Heir
VIEW:39 DATA:01-04-2020
HEIR.See Inheritance.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909
(Heir, (See BIRTHRIGHT; INHERITANCE,) refers exclusively to land.) The Mosaic law enforced a strict entail; the property was divided among the sons, the oldest receiving a double portion (the father not having the right, as the patriarchs had, of giving a special portion to a favorite son: Gen_48:22), the rest equal shares (Deu_21:17). If there were no sons it went to the daughters, on condition that they married in their own tribe; otherwise they forfeited the inheritance (Num_27:8 ff; Num_36:6 ff). The son of an heiress, as with the Athenians, bore the name not of his father but of his maternal grandfather. If there were no daughters the property went to the brother; if no brother, to the paternal uncle; lastly, to the next of kin. The aim was to keep the land in the family and tribe. Succession thus was a matter of right, not of favor; the Hebrew yarash, "to inherit," means possession and even forcible possession (Deu_2:12; Jdg_11:24).
A distribution of goods ("personal", ousia) was sometimes made in the father's lifetime (Luk_15:11-13); the land ("real property", kleeronomia) could only be divided after the father's death (Luk_12:13). If a brother died childless the surviving brother should wed his widow and raise seed to his brother. The Mosaic law herein adopted existing usages, which also prevail still in S. Africa, Arabia, among the Druses and tribes of the Caucasus (Gen_38:8-9; Deu_25:5-10; Mat_22:23-25). Childlessness was regarded as such a calamity that the ordinary laws of forbidden degrees of affinity in marriage (Lev_18:16) were set aside.
Moses allowed the obligation to be evaded, if the brother-in-law preferred the indignity of the widow loosing his shoe off his foot, in token of forfeiting all right over the wife and property of the deceased, as casting the shoe over a place implies taking possession of it (Psa_60:8; Psa_108:9); also the indignity of her spitting in his face, so that his name becomes a byword as the barefooted one, implying abject meanness. The office then devolved on the nearest kinsman (Rth_2:20; Rth_3:9-13; Rth_4:1-12). Naomi, being past age of marriage, Boaz takes Ruth her daughter-in-law, and has also to redeem the sold inheritance of Elimelech, Naomi's husband. The child born is reckoned that of Naomi and Elimelech (Rth_4:17), Chilion being passed over. Naomi, not Ruth, sells the land (Rth_4:3). A Jew could never wholly alienate his land by sale (Lev_25:23-24).
A kinsman, or the owner, could at any time redeem it at a regulated charge (Lev_25:23-27). At the year of Jubilee it reverted without charge (Lev_25:28). Jer_32:6-9; Elimelech's nearest kinsman would not exercise his right of redemption, lest he should mar his own inheritance; namely, if he should have but one son by her, that son would be Elimelech's legal son, not his; so the succession of his own name would be endangered. The inalienability of land made Naboth reject as impious Ahab's proposal (1Ki_21:3); typifying Christ's inalienable inheritance of a name more excellent than that of the angels (Heb_1:4). Houses in walled towns (not in unwalled villages, as being connected with the land) and movables could be alienated for ever; a wise law, essential to progress and marking the superiority of Jewish legislation to that of most nations.
Wills were unknown among the Jews until Herod made one. The subdivision of land by the absence of the law of primogeniture, and the equal division among sons except double to the oldest, suited a country like Palestine of hills and valleys, not admitting much horse labour and agricultural machinery on the large scale which large farms require. Small farms suited the hand labour required for the terraces reaching to the tops of the hills. The numerous towns in Galilee, moreover, had their wants best supplied by numerous petty farms. Subdivision tends also to the multiplication of population, and so to repairing the waste of life caused by wars. It attaches large numbers to their country, as proprietors, eager to defend the soil which is their own, and on which each ate of his own vine and fig tree (Isa_36:16).
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.
Heir. The Hebrew institutions relative to inheritance were of a very simple character.
Under the patriarchal system, the property was divided among the sons, of the legitimate wives, Gen_21:10; Gen_24:36; Gen_25:5, a larger portion being assigned to one, generally the eldest, on whom devolved the duty of maintaining the females of the family.
