Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Deuteronomy 21:15
If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, [both] the beloved and the hated; and [if] the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
15. If a man have two wives ] Cp. Jacob, Gen 29:16 ff., Elkanah, 1Sa 1:2.
hated ] The extreme case, but covering others such as Jacob’s Gen 29:30 f.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
15 17. Of the right of the Firstborn
If a man have two sons by different wives, one loved and one hated, and his firstborn is the son of the latter, he must not give the firstborn’s double portion to the son of the favourite. Not in the direct address nor with any of D’s characteristic phrases; possibly therefore a previous law adopted by D, but hardly an ancient one, as it vetoes what was at least the occasional practice in early Israel. Like others it opens by putting a definite case ( if there be a man, etc., cp. Deu 21:18 ; Deu 21:22, Deu 22:2; Deu 22:6; Deu 22:13, etc.), it covers this alone, and hence is incomplete. We do not learn, e.g., whether the double portion included the family lands (Stade, Gesch. i. 392, and Buhl, Soc. Verhltn. d. Isr. 55 n. 2, think not) nor anything as to the children of concubines (cp. E, Gen 21:10 f.).
That in early Israel the firstborn had special rights, arising probably from the sacredness attached to all firstbirths (see Exo 13:12), is proved by the term b e korah, birthright (J, Gen 25:34) as well as by its metaphorical application to Israel (J, Exo 4:22, cp. Jer 31:9). That the firstborn’s portion was a double one is implied the spiritual use of the phrase, in 2Ki 2:9 (cp. Zec 13:8), Yet these rights were subject to the patria potestas and a firstborn might be disinherited by his father in favour of a younger son, either as in Reuben’s case because of misconduct, or as in the succession to David through the influence of a favourite wife (Gen 49:2 ff., cp. 1Ch 5:1; 1Ki 1:2; cp. the power of a father’s blessing even when obtained by fraud, Genesis 27, or of a grandfather’s, Genesis 48). The former case is dealt with more rigorously by the next law of D, the latter is absolutely forbidden in this law. Together the two laws illustrate D’s mingled severity and equity. For later legislation on inheritance see P, Num 27:1-10; Num. 27:36.
On the rights of inheritance in Assyria and Babylonia see Johns, op. cit. ch. 16. He refers to instances of the division of property among brothers with reservations in favour of other members of the family, and certain powers of allotment by the eldest son, and quotes (p. 42) very early laws by which parents might disinherit their sons. This is also sanctioned, but only upon repeated misconduct, by ammurabi, 168 f., which legalise a father’s gifts to a favourite son over and above his equal share with his brothers in his father’s estate ( 165), and equal rights to the children of a bondmaid with those of a wife if the father have acknowledged them as his sons ( 170). See also 28, 38 f. and a late law (Johns, p. 71) assigning one-third of a man’s estate to the children of a second marriage. On the Arab laws of inheritance see W. R. Smith, Kinship etc., 53 etc.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Moses did not originate the rights of primogeniture (compare Gen 25:31), but recognized them, since he found them pre-existing in the general social system of the East. Paternal authority could set aside these rights on just grounds Gen 27:33, but it is forbidden here to do so from mere partiality.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Deu 21:15-17
The right of the firstborn.
I. The rights of primogeniture defined. A double portion of all that he hath. As head of the family, the eldest son would be put into power and privilege, be heir of his fathers rank and wealth. He was not to be limited in his allowance, nor deposed from his authority. The Divine Ruler entrusts him with possessions and entails them by His will.
II. The rights of primogeniture upheld. Individual preferences and partialities are not to set aside the rights of the firstborn.
1. Rights upheld through successive marriage. When an Israelite had two wives together or in succession, one might be loved and the other hated (Deu 21:15). God might tolerate polygamy, but right must be upheld.
2. Rights upheld against human partiality. The influence of the second wife was later and more permanent. Justice must not bend to personal like or dislike. Amid divided affections and divided authority, God and not caprice must rule.
3. Rights upheld by Divine injunction. Man is changeable; entails discord, feud, and litigation in his family; but God is just and impartial. He will protect our rights and vindicate our character. (J. Wolfendale.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 15. One beloved, and another hated] That is, one loved less than the other. This is the true notion of the word hate in Scripture. So Jacob HATED Leah, that is, he loved her less than he did Rachel; and Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I HATED, that is, I have shown a more particular affection to the posterity of Jacob than I have to the posterity of Esau. See Clarke on Ge 29:31. From this verse we see that polygamy did exist under the Mosaic laws, and that it was put under certain regulations; but it was not enjoined, Moses merely suffered it, because of the hardness of their hearts, as our Lord justly remarks Mt 19:8.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Two wives; either,
1. Both together; which practice, though tolerated, is not hereby made lawful, but only provision is made for the children in that case. Or,
2. One after another. Hated, comparatively, i.e. less loved, as Gen 29:31; Mat 6:24; Luk 14:26.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
15-17. If a man have two wives, onebeloved, and another hatedIn the original and all othertranslations, the words are rendered “have had,” referringto events that have already taken place; and that the “had”has, by some mistake, been omitted in our version, seems highlyprobable from the other verbs being in the past tense”hersthat was hated,” not “hers that is hated”; evidentlyintimating that she (the first wife) was dead at the time referredto. Moses, therefore, does not here legislate upon the case of a manwho has two wives at the same time, but on that of a man who hasmarried twice in succession, the second wife after the decease of thefirst; and there was an obvious necessity for legislation in thesecircumstances; for the first wife, who was hated, was dead, and thesecond wife, the favorite, was alive; and with the feelings of astepmother, she would urge her husband to make her own son the heir.This case has no bearing upon polygamy, which there is no evidencethat the Mosaic code legalized.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
If a man have two wives,…. Which is supposed, but not approved of, though permitted because of the hardness of men’s hearts; for it was not so from the beginning, when only one man and one woman were created, and joined together in marriage; but as it was connived at, and become customary, a law is made to prevent confusion, and preserve order in families:
one beloved and another hated; or less loved, yet continued his wife, and not divorced. Aben Ezra observes, this follows upon the former, because it is there said, that though first he had a desire to her (the captive beautiful woman), yet afterwards had no delight in her:
and they have borne him children both, the beloved and the hated; as Rachel and Leah did to Jacob, who were, the one very much beloved by him, and the other less:
and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated; or not so much beloved as the other, as was the case in the above instance.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The Right of the first-born. – Whilst the previous law was intended to protect the slave taken in war against the caprice of her Israelitish master, the law which follows is directed against the abuse of paternal authority in favour of a favourite wife. If a man had two wives, of whom one was beloved and the other hated, – as was the case, for example, with Jacob, – and had sons by both his wives, but the first-born by the wife he hated, he was not, when dividing his property as their inheritance, to make the son of the wife he loved the first-born, i.e., was not to give him the inheritance of the first-born, but was to treat the son of the hated wife, who was really the first-born son, as such, and to give him a double share of all his possession. , to make or institute as first-born. , over (by) the face of, i.e., opposite to the first-born son of the hated, when he was present; in other words, “during his lifetime” (cf. Gen 11:28). , to regard as that which he is, the rightful first-born. The inheritance of the first-born consisted in “ a mouth of two ” (i.e., a mouthful, portion, share of two) of all that was by him, all that he possessed. Consequently the first-born inherited twice as much as nay of the other sons. “ Beginning of his strength ” (as in Gen 49:3). This right of primogeniture did not originate with Moses, but was simply secured by him against arbitrary invasion. It was founded, no doubt, upon hereditary tradition; just as we find in many other nations, that certain privileges are secured to the first-born sons above those born afterwards.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Right of the Firstborn. | B. C. 1451. |
15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: 16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: 17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.
This law restrains men from disinheriting their eldest sons out of mere caprice, and without just provocation.
I. The case here put (v. 15) is very instructive. 1. It shows the great mischief of having more wives than one, which the law of Moses did not restrain, probably in hopes that men’s own experience of the great inconvenience of it in families would at last put an end to it and make them a law to themselves. Observe the supposition here: If a man have two wives, it is a thousand to one but one of them is beloved and the other hated (that is, manifestly loved less) as Leah was by Jacob, and the effect of this cannot but be strifes and jealousies, envy, confusion, and every evil work, which could not but create a constant uneasiness and vexation to the husband, and involve him both in sin and trouble. Those do much better consult their own ease and satisfaction who adhere to God’s law than those who indulge their own lusts. 2. It shows how Providence commonly sides with the weakest, and gives more abundant honour to that part which lacked; for the first-born son is here supposed to be hers that was hated; it was so in Jacob’s family: because the Lord saw that Leah was hated, Gen. xxix. 31. The great householder wisely gives to each his dividend of comfort; if one had the honour to be the beloved wife, it often proved that the other had the honour to be the mother of the first-born.
II. The law in this case is still binding on parents; they must give their children their right without partiality. In the case supposed, the eldest son, though the son of the less-beloved wife, must have his birthright privilege, which was a double portion of the father’s estate, because he was the beginning of his strength that is, in him his family began to be strengthened and his quiver began to be filled with the arrows of a mighty man (Ps. cxxvii. 4), and therefore the right of the first-born is his, Deu 21:16; Deu 21:17. Jacob had indeed deprived Reuben of his birthright, and given it to Joseph, but it was because Reuben had forfeited the birthright by his incest, not because he was the son of the hated; now, lest that which Jacob did justly should be drawn into a precedent for others to do the same thing unjustly, it is here provided that when the father makes his will, or otherwise settled his estate, the child shall not fare the worse for the mother’s unhappiness in having less of her husband’s love, for that was not the child’s fault. Note, (1.) Parents ought to make no other difference in dispensing their affections among their children than what they see plainly God makes in dispensing his grace among them. (2.) Since it is the providence of God that makes heirs, the disposal of providence in that matter must be acquiesced in and not opposed. No son should be abandoned by his father till he manifestly appear to be abandoned of God, which is hard to say of any while there is life.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 15-17:
This text explains the law of primogeniture, in the case of a man, with two wives, one beloved and the other unloved. If the unloved wife bore the firstborn son, the father must bestow upon him the rights of the firstborn, He must not give this right to the son of the beloved wife. The firstborn was to receive a double portion of the inheritance, twice that of the other heirs.
It is interesting that Jacob (Israel) himself did not follow this provision, but bestowed upon Joseph, son of Rachel, the portion of the firstborn, Gen 29:31-32; Gen 30:22-23; Gen 37:3-4; Gen 48:5.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
15. If a man have two wives. Inasmuch as it is here provided that a father should not unjustly transfer what belongs to one son to another, it is a part and supplement of the Eighth Commandment, the substance of which is, that every one’s rights should be preserved to him. For, if the father substituted another son in the place of his first-born, it was unquestionably a kind of theft. But, since it rarely happens that a father unnaturally degrades his first-born from his precedence, if all are born of the same mother, God reminds us that He did not enact this law without cause; for, where polygamy was allowed, the mind of the husband was generally most inclined to the second wife; because, if he had loved the first with true affection, he would have been contented with her as the companion of his life and bed, and would not have thought of a second. When, therefore, the husband grew tired of his first wife, and desired a second, he might be coaxed by her blandishments to leave away from the children of his first marriage what naturally belonged to them. Hence, therefore, the necessity of the remedy whereby the father’s power of altering the right of primogeniture is barred; for, although they might allege that they only gave what was their own, yet it was an act of ungodly arrogance to reject him whom God had deigned to honor. For he who arrogates such power to himself, or who assigns the birth-right to whom he will, almost arrogates to himself the ability to create. This right, as is stated in verse 17, was a double portion of the paternal inheritance. The reason which is added, is equivalent to saying, that the first-born is the principal honor and ornament of the father. Still, if there was a just cause for disinheriting the first-born, another successor might be substituted in his stead, as Jacob shewed in his case when he disinherited Reuben. (Gen 49:4.) When it is said, “ before the son of the hated,” some expound it to mean “during his lifetime;” others retain the Hebrew phrase, “before his face.” Their opinion, however, is probable, who take this particle comparatively, for “instead of her son.” The wife is called hated, not that her husband is positively her enemy, but because he loves her least; for contempt is considered as hatred, and he is called an enemy who does not render conjugal benevolence.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
LESSON SEVENTEEN Deu. 21:15 to Deu. 23:14
h. FAMILY REGULATIONS (Deu. 21:15-21)
(1) THE RIGHT OF THE FIRST-BORN (Deu. 21:15-17)
15 If a man have two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the first-born son be hers that was hated; 16 then it shall be, in the day that he causeth his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved the first-born before the son of the hated, who is the first-born; 17 but he shall acknowledge the first-born, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath; for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the first-born is his.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 21:1517
351.
Why no word of censure for having two wives?
352.
How could a son be made the first-born, if he was not?
353.
Is it an inevitable conclusion that of two wives, one will be hated and one loved?
354.
Why give the first-born twice as much?
AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 21:1517
15 If a man has two wives, one loved and the other disliked, and they both have borne him children, and if the first-born son is hers who is disliked,
16 Then on the day when he wills his possessions to his sons, he shall not put the first-born of his loved wife in place of the first-born of the disliked, who is older.
17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the disliked as the first-born, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he was the first issue of his strength; the right of the first-born is his.
COMMENT 21:1517
The wisdom of having two wives is not even discussed by the lawgiver. As in so many other cases in this book, the evil is anticipated and the problem faced as is, not as hoped.
From an emotional and sentimental standpoint, the father would be tempted to give the son of the beloved wife the greater portion of his inheritance. But law and order crumbles before such sentimentality: the firstborn was to receive his double portion regardless of the position his mother held in his fathers esteem.
Remembering the favoritism Jacob showed to Joseph, though both of these were godly men, it is not difficult to see the need of this exhortation. Whatever the portion given the other sons, the portion allotted to the eldest son was to be twice as much. His right were to be honored.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
Deu. 21:15-17. THE BIRTHRIGHT.
(15) One beloved, and another hatedi.e., one preferred above the other, according to the idiomatic use of this phrase in Hebrew.
(17) A double portion.Literally, the mouth of two, i.e., two shares. Supposing there were four sons, the estate would be divided into five shares, and the firstborn would take two. So Jacob said to Joseph (Gen. 48:22): I have given thee one portion above thy brethren. The birthright of which Reuben was deprived for ill conduct, was given to Josephs sons (1Ch. 5:1). So Elisha said to Elijah before they were parted. I pray thee let a double portion (the first-borns share) of thy spirit be upon me (2Ki. 2:9).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
THE RIGHT OF THE FIRSTBORN, Deu 21:15-17.
Moses did not institute the right of primogeniture. He here lays down a direction to prevent the abuse of the father’s authority in favour of the son of a favourite wife.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
15. Hated The less beloved. Comp. Gen 29:31; Gen 29:33, where the same term is applied to Leah.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Treatment of An Unloved Wife and The Right Of The Firstborn ( Deu 21:15-17 ).
The faltering love of a man for a beautiful captive leads on to the case where a man’s love for a wife has waned. The stress is on fair treatment and harmony in the family.
Analysis using the words of Moses:
a If a man has two wives, the one beloved, and the other unloved, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the unloved
b And if the first-born son be hers that was unloved,
b Then it shall be, in the day that he causes his sons to inherit what he has, that he may not make the son of the beloved the firstborn before the son of the unloved who is the firstborn
a But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength, the right of the firstborn is his.
Note in ‘a’ that a man has two wives, one beloved and the other not beloved and both bear him children, in the parallel he must acknowledge the true firstborn even if he is borne by the unloved wife. In ‘b’ we are told that the firstborn is the son of the unloved wife, and in the parallel we are told that he must not ‘unmake’ that situation by favouring the other son as though he were the firstborn.
Deu 21:15-16
‘ If a man has two wives, the one beloved, and the other unloved, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the unloved, and if the first-born son be hers that was unloved, then it shall be, in the day that he causes his sons to inherit what he has, that he may not make the son of the beloved the firstborn before the son of the unloved who is the firstborn.’
The thought of the wife unloved by her husband in verses 10-14 leads on this next regulation. This too applies where a wife is unloved by her husband. In this case the man is a polygamist. Similarly to Jacob he loved one wife, and the other was unloved, even possibly hated. But if they had borne him children, and the unloved one was the mother of his firstborn, he must not disinherit the firstborn for the sake of the second wife’s child. He cannot declare that the second wife’s son is ‘the firstborn’ with all the firstborn’s privileges.
Such special rights for the firstborn, and the double portion for the firstborn, are both witnessed to elsewhere in the Ancient Near East.
Deu 21:17
‘ But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength, the right of the firstborn is his.’
He must rather acknowledge the firstborn and give him the double portion (literally ‘a mouth or two of all that he has’ in contrast with one mouthful) which was the firstborn’s due. This is because as the firstborn he was the foundation of the man’s family, the beginning of what has become his strength. Or alternately ‘strength’ may indicate procreative power, thus we may have here the first exercise of his procreative power.
This principle of the special rights of the firstborn is known in other law codes. Esau lost it because he sold it. Reuben lost it because he sinned grievously by taking his father’s slave wife (Gen 49:3-4). But it could only be lost by such illegalities. Kings like David often saw themselves as above this law, but what they were passing on was not a double portion but a throne, and the result was often civil war.
In the case of Abraham Sarah was his first wife. Ishmael was merely the son of a slave wife and thus was not the firstborn.
One lesson for us in this regulation is the need to deal fairly with people and not to indulge in favouritism. It is so easy to favour ‘nice’ people, and to disregard those whom we find not so nice. Here God is warning us against such behaviour. We must deal fairly and rightly with all, and not rob people of their genuine rights.
It may be asked, why should the firstborn be given a double portion? Why should everything not be equally divided among members of the family? The reason was a very good and wise one. It was to preserve his status and ensure the continuation of the family. When Israel reached the land, every Israelite family head was to receive a portion of land for the family, and we must remember that family ties were powerful in those days and that families stayed and worked together. So the family head not only had responsibility for his own immediate family but his wider family. There had necessarily to be a family head, and he was usually the firstborn. The firstborn would be the oldest and the most experienced and his being naturally appointed hopefully prevented any falling out about such a position. His authority was automatically recognised.
He would have the responsibility of looking after his mother, any unmarried daughters, and other family adherents and also the family servants. He carried on the family name and had to hold together the wider family. Thus he needed the larger portion. Then if he died without an heir his brother was to raise up a son through the firstborn’s wife so that he could inherit the double portion and take over headship of the family. (Whether ‘double’ literally meant twice as much or whether it meant such a large portion as was necessary to maintain family unity is open to question). But even though the remainder of the land was passed on to other brothers it was still a part of the family land. If someone sold some of it off it could be redeemed by a kinsman, and whatever happened it returned to the family on the year of Yubile. Had the land simply been divided up on death between all members of the family, soon there would have been lots of tiny pieces of land and total disunity, until some outsider took the opportunity and bought out the lot, and no one would have had responsibility to maintain the family unity. By keeping a large part of the family land together it guaranteed the future of the whole family. If all the males in the family died daughters could inherit but if there were none then the land would pass to near relatives. But it would stay in ‘the family’. Family responsibility in those days was taken seriously, was fully binding and along with a sense of tribal responsibility ensured a grouping for self-defence, was for the general benefit and provided a reasonably satisfactory judicial system. The law of primogeniture was therefore of benefit to all for the purpose of maintaining a strong family head. It was only when families ceased to work together that it became a problem, but God was talking to those who recognised the basis of it.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Of the First-Born in Bigamy.
v. 15. If a man have two wives, v. 16. then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to in her it that which he hath, v. 17. but he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the first-born, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Ver. 15. If a man have two wives Moses here enacts, that where any Israelite had two wives, (for polygamy, contrary to the original institution of marriage, was suffered, but never enjoined) and when the man was partial in his affections towards them; such partiality should not hinder the right of eldership and inheritance in any of the children. If the son of the wife whom he least loved were his first, her male heir should inherit as his eldest son, according to ancient custom in that case. Gen 25:31. Grotius has remarked, that this law is extremely wise, to prevent any intrigues from the ascendancy of the second and favourite wife for the advantage of her children. A similar law existed among the Lombards; but it is to be observed, that the more necessary this law was, the more palpably does it demonstrate the inconveniencies of polygamy.
Hated Slighted. Vorst. Phil. pars 1: p. 127 and so ver. 16 and 17.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
There is somewhat beside the moral sense of this passage, of a spiritual signification connected with it to be understood. As in the case of the great Father of the Israelites, the LORD himself was pleased to determine even before the children were born, that the elder should serve the younger, lest Israel should be led by caprice to do that which the LORD in wisdom was only competent to determine, the LORD passeth it into a law to prevent all abuses on this ground. But the Reader will not forget to observe the extent of the precept in this instance, it reached only to temporal possessions. LORD, let that be my portion which Paul speaks of: Eph 1:3 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Deu 21:15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, [both] the beloved and the hated; and [if] the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
Ver. 15. And another hated, ] i.e., Less loved, as Gen 29:31 . See Trapp on “ Gen 29:31 “
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Deu 21:15-17
15If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, 16then it shall be in the day he wills what he has to his sons, he cannot make the son of the loved the firstborn before the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn. 17But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the firstborn.
