Justice, Dignity, and the Perpetuation of the Covenant Line

Deu 25:5-10 On Levirate Marriages. - Deu 25:5, Deu 25:6. If brothers lived together, and one of them died childless, the wife of the deceased was not to be married outside (i. e. , away from the family) to a strange man (one not belonging to her kindred); her brother-in-law was to come to her and take her for his wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her.

יבּם, denom . from יבם, a brother-in-law, husband’s brother, lit. , to act the brother-in-law, i. e. , perform the duty of a brother-in-law, which consisted in his marrying his deceased brother’s widow, and begetting a son of children with her, the first-born of whom was “to stand upon the name of his deceased brother,” i. e. , be placed in the family of the deceased, and be recognised as the heir of his property, that his name (the name of the man who had died childless) might not be wiped out or vanish out of Israel.

The provision, “without having a son” ( ben ), has been correctly interpreted by the lxx, Vulg. , Josephus (Ant. iv. 8, 23), and the Rabbins , as signifying childless (having no seed, Mat 22:25); for if the deceased had simply a daughter, according to Num 27:4. , the perpetuation of his house and name was to be ensured through her. The obligation of a brother-in-law’s marriage only existed in cases where the brothers had lived together, i.

e. , in one and the same place, not necessarily in one house or with a common domestic establishment and home (vid. , Gen 13:6; Gen 36:7). - This custom of a brother-in-law’s (Levirate) marriage, which is met with in different nations, and as an old traditional custom among the Israelites (see at Gen 38:8.) , had its natural roots in the desire inherent in man, who is formed for immortality, and connected with the hitherto undeveloped belief in an eternal life, to secure a continued personal existence for himself and immorality for his name, through the perpetuation of his family and in the life of the son who took his place.

This desire was not suppressed in Israel by divine revelation, but rather increased, inasmuch as the promises given to the patriarchs were bound up with the preservation and propagation of their seed and name. The promise given to Abraham for his seed would of necessity not only raise the begetting of children in the religious views of the Israelites into the work desired by God and well-pleasing to Him, but would also give this significance to the traditional custom of preserving the name and family by the substitution of a marriage of duty, that they would thereby secure to themselves and their family a share in the blessing of promise.

Moses therefore recognised this custom as perfectly justifiable; but he sought to restrain it within such limits, that it should not present any impediment to the sanctification of marriage aimed at by the law. He took away the compulsory character, which it hitherto possessed, by prescribing in Deu 25:7. , that if the surviving brother refused to marry his widowed sister-in-law, she was to bring the matter into the gate before the elders of the town (vid.

, Deu 21:19), i. e. , before the magistrates; and if the brother-in-law still persisted in his refusal, she was to take his shoe from off his foot and spit in his face, with these words: “ So let it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house . ” The taking off of the shoe was an ancient custom in Israel, adopted, according to Rth 4:7, in cases of redemption and exchange, for the purpose of confirming commercial transactions.

The usage arose from the fact, that when any one took possession of landed property he did so by treading upon the soil, and asserting his right of possession by standing upon it in his shoes. In this way the taking off of the shoe and handing it to another became a symbol of the renunciation of a man’s position and property, - a symbol which was also common among the Indians and the ancient Germans (see my Archäologie , ii.

p. 66). But the custom was an ignominious one in such a case as this, when the shoe was publicly taken off the foot of the brother-in-law by the widow whom he refused to marry. He was thus deprived of the position which he ought to have occupied in relation to her and to his deceased brother, or to his paternal house; and the disgrace involved in this was still further heightened by the fact that his sister-in-law spat in his face.

This is the meaning of the words (cf. Num 12:14), and not merely spit on the ground before his eyes, as Saalschütz and others as well as the Talmudists ( tr. Jebam. xii. 6) render it, for the purpose of diminishing the disgrace. “ Build up his brother’s house ,” i. e. , lay the foundation of a family or posterity for him (cf. Gen 16:2). - In addition to this, the unwilling brother-in-law was to receive a name of ridicule in Israel: “ House of the shoe taken off ” (הנּעל חלוּץ, taken off as to his shoe; cf.

Ewald , §288, b .) , i. e. , of the barefooted man, equivalent to “the miserable fellow;” for it was only in miserable circumstances that the Hebrews went barefoot (vid. , Isa 20:2-3; Micah 1:8 2 Sam. 15:30). If the brother-in-law bore this reproach upon himself and his house, he was released from his duty as a brother-in-law. By these regulations the brother-in-law’s marriage was no doubt recognised as a duty of affection towards his deceased brother, but it was not made a command, the neglect of which would involve guilt and punishment.

Within these limits the brother-in-law’s marriage might co-exist with the prohibition of marriage with a brother’s wife; “whereas, if the deceased brother had a son or children, such a marriage was forbidden as prejudicial to the fraternal relation. In cases where the deceased was childless, it was commanded as a duty of affection for the building up of the brother’s house, and the preservation of his family and name.