The sons of concubines were portioned off with presents. Gen_25:6.
At a later period, the exclusion of the sons of concubines was rigidly enforced. Jdg_11:1. Ff.
Daughters had no share in the patrimony, Gen_21:14, but received a marriage portion.
The Mosaic law regulated the succession to real property thus: it has to be divided among the sons, the eldest receiving a double portion, Deu_21:17, the others equal shares;
if there were no sons, it went to the daughters, Num_27:8, on the condition that they did not marry out of their own tribe, Num_36:6, ff.; otherwise the patrimony was forfeited.
If there were no daughters, it went to the brother of the deceased;
if no brother, to the paternal uncle; and,
failing these, to the next of kin. Num_27:9-11.
Smith's Bible Dictionary
By Dr. William Smith.Published in 1863
See INHERITANCE.
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.
âr:
1. The Word ?Heir?
In the New Testament ?heir? is the invariable translation of κληρόνομος, klērónomos (15 times), the technical equivalent in Greek, and of the compound συνκληρόνομος, sunklērónomos, ?co-heir,? in Rom_8:17; Eph_3:6; Heb_11:9; 1Pe_3:7 (in Gal_4:30; Heb_1:14, contrast the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)). In the Old Testament ?heir? and ?to be heir? both represent some form of the common verb ירשׁ, yārash, ?possess,? and the particular rendition of the verb as ?to be heir? is given only by the context (compare e.g. the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) in Jer_49:2; Mic_1:15). Exactly the same is true of the words translated ?inherit,? ?inheritance,? which in by far the great majority of cases would have been represented better by ?possess,? ?possession? (see INHERITANCE and OHL on נחל). Consequently, when God is said, for instance, to have given Palestine to Israel as an 'inheritance' (Lev_20:24, etc.), nothing more need be meant than 'given as a possession.' The Septuagint, however, for the sake of variety in its rendition of Hebrew words, used klēronoméō in many such cases (especially Gen_15:7, Gen_15:8; Gen_22:17), and thereby fixed on 'heir' the sense of 'recipient of a gift from God.' And so the word passed in this sense into New Testament Greek - Rom_4:13, Rom_4:14; Gal_3:29; Tit_3:7; Heb_6:17; Heb_11:7; Jam_2:5; compare Eph_3:6; Heb_11:9; 1Pe_3:7. On the other hand, the literal meaning of the word is found in Mar_12:7 (and parallels and Gal_4:1 - in the latter case being suggested by the transferred meaning in Gal_3:29 - while in Rom_8:17; Gal_4:7, the literal and transferred meanings are blended. This blending has produced the phrase ?heirs of God,? which, literally, is meaningless and which doubtless was formed without much deliberation, although it is perfectly clear. A similar blending has applied ?heir? to Christ in Heb_1:2 (compare Rom_8:17 and perhaps Mar_12:7) as the recipient of all things in their totality. But apart from these ?blended? passages, it would be a mistake to think that sonship is always consciously thought of where ?heir? is mentioned, and hence, too much theological implication should not be assigned the latter word.
2. Heir in Old Testament Law
The heirs of property in the Old Testament were normally the sons and, chief among these, the firstborn.
(1) Deu_21:15-17 provides that the firstborn shall inherit a ?double portion,? whence it would appear that all the other sons shared equally. (It should be noted that in this law the firstborn is the eldest son of the father, not of the mother as in Exo_13:2.) Uncertain, however, is what Deu_21:15-17 means by ?wife,? and the practice must have varied. In Gen_21:10 the son of the handmaid was not to be heir with Isaac, but in Gen_30:1-13 the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah are reckoned as legitimate children of Jacob. See MARRIAGE. Nor is it clear that Deu_21:15-17 forbids setting aside the eldest son because of his own sin - compare the case of Reuben (Gen_49:3, Gen_49:1; 1Ch_5:1), although the son of a regular wife (Gen_29:32). The very existence of Deu_21:15-17, moreover, shows that in spite of the absence of formal wills, a man could control to some extent the disposition of his property after his death and that the right of the firstborn could be set aside by the father (1Ch_26:10). That the royal dignity went by primogeniture is asserted only (in a particular case) in 2Ch_21:3, and both David (1Ki_1:11-13) and Rehoboam (2Ch_11:21-23) chose younger sons as their successors. A single payment in the father's lifetime could be given in lieu of heritage (Gen_25:6; Luk_15:12), and it was possible for two brothers to make a bargain as to the disposition of the property after the father's death (Gen_25:31-34).
