62
LEVIRATE MARRIAGE AND FAMILY NAME 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. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel (Deut. 25:5-6).
This law was a seed law. The preservation of a man's name is clearly stated here to be the reason for this law. So, the theocentric focus of this law is inheritance. But how? The preservation of God's name in history is not dependent on His biological issue. God is beyond the creation and history. Yet we know that every Old Covenant law had something to do with God's relationship to man. What was it in this case? It could not have anything to do with God's desire for biological heirs. God is not Zeus. This fact should warn us: this law had to do with covenantal inheritance, not biological inheritance. The dead brother had not left an heir. This meant that his name would be put out of Israel unless his brother intervened biologically. Why was this necessary? As we shall see later in this chapter, this law had to do with adoption and the transfer of inheritance. This was its theocentric focus. This law had a great deal to do with the family, but the family considered as a covenantal institution rather than biological.
The Latin legal term, levir, refers to the brother of a husband. This Latin word has for centuries been applied to the relationship described in this text. A brother was required to bond sexually with his sister-in-law under two limiting conditions: the two brothers had lived together, and one brother had died without leaving an heir. The first limiting condition has not always been recognized by expositors. If the brothers did not dwell together, this case law was not applicable.(1)
Major Problems for Bible Commentators Commentators have trouble with this law, so different is it from today's practices. They rarely have disciplined themselves to think covenantally, so they have trouble identifying the central focus of a law that seems so different culturally. The author of the section on "Levirate" in the M'Clintock & Strong encyclopedia, a conservative late-nineteenth-century work, insisted that "A wise and just legislator could scarcely have been inclined to patronize any such law. . . ."(2) In writing this, the author revealed his own patronizing attitude toward God's law -- an attitude common to most Christian expositors.
Many things that we would like to know about the application of this unique Mosaic office are not available in the text. We must surmise a great deal. For example, the text does not say that the levir had to be unmarried in order to marry the widow. Polygamy existed lawfully under the Old Covenant. On the one hand, this law was a positive ethical command; no exception based on polygamy appears in the text. On the other hand, if there was no exception based on the levir's status as a married man, then this law mandated polygamy in a unique situation. Is this likely?
We know that this law superseded the law forbidding a man to marry his deceased brother's wife (Lev. 18:6, 16). The penalty for such a union was childlessness (Lev. 20:21), implying God's personal intervention, but this law was given specifically so that there might be a child. There can be no doubt that this law was superior to the law prohibiting a brother from marrying his dead brother's wife. It is possible that this law mandated polygamy in a unique situation. Yet this seems contrary to our understanding of God's standards for marriage. Because the text does not mention polygamy, the commentator must look for hints in the passage that may offer clues to an answer -- hints that are not apparent on the first or second reading.(3)
Seed and Name Let us begin with God. Israel was God's son (Ex. 4:22). This meant that Israel bore God's name. The preservation of a man's name in Israel had something to do with the preservation of God's name in history. But what? God was not dependent on Israel to preserve His name, yet Israel's survival was important for God's reputation. After the exodus generation's attempt to stone Joshua and Caleb for having told them that God would give them victory over the Canaanites, God threatened to destroy Israel and raise up a new nation for Moses to lead. Moses reminded Him that His reputation was at stake: His promises to Israel. The issue was disinheritance: "I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they" (Num. 14:12). Moses appealed to God's reputation, not Israel's legal claim: "Now if thou shalt kill all this people as one man, then the nations which have heard the fame of thee will speak, saying, Because the LORD was not able to bring this people into the land which he sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness" (vv. 15-16). God heeded Moses' argument. The decisive issue was God's reputation, not Israel's biological survival as a nation or son.