Deu 21:15 This paragraph recognizes the cultural practice of polygamy. The first example in the OT is Lamech (Gen 4:23). The most famous early polygamist was Jacob in Genesis 29. Polygamy was practiced among wealthy or powerful people, not usually the common people (although Deu 21:10-14 could refer to bigamy).
The exact motive for the practice is uncertain:
1. sexual
2. reproductive (an heir)
3. economic
a. help poor family
b. a way to gain wealth and influence
c. a way to handle the spoils of war
4. political unions to help neighboring nations maintain peace (i.e., David, Solomon)
unloved This is literally hated (BDB 971, cf. Deu 21:15[twice],16,17). But it is functioning here as a Hebrew idiom of comparison-loved versus unloved (cf. Gen 29:30-31; Mal 1:2-3; Rom 9:13 [quotes Mal 1:2-3]; Luk 14:26).
firstborn son The firstborn’s rights were established even if he were the son of the unloved (cf. Deu 21:17; Exo 13:14-15; Lev 3:12-13).
Deu 21:17 double portion The Hebrew idiom (BDB 804, mouth and BDB 1040, double) is also used of Elisha’s desire related to Elijah in 2Ki 2:9. This is the only place in the OT that this double portion is specifically mentioned. If there were two sons, the older would receive two-thirds and the younger one-third; if three sons, then 50%, 25%, 25%, etc. The oldest son was to care for the aged parents.
It is interesting that the historicity of these laws is demonstrated by the archaeological finds of other ancient law codes:
1. Jacob in Genesis 49 gives all his twelve sons equal inheritance. This is reflected in the Code of Hammurabi
2. Here the mention of a double share for the firstborn is paralleled in the Nuzi and Mari tablets.
3. The differences recorded in Scripture reflect the differences in their contemporary culture (see The Old Testament Documents by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., p. 86).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
If. Compare 1Sa 1:2. 2Ch 24:3
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
two wives: Gen 29:18, Gen 29:20, Gen 29:30, Gen 29:31, Gen 29:33, 1Sa 1:4, 1Sa 1:5
Reciprocal: Deu 24:1 – hath taken 2Ch 11:22 – made Abijah 2Ch 21:3 – gave them Mal 1:3 – hated Luk 14:26 – hate Rom 9:13 – hated
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Deu 21:15. If a man have two wives This practice, though tolerated, is not hereby made lawful; but only provision is made for the children in that case. Hated Comparatively, that is, less loved.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Deu 21:15-17. Only in Dt. The first-born of the first wife is to inherit a double portion.
Deu 21:15. two wives: Gen 29:30 and 1Sa 1:6.hated: better, less loved.
Deu 21:17. acknowledge, etc.: read (with Graetz, Steuernagel, and also, though hesitatingly, Driver and Bertholet) accord the first-born, first-born rights.double portion: among the Babylonians, sons inherited equally, though the father might in his life make a special present to any son (see CH, 165f.).
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
21:15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another {g} hated, and they have born him children, [both] the beloved and the hated; and [if] the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
(g) This declares that the plurality of wives came from a corrupt affection.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Limits on a father’s authority 21:15-17
The first-born son was to receive the traditional double portion of his father’s inheritance. This was to be Israel’s practice even though the first-born may have been the son of the wife her husband loved less than another wife he had (cf. Gen 25:5-6). [Note: For refutation of the view of Gunkel and Noth that the Hebrew word translated "double" in Deu 21:17 should be rendered "two-thirds," see Eryl Davies, "The Meaning of Pi Senayim in Deuteronomy XXI 17," Vetus Testamentum 36:3 (July 1986):341-47. See also Barry J. Beitzel, "The Right of the Firstborn (Pi Senayim) in the Old Testament," in A Tribute to Gleason Archer, pp. 179-90.] The father’s authority, therefore, was not absolute in the Israelite home. Ancient Near Easterners regarded the first-born son as the beginning of the father’s strength (cf. Gen 49:3). Just as men were to treat their wives with consideration (Deu 21:10-14), so too were fathers to treat their children with consideration (Deu 21:15-17).