Deuteronomy 25:7

Translation
King James Version
And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife 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 my husband's brother.
Ask
KJV (with Strong's)
And if the man H376 like H2654 not to take H3947 his brother's wife H2994, then let his brother's wife H2994 go up H5927 to the gate H8179 unto the elders H2205, and say H559, My husband's brother H2993 refuseth H3985 to raise up H6965 unto his brother H251 a name H8034 in Israel H3478, he will H14 not perform the duty of my husband's brother H2992.
Ask
Complete Jewish Bible
If the man does not wish to marry his brother's widow, then his brother's widow is to go up to the gate, to the leaders, and say, 'My brother-in-law refuses to raise up for his brother a name in Isra'el; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother for me.'
Ask
Berean Standard Bible
But if the man does not want to marry his brother’s widow, she is to go to the elders at the city gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to preserve his brother’s name in Israel. He is not willing to perform the duty of a brother-in-law for me.”
Ask
American Standard Version
And if the man like not to take 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.
Ask
World English Bible Messianic
If the man doesn’t want to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to raise up to his brother a name in Israel. He will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.”
Ask
Geneva Bible (1599)
And if the man will not take his kinsewoman, then let his kinsewoman goe vp to the gate vnto the Elders, and say, My kinsman refuseth to rayse vp vnto his brother a name in Israel: hee will not doe the office of a kinsman vnto me.
Ask
Young's Literal Translation
`And if the man doth not delight to take his brother's wife, then hath his brother's wife gone up to the gate, unto the elders, and said, My husband's brother is refusing to raise up to his brother a name in Israel; he hath not been willing to perform the duty of my husband's brother;
Ask
See also
Ruth 4:1Ruth 4:2Ruth 4:5Ruth 4:6
In the KJVVerse 5,555 of 31,102

Study This Verse

SUMMARY

Deuteronomy 25:7 meticulously details the legal recourse available to a childless widow whose deceased husband's brother refuses to perform the levirate marriage, a divinely mandated custom designed to perpetuate the lineage and name of the deceased in Israel. This pivotal verse describes her public appeal to the elders at the city gate, where she formally declares the brother-in-law's refusal to fulfill his sacred obligation, ensuring communal accountability for a duty vital to family continuity, land inheritance, and the preservation of a man's legacy within the covenant community.

CONTEXT

  • Literary Context: Deuteronomy 25:7 is precisely situated within a specific legal code (Deuteronomy 25:5-12) that outlines the custom of levirate marriage, known in Hebrew as yibbum. This section immediately follows regulations on fair weights and measures and precedes the command to utterly blot out Amalek, illustrating the comprehensive nature of God's law, which governs both civil justice and national identity. The preceding verses, Deuteronomy 25:5-6, establish the core principle: if brothers reside together and one dies without a son, the surviving brother is obligated to marry the widow to produce an heir for the deceased. Verse 7 then provides the procedural steps for the widow when non-compliance occurs, directly leading into the public shaming ritual detailed in Deuteronomy 25:8-10. This structured progression from the divine command to the consequences of disobedience underscores the profound gravity of this familial and societal duty.

  • Historical & Cultural Context: The practice of levirate marriage was not unique to ancient Israel, with parallels found in various Near Eastern legal traditions, such as Hittite and Assyrian laws. However, in Israel, it was uniquely codified within the Mosaic Law, reflecting a profound cultural emphasis on family continuity, the preservation of land inheritance, and the perpetuation of a man's "name" or legacy. To die childless was considered a significant tragedy, as it meant the potential extinction of one's lineage and the loss of ancestral land rights, which were tied to the covenant promises. The city gate (sha'ar) served as the primary public forum for all legal proceedings, commercial transactions, and communal gatherings. Elders (zeqenim), respected leaders of the community, presided over these matters, acting as judges and upholding the community's legal and moral standards. The public nature of the widow's appeal at the gate ensured transparency, communal witness, and the enforcement of God's statutes, protecting the vulnerable and maintaining social order.

  • Key Themes: This verse significantly contributes to several overarching themes prominent throughout Deuteronomy and the broader Pentateuch. A central theme is the preservation of lineage and inheritance, which was paramount for maintaining the tribal structure and fulfilling the promise of land to Abraham's descendants, as seen in passages like Genesis 12:7. It also powerfully underscores social justice and the protection of the vulnerable, particularly widows, who were often economically precarious without male support and are frequently highlighted in God's law as objects of divine care, as exemplified in Deuteronomy 10:18. The law demonstrates covenant faithfulness and communal responsibility, illustrating that individual actions have public consequences and that the community is collectively responsible for upholding God's righteous standards. Finally, the emphasis on "raising up a name" points to the deep significance of legacy and memory within Israelite society, where one's identity was intrinsically linked to their family and their place within the covenant community.

EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS

Key Word Analysis

  • Gate (Hebrew, shaʻar', H8179): Meaning "an opening, i.e. door or gate." In ancient Israelite towns, the shaʻar was far more than a mere entrance; it was the bustling hub of civic life. It served as the primary location for legal proceedings, commercial transactions, public announcements, and social gatherings. For the widow to go "up to the gate unto the elders" signified her appeal to the highest local legal authority in a public forum, ensuring her case would be heard and judged by the community's recognized leaders. This public setting emphasized the communal nature of the levirate duty and the public shame associated with its refusal.
  • Raise up a name (Hebrew, qûwm_ _shêm', H6965): Composed of H6965 (qûwm), meaning "to rise (in various applications, literal, figurative, intensive and causative)," and H8034 (shêm), meaning "an appellation, as a mark or memorial of individuality; by implication honor, authority, character." This phrase encapsulates the core purpose of the levirate marriage. Shêm (name) in Hebrew thought signifies not just an appellation but one's entire identity, reputation, legacy, and continuity. To "raise up a name" for the deceased brother meant to ensure his lineage continued, his memory was preserved, and his portion of the tribal inheritance remained within his family line. This was profoundly important in a culture where a childless death was seen as a tragic end to one's legacy and a potential loss of land rights. The refusal to do so was a profound dishonor to the deceased and a dereliction of sacred duty.
  • Perform the duty of my husband's brother (Hebrew, yâbam', H2992): A primitive root meaning "to marry a (deceased) brother's widow; perform the duty of a husband's brother, marry." While the KJV translates it as a phrase, the underlying Hebrew verb yâbam directly refers to the specific obligation of levirate marriage. It denotes a non-optional, divinely mandated responsibility to marry the childless widow of a deceased brother and father an heir in his name. The widow's statement highlights that the brother-in-law is knowingly and willfully refusing a clear and recognized legal and social obligation, directly violating the intent of the law.

Verse Breakdown

  • "And if the man like not to take his brother's wife,": This opening clause establishes the conditional premise for the subsequent action: the brother-in-law's personal disinclination or refusal to fulfill the levirate duty. The phrase "like not" (from H2654, châphêts, "to be pleased with, desire") indicates a deliberate choice, a lack of desire or willingness, rather than an inability. This willful refusal sets in motion the legal process for public accountability and consequences.
  • "then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders,": This specifies the prescribed legal procedure for the aggrieved widow. Instead of suffering in silence or resorting to private confrontation, she is empowered by the law to seek justice publicly. The "gate" signifies the civic and judicial center of the town, and the "elders" (H2205, zâqên, "aged, ancient (man), elder") are the established legal authorities and judges. This demonstrates the law's provision for the vulnerable and its emphasis on transparent, communal justice and due process.
  • "and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel,": This is the widow's formal accusation, a public declaration of the brother-in-law's dereliction of duty. The core of her complaint is his refusal to perpetuate the deceased brother's lineage and legacy. "A name in Israel" underscores the profound theological and national significance of the act – it's not merely a family matter, but one that impacts the continuity and integrity of God's covenant people and their inheritance in the promised land.
  • "he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.": This reiterates and reinforces the accusation, clearly stating that he is shirking his specific, known obligation under the levirate law. The repetition emphasizes the deliberate nature of his refusal (from H14, ʼâbâh, "to be acquiescent; consent, rest content will, be willing" used negatively with "not") and the clear violation of a sacred duty. It sets the stage for the public shaming and symbolic act of disgrace described in the subsequent verses (Deuteronomy 25:8-10).

Literary Devices

Deuteronomy 25:7 employs several literary devices to convey its message and legal gravity. The most prominent is Legalistic Language, characteristic of the Deuteronomic code, which presents laws in a clear, prescriptive, and often conditional ("And if... then let...") manner, leaving no ambiguity about the required actions and consequences. The Repetition of phrases like "his brother's wife" and "duty of my husband's brother" reinforces the specific familial relationship and the precise nature of the obligation, emphasizing its non-negotiable character within the covenant community. The scene at the "gate unto the elders" creates a powerful sense of Public Accountability and Dramatic Irony: what should have been a private familial duty becomes a public spectacle due to the brother-in-law's willful refusal, leading to his eventual public shaming (as detailed in the subsequent verses). The phrase "raise up unto his brother a name in Israel" functions as Metonymy, where "name" stands for the entire legacy, lineage, memory, and continued existence of the deceased within the covenant community, highlighting the profound cultural and theological significance of an heir.

THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS

Deuteronomy 25:7, though addressing a specific ancient custom, resonates with enduring theological principles concerning justice, compassion, and the preservation of God's people. It reveals God's meticulous care for the vulnerable, particularly childless widows, ensuring their social and economic security within the covenant community. The law underscores the importance of communal responsibility in upholding divine statutes, demonstrating that individual actions have broader implications for the well-being and integrity of Israel as a whole. Furthermore, the emphasis on "raising up a name" points to the profound value God places on legacy and continuity, not merely for individual families but for the collective identity of His chosen nation and the fulfillment of His covenant promises. This passage thus serves as a powerful testament to God's desire for a just and orderly society where covenant obligations are honored and the marginalized are protected.

REFLECTION AND APPLICATION

While the specific practice of levirate marriage is not observed today, Deuteronomy 25:7 offers timeless principles for contemporary believers. It challenges us to consider our responsibilities within our families, churches, and broader communities, particularly towards those who are vulnerable, marginalized, or in need of support. Are we willing to step into inconvenient, costly, or uncomfortable situations to uphold justice, provide practical assistance, and ensure the well-being of others, especially those whom society might overlook or neglect? The public nature of the widow's appeal and the subsequent shaming of the uncooperative brother underscore the importance of integrity, accountability, and the fulfillment of our duties. Our refusal to fulfill our obligations, whether personal or communal, can have far-reaching consequences, impacting not only individuals but also the broader witness and health of the faith community. This passage calls us to cultivate a heart of compassion, a steadfast commitment to justice, and a willingness to prioritize the needs of others above personal preference, comfort, or convenience, thereby reflecting the very character of God.

Questions for Reflection

  • In what specific ways does our modern society, or even our church communities, sometimes fail to adequately care for the vulnerable, such as widows, orphans, or those without traditional family support systems?
  • What "duties" or responsibilities might we, as individuals or as a collective, be tempted to shirk today, and what are the potential spiritual, relational, or communal consequences of such neglect?
  • How can we, as followers of Christ, actively work to "raise up a name" for those who are forgotten, marginalized, or whose legacies are at risk of being lost in our contemporary context?

FAQ

What was the primary purpose of levirate marriage in ancient Israel?

Answer: The primary purpose of levirate marriage (yibbum) was to ensure the continuity of a deceased man's lineage and the preservation of his name and inheritance within Israel. If a man died without a male heir, his surviving brother was obligated to marry the widow and father a child, who would then be legally considered the son of the deceased. This custom prevented the extinction of the family line, maintained the deceased's claim to his ancestral land, and provided crucial social and economic security for the childless widow, who would otherwise be left vulnerable. This custom is detailed in Deuteronomy 25:5-6.

Why was the city gate the place for this legal proceeding?

Answer: The city gate (sha'ar) in ancient Israel served as the central public forum for all legal, commercial, and civic activities. It was where the elders (zeqenim), who functioned as local judges and leaders, would convene to hear disputes, administer justice, and make public pronouncements. By bringing her case to the gate, the widow ensured a public hearing, communal witness to the brother-in-law's refusal, and a formal, legally recognized resolution. This public setting underscored the gravity of the duty and the societal importance of upholding God's laws, as well as the public shame associated with its neglect, as seen in the subsequent verses, Deuteronomy 25:9-10.

Does the Bible provide other examples of levirate marriage or similar customs?

Answer: Yes, the Bible provides several instances that illustrate or relate to the levirate custom. The most prominent example is found in the Book of Ruth, where Boaz acts as a kinsman-redeemer (go'el) for Ruth, the Moabite widow of Elimelech's son. While not a direct brother-in-law, Boaz fulfills a similar role in preserving the family line and inheritance, as detailed in Ruth 4. Another earlier, though less ideal, example is seen in Genesis 38, involving Judah and his sons Er, Onan, and Shelah, and Tamar, where the duty of raising up seed for a deceased brother is clearly understood, though not always honored. These narratives highlight the cultural significance and the challenges associated with the custom.

CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT

Deuteronomy 25:7, with its emphasis on raising up a "name" for the deceased and providing for the vulnerable, finds profound Christ-centered fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus. Just as the levirate law sought to prevent the extinction of a family line and preserve an inheritance, Christ, our ultimate Kinsman-Redeemer, stepped into humanity's desperate situation, where sin had left us spiritually dead and without an inheritance. He became our "brother" by taking on human flesh (Hebrews 2:14-17) and identifying with our humanity, not to raise up a temporal name, but to secure an eternal one for us. Through His sacrificial death and resurrection, Christ "raised up" a new spiritual lineage, ensuring that those who believe in Him are adopted into God's family, receiving an imperishable inheritance (1 Peter 1:3-4). He performed the ultimate "duty of the husband's brother," not by marrying a widow in a physical sense, but by uniting Himself with His church, His bride (Ephesians 5:25-27), rescuing her from spiritual destitution and giving her His own glorious name and identity. In doing so, Christ perfectly fulfills the spirit of the law, demonstrating God's unwavering commitment to justice, compassion, and the eternal preservation of His people, far beyond any earthly lineage or inheritance.