(2) When there were sons alive, the daughters had no right of inheritance, and married daughters had no such right in any case. (Job_42:15 describes an altogether exceptional procedure.) Probably unmarried daughters passed under the charge of the firstborn, as the new head of the family, and he took the responsibility of finding them husbands. Num_27:1-11; Num_36:1-12 treat of the case where there were no sons - the daughters inherited the estate, but they could marry only within the tribe, lest the tribal possessions be confused. This right of the daughters, however, is definitely stated to be a new thing, and in earlier times the property probably passed to the nearest male relatives, to whom it went in later times if there were no daughters. In extreme cases, where no other heirs could be found, the property went to the slaves (Gen_15:3; Pro_30:23, noting that the meaning of the latter verse is uncertain), but this could have happened only at the rarest intervals. A curious instance is that of 1Ch_2:34, 1Ch_2:35, where property is preserved in the family by marrying the daughter to an Egyptian slave belonging to the father; perhaps some adoption-idea underlies this.
(3) The wife had no claim on the inheritance, though the disposition made of her dowry is not explained, and it may have been returned to her. If she was childless she resorted to the Levirate marriage (Deu_25:5-10). If this was impracticable or was without issue she returned to her own family and might marry another husband (Gen_38:11; Lev_22:13; Rth_1:8). The inferior wives (concubines) were part of the estate and went to the heir; indeed, possession of the father's concubines was proof of possession of his dignities (2Sa_16:21, 2Sa_16:22; 1Ki_2:13-25). At least, such was the custom in the time of David and Solomon, but at a later period nothing is heard of the practice.
(4) The disposition of land is a very obscure question. Num_36:4 states explicitly that each heir had a share, but the continual splittin up of an estate through successive generations would have produced an impossible state of affairs. Possibly the land went to the eldest born as part of his portion, possibly in some cases it was held in common by the members of the family, possibly some member bought the shares of the others, possibly the practice differed at different times. But our ignorance of the facts is complete.
NOTE. - The dates assigned by different scholars to the passages cited have an important bearing on the discussion.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.
Heir [BIRTHRIGHT; INHERITANCE]
The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.
Heir
(some form of the verb יָרִשׁ, to possess; Gr. κληρόνομος, a receiver by lot). The Hebrew institutions relative to inheritance were of a very simple character. Under the patriarchal system the property was divided among the sons of the legitimate wives (Gen_21:10; Gen_24:36; Gen_25:5), a larger portion being assigned to one, generally the eldest, on whom devolved the duty of maintaining the females of the family. SEE BIRTHRIGHT.
The sons of concubines were portioned off with presents (Gen_49:1 sq.), but this may have been restricted to cases where the children had been adopted by the legitimate wife (Gen_30:3). But Jacob made the sons whom he had by his concubines heirs, as well as the others (Gen_49:12-27). Moses laid no restrictions upon the choice of fathers in this respect; and we may infer that the sons of concubines, for the most part, received an equal share with the other sons, from the fact that Jephthah, the son of a concubine, complained that he was excluded from his father's house without any portion (Jdg_11:1-7). Daughters had no share in the patrimony (Gen_31:14), but received a marriage portion, consisting of a maid-servant (Gen_29:24; Gen_29:29) or some other property. As a matter of special favor they sometimes took part with the sons (Job_42:15). The Mosaic law regulated the succession to real property thus: it was to be divided among the sols, the eldest receiving a double portion (Deu_21:17), the others equal shares: if there were no sons, it went to the daughters (Num_27:8), on the condition that they did not marry out of their own tribe (Num_36:6 sq.; Tob_6:12; Tob_7:13), otherwise the patrimony was forfeited (Josephus, Ant. 4, 7, 5). If there were no daughters, it went to the brother of the deceased; if no brother, to the paternal uncle; and, failing these, to the next of kin (Num_27:9-11). In the case of a widow being left without children, the nearest of kin on her husband's side had the right of marrying her, and, in the event of his refusal, the next of kin (Rth_3:12-13): with him rested the obligation of redeeming the property of the widow (Rth_4:1 sq.), if it had been either sold or mortgaged: this obligation was termed מַשְׁפִּט הִגְּאֻלָּה(the right of inheritance), and was exercised in other cases besides that of marriage (Jer_32:7 sq.). If none stepped forward to marry the widow, the inheritance remained with her until her death, and then reverted to the next of kin. SEE WIDOW.
The object of these regulations evidently was to prevent the alienation of the land, and to retain it in the same family: the Mosaic law enforced, in short, a strict entail Even the assignment of the double portion, which under the patriarchal regime had been at the disposal of the father (Gen_48:22), was by the Mosaic law limited to the eldest son (Deu_21:15-17). The case of Achsah, to whom Caleb presented a field (Jos_15:18-19; Jdg_1:15), is an exception; but perhaps even in that instance the land reverted to Caleb's descendants either at the death of Achsah or in the year of Jubilee. The land being thus so strictly tied up, the notion of heirship, as we understand it, was hardly known to the Jews: succession was a matter of right, and not of favor-a state of things which is embodied in the Hebrew language itself, for the word יָרִשׁ(A.V. to inherit) implies possession, and very forcible possession (Deu_2:12; Jdg_1:29; Jdg_11:24), and a similar idea lies at the root of the words אֲחֻזָּהand נֲחִלָה, generally translated inheritance. Testamentary dispositions were, of course, generally superfluous: the nearest approach to the idea is the blessing, which in early times conveyed temporal as well as spiritual benefits (Gen_27:19; Gen_27:37; Jos_15:19). It appears, however, that eventually the father had at least the right of expressing his last wishes or will in the presence of witnesses, and probably in the presence of the heirs (2Ki_20:1). The references to wills in the apostle Paul's writings are borrowed from the usages of Greece and Rome (Heb_9:17), whence the custom was introduced into Judaea: several wills are noticed by Josephus in connection with the Herods (Ant. 13, 16, 1; 17:3, 2; War, 2, 2, 3). With regard to personal property, it may be presumed that the owner had some authority over it, at all events during his life-time. The admission of a slave to a portion of the inheritance with the sons (Pro_17:2) probably applies only to the personality. A presentation of half the personality formed the marriage portion of Tobit's wife (Tob_8:21). A distribution of goods during the father's lifetime is implied in Luk_15:11-13 : a distinction may be noted between οὐσία, a general term applicable to personalty, and κληρονομία, the landed property, which could only be divided after the father's death (Luk_12:13).
There is a striking resemblance between the Hebrew and Athenian customs of heirship, particularly as regards heiresses (ἐπίκληροι), who were, in both nations, bound to marry their nearest relation: the property did not vest in the husband even for his life-time, but devolved upon the son of the heiress as soon as he was of age, who also bore the name, not of his father, but of his maternal grandfather. The object in both countries was the same, viz. to preserve the name and property of every family (Smith, Dict. of Class. Ant. s.v. Epiclerus). SEE INHERITANCE.
In Col_1:15, Christ is called the first-born of every creature, i.e. the heir of the whole creation, as in Heb_1:2 he is called the heir of all things. Believers are called heirs of the promise, of righteousness, of the kingdom, of the world, of God, joint heirs with Christ, inasmuch as they are partakers of the blessings which God bestows upon his children, implying admission to the kingdom of heaven and its privileges (Gal_3:29; Heb_6:17; Heb_11:7; Jam_2:5; Rom_4:13; Rom_8:17), and finally possession of the heavenly inheritance (Joh_17:22-24; Rev_3:22). SEE ADOPTION.
CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909
(Heir, (See BIRTHRIGHT; INHERITANCE,) refers exclusively to land.) The Mosaic law enforced a strict entail; the property was divided among the sons, the oldest receiving a double portion (the father not having the right, as the patriarchs had, of giving a special portion to a favorite son: Gen_48:22), the rest equal shares (Deu_21:17). If there were no sons it went to the daughters, on condition that they married in their own tribe; otherwise they forfeited the inheritance (Num_27:8 ff; Num_36:6 ff). The son of an heiress, as with the Athenians, bore the name not of his father but of his maternal grandfather. If there were no daughters the property went to the brother; if no brother, to the paternal uncle; lastly, to the next of kin. The aim was to keep the land in the family and tribe. Succession thus was a matter of right, not of favor; the Hebrew yarash, "to inherit," means possession and even forcible possession (Deu_2:12; Jdg_11:24).
A distribution of goods ("personal", ousia) was sometimes made in the father's lifetime (Luk_15:11-13); the land ("real property", kleeronomia) could only be divided after the father's death (Luk_12:13). If a brother died childless the surviving brother should wed his widow and raise seed to his brother. The Mosaic law herein adopted existing usages, which also prevail still in S. Africa, Arabia, among the Druses and tribes of the Caucasus (Gen_38:8-9; Deu_25:5-10; Mat_22:23-25). Childlessness was regarded as such a calamity that the ordinary laws of forbidden degrees of affinity in marriage (Lev_18:16) were set aside.
Moses allowed the obligation to be evaded, if the brother-in-law preferred the indignity of the widow loosing his shoe off his foot, in token of forfeiting all right over the wife and property of the deceased, as casting the shoe over a place implies taking possession of it (Psa_60:8; Psa_108:9); also the indignity of her spitting in his face, so that his name becomes a byword as the barefooted one, implying abject meanness. The office then devolved on the nearest kinsman (Rth_2:20; Rth_3:9-13; Rth_4:1-12). Naomi, being past age of marriage, Boaz takes Ruth her daughter-in-law, and has also to redeem the sold inheritance of Elimelech, Naomi's husband. The child born is reckoned that of Naomi and Elimelech (Rth_4:17), Chilion being passed over. Naomi, not Ruth, sells the land (Rth_4:3). A Jew could never wholly alienate his land by sale (Lev_25:23-24).
A kinsman, or the owner, could at any time redeem it at a regulated charge (Lev_25:23-27). At the year of Jubilee it reverted without charge (Lev_25:28). Jer_32:6-9; Elimelech's nearest kinsman would not exercise his right of redemption, lest he should mar his own inheritance; namely, if he should have but one son by her, that son would be Elimelech's legal son, not his; so the succession of his own name would be endangered. The inalienability of land made Naboth reject as impious Ahab's proposal (1Ki_21:3); typifying Christ's inalienable inheritance of a name more excellent than that of the angels (Heb_1:4). Houses in walled towns (not in unwalled villages, as being connected with the land) and movables could be alienated for ever; a wise law, essential to progress and marking the superiority of Jewish legislation to that of most nations.
Wills were unknown among the Jews until Herod made one. The subdivision of land by the absence of the law of primogeniture, and the equal division among sons except double to the oldest, suited a country like Palestine of hills and valleys, not admitting much horse labour and agricultural machinery on the large scale which large farms require. Small farms suited the hand labour required for the terraces reaching to the tops of the hills. The numerous towns in Galilee, moreover, had their wants best supplied by numerous petty farms. Subdivision tends also to the multiplication of population, and so to repairing the waste of life caused by wars. It attaches large numbers to their country, as proprietors, eager to defend the soil which is their own, and on which each ate of his own vine and fig tree (Isa_36:16).
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.
Heir. The Hebrew institutions relative to inheritance were of a very simple character.
Under the patriarchal system, the property was divided among the sons, of the legitimate wives, Gen_21:10; Gen_24:36; Gen_25:5, a larger portion being assigned to one, generally the eldest, on whom devolved the duty of maintaining the females of the family.
The sons of concubines were portioned off with presents. Gen_25:6.
At a later period, the exclusion of the sons of concubines was rigidly enforced. Jdg_11:1. Ff.
Daughters had no share in the patrimony, Gen_21:14, but received a marriage portion.
The Mosaic law regulated the succession to real property thus: it has to be divided among the sons, the eldest receiving a double portion, Deu_21:17, the others equal shares;
if there were no sons, it went to the daughters, Num_27:8, on the condition that they did not marry out of their own tribe, Num_36:6, ff.; otherwise the patrimony was forfeited.
If there were no daughters, it went to the brother of the deceased;
if no brother, to the paternal uncle; and,
failing these, to the next of kin. Num_27:9-11.
Smith's Bible Dictionary
By Dr. William Smith.Published in 1863
See INHERITANCE.
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.
âr:
1. The Word ?Heir?
In the New Testament ?heir? is the invariable translation of κληρόνομος, klērónomos (15 times), the technical equivalent in Greek, and of the compound συνκληρόνομος, sunklērónomos, ?co-heir,? in Rom_8:17; Eph_3:6; Heb_11:9; 1Pe_3:7 (in Gal_4:30; Heb_1:14, contrast the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)). In the Old Testament ?heir? and ?to be heir? both represent some form of the common verb ירשׁ, yārash, ?possess,? and the particular rendition of the verb as ?to be heir? is given only by the context (compare e.g. the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) in Jer_49:2; Mic_1:15). Exactly the same is true of the words translated ?inherit,? ?inheritance,? which in by far the great majority of cases would have been represented better by ?possess,? ?possession? (see INHERITANCE and OHL on נחל). Consequently, when God is said, for instance, to have given Palestine to Israel as an 'inheritance' (Lev_20:24, etc.), nothing more need be meant than 'given as a possession.' The Septuagint, however, for the sake of variety in its rendition of Hebrew words, used klēronoméō in many such cases (especially Gen_15:7, Gen_15:8; Gen_22:17), and thereby fixed on 'heir' the sense of 'recipient of a gift from God.' And so the word passed in this sense into New Testament Greek - Rom_4:13, Rom_4:14; Gal_3:29; Tit_3:7; Heb_6:17; Heb_11:7; Jam_2:5; compare Eph_3:6; Heb_11:9; 1Pe_3:7. On the other hand, the literal meaning of the word is found in Mar_12:7 (and parallels and Gal_4:1 - in the latter case being suggested by the transferred meaning in Gal_3:29 - while in Rom_8:17; Gal_4:7, the literal and transferred meanings are blended. This blending has produced the phrase ?heirs of God,? which, literally, is meaningless and which doubtless was formed without much deliberation, although it is perfectly clear. A similar blending has applied ?heir? to Christ in Heb_1:2 (compare Rom_8:17 and perhaps Mar_12:7) as the recipient of all things in their totality. But apart from these ?blended? passages, it would be a mistake to think that sonship is always consciously thought of where ?heir? is mentioned, and hence, too much theological implication should not be assigned the latter word.
2. Heir in Old Testament Law
The heirs of property in the Old Testament were normally the sons and, chief among these, the firstborn.
(1) Deu_21:15-17 provides that the firstborn shall inherit a ?double portion,? whence it would appear that all the other sons shared equally. (It should be noted that in this law the firstborn is the eldest son of the father, not of the mother as in Exo_13:2.) Uncertain, however, is what Deu_21:15-17 means by ?wife,? and the practice must have varied. In Gen_21:10 the son of the handmaid was not to be heir with Isaac, but in Gen_30:1-13 the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah are reckoned as legitimate children of Jacob. See MARRIAGE. Nor is it clear that Deu_21:15-17 forbids setting aside the eldest son because of his own sin - compare the case of Reuben (Gen_49:3, Gen_49:1; 1Ch_5:1), although the son of a regular wife (Gen_29:32). The very existence of Deu_21:15-17, moreover, shows that in spite of the absence of formal wills, a man could control to some extent the disposition of his property after his death and that the right of the firstborn could be set aside by the father (1Ch_26:10). That the royal dignity went by primogeniture is asserted only (in a particular case) in 2Ch_21:3, and both David (1Ki_1:11-13) and Rehoboam (2Ch_11:21-23) chose younger sons as their successors. A single payment in the father's lifetime could be given in lieu of heritage (Gen_25:6; Luk_15:12), and it was possible for two brothers to make a bargain as to the disposition of the property after the father's death (Gen_25:31-34).
