Deuteronomy 25:5

"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 unto him for wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her. And it shall be that the first-born that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, that his name be not blotted out of Israel. And if the man like not his brother's wife, then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother unto me. Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand, and say, I like not to take her; then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto the man that doth not build up his brother's house. And his name shall be called in Israel, The House of him that hath his shoe loosed."

The custom of Levirate marriage was in existence long before the times of Moses, for it is specifically referred to in the instance of Judah and his two sons who, in turn, became husbands of Tamar. The custom evidently continued throughout the Mosaic dispensation, because, the captious question of the Sadducees (Matthew 22:23-28) was founded on the requirements of this law. The thing in focus here is the case of a man who would not fulfill his obligation toward a deceased brother's wife. The result of such a ceremony would be the public disgrace of the unwilling brother.

"And have no son ..." (Deuteronomy 25:5). In view of Numbers 27:4ff, in case a man had one or more daughters, such a marriage would not be needed, for the daughters could inherit and continue the name. Therefore, "The KJV is preferable to the RSV here in the rendering `child' instead of `son.'"[11]

"`Levir' is the Latin word for `brother-in-law,' and this is the origin of the term Levirate marriage."[12]

Adam Clarke, quoting Jewish Talmudists and other Jewish authorities stated that the injunction here for spitting "in the face" of the unwilling brother was carried out by "spitting on the ground in his presence."[13] A number of scholars such as Jamieson, Alexander, and others, have accepted this explanation as being reasonable enough, but what we probably have here is just another case in which the Jews "made of none effect the Word of God by their tradition." Keil declared dogmatically: "Spit in the face ... This is the meaning of the words (Compare Numbers 12:14), and not merely spit on the ground before his eyes, as the Talmudists render it with a view to diminishing the disgrace."[14] Cook also understood the meaning here as did Keil, saying, "This action was intended to aggravate the disgrace conceived to attach to the conduct of the man."[15]

Before leaving this, we should note: "So shall it be done unto the man that doth not build up his brother's house (Deuteronomy 25:9). "House" in this place does not mean house at all, but "household." "The Hebrew language conspicuously lacks abstract terms."[16] The significance of this in understanding the Bible is phenomenal:

"This linguistic quality leads to a concreteness in the Hebrew mind. That mind does not think in philosophical nuances, but in pictures and in terms of mundane experiences. This outstanding feature of Hebrew Christian tradition (the Bible) means that our holy religion is historically rooted ... it could not possibly be an armchair philosophy, it grew out of the experience of men."[17]

In harmony with such a view is the truth that the N.T. writers were men of the outdoors, skilled in reporting what was done, what they saw, what Jesus did, etc., men utterly incapable of being deceived in such a thing as the resurrection, or in anything else!