Inheritance

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible

INHERITANCE . It is a remarkable fact that the Hebrew language fails to discriminate between the inheritance of property and its possession or acquisition in any other manner. The two words most constantly used in this connexion denote the idea of settled possession, but are quite indeterminate as to the manner in which that possession has been acquired. As might easily be inferred, from the historical circumstances of Israel’s evolution, the words became largely restricted to the holding of land, obviously the most important of all kinds of property among a pastoral or agricultural people.

I. Inheritance in Law and Custom

1. Property. While land was the most important part of an inheritance, the rules for succession show that it was regarded as belonging properly to the family or elan, and to the individual heir only as representing family or tribal rights. Cattle, household goods, and slaves would be more personal possessions, which a man could divide among his sons (  Deuteronomy 21:16 ). Originally wives, too, as part of the property of the deceased, would fall to the possession of the heir-in-chief (cf.   2 Samuel 16:20-23 ,   1 Kings 2:13 ff.).

2. Heirs . ( a ) The firstborn son , as the new head of the family, responsible for providing for the rest, inherited the land and had also his claim to a double portion of other kinds of wealth (  Deuteronomy 21:17 ). To be the son of a concubine or inferior wife was not a bar to heirship (  Genesis 21:10 ,   1 Chronicles 5:1 ); though a jealous wife might prevail on her husband to deprive such a son of the right of succession (  Genesis 21:10 ). That a father had power to transfer the birthright from the firstborn to another is implied in the cases of Ishmael and Isaac (  Genesis 21:10 ), Esau and Jacob (  Genesis 27:37 ), Reuben and Joseph (  1 Chronicles 5:1 ), Adonijah and Solomon (  1 Kings 1:11 ff.). But this was contrary to social usage, and is prohibited in   Deuteronomy 21:15-17 . Moreover, the exceptions to the rule are presented as examples of a Divine election rather than a human preference (Isaac,   Genesis 21:12; Jacob,   Malachi 1:2-3 ,   Romans 9:13; Joseph,   Genesis 49:24 ff.; Solomon,   1 Chronicles 22:9-10 ), and can hardly be adduced as survivals of the ancient custom of ‘Junior Right.’ ( b ) At first a daughter could not succeed (the inheritance of the daughters of Job [  Job 42:15 ] is noted as exceptional) an arrangement that has been referred either to the influence of ancestor-worship, in which a male heir was necessary as priest of the family cult, or to the connexion between inheritance and the duty of blood revenge. For unmarried daughters, however, husbands would almost invariably be found. In the case of the daughters of Zelophehad (  Numbers 27:1-11 ) we see the introduction of a change; but it is to be noted that this very case is associated with the provision (  Numbers 36:1-12 ) that heiresses should marry only within their father’s tribe, so that the inheritance might not be alienated from it. ( c ) For the widow no immediate place was found in the succession. So far from being eligible as an heir, she was strictly a part of the property belonging to the inheritance. According to the levirate law, however, when a man died leaving no son, his brother or other next-of-kin ( go’çl ) must marry the widow, and her firstborn son by this marriage became the heir of her previous husband (  Deuteronomy 25:6 ). ( d ) For the order of succession the rule is laid down in   Numbers 27:8-11 that if a man die without male issue the right of inheritance shall fall successively to his daughter, his brothers, his father’s brothers, his next kinsman thereafter. The provision for the daughter was an innovation, as the context shows, but the rest of the rule is in harmony with the ancient laws of kinship.

ii. National and Religious Inheritance. 1. The possession of the land of Canaan was commonly regarded as the inheritance of the whole people. In this particular case the inheritance was won only as the result of conflict and effort; moreover, theoretically at any rate, it involved the annihilation of the previous inhabitants. Consequently the inheritance of Canaan was not entirely devoid of the idea of succession. But the extermination of the Canaanites was never effected; and although the conquest was achieved only by the most strenuous effort, yet the Israelites were so strongly impressed with a vivid sense of Jehovah’s intervention on their behalf, that to subsequent generations it seemed as if they had entered into the labours of others, not in any sense whatever by their own power, but solely by Jehovah’s grace. The inheritance of Canaan signified the secure possession of the land, as the gift of God to His people. ‘The dominant Biblical sense of inheritance is the enjoyment by a rightful title of that which is not the fruit of personal exertion’ (Westcott, Heb . 168).

2. It is not surprising that the idea of inheritance soon acquired religious associations. The Hebrew mind invested all social and political institutions with a religious significance. As Israel became increasingly conscious of its mission in , and began dimly to apprehend its mission to , the world, the peaceful and secure possession of Canaan seemed an indispensable condition of that self-development which was itself the necessary prelude to a more universal mission. The threatening attitude of the great world powers in the eighth and subsequent centuries b.c. brought the question prominently to the front. Over and over again it seemed as if Jerusalem must succumb to the hordes of barbarian invaders, and as if the last remnant of Canaan must be irretrievably lost; but the prophets persistently declared that the land should not be lost; they realized the impossibility of Israel’s ever realizing her true vocation, unless, at any rate for some centuries, she preserved her national independence; and the latter would, of course, be wholly unthinkable without territorial security. The career of Israel, as a nation, the influence, even the existence, of its religion, would he endangered by the dispossession of Canaan; moreover, it was recognized that as long as the people remained true to Jehovah, He on His part would remain true to them, and would not suffer them to be dispossessed, but would make them dwell securely in their own land, in order that they might establish on their side those conditions of righteousness and justice which represented the national obligations, if Jehovah’s covenant with them was to be maintained.

