First-Born
first-born
A title which indicates the special value attached to the first male offspring, both human and animal. In the Bible the first-born males belonged to the Lord (Exodus 13). In instances, however, both the firstling of the flocks and herds, as well as the first-born son, could be redeemed. The rights of primogeniture were highly regarded; for they affected inheritance, authority, etc., in the family.
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
First-Born
The word, though casually taken in Holy Writ in a metaphorical sense, is most generally used by the sacred writers to designate the first male child in a family. The first-cast male animal is, in the English Bibles, termed “firstling”. The firstlings, both human and animal, being considered as the best representatives of the race, because its blood flows purest and strongest in them, were commonly believed, among the early nomad Semitic tribes, to belong to God in a special way. Hence, very likely, the custom of sacrificing the first-cast animals; hence also the prerogatives of the first-born son; hence, possibly, even some of the superstitious practices which mar a few pages of the history of Israel.
Among the Hebrews, as well as among other nations, the first-born enjoyed special privileges. Besides having a greater share in the paternal affection, he had everywhere the first place after his father (Genesis 43:33) and a kind of directive authority over his younger brothers (Genesis 37:21-22, 30, etc.); a special blessing was reserved to him at his father’s death, and he succeeded him as the head of the family, receiving a double portion among his brothers (Deuteronomy 21:17). Moreover, the first-birthright, up to the time of the promulgation of the Law, included a right to the priesthood. Of course this latter privilege, as also the headship of the family, to which it was attached, continued in force only when brothers dwelt together in the same house; for; as soon as they made a family apart and separated, each one became the head and priest of his own house.
When God chose unto Himself the tribe of Levi to discharge the office of priesthood in Israel, He wished that His rights over the first-born should not thereby be forfeited. He enacted therefore that every first-born be redeemed, one month after his birth, for five sicles (Numbers 3:47; 18:15-16). This redemption tax, calculated also to remind the Israelites of the death inflicted upon the first-born of the Egyptians in punishment of Pharaoh’s stubbornness (Exodus 13:15-16), went to the endowment-fund of the clergy. No law, however, stated that the first-born should be presented to the Temple. It seems, however, that after the Restoration parents usually took advantage of the mother’s visit to the sanctuary to bring the child thither. This circumstance is recorded in St. Luke’s Gospel, in reference to Christ (ii, 22-38). It might be noted here that St. Paul refers the title primogenitus to Christ (Hebrews 1:6), the “first-born” of the Father. The Messianic sacrifice was the first-fruits of the Atonement offered to God for man’s redemption. It must be remembered, however, contrary to what is too often asserted and seems, indeed, intimated by the liturgical texts, that the “pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons” mentioned in this connexion, were offered for the purification of the mother, and not for the child. Nothing was especially prescribed with regard to the latter.
As polygamy was, at least in early times, in vogue among the Israelites, precise regulations were enacted to define who, among the children, should enjoy the legal right of primogeniture, and who were to be redeemed. The right of primogeniture belonged to the first male child born in the family, either of wife or concubine; the first child of any woman having a legal status in the family (wife or concubine) was to be redeemed, provided that child were a boy.
As the first-born, so were the firstlings of the Egyptians smitten by the sword of the destroying angel, whereas those of the Hebrews were spared. As a token of recognition, God declared that all firstlings belonged to Him (Exodus 13:2; Numbers 3:3). They accordingly should be immolated. In case of clean animals, as a calf, a lamb, or a kid (Numbers 18:15-18), they were, when one year old, brought to the sanctuary and offered in sacrifice; the blood was sprinkled at the foot of the altar, the fat burned, and the flesh belonged to the priests. Unclean animals, however, which could not be immolated to the Lord, were redeemed with money. Exception was made in the case of the firstling of the ass, which was to be redeemed with a sheep (Exodus 34:20) or its own price (Josephus, Ant. Jud., IV, iv, 4), or else to be slain (Exodus 13:13; 34:20) and buried in the ground. Firstlings sacrificed in the temple should be without blemish; such as were “lame or blind, or in any part disfigured or feeble”, were to be eaten unconditionally within the gates of the owner’s home-city.
