If a man has two wives, the one beloved and the other hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated, and if the firstborn son is hers who was hated,
Parallel Translations
-
If a man has two wives, the one beloved and the other hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated, and if the firstborn son is hers who was hated,
-
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:
-
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;
Cross-references (5)
Passages linked to Deuteronomy 21:15 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Genesis 29:33 She conceived again, and bore a son, and said, “Because Yahweh has heard that I am hated, he has therefore given me this son also.” She named him Simeon.
- Genesis 29:20 Jacob served seven years for Rachel. They seemed to him but a few days, for the love he had for her.
- Genesis 29:18 Jacob loved Rachel. He said, “I will serve you seven years for Rachel, your younger daughter.”
- Genesis 29:30-31 He went in also to Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him seven more years. Yahweh saw that Leah was hated, and he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren.
- 1 Samuel 1:4-5 When the day came that Elkanah sacrificed, he gave to Peninnah his wife, and to all her sons and her daughters, portions; but to Hannah he gave a double portion, for he loved Hannah, but Yahweh had shut up her womb.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (19 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain This declareth that the plurality of wives came of…
This declareth that the plurality of wives came of a corrupt affection.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain Deu 21:15 If a man have two wives, one…
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"}
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain Two wives; either,
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,
Read full note →
2. One after another. Hated, comparatively, i.e. less loved, as Gen 29:31; Mat 6:24; Luk 14:26.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain This law restrains men from disinheriting their eldest sons…
This law restrains men from disinheriting their eldest sons out of mere caprice, and without just provocation.
I. The case here put (Deu 21:15) 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 29:31. 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.
Read full note →
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 (Psa 127:4), 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.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain If a man have two wives,.... Which is supposed,…
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:
Read full note →
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.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain Two wives - This practice, though tolerated, is not…
Two wives - This practice, though tolerated, is not hereby made lawful; but only provision is made for the children in this case. Hated - Comparatively, that is, less loved.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain Verse 15. One beloved, and another hated] That is,…
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.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain Deu 21:15. If a man have two wives —…
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.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain Moses did not originate the rights of primogeniture (compare…
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.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain Two wives. Moses never expressly (Haydock) sanctions polygamy; but…
Two wives. Moses never expressly (Haydock) sanctions polygamy; but he tolerates it frequently, as excused by custom, the example of the Patriarchs, &c.; a toleration which Christ has revoked, as contrary to the primary design of God, and the institution of matrimony. (Calmet) (Matthew xix.)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain If a man have two wives, one beloved, and…
If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated--In the original and all other translations, the words are rendered "have had," referring to events that have already taken place; and that the "had" has, by some mistake, been omitted in our version, seems highly probable from the other verbs being in the past tense--"hers that was hated," not "hers that is hated"; evidently intimating that she (the first wife) was dead at the time referred to. Moses, therefore, does not here legislate upon the case of a man who has two wives at the same time, but on that of a man who has married twice in succession, the second wife after the decease of the first; and there was an obvious necessity for legislation in these circumstances; for the first wife, who was hated, was dead, and the second wife, the favorite, was alive; and with the feelings of a stepmother, she would urge her husband to make her own son the heir. This case has no bearing upon polygamy, which there is no evidence that the Mosaic code legalized.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain THE RIGHT OF THE FIRSTBORN, Deu_21:15-17.
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.
Read full note →
15. Hated — The less beloved. Comp. Gen_29:31; Gen_29:33, where the same term is applied to Leah.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain 15. If a man have two wives] Cp. Jacob,…
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.
Read full note →
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. Verhältn. 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 bekorah, 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 Ḫammurabi, §§ 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.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain Deu_21:15-17. THE BIRTHRIGHT.
Deu_21:15-17. THE BIRTHRIGHT.
(15) One beloved, and another hated—i.e., one preferred above the other, according to the idiomatic use of this phrase in Hebrew.
Read full note →
(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 Joseph’s sons (1Ch_5:1). So Elisha said to Elijah before they were parted. “I pray thee let a double portion (the first-born’s share) of thy spirit be upon me (2Ki_2:9).
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain Vers. 15-17. If a man have two wives, one…
Vers. 15-17. If a man have two wives, one of whom is a favorite and the other disliked, and if his firstborn son be the child of the latter, he is not to allow his love for the other to prejudice the right of the son, but must allow him, both in his own lifetime and in the disposition of his property after death, the full privilege and right of a firstborn son.
Vers. 15-17. Home partialities never to warp home justice.
Read full note →
This paragraph indicates deep insight into human nature, and a far-seeing wisdom which surely indicates its superhuman origin. It is designed to restrict the action of the father with reference to the inheritance of the children, in cases where there were two families, not, apparently, by two wives living at the same time (as is the passage favored polygamy), but rather by two of whom the second became the wife after the death of the first (comp. Jameson and Keil). It would probably, nay, almost certainly, occur, that one of the two would be thought more of than the other; the influence of the second wife, being later and withal continuous, might be exerted with the husband in favor of her own children, to the detriment of his by the former wife. And thus a son who was the father"s firstborn might be put at a disadvantage through later preferences coming athwart his proper claims. Moses here teaches that he may not be dispossessed of the right of the firstborn, even though another should come on the scene who should be the firstborn in a second family. The principle on which this is based is indicated in the title of this HomilyHome partialities never to warp home justice." The following lines of thought may serve as a plan on which to enforce this principle.
