|
Statement 2: We have forced marriages because of procreation. (Deut. 25:5-10)
In Response: What is being referred to here is known as Levirate Law. Let’s take a look at the Scripture first, and then we’ll take a look at the law and it’s purpose…
The Holy Bible, New International Version, Deuteronomy 25:5-10
5If 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. 6The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.
7However, 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.” 8Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,” 9his 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 family line.” 10That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.
RESOURCE: The Oxford Companion to the Bible
Levirate Law - [from the Latin, levir, “brother-in-law”; the Hebrew term is yābam, “to perform the duty of a brother-in-law”]. If a man dies without bearing offspring, his widow is to marry the deceased’s brother (her levir). A child born of that union is considered to be perpetuating the “name” (linage, honor, and inheritance) of the deceased. Such a practice is common in traditional societies, promoting social and economic stability. Refusal to fulfill this obligation results in public shame (25:9-10), because it indicates a greater concern for one’s personal welfare than the welfare of one’s extended family.
There are two examples of levirate marriage in the Bible. In Genesis 38, God kills Judah’s son Er. His second son, Onan, dies too, for refusing to serve as a levir to Tamar, the widow. When Judah refuses to give her his third son, Tamar dresses as a prostitute and trick Judah himself into fathering a child. This initially evokes condemnation on Tamar, but subsequently she is regarded as “righteous” for her actions (Genesis 38:26), which demonstrates the great significance placed on fulfilling this obligation. In the book of Ruth, Boaz fulfills the obligation of the levir on behalf of Ruth’s first husband. A closer kinsman declines to perform this duty, apparently fearful of the economic stress it would place on him (Ruth 4:6); perhaps, too, he was unwilling to marry a foreigner). This shows that a levir’s obligations continue until the child he has fathered is able to resume the responsibility of defending the deceased’s “name” on his own.
-- Timothy M. Willis, Contributor
RESOURCE: The Believers Study Bible
25:5-10 The law concerning “levirate marriage” is presented here (vv. 5, 6), along with the procedure to be followed if someone refused to fulfill his responsibility of taking the childless widow of his deceased brother as his wife (vv. 7-10; cf. Gen. 38; Ruth 2:20). There are two prerequisites which must be met: (1) the two brothers must be living together and sharing responsibilities as one large family unit; and (2) the widow was to be without a son, who would be the legal inheritor of his father’s estate, and who would represent his father’s name. It was this provision of posterity that was part of the nature of the divine covenant (cf. Gen 17:7-9). The brother-in-law could refuse his responsibility, though he would certainly incur the wrath of the community. In a public ceremony, the rejected widow could humiliate the man by removing his sandal, thereby indicating the relative had abandoned his responsibility, and by spitting in his face, symbolizing the shame of such negligence. The motive of such a refusal is assumed to have been selfishness, in that the living brother himself might inherit the property of his deceased brother in the absence of a male heir (cf. Num 27:9). Such an act would deserve extreme reprobation.
| 
