INHERITANCE (נַחֲלָה֒, H5709, inheritance; מﯴרָשָׁה, H4627, possession; κληρονομία, G3100, inheritance).
1. Old Testament. In the patriarchal naṛratives, the principles of inheritance are tied to the “birthright.” The first-born son, the father’s “might, and the first-fruits of [his] strength,” as the aged Jacob described Reuben (Gen 49:3), had special privileges, deference, and associated duties (44:33). It seems clear that he held by such right a double portion of his father’s goods (Deut 21:17). It is also apparent that, at the dictate of the father, this special position could be forfeited (Gen 49:3, 4; 1 Chron 5:1). Esau traded his birthright for food in contempt (Gen 25:29-34), and Isaac, in a moment of insight, realizing that action thrust upon him by forces beyond his control had caused him to transfer the first-born’s blessing to another, confirmed what he had unwittingly done (27:33; Heb 12:16); hence the effort in the passage already quoted (Deut 21:15-17) to insure protection for the legal first-born in the case of parental caprice or inequity. It follows that, if the ancient principles were observed in conservative households of Pal. in NT times, the portion demanded by the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:12) was one-third only of the estate, and given by some custom that allowed the younger son to anticipate division and seek his fortune abroad. Sarah’s anger over Hagar’s son Ishmael (Gen 21:10) appears to show that the sons of other than wives in full status could claim a share in the inheritance (Judg 11:2). It is a matter of conjecture how far this was carried out, and tension is evident over the rights of inheritance of sons of a secondary marriage.
Considerable illustration of the importance of ordered inheritance is to be found in the records of civilizations contemporary with patriarchal times. The suspicion lingers that the patriarchs, having emancipated themselves from urban society, had shed some of the legal obligations that went closely with membership of an ancient state. In the Nuzi tablets, for example, inheritance is revealed as a matter of supreme legal importance. Property was theoretically inalienable, and complicated laws of adoption were necessary to secure any freedom of transfer and conveyance at all. J. A. Thompson quotes details and also an interesting document (The Bible and Archaeology, 27-31). It is evident that Heb. law, when Moses came to formulate its provisions, had much to order and to regularize.
It was done with brevity and clarity. If a man died without sons to follow him, the inheritance went to the daughters, if there were any; in default of daughters, to his brothers; in default of brothers, to his uncles on the father’s side, or to their next of kin (Num 27:8-11). There was one important provision. If the inheritance fell to a daughter, it was obligatory upon her that she marry within the tribe, a provision designed to keep tribal property stable and uneroded (36:6). It has been plausibly suggested that in this social legislation lies the explanation for the variant genealogies in Matthew’s and Luke’s gospels. Matthew and Luke, with access to the same information, and writing in the same generation would not knowingly contradict one another. Manifestly, the two genealogies must have been constructed on different lines. Matthew gives Joseph’s line, although making it clear that Jesus was not Joseph’s son, because Joseph was legally regarded as Jesus’ father, an important point in law. It was also necessary in view of the legislation on inheritance in the closing chapters of Numbers, to establish and record the fact that Mary had fulfilled her obligations by marrying within the tribe. A reasonable hypothesis, therefore, suggests that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary. Joseph, not Mary, is set down as the immediate descendant of Eli, because Joseph authenticated Mary’s inheritance by the legal provisions recorded in Numbers 27:1-11 and 36:1-13. It is probable that fuller and more exact information would establish some procedure of adoption in such cases.
One notable aspect of the Heb. law of inheritance was that the widow was not provided for; she was almost considered a part of the inheritance. In the case of a man dying childless his brother could marry the widow and possibly provide the deceased with heirs (Gen 38:8, 9; Deut 25:5-10; Matt 22:23-25). It was possible for this right or obligation to be transferred to the nearest kinsman. The story of Ruth is built round this theme. Naomi was past the age of childbearing. Ruth took her place, and Boaz went through the complicated process of acquiring the right to marry her (Ruth 2:20; 3:9-13; 4:1-12).
The inheritance of landed property was very carefully guarded. Land could not, for example, by Levitical law (Lev 25:23, 24) be alienated forever. If it was sold it could be redeemed by the next of kin (25:25). Ahab’s offer to buy Naboth’s vineyard was therefore a flagrant violation of the law (1 Kings 21:3). The land of Canaan itself was regarded as the inheritance of the whole nation (Exod 15:17; Josh 21:19). The Abrahamic covenant (Gen 12:7; 15:18-21) made mention of a land to possess, as well as offspring to possess it. Israel never wavered in this conviction that the land was theirs, that their title was a rightful one, and although they never possessed it to the full limits of its prescribed boundaries, they firmly held the thought that the intruder had no right to be there and could not be permanent. The prophets who had caught the wider vision of Israel’s mission to the world at large looked upon the land as a base from which all Israel’s contribution could be made. The firm possession of the land was the essential condition, its loss in exile or invasion was considered a loss of God’s favor and the deprivation of a rightful inheritance. From this privilege the Levites alone were excluded. God was their inheritance (Deut 18:1, 2). They were supported by dues and tribute levied on the remaining tribes (Deut 18:3-5). This idea, like most ideas in the experience of the Heb. people, acquired spiritual extension, and God was similarly regarded in the language of prayer and devotion as the inheritance of the whole nation (Ps 16:5, 6). There are other figurative elaborations, as for example, the use of the term for God’s own “inheritance,” His faithful people (Ps 2:8).
