Since I’m preaching on the second half of Genesis 25 this Sunday, the topic of inheritance is important. Esau was the firstborn and had a privileged status in that culture. He had a double share.
What does that mean? I was reading an otherwise good commentary by Bruce Waltke and stumbled on a problem.
It is explained as if the inheritance is divided by the number of sons. Then the eldest gets 2 portions, so the rest split the rest.
And here comes the problem.
“If there were only two sons, the firstborn inherits everything.”
There is a footnote referring the reading to a work by M. Tsevat. This looks to be an example of a secondary source being more important than the teaching of Scripture instead of helping one to understand Scripture. Why do I say this?
11And he said, “There was a man who had two sons. 12And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.’ And he divided his property between them. Luke 15
Am I to believe that either Jesus was clueless about inheritance rights or he misleads me? The scandal was not about the father’s actions, but the sons’ (yes, both sons). The father did not break the command of Deut. 21:17. The deviation was in splitting the property while he was still alive.
I’m seeing this problem of relying on secondary sources arise in discussions of justification and now baptism. People are relying on inter-testamental sources and extra-biblical sources to defend a connection between ceremonial washings and baptism (while denying any connection between circumcision and baptism). They claim to hold to Sola Scriptura, but reject a biblical-theological argument in favor of one based on non-biblical texts.
Sola Scriptura does not mean we only read the Bible. It does not mean we don’t use extra-biblical sources to better understand the Bible. But in matters of faith and practice the Scriptures are the ultimate authority. They cannot hold a more important place. They cannot contradict Scripture, or good and necessary inferences from Scripture.
Use secondary sources. They are beneficial, but don’t let them become more important than the Scriptures. You need to know Scripture well enough to spot those misleading secondary sources. This is particularly true when pastors prepare sermons. Commentaries are good and helpful. But sometimes we rely in them instead of thinking through the actual text. I’m not talking mystical prayer to suddenly unlock the meaning of the text. I’m talking about meditation on the text: thinking it over in the presence of God (see Piper’s book Think).
When you do use secondary sources- compare them to the Scriptures. Hold them up to the standard to see where they are faithful and where they are not. You will save yourself and those who listen to you from a number of woes.
Cavman Considers 
Aren’t there 2500 yrs between Abraham and Jesus, couldn’t there have been different rules at different times?
The commentary does not restrict this to the days of Isaac, in part by mentioning Deuteronomy.
This was a general part of the culture, and became part of the biblical culture regarding the double portion:
15″If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him children, and if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved,[a] 16then on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn, 17but he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the firstfruits of his strength. The right of the firstborn is his. (Deut. 12)
With that principle still in place why should we expect the other aspect to change. This is the only source I’ve noticed that argued for this division of the inheritance.
Highly unlikely, Topher.
Topher is my non-internet name.
But on a more serious note I always thought that if a person had W wealth and n sons the formula to figure out inheritance was to give the first-born 2W/(n+1) and the others W/(n+1) thus if two children the first-born’s share was 2/3 and the second-born got 1/3. If 3 children the first got half and the others a quarter; if 4 children the first gets 2/5 and the others 1/5, et cetera.
Do Watke and Tsevat argue that the last-born never gets an inheritance, if not why’d it be different for 2 vs 12 children?
C.T. (or is it C T?),
You provide the formula I have always seen.
They argue that the formula for the 1s born is (W-2W/n)/n while the others get is W/n. I think that is right, my algebra is rusty. There is no additional share, so they split the rest equally.