By the former prohibition, the house (family) of the brother was kept in its integrity, whilst by the latter command its permanent duration was secured. In both cases the deceased brother was honoured, and the fraternal that the; affection preserved as the moral foundation of his house” (vid. my Archdologie, pp. 64, 65).

Deu 25:5-10 On Levirate Marriages. - Deu 25:5, Deu 25:6. If brothers lived together, and one of them died childless, the wife of the deceased was not to be married outside (i. e. , away from the family) to a strange man (one not belonging to her kindred); her brother-in-law was to come to her and take her for his wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her.

יבּם, denom . from יבם, a brother-in-law, husband’s brother, lit. , to act the brother-in-law, i. e. , perform the duty of a brother-in-law, which consisted in his marrying his deceased brother’s widow, and begetting a son of children with her, the first-born of whom was “to stand upon the name of his deceased brother,” i. e. , be placed in the family of the deceased, and be recognised as the heir of his property, that his name (the name of the man who had died childless) might not be wiped out or vanish out of Israel.

The provision, “without having a son” ( ben ), has been correctly interpreted by the lxx, Vulg. , Josephus (Ant. iv. 8, 23), and the Rabbins , as signifying childless (having no seed, Mat 22:25); for if the deceased had simply a daughter, according to Num 27:4. , the perpetuation of his house and name was to be ensured through her. The obligation of a brother-in-law’s marriage only existed in cases where the brothers had lived together, i.

e. , in one and the same place, not necessarily in one house or with a common domestic establishment and home (vid. , Gen 13:6; Gen 36:7). - This custom of a brother-in-law’s (Levirate) marriage, which is met with in different nations, and as an old traditional custom among the Israelites (see at Gen 38:8.) , had its natural roots in the desire inherent in man, who is formed for immortality, and connected with the hitherto undeveloped belief in an eternal life, to secure a continued personal existence for himself and immorality for his name, through the perpetuation of his family and in the life of the son who took his place.

This desire was not suppressed in Israel by divine revelation, but rather increased, inasmuch as the promises given to the patriarchs were bound up with the preservation and propagation of their seed and name. The promise given to Abraham for his seed would of necessity not only raise the begetting of children in the religious views of the Israelites into the work desired by God and well-pleasing to Him, but would also give this significance to the traditional custom of preserving the name and family by the substitution of a marriage of duty, that they would thereby secure to themselves and their family a share in the blessing of promise.

Moses therefore recognised this custom as perfectly justifiable; but he sought to restrain it within such limits, that it should not present any impediment to the sanctification of marriage aimed at by the law. He took away the compulsory character, which it hitherto possessed, by prescribing in Deu 25:7. , that if the surviving brother refused to marry his widowed sister-in-law, she was to bring the matter into the gate before the elders of the town (vid.

, Deu 21:19), i. e. , before the magistrates; and if the brother-in-law still persisted in his refusal, she was to take his shoe from off his foot and spit in his face, with these words: “ So let it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house . ” The taking off of the shoe was an ancient custom in Israel, adopted, according to Rth 4:7, in cases of redemption and exchange, for the purpose of confirming commercial transactions.

The usage arose from the fact, that when any one took possession of landed property he did so by treading upon the soil, and asserting his right of possession by standing upon it in his shoes. In this way the taking off of the shoe and handing it to another became a symbol of the renunciation of a man’s position and property, - a symbol which was also common among the Indians and the ancient Germans (see my Archäologie , ii.

p. 66). But the custom was an ignominious one in such a case as this, when the shoe was publicly taken off the foot of the brother-in-law by the widow whom he refused to marry. He was thus deprived of the position which he ought to have occupied in relation to her and to his deceased brother, or to his paternal house; and the disgrace involved in this was still further heightened by the fact that his sister-in-law spat in his face.

This is the meaning of the words (cf. Num 12:14), and not merely spit on the ground before his eyes, as Saalschütz and others as well as the Talmudists ( tr. Jebam. xii. 6) render it, for the purpose of diminishing the disgrace. “ Build up his brother’s house ,” i. e. , lay the foundation of a family or posterity for him (cf. Gen 16:2). - In addition to this, the unwilling brother-in-law was to receive a name of ridicule in Israel: “ House of the shoe taken off ” (הנּעל חלוּץ, taken off as to his shoe; cf.

Ewald , §288, b .) , i. e. , of the barefooted man, equivalent to “the miserable fellow;” for it was only in miserable circumstances that the Hebrews went barefoot (vid. , Isa 20:2-3; Micah 1:8 2 Sam. 15:30). If the brother-in-law bore this reproach upon himself and his house, he was released from his duty as a brother-in-law. By these regulations the brother-in-law’s marriage was no doubt recognised as a duty of affection towards his deceased brother, but it was not made a command, the neglect of which would involve guilt and punishment.