(2) When there were sons alive, the daughters had no right of inheritance, and married daughters had no such right in any case. (Job_42:15 describes an altogether exceptional procedure.) Probably unmarried daughters passed under the charge of the firstborn, as the new head of the family, and he took the responsibility of finding them husbands. Num_27:1-11; Num_36:1-12 treat of the case where there were no sons - the daughters inherited the estate, but they could marry only within the tribe, lest the tribal possessions be confused. This right of the daughters, however, is definitely stated to be a new thing, and in earlier times the property probably passed to the nearest male relatives, to whom it went in later times if there were no daughters. In extreme cases, where no other heirs could be found, the property went to the slaves (Gen_15:3; Pro_30:23, noting that the meaning of the latter verse is uncertain), but this could have happened only at the rarest intervals. A curious instance is that of 1Ch_2:34, 1Ch_2:35, where property is preserved in the family by marrying the daughter to an Egyptian slave belonging to the father; perhaps some adoption-idea underlies this.
(3) The wife had no claim on the inheritance, though the disposition made of her dowry is not explained, and it may have been returned to her. If she was childless she resorted to the Levirate marriage (Deu_25:5-10). If this was impracticable or was without issue she returned to her own family and might marry another husband (Gen_38:11; Lev_22:13; Rth_1:8). The inferior wives (concubines) were part of the estate and went to the heir; indeed, possession of the father's concubines was proof of possession of his dignities (2Sa_16:21, 2Sa_16:22; 1Ki_2:13-25). At least, such was the custom in the time of David and Solomon, but at a later period nothing is heard of the practice.
(4) The disposition of land is a very obscure question. Num_36:4 states explicitly that each heir had a share, but the continual splittin up of an estate through successive generations would have produced an impossible state of affairs. Possibly the land went to the eldest born as part of his portion, possibly in some cases it was held in common by the members of the family, possibly some member bought the shares of the others, possibly the practice differed at different times. But our ignorance of the facts is complete.
NOTE. - The dates assigned by different scholars to the passages cited have an important bearing on the discussion.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.
Heir [BIRTHRIGHT; INHERITANCE]
The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.
Heir
(some form of the verb יָרִשׁ, to possess; Gr. κληρόνομος, a receiver by lot). The Hebrew institutions relative to inheritance were of a very simple character. Under the patriarchal system the property was divided among the sons of the legitimate wives (Gen_21:10; Gen_24:36; Gen_25:5), a larger portion being assigned to one, generally the eldest, on whom devolved the duty of maintaining the females of the family. SEE BIRTHRIGHT.
The sons of concubines were portioned off with presents (Gen_49:1 sq.), but this may have been restricted to cases where the children had been adopted by the legitimate wife (Gen_30:3). But Jacob made the sons whom he had by his concubines heirs, as well as the others (Gen_49:12-27). Moses laid no restrictions upon the choice of fathers in this respect; and we may infer that the sons of concubines, for the most part, received an equal share with the other sons, from the fact that Jephthah, the son of a concubine, complained that he was excluded from his father's house without any portion (Jdg_11:1-7). Daughters had no share in the patrimony (Gen_31:14), but received a marriage portion, consisting of a maid-servant (Gen_29:24; Gen_29:29) or some other property. As a matter of special favor they sometimes took part with the sons (Job_42:15). The Mosaic law regulated the succession to real property thus: it was to be divided among the sols, the eldest receiving a double portion (Deu_21:17), the others equal shares: if there were no sons, it went to the daughters (Num_27:8), on the condition that they did not marry out of their own tribe (Num_36:6 sq.; Tob_6:12; Tob_7:13), otherwise the patrimony was forfeited (Josephus, Ant. 4, 7, 5). If there were no daughters, it went to the brother of the deceased; if no brother, to the paternal uncle; and, failing these, to the next of kin (Num_27:9-11). In the case of a widow being left without children, the nearest of kin on her husband's side had the right of marrying her, and, in the event of his refusal, the next of kin (Rth_3:12-13): with him rested the obligation of redeeming the property of the widow (Rth_4:1 sq.), if it had been either sold or mortgaged: this obligation was termed מַשְׁפִּט הִגְּאֻלָּה(the right of inheritance), and was exercised in other cases besides that of marriage (Jer_32:7 sq.). If none stepped forward to marry the widow, the inheritance remained with her until her death, and then reverted to the next of kin. SEE WIDOW.