Copy as

Commentary on Deuteronomy 25 verses 5–12

Here is, I. The law settled concerning the marrying of the brother's widow. It appears from the story of Judah's family that this had been an ancient usage (Gen 38:8), for the keeping up of distinct families. The case put is a case that often happens, of a man's dying without issue, it may be in the prime of his time, soon after his marriage, and while his brethren were yet so young as to be unmarried. Now in this case, 1. The widow was not to marry again into any other family, unless all the relations of her husband did refuse her, that the estate she was endowed with might not be alienated. 2. The husband's brother, or next of kin, must marry her, partly out of respect to her, who, having forgotten her own people and her father's house, should have all possible kindness shown her by the family into which she was married; and partly out of respect to the deceased husband, that though he was dead and gone he might not be forgotten, nor lost out of the genealogies of his tribe; for the first-born child, which the brother or next kinsman should have by the widow, should be denominated from him that was dead, and entered in the genealogy as his child, Deu 25:5, Deu 25:6. Under that dispensation we have reason to think men had not so clear and certain a prospect of living themselves on the other side death as we have now, to whom life and immortality are brought to light by the gospel; and therefore they could not but be the more desirous to live in their posterity, which innocent desire was in some measure gratified by this law, an expedient being found out that, though a man had no child by his wife, yet his name should not be put out of Israel, that is, out of the pedigree, or, which is equivalent, remain there under the brand of childlessness. The Sadducees put a case to our Saviour upon this law, with a design to perplex the doctrine of the resurrection by it (Mat 22:24, etc.), perhaps insinuating that there was no need of maintaining the immortality of the soul and a future state, since the law had so well provided for the perpetuating of men's names and families in the world. But, 3. If the brother, or next of kin, declined to do this good office to the memory of him that was gone, what must be done in that case? Why, (1.) He shall not be compelled to do it, Deu 25:7. If he like her not, he is at liberty to refuse her, which, some think, was not permitted in this case before this law of Moses. Affection is all in all to the comfort of the conjugal relation; this is a thing which cannot be forced, and therefore the relation should not be forced without it. (2.) Yet he shall be publicly disgraced for not doing it. The widow, as the person most concerned for the name and honour of the deceased, was to complain to the elders of his refusal; if he persist in it, she must pluck off his shoe, and spit in his face, in open court (or, as the Jewish doctors moderate it, spit before his face), thus to fasten a mark of infamy upon him, which was to remain with his family after him, Deu 25:8-10. Note, Those justly suffer in their own reputation who do not do what they ought to preserve the name and honour of others. He that would not build up his brother's house deserved to have this blemish put upon his own, that it should be called the house of him that had his shoe loosed, in token that he deserved to go barefoot. In the case of Ruth we find this law executed (Rut 4:7), but because, upon the refusal of the next kinsman, there was another ready to perform the duty of a husband's brother, it was that other that plucked off the shoe, and not the widow - Boaz, and not Ruth.

II. A law for the punishing of an immodest woman, Deu 25:11, Deu 25:12. The woman that by the foregoing law was to complain against her husband's brother for not marrying her, and to spit in his face before the elders, needed a good measure of assurance; but, lest the confidence which that law supported should grow to an excess unbecoming the sex, here is a very severe but just law to punish impudence and immodesty. 1. The instance of it is confessedly scandalous to the highest degree. A woman could not do it unless she were perfectly lost to all virtue and honour. 2. The occasion is such as might in part excuse it; it was to help her husband out of the hands of one that was too hard for him. Now if the doing of it in a passion, and with such a good intention, was to be so severely punished, much more when it was done wantonly and in lust. 3. The punishment was that her hand should be cut off; and the magistrates must not pretend to be more merciful than God: Thy eye shall not pity her. Perhaps our Saviour alludes to this law when he commands us to cut off the right hand that offends us, or is an occasion of sin to us. Better put the greatest hardships that can be upon the body than ruin the soul for ever. Modesty is the hedge of chastity, and therefore ought to be very carefully preserved and kept up by both sexes.

Matthew Henry (1662–1714) — Commentary on the Whole Bible. This section covers verses 5–12. Public domain.
Copy as
Source: Quotations drawn from early Church Fathers and historical Christian theologians (AD 100–1500). Some quotes address the surrounding passage context rather than this verse alone.
Copy as

Continue studying Deuteronomy 25:7 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.

Read & Compare

Commentaries

Original Language & Research

Sermons, Hymns & Audio

TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.