Within these limits the brother-in-law’s marriage might co-exist with the prohibition of marriage with a brother’s wife; “whereas, if the deceased brother had a son or children, such a marriage was forbidden as prejudicial to the fraternal relation. In cases where the deceased was childless, it was commanded as a duty of affection for the building up of the brother’s house, and the preservation of his family and name.

By the former prohibition, the house (family) of the brother was kept in its integrity, whilst by the latter command its permanent duration was secured. In both cases the deceased brother was honoured, and the fraternal that the; affection preserved as the moral foundation of his house” (vid. my Archdologie, pp. 64, 65).

Deu 25:5-10 On Levirate Marriages. - Deu 25:5, Deu 25:6. If brothers lived together, and one of them died childless, the wife of the deceased was not to be married outside (i. e. , away from the family) to a strange man (one not belonging to her kindred); her brother-in-law was to come to her and take her for his wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her.

יבּם, denom . from יבם, a brother-in-law, husband’s brother, lit. , to act the brother-in-law, i. e. , perform the duty of a brother-in-law, which consisted in his marrying his deceased brother’s widow, and begetting a son of children with her, the first-born of whom was “to stand upon the name of his deceased brother,” i. e. , be placed in the family of the deceased, and be recognised as the heir of his property, that his name (the name of the man who had died childless) might not be wiped out or vanish out of Israel.

The provision, “without having a son” ( ben ), has been correctly interpreted by the lxx, Vulg. , Josephus (Ant. iv. 8, 23), and the Rabbins , as signifying childless (having no seed, Mat 22:25); for if the deceased had simply a daughter, according to Num 27:4. , the perpetuation of his house and name was to be ensured through her. The obligation of a brother-in-law’s marriage only existed in cases where the brothers had lived together, i.

e. , in one and the same place, not necessarily in one house or with a common domestic establishment and home (vid. , Gen 13:6; Gen 36:7). - This custom of a brother-in-law’s (Levirate) marriage, which is met with in different nations, and as an old traditional custom among the Israelites (see at Gen 38:8.) , had its natural roots in the desire inherent in man, who is formed for immortality, and connected with the hitherto undeveloped belief in an eternal life, to secure a continued personal existence for himself and immorality for his name, through the perpetuation of his family and in the life of the son who took his place.

This desire was not suppressed in Israel by divine revelation, but rather increased, inasmuch as the promises given to the patriarchs were bound up with the preservation and propagation of their seed and name. The promise given to Abraham for his seed would of necessity not only raise the begetting of children in the religious views of the Israelites into the work desired by God and well-pleasing to Him, but would also give this significance to the traditional custom of preserving the name and family by the substitution of a marriage of duty, that they would thereby secure to themselves and their family a share in the blessing of promise.

Moses therefore recognised this custom as perfectly justifiable; but he sought to restrain it within such limits, that it should not present any impediment to the sanctification of marriage aimed at by the law. He took away the compulsory character, which it hitherto possessed, by prescribing in Deu 25:7. , that if the surviving brother refused to marry his widowed sister-in-law, she was to bring the matter into the gate before the elders of the town (vid.

, Deu 21:19), i. e. , before the magistrates; and if the brother-in-law still persisted in his refusal, she was to take his shoe from off his foot and spit in his face, with these words: “ So let it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house . ” The taking off of the shoe was an ancient custom in Israel, adopted, according to Rth 4:7, in cases of redemption and exchange, for the purpose of confirming commercial transactions.

The usage arose from the fact, that when any one took possession of landed property he did so by treading upon the soil, and asserting his right of possession by standing upon it in his shoes. In this way the taking off of the shoe and handing it to another became a symbol of the renunciation of a man’s position and property, - a symbol which was also common among the Indians and the ancient Germans (see my Archäologie , ii.

p. 66). But the custom was an ignominious one in such a case as this, when the shoe was publicly taken off the foot of the brother-in-law by the widow whom he refused to marry. He was thus deprived of the position which he ought to have occupied in relation to her and to his deceased brother, or to his paternal house; and the disgrace involved in this was still further heightened by the fact that his sister-in-law spat in his face.

This is the meaning of the words (cf. Num 12:14), and not merely spit on the ground before his eyes, as Saalschütz and others as well as the Talmudists ( tr. Jebam. xii. 6) render it, for the purpose of diminishing the disgrace. “ Build up his brother’s house ,” i. e. , lay the foundation of a family or posterity for him (cf. Gen 16:2). - In addition to this, the unwilling brother-in-law was to receive a name of ridicule in Israel: “ House of the shoe taken off ” (הנּעל חלוּץ, taken off as to his shoe; cf.

