If a man have two wives, one beloved, and one hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated, and the firstborn son be hers that was hated;
Two wives, and a firstborn son by the wife the husband loves less. Does the father's preference decide who inherits?
The law does not create the situation it addresses. It steps into a household that already exists and limits the damage it can do.
Here we have the recognition of polygamy as a fact, but a provision against one of its many evils. Suppose a man had two wives and children by both — one wife loved, the other hated — and the firstborn was the son of the hated wife. That firstborn was not to lose his rights because the father preferred the mother of the later-born son.
The law allowed this situation without approving it. Another writer sets it against God's first design for marriage.
Polygamy directly breaks the unity that belonged to marriage as God first set it up, according to His will. The law did allow some licence, because Israel — that is, man in the flesh — was hard-hearted. But the law made nothing perfect. Christ upheld the truth, as He Himself is the truth.
The word is comparative, not a description of cruelty. Jacob's home shows how it worked out.
He looked on the sorrowful and despised wife. He gave the comfort of a son not to Rachel but to Leah, the one who was "hated" by comparison. Rachel, happy in her husband's love, stayed barren.
(Older translations read "hated" where the ESV has "unloved".)
The firstborn's double share was not a reward the father handed out. It was property law, fixed in advance.
In Israel, or under the law, the birthright carried the double portion. The firstborn was to have a double share of the father's goods. The law made this his by a title no one could set aside or challenge. No father could give the double portion to another child of the family out of personal affection or partiality. But the firstborn himself might sell the birthright or forfeit it. His own acts could give it away, though his father's preferences or prejudices could not. Esau sold his, and Reuben forfeited his.
One of Israel's kings broke this law, and he had no excuse.
Though Rehoboam's first wife bore him sons, he set those aside in favour of Abijah the son of Maachah, whom he preferred above Mahalath. Deuteronomy 21:15-17 had warned against such an arrangement. Perhaps Rehoboam did not know this scripture, but he ought to have. A king in Israel was responsible to get himself a copy of the law and to read it all the days of his life.
The ban falls on human preference. God's sovereign choice is another matter altogether.
He must bequeath a double portion to the firstborn in acknowledgment of his prime place. Men were not allowed to change this. But God on some occasions did set aside the rights of a firstborn and gave them to a younger son: Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and above all Adam and Christ.
William Kelly reads the two wives as a picture of God's dealings. He takes the "hated" wife as Israel, chosen first and later set aside:
Here too God's ways give us another remarkable type. He first chose Israel. Afterwards, because of their sin, He was pleased to take the nations to Himself… Still, He gives a beautiful provision here to show that He has not finished with the one who will come forth as the firstborn son of the seemingly hated wife — the wife He had first. On the contrary, this is the very one for whom He will keep the rights of the inheritance, when He works repentance in their hearts.
- Fact, not approval. The law recognises polygamy as a fact and guards against one of its evils; it never presents it as God's order.
- Hated means second. Leah was "hated" by comparison — loved less. God noticed the overlooked wife and gave her a son.
- Right, not reward. The double portion belonged to the firstborn by a title no one could challenge. A father's affection could not move it — though the firstborn could sell or forfeit it himself.
- God's exception, not man's. Men could not reverse a birthright. God Himself did — Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, Christ over Adam.
- Rights reserved. The law protects the unloved wife's son. It pictures a God who has not finished with the people He first chose, and who keeps the inheritance for them.
then it shall be, in the day that he maketh his sons to inherit what he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, who is the firstborn;
The law here steps into a divided household. A man has two wives, and his first son is born to the wife he loves less. Can a father's feelings change who inherits? God's answer is no.
This rule does not approve the situation it addresses. One writer notes that the law takes the practice as it stood and then fences off one of its worst outcomes.
Here we have the recognition of polygamy as a fact, but a provision against one of its many evils. Suppose a man had two wives and children by both, one wife loved and the other hated. Suppose the firstborn was the son of the hated wife. The father could not then strip that firstborn of his rights because he preferred the mother of the later-born son.
The firstborn's place is not a reward the father hands out. It comes with birth — though one writer notes the son could still throw it away.
In Israel, or under the law, the birthright carried the double portion. The firstborn was to have a double share of the father's goods. The law made this his by a title that could not be defeated or challenged. No father could give the double portion to another child of the family on any ground of personal affection or favouritism. But the firstborn himself might sell or forfeit the birthright. His own acts might lose it, though his father's favouritism or prejudice could not. And this is what happened. Esau sold it, and Reuben forfeited it (Genesis 25; 1 Chr. 5).
The phrase is not vague generosity. It is arithmetic, worked out on the whole estate.
"A double portion!" What can that mean? Deuteronomy 21:15-17 explains the expression. Suppose a man had three sons. He would divide his possessions into four portions. Each younger son would get one portion. The eldest would get two, as the right of the firstborn.
The ban binds the father, not God. One writer restates the case as a man favouring one wife above the other, and points to times when God Himself moved a firstborn's rights to a younger son.
Suppose a man had two wives (as Jacob did), and he favoured one above the other. Suppose the less favoured wife bore his first son. He must not take that son's firstborn status away and give it to the son of his favourite wife. He must leave a double portion to the firstborn in acknowledgment of his prime place. The law did not allow men to change this. God, though, did on some occasions set aside the rights of a firstborn and give them to a younger son, as with Ishmael and Isaac (Gen. 17:18-21), Esau and Jacob (Gen. 25:23), and above all Adam and Christ (Col. 1:15).
The law was not theory. Centuries later a king of Judah did the very thing forbidden here.