In contrast, Israel, not being God, was dependent on seed. The future of Israel was tied to God's promise to Abraham to preserve Abraham's seed: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ" (Gal. 3:16). Again, it was God's promise to Israel that was crucial to Israel, not God's dependence on Israel. To fulfill this promise, God had to provide inter-generational continuity, i.e., inheritance. So, to this extent, God's reputation was reliant on Israel. This raises the theological problem of conditional vs. unconditional promises. If the promise was unconditional, then God had to see to it that Israel survived. If it was conditional, then He had the option of cutting off the nation if it rebelled. The resolution of this seeming antinomy is found in the doctrines of predestination and imputation. First, predestination: God made a promise to Abraham. To this promise were attached conditions, such as circumcision. God decreed from the beginning of time that these conditions would be met representatively by Jesus Christ. This brings us to the doctrine of imputation. God imputed Christ's future righteousness to Israel by grace. The future advent of the promised Seed in history was therefore the basis of Israel's survival.(4)
This places the promised Seed at the center of the life of Israel. This Seed would come through Judah (Gen. 49:10). Thus, the separation of the tribes and their continuity through time was basic to God's covenant with Israel. It was in this context that the levirate marriage law operated. It had to do with the preservation of a man's name. The deceased brother was part of a family. This family was part of a tribe. Tribal life in Old Covenant Israel was basic to the survival of the nation, not because of some inherent benefit of tribalism but because of the promise to Abraham regarding the coming Seed. This same promise of seed had been made to Adam (Gen. 3:15), but there was no element of nationalism or tribalism in this promise. There was a fundamental element of nationalism in God's promise to Abraham. There was a fundamental element of tribalism in Jacob's promise regarding Shiloh -- an extension of the Abrahamic promise. So, the seed laws applied inside the boundaries of Israel, but not beyond. The Adamic promise of seed applied to the world outside Israel's borders. The same Seed -- Jesus Christ -- was the focus of all three promises, but their fulfillment was achieved differently.
The Kinsman Redeemer
The Mosaic seed laws were inheritance laws. The levirate marriage law also regulated inheritance. The firstborn son(5) would inherit the dead man's name. Why did this inheritance of a name matter so much in Israelite society? Because the preservation of a man's name meant that he had an inheritance in Israel's future. He was heir to the promises that God had given to Abraham and Moses. The preservation of a man's name was in this sense eschatological. It had to do with Jacob's promise to Judah: "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be" (Gen. 49:10). An Israelite male was supposed to look forward to this messianic day of the Lord. Through his firstborn, he participated in Israel's eschatology. The Israelites' family name system was future-oriented. The firstborn seed was basic to a family's future, just as the promised messianic Seed was basic to Israel's future. Both forms of covenantal seed were linked eschatologically by Jacob's prophecy regarding Shiloh.
The brother who had enjoyed the use of the family's landed inheritance had a legal obligation: to marry his dead brother's wife and bring an heir into the world. This law is clear: the two brothers had to have been living in close proximity. Their lives in this sense had to be intertwined. This close geographical proximity had made each brother the kinsman redeemer/blood avenger (go'el) of the other. If one of them had been killed by another man where there was no witness, the survivor had the responsibility of pursuing the perpetrator (Num. 35:19, 27). The nearest of kin judicially was the nearest of kin geographically. He would have been the person who had the greatest likelihood of overtaking the suspect on the highway as the latter raced toward a city of refuge. A brother who resided elsewhere was not the blood avenger, even if he was closer in age to the dead brother.
The nearest of kin geographically was the kinsman redeemer. One of the responsibilities of the kinsman redeemer was to serve as the levir. He redeemed the name of his childless dead brother. This is what Onan refused to do for his dead brother, Er (Gen 38:9). God then killed him for this sin (v. 10).(6) Onan had enjoyed the fruits of his inheritance, which included citizenship and a name, but he was unwilling to accept the obligation associated with this inheritance, which was associated with the seed, i.e., the family's future. One branch of the family had been cut off biologically. This threatened the name of the whole family. No branch was to be cut off in this way when two brothers lived together.
A Matter of Inheritance The laws governing inheritance were generally patriarchal, though not exclusively. "And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren. And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father's brethren. And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it: and it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of judgment, as the LORD commanded Moses" (Num. 27:8-11). A man's land went to his male heirs at his death. If he had no male heirs, it went to his daughters (Num. 27:8). If he had no son or daughter, it went to his closest male relatives (Num. 27:9).
