Deuteronomy 25:10
And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.
Original Language Analysis
וְנִקְרָ֥א
shall be called
H7121
וְנִקְרָ֥א
shall be called
Strong's:
H7121
Word #:
1 of 6
to call out to (i.e., properly, address by name, but used in a wide variety of applications)
שְׁמ֖וֹ
And his name
H8034
שְׁמ֖וֹ
And his name
Strong's:
H8034
Word #:
2 of 6
an appellation, as a mark or memorial of individuality; by implication honor, authority, character
בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל
in Israel
H3478
בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל
in Israel
Strong's:
H3478
Word #:
3 of 6
he will rule as god; jisral, a symbolical name of jacob; also (typically) of his posterity
בֵּ֖ית
The house
H1004
בֵּ֖ית
The house
Strong's:
H1004
Word #:
4 of 6
a house (in the greatest variation of applications, especially family, etc.)
Historical Context
Delivered circa 1406 BC in preparation for settlement in Canaan. In oral cultures with strong genealogical memory, names and reputations mattered intensely. Honor and shame were public commodities affecting marriage prospects, business dealings, and social standing. The stigma would follow the family through generations, a deterrent to selfish refusal. This system worked effectively only in tight-knit communities where everyone knew everyone's history.
Questions for Reflection
- How does the honor-shame culture of the Bible differ from modern Western guilt-innocence culture?
- Should Christians value family reputation and legacy, or is this thinking obsolete? Why?
- What actions today might bring 'permanent names' (good or bad) to families and communities?
Related Resources
Explore related topics, people, and study resources to deepen your understanding of this passage.
Analysis & Commentary
And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed—the Hebrew beit chalutz ha-na'al (בֵּית חֲלוּץ הַנַּעַל) became a permanent designation, a nickname of disgrace. The family would be known by this epithet, a lasting memorial of the ancestor who refused family duty. This wasn't merely personal shame but generational stigma, affecting descendants' reputations.
The permanent naming contrasts sharply with the law's purpose—preserving names and memory. The refuser's ironic memorial was precisely the disgrace he inflicted on his brother: being remembered shamefully or not at all. The severity indicates how seriously Israel valued family solidarity and the duty to preserve brothers' legacies. Modern individualism struggles to appreciate this, but ancient honor-shame cultures understood social reputation as more valuable than personal comfort.