The object of these regulations evidently was to prevent the alienation of the land, and to retain it in the same family: the Mosaic law enforced, in short, a strict entail Even the assignment of the double portion, which under the patriarchal regime had been at the disposal of the father (Gen_48:22), was by the Mosaic law limited to the eldest son (Deu_21:15-17). The case of Achsah, to whom Caleb presented a field (Jos_15:18-19; Jdg_1:15), is an exception; but perhaps even in that instance the land reverted to Caleb's descendants either at the death of Achsah or in the year of Jubilee. The land being thus so strictly tied up, the notion of heirship, as we understand it, was hardly known to the Jews: succession was a matter of right, and not of favor-a state of things which is embodied in the Hebrew language itself, for the word יָרִשׁ(A.V. to inherit) implies possession, and very forcible possession (Deu_2:12; Jdg_1:29; Jdg_11:24), and a similar idea lies at the root of the words אֲחֻזָּהand נֲחִלָה, generally translated inheritance. Testamentary dispositions were, of course, generally superfluous: the nearest approach to the idea is the blessing, which in early times conveyed temporal as well as spiritual benefits (Gen_27:19; Gen_27:37; Jos_15:19). It appears, however, that eventually the father had at least the right of expressing his last wishes or will in the presence of witnesses, and probably in the presence of the heirs (2Ki_20:1). The references to wills in the apostle Paul's writings are borrowed from the usages of Greece and Rome (Heb_9:17), whence the custom was introduced into Judaea: several wills are noticed by Josephus in connection with the Herods (Ant. 13, 16, 1; 17:3, 2; War, 2, 2, 3). With regard to personal property, it may be presumed that the owner had some authority over it, at all events during his life-time. The admission of a slave to a portion of the inheritance with the sons (Pro_17:2) probably applies only to the personality. A presentation of half the personality formed the marriage portion of Tobit's wife (Tob_8:21). A distribution of goods during the father's lifetime is implied in Luk_15:11-13 : a distinction may be noted between οὐσία, a general term applicable to personalty, and κληρονομία, the landed property, which could only be divided after the father's death (Luk_12:13).
There is a striking resemblance between the Hebrew and Athenian customs of heirship, particularly as regards heiresses (ἐπίκληροι), who were, in both nations, bound to marry their nearest relation: the property did not vest in the husband even for his life-time, but devolved upon the son of the heiress as soon as he was of age, who also bore the name, not of his father, but of his maternal grandfather. The object in both countries was the same, viz. to preserve the name and property of every family (Smith, Dict. of Class. Ant. s.v. Epiclerus). SEE INHERITANCE.
In Col_1:15, Christ is called the first-born of every creature, i.e. the heir of the whole creation, as in Heb_1:2 he is called the heir of all things. Believers are called heirs of the promise, of righteousness, of the kingdom, of the world, of God, joint heirs with Christ, inasmuch as they are partakers of the blessings which God bestows upon his children, implying admission to the kingdom of heaven and its privileges (Gal_3:29; Heb_6:17; Heb_11:7; Jam_2:5; Rom_4:13; Rom_8:17), and finally possession of the heavenly inheritance (Joh_17:22-24; Rev_3:22). SEE ADOPTION.
CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.
BUSCADAVERDADE
Visite o nosso canal youtube.com/buscadaverdade e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!
Saiba Mais
-
Nutrição
Vegetarianismo e a Vitamina B12 -
Receita
Como preparar a Proteína Vegetal Texturizada -
Arqueologia
Livro de Enoque é um livro profético?
Tags