This information helps us to identify who the kinsman redeemer/blood avenger was in Mosaic Israel. There is no law that expressly says that the geographically closest adult male (though not a father) to the inheritance was a man's kinsman redeemer, but the structure of biblical authority implies that this was the case. Biblically, the link between judicial responsibility and economic benefits is strong.(7) I conclude that the geographically adjacent relative who would inherit a childless man's legacy was the first eligible man to marry his childless widow. He was the kinsman redeemer.
The Story of Ruth
The Book of Ruth is the story of the levirate marriage in action. In the case of Ruth, no surviving brother had lived alongside her late husband. So, she had no levirate claim on her husband's kinsman redeemer, who would have been a cousin back in Israel. When Naomi returned to Israel, she had legal standing as the wife of an Israelite. Boaz voluntarily agreed to marry Ruth if the nearest of kin to Elimelech refused.
The Bible's account is important for our understanding of the Mosaic economics of inheritance. The negotiation between Boaz and Naomi's kinsman redeemer began with a discussion of land, not marriage. Because Naomi had no surviving heirs, her husband's nearest kinsman was eligible to inherit her land. But since she was still alive, he would have to pay her for the use of the land until her death. He would pay a lease until her death, and then it would be his. He understood this. What he did not know was that there was a catch: marriage to Ruth, who could yet raise up seed in the name of Naomi's dead husband, Elimelech.
Then went Boaz up to the gate, and sat him down there: and, behold, the kinsman of whom Boaz spake came by; unto whom he said, Ho, such a one! turn aside, sit down here. And he turned aside, and sat down. And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, Sit ye down here. And they sat down. And he said unto the kinsman, Naomi, that is come again out of the country of Moab, selleth a parcel of land, which was our brother Elimelech's: And I thought to advertise thee, saying, Buy it before the inhabitants, and before the elders of my people. If thou wilt redeem it, redeem it: but if thou wilt not redeem it, then tell me, that I may know: for there is none to redeem it beside thee; and I am after thee. And he said, I will redeem it. Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance. And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it.
Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: and this was a testimony in Israel. Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe. And Boaz said unto the elders, and unto all the people, Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech's, and all that was Chilion's and Mahlon's, of the hand of Naomi. Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day. And all the people that were in the gate, and the elders, said, We are witnesses. The LORD make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem: And let thy house be like the house of Pharez, whom Tamar bare unto Judah, of the seed which the LORD shall give thee of this young woman (Ruth 4:1-12; emphasis added).(8)
The kinsman wanted to buy Naomi's land; he did not want marriage to her daughter-in-law. He did not have to marry Ruth, however. He had not lived close to Ruth's husband on the family's land. Neither Ruth nor Naomi had the right to spit in the man's face. He had the right not to marry Ruth in order to raise up seed in the name of his nephew. But if he refused and Boaz did, then Boaz would become the nearest of kin to the dead brother, Naomi's husband.
Consider the reason offered by the kinsman for not marrying Ruth. It had to do with his own inheritance. "I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it." He had hoped to inherit the land of his heirless deceased brother.(9) His sister-in-law was too old to bear children. He was therefore willing to buy it from Naomi before she died. This would have given her money to live on. The land would have come to him eventually. But Boaz was proposing something else. If Boaz married Ruth, and Ruth gave birth, then Elimelech's land would pass to the child of Ruth, who would become the family's firstborn son. This land would be part of the name of Ruth's dead husband.
Because of Boaz's willingness to become Ruth's husband, the existing kinsman could gain control over Naomi's land only by marrying Ruth. But if she bore him an heir, he could not pass this land to his own children. The land would pass to Ruth's firstborn. Assuming that he was single, and assuming that he married Ruth, the land owned by Elimelech could not become his namesake's land; it would become Elimelech's namesake's land: Ruth's firstborn. His own flesh and blood would inherit this land, but this biological heir would not be his judicial namesake. So powerful was the concept of the family name in Israel that even for the sake of gaining control over a farm that he was willing to buy in advance of Naomi's death, and then passing this farm to his own biological heir, the offer did not persuade the kinsman to marry Ruth. He passed this legal opportunity to Boaz.
