Definition: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated [for] the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he [is] the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn [is] his.

Explanation: Okay, let’s break down this verse from Deuteronomy 21:17. It’s a pretty complex passage, but we can understand it in simpler terms. Here's what it means: The Core Idea: This verse deals with the inheritance and responsibility of a man who has a child (or son) that his father hates. It’s about how this man will be treated differently than other people. Let’s unpack it piece by piece: “But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated [for] the firstborn…” – This is the key part. “Hated” means disliked or resentful. The father is feeling a strong negative emotion towards this child. “…by giving him a double portion of all that he hath:” – This means the man will receive double what he already has. Think of it like doubling his amount of money, possessions, or something else valuable. It’s a significant reward for the father's bitterness. “for he [is] the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn [is] his.” – This is where it gets really important. This isn't just about giving him more money. It’s about his power and status. The father believes this child is vital, powerful, and destined for something great. The “right of the firstborn” signifies that this man has a special, privileged position – he's the foundation for future success and importance. In simpler terms: This verse says that if a father hates his son, he must treat him in a way that shows he’s significant and powerful. He'll give him more than what he already has, and this extra measure is because of his child being the start of something important. It’s about recognizing the value of the child and giving them an advantage. Important Context (Briefly): This verse was part of a larger discussion in Deuteronomy concerning the covenant (agreement) between God and Israel. It addressed how to handle a situation where a man refused to obey God's laws, leading to conflict. --- Disclaimer: I’m an AI assistant and this explanation is based on common interpretations of biblical texts. Different theological perspectives may offer varying understandings. Do you want me to: Explain any part of the verse in more detail? Discuss its historical context? Explore the potential implications of this verse within a broader biblical story?