The law we will study today has to do with marriage and property rights in the case of a man dying before he has produced an heir.
"If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel." (Deuteronomy 25:5-6) This is known as "levirate marriage", from the Latin word "levir" which means "brother-in-law", or "a husband's brother".
This type of marriage was practiced not only in ancient Israel but in many other ancient cultures. It not only protected and provided for the widow but it also allowed the dead man's property to remain in the family. A childless widow in those times almost had to remarry, if she could, because a woman without a husband or son to take care of her might find herself in dire financial straits. If the widow married outside the family then anything she inherited from her dead husband could end up belonging to another tribe or clan. For example, let's say a woman married a man from the tribe of Reuben but he died before producing a son. If one of his brothers does not marry her and have children with her, she will have to marry outside of the immediate family and possibly outside of the tribe of Reuben as well. This means any property she inherited from her dead husband will follow her new family line, not the family line of her late husband.
Some scholars believe a man was not required to marry the widow of his brother unless, as verse 5 says, the brothers had been "living together". (The surviving brother is assumed to be unmarried himself, although this is not certain since there are Biblical examples of men who had more than one wife.) But verse 5 indicates that the two brothers were both still living and working together on the family farm or working in the family business together. They were sharing the same property or the same business and were making their income as a team. If that's the case then we can see what a serious problem it would be if the widow married outside the family. Her new husband would become a shareholder in the family farm or business. The children she had with her new husband would inherit his shares upon his death. The property or business would end up being split in a number of ways over time among a number of shareholders. But if the widow marries her brother-in-law, their first son is to be named after her dead husband and will become the heir of the dead man's property, just as if he were the dead man's own biological son.
Suppose the widow and her new husband never have a son, only daughters? The word translated into English as "son" can also simply mean "child". I don't think they have to have a son in order to pass the property down to their offspring. I believe daughters would have the same inheritance rights as sons, based on Numbers 27:1-11 in which a man named Zelophehad died with no sons but with five daughters. These ladies appealed to Moses and Eleazar and all the elders of Israel and said, "Why should our father's name disappear from his clan because he had no son?" In response to their question the Lord made this law: "If a man dies and leaves no son, give his inheritance to his daughter." So if the widow and her husband's brother, who is now her husband, have only female offspring, I believe the law of Numbers 27 applies and the property would pass down to the female heirs. The female heirs would likely be required to marry men of their same clan, for that was the requirement presented to the daughters of Zelophedad who were told to marry within their father's tribe, the tribe of Manasseh. This keeps the territories of the promised land within the proper tribe.
In consideration of this law, I think we can assume that levirate marriage would not have to take place if the man who died left at least one daughter. His brother would not have to marry his widow unless he just wanted to, for the dead man's property would pass down to the daughter and then on to her offspring. I believe the daughter or daughters would be encouraged to marry within their father's tribe.
A man might not want to marry his brother's childless widow. He would be in disgrace if he chose not to, but there was a procedure to be followed in cases like that. "However, if a man does not want to marry his brother's wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, 'My husband's brother refuses to carry on his brother's name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.' Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him." (Deuteronomy 25:7-8a)
The man is showing disregard for the welfare of his brother's widow and for the welfare of his own family and tribe. He is showing disrespect to the memory of his brother. He is less concerned with the continuation of his brother's name and the dispensation of his brother's property than with the fact that, for whatever reason, he does not want to get married (either at this particular time or to this particular woman). The elders will try to talk to him about his responsibility to help the woman. They will talk to him about his responsibility to keep the family land within the family. But if he still does not want to marry his brother's widow, he will not be forced to marry her. If he cannot be kindly affectioned toward her then this will be a miserable union for the both of them, but he will still be publicly shamed for refusing his responsibilities toward his dead brother, toward his brother's widow, and toward his own family and his family's property.
"If he persists in saying, 'I do not want to marry her,' his brother's widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, 'This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother's line.' That man's line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled." (Deuteronomy 25:8b-10) This nickname will cling to the man's family line, not only to him personally. It was such a serious thing to refuse to marry and provide for a childless sister-in-law, and it was such a serious thing to allow family land to move outside of the family, that the man who refused to marry his sister-in-law would be disgraced along with his heirs. Considering how long his heirs will bear the shameful nickname, most men probably felt compelled to follow the law of levirate marriage.
It can be difficult to translate a law like this into today's society but one thing we can always translate into any era of time is the law of love. The law of levirate marriage was a law of compassion to benefit a childless widow. It was a law to preserve the God-given territories of each tribe. It is always right to do good and if we take anything away from our study today it's that we should have mercy on the lonely and the needy. We should try to help people if it's within our power to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment