A verse by verse commentary on Numbers 27 dealing with Zelophehad’s Daughters named Mahlah, Noah Hoglah, Milkah and Tirzah

1. NUMBERS 27 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Zelophehad’s Daughters
27 The daughters of Zelophehad son of Hepher,
the son of Gilead, the son of Makir, the son of
Manasseh, belonged to the clans of Manasseh son
of Joseph. The names of the daughters were
Mahlah, Noah Hoglah, Milkah and Tirzah. They
came forward
BARNES, "Women in Israel had not, up to the present time, enjoyed any
distinct right of inheritance. Yet a father, whether sons had been born to
him or not, had the power, either before or at his death, to cause part of his
estate to pass to a daughter; in which case her husband married into her
family rather than she into his, and the children were regarded as of the
family from which the estate had come. Thus, Machir, ancestor of
Zelophehad, although he had a son Gilead, left also, as is probable, an
inheritance to his daughter, the wife of Hezron of the tribe of Judah, by
reason of which their descendants, among whom was Jair, were reckoned
as belonging to the tribe of Manasseh (Num_32:41; 1Ch_2:21 ff).
CLARKE, "The daughters of Zelophehad - The singular case of these
women caused an additional law to be made to the civil code of Israel, which
satisfactorily ascertained and amply secured the right of succession in cases
of inheritance. The law, which is as reasonable as it is just, stands thus:
1. On the demise of the father the estate goes to the sons;
2. If there be no son, the daughters succeed; 3. If there be no daughter,
the brothers of the deceased inherit;
4. If there be no brethren or paternal uncles, the estate goes to the
brothers of his father;
1

2. 5. If