Two verbs are used in Heb., yāras, and nāhal, the second being employed rather less frequently than the former, though both are common. In all contexts it is evident that the basic significance is possession, rightful possession rather than succession. Both, significantly, may be found in the LXX tr. by one Gr. word (e.g. Cremer, Lexicon, 361).
Such is the information that may be gleaned from the provisions of the law, and incidents relevant to the theme in the historical books, together with the extension semantically into figure and symbol. Wills were not made in Jewish society until Hel. times, when the custom was adopted from the Greeks. The rabbis studied the process with their usual meticulous care, and carefully regulated all details. The NT reflects current testamentary practice in two contexts (Gal 3:15 and Heb 9:16, 17).
2. New Testament. The fig. meaning of inheritance is universal in the NT, e.g. the story of the wicked husbandmen, in which the concept of inheritance, though literal in the context of events, is symbolic in its significance. The simplest method of dealing with the theme will be to list all occurrences of the subject under the heading of the words commonly employed.
a. Inherit. The Gr. word is klēronomeo, which basically means to obtain by means of a klēros, or “lot,” and then to receive in whole or in part, an estate, property or possession (Matt 5:5; 19:29; 25:34; Mark 10:17; Luke 10:25; 18:18; 1 Cor 6:9, 10; 15:50 [twice]; Gal 5:21; Heb 6:12; 12:17; 1 Pet 3:9 KJV; Rev 21:7 KJV).
b. Inheritance. The noun klēronomia is that which constitutes a person, a klēronomos. From its use in a literal sense of an estate to be passed on, it becomes a divine possession bestowed in virtue of sonship or adoption. This meaning stems largely from the fig. use of the word in the OT for Israel’s “inheritance.” It reflects the development of the idea of a national Israel into a spiritual body, which is a major development of thought between the Testaments. The word klēros—originally the lot that was cast and then, that which was assigned by such a lot—is also rendered inheritance (Matt 21:38; Mark 12:7; Luke 12:13; 20:14; Acts 7:5; 20:32; 26:18 KJV; Gal 3:18; Eph 1:11 KJV, 14 RSV, 18; 5:5; Col 1:12; 3:24; Heb 1:4; 9:15; 11:8; 1 Pet 1:4).
c. Heir. The word is used fig. of Christ, who, as the son of Adam, is the heir of universal dominion (Gen 1:26, 27; Ps 8:4-8; Heb 2:6-8); as son of Abraham, heir to the land of the promise (Gen 22:16-18; Heb 2:16; Rom 4:13); as son of David, the heir to the royal throne (Matt 1:1, 6; Luke 1:30-33); as son of God, the heir of all things (Heb 1:1, 2; Acts 10:36). (See also Matt 21:38; Mark 12:7; Luke 20:14; Rom 4:13, 14; Gal 3:29; 4:1, 7, 30; Eph 3:6; Titus 3:7; Heb 1:2, 14 KJV, 6:17; James 2:5.) All of these contexts show facets of the extension of the idea of the heirship of Christ to all those accepted in Him.
3. Greece. The law of inheritance in Gr. and Rom. society has no necessary place in this survey, but it is well to remember that the NT was written and read in a Gr. and Rom. world. Inheritance in the Gr. world was automatic and formal, on the same model as the Heb. with a scale of priorities, and rather less subject to modification by the will of the father than appears to have been the case in Heb. society. A will need not be written. It was valid if made by declaration before appropriate witnesses.
4. Rome. In Rome, on the other hand, the will or testamentary deposition was paramount, a legal order of succession coming into operation only in cases of intestacy. The will was a public document, guarded by law, and formalized in law with set forms of language. Details are succinctly set out in the Oxford Classical Dictionary (454, 445). The following is a will from Rom. Egypt (Pap. Tebt. 381) dating a.d. 123:
The 8th year of the Emperor Caesar Trajanus Hadrianus Augustus, Choiak 22, at Tebtunis in the division of Polemon of the Arsinoite name. Thaesis daughter of Orsenouphis son of Onnophris, her mother being Thenobastis, of the aforesaid village of Tebtunis, aged about seventy-eight years, having a scar on the right forearm, acting with her guardian, her kinsman Cronion son of Ameis, aged about twenty-seven, having a scar between his eyebrows, acknowledges that she, the acknowledging party, Thaesis, has consented that after her death there shall belong to Thenpetesuchus, her daughter by her late departed husband Pansais, and also to Sansenus son of Tephersos, the son of her other daughter Taorseus, now dead, to the two of them, property as follows: to Thenpetesuchus alone, the house, yard and all effect belonging to Thaesis in the said village of Tebtunis by right of purchase from Thenpetesuchus daughter of Petesuchus, and the furniture, utensils, household stock and apparel left by Thaesis, and the sums due to her and other property of any kind whatsoever, while to Sansenus she has bequeathed eight drachmae of silver, which Sansenus shall receive from Thenpetesuchus after the death of Thaesis; on condition that the daughter Thenpetesuchus shall properly perform the obsequies and laying out of her mother, and shall discharge such private debts as Thaesis shall prove to owe, but as long as her mother Thaesis lives she shall have power to...