Deuteronomy 25:10 kjv
And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.
Deuteronomy 25:10 nkjv
And his name shall be called in Israel, 'The house of him who had his sandal removed.'
Deuteronomy 25:10 niv
That man's line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.
Deuteronomy 25:10 esv
And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, 'The house of him who had his sandal pulled off.'
Deuteronomy 25:10 nlt
Ever afterward in Israel his family will be referred to as 'the family of the man whose sandal was pulled off'!
Deuteronomy 25 10 Cross References
| Verse | Text | Reference |
| Deut 25:5 | If brothers dwell together... the wife of the dead man shall not be married... | Introduces the Levirate marriage law. |
| Deut 25:6 | And the firstborn son that she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother... | Purpose of raising offspring for the deceased's name. |
| Deut 25:7-9 | If the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife... his sister-in-law shall go up to him... | Details the formal refusal and shaming ritual. |
| Gen 38:8 | Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law...” | Earliest biblical example of Levirate custom. |
| Ruth 4:7-8 | Now this was the custom in former times in Israel concerning redeeming and exchanging... a man pulled off his sandal... | Illustrates a related legal custom involving sandals in transfers of rights/property. |
| Matt 22:23-32 | The same day Sadducees came to him... saying, "Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow..." | Sadducees referencing the Levirate law to question resurrection. |
| Mark 12:18-27 | And Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection... | Parallel account of Sadducees' challenge regarding Levirate marriage and resurrection. |
| Luke 20:27-40 | There came to him some Sadducees... "Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies having a wife, and he dies childless, his brother should take the wife and raise up offspring for his brother." | Another parallel account of the Sadducees' use of the law. |
| Prov 22:1 | A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches... | Emphasizes the importance and value of a good name/reputation. |
| Eccl 7:1 | A good name is better than precious ointment, and the day of death than the day of birth. | Reinforces the high value placed on one's name/legacy. |
| 1 Sam 2:30 | ...for those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me shall be lightly esteemed. | Principle that defiance against God's ways (implicitly communal laws) leads to disgrace. |
| Isa 50:6 | I gave my back to those who strike, and my cheeks to those who pull out the beard; I hid not my face from disgrace and spitting. | Describes humiliation, includes spitting, mirroring the disgrace ceremony. |
| Heb 12:2 | ...looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame... | Jesus's endurance of public disgrace, drawing a theological contrast. |
| Num 27:8 | If a man dies and has no son, then you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter. | Shows other provisions for preserving lineage and inheritance, highlighting its importance. |
| Jer 32:6-8 | Jeremiah said, "The word of the Lord came to me: ‘Behold, Hanamel... will come to you to buy my field at Anathoth, for the right of redemption is yours to buy it.'" | Concept of kinsman-redeemer ("right of redemption"), tied to family duty. |
| Lev 25:25 | If your brother becomes poor and sells some of his property, his nearest redeemers shall come and redeem what his brother has sold. | The wider law of kinsman-redeemer, which includes responsibilities beyond marriage. |
| Deut 10:12-13 | And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways and to love him... to keep the commandments of the Lord... | General call to covenant obedience, underlying the specific laws like Levirate marriage. |
| Gal 6:2 | Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. | New Testament principle of communal responsibility, broadly echoing the burden of kin. |
| 1 Cor 10:24 | Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. | Emphasizes selflessness for the community's well-being, applicable to fulfilling duties like Levirate marriage. |
| Job 30:8 | They are children of fools, yes, children of men without a name; they were scourged out of the land. | Illustrates negative "name" as a consequence, symbolizing worthlessness. |
Deuteronomy 25 verses
Deuteronomy 25 10 Meaning
Deuteronomy 25:10 prescribes the enduring public shame for a man who refuses to fulfill the duty of Levirate marriage (yibbum). If a brother dies without a son, his surviving brother is commanded to marry the widow to raise offspring in the deceased's name. Refusal, after the public shaming ceremony involving the sister-in-law pulling off his sandal and spitting in his face (Deut 25:9), results in his family being perpetually branded with the ignominious label, "The house of him who had his sandal pulled off." This consequence underscored the immense value placed on lineage, continuity, and the solemnity of community obligations within ancient Israel.