I It is an acknowledged duty of parents to care for the temporal weal of their children. (see 2Co_12:14) There is indeed, on the part of some, a consuming desire to leave large fortunes to their families a desire so great as to be inconsistent with faith in God"s care. This is to be avoided on the one hand, while at the same time the opposite extreme is to be shunned on the other.
II There are certain rights which belong to the children, supposing their father is possessed of an inheritance which he can leave them. Of course, if he has none, this paragraph in detail does not apply. Even in such a case, however, a parent owes it to his family to leave them the best of all heritages a holy example, God"s blessing, and a father"s prayers. If he leaves them this, they will not want.
III It is not impossible, nor even improbable, that circumstances may occur giving rise to partialities in a parent, which may lead him to consult the interest of some of his children to the detriment of that of others. Cases like that named in this paragraph are notoriously fraught with peril in this respect. And where such is the case there should be a special guard.
IV These partialities are dangerous. They are so even during the father"s lifetime, but the results thereof after his death are likely to be serious and even disastrous. It is not possible to calculate the mischief wrought upon children, when the earthly name which should ever stand to them dearest in affection and highest in honor, is associated with an inequality by which some are advantaged and others wronged. No bitterness of feeling can surpass that which is thus engendered. It will wrap in shade an otherwise most venerated name.
V God would teach us that he is ever watchful over the right in families, in every respect. The same Being who says to the children, "Honor your parents," says also to the parents, "Honor your children." As he would guard the heads of the house from being trifled with by the sons, so would he guard the sons from any injustice on the part of their parents. A wrong on either side towards the other is a sin against God. And so largely does the observance of the right in the family concerning money and property, affect the well-being of the State, that it is here made a part of the civil code of the "commonwealth of Israel," that no parent shall be at liberty, whatever his preferences, to ignore the standing claims of his children.
Vers. 15-17. The rights of the firstborn in the house of a bigamist.
Bigamy was not encouraged by the Mosaic Law. Where it took place in man"s passion, the Law stepped in to regulate the relations in the household impartially. The house of a bigamist may be the scene of sudden jealousies and dispeace, but God steps in to forbid it being the scene of injustice. The discomfort is providentially inseparable from the bigamy it would have been a pity had it been otherwise! But the Lord steps in to prevent flagrant injustice being done to the children solely through the father"s caprice. Caprice may be permitted up to a certain point, with all its painful checks, but it will not be suffered to perpetuate undeserved wrong.
I THE RIGHTS OF THE FIRSTBORN CONSISTED IN A DOUBLE SHARE OF THE FAMILY PROPERTY TWICE AS MUCH AS THE OTHER CHILDREN. This was that he, as the beginning of his father"s strength, and as acknowledged head of the family, might be able to sustain its honor properly. It was for this portion Elisha prayed when he desired a double portion of Elijah"s spirit; not twice as much, but twice as much as the other sons of the prophets. (2Ki_2:9) And this is what Jesus gets from the Father, according to the promise, "I will make him my Firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth". (Psa_89:27) There was another right of the firstborn, in having a seed raised up for him in case of his premature decease. This also has its import in the case of Jesus.
II BECAUSE A FIRSTBORN"S MOTHER WAS HATED WAS NO REASON WHY HE SHOULD BE DENIED HIS RIGHTS. The dark cloud of hate was not to envelop him, and keep him out of his double portion, or his right to a seed, if he prematurely died. And yet this was what Jesus received in the way of treatment. "He came unto his own, and his own received him not." As the Firstborn of humanity, he deserved the double portion, yet had not where to lay his head. He was denied his rights among men.
III FROM THE CAPRICE OF MEN WE MAY ALWAYS LOOK UP TO THE IMPARTIAL JUSTICE OF GOD. This was the protection of the firstborn in the house of a bigamist. God was on his side. This was the protection of Jesus amid the injustice of men the Father was along with him. He always did what pleased him. And whenever we feel aggrieved through the capricious conduct of our fellows, let us always look up confidingly to our Father above.
The Lord is just, at all events. We may rely on his vindication of our case in the great day, if not before. R.M.E.
Vers. 15-18. The firstborn of the hated wife.
The firstborn, in patriarchal and tribal societies, had recognized rights and honors, correlative with the duties and responsibilities which his position as prospective head of the household entailed on him. The principle is here asserted that individual preferences and partialities are not to be allowed to set aside the rights of the son who is lawfully the firstborn. Men would fain, sometimes, bend justice to their likings. Where an Israelite had two wives, either together or in succession, the one loved and the other hated, he might be tempted to pass by the son of the hated, and confer the rights of the firstborn on the son of the wife whom he loved, though it was the son of the hated wife who was entitled to that honor. With strict impartiality, the Law steps in and forbids this act of injustice. It demands that the son of the hated wife have all his rights. It will tolerate no tampering with them.