3. The possession of the land, the inheritance of Canaan, symbolized the people’s living in covenant with their God, and all those spiritual blessings which flowed from such a covenant. And inasmuch as the validity of the covenant implied the continuance of Divine favour, the inheritance of the Holy Land was viewed as the outward and visible sign of God’s presence and power among His own. We know how the remorseless logic of history seemed to point to an opposite conclusion. The Exile spelt disinheritance; and disinheritance meant a great deal more than the loss of a little strip of territory; it meant the forfeiture of spiritual blessings as a consequence of national sin. The more ardent spirits of the nation refused, however, to believe that these high privileges were permanently abrogated; they were only temporarily withdrawn; and they looked forward to a new covenant whose spiritual efficacy should be guaranteed by national restoration. In the reconstituted theocracy, the Messiah figured as the mediator both of temporal and of spiritual blessings. The idea of a restored inheritance suggested at once the glorious anticipations of the Messianic age, when the people, not by works which they had done, but by Jehovah’s grace, should recover that which they had lost; and renew the covenant that had been broken.

4. In this sense ‘the inheritance’ became almost equivalent to the Messianic salvation; and participation in this salvation is not a future privilege, but a present possession. In the OT the secure inheritance of the Holy Land was the outward symbol of these spiritual blessings; under the New Dispensation they are assured by membership in the Christian body.

5. As every Jew regarded himself as an inheritor of the land of Canaan, so also is each Christian an inheritor of the Kingdom of heaven. He is not the heir, in the sense of enjoying an honorary distinction, or of anticipating future privileges; but as one who is already in a position of assured privilege, conferred upon him with absolute validity. As Lightfoot remarks, ‘Our Father never dies; the inheritance never passes away from Him; yet nevertheless we succeed to the full possession of it’ ( Galatians 165).

6. Three particular usages remain to be noticed. ( a ) The Jews never lost the conviction that Jehovah was the supreme overlord of the land, and of the people that dwelt in it. Accordingly Canaan is the Holy Land, and Jehovah’s own inheritance; and Messiah when incarnate ‘came to His own country, and His own people received Him not.’ ( b ) The Jews also recognized that the possession of Canaan had value only in so far as it assured them of the free exercise of their religion, and all other spiritual blessings. This they strove to express by boldly declaring that Jehovah was Himself the inheritance of His people. ( c ) The Messiah, through whom the disinheritance should be brought to a close, and the covenant should be renewed, was naturally regarded as the supreme ‘inheritor’ or ‘heir’ of all the promises and privileges implied in the covenant. As, moreover, the Messiah’s unique relation to the Father became more clearly defined, the idea of His inheritance, connoting His unique primogeniture and universal supremacy, became enlarged and expanded. It was, moreover, through the humanity which He restored that the Son proved and realized His heirship of all things; and thus His actual position is the potential exaltation of redeemed mankind.

J. C. Lambert and Ernest A. Edghill.

Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology

Legal inheritance refers to actual property or goods received after a family member's death. While Jewish inheritance customs were linked to family blood lines, Greek and Roman laws also provided for the disposition of family possessions through the adoption of an heir. The Scriptures transform the concept of inheritance to include the acquisition of spiritual blessings and promises from God.

The Old Testament . The Old Testament is rich in its usage of the inheritance metaphor. The terms for inheritance occur over two hundred times, most frequently in Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Psalms. While Jewish inheritance laws were specific and complete ( Numbers 27:8-11 ), almost all references to inheritance in the Old Testament are theological, not legal.

In the theological sense, to inherit means to "receive an irrevocable gift" with an emphasis on the special relationship between the benefactor and the recipients. Unlike legal inheritance, the benefactor, God, does not die, yet he provides material and spiritual blessings for his people.

The focus of the inheritance concept in the Old Testament is God's promise to Abraham. The land of Canaan was bequeathed to him and his descendants as an eternal possession ( Genesis 12:7 ). Each family in Israel was apportioned its own inheritance as an inalienable possession ( Joshua 13-31 ) and given the task to occupy the land ( Judges 1:3 ). As the biblical history of Israel unfolds, the promised inheritance specifies a righteous remnant who will inherit the world as an everlasting possession ( Psalm 2:8;  Isaiah 54:3;  Daniel 7:14 ).

From the promise of Canaan as Israel's inheritance came other aspects of the concept. The nation is described as God's inheritance ( 1 Kings 8:51,53;  Psalm 78:71;  Isaiah 19:25;  Zechariah 2:12 ) whom the Lord will never forsake ( Psalm 94:14 ). The Lord is conversely described as the inheritance of the nation ( Psalm 16:5 ). The privileged position of Israel as God's chosen people placed them at the center of God's plans for blessing.

Between the Testaments . In the intertestamental period the actual appropriation of this promise seemed remote due to the domination of Persian, Greek, and Roman powers. The reality of the inheritance of the land was deferred to the future and intertestamental literature emphasized the inheritance of eternal life and the world to come. The focus of the promised inheritance was less on national prominence in the present and more on personal participation in the future life with God. This idea was broadened in the rabbinic literature where having an inheritance or share in the world to come was a primary aspiration of the Jews. A notable dichotomy existed between those who would inherit the future world (the redeemed) and those who would not (the condemned). By the time of the New Testament, it was common for a person to ask a rabbi, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" ( Matthew 19:16 ).

The New Testament . The legal-historical milieu of the first century provided an array of inheritance traditions. Jewish, Greco-Hellenistic, and Roman inheritance laws differed greatly in the meaning and implementation of their traditions. However, as in the Old Testament, almost all occurrences of the terms for inheritance in the New Testament are theological ( Luke 12:13; is the lone exception ).

Who Are the Heirs? Three major characters dominate the inheritance usage in the New Testament: Abraham, Christ, and the believer. The New Testament continues the focus on Abraham as a central figure of the inheritance metaphor. The initial promise to Abraham of the land of Canaan (  Hebrews 11:8 ) is broadened to include "the world" ( Romans 4:13 ). While the fact of Abraham's inheritance is significant, the New Testament concentrates on the means by which he received the inheritance: God's promise and Abraham's faith, not by works of the law ( Romans 4:14;  Galatians 3:18 ).

The second major character is Jesus Christ. His prominent position as the Son of God uniquely qualifies him as God's heir. He is presented as the heir of all things ( Hebrews 1:2,4 ) and the promises of God's kingdom are focused in him ( Matthew 21:38 ).

