Question 1

What is the purpose of the brother marrying the dead man’s widow?

Accepted Answer

This law was meant to protect the dead man’s name and property in Israel. If a married man died without children, a close male relative was to marry the widow and have a child with her. The first son from that union would legally count as the dead man’s son and carry his name. This kept his line from dying out and kept his share of the land from passing to strangers. It was also a way to show kindness to the widow, keeping her within the family she had already joined.

Question 2

Why is the firstborn child named after the dead brother in this passage?

Accepted Answer

The firstborn from this new marriage was counted as the child of the man who had died. His name went into the family records as the dead man’s heir. In that culture, having descendants and keeping a place in Israel’s family lists really mattered. To die without a child was seen as a heavy loss. So this law kindly let a man, in a sense, still have children through his brother or close relative, so that “his name be not put out of Israel.”

Question 3

What happens if the brother refuses to marry the widow, and why is his shoe removed?

Accepted Answer

If the relative refused to marry the widow and raise up a child for his dead brother, the widow could go to the city gate and tell the elders. They would speak with the man and urge him to do his duty. If he still refused, the widow would take his shoe off his foot in front of the elders and spit in his face. Losing the shoe showed he was giving up his right as a kinsman. The spitting and the new family nickname marked his shame for refusing to care for his brother’s name.

Question 4

What does the phrase “the house of him that hath his shoe loosed” mean?

Accepted Answer

This was the label given to the man and his family after he refused to marry his dead brother’s widow. By having his shoe taken off, he publicly gave up his right to act as a close relative. From then on, people would remember his choice by that phrase. It was like a lasting mark of shame that said, “This man would not help build up his brother’s house.” The law shows that God cares about how we treat our relatives and whether we protect their honor when they cannot speak for themselves.

Question 5

Why does this passage command cutting off a woman’s hand when she grabs a man’s private parts?

Accepted Answer

The second law in this passage speaks about a fight between two men. If a wife tries to help her husband by grabbing the other man’s private parts, her hand was to be cut off. This sounds very harsh to us, but it shows how seriously God views modesty and respect for the body. Even in a heated struggle, a woman was not allowed to act in a gross or shameless way. The strong penalty warned the whole community that some actions are not excused, even when we think we are helping someone we love.

Question 6

Why is this passage so strict about modesty and public decency?

Accepted Answer

These commands teach that God cares not only about big, public sins, but also about how men and women handle their bodies and treat each other. The first law protects a brother’s name and the widow’s place in the family. The second law protects modesty and keeps people from using shameful acts even in a fight. Both show that family, honor, and sexual purity matter to God. The strong language and penalties were there to put a fence around these things so that the people would fear to cross the line.

Question 7

How were the elders at the city gate involved in these family matters?

Accepted Answer

The elders sat at the city gate as community leaders and judges. In the levirate marriage case, the widow came to them to report that the kinsman refused his duty. They called the man, listened, and tried to persuade him. If he still refused, the shameful act with the shoe and spitting happened in their presence. This made sure everything was done openly and fairly. Their role shows that family matters in Israel were not hidden but were tied to the wider community’s order and justice.

Question 8

Does this passage mean only actual brothers were required to marry the widow?

Accepted Answer

The wording in this passage can refer not only to a man’s blood brother but also to close male relatives. In the wider teaching of Scripture, this duty fell on the nearest suitable kinsman, not necessarily a full brother. The goal was that someone in the same family line, who could lawfully marry the widow, would step in and raise up a child in the dead man’s name. Faithful readers have understood the details in slightly different ways, but the main point is the protection of the family line and inheritance.

Question 9

What does this passage show about God’s heart for inheritance and family names?

Accepted Answer

This passage shows that God did not want a man’s name and land to simply vanish when he died without children. He made a way for a relative to step in and give the dead man a sort of “borrowed” offspring. That child would carry on his name and keep his portion in Israel. God also guarded modesty and purity in the community. So both laws together show that God cares about family continuity, about how we treat widows, and about keeping sexual matters within the bounds of honor and shamefacedness.

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 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.

Widowhood and Marriage

metadata.crossReferences

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 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.

share.title

share.allVerses

share.verseWithContext

share.currentVerse

Widowhood and Marriage

metadata.crossReferences