Ewald , §288, b .) , i. e. , of the barefooted man, equivalent to “the miserable fellow;” for it was only in miserable circumstances that the Hebrews went barefoot (vid. , Isa 20:2-3; Micah 1:8 2 Sam. 15:30). If the brother-in-law bore this reproach upon himself and his house, he was released from his duty as a brother-in-law. By these regulations the brother-in-law’s marriage was no doubt recognised as a duty of affection towards his deceased brother, but it was not made a command, the neglect of which would involve guilt and punishment.

Within these limits the brother-in-law’s marriage might co-exist with the prohibition of marriage with a brother’s wife; “whereas, if the deceased brother had a son or children, such a marriage was forbidden as prejudicial to the fraternal relation. In cases where the deceased was childless, it was commanded as a duty of affection for the building up of the brother’s house, and the preservation of his family and name.

By the former prohibition, the house (family) of the brother was kept in its integrity, whilst by the latter command its permanent duration was secured. In both cases the deceased brother was honoured, and the fraternal that the; affection preserved as the moral foundation of his house” (vid. my Archdologie, pp. 64, 65).

Deu 25:5-10 On Levirate Marriages. - Deu 25:5, Deu 25:6. If brothers lived together, and one of them died childless, the wife of the deceased was not to be married outside (i. e. , away from the family) to a strange man (one not belonging to her kindred); her brother-in-law was to come to her and take her for his wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her.

יבּם, denom . from יבם, a brother-in-law, husband’s brother, lit. , to act the brother-in-law, i. e. , perform the duty of a brother-in-law, which consisted in his marrying his deceased brother’s widow, and begetting a son of children with her, the first-born of whom was “to stand upon the name of his deceased brother,” i. e. , be placed in the family of the deceased, and be recognised as the heir of his property, that his name (the name of the man who had died childless) might not be wiped out or vanish out of Israel.

The provision, “without having a son” ( ben ), has been correctly interpreted by the lxx, Vulg. , Josephus (Ant. iv. 8, 23), and the Rabbins , as signifying childless (having no seed, Mat 22:25); for if the deceased had simply a daughter, according to Num 27:4. , the perpetuation of his house and name was to be ensured through her. The obligation of a brother-in-law’s marriage only existed in cases where the brothers had lived together, i.

e. , in one and the same place, not necessarily in one house or with a common domestic establishment and home (vid. , Gen 13:6; Gen 36:7). - This custom of a brother-in-law’s (Levirate) marriage, which is met with in different nations, and as an old traditional custom among the Israelites (see at Gen 38:8.) , had its natural roots in the desire inherent in man, who is formed for immortality, and connected with the hitherto undeveloped belief in an eternal life, to secure a continued personal existence for himself and immorality for his name, through the perpetuation of his family and in the life of the son who took his place.

This desire was not suppressed in Israel by divine revelation, but rather increased, inasmuch as the promises given to the patriarchs were bound up with the preservation and propagation of their seed and name. The promise given to Abraham for his seed would of necessity not only raise the begetting of children in the religious views of the Israelites into the work desired by God and well-pleasing to Him, but would also give this significance to the traditional custom of preserving the name and family by the substitution of a marriage of duty, that they would thereby secure to themselves and their family a share in the blessing of promise.

Moses therefore recognised this custom as perfectly justifiable; but he sought to restrain it within such limits, that it should not present any impediment to the sanctification of marriage aimed at by the law. He took away the compulsory character, which it hitherto possessed, by prescribing in Deu 25:7. , that if the surviving brother refused to marry his widowed sister-in-law, she was to bring the matter into the gate before the elders of the town (vid.

, Deu 21:19), i. e. , before the magistrates; and if the brother-in-law still persisted in his refusal, she was to take his shoe from off his foot and spit in his face, with these words: “ So let it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house . ” The taking off of the shoe was an ancient custom in Israel, adopted, according to Rth 4:7, in cases of redemption and exchange, for the purpose of confirming commercial transactions.

The usage arose from the fact, that when any one took possession of landed property he did so by treading upon the soil, and asserting his right of possession by standing upon it in his shoes. In this way the taking off of the shoe and handing it to another became a symbol of the renunciation of a man’s position and property, - a symbol which was also common among the Indians and the ancient Germans (see my Archäologie , ii.

p. 66). But the custom was an ignominious one in such a case as this, when the shoe was publicly taken off the foot of the brother-in-law by the widow whom he refused to marry. He was thus deprived of the position which he ought to have occupied in relation to her and to his deceased brother, or to his paternal house; and the disgrace involved in this was still further heightened by the fact that his sister-in-law spat in his face.

This is the meaning of the words (cf. Num 12:14), and not merely spit on the ground before his eyes, as Saalschütz and others as well as the Talmudists ( tr. Jebam. xii. 6) render it, for the purpose of diminishing the disgrace. “ Build up his brother’s house ,” i. e. , lay the foundation of a family or posterity for him (cf. Gen 16:2). - In addition to this, the unwilling brother-in-law was to receive a name of ridicule in Israel: “ House of the shoe taken off ” (הנּעל חלוּץ, taken off as to his shoe; cf.

