“volueritque substantiam inter filios suos dividere, non poterit filium dilectæ facere primogenitum, et præferre filio odiosæ :”
“Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:”
“when that man assigns his inheritance to his sons he must not appoint the son of the beloved wife as the firstborn over the son of the unloved wife.”
“then it shall be, in the day that he causes his sons to inherit that which he has, that he may not give the son of the beloved the rights of the firstborn before the son of the hated, who is the firstborn;”
“then it shall be, in the day that he causeth his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved the first-born before the son of the hated, who is the first-born:”
Or, while the son of the hated liveth.
Hated, or less loved. (Haydock) — The inheritance goes to the first-born independently of the father’s disposition, in order to prevent the disturbances which would otherwise have taken place in families, where the different wives would have been continually endeavouring to get their respective children preferred before the rest. David indeed assigned the throne to Solomon, to the exclusion of Adonias; but this was done by the command of God, 3 Kings i. 17. The regulation of Jacob, in favour of Joseph, was made prior to this law. The Jewish doctors inform us, that a father cannot disinherit any of his lawful heirs, except the judges ratify his sentence, while he is in health. But if he be dangerously ill, his verbal declaration will suffice, provided he appoint some one whom the law does not reject. For if he were to make a Gentile his heir, the will would be null. The testament must be made in the day time, for which they cite Ecclesiasticus xxxiii. 24. They say likewise that a father may, while living, give his effects to whom he pleases, and by this means disinherit his children; or he may give the succession to one of them, who is then considered as a tutor of the rest, and is bound to maintain them with necessaries till the year of jubilee, when each may claim his respective share. (Selden, Succes. c. xxiv.) But all these regulations seem to contradict the law. (Calmet)
II. The law in this case is still binding on parents; they must give their children their right without partiality. In the case supposed, the eldest son, though the son of the less-beloved wife, must have his birthright privilege, which was a double portion of the father's estate, because he was the beginning of his strength that is, in him his family began to be strengthened and his quiver began to be filled with the arrows of a mighty man (Ps 127 4), and therefore the right of the first-born is his, v. 16, 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.
Verses 15-17 This law restrains men from disinheriting their eldest sons without just cause. The principle in this case as to children, is still binding to parents; they must give children their right without partiality.