Deuteronomy 25 10 Context
Deuteronomy 25:10 is embedded within a series of diverse civil and humanitarian laws given by Moses to the Israelites just before they enter the Promised Land. The immediate context, Deuteronomy 25:5-10, explicitly details the "yibbum" or Levirate marriage law. This law served to protect the widow and ensure the continuity of the deceased brother's family line and name within the tribe, thereby safeguarding his portion of the tribal inheritance. The verse describes the permanent social marker of shame imposed upon a man who disregards this vital family and covenant obligation. In the broader context of Deuteronomy, Moses frequently reiterates and expands upon God's laws, emphasizing covenant fidelity, justice, and the consequences of obedience or disobedience for Israel's welfare in the land. Historically and culturally, a "name" in ancient Israel represented not merely an identifier, but a person's identity, character, and enduring legacy, deeply tied to their existence and reputation within the community and before God. Failing to perpetuate a name was a significant loss, both socially and spiritually, as it could mean an end to the deceased's memory and lineage among the people.
Deuteronomy 25 10 Word analysis
- And his name: וְנִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ (wĕniqrāʾ šĕmōw). The phrase signifies a public proclamation, emphasizing that his reputation and identity (שֵׁם, shem) will be irrevocably branded by this incident. In Hebrew thought, a "name" encompassed a person's entire character, legacy, and memory; to have a tarnished name was to carry lasting disgrace that impacted generations.
- shall be called: נִקְרָא (niqrāʾ). This is a Nifal verb, indicating a passive action ("it shall be called"), meaning the name will be universally applied by others within the community. It's not a self-designation but a public verdict.
- in Israel: בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל (bĕyiśrāʾēl). This specifies the geographical and communal sphere where this shame would be known and perpetuate. The disgrace is not private but public, observed and remembered by the entire covenant community, emphasizing the social impact of violating divine ordinances for family continuity.
- The house of him: בֵּית (bêt). Refers not just to the individual but to his entire household, his descendants, and his lineage. The shame is inheritable; his family and future generations will bear the stigma of his unfaithfulness to a foundational family obligation. This is a perpetual designation.
- who had his sandal pulled off: חֲלוּץ הַנַּעַל (ḥălûṣ han-naʿal). This phrase names the cause of the lasting ignominy.
- חֲלוּץ (ḥālûṣ): A passive participle meaning "loosed" or "pulled off," specifically referring to the sandal. It underscores that this action was done to him by another (the sister-in-law).
- הַנַּעַל (han-naʿal): "the sandal." In ancient Near Eastern legal and social contexts, the sandal played a symbolic role in property transfers and agreements. In Ruth 4:7-8, the exchange of a sandal ratified a land transaction and redemption rights. Here, however, its removal by the woman is a public ritual of humiliation and renunciation, signifying the brother-in-law's rejection of duty and his accompanying disgrace. It's a symbolic divestment of honor and social standing, a permanent mark of disgrace for neglecting a solemn responsibility.
Deuteronomy 25 10 Bonus section
The ritual disgrace highlights the high premium placed on perpetuating a family's name and its associated land inheritance in ancient Israel. The refusal to engage in Levirate marriage directly threatened these fundamental aspects of Israelite society and therefore incurred one of the most severe forms of social stigma. While the act of removing a sandal in Ruth 4 was part of a voluntary legal transfer (where the kinsman-redeemer initiated the renunciation by pulling off his own sandal), here in Deuteronomy 25, the sister-in-law's act of pulling off his sandal symbolizes a forced, humiliating public divestment of his social standing and reputation as a responsible member of the community. This disgrace was unique in its lasting impact on the entire household, indicating the critical nature of upholding familial duties as part of obedience to God's broader covenant commands.
Deuteronomy 25 10 Commentary
Deuteronomy 25:10 encapsulates the severe social consequences of defying a divinely ordained communal and familial duty. The law of Levirate marriage aimed to protect a widow and perpetuate the deceased brother's lineage and name within Israel, preserving his legacy and land inheritance. The act of having his sandal pulled off, coupled with spitting in his face (Deut 25:9), was a meticulously prescribed public shaming ceremony. It served not just as a one-time humiliation, but as a permanent, infamous designation for his entire family: "The house of him who had his sandal pulled off." This perpetual branding underscored the profound value God placed on familial loyalty, communal responsibility, and the sacredness of covenant obligations, demonstrating that shirking one's duty resulted in lasting disgrace, not just for the individual but for generations. It vividly portrayed the gravity of selfishness when confronted with sacred, self-sacrificial demands for the welfare of the covenant community.