Finally, for the believer in Christ, heirship is a natural result of justification: "He saved us, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life" ( Titus 3:5-7 ). Since all believers are children of God they are necessarily heirs of God ( Romans 8:17;  Galatians 4:7 ). It follows naturally that Christians are also heirs along with Abraham and Christ ( Galatians 3:29 ). They receive their inheritance by faith as did Abraham ( Romans 4:13-14 ) and share in the inheritance with Christ as sons ( Romans 8:17 ).

What Is the Inheritance? Throughout the New Testament, a striking promise for believers is simply "the inheritance" (  Acts 20:32;  26:18;  Ephesians 1:14,18;  Colossians 3:24 ). Generally, the promise refers to the possession of salvation ( Hebrews 1:14 ). The believer's inheritance is described more specifically as eternal and joyful existence with God. Believers are promised "an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you" ( 1 Peter 1:4 ). Inheriting the "world to come" is a guarantee for all those who belong to God's family.

The apostle Paul employs the inheritance metaphor more than any other New Testament writer. For him, the object of the inheritance is the kingdom of God. He never states exactly what constitutes the believer's inheritance of the kingdom, but asserts emphatically that unbelievers will not inherit the kingdom ( 1 Corinthians 6:9-10;  Galatians 5:21;  Ephesians 5:5 ).

The Bible is clear that inheriting eternal life is synonymous with entering the kingdom. At the judgment, the righteous will inherit the kingdom ( Matthew 25:34 ) but the wicked will be eternally tormented ( Matthew 25:46 ). The finality of the separation of those outside of the family of God is clearly seen in their lack of a share in God's inheritance.

The concept of the believer's inheritance highlights the dignity of the family relationship of the believer in Christ. No higher position or greater wealth can an individual acquire than to become an heir of God through faith in Christ.

William E. Brown

See also Eternality Everlasting LifeEternal Life; Reward

Bibliography . E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People  ; A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament .

Holman Bible Dictionary

In ancient Israel possessions were passed on to the living sons of a father, but the eldest son received a double portion ( Deuteronomy 21:17 ). Reuben lost preeminence because of incest with Bilhah ( Genesis 35:22;  Genesis 49:4;  1 Chronicles 5:1 ), and Esau surrendered his birthright to Jacob ( Genesis 25:29-34 ). These examples show that possession of this double portion was not absolute. Sons of concubines did not inherit unless adopted. Jacob's sons by the maidservants Bilhah and Zilpah ( Genesis 30:3-13 ) inherited ( Genesis 49:1 ) because those offspring were adopted by Rachel and Leah. Sarai promised to adopt the offspring of her maid Hagar when she gave Hagar to Abram ( Genesis 16:2 ) but went back on that promise after Isaac's birth ( Genesis 21:10 ).

Women were not to inherit from their fathers except in the absence of a son ( Numbers 27:1-11 ). Before this ruling from the Lord, if a man had no offspring, the inheritance went to his brothers, to his father's brothers, or to his next kinsman.

Because the Hebrew words did not necessarily presuppose a death, they could be used in reference to God's granting of the land to Israel ( Joshua 1:15;  Numbers 36:2-4 ). Levites had no share of the land, and the Lord Himself was their “inheritance” ( Numbers 18:20-24;  Deuteronomy 10:9;  Deuteronomy 18:2;  Joshua 13:33 ). Jeremiah used the concept of “inheritance” to refer to the restoration of Israel to the land from “the north” after the time of punishment ( Jeremiah 3:18-19 ).

Israel is the “inheritance” of the Lord ( Jeremiah 10:16 ).  Psalm 79:1 speaks of Jerusalem and the Temple as God's “inheritance.” In a broader sense, however, God can be said to “inherit” all nations (  Psalm 82:8 ).

Anything given by God can be called an “inheritance.” In  Psalm 16:5 the pleasant conditions of the psalmist's life were his “inheritance” because he had chosen the Lord as his lot. In   Psalm 119:111 God's testimonies are an “inheritance.” In   Job 27:13 “heritage” refers to God's punishment of the wicked.   Proverbs 3:35 compares the honor the wise “inherit” with the disgrace of the fool.

In the New Testament “inheritance” can refer to property ( Luke 12:13 ), but it most often refers to the rewards of discipleship: eternal life ( Matthew 5:5;  Matthew 19:29;  Mark 10:29-30 and parallels;   Titus 3:7 ), the kingdom ( Matthew 25:34;  James 2:5; negatively  1 Corinthians 6:9-10;  1 Corinthians 15:50 ), generally ( Acts 20:32;  Ephesians 1:14 ,Ephesians 1:14, 1:18;  Revelation 21:7 ). Christ is the Heir par excellence (  Matthew 21:38 and parallels;   Hebrews 1:2 ). Through Christ Christians can be heirs of God and “fellow heirs” with Christ ( Romans 8:17; compare  Ephesians 3:6 ). Only Hebrews makes explicit use of the idea of “inheritance” as requiring the death of the testator, Christ. A “will” requires a death to come into effect, so the death of Christ brings the new “covenant”/”will” into effect ( Hebrews 9:16-17 ). See Covenant; Land; Promise .

Fred L. Horton, Jr.

Bridgeway Bible Dictionary

Israelites of Old Testament times considered an inheritance to be more than merely an amount of property received upon the death of one’s parents. The inheritance was tied up with the family’s portion of land originally allotted to it in Canaan ( 1 Kings 21:3-4;  Micah 2:2). It was a gift that came from God ( Genesis 12:7;  Deuteronomy 4:37-38;  Deuteronomy 12:10).

The New Testament shows that Christians also have an inheritance. This inheritance is tied up not with material possessions but with the kingdom of God. But like the Old Testament inheritance, it is a gift that comes from God himself ( Matthew 25:34;  James 2:5).