Though Rehoboam's first wife bore him sons, he set those aside in favour of Abijah the son of Maachah, whom he preferred above Mahalath. Deuteronomy 21:15-17 had warned against such an arrangement. Perhaps Rehoboam did not know this Scripture, but he ought to have. A king in Israel was responsible to get himself a copy of the law and read it all the days of his life (Deut. 17:18-19). Still, the grace of God went beyond Rehoboam's failure, for Matthew 1:7 confirms Abijah in the genealogy of the Lord Jesus.
Some writers see more than family law here. They read the two wives as a picture, though not all in the same way. One takes the hated wife as the nation God chose first.
Here too we have in God's ways another remarkable type. He first chose Israel. Afterwards, because of their sin, as we know, He was pleased to take the Gentiles to Himself. The Jews refused the testimony, and as for the Gentiles, it is said that they will hear. Still, here He gives a beautiful provision. It shows that He has not finished with the one who will come forth as the firstborn son of the wife who seems to be hated — the one He had first. On the contrary, this is the very one for whom He will keep the rights of the inheritance, when He works repentance in their hearts.
Another widens the picture to include the church as well as the nation.
These really are practical directions for Israel. But I think they also contain some of God's principles towards His people. So Israel on earth, and the assembly in heaven, have both been the true firstborn, whom God will not disinherit.
- Right, not reward. The double portion belongs to the firstborn by a title no father's affection can challenge — though the son himself could sell or forfeit it.
- Preference restrained. The law takes a flawed household as it finds it. Then it blocks one of the cruellest results: pushing the unloved wife's son aside.
- Measured, not vague. With three sons the estate splits into four shares: two for the eldest, one each for the rest.
- Bound below, free above. Men could not move the birthright. God did — Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, Christ over Adam.
- Not disinherited. Writers read the unloved wife's firstborn as the people God chose first. He keeps their inheritance in reserve, and one writer extends this to the church.
but he shall acknowledge as firstborn the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion of all that is found with him; for he is the firstfruits of his vigour the right of the firstborn is his.
Deuteronomy 21:17 shuts down a family quarrel before it can start. A man may love one wife more than the other, but the son born first still keeps his double share by right — and the law's reason, that he is "the firstfruits of his strength", reaches far beyond family property.
The phrase sounds vague until you do the arithmetic. It is not twice an average share. The estate is split into one more part than there are sons, and the eldest takes two.
"A double portion!" What can that mean? Deuteronomy 21:15-17 explains the expression. Suppose a man had three sons. He would divide his possessions into four portions. Each younger son would get one portion. The eldest would get a double portion, as the right of the firstborn.
The eldest son's claim rests on birth, not on how his father feels about his mother.
In Israel, or under the law, the birthright carried the double portion. The firstborn was to have a double share of the father's goods. The law made this his by a title no one could challenge. No other child in the family could receive that double portion on any ground of personal affection or favouritism.
What men could not do, God Himself sometimes did.
He must leave a double portion to the firstborn, in acknowledgment of his first place (v. 17). Men were not allowed to change this. God Himself, though, sometimes set aside the rights of a firstborn and gave them to a younger son: Ishmael and Isaac (Gen. 17:18-21), Esau and Jacob (Gen. 25:23), and above all Adam and Christ (Col. 1:15).
The law gives a reason: the first son stands for his father's strength at its start. That fact sets a pattern.
The underlying principle is clear. The firstborn speaks of man in his natural strength: "for he is the firstfruits of his strength" (Deut. 21:17). And this is the point: natural man acting in his own strength always ends in failure. For blessing to come, God has to provide the "second". Hebrews 10 states this principle plainly: "He does away with the first in order to establish the second" (v. 9).
Jacob's own household shows both sides — the dignity of the place, and the loss of it.
As he was dying, Jacob said of Reuben, "You are my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power." That is what he was as the firstborn. In himself, though, he was "unstable as water", and he would not excel (Gen. 49:3-4). He forfeited his birthright for defiling his father's bed. It passed to Joseph, who had a double portion among the tribes through Ephraim and Manasseh.
Morrish Bible Dictionary (quoting the older wording of Genesis 49:3-4)
This family law also pictures God's dealings with nations. Kelly takes the unloved wife as Israel: chosen first, then seemingly passed over.
Here too God's ways give us another remarkable picture. He chose Israel first. Later, because of their sin, He was pleased to take the Gentiles to Himself… Still, here He gives a beautiful provision. It shows that He has not finished with the one who comes as the firstborn son of the seemingly hated wife — the wife He had first. On the contrary, this is the very one for whom the rights of the inheritance will be kept, when repentance is produced in their hearts.
The double portion reaches past Israel's family law. Believers now stand in the firstborn's place, and their inheritance is a Person.
The "double portion" was the portion of the firstborn (Deut. 21:15-17). It enabled him to represent the dead worthily, and to keep the honour of his name. All in the Church are firstborn ones (Heb. 12:23), and God has given them blessings that believers in earlier ages never knew. Nothing could exceed the wealthy portion which is ours in the risen Christ. The Spirit's power lets us take it in, so that we are fitted to represent the absent Christ worthily in the scene of His rejection.
- Right, not favour. The double portion belonged to the firstborn by birth; a father's love for one wife could not transfer it to her son.
- Strength that fails. The firstborn stands for natural man at his best. That strength collapses, as Reuben's did.
- God's freedom. Men were bound by this law. God Himself sometimes gave the firstborn's place to a younger son.
- A nation kept. The son of the unloved wife pictures Israel — set aside for a time, with the rights of the inheritance kept for the day repentance comes.
- Portion in Christ. Believers stand among the firstborn now. Their portion is the risen Christ — wealth enough to represent Him worthily while He is away.