Deuteronomy 25:5 · Bible study
Deuteronomy 25:5 Commentary: Levirate Marriage
Hebrew · 10 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Examine the levirate marriage law in Deuteronomy 25:5, preserving family lineage, protecting widows, and its connection to redemption.
Research Summary
- Meaning: A brother-in-law must marry his deceased brother’s widow to raise up offspring and preserve the dead man’s name and inheritance in Israel.
- Key words: yabam (brother-in-law), yibbem (perform levirate duty), and “dwell together” (share in the father’s inheritance).
- Main debate: Whether this law conflicts with Leviticus 18:16’s prohibition against marrying a brother’s wife; resolved by viewing the levirate as a temporary exception for the sake of family continuity.
- Theological theme: God’s faithfulness to the covenant community through preserving families, and his care for the vulnerable widow.
- Best use: Teaching on the value of human life and legacy, the community’s responsibility for the helpless, and the gospel pattern of redemption.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
When brothers dwell together and one of them dies without a son, the widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother is to take her as his wife and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law for her.
WEB World English Bible 2000
If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside 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.
KJV King James Version 1769
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.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married 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 a husband’s brother unto her.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
`When brethren dwell together, and one of them hath died, and hath no son, the wife of the dead is not without to a strange man; her husband's brother doth go in unto her, and hath taken her to him for a wife, and doth perform the duty of her husband's brother;
Darby Darby Bible 1890
If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no son, the wife of the dead shall not marry a stranger abroad: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him as wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
When brethren dwell together, and one of them dieth without children, the wife of the deceased shall not marry to another: but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother:
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Cuando hermanos estuvieren juntos, y muriere alguno de ellos, y no tuviere hijo, la mujer del muerto no se casará fuera con hombre extraño: su cuñado entrará á ella, y la tomará por su mujer, y hará con ella parentesco.
Quando irmãos estiverem juntos, e morrer algum deles, e não tiver filho, a mulher do morto não se casará fora com homem estranho: seu cunhado entrará a ela, e a tomará por sua mulher, e fará com ela parentesco.
Lorsque des frères demeureront ensemble, et que l’ un d’ eux mourra sans laisser de fils, la femme du défunt ne se mariera point au-dehors avec un étranger, mais son beau-frère ira vers elle, la prendra pour femme, et l’épousera comme beau-frère.
Wenn Brüder beieinander wohnen und einer stirbt ohne Kinder, so soll des Verstorbenen Weib nicht einen fremden Mann draußen nehmen; sondern ihr Schwager soll sich zu ihr tun und sie zum Weibe nehmen und sie ehelichen.
Wanneer broeders samenwonen, en een van hen sterft, en geen zoon heeft, zo zal de vrouw des verstorvenen aan geen vreemden man daarbuiten geworden; haar mans broeder zal tot haar ingaan en nemen haar zich ter vrouw, en doen haar den plicht van eens mans broeder.
Quando de’ fratelli staranno assieme, e l’un d’essi morrà senza lasciar figliuoli, la moglie del defunto non si mariterà fuori, con uno straniero; il suo cognato verrà da lei e se la prenderà per moglie, compiendo così verso di lei il suo dovere di cognato;
Gdyby mieszkali bracia pospołu, a zszedłby jeden z nich, nie mając syna, nie pójdzie żona onego zmarłego za męża obcego, brat jego wnijdzie do niej, a pojmie ją sobie za żonę, a prawem powinowactwa przyłączy ją sobie.
Если братья живут вместе и один из них умрет, не имея у себя сына, то жена умершего не должна выходить на сторону за человека чужого, но деверь ее должен войти к ней и взять ее себе в жену, и жить с нею, —
「 弟兄 同 居，若死了 一個，沒有 兒子，死人 的妻 不可 出 嫁 外 人，她丈夫的兄弟 當盡弟兄的本分，娶她 為妻，與她 同房。
If brothers are living together and one of them, at his death, has no son, the wife of the dead man is not to be married outside the family to another man: let her husband's brother go in to her and make her his wife, doing as it is right for a brother-in-law to do.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Deuteronomy 25:5
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators universally agree that this law, known as levirate marriage, addresses two urgent needs in ancient Israel: preserving the deceased man’s name and providing for his widow. Barnes’ Notes on the Bible observes that the practice was not unique to Israel but shared with other Oriental nations; the law incorporated existing customs while introducing “wise and politic limitations.” Calvin sees the law as God’s provision that a man would not lose his property to strangers and that the dead man’s childlessness, a curse, would be mitigated by a borrowed offspring. Keil & Delitzsch locate the law’s roots in the human desire for a continued personal existence, intensified in Israel by the patriarchal promises tied to the preservation of seed and name.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges notes that the law uses established Hebrew terms (yabam for brother-in‑law, yibbem for the duty), proving the custom was already at home in Israel. The obligation falls on a brother who dwells with the deceased, though Calvin extends “brethren” to near kinsmen to avoid conflict with Leviticus 18. The law’s purpose, all agree, was not to compel marriage against conscience but to safeguard the family line and the widow’s place in the community.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Literal sibling obligation: The Hebrew 'ach (brother) and the dwelling together condition point to a full brother sharing the paternal inheritance (Gill, Jewish tradition).