———————————–
CHARLES L. SOUVAY Transcribed by Sean Hyland
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VICopyright © 1909 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, September 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, CensorImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
First-Born
( , , from , to ripen early; Sept., and N T. ,Vulg. prsimogenitus), applied equally to animals and human beings. Among the Hebrews the first-born son had many privileges, to be entitled to which it was not only required that a man should be the first child of his mother, but that he should be, at the same time,-the first son of his father (Deu 21:15-17). The eldest son received a double portion of the father’s inheritance (Deu 21:17), but not of the mother’s (Mishna, Bekoroth, viii; 9)-. If the father had married two wives, of whom he preferred one to the’ other, he was forbidden to give precedence to the son of the one if the child of the other were the first-born (Deu 21:15-16). ‘In the case of levirate marriage, the son’ of the next brother succeeded to his uncle’s vacant inheritance (Deu 25:5-6). Under the monarchy, the eldest son usually, but not always, s-appears in the case of Solomon, succeeded his father in the kingdom (1Ki 1:30; 1Ki 2:22). That some rights of primogeniture existed in very early times is plain, but it is not so clear in what they consisted. They have been classed as
(a.) authority over the rest of the family
(b.) priesthood;
(c.) a double portion of the inheritance.
The birthright of Esau and of Reuben, set aside by authority or forfeited by misconduct, prove a general privilege as. well as quasisacredness of primogeniture (Gen 25:23; Gen 25:31; Gen 25:34; Gen 49:3; 1Ch 5:1; Heb 12:16), and a precedence which obviously existed, and is alluded to in various passages (as Psa 89:27; Job 18:13; Roam. 8:29; Col 1:15; Heb 12:23); but the story of Esau’s rejection tends to show the supreme. and sacred authority of the parent irrevocable even by himself, rather than inherent right existing in the eldest son, which was evidently not inalienable (Gen 27:29; Gen 27:03; Gen 27:36; Grotius,. Calmet, Patrick, Knobel, on Genesis 25). See Hottinger, Deprimagenilis (Marb. 1711); Schreder, De vett. Hebrm. etprissogeasitis (Msarb. 1741); ‘Fabricius, Bibliogr. Antiq. p. 892; Gerdes, De variis locs ismb quibus primogenitorum mentio occurrit (Duisb. 1730); Frischmnuth, De prinmogens-tura (Jan. 1649). SEE BIRTHRIGHT.
The expression “first-born” is not always to be understood literally’ it is sometimes taken for the prime, most excellent, most distinguished of things. Thus “‘Jesus Christ is “the first-born of every creature, the first- begotten, or first–born from the dead;” begotten of the Father before any creature was produced; the first who rose from the dead by his own power (see Jour. Sac. Lit. Apr. 1861). Wisdom, says that she came out of the mouth of the Most High before he had produced any’creature (Pro 8:22; Sir 24:3; Ina. 14:390). “The first-born of the poor.” signifies the most miserable of the poor (Job 18:13). “the first-born of death,” the most terrible of deaths (see Wemyss, Symbol. Dict.). The “Church of the firstborn” (Heb 12:23) signifies the Church of the redeemed-those who have become peculiarly the Lord’s, and through the blood of the everlasting covenant, applied to their consciences, are consecrated to his for evermore, in accordance with the custom of consecration described below (see Schottgen, Hoas. Hebr..i, 922).
DESTRUCTION OF THE FIRST-BORN. This was the tenth and last plague inflicted on the Egyptians (Exo 11:1-8; Exo 12:29-30). ‘We learn from Herodotus (ii, 85) that it was the custom of the Egyptians to rush from the house into the street, to bewail the dead with loud and bitter outcries; and every member of the family united in these expressions of sorrow. How great must their terror and grief have been when A’ at – midnight Jehovah smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt.”, Hemmgstenberg remarks (Egypt and the Books of Moses) that the phrase ‘sall the first-born’ must’ not be pressed too far. The whole tenor of the narrative is opposed to such a proceeding, and particularly the declaration, ‘There was no house where there was not as dead; since in every house there was not a first-born. It must not be inferred that none of the first- born remained alive in the land, or that none besides the first-born died. That the Egyptians were swept off by an epidemic is indeed probable,’ and much more than probable, from Exo 9:15. What the Lord there says he had long been able to do, that he now really dies; since the reasons here given in Exo 9:16, which until now have prevented him from proceeding to this last resource, have now ceased; since, in short, he has by a series of acts sufficiently unfolded his omnipotence and grace.” SEE PLAGUES OF EGYPT.
FIRST-BORN, SANCTIFICATION AND REDEMPTION OF.( , ). Males of human beings and animals were strictly enjoined to perpetuate the remembrance of the death. of Egypt’s first-born, whereby the liberty of the Israelites was secured, and of the preservation of Israel’s first-born. Compare Exo 12:2; Exo 12:11-15.
1. Sanctification of the First-born, its signification, etc. – The fact that the first-born of Egypt were selected to be smitten down for the hard- heartedness of Pharaoh, and that their death was regarded as the greatest calamity, shows of itself that a peculiar sanctity had already been attached to the first-born of both man and cattle. The cause of this is easily traced in the Scriptures. The power of procreation was declared by God himself to be a special blessing (Gen 1:22; Gen 1:28; Gen 9:1; Gen 17:16; Gen 29:31), and was granted as a reward to those who were well pleasing in his sight (Gen 15:4; Psa 128:4). This was fully appreciated by the Jews; for the possession of children, especially of the male sex, was esteemed the climax of social happiness (Gen 16:2; Gen 29:31; Deu 7:13-14; Psa 128:3-4), and the absence of them was considered a reproach (), since it implied divine displeasure (Gen 30:23), and no other earthly blessing could compensate for it (Gen 16:1-5). Moreover, the first-born of newly-married young people ( , Psa 127:4) were believed to represent the prime of human vigor (
), being born before the strength of the father began to diminish (Genesis 43; Deu 21:17; Psa 78:51; Psa 105:36). It was therefore natural that the first instalment of God’s blessing, and the prime of man’s strength, should be regarded with peculiar affection, and have special sanctity attached to him, and that by virtue of the claim which God has to what is most loved and held sacred by us, and gratitude on the part of man, the first-born males, both of man and animals, should be consecrated to the Giver of all good things; the one as a priest, representing the family to which he belonged (Exo 19:22; Exo 19:24), and the other as a sacrifice (Gen 4:4), just as the fat of sacrifices was devoted to God because it was regarded as the prime part of the animal. SEE FAT. This explains the fact why the plague of the first-born of the Egyptians was so terribly felt; it was the destruction of the objects most dear and sacred to them, whilst the first-born of the Hebrews, i.e. their priests and sacrifices, were spared. Moreover, it shows the import of the consecration enjoined in Exo 13:1. Hitherto it was optional with the Hebrews whether they would devote the first-born to the Lord, but now God, by virtue of having so signally interposed for their deliverance, claims the public consecration of the first-born of man as his priests, and of the first-born of animals as sacrifices.
2. Origin of the Redemption of the First-born.-This devotion of the first- born was believed to indicate a priesthood belonging to the eldest sons of families, -which being set aside in the case of Reuben, was transferred to the tribe of Levi. This priesthood is said to have lasted till the completion of the tabernacle (Jahn, Bibl. Arch. 10: 165, 387; Selden, De Syn. c. 16; Mishna, Zebachins, 14:4, vol. v, 58; comp. Eze 24:5). After the building of the tabernacle and the introduction of the extensive sacrificial service, which required a special priestly order, as well as a separate staff of servants, who could exclusively devote themselves to the ministry of the sanctuary, the offices of the firstborn were superseded by those of the Levites (Numbers iii, 11-13); and it was ordained that the first-born of the other tribes, as well as the first-born of the animals which could not be sacrificed, should henceforth be redeemed (ib. 18:15).