For the existing kinsman to lose the inheritance from Elimelech through Naomi, another kinsman had to marry Ruth. Heirship could not be through Ruth as a mother; it could only be through another kinsman who would act representatively on behalf of Ruth's late husband. Family land in Mosaic Israel went to male heirs unless there was a surviving biological daughter. Ruth could never possess an inheritance in Israel to leave to her firstborn except through the decision of a kinsman of her late husband to adopt her as a wife. Without Ruth's marriage to a kinsman of Elimelech, the land would automatically pass at Naomi's death to Elimelech's nearest of kin, i.e., Elimelech's kinsman redeemer.
Elimelech's kinsman redeemer could not build up his own inheritance if Ruth married Boaz. Boaz's marriage would make Boaz the nearest of kin to Elimelech. If Ruth did not bear a child, the land would then pass to Boaz, for by marrying Ruth, he would become Elimelech's nearest of kin.
The existing kinsman redeemer had to approve of this transfer, which was why Boaz assembled the elders as witnesses. The existing kinsman redeemer could retain his claim on the inheritance only by marrying Ruth and then having Ruth remain barren, as she had been in Moab. If she bore a child who lived long enough to bear children to inherit, the existing kinsman redeemer and his heirs could not inherit this land. He decided that this marriage was not worth the added economic risk. If he married Ruth bore, and she bore him a child, all of the capital that he would invest into the land would become part of another man's covenant line. It would be his biological child's family line, but not his family name's line. This is evidence that blood lines in Israel were regarded as less important than covenant lines. Family name was more important than biology.
Name Above Biology This is an extremely important theological point. Rahab and Ruth were adopted into their husband's covenant lines. This adoption was by oath: a marriage oath. Through them came David the king and Jesus, who was a greater king. Through two foreign women, the covenant line was extended. More to the point, through these women the covenant line in Israel was extended: Judah's. Most to the point, through them the promised Seed was born (Matt. 1:5, 16). The crucial covenant line was preserved through marriage, and, in Ruth's case, levirate marriage to the biological heir of Rahab: Boaz (Matt. 1:5).
Boaz became the kinsman redeemer of Elimelech's line. He did this by marrying Ruth, a gentile. Only through his marriage to Ruth could he serve as the kinsman redeemer of Elimelech's line. That is, Boaz, as an heir in the line of Judah and, as it turned out, progenitor of Jesus the redeemer, exercised this office only by marrying a Moabite. Moabite males took ten generations to become citizens in Israel (Deut. 23:3). As heirs of an incestuous relationship between Lot and his firstborn daughter (Gen. 19:37), Moabites were regarded as far more perverse covenantally than Egyptians, who could become citizens in three generations (Deut. 23:7-8). But because of Boaz's judicial role as kinsman redeemer through marriage, Ruth was adopted into the covenant line in just one generation. This was the authority of the marriage oath: adoption. Of all legal relationships biblically, adoption is the most authoritative. Through adoption, the disinherited children of Adam re-enter the family of God. Adoption is the basis of inheritance. Adoption is by covenant oath, not biology.
Ruth, a gentile, was adopted into Israel's supreme covenant line by the willingness of a man to become a kinsman redeemer to her late husband. "Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day" (Ruth 4:10). By lowering himself socially by marrying a Moabite, and by being willing to raise up seed for his brother Elimelech by way of Elimelech's dead son, Boaz was granted an extraordinary blessing. He became the biological forefather of David and Jesus. Legally, these heirs were not part of his personal covenant line. Only through Elimelech's name could he participate in the crucial covenant line. Only by being willing to raise up seed on behalf of another did he unknowingly place himself as the key figure in the extension of the key covenant line in Israel and, for that matter, in all of history. Boaz became the biggest covenantal somebody in his generation only because he was willing to become a covenantal nobody in the extension of Elimelech's line. The land that he presumably bought from Naomi became the family inheritance in another man's line. Any improvements that he made in this land became another family line's property. By abandoning his own name covenantally, he thereby became the greatest name of his generation, a name that is listed in both of the messianic genealogies in the New Testament (Matt. 1:5; Luke 3:32).