Ewald , §288, b .) , i. e. , of the barefooted man, equivalent to “the miserable fellow;” for it was only in miserable circumstances that the Hebrews went barefoot (vid. , Isa 20:2-3; Micah 1:8 2 Sam. 15:30). If the brother-in-law bore this reproach upon himself and his house, he was released from his duty as a brother-in-law. By these regulations the brother-in-law’s marriage was no doubt recognised as a duty of affection towards his deceased brother, but it was not made a command, the neglect of which would involve guilt and punishment.

Within these limits the brother-in-law’s marriage might co-exist with the prohibition of marriage with a brother’s wife; “whereas, if the deceased brother had a son or children, such a marriage was forbidden as prejudicial to the fraternal relation. In cases where the deceased was childless, it was commanded as a duty of affection for the building up of the brother’s house, and the preservation of his family and name.

By the former prohibition, the house (family) of the brother was kept in its integrity, whilst by the latter command its permanent duration was secured. In both cases the deceased brother was honoured, and the fraternal that the; affection preserved as the moral foundation of his house” (vid. my Archdologie, pp. 64, 65).

Deu 25:5-10 On Levirate Marriages. - Deu 25:5, Deu 25:6. If brothers lived together, and one of them died childless, the wife of the deceased was not to be married outside (i. e. , away from the family) to a strange man (one not belonging to her kindred); her brother-in-law was to come to her and take her for his wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her.

יבּם, denom . from יבם, a brother-in-law, husband’s brother, lit. , to act the brother-in-law, i. e. , perform the duty of a brother-in-law, which consisted in his marrying his deceased brother’s widow, and begetting a son of children with her, the first-born of whom was “to stand upon the name of his deceased brother,” i. e. , be placed in the family of the deceased, and be recognised as the heir of his property, that his name (the name of the man who had died childless) might not be wiped out or vanish out of Israel.

The provision, “without having a son” ( ben ), has been correctly interpreted by the lxx, Vulg. , Josephus (Ant. iv. 8, 23), and the Rabbins , as signifying childless (having no seed, Mat 22:25); for if the deceased had simply a daughter, according to Num 27:4. , the perpetuation of his house and name was to be ensured through her. The obligation of a brother-in-law’s marriage only existed in cases where the brothers had lived together, i.

e. , in one and the same place, not necessarily in one house or with a common domestic establishment and home (vid. , Gen 13:6; Gen 36:7). - This custom of a brother-in-law’s (Levirate) marriage, which is met with in different nations, and as an old traditional custom among the Israelites (see at Gen 38:8.) , had its natural roots in the desire inherent in man, who is formed for immortality, and connected with the hitherto undeveloped belief in an eternal life, to secure a continued personal existence for himself and immorality for his name, through the perpetuation of his family and in the life of the son who took his place.

This desire was not suppressed in Israel by divine revelation, but rather increased, inasmuch as the promises given to the patriarchs were bound up with the preservation and propagation of their seed and name. The promise given to Abraham for his seed would of necessity not only raise the begetting of children in the religious views of the Israelites into the work desired by God and well-pleasing to Him, but would also give this significance to the traditional custom of preserving the name and family by the substitution of a marriage of duty, that they would thereby secure to themselves and their family a share in the blessing of promise.

Moses therefore recognised this custom as perfectly justifiable; but he sought to restrain it within such limits, that it should not present any impediment to the sanctification of marriage aimed at by the law. He took away the compulsory character, which it hitherto possessed, by prescribing in Deu 25:7. , that if the surviving brother refused to marry his widowed sister-in-law, she was to bring the matter into the gate before the elders of the town (vid.

, Deu 21:19), i. e. , before the magistrates; and if the brother-in-law still persisted in his refusal, she was to take his shoe from off his foot and spit in his face, with these words: “ So let it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house . ” The taking off of the shoe was an ancient custom in Israel, adopted, according to Rth 4:7, in cases of redemption and exchange, for the purpose of confirming commercial transactions.

The usage arose from the fact, that when any one took possession of landed property he did so by treading upon the soil, and asserting his right of possession by standing upon it in his shoes. In this way the taking off of the shoe and handing it to another became a symbol of the renunciation of a man’s position and property, - a symbol which was also common among the Indians and the ancient Germans (see my Archäologie , ii.

p. 66). But the custom was an ignominious one in such a case as this, when the shoe was publicly taken off the foot of the brother-in-law by the widow whom he refused to marry. He was thus deprived of the position which he ought to have occupied in relation to her and to his deceased brother, or to his paternal house; and the disgrace involved in this was still further heightened by the fact that his sister-in-law spat in his face.