3. Redemption of the First-born of Man.-The redemption of a child is to take place when it is a month old, when the father is to give to the priest five silver shekels of the sanctuary, i.e. about three dollars as the maximum. If it died before the expiration of 30 days, the Jewish doctors held the father excused, but liable to the payment if it outlived that time (Exo 13:12-15; Exo 22:29; Num 8:17; Lev 27:6; Lightfoot, Hor. – Hebr. on Luk 2:22; Philo, De Pr. Sacerd. i, i, 233; Mangey). If the child was sickly, or appeared otherwise to be inferior to children generally, the priest could estimate it at less than this sum (Num 3:46, etc.; 18:16). The priest had to come to the house of the infant, as the mother could not appear with it in the Temple because her days of purification, according to the law (Lev 12:2; Lev 12:4), were not as yet accomplished. No bargaining was allowed, but if the priest saw that the parents were poor, he could, if he chose, return the money when the ceremony was over. When the mother’s days of purification were accomplished, and she could appear in the Temple, she then brought the child to the priest to be presented publicly to the Lord (Luk 2:22). The Jews still observe this law of redemption. When the first-born male is thirty days old, the parents invite to their house their friends and a priest () to a meal for the following day. The priest, having invoked God’s blessing upon the repast, and offered some introductory prayers, etc., looks at the child and the price of redemption presented before him, and asks the father which he would rather have, the money or the firstborn child. Upon the father’s reply that he would rather pay the price of redemption, the priest takes the money, swings it round the head of the infant in token of his vicarious authority, saying, “This is for the firstborn, this is in lieu of it, this redeems it; and let this son be spared for life, for the law of God, and for the fear of Heaven. May it please Thee, that, as he was spared for redemption, so he may be spared for the Law, for matrimony, and for good works. Amen.” The priest lays his hand upon the child’s head and blesses it, as follows: ” The Lord make thee as Ephraim and Manasseh!” etc. It is to this that the apostle Peter refers when he says, “Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold,” etc. (1Pe 1:18). When the first-born son is thirteen years of age, he fasts the day before the feast of Passover, in commemoration of the sparing of the first-born of the Hebrews in Egypt. SEE FAST. 4. Redemption of the First-born of clean Animals. The male first-born of animals ( Sept. ; Vulg. quod aperit vulvam) was also devoted to God (Exo 13:2; Exo 13:12-13; Exo 22:29; Exo 34:19-20; Philo, . c., and quis rerum div. hceres. 24, i, 489, Mang.). The first-born of every clean animal (i.e., ox, sheep, goat, etc.), from eight days to twelve months old, had to be taken to Jerusalem every year (Deu 12:6, etc.), and delivered to the priest, who offered it as a sacrifice to Jehovah, sprinkled its blood upon the altar, burned the fat, and ate the flesh (Exo 13:13; Exo 22:30; Exo 34:20; Num 18:15-17; Neh 10:6). In the mean time the animal was not to be used for any work, for it belonged to the Lord (Deu 15:19); but if it had any blemish it was not to be sacrificed, but eaten up at home (ib. 15:21, 22). Various refinements on the subject of blemishes are to be found in Mishna, Bekoroth. (See Mal 1:8. By “firstlings,” Deu 14:23, compared with Num 18:17, are meant tithe animals: see Reland, Antiq. iii, 10, p. 327.; Jahn, Bibl. Arch. 387). If, however, the man whose cattle had first-born lived at too great a distance from Jerusalem to carry them thither, he was commanded to sell them, and take the money to the sanctuary :(Deu 14:24-25).
5. Redemption of the First-born of unclean Animals –.The first-born of unclean animals, not being allowed to be offered as sacrifices, were either to be redeemed according to the valuation of the priest, with the addition of one fifth of the value, and then remain with their owner, or be’ sold, and the price given to the priests (Lev 27:11-13; Lev 27:27). The first-born of an ass was to be redeemed with a lamb, or, if not redeemed, put to death- (Exo 13:13; Exo 34:20; Num 18:15). Commentators hold that them first-born of dogs were killed, because they ere unclean; and that nothing was given for them to the priests, because there was no trade or commerce in them. See Deu 23:18.