The Imputation of a Man's Name
I have argued that this case law was a seed law.(10) The firstborn of a levirate marital union inherited his deceased father's name. The text implies that later-born children did not inherit the deceased man's name.(11) The inheritance was above all covenantal: part of God's promise to Abraham. The deceased man's name was imputed to the heir by God and by law, even though he was born of the levir. The imputation of a man's name was the essence of his inheritance: from his fathers and to his children. God had revealed this to Abraham: "And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 12:2-3).
What the levirate law tells us is that the imputation of a man's name was more fundamental than either genetic inheritance or family discipline. In the context of the continuing academic debate between "nature" (genetics) and "nurture" (social environment), neither was fundamental in Israel. What was fundamental was judicial imputation. The levir performed a redemptive act on behalf of his brother's covenant line. This act was far more judicial than biological or social. He provided biological seed and family discipline, but the decisive factor was judicial-covenantal-eschatological, not biological or social. It was so decisive that the law prohibiting a brother from marrying his sister-in-law was suspended.
Because of Boaz's grace to Naomi through Ruth, a unique and judicially unconventional thing took place: Boaz replaced Elimelech in Israelite history as part of the covenant line of David (I Chron. 2:11-12). In terms of the law of the levir, the family line through Ruth was Elimelech's, but Elimelech is never mentioned in relation to David. It was Boaz's marriage to Ruth in the name of Elimelech that secured Boaz's place in history. As the heir of Rahab, his act of mercy grafted Rahab into the kingly line retroactively. Judicially, Boaz's family line is irrelevant to the coming of David. Yet because of his grace shown to a gentile woman, his family name entered the most important family line in man's history. Boaz established his name and his family line's name in history by a merciful covenantal act which, in terms of the Mosaic law, submerged his name to Elimelech's. Boaz, who had not even been the closest of kin to Elimelech's son, and who had in no way been required to serve as levir, replaced Elimelech in Israel's family lists.
Jesus would imitate Boaz's judicial precedent, not by marrying but by refusing to marry. Refusing to marry, He thereby transferred His inheritance to His kinsmen. He died on their behalf, so that they could be legally adopted into His covenant line.(12) His death and resurrection has offered to the gentiles God's covenantal inheritance by means of adoption, just as Boaz's willingness to marry Ruth offered her covenantal inheritance through adoption. As the heir of Jacob's promise (Gen. 49:10), Jesus was the true heir in Israel, the son of David the king. But Jesus was not Joseph's biological heir. Here we see another act of mercy: Joseph's refusal to put Mary away for fornication with another man. Joseph adopted Jesus as his firstborn son, and in doing so, gained shame for himself: the birth of his firstborn son in less than nine month's after marriage. As David's namesake and heir, Jesus transferred His kingdom to the church (Matt. 21:43). He extended His kingdom grant, not by holding onto it in history but by relinquishing it. Like Boaz, by relinquishing His covenantal claim in Old Covenant Israel -- His name -- Jesus secured the inheritance for his kinsmen, thereby also securing His name in history. What Boaz had done on a small scale, Jesus did on a large scale. The judicial heart of what both of them did involved a transfer of inheritance by surrendering the family name. In doing this, Jesus, like Boaz, secured His name in history.
The Mosaic Family as a Tribal Unit The seed laws and land laws existed because of Jacob's granting of blessings in Genesis 49, and specifically, his prophecy regarding the coming ruler, Shiloh.(13) They were tribal laws, not laws governing the family unit as such. Had they been laws governing the family unit as such, they would have been cross-boundary laws, universal in scope then and now. The law of the levirate marriage would still be in force. This law is no longer in force because Jacob's prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
Covenantal adoption has completely replaced the law of the levirate marriage in the New Covenant. Jesus established the model. His death, which ensured His lack of biological issue, was inherent in His plan of adoption and the transfer of kingdom inheritance. Confession of faith has replaced tribal name as the basis of biblical inheritance. Confession of faith involves adopting a new family name. "And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" (Acts 11:26b). A man's legal claim to a portion of God's kingdom inheritance is based on his possession of Christ's name as an adopted son. The New Covenant's preservation of name through adoption by conversion has replaced the Old Covenant's preservation of name through adoption by reproduction.(14) What has changed, above all, is the tribal basis of inheritance. Covenantally mandated tribes no longer exist. This is why the seed laws and land laws have been replaced by the laws governing confession of faith and church membership. The church is the new nation that has inherited God's kingdom (Matt. 21:43). It has no tribes.