This is the meaning of the words (cf. Num 12:14), and not merely spit on the ground before his eyes, as Saalschütz and others as well as the Talmudists ( tr. Jebam. xii. 6) render it, for the purpose of diminishing the disgrace. “ Build up his brother’s house ,” i. e. , lay the foundation of a family or posterity for him (cf. Gen 16:2). - In addition to this, the unwilling brother-in-law was to receive a name of ridicule in Israel: “ House of the shoe taken off ” (הנּעל חלוּץ, taken off as to his shoe; cf.

Ewald , §288, b .) , i. e. , of the barefooted man, equivalent to “the miserable fellow;” for it was only in miserable circumstances that the Hebrews went barefoot (vid. , Isa 20:2-3; Micah 1:8 2 Sam. 15:30). If the brother-in-law bore this reproach upon himself and his house, he was released from his duty as a brother-in-law. By these regulations the brother-in-law’s marriage was no doubt recognised as a duty of affection towards his deceased brother, but it was not made a command, the neglect of which would involve guilt and punishment.

Within these limits the brother-in-law’s marriage might co-exist with the prohibition of marriage with a brother’s wife; “whereas, if the deceased brother had a son or children, such a marriage was forbidden as prejudicial to the fraternal relation. In cases where the deceased was childless, it was commanded as a duty of affection for the building up of the brother’s house, and the preservation of his family and name.

By the former prohibition, the house (family) of the brother was kept in its integrity, whilst by the latter command its permanent duration was secured. In both cases the deceased brother was honoured, and the fraternal that the; affection preserved as the moral foundation of his house” (vid. my Archdologie, pp. 64, 65).

Deu 25:11-12 “But in order that the great independence which is here accorded to a childless widow in relation to her brother-in-law, might not be interpreted as a false freedom granted to the female sex” ( Baumgarten ), the law is added immediately afterwards, that a woman whose husband was quarrelling with another, and who should come to his assistance by laying hold of the secret parts of the man who was striking her husband, should have her hand cut off.

Deu 25:11-12 “But in order that the great independence which is here accorded to a childless widow in relation to her brother-in-law, might not be interpreted as a false freedom granted to the female sex” ( Baumgarten ), the law is added immediately afterwards, that a woman whose husband was quarrelling with another, and who should come to his assistance by laying hold of the secret parts of the man who was striking her husband, should have her hand cut off.

Deu 25:13-16 The duty of integrity in trade is once more enforced in Deu 25:13-16 (as in Lev 19:35-36). “ Stone and stone ,” i.e., two kinds of stones for weighing (cf. Psa 12:3), viz., large ones for buying and small ones for selling. On the promise in Deu 25:15 , see Deu 4:26; Deu 5:16; Deu 25:16 , as in Deu 22:5; Deu 18:12, etc. In the concluding words, Deu 25:16 , “ all that do unrighteously ,” Moses sums up all breaches of the law.

Deu 25:13-16 The duty of integrity in trade is once more enforced in Deu 25:13-16 (as in Lev 19:35-36). “ Stone and stone ,” i.e., two kinds of stones for weighing (cf. Psa 12:3), viz., large ones for buying and small ones for selling. On the promise in Deu 25:15 , see Deu 4:26; Deu 5:16; Deu 25:16 , as in Deu 22:5; Deu 18:12, etc. In the concluding words, Deu 25:16 , “ all that do unrighteously ,” Moses sums up all breaches of the law.

Deu 25:13-16 The duty of integrity in trade is once more enforced in Deu 25:13-16 (as in Lev 19:35-36). “ Stone and stone ,” i.e., two kinds of stones for weighing (cf. Psa 12:3), viz., large ones for buying and small ones for selling. On the promise in Deu 25:15 , see Deu 4:26; Deu 5:16; Deu 25:16 , as in Deu 22:5; Deu 18:12, etc. In the concluding words, Deu 25:16 , “ all that do unrighteously ,” Moses sums up all breaches of the law.

Deu 25:13-16 The duty of integrity in trade is once more enforced in Deu 25:13-16 (as in Lev 19:35-36). “ Stone and stone ,” i.e., two kinds of stones for weighing (cf. Psa 12:3), viz., large ones for buying and small ones for selling. On the promise in Deu 25:15 , see Deu 4:26; Deu 5:16; Deu 25:16 , as in Deu 22:5; Deu 18:12, etc. In the concluding words, Deu 25:16 , “ all that do unrighteously ,” Moses sums up all breaches of the law.

Deu 25:17-19 But whilst the Israelites were to make love the guiding principle of their conduct in their dealings with a neighbour, and even with strangers and foes, this love was not to degenerate into weakness or indifference towards open ungodliness. To impress this truth upon the people, Moses concludes the discourse on the law by reminding them of the crafty enmity manifested towards them by Amalek on their march out of Egypt, and with the command to root out the Amalekites (cf.

