The following "Question" was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, and "Answered" by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed by Barbara Swanson of Batesville, Arkansas, from the tape, GC 1301-F, titled "Bible Questions and Answers Part 8."  A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE. ©1977. All Rights Reserved.

Question

In Deuteronomy 25:9-10, what is the significance of "shoes loosed?"

Answer

Deuteronomy is talking about a very important principle here, and that is the perpetuation of a name. Among the tribes of Israel and the people of Israel it was very important that they perpetuated their seed through male children. They perpetuated their name because it had to do with the possession of the land. It had to do with the tribal domain—very important.

And so in verse five of Deuteronomy 25, “If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry outside the family unto a stranger.” Why? Because the land was to be kept for that family. They were very familial in Israel. And so, if you married this guy and he died, and you’re the lady, and he died and didn’t give you a son, then you were to marry his brother. Now that is of course if his brother was available, assuming that there was another brother coming along.

Verse five, “Her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, take her to him as his wife, perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn whom she bears shall succeed in the name of his brother who is dead, that his name not be put out of Israel. And if the brother desire not to take his brother’s wife”—if the guy says, “I don’t want her, she’s a loser. She’s not my type. My brother may have liked her; I’m not so hot about her, and so I don’t want to do that.” “Then let his brother’s wife go to the gate to the elders and say, ‘my husband’s brother refuses to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel. He will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother.’”

You know what is fascinating about this to me is how small a thing romance was in this whole idea. That was irrelevant. You know what it teaches me? You can really learn to love anybody that you make a commitment to. Anybody. People say, “Well, I can’t love her any more.” No, you won’t love her any more, that’s the answer. Because in every other society in history, there wasn’t romance at all. One day your father came in and said, “That one is yours.” And you said, “Gee, Dad, thanks.” “What’s your name?” And that was it. And it wasn’t a question of whether you could or couldn’t, it was a question of whether you would or wouldn’t love her, because love is something that you do, isn’t it? And when you’ve done it, then you feel it.

And so here, it was right to do this, and this fellow wouldn’t do it. Well, “Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him.” Now this does not apply any longer, so we don’t want girls coming to the elders and saying, "There’s a guy that ought to marry me and he won’t. Will you please call him in.” “And he comes and stands and says, ‘I desire 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.” Now that is a rather humiliating thing. “And shall answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who will not build up his brother’s house.’ And his name shall be called in Israel, ‘The house of him who hath his shoe loosed.’” Oh, yeah, that’s the house of him who hath his shoe loosed. See, I know somebody just found that and tried to stump me.

Now let me tell you what’s going on here. If a man refuses to marry the widow of his dead brother, he is free to do that, but the woman has a recourse. She is to bring the matter before the elders of the town. They were to summon the man and speak to him, and if he persisted in refusing, she was to take his shoe off and spit before his face. Taking off the shoe was an act of indignity to him. It declared that he was not worthy to stand in his brother’s place and was scornfully rejected by the woman. And the spitting was again the most unimaginable indignity.

Now you’ll remember that when somebody claimed land in those days, they took their shoe and placed it on the land. You remember when God said, “Every place the sole of your foot shall touch shall be your land.” So when the foot was on the land, that was the emblem of taking possession of the land. And the voluntary handing of your shoe to another spoke of giving up the right to the land. And so when this guy took his shoe off, he was repudiating all rights and all claims in the matter of the land that belonged to the woman. So he was to have no right at all to that land. And the spitting aspect was simply the shame of such an act toward that woman. Incidentally, Isaiah 20 says that a Jew felt it a shame to be barefoot, so that would add something interesting at that point.

So, you can see that that was a very interesting rule, and a very interesting principle, that God did very much want the brother to come and raise up seed for that family, and when he did not he suffered great indignity. He lost all right to ever claim any of that land and he did it publicly in front of the elders, and he was very dishonored with an indignity when he was spit upon. That’s kind of interesting, isn’t it?

Added to Bible Bulletin Board's "MacArthur’s Questions and Answers" by:

Tony Capoccia
Bible Bulletin Board
Box 119
Columbus, New Jersey, USA, 08022
Our websites: www.biblebb.com and www.gospelgems.com
Email: tony@biblebb.com
Online since 1986