Israel in the Old Testament

When Canaan was divided among Israel’s twelve tribes, each tribal area was known as the inheritance of that tribe ( Joshua 15:20;  Joshua 16:8;  Joshua 18:2). Each tribal area was then divided among the families of that tribe, and each family portion was to remain with that family permanently. If anyone later sold part of the family land, it returned to the possession of the family in the Year of Jubilee ( Leviticus 25:13-17; see Jubilee ).

The inheritance passed from one generation to the next through the male descendants, though if there were no sons, it could be shared among the daughters. If the daughters later married, they were to marry within their own tribe and so prevent the inheritance from passing to another tribe ( Numbers 27:1-8; Numbers 36).

If there were no descendants at all, the land passed to the nearest living relative ( Numbers 27:9-11). A childless widow could, however, ask the brother of her dead husband to act as a sort of temporary husband to her, so that she might produce a son who would inherit the dead husband’s property and carry on his name ( Deuteronomy 25:5-10; see Widow ).

Whether concerning land or possessions in general, the eldest son received double the amount of the other sons. This special inheritance was known as the birthright ( Genesis 49:3;  Deuteronomy 21:17). The firstborn could lose the birthright either by foolishly selling it or through misconduct ( Genesis 25:31-34;  1 Chronicles 5:1-2; see Firstborn ).

The Christian’s inheritance

The New Testament uses the picture of an heir firstly of Christ, and then of the Christian. Christ is the heir of all things ( Hebrews 1:2), and through him believers also become heirs. The blessings of salvation promised to Abraham were fulfilled in Christ, and believers inherit these blessings through him ( Galatians 3:14;  Galatians 3:16;  Galatians 3:29). Through the grace of God they become children of God and receive eternal life ( Romans 8:17;  1 Peter 3:7).

Although Christians enjoy this inheritance now, they will enjoy it more fully when Christ returns. Their salvation will then be complete. Because of the presence of the Holy Spirit within them, they can look forward to this inheritance with assurance ( Ephesians 1:14;  Ephesians 1:18;  Titus 3:7;  1 Peter 1:4; see Hope ). Their expectation of this future inheritance gives them courage and perseverance amid present trials and difficulties ( Hebrews 6:12;  Hebrews 11:13-16;  Hebrews 11:39-40;  Revelation 21:7; see Perseverance ).

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

INHERITANCE (  Matthew 21:38,  Mark 12:7,  Luke 20:14;  Luke 12:13 : κληρονομία, derived from κλῆρος, ‘lot,’ ‘portion,’ ‘possession,’ and νέμειν, ‘to own or administer’).—The ordinary Biblical idea of inheritance is ‘the enjoyment by a rightful title of that which is not the fruit of personal exertion. The heir being what he is in relation to others, enters upon a possession which corresponds with his position; but there is no necessary thought of succession to one who has passed away’ (Westcott, Epistle to the Hebrews , p. 168). In the Gospels, however, the idea of succession to a deceased person is the prominent one, as with ourselves. The chief difference between the ordinary ancient and the ordinary modern conception of inheritance is this: We have more regard to the mere change in the ownership of certain property which takes place: the ancient civilized races looked rather to the position of the heir as executor and administrator of the deceased’s property, and as the person who, being clothed, so to speak, with the personality of the deceased, took upon himself all the obligations of the testator, as well as the continuance of his race and the perpetuation of his family religion. The last considerations were the most prominent, and account for the prevalence of adoption in ancient society. An adopted son, or a relative compelled to marry the deceased’s daughter, could carry on the family and its rites as well as a real son. (See Maine’s Ancient Law , ch. vi., and artt. ‘Heir’ and ‘Inheritance’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible). See also art. Heir.

Alex. [Note: Alexandrian.] Souter.

Morrish Bible Dictionary

The land of promise is constantly spoken of as the inheritance of Israel: the land flowing with milk and honey was given to them by God.  Deuteronomy 4:21;  Psalm 105:11 , etc. So when Israel returns to take possession of the land in a future day, it is still called their inheritance.  Ezekiel 45:1 , etc. This all shows that they were and will be an earthly people, but God blessed them on earth in relationship with Himself as Jehovah, and will again bless them on earth when they own the Lord Jesus as their Messiah. In connection with this God calls Israel His inheritance: He hath chosen them for His own inheritance.   Psalm 33:12;  Psalm 78:62 , etc.

The Christian has no inheritance on earth; his inheritance is with the saints in light,  Colossians 1:12; an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven.

 1 Peter 1:4 . In the meanwhile the Holy Spirit is given as the earnest of the inheritance.  Ephesians 1:14 . It is in Christ Himself the inheritance is obtained, for the Lord Jesus will possess all things in heaven and in earth.  Ephesians 1:18 .

Webster's Dictionary

(1): ( n.) The act or state of inheriting; as, the inheritance of an estate; the inheritance of mental or physical qualities.

(2): ( n.) That which is or may be inherited; that which is derived by an heir from an ancestor or other person; a heritage; a possession which passes by descent.

(3): ( n.) A permanent or valuable possession or blessing, esp. one received by gift or without purchase; a benefaction.

(4): ( n.) Possession; ownership; acquisition.

(5): ( n.) Transmission and reception by animal or plant generation.

(6): ( n.) A perpetual or continuing right which a man and his heirs have to an estate; an estate which a man has by descent as heir to another, or which he may transmit to another as his heir; an estate derived from an ancestor to an heir in course of law.

King James Dictionary

INHER'ITANCE, n. An estate derived from an ancestor to an heir by succession or in course of law or an estate which the law casts on a child or other person, as the representative of the deceased ancestor.

1. The reception of an estate by hereditary right, or the descent by which an estate or title is cast on the heir as, the heir received the estate by inheritance. 2. The estate or possession which may descend to an heir, though it has not descended.

And Rachel and Leah answered and said, is there yet any portion or inheritance for us in our father's house?  Genesis 31

3. An estate given or possessed by donation or divine appropriation.  Numbers 26 4. That which is possessed or enjoyed.

Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance.  Psalms 2

American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

The laws of inheritance among the Hebrews were very simple. Land might be mortgaged, but could not be alienated,  Numbers 36:6-9 . See  Numbers 27:8-11 . The Law of Moses rendered wills unnecessary; they were introduced, however, at a later period,  Galatians 3:15   Hebrews 9:17 . Property was sometimes distributed among children during the lifetime of the father: thus, in the parable of the prodigal son, the father divided his property between the two sons,  Luke 15:12 .