Lessons:
1. The evils of polygamy.
2. The sin of allowing likes and dislikes to influence us to acts of injustice.
3. The danger of natural preferences degenerating into blameworthy partialities.
4. The duty of doing always what is right, whatever the bent of our private inclinations. J.O.
Vers. 15-17. Monogamy essential to domestic peace.
Every indication of God"s will is a finger-post to felicity. A wise man will not wait for peremptory law. The faintest whisper of Jehovah"s will is law to him. Without doubt, that each man should be the husband of one wife was the ordination of God.
I THE FIRSTBORN SON IS PLACED IN A POSITION OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE AND POWER. All human government is built upon the model of the family. Within the compass of the family the firstborn was a sovereign, had sovereign rule and responsibility. In families like Jacob"s, where there were many children and dependents, this was a position of eminence and power. In every case, special duties devolve upon the firstborn. He has often to act as the representative of the family, and to defend family rights. He becomes the natural arbitrator in family disputes. His influence, for good or for evil, is great. Therefore, to sustain his position and power, a double portion of the ancestral estate was his.
II THE PRIVILEGE OF THE FIRSTBORN IS INALIENABLE. For a time the firstborn son is sole heir to his father"s rank and riches; hence, for reasons external to him, it would be unjust to depose him. And injustice always leads to strife, disorder, and mischief. Filial reverence would be undermined. Seeds of hatred would be sown. The removal of the father"s authority by death would be the sign for feud, litigation, and waste. What God has ordained let not man disturb. Our earthly possessions are entrusted to us temporarily by God, and the entailment has been determined by the Divine Proprietor. For the just management of our secular estates and of our family concerns, we are accountable at the great assize. Favoritism among children is a prolific evil.
III THIS PROSPECTIVE MISCHIEF ISSUES FROM A PLURALITY OF WIVES. God has often tolerated among men what he has not approved. He does this, in some respect, every day. If he had imposed capital punishment upon the violation of monogamy, the effect, in many cases, would have been unchastity. Law, in order to be effectual, can never transcend the highest level of moral sentiment prevalent in the age. Otherwise judges themselves would be culprits, and no one could be found to administer the law. But the family intrigues, quarrels, and miseries which spring from a plurality of wives are God"s visible brands and scourges on disobedience. What works best for society, for the human race, is (in the absence of other instruction) the revealed will of God. Wherever there is more than one wife there must be divided affection, divided interests, divided authority. The house is divided against itself. D.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain The right of the firstborn.
Deu_21:15-17
The right of the firstborn.
Read full note →
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.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain Of the First-Born in Bigamy.
Of the First-Born in Bigamy.
v. 15. If a man have two wives, in that unnatural relation of bigamy which the Lord permitted among the Jews, one beloved and another hated, as in the case of Jacob, Genesis 29, 30, who was indifferent to the point of neglect toward Leah, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated, and if the first-born son be hers that was hated,
Read full note →
v. 16. then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to in her it that which he hath, when he makes his will and divides his property, that he may not make the son of the beloved first-born before the son of the hated, which is indeed the first-born, his love for the one wife should not cause him to commit an injustice to the true first-born son;
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, of all the property found with him, for thus the firstborn was distinguished among the children of Israel; for he is the beginning of his strength, as Reuben was that of Jacob, Gen 49:3; the right of the first-born is his. The Lord wants no favoritism shown at any time, but demands that right and justice rule among His people.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 General Information:
General Information:
Moses continues speaking to the people of Israel.
Read full note →
one is loved and the other is hated
This can be stated in active form. AT: Possible meanings are 1) "the man loves one of his wives and he hates the other wife" or 2) "the man loves one wife more than he loves the other wife" (See: Active or Passive)
they have both borne him children
"both wives have had children with him"
if the firstborn son is of her that is hated
This can be stated in active form. AT: "if the firstborn son belongs to the wife whom the man hates" (See: Active or Passive)
then on the day that the man
"when the man"
the man causes his sons to inherit what he possesses
"the man gives his possessions to his sons as an inheritance"
he may not make the son of the beloved wife the firstborn before the son of the hated wife
"he may not treat the son of the beloved wife as if he were the firstborn instead of the son of the hated wife"
a double portion
"twice as much"
that son is the beginning of his strength
This is an idiom. AT: "that son is the one who shows that the man can become the father of sons" (See: Idiom)
translationWords
beloved
firstborn
day
inherit
possess
strength
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 21:15-17 The law required that a firstborn son receive…
21:15-17 The law required that a firstborn son receive the greater share of his father’s inheritance (see 21:15-16; 2 Kgs 2:9). The custom of giving the firstborn son a double portion is first recorded here but was implied in earlier practice (see Gen 25:31-34; 27:1-4; 48:8-22). • son of his father’s virility: The eldest male child carried this distinction because he proved that the man was capable of siring children, and a boy in particular.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.