6. Literature.-Josephus, Ast. 4:4, 4; Mishna, Bekoaoth; Maimonides, Mishusa Tora, iii, 241; Hilchoth Bechoroth; Ibn Ezra’s comments as- the passages cited in this article; Calmet, on Numbers 18 The Hebrew Prayer- Book, by Knopflmacher (Vienna, 1859), entitled Derech Ha-Chajim, p. 407; Der Israelitische Volksleher, 7:41. sq.; 9:138 sq., 212 sq., 248 sq.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
First-born
sons enjoyed certain special privileges (Deut. 21:17; Gen. 25:23, 31, 34; 49:3; 1 Chr. 5:1; Heb. 12:16; Ps. 89:27). (See BIRTHRIGHT)
The “first-born of the poor” signifies the most miserable of the poor (Isa. 14:30). The “church of the first-born” signifies the church of the redeemed.
The destruction of the first-born was the last of the ten plagues inflicted on the Egyptians (Ex. 11:1-8; 12:29, 30).
Menephtah is probably the Pharaoh whose first-born was slain. His son did not succeed or survive his father, but died early. The son’s tomb has been found at Thebes unfinished, showing it was needed earlier than was expected. Some of the records on the tomb are as follows: “The son whom Menephtah loves; who draws towards him his father’s heart, the singer, the prince of archers, who governed Egypt on behalf of his father. Dead.”
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
First-born
The privileges of the first born son, among the Hebrews, are indicated under Birthright.
Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature
First-Born
The first-born, who was the object of special affection to his parents, was denominated by way of eminence, , the opening of the womb. In case a man married with a widow, who by a previous marriage had become the mother of children, the first-born as respected the second husband was the eldest child by the second marriage. Before the time of Moses, the father might, if he chose, transfer the right of primogeniture to a younger child, but the practice occasioned much contention, Gen 25:31-32; and a law was enacted, overruling it, Deu 21:15-17. The first-born inherited peculiar rights and privileges.
(1.) He received a double portion of the estate. Jacob, in the case of Reuben, his first-born, bestowed his additional portion upon Joseph, by adopting his two sons, Gen 48:5-8; Deu 21:17. This was done as a reprimand, and a punishment of his incestuous conduct, Gen 35:22; but Reuben, notwithstanding, was enrolled as the first- born in the genealogical registers, 1Ch 5:1.
(2.) The first-born was the priest of the whole family. The honour of exercising the priesthood was transferred, by the command of God communicated through Moses, from the tribe of Reuben, to whom it belonged by right of primogeniture, to that of Levi, Num 3:12-18
Num 8:18. In consequence of God having taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the first-born to serve him as priests, the first-born of the other tribes were to be redeemed, at a valuation made by the priest not exceeding five shekels, from serving God in that capacity, Num 18:15-16, Luk 2:22, &c.
(3.) The first-born enjoyed an authority over those that were younger, similar to that possessed by a father, Gen 25:23, &c; 2Ch 21:3; Gen 27:29 : Exo 12:29 : which was transferred in the case of Reuben by Jacob their father to Judah, Gen 49:8-10. The tribe of Judah, accordingly, even before it gave kings to the Hebrews, was every where distinguished from the other tribes. In consequence of the authority which was thus attached to the first-born, he was also made the successor in the kingdom. There was an exception to this rule in the case of Solomon, who, though a younger brother, was made his successor by David at the special appointment of God. It is very easy to see in view of these facts, how the word first-born came to express sometimes a great, and sometimes the highest, dignity.
2. First-born is not always to be understood literally; it is sometimes taken for the prime, most excellent, most distinguished of any thing. The first- born of the poor, Isa 14:30, signifies the most miserable of the poor; and the first-born of death, Job 18:13, the most terrible of deaths.
3. God ordained that all the Jewish first-born, both of men and beasts, for service, should be consecrated to him. The male children only were subject to this law. If a woman’s first child were a girl, the father was not obliged to offer any thing for her, or for the children after her, though they were males. If a man had many wives, he was obliged to offer the first-born of each of them to the Lord. The first-born were offered in the temple, and were redeemed for the sum of five shekels. The firstling of a clean beast was offered at the temple, not to be redeemed, but to be killed. An unclean beast, a horse, an ass, or a camel, was either redeemed or exchanged. An ass was redeemed by a lamb, or five shekels; if not redeemed, it was killed.