- Extended kinship view: Calvin argues the law includes near kinsmen to avoid contradiction with Leviticus 18; this is supported by the story of Boaz as a go'el (redeemer).
- Incest exception: Some scholars hold that the levirate temporarily suspends the Levitical prohibition for the sake of family preservation, showing that the holiness code was not absolute.
What is clear: The law exists to ensure the deceased man's name and inheritance do not vanish from Israel and to provide for the widow's care.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose of the Law | All major traditions agree the law aims to prevent the extinction of a family name and to provide for the widow. | Some emphasize preserving the deceased's name as the primary goal (Keil & Delitzsch), while others focus more on the widow's protection (Matthew Henry). |
| Applicability Today | Christians largely agree the specific law is not binding as civil legislation; the moral principles of caring for widows and preserving family continuity remain. | Some see the law as entirely cultural and abolished, while others draw from it a pattern for community responsibility toward vulnerable families. |
| Relationship to Leviticus 18 | All acknowledge that Leviticus 18:16 normally forbids marriage to a brother’s wife; the levirate is an exception for a specific circumstance. | Some resolve the tension by noting the Levitical prohibition applies during the brother’s lifetime (Poole), while others argue the levirate shows that the holiness code had focused exceptions (Ellicott). |
| Identity of 'Brothers' | The law applies to a brother (literal or near kin) who is living in proximity to the widow. | Gill and Jewish tradition insist on a full brother on the father’s side; Calvin extends the term to include near kinsmen like cousins, citing Boaz as an example. |
Historical & Cultural Context
In the ancient Near East, a wife’s identity and security were bound to her husband’s family. If a man died childless, his widow could be left without support and his name vanished from Israel. The levirate marriage law (from Latin levir, “husband’s brother”) provided a remedy. Barnes notes that childlessness was viewed as a “great calamity,” and extinction of name and family as one of the greatest. The law therefore set aside the normal prohibitions against marrying a brother’s wife (Leviticus 18:16) for the sake of preserving the dead man’s inheritance and memory.
The condition “if brothers dwell together” (Deuteronomy 25:5) points to a shared inheritance and life in the same place, or, as Gill explains, dwelling in the same town on the paternal inheritance. The brother who married the widow was to father a son who would “succeed in the name of his brother” (v. 6), ensuring the deceased had an heir to carry his property and identity forward. This was not merely a private arrangement; it was administered publicly at the city gate by the elders (vv. 7, 10). If the brother refused, the widow could strip off his sandal and spit in his face, a severe public shaming. The sandal symbolized the right of redemption and ownership; removing it meant he forfeited both his obligation and his claim.
Examples from Israel’s history confirm the practice. Judah told Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her, and raise up offspring for your brother” (Genesis 38:8). Later, Boaz acted as a near kinsman to marry Ruth and preserve the name of her deceased husband (Ruth 4:5, 10). By Jesus’ day, the Sadducees could cite the law when testing him about the resurrection (Matthew 22:24; Mark 12:19). The law reflects God’s care for the vulnerable and his commitment to the covenant community’s continuity.
Textual Notes
The supplied commentaries and textual resources note no significant textual variants for Deuteronomy 25:5. The verse is stable across the major manuscript traditions.
Reception History
In Jewish tradition, this law generated extensive discussion in the Talmud, with tractate Yevamot detailing the obligations of levirate marriage and the ceremony of halizah (the shoe removal). The practice continued in some Jewish communities into modern times, though rarely. Early Christian readers saw in the levirate a type of Christ as the kinsman-redeemer: as Boaz preserved Ruth’s dead husband’s name, so Christ preserves us and gives us an eternal inheritance. The Sadducees’ question to Jesus (Matthew 22:24, 28) used this law to challenge the resurrection, showing that even by the first century the law was well known. The passage has also been studied in the history of marriage law as an example of how biblical Israel addressed crises of family and land.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- God protects the vulnerable. The law shields the widow from destitution and isolation, ensuring she remains in the family that should care for her.
- God values the family name. The firstborn son inherits the dead man’s name and property, preserving his place among God’s people.
- God allows for refusal, with consequences. The brother can decline, but the public ceremony of shame shows the community’s high expectation of loyalty and sacrifice for others.
Five-point outline
- Background: The law addresses the crisis of childlessness and widowhood in a tribal society.
- Condition: Brothers must be dwelling together, sharing land and life, for the obligation to apply.
- Duty: The brother-in-law marries the widow, and their first son bears the dead man’s name.
- Refusal: The brother may refuse, but the widow publicly shames him by removing his sandal and spitting in his face.