Exo 17:9-16). This heathen nation had come against Israel on its journey, viz. , at Rephidim in Horeb, and had attacked its rear: “ All the enfeebled behind thee, whilst thou wast faint and weary, without fearing God . ” זנּב, lit. , to tail, hence to attack or destroy the rear of an army or of a travelling people (cf. Jos 10:19). For this reason, when the Lord should have given Israel rest in the land of its inheritance, it was to root out the remembrance of Amalek under heaven.

(On the execution of this command, see 1 Sam 15.) “ Thou shalt not forget it: ” an emphatic enforcement of the “remember” in Deu 25:17. To the exposition of the commandments and rights of Israel Moses adds, in closing, another ordinance respecting those gifts, which were most intimately connected with social and domestic life, viz. , the first-fruits and second tithes, for the purpose of giving the proper consecration to the attitude of the nation towards its Lord and God.

Deu 25:17-19 But whilst the Israelites were to make love the guiding principle of their conduct in their dealings with a neighbour, and even with strangers and foes, this love was not to degenerate into weakness or indifference towards open ungodliness. To impress this truth upon the people, Moses concludes the discourse on the law by reminding them of the crafty enmity manifested towards them by Amalek on their march out of Egypt, and with the command to root out the Amalekites (cf.

Exo 17:9-16). This heathen nation had come against Israel on its journey, viz. , at Rephidim in Horeb, and had attacked its rear: “ All the enfeebled behind thee, whilst thou wast faint and weary, without fearing God . ” זנּב, lit. , to tail, hence to attack or destroy the rear of an army or of a travelling people (cf. Jos 10:19). For this reason, when the Lord should have given Israel rest in the land of its inheritance, it was to root out the remembrance of Amalek under heaven.

(On the execution of this command, see 1 Sam 15.) “ Thou shalt not forget it: ” an emphatic enforcement of the “remember” in Deu 25:17. To the exposition of the commandments and rights of Israel Moses adds, in closing, another ordinance respecting those gifts, which were most intimately connected with social and domestic life, viz. , the first-fruits and second tithes, for the purpose of giving the proper consecration to the attitude of the nation towards its Lord and God.

Deu 25:17-19 But whilst the Israelites were to make love the guiding principle of their conduct in their dealings with a neighbour, and even with strangers and foes, this love was not to degenerate into weakness or indifference towards open ungodliness. To impress this truth upon the people, Moses concludes the discourse on the law by reminding them of the crafty enmity manifested towards them by Amalek on their march out of Egypt, and with the command to root out the Amalekites (cf.

Exo 17:9-16). This heathen nation had come against Israel on its journey, viz. , at Rephidim in Horeb, and had attacked its rear: “ All the enfeebled behind thee, whilst thou wast faint and weary, without fearing God . ” זנּב, lit. , to tail, hence to attack or destroy the rear of an army or of a travelling people (cf. Jos 10:19). For this reason, when the Lord should have given Israel rest in the land of its inheritance, it was to root out the remembrance of Amalek under heaven.

(On the execution of this command, see 1 Sam 15.) “ Thou shalt not forget it: ” an emphatic enforcement of the “remember” in Deu 25:17. To the exposition of the commandments and rights of Israel Moses adds, in closing, another ordinance respecting those gifts, which were most intimately connected with social and domestic life, viz. , the first-fruits and second tithes, for the purpose of giving the proper consecration to the attitude of the nation towards its Lord and God.

Deu 26:1-4 Of the first of the fruit of the ground, which was presented from the land received from the Lord, the Israelites was to take a portion (מראשׁית with מן partitive), and bring it in a basket to the place of the sanctuary, and give it to the priest who should be there, with the words, “I have made known to-day to the Lord thy God, that I have come into the land which the Lord swore to our fathers to give us ,” upon which the priest should take the basket and put it down before the altar of Jehovah (Deu 26:1-4). From the partitive מראשׁית we cannot infer, as Schultz supposes, that the first-fruits were not to be all delivered at the sanctuary, any more than this can be inferred from Exo 23:19 (see the explanation of this passage).

All that is implied is, that, for the purpose described afterwards, it was not necessary to put all the offerings of first-fruits into a basket and set them down before the altar. טנא (Deu 26:2, Deu 26:4, and Deu 28:5, Deu 28:17) is a basket of wicker-work, and not, as Knobel maintains, the Deuteronomist’s word for צנצנת rof (Exo 16:33. “ The priest ” is not the high priest, but the priest who had to attend to the altar-service and receive the sacrificial gifts.

- The words, “I have to-day made known to the Lord thy God,” refer to the practical confession which was made by the presentation of the first-fruits. The fruit was the tangible proof that they were in possession of the land, and the presentation of the first of this fruit the practical confession that they were indebted to the Lord for the land. This confession the offerer was also to embody in a prayer of thanksgiving, after the basket had been received by the priest, in which he confessed that he and his people owed their existence and welfare to the grace of God, manifested in the miraculous redemption of Israel out of the oppression of Egypt and their guidance into Canaan.

