An Issue of Duty, A Matter of Love

申命记第25章：5-19节
Sermon on Deuteronomy 25:5-19
Introduction

What would you do for your brother or sister? Would you help him or her with their work? Take care of his pet hamster or goldfish and look after his house when he’s away? Possibly? What would you do for your brother if he’s no longer around for good? Would you look after his wife (now a widow) and the house he left behind?

Today’s passage gives new meaning to the phrase “the duties of a brother in law”. If the thought of marrying your brother’s wife is a little disturbing, then let’s continue together to see what God was thinking when these instructions made it into scripture. Today’s passage has a few separate sections, and all are in the Deutronomic tradition of telling us what to do.

PART A:
Levirate marriages
The first part of the passage grabs our attention for being somewhat unusual and also for being quite onerous/demanding. This law says: If there is an extended household where they all live together, and Brother A die without a male heir, then Brother B has to marry the Brother A’s widow. The first son Brother A’s widow give birth to would carry Brother A’s name and be considered the proper heir.
Odd as it might sound to us, it was actually common and accepted in those times. In fact, it was so established that in Hebrew there is a word “wabam” which means “perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her” (source #3). It’s also termed levirate marriages; not because of the tribe of Levi, but because the latin word “levir” meaning a brother in law, or a husband’s brother.
We see how established this practice is by its mentions in the bible:
(a) In Genesis (38:8-11), Judah’s eldest son Er dies, leaving a widow, Tamar. Judah tells his other son, Omar, to marry Tamar. When Onan dies, Judah tells Tamar to wait for his son Shelah to grow up (and to continue to live in their house for the meantime);
(b) In Ruth, Boaz marries his close relative Ruth to raise up children for her dead husband(although strictly speaking this wasn’t levirate as he was only a relative) and
(c) Even in the NT times, this was well known, as the Sadducees ask Jesus about this law (Matt 23:23-28), which Jesus swiftly sidesteps as being a trap.

What was the reason for this rule or this custom?
One important aspect, using the words in Ruth, it was to “perpetuate the name of dead through his inheritance” so that the dead’s name “may not be cut out”. (Ruth 4:5,10). Inheritance then was not in terms of money, but in land. When Canaan was taken over, Israel’s land was allocated to the tribes, and remained with families. The land was not bought or sold, and passed down through the sons. Daughters were married off to their husband’s household. So the name of a man was important to maintain his inheritance rights. If the widow remarried outside the family, a foreigner may get the land.

Another aspect was that the woman would then be taken care of, and could continue to live with the family she knew. Sending her away to a strange land with foreign people would not have been the best solution.

Was levirate marriage set in stone? Could you (the remaining brother) refuse to marry your brother’s widow? Yes you could release the widow from the obligation (in a procedure that was called the “Halitzah”), but under Mosaic Law this procedure was quite shameful and not viewed as desirable. The elders would come and ask you to do your brotherly duty. The widow would “remove the sandel from his foot and spit in his face” (24:9). It was a matter of great public shame, and in the Talmud, there is specific mention of this with details such as what shoes can be used and the proper removal of the shoe.

The importance of offspring continues with the next part (v11-12). If a woman tries to help her husband fight by grabbing the private parts of his opponent, her punishment is mutilation (v12)- she loses her hand.This seems very extreme, and is the only time we see loss of a limb prescribed. Why so? Procreation is at risk, and it was of utmost importance there be heirs (male ones) to continue the line. It is so important that, in fact, for levirate marriages, the choice does not lie with the woman; she is just as obliged as the brother is to be married.

The rest of the passage (v 13-19)
The next part of the passage talks about the need to be honest, and not cheat by using weighted scales (v13-16). The final part (v17-19) tells Israel to remember that they have enemies such as the Amalekites, who were nomadic herdsmen who attacked the Israelites as they crossed the Red Sea. [1]

Pause to recap
What do you think about these obligations? Some seem easy enough ( “of course i’ll be honest and not use weighted scales”), some seem irrelevant ( you’re not likely to be grabbing the private parts of your husband’s attacker - are you?! :O), but levirate marriages appear the most daunting.

To take on the responsibility of another woman and, after that, her son and a whole new household, is no small task. The good news is that levirate marriages are no longer an obligation, because under the new covenant- a widow can marry whom she wishes, in the Lord ( 1 Corinthian 7:39)- yet we still consider this to see what lessons we can draw from it.

PART B
Coming back to the Mosiac Law
As this is our last sermon on the of Deuteronomy, perhaps a review would be helpful.The Deuteronomy rules we’ve been looking at all make up part of the Mosaic Law, although the 10 Commandments are the most famous.

The purpose of this law was two-fold:
(a) Firstly, for Israel to govern her life in the promised land for blessing instead of cursing, by helping them keep a proper relationship between them and God,
(b) secondly, to show God’s people their condition- helpless and hopeless- before a righteous and just God.