Smith's Bible Dictionary

Inheritance. See Heir .

Hawker's Poor Man's Concordance And Dictionary

See Heritage

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

(frequently חֵלֶק ,-Che'Lek, A "Portion" or providential bestowment; but properly and usually some form of the verbs יָרִשׁ , Yarash, to Possess; נָחִל , Nachal, to Possess; Κληρονομέω , to Get By Lot). God, as the creator of the earth, gave it to man to be held, cultivated, and enjoyed ( Genesis 1:28 sq.;  Psalms 115:16;  Ecclesiastes 5:9); not to any favored portion of our race, but to the race itself-to man as represented by our great primogenitor, to whom the use of the divine gift was first graciously vouchsafed. The impression which the original gift of the earth was calculated to make on men, the Great Donor was pleased, in the case of Palestine, to render, for his own wise purposes, more decided and emphatic by an express re-donation to the patriarch Abraham ( Genesis 13:14 sq.). Many years, however, elapsed before the promise was fulfilled. Meanwhile the notices which we have regarding the state of property in the patriarchal ages are few and not very definite. The products of the earth, however, were at an early period accumulated and held as property. Violence invaded the possession: opposing violence recovered the goods.

War soon sprang out of the passions of the human heart. The necessity of civil government was felt. Consuetudinary laws accordingly developed themselves. The head of the family was supreme. His will was law. The physical superiority which he possessed gave him this dominion. The same influence would secure its transmission in the male rather than the female line. Hence, too, the rise of the rights of primogeniture. In the early condition of society which is called patriarchal, landed property had its origin, indeed, but could not be held of first importance by those who led a wandering life, shifting continually, as convenience suggested, from one spot to another. Cattle were then the chief property ( Genesis 24:35). But land, if held, was held on a freehold tenure; nor could any other tenure have come into existence till more complex and artificial relations arose, resulting, in all probability, from the increase of population and the relative insufficiency of food. When Joseph went down into Egypt, he appears to have found the freehold tenure prevailing, which, however, he converted into a tenancy at will, or, at any rate, into a conditional tenancy. Other intimations are found in Genesis which confirm the general statements which have just been made. Daughters do not appear to have had any inheritance. If there are any exceptions to this rule, they only serve to prove it by the special manner in which they are mentioned. Thus Job is recorded ( Job 42:15) to have given his daughters an inheritance conjointly with their brothers. How highly the privileges conferred by primogeniture were valued may be learned from the history of Jacob and Esau. In the patriarchal age doubtless these rights were very great. (See Birthright).

The eldest son, as being by nature the first fitted for command, assumed influence and control, under his father, over the family and its dependents; and when the father was removed by death, he readily, and as if by an act of Providence, took his father's place. Thus he succeeded to the property in succeeding to the headship of the family, the clan, or the tribe. At first the eldest son most probably took exclusive possession of his father's property and power; and when, subsequently, a division became customary, he would still retain the largest share-a double portion, if not more ( Genesis 27:25;  Genesis 27:29;  Genesis 27:40). That in the days of Abraham other sons partook with the eldest., and that, too, though they were sons of concubines, is clear from the story of Hagar's expulsion: "Cast out (said Sarah) this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac" ( Genesis 21:10). The few notices left us in Genesis of the transfer of property from hand to hand are interesting, and bear a remarkable similarity to what takes place in Eastern countries even at this day ( Genesis 21:2-2; cf.  Genesis 23:9 sq.). The purchase of the Cave of Machpelah as a family burying-place for Abraham, detailed in the last passage, serves to show the safety of property at that early period, and the facility with which an inheritance was transmitted even to sons' sons (comp.  Genesis 49:29). That it was customary, during the father's lifetime, to make a disposition of property, is evident from  Genesis 24:35, where it is said that Abraham had given all he had to Isaac. This statement is further confirmed by  Genesis 25:5-6, where it is added that Abraham gave to the sons of his concubines "gifts, sending them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward unto the east country." Sometimes, however, so far were the children of unmarried females from being dismissed with a gift, that they shared, with what we should term the legitimate children, in the father's property and rights. (See Concubine).

Thus Dan and Naphtali were sons of Bilhah; Rachel's maid, whom she gave to her husband, failing to bear children herself. So Gad and Asher were, under similar circumstances sons of Zilpah, Leah's maid ( Genesis 30:2-14). In the event of the eldest son's dying in the father's lifetime, the next son took his place; and if the eldest son left a widow, the next son made her his wife ( Genesis 38:7 sq.), the offspring of which union was reckoned to the first-born and deceased son. Should the second likewise die, the third son took his place ( Genesis 38:11). While the rights of the first-born were generally established and recognized, yet were they sometimes set aside in favor of a younger child. The blessing of the father or the grandsire seems to have been an act essential in the devolution of power and property-in its effects not unlike wills and testaments with us; and instances are not wanting in which this (so to term it) testamentary bequest set aside consuetudinary laws, and gave precedence to a younger son ( Genesis 48:15 sq.). Special claims on the parental regards were acknowledged and rewarded by special gifts, as in the case of Jacob's donation to Joseph ( Genesis 48:22). In a similar manner bad conduct on the part of the eldest son (as well as of others) subjected him, if not to the loss of his rights of property, yet to the evil influence of his father's dying malediction ( Genesis 49:3); while the good and favored, though younger son, was led by the paternal blessing to anticipate, and probably also to reap, the richest inheritance of individual and social happiness ( Genesis 49:8-22). (See Heir); (See Adoptios).