Deu 26:1-4 Of the first of the fruit of the ground, which was presented from the land received from the Lord, the Israelites was to take a portion (מראשׁית with מן partitive), and bring it in a basket to the place of the sanctuary, and give it to the priest who should be there, with the words, “I have made known to-day to the Lord thy God, that I have come into the land which the Lord swore to our fathers to give us ,” upon which the priest should take the basket and put it down before the altar of Jehovah (Deu 26:1-4). From the partitive מראשׁית we cannot infer, as Schultz supposes, that the first-fruits were not to be all delivered at the sanctuary, any more than this can be inferred from Exo 23:19 (see the explanation of this passage).

All that is implied is, that, for the purpose described afterwards, it was not necessary to put all the offerings of first-fruits into a basket and set them down before the altar. טנא (Deu 26:2, Deu 26:4, and Deu 28:5, Deu 28:17) is a basket of wicker-work, and not, as Knobel maintains, the Deuteronomist’s word for צנצנת rof (Exo 16:33. “ The priest ” is not the high priest, but the priest who had to attend to the altar-service and receive the sacrificial gifts.

- The words, “I have to-day made known to the Lord thy God,” refer to the practical confession which was made by the presentation of the first-fruits. The fruit was the tangible proof that they were in possession of the land, and the presentation of the first of this fruit the practical confession that they were indebted to the Lord for the land. This confession the offerer was also to embody in a prayer of thanksgiving, after the basket had been received by the priest, in which he confessed that he and his people owed their existence and welfare to the grace of God, manifested in the miraculous redemption of Israel out of the oppression of Egypt and their guidance into Canaan.

Deu 26:1-4 Of the first of the fruit of the ground, which was presented from the land received from the Lord, the Israelites was to take a portion (מראשׁית with מן partitive), and bring it in a basket to the place of the sanctuary, and give it to the priest who should be there, with the words, “I have made known to-day to the Lord thy God, that I have come into the land which the Lord swore to our fathers to give us ,” upon which the priest should take the basket and put it down before the altar of Jehovah (Deu 26:1-4). From the partitive מראשׁית we cannot infer, as Schultz supposes, that the first-fruits were not to be all delivered at the sanctuary, any more than this can be inferred from Exo 23:19 (see the explanation of this passage).

All that is implied is, that, for the purpose described afterwards, it was not necessary to put all the offerings of first-fruits into a basket and set them down before the altar. טנא (Deu 26:2, Deu 26:4, and Deu 28:5, Deu 28:17) is a basket of wicker-work, and not, as Knobel maintains, the Deuteronomist’s word for צנצנת rof (Exo 16:33. “ The priest ” is not the high priest, but the priest who had to attend to the altar-service and receive the sacrificial gifts.

- The words, “I have to-day made known to the Lord thy God,” refer to the practical confession which was made by the presentation of the first-fruits. The fruit was the tangible proof that they were in possession of the land, and the presentation of the first of this fruit the practical confession that they were indebted to the Lord for the land. This confession the offerer was also to embody in a prayer of thanksgiving, after the basket had been received by the priest, in which he confessed that he and his people owed their existence and welfare to the grace of God, manifested in the miraculous redemption of Israel out of the oppression of Egypt and their guidance into Canaan.

Deu 26:1-4 Of the first of the fruit of the ground, which was presented from the land received from the Lord, the Israelites was to take a portion (מראשׁית with מן partitive), and bring it in a basket to the place of the sanctuary, and give it to the priest who should be there, with the words, “I have made known to-day to the Lord thy God, that I have come into the land which the Lord swore to our fathers to give us ,” upon which the priest should take the basket and put it down before the altar of Jehovah (Deu 26:1-4). From the partitive מראשׁית we cannot infer, as Schultz supposes, that the first-fruits were not to be all delivered at the sanctuary, any more than this can be inferred from Exo 23:19 (see the explanation of this passage).

All that is implied is, that, for the purpose described afterwards, it was not necessary to put all the offerings of first-fruits into a basket and set them down before the altar. טנא (Deu 26:2, Deu 26:4, and Deu 28:5, Deu 28:17) is a basket of wicker-work, and not, as Knobel maintains, the Deuteronomist’s word for צנצנת rof (Exo 16:33. “ The priest ” is not the high priest, but the priest who had to attend to the altar-service and receive the sacrificial gifts.

- The words, “I have to-day made known to the Lord thy God,” refer to the practical confession which was made by the presentation of the first-fruits. The fruit was the tangible proof that they were in possession of the land, and the presentation of the first of this fruit the practical confession that they were indebted to the Lord for the land. This confession the offerer was also to embody in a prayer of thanksgiving, after the basket had been received by the priest, in which he confessed that he and his people owed their existence and welfare to the grace of God, manifested in the miraculous redemption of Israel out of the oppression of Egypt and their guidance into Canaan.