duty, even if after it is pressed on him by the elders, then, in their presence, shall the widow formally dishonour him as a recusant to the family, and the dishonour shall adhere ( Deuteronomy 25:7-10 ).—Peculiar to D’s code, but neither in the direct address nor with D’s phraseology.

It has the same opening, the same care in putting the case, the same style of introducing conditions ( but if and not D’s only = rak , see on Deuteronomy 10:15 ) and of accumulating these, as the other marriage laws, Deuteronomy 21:15-17 , Deuteronomy 22:13-21 , Deuteronomy 24:1-4 ; and, like them, it brings in the elders . Probably, therefore, as we have suggested in regard to them, it is a law taken by D from a previous code. Cp. Dillmann who also points out that the terms like not to, refuseth and go up to the gate are not current in D. There is nothing to betray whether D has modified the law. Steuern. assigns it, with those other laws, to his Pl. author. Heb. had not only a special term for a husband’s brother, yabam , but a vb. derived from it, yibbem , to express his duty of marrying his brother’s widow; the adj. Levirate similarly comes from Lat. levir , husband’s brother. The use of these Heb. terms by this law proves that the practice was already established in Israel. Levirate marriage in different forms is found among many peoples. Hindoo law sanctions it in case of no male issue by the first marriage, and only till the birth of a son. But in India of course, the re-marriage of even virgin widows has always been strongly opposed (Dubois, Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies , trans. by Beauchamp with notes, 2nd ed. 24, 215, 358).