The original promise made to Abraham of the land of Palestine was solemnly repeated to Isaac ( Genesis 26:3), the reason assigned being because "Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws," while it is expressly declared that the earlier inhabitants of the country were dispossessed and destined to extermination for the greatness of their iniquity. The possession of the Promised Land was embraced by Isaac in his dying benediction to Jacob ( Genesis 28:3-4) to whom God vouchsafed ( Genesis 28:15; see also  Genesis 35:10-11) to give a renewed assurance of the destined inheritance. That this donation, however, was held to be dependent for the time and manner of its fulfillment on the divine will, appears from  Genesis 33:18, where Jacob, on coming into the land of Canaan, bought for a hundred pieces of money "a parcel of a field, at the hand of the children of Hamor." Delayed though the execution of the promise was, confidence never deserted the family of Abraham, so that Joseph, dying in the land of Egypt, assured his brothers that they would be visited by God and placed in possession of Canaan, enjoining on them, in this conviction, that, when conducted to their possession, they should carry his bones with them out of Egypt ( Genesis 50:25).

A promise thus given, thus repeated, and thus believed, easily, and indeed unavoidably, became the fundamental principle of that settlement of property which Moses made when at length he had effected the divine will in the redemption of the children of Israel. The observances, and practices too, which we have noticed as prevailing among the patriarchs, would, no doubt, have great influence on the laws which the Jewish legislator originated or sanctioned. The land of Canaan was divided among the twelve tribes descended through Isaac and Jacob from Abraham. The division was made by lot for an inheritance among the families of the sons of Israel, according to the tribes, and to the number and size of families in each tribe. The tribe of Levi, however, had no inheritance; but forty-eight cities with their suburbs were assigned to the Levites, each tribe giving according to the number of cities that fell to its share ( Numbers 33:50;  Numbers 34:1;  Numbers 35:1). The inheritance thus acquired was never to leave the tribe to which it belonged; every tribe was to keep strictly to its own inheritance. An heiress, in consequence, was not allowed to marry out of her own tribe, lest property should pass by her marriage into another tribe ( Numbers 36:6-9); This restriction led to the marriage, of heiresses with their near relations: thus the daughters of Zelophehad "were married unto their father's brother's sons," "and their inheritance remained in the tribe, of the family of their father" ( Numbers 36:11-12; comp. Joseph. Ant. 4, 7, 5). In general cases the inheritance went to sons, the first-born receiving a double portion, "for he is the beginning of his father's strength." If a man had two wives, one beloved, the other hated, and if the firstborn were the son of her who was hated, he nevertheless was to enjoy "the right of the first-born" ( Deuteronomy 21:15). If a man left no sons, the inheritance passed to his daughters; if there was- no daughter, it went to his brothers; in case there were no brothers, it was given to his father's brothers; if his father had no brothers, it came into possession of the nearest kinsman ( Numbers 27:8). The land was Jehovah's, and could not, therefore, be permanently alienated. (See Husbandry).

Every fiftieth year, whatever land had been sold returned to its former owner. The value and price of land naturally rose or fell in proportion to the number of years there were to elapse prior to the ensuing fiftieth or jubilee year. If he who sold the land, or a kinsman, could redeem the land before the year of jubilee, it was to be restored to him on his paying to the purchaser the value of the produce of the years remaining till the jubilee. Houses in villages or unwalled towns might not be sold forever; they were restored at the jubilee, and might at any time be redeemed. If a man sold a dwelling- house situated in a walled city, he had the option of redeeming it within the space of a full year after it had been sold: but if it remained unredeemed, it belonged to the purchaser, and did not return to him who sold it even at the jubilee ( Leviticus 25:8;  Leviticus 25:23). The Levites were not allowed to sell the land in the suburbs of their cities, though they might dispose of the cities themselves, which, however, were redeemable at any time, and must return at the jubilee to their original possessors ( Leviticus 27:16). (See Land).

The regulations which the laws of Moses established rendered wills, or a testamentary disposition of (at least) landed property, almost, if not quite unnecessary; we accordingly find no provision for anything of the kind. Some difficulty may have been now and then occasioned when near relations failed; but this was met by the traditional law, which furnished minute directions on the point (Mishna, Baba Bathra, 4:3, c. 8. 9). Personal property would naturally follow the land, or might be bequeathed by word of mouth. At a later period of the Jewish polity the mention of wills is found, but the idea seems to have been taken from foreign nations. In princely families they appear to have been used, as we learn from Josephus (Ant. 13, 16,1; 17:3, 2; War, 2, 2, 3); but such a practice can hardly suffice to establish the general use of wills among the people. In the New Testament, however, wills are expressly mentioned ( Galatians 3:15;  Hebrews 9:17). Michaelis (Commentaries, 1, 431) asserts that the phrase ( 2 Samuel 17:23;  2 Kings 20:1) "set thine house in order" has reference to a will or testament, but his grounds are by no means sufficient, the literal rendering of the words being, "give commands to thy house." The utmost which such an expression could inferentially be held to comprise in regard to property is a dying and final distribution of personal property; and we know that it was not unusual for fathers to make, while yet alive, a division of their goods among their children ( Luke 15:12; Rosenm Ü ller, Morgan. 5, 197). (See Heritage).

Kitto's Popular Cyclopedia of Biblial Literature

The laws and observances which determine the acquisition and regulate the devolution of property, are among the influences which affect the vital interests of states; and it is therefore of high consequence to ascertain the nature and bearing of the laws and observances relating to this subject which come to us with the sanction of the Bible. We may also premise that, in a condition of society such as that in which we now live, wherein the two diverging tendencies which favor immense accumulations on the one hand, and lead to poverty and pauperism on the other, are daily becoming more and more decided, disturbing, and baneful, there seems to be required on the part of those who take Scripture as their guide, a careful study of the foundations of human society, and of the laws of property, as they are developed in the divine records which contain the revealed will of God.

