Explication of the Judicial Laws of Moses, Part 1 · Chapter 32
CHAPTER XXXII. The difference betwixt the brother naturall, and the kinſman in raiſing up ſeed to the eldeſt brother, and what was done to them if they refuſed.
LEVIT. 25. 9. Then ſhall his brothers wife come unto him, &c.
THere was a twofold pulling off of the ſhoe in Iſrael, A two-fold uſe of the pulling off the ſhoe.the firſt was for a religious uſe, the ſecond for a civill uſe. Firſt the religious uſe we ſee in Exod 3. 5. and in Ioſh. 5. 13. The ſecond uſe was a politicke uſe, and this politicke or civill uſe was two fold;Diſcalceatio. firmat…ria Ded…oris. the firſt ſerved for the ſolemnity of their contracts, & it was called firmatoria diſcalceatio; the ſecond was for a puniſhment and diſgrace Deut. 25. 9. And it differed from that which was uſed in confirmation in ſundry points.
Firſt, when their ſhoe was taken off for a puniſhment Differ. 1 or diſgrace, the woman herſelfe pulled off the ſhoe of him who refuſed to raiſe ſeed to his brother; but in the contract of confirmation the man himſelfe looſed his owne ſhoe and pulled it off.
Secondly, that pulling off the ſhoe was for the diſgrace of the man; but this which was uſed in contracts was to ſecure the man in his right: it …ended to no diſgrace to him; or if he ſold the land, it was onelyonly a ſigne that he was willing to quit his right; and if he bought the land it was a ſigne to him of his poſſeſſion.
Thirdly, that pulling off of the ſhoe was by commaund but this pulling off the ſhoe was by cuſtome. Ruth 4. 7. This was the manner in former times in Iſrael.
Fourthly, this ſhoe was pulled off from the naturall brother, if he refuſed to raiſe up ſeed; but that ſhoe for confirmation was pulled off by any who made a contract, in token of poſſeſſion: And the Lord alludeth to this forme Pſal. 60. 8. Over Edom I will cast my ſhoe, that is, I will take poſſeſſion of it: this was called [Hhalizah]foreign Detractio. detractio.
Fiftly, when the ſhoe was pulled off for diſgrace, it was given to no bodie, but the ſhoe which was pulled off in bargaining was given to him who bought the land.
Sixtly, In the former pulling off of the ſhoe, there was no requeſt made that the ſhoe ſhould be pulled off, but it was pulled off againſt his will; but in the latter, they deſired him to pull off his ſhoe, and he did it willingly.
Seventhly, In the former the ſhoe was pulled off againſt his will in the preſence of the Iudges; but in this bargaine the ſhoe might be pulled off before any ſufficient witneſſe.
Eightly, The former was onelyonly pulled off when the brother refuſed to raiſe up ſeed to his brother; but in the latter the ſhoe was pulled off in any contract of alienation.
Ninthly, When they pulled off the ſhoe in diſgrace, they ſpit in his face, which the Seventie tranſlate foreign, and Ioſephus foreign to ſmite him in the face: but in this latter there was no ſuch diſgrace offered to the man.
Tenthly, In the former when the ſhoe was pulled off, the woman ſaid, ſo ſhall it be done to the man who refuſeth to build his brothers houſe, Deut. 25. 9. but in the latter there were no ſuch words ſpoken.
Laſtly, he that refuſeth to raiſe up ſeed to his brother his houſe was called domus diſcalceati in Iſrael; but there followed no ſuch diſgrace to the man who pulled off his ſhoe in the contract.
They make another difference to be this, that he whoThe difference betwixt the naturall brother and the kinſman. was the naturall brother, when he raiſed up ſeed to his brother, the children were not called his children, but his brothers children, and the ſhoe was pulled off his foot, becauſe he refuſed to doe that honour to his brother; but when a couſin-german raiſed up ſeed to his kinſman, the children were not called after his kinſman that was dead, but as the father pleaſed to call them. Boaz called not his ſonne Machlon, after the firſt husband of Ruth, but Obed.
But the queſtion is, whether they were bound to Queſt. giuegive them the ſame names or not? For Deut. 25. 6. the words in the originall are theſe; Primogenitus quem pepererit ſtabit ſuper nomen fratris ſui, ſhall ſucceed in the name of his brother: therefore it may ſeeme they were called after the elder brothers name.
To ſucceed in the name is to ſucceed in the place, and Anſw. not to be called after his name: and Ionathan paraphraſeth it, exurget in haereditate nomine fratris, to continue his name, but not to be called after his name.
There were two ſorts of brothers amongſt the Iewes, naturall brethren and legall brethren; the naturall brother was bound to raiſe up ſeede to his eldeſt brother; the elder firſt, and if he died, then the ſecond, and then the third, &c. Mat. 22. And if they did not, then they were puniſhed and diſgraced; but thoſe who were legall brethren, or couſin-germanes, as N. was to Machlon, they were not compelled to marry them, but if they did not, there was ſome diſgrace put upon them, but not that great diſgrace which was put upon the naturall brother. If a couſin-germane, or a legall brother had married his couſines wife, the children which he begot upon her, were not called his children, but his couſines children; even as the children which the naturall brother begat, were not his children but his elder brothers, and therefore N. ſaith, Ruth 4. 6. I cannot redeeme it, leſt I marre my owne inheritance; that is, theſe children begotten upon Ruth ſhould not be called my children, but my kinſmans, and ſo all that I inherite ſhould goe to them.
The concluſion of this is; the Holy Ghoſt here marketh Concluſion. the couſin-germane with a note, not naming him by his name, but paſſing him by; but they who were naturall brethen, if they refuſed, they were noted with a greater marke of infamie: ſo the moe obligations that Paſtors hauehave, if they refuſe to doe their dutie to Ieſus Chriſt, the greater ſhall be their ſhame.