After the Israelites came out of exile, God gave to Moses the Mosaic covenant, which was bilateral. [2]This means that two parties need to do something for it to be valid. For the generation to receive God’s blessings, they had to be faithful and obedient. It was through obedience to the Mosaic Covenant (the Law) that Israel would be able to experience the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant in the Promised Land. For obedience there would be blessings; for disobedience, cursing (cf. Deut. 28-30).[i]

What of the law now?
The Mosaic Law is holy, good, and spiritual (Rom. 7:12, 14). It was,however, only temporary (see Hebrews) valid till the Messiah came and a New Covenant established. The Law was never designed as permanent, it was only an interim guide for Israel in all areas of her life until Christ (2 Cor. 3:7, 11; Gal. 3:23-24; Rom. 10:4).[3]

So today, we have slightly different words to guide our lives; instead of being commanded to carry out Levirate marriages, we’re told to “Love one another as Christ has loved us” and to “feed His sheep”. It seems that the things we have to do now are less specific, but no less easier to carry out.
In reading today’s passage, the repetition of a phrase stood out. In verse 5 and 7, it mentions “…the duty of a brother-in-law...” There’s that word- DUTY. Deuteronomy sets out rules, which seems to impose DUTIES on the Israelites. That word is consistent with the legalistic feeling of Deuteronomy, with its lists of things to do and not to do, often spelt out in great specifics/details (supplemented by Jewish writings such as the Talmud (explanation of the Torah), which includes the Mishnah (legal opinons and debates)).
But that is NOT the feeling we get from the New Covenant. Yes, there are still instructions on how we ought to live, but it is much less specific and legalistic. We don’t get- or we shouldn’t get- the vibe of “duty” so strongly from reading the New Testament. [In the New Covenant, the emphasis is on our relationship with God through Christ. It is this relationship that leads us to want to do as God has said. So for me, it’s duty contrasted with love (?)]

PART C
Duty
The idea of duty doesn’t really have pleasant connotations. “Duty” has been defined as “a moral or legal obligation; a responsibility” [4] Or it might be something required by your job or your position (e.g. duty of care owed by professionals, or soldiers, or teachers). What about your religion? Does christianity impose duties on us?
The New Covenant has moved us away from the idea of duty, but I wonder if that is sometimes hard for us to understand and to accept in our Christian lives.

I wonder: does your Christian journey sometimes feel like a long list of duties? Do coming to church, serving in ministries or doing the right thing feel like an obligations, which sometimes get onerous? Certainly it won’t all be a bed of roses, and yes, there is an overlap between duty and love, but it shouldn’t be the case that duty takes prominence, and there isn’t much love.

Let’s use the example of your real-life family. We’re at the start of the Christmas festive season, after which there will be New Year, then Chinese New Year. There will be many gathering and meetings. Some gatherings you will enjoy, while others, you merely endure. Do you attend gatherings out of a sense of duty? Or because it’s important to your parents, your relatives, your friends, and you love them, so you try your best to do what they want?
Let’s be clear: I’m not saying you should skip doing things or going to family gatherings because it’s only a tiresome obligation. I AM saying to be honest with yourself, go back to that underlying relationship or the ties that bind you, and remember (review) those ties. And if those ties, those relationships are not as compelling or as strong as they might be or should be, then perhaps that’s something you can make an effort to build up (or to mend bridges, as the case might be). The end result is the same (you still turn up at the gathering), but the attitude and heart that you bring with you will be very different.

Love begets obedience (just do it!)
How well do you take (accept/ follow) instructions? For me, I don’t really like being told what to do. It’s an instinctive feeling that rises up inside me which I have to quell down, even though I know the other person is senior to me, or that what they are saying is very well correct. Maybe I have a problem with authority, or I’m too proud.
Whatever it is, I always have to go back to the example of Christ and His obedience, which sprung from His Love of the Father and His love of US, His sheep and His people.

I wanted to leave you with two reminders, as I ask you to consider your own heart before God, and ask Him to search and reveal to you what you might want to focus on in this season and for the New Year.

⇒ Firstly, have things veered too much to the side of “duty” for you? Is Christian life becoming a list of obligations and endless tasks to do? I’m NOT saying to throw in the towel, but I AM saying to take a step back, look beyond “to-do”lists and obligations and reconnect with God and Jesus. They are the bigger picture, and the reason why you started down this path in the first place. Things that you do should be the outward expression of your faith and love in God and your hope in what He stands for.

⇒ On the other hand, have things veered towards too little/ few outward expressions of your relationship with God? It’s all very well to have a warm fuzzy connection with God, but if you believe He asked us to “feed his sheep”, then what ministries are you helping with? These could be inside church or outside. We have spent months listening to Deuteronomy; if you believe in the ideas of social justice there, or helping the weak and the poor, then what is your response? Is there any single ONE thing you’ve done differently as a result of this series? You could volunteer your time and energy outside, or you could pick a group of people you feel for and keep yourself updated on what is happening with them and pray for them.
In this season of Advent, we remember Jesus, the reason for the season, who died for us, NOT because of duty, but because of LOVE.
(2186 words)
======

Resources

(1) http://www.pceasydney.org.au/Sermons/Levirate_Marriage.pdf

(2) https://bible.org/article/mosaic-law-its-function-and-purpose-new-testament

(3) http://therobe.blogspot.sg/2010/06/duty-of-brother-in-law-dt-255-10.html
(4) http://jbq.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/351/351_shoe2.pdf
(5) http://marriage.about.com/od/generalhistory/fl/Levirate-Marriage.htm

[1] The Amalekits It was cowardly, pouncing on those at the rear of the column. although they were defeated, the Lord declared His wrath, saying that he would “utterly blot the remembrance of thier names from under heaven” ( Exodus 17:14). This happened 40 years ago- one generation ago. 400 years later, when God told Saul to kill all the Amalekites in a holy war, Saul spared the king and some animals; God was very displeased with Saul for disobeying (1 Sam 15:23).

[2] This was different from the convenant God made with the patriachs (Abraham, Issac and Jacob), which was unilateral, and pertained to status. The covenant with Moses pertained to blessings and was bilateral.
[3] The Mosaic Law is weak because it is dependent on man’s ability. It is especially weak when adopted as a system of merit (Rom. 8:3).
[4] online Merriam-Webster dictionary)