That will, in truth, as it is the source of all created things, and especially of the earth and its intelligent denizen, man, so is it the original foundation of property, and of the laws by which its inheritance should be regulated. God, as the Creator of the earth, gave it to man to be held, cultivated, and enjoyed (, sq.;; ). The primitive records are too brief and fragmentary to supply us with any details respecting the earliest distribution or transmission of landed property; but from the passages to which reference has been made, the important fact appears to be established beyond a question, that the origin of property is to be found, not in the achievements of violence, the success of the sword, or any imaginary implied contract, but in the will and the gift of the common Creator and bountiful Father of the human race. It is equally clear that the gift was made, not to any favored portion of our race, but to the race itself—to man as represented by our great primogenitor, to whom the use of the divine gift was first graciously vouchsafed.

The impression which the original gift of the earth was calculated to make on men the Great Donor was pleased, in the case of Palestine, to render, for his own wise purposes, more decided and emphatic by an express re-donation to the patriarch Abraham (, sq.). Many years, however, elapsed before the promise was fulfilled. Meanwhile the notices which we have regarding the state of property in the patriarchal ages, are few and not very definite. The products of the earth, however, were at an early period accumulated and held as property. Violence invaded the possession; opposing violence recovered the goods. War soon sprang out of the passions of the human heart. The necessity of civil government was felt. Consuetudinary laws accordingly developed themselves. The head of the family was supreme. His will was law. The physical superiority which he possessed gave him this dominion. The same influence would secure its transmission in the male rather than the female line. Hence too the rise of the rights of primogeniture. In the early condition of society which is called patriarchal, landed property had its origin, indeed, but could not be held of first importance by those who led a wandering life, shifting continually, as convenience suggested, from one spot to another. Cattle were then the chief property . But land, if held, was held on a freehold tenure; nor could any other tenure have come into existence till more complex and artificial relations arose, resulting, in all probability, from the increase of population and the relative insufficiency of food. When Joseph went down into Egypt, he appears to have found the freehold tenure prevailing, which, however, he converted into a tenancy at will, or, at any rate, into a conditional tenancy. Other intimations are found in Genesis which confirm the general statements which have just been made. Daughters do not appear to have had any inheritance. If there are any exceptions to this rule, they only serve to prove it. Thus Job (the book so called is undoubtedly very old, so that there is no impropriety in citing it in this connection) is recorded to have given his daughters an inheritance conjointly with their brothers—a record which of itself proves the singularity of the proceeding, and establishes our position that inheritance generally followed the male line. How highly the privileges conferred by primogeniture were valued, may be learned from the history of Jacob and Esau. In the patriarchal age doubtless these rights were very great. The eldest son, as being by nature the first fitted for command, assumed influence and control, under his father, over the family and its dependents; and when the father was removed by death, he readily, and as if by an act of Providence, took his father's place. Thus he succeeded to the property in succeeding to the headship of the family, the clan, or the tribe. At first the eldest son most probably took exclusive possession of his father's property and power; and when, subsequently, a division became customary, he would still retain the largest share—a double portion, if not more (;; ). That in the days of Abraham other sons partook with the eldest, and that too though they were sons of concubines, is clear from the story of Hagar's expulsion:—'Cast out (said Sarah) this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac' . The few notices left us in Genesis of the transfer of property from hand to hand are interesting, and bear a remarkable similarity to what takes place in Eastern countries even at this day (, sq.; 23:9, sq.). The purchase of the Cave of Machpelah as a family burying-place for Abraham, detailed in the last passage, serves to show the safety of property at that early period, and the facility with which an inheritance was transmitted even to sons' sons (comp. ). That it was customary, during the father's lifetime, to make a disposition of property, is evident from , where it is said that Abraham had given all he had to Isaac. This statement is further confirmed by , where it is added that Abraham gave to the sons of his concubines 'gifts, sending them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward unto the east country.' Sometimes, however, so far were the children of unmarried females from being dismissed with a gift, that they shared with what we should term the legitimate children, in the father's property and rights. Thus Dan and Naphtali were sons of Bilhah, Rachel's maid, whom she gave to her husband, failing to bear children herself. So Gad and Asher were, under similar circumstances, sons of Zilpah, Leah's maid . In the event of the eldest son's dying in the father's lifetime, the next son took his place; and if the eldest son left a widow, the next son made her his wife (, sq.), the offspring of which union was reckoned to the first-born and deceased son. Should the second likewise die, the third son took his place . While the rights of the first-born were generally established and recognized, yet were they sometimes set aside in favor of a younger child. The blessing of the father or the grandsire seems to have been an act essential in the devolution of power and property—in its effects not unlike wills and testaments with us; and instances are not wanting in which this (so to term it) testamentary bequest set aside consuetudinary laws, and gave precedence to a younger son (, sq.). Special claims on the parental regards were acknowledged and rewarded by special gifts, as in the case of Jacob's donation to Joseph . In a similar manner, bad conduct on the part of the eldest son (as well as of others) subjected him, if not to the loss of his rights of property, yet to the evil influence of his father's dying malediction while the good and favored, though younger, son was led by the paternal blessing to anticipate, and probably also to reap, the richest inheritance of individual and social happiness .

The original promise made to Abraham of the land of Palestine was solemnly repeated to Isaac , the reason assigned being, because 'Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws;' while it is expressly declared that the earlier inhabitants of the country were dispossessed and destined to extermination for the greatness of their iniquity. The possession of the Promised Land was embraced by Isaac in his dying benediction to Jacob , to whom God vouchsafed (; see also ) to give a renewed assurance of the destined inheritance. That this donation, however, was held to be dependent for the time and manner of its fulfillment on the divine will, appeal's from , where Jacob, on coming into the land of Canaan, bought for an hundred pieces of money 'a parcel of a field, at the hand of the children of Hamor.' Delayed though the execution of the promise was, confidence never deserted the family of Abraham, so that Joseph, dying in the land of Egypt, assured his brothers that they would be visited of God and placed in possession of Canaan, enjoining on them, in this conviction, that when conducted to their possession, they should carry his bones with them out of Egypt .