What About Polygamy? I have already said that the text says nothing about the possibility that the levir was a married man at the time of his brother's death. If he was married, was he required by law to obey this law?
Let us look for hints. Here is one. The law specified that the firstborn son would inherit the deceased brother's name. The language implies that the firstborn son inherited all of the deceased brother's land. Land and name were linked. Under normal circumstances, all of the sons bore their father's name. All had a claim on part of the inheritance, with the eldest brother gaining a double portion (Deut. 21:15-17). But in this case, the firstborn alone inherited the dead man's name.
That there was a firstborn implies that there could have been subsequent children. The marital union was an on-going union. Why were these later children cut out of the dead brother's inheritance? I conclude that the sons born later would have been part of the covenant line of the biological father. They would have divided up the inheritance which he had received from his father. They were not allowed to participate in the inheritance of the firstborn because this was his inheritance through his mother's dead husband.
If I am correct, this means that the levir secured his own covenant line through marriage to his sister-in-law. He was not asked by God to forfeit his own covenant line for the sake of his brother. He was asked only to forfeit his firstborn son for the sake of his brother. His biologically firstborn son would not be his covenantally firstborn son. His biologically firstborn son would bear another man's name. His biologically second-born son would become his covenantally firstborn son. In short, his second-born son would become his true heir, his namesake.(15)
If he was already married, the incorporation into his household of his sons through the brother's wife would have reduced the size of the plots inherited by the sons of his first wife. There is no doubt that this dilution of her sons' inheritance would have been resisted by the first wife. This dilution would have constituted their economic disinheritance, though not covenantal disinheritance. The children of the first wife would not have lost their family names, only their portion of their father's land. This would have constituted a double disinheritance. If the husband refused to take his sister-in-law, then at her death or her remarriage to a non-kinsman, her late husband's land would have passed to his brethren. Perhaps the levir was the only brother. From an economic standpoint, performing the duty of the levir imposed a double economic burden on the children of the first wife: first, the dilution of their legacy, which they would then share with the new wife's children later-born; second, the future forfeiture of the levir's portion of his deceased brother's land. If polygamy was mandated by this law, then a wise wife would have recommended a move away from the jointly operated family farm until such time as a newly married brother produced his first child.
Because of the potential disinheritance aspect of the arrangement under polygamy, I conclude that this law did not apply to a brother who was already married. The biological sons of the levir would have had to forfeit too much. The firstborn son would have gained all of the dead man's legacy, while his older half brothers and younger brothers would have had to divide up the legacy of their biological father. Such a division of property would have been too heavily weighted to the economic advantage of one son.
The firstborn of a non-polygamous levirate marriage received his legacy from the dead man's estate -- biologically, his uncle; covenantally, his father. His younger brothers, if any, divided up the levir's estate. Under such an arrangement, the second-born son would inherit the double portion of the biological father's estate. That was clearly an advantage for him. This estate would be larger than it would have been had there been no legacy from the dead man. That was an advantage for all of the brothers. Their judicial half brother received a large legacy, but this legacy would not have been in the family had the first man not died, so this legacy did not cost the other brothers anything that they might otherwise have inherited.
The economics of the levirate marriage points to potential economic disinheritance in a polygamous arrangement. This is not proof that a married levir was not mandated to marry his sister-in-law, for covenantal concerns in Israel were to be respected over economic concerns when the two were in conflict. But in the absence of specific language dealing with the question of polygamy, we can legitimately look for potential injustice that would have resulted from polygamy. Economic disinheritance was surely a negative factor.
Because a wise wife would have had an economic incentive to recommend departure from the family farm upon the marriage of a brother, I regard the levirate law as a law governing unmarried levirs. The economics of the arrangement under polygamy would have undermined the enforcement of the law. This would have reduced the number of levirate marriages. It seems unreasonable to suppose that God would have mandated polygamy, only to leave an obvious escape hatch for first wives to recommend: moving the family off the family's land for a year or two until the brother had an heir. If this law's covenantal effects were so important that it mandated polygamy, there would have been no loophole. I conclude that it was not intended to apply to married levirs.