- Outcome: The family line continues; the widow is provided for; the community witnesses the importance of faithfulness to the dead.
Illustration hooks
- A grandparent’s name in a family Bible, carried forward by a child who died young, how do we keep memory alive?
- A small family business that would dissolve without someone to take it on; relatives step up to preserve it as a legacy.
- When a parent dies, the extended family helps raise the children, ensuring the parent’s name and influence continue.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Does this law still apply today, or is it only for ancient Israel?
- How does levirate marriage point to Christ’s work as our Redeemer?
- Why would God allow a practice that seems so foreign, and even wrong, to modern readers?
Leading a Discussion
This passage invites us to see how God ordered Israel’s life to protect the vulnerable and preserve the covenant community. The levirate marriage law seems strange to us, but it reveals deep principles about loyalty, inheritance, and provision.
Discussion questions
- Observation: What specific problem does this law address (Deuteronomy 25:5, 6)? Who are the people it is designed to help?
- Interpretation: The brother is told to “perform the duty of a husband’s brother.” What does this duty require of him, and what does it tell us about family responsibility?
- Interpretation: How does the procedure for refusal (vv. 7, 10) show the gravity of the obligation? What does the public shaming communicate about the community’s values?
- Connection: Read Genesis 38:8 and Ruth 4:5. How do these stories illuminate the outworking of this law in real life?
- Application: What does this passage teach us about God’s care for widows and the importance of family legacy in the faith community?
- Application: In what ways can we, as a church, “build up the house” of a fellow believer who has died without heirs or left vulnerable dependents?
- Christ-centered: How does Boaz’s role as a kinsman-redeemer foreshadow Christ’s work for us? What does it mean that Jesus is our greater Brother who preserves our name and inheritance?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Genesis 38:8 | Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” |
| Genesis 38:9 | Onan knew that the offspring wouldn’t be his; and when he went in to his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. |
| Ruth 1:12 | Go back, my daughters, go your way; for I am too old to have a husband. If I should say, ‘I have hope,’ if I should even have a husband tonight, and should also bear sons, |
| Ruth 1:13 | would you then wait until they were grown? Would you then refrain from having husbands? No, my daughters, for it grieves me seriously for your sakes, for Yahweh’s hand has gone out against me.” |
| Ruth 3:9 | He said, “Who are you?” She answered, “I am Ruth your servant. Therefore spread the corner of your garment over your servant; for you are a near kinsman.” |
| Ruth 4:5 | Then Boaz said, “On the day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you must buy it also from Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead on his inheritance.” |
| Matthew 22:24 | saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother.’ |
| Mark 12:19 | “Teacher, Moses wrote to us, ‘If a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife behind him, and leaves no children, that his brother should take his wife and raise up offspring for his brother.’ |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
9 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes notes that this levirate marriage law was not unique to Israel but common among ancient peoples. Moses reduced and restricted an older, onerous obligation, making it a duty of affection for the deceased rather than a legally enforceable command. The ritual of removing the shoe and spitting publicly shamed the unwilling brother as one who refused to preserve his brother's name.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin sees the law's main purpose as preserving a man's property and lineage so his inheritance stays within the family. He clarifies that "brother" here means any near kinsman, not an actual brother, since God would not command incest. Failing to raise up a child for the deceased is treated almost as theft.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentator highlights that removing the sandal symbolized renouncing property rights, while spitting in the brother's face publicly dishonored him for failing his family duty. This act marked the man as unwilling to preserve his brother's name in Israel.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note clarifies that the widow must not marry anyone outside the family—specifically a stranger. Instead, her husband's nearest male relative is required to marry her and fulfill the specific duties of a kinsman toward her.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill explains that under Jewish tradition the levirate duty falls only on a full brother from the father's side, and specifically on the eldest unmarried brother. The law aimed to preserve family inheritances, so the widow could not marry outside the family. A three-month waiting period was required to confirm she was not pregnant.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB notes that the Mosaic law turned an older custom into a binding obligation, linking the desire to preserve a dead man's name with keeping property within the family. If a brother refused, the widow could bring formal charges at the city gate, where her act of loosing his sandal and spitting served as public humiliation.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil and Delitzsch trace the levirate marriage custom to a natural human desire for immortality through the perpetuation of one's family and name, a desire heightened in Israel by the promises to Abraham. They note that Moses did not abolish the practice but restrained it, removing its compulsory character. The shoe-removal ceremony they interpret as an ignominious symbol of renouncing one's position.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Matthew Henry notes that the law of marrying a brother's widow was not new but an ancient practice seen in Judah's family. He emphasizes its purpose: preserving a dead man's name and keeping each family line distinct in Israel, not allowing it to disappear.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley explains that this law required a widow to marry within her dead husband's family to preserve tribal and family lines, which was essential for tracing the Messiah's lineage. It also protected inheritances, which were divided among all brothers, with the firstborn receiving a double portion.