Difference between revisions of "Inheritance"

<p> <strong> [[Inheritance]] </strong> . 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. </p> <p> I. Inheritance in Law and [[Custom]] </p> <p> <strong> 1. Property. </strong> 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 (&nbsp; 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. &nbsp; 2 Samuel 16:20-23 , &nbsp; 1 Kings 2:13 ff.). </p> <p> <strong> 2. Heirs </strong> . ( <em> a </em> ) The <em> firstborn son </em> , 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 (&nbsp; Deuteronomy 21:17 ). To be the son of a concubine or inferior wife was not a bar to heirship (&nbsp; [[Genesis]] 21:10 , &nbsp; 1 Chronicles 5:1 ); though a jealous wife might prevail on her husband to deprive such a son of the right of succession (&nbsp; 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 (&nbsp; Genesis 21:10 ), [[Esau]] and Jacob (&nbsp; Genesis 27:37 ), [[Reuben]] and [[Joseph]] (&nbsp; 1 Chronicles 5:1 ), [[Adonijah]] and [[Solomon]] (&nbsp; 1 Kings 1:11 ff.). But this was contrary to social usage, and is prohibited in &nbsp; Deuteronomy 21:15-17 . Moreover, the exceptions to the rule are presented as examples of a [[Divine]] election rather than a human preference (Isaac, &nbsp; Genesis 21:12; Jacob, &nbsp; Malachi 1:2-3 , &nbsp; Romans 9:13; Joseph, &nbsp; Genesis 49:24 ff.; Solomon, &nbsp; 1 Chronicles 22:9-10 ), and can hardly be adduced as survivals of the ancient custom of ‘Junior Right.’ ( <em> b </em> ) At first a <em> daughter </em> could not succeed (the inheritance of the daughters of Job [&nbsp; 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]] (&nbsp; 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 (&nbsp; Numbers 36:1-12 ) that heiresses should marry only within their father’s tribe, so that the inheritance might not be alienated from it. ( <em> c </em> ) For the <em> widow </em> 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 ( <em> go’çl </em> ) must marry the widow, and her firstborn son by this marriage became the heir of her previous husband (&nbsp; Deuteronomy 25:6 ). ( <em> d </em> ) For the <em> order of succession </em> the rule is laid down in &nbsp; 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. </p> <p> ii. National and [[Religious]] Inheritance. <strong> 1. </strong> 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, <em> Heb </em> . 168). </p> <p> <strong> 2. </strong> 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 <em> in </em> , and began dimly to apprehend its mission <em> to </em> , 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. </p> <p> <strong> 3. </strong> 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. </p> <p> <strong> 4. </strong> 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. </p> <p> <strong> 5. </strong> 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’ ( <em> Galatians </em> 165). </p> <p> <strong> 6. </strong> Three particular usages remain to be noticed. ( <em> a </em> ) 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.’ ( <em> b </em> ) 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. ( <em> c </em> ) 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. </p> <p> J. C. Lambert and Ernest A. Edghill. </p>

<p> (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 (&nbsp;Genesis 1:28 sq.; &nbsp;Psalms 115:16; &nbsp;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 (&nbsp;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. </p> <p> 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 (&nbsp;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 (&nbsp;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]]). </p> <p> 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 (&nbsp;Genesis 27:25; &nbsp;Genesis 27:29; &nbsp;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" (&nbsp;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 (&nbsp;Genesis 21:2-2; cf. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;Genesis 49:29). That it was customary, during the father's lifetime, to make a disposition of property, is evident from &nbsp;Genesis 24:35, where it is said that Abraham had given all he had to Isaac. This statement is further confirmed by &nbsp;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]]). </p> <p> 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 (&nbsp;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 (&nbsp;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 (&nbsp;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 (&nbsp;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 (&nbsp;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 (&nbsp;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 (&nbsp;Genesis 49:8-22). (See Heir); (See Adoptios). </p> <p> The original promise made to Abraham of the land of [[Palestine]] was solemnly repeated to Isaac (&nbsp;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 (&nbsp;Genesis 28:3-4) to whom God vouchsafed (&nbsp;Genesis 28:15; see also &nbsp;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 &nbsp;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 (&nbsp;Genesis 50:25). </p> <p> 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 (&nbsp;Numbers 33:50; &nbsp;Numbers 34:1; &nbsp;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 (&nbsp;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" (&nbsp;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" (&nbsp;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 (&nbsp;Numbers 27:8). The land was Jehovah's, and could not, therefore, be permanently alienated. (See [[Husbandry]]). </p> <p> 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 (&nbsp;Leviticus 25:8; &nbsp;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 (&nbsp;Leviticus 27:16). (See [[Land]]). </p> <p> 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 (&nbsp;Galatians 3:15; &nbsp;Hebrews 9:17). Michaelis ''(Commentaries,'' 1, 431) asserts that the phrase (&nbsp;2 Samuel 17:23; &nbsp;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 (&nbsp;Luke 15:12; Rosenmü ller, ''Morgan.'' 5, 197). (See Heritage). </p>

<p> ''''' in ''''' - ''''' her´i ''''' - ''''' tans ''''' ( נחלה , <i> ''''' nahălāh ''''' </i> , "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 , <i> ''''' mōrāshāh ''''' </i> , "a possession," "heritage" (&nbsp; Deuteronomy 33:4; &nbsp;Ezekiel 33:24 ); ירשּׁה , <i> '''''yerushshāh''''' </i> , "something occupied," "a patrimony," "possession" (&nbsp;Judges 21:17 ); חלק , <i> '''''ḥeleḳ''''' </i> , "smoothness," "allotment" (&nbsp;Psalm 16:5 ); κληρονομέω , <i> '''''klēronoméō''''' </i> , "to inherit" (&nbsp;Matthew 5:5 , etc.); κληρονόμος , <i> '''''klēronómos''''' </i> , "heir" (&nbsp;Matthew 21:38 , etc.); κληρονομία , <i> '''''klēronomı́a''''' </i> , "heirship," "patrimony," "possession"; or κλῆρος , <i> '''''klḗros''''' </i> , "an acquisition" "portion," "heritage," from κληρόω , <i> '''''klēróō''''' </i> , "to assign," "to allot," "to obtain an inheritance" (&nbsp;Matthew 21:38; &nbsp;Luke 12:13; &nbsp;Acts 7:5; &nbsp;Acts 20:32; &nbsp;Acts 26:18; &nbsp;Galatians 3:18; &nbsp;Ephesians 1:11 , &nbsp;Ephesians 1:14 , &nbsp;Ephesians 1:18; &nbsp;Ephesians 5:5; &nbsp;Colossians 1:12; &nbsp;Colossians 3:24; &nbsp;Hebrews 1:4; &nbsp;Hebrews 9:15; &nbsp;Hebrews 11:8; &nbsp;1 Peter 1:4 ). </p> <p> 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 (&nbsp;Leviticus 25:23 , &nbsp;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 (&nbsp;Numbers 26:52-56; &nbsp;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 (&nbsp;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 (&nbsp;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 (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 21:15-17 ); (2) The daughters were entitled to an inheritance, provided there were no sons in the family (&nbsp;Numbers 27:8 ); (3) in case there were no direct heirs, the brothers or more distant kinsmen were recognized (&nbsp;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; &nbsp;Numbers 36:1-13 . </p>