We must consider briefly the refusal of Elimelech's relative to marry Ruth. He could have justified his refusal by invoking the fact that his kinsman had died outside the land. Clearly, they had not been living close to each other. Instead, he invoked the economic implications of inheritance: "I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance." If he was not married, then in what way would marrying Ruth have been a threat to his inheritance? One answer: he was a widower with sons. Any sons born to Ruth beyond the first would have diluted his sons' inheritance. Another possible answer: he would have had to spend time and money in building up the land that his biologically firstborn son would inherit. So, this passage cannot be used to prove that he was married. Nevertheless, this passage also cannot be used to disprove the possibility that he was already married or was a widower with sons. It does not provide sufficient information.
Conclusion The levirate marriage law was a Mosaic seed law that increased the likelihood of the eschatological survival of all family lines within a tribe. It placed family name above immediate bloodline relationships. The firstborn of a levirate union would inherit both name and land from the deceased covenantal father, not from the biological father. The levir, as a kinsman redeemer, acted to establish his dead brother's covenant line.
In the post-A.D. 70 era, there are no covenantally relevant tribal lines, for Jacob's prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Furthermore, in the post-ascension New Covenant era, Jesus Christ serves as the kinsman redeemer/blood avenger. This office exists nowhere else. There are no longer any cities of refuge. There is no longer an earthly high priest whose death liberates a man who is seeking refuge from the blood avenger. Both in its capacity as a seed law and as a law regulating the office of kinsman redeemer, this law has been annulled by the New Covenant.
Footnotes:
1. The Book of Ruth makes this clear, as we shall see.
2. John M'Clintock and James Strong (eds.), Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, 12 vols. (New York: Harper & Bros., 1894), V, p. 389.
3. See below: section on "What About Polygamy?"
4. See Chapter 13: section on "Ethical Cause and Effect."
5. Or daughter, if only daughters were born.
6. The traditional interpretation of this verse by Roman Catholics insists that Onan's sin was not his refusal to consummate the marriage as such, but rather his enjoyment of sex without coitus. Onanism is the Church's euphemism for either masturbation or coitus interruptus. This interpretation of the passage is incorrect. God slew him because he had gone into Tamar and ritually defied her, her husband's name, and his levirate obligation.
7. "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more" (Luke 12:47-48).
8. The text mentions Tamar, who had been cheated by Onan of her right to raise up seed in the name of her husband. This is a clear reference to this land transaction as an aspect of the levirate marriage law.
9. The brother had fathered two sons, but both had died.
10. As a law governing inheritance, it was also a land law.
11. If the firstborn son died, then his office as name-carrier would have passed to the oldest later-born son.
12. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will" (Eph. 1:3-5).
13. The practice of levirate marriage existed earlier than Genesis 49. Onan's rebellion indicates that the practice did exist, and it was a law, for God's negative sanction came on him. Without law, there is no legitimate sanction. This was not, however, a written law. Its application was tied to the tribal units of Jacob's family. Lot's daughters had used a perverse application of the levirate marriage. They had deceived their father when he was drunk. Tamar similarly deceived the widower Judah, her father-in-law, but Judah had not been drunk, and she did this only after Judah had demanded that she wait for the surviving youngest brother to grow up and fulfill his then-unwritten duty as a levir. She should have been released by Judah from any obligation to serve as the mother of Er's covenantal heir.
14. The mark of adoption in the Old Covenant was circumcision.
15. The theme of the second-born son who inherits is repeated in the Old Covenant. It points to the distinction between Adam and Jesus as the true heir of God. In this case, however, the distinction had nothing to do with sin and rebellion by the firstborn.
If this book helps you gain a new understanding of the Bible, please consider sending a small donation to the Institute for Christian Economics, P.O. Box 8000, Tyler, TX 75711. You may also want to buy a printed version of this book, if it is still in print. Contact ICE to find out. icetylertx@aol.com