A promise thus given, thus repeated, and thus believed, easily, and indeed unavoidably, became the fundamental principle of that settlement of property which Moses made when at length he had effected the divine will in the redemption of the children of Israel. The observances and practices, too, which we have noticed as prevailing among the patriarchs would, no doubt, have great influence on the laws which the Jewish legislator originated or sanctioned. The land of Canaan was divided among the twelve tribes descended through Isaac and Jacob from Abraham. The division was made by lot for an inheritance among the families of the sons of Israel, according to the tribes, and to the number and size of families in each tribe. The tribe of Levi, however, had no inheritance, but forty-eight cities with their suburbs were assigned to the Levites, each tribe giving according to the number of cities that fell to its share ( sq.; 34:1 sq.; 35:1 sq.). The inheritance thus acquired was never to leave the tribe to which it belonged; every tribe was to keep strictly to its own inheritance. An heiress, in consequence, was not allowed to marry out of her own tribe, lest property should pass by her marriage into another tribe . This restriction led to the marriage of heiresses with their near relations: thus the daughters of Zelophehad 'were married unto their father's brother's sons,' 'and their inheritance remained in the tribe of the family of their father' . In general cases the inheritance went to sons, the first-born receiving a double portion, 'for he is the beginning of his father's strength.' If a man had two wives, one beloved, the other hated, and if the first-born were the son of her who was hated, he nevertheless was to enjoy 'the right of the firstborn' . If a man left no sons, the inheritance passed to his daughters; if there was no daughter, it went to his brothers; in case there were no brothers, it was given to his father's brothers; if his father had no brothers, it came into possession of the nearest kinsman . The land was Jehovah's, and could not therefore be permanently alienated. Every fiftieth year, whatever land had been sold returned to its former owner. The value and price of land naturally rose or fell in proportion to the number of years there were to elapse prior to the ensuing fiftieth or jubilee-year. If he who sold the land, or a kinsman, could redeem the land before the year of jubilee, it was to be restored to him on his paying to the purchaser the value of the produce of the years remaining till the jubilee. Houses in villages or unwalled towns might not be sold for ever; they were restored at the jubilee, and might at any time be redeemed. If a man sold a dwelling-house situated in a walled city, he had the option of redeeming it within the space of a full year after it had been sold; but if it remained unredeemed, it belonged to the purchaser, and did not return to him who sold it even at the jubilee . The Levites were not allowed to sell the land in the suburbs of their cities, though they might dispose of the cities themselves, which, however, were redeem able at any time, and must return at the jubilee to their original possessors .

The regulations which the laws of Moses established rendered wills, or a testamentary disposition of (at least) landed property, almost, if not quite, unnecessary; we accordingly find no provision for anything of the kind. Some difficulty may have been now and then occasioned, when near relations failed; but this was met by the traditional law, which furnished minute directions on the point. Personal property would naturally follow the land, or might be bequeathed by word of mouth. At a later period of the Jewish polity the mention of wills is found, but the idea seems to have been taken from foreign nations. In princely families they appear to have been used, as we learn from Josephus; but such a practice can hardly suffice to establish the general use of wills among the people. In the New Testament, however, wills are expressly mentioned .

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

in - her´i - tans ( נחלה , nahălāh , "something inherited," "occupancy," "heirloom," "estate," "portion"): The word is used in its widest application in the Old Testament Scriptures, referring not only to an estate received by a child from its parents, but also to the land received by the children of Israel as a gift from Yahweh. And in the figurative and poetical sense, the expression is applied to the kingdom of God as represented in the consecrated lives of His followers. In a similar sense, the Psalmist is represented as speaking of the Lord as the portion of his inheritance. In addition to the above word, the King James Version translations as inheritance, מורשׁה , mōrāshāh , "a possession," "heritage" (  Deuteronomy 33:4;  Ezekiel 33:24 ); ירשּׁה , yerushshāh , "something occupied," "a patrimony," "possession" ( Judges 21:17 ); חלק , ḥeleḳ , "smoothness," "allotment" ( Psalm 16:5 ); κληρονομέω , klēronoméō , "to inherit" ( Matthew 5:5 , etc.); κληρονόμος , klēronómos , "heir" ( Matthew 21:38 , etc.); κληρονομία , klēronomı́a , "heirship," "patrimony," "possession"; or κλῆρος , klḗros , "an acquisition" "portion," "heritage," from κληρόω , klēróō , "to assign," "to allot," "to obtain an inheritance" ( Matthew 21:38;  Luke 12:13;  Acts 7:5;  Acts 20:32;  Acts 26:18;  Galatians 3:18;  Ephesians 1:11 ,  Ephesians 1:14 ,  Ephesians 1:18;  Ephesians 5:5;  Colossians 1:12;  Colossians 3:24;  Hebrews 1:4;  Hebrews 9:15;  Hebrews 11:8;  1 Peter 1:4 ).

The Pentateuch distinguishes clearly between real and personal property, the fundamental idea regarding the former being the thought that the land is God's, given by Him to His children, the people of Israel, and hence, cannot be alienated ( Leviticus 25:23 ,  Leviticus 25:28 ). In order that there might not be any respecter of persons in the division, the lot was to determine the specific piece to be owned by each family head ( Numbers 26:52-56;  Numbers 33:54 ). In case, through necessity of circumstances, a homestead was sold, the title could pass only temporarily; for in the year of Jubilee every homestead must again return to the original owner or heir ( Leviticus 25:25-34 ). Real estate given to the priesthood must be appraised, and could be redeemed by the payment of the appraised valuation, thus preventing the transfer of real property even in this case ( Leviticus 27:14-25 ). Inheritance was controlled by the following regulations: (1) The firstborn son inherited a double portion of all the father's possession ( Deuteronomy 21:15-17 ); (2) The daughters were entitled to an inheritance, provided there were no sons in the family ( Numbers 27:8 ); (3) in case there were no direct heirs, the brothers or more distant kinsmen were recognized ( Numbers 27:9-11 ); in no case should an estate pass from one tribe to another. The above points were made the subject of statutory law at the instance of the daughters of Zelophehad, the entire case being clearly set forth in Nu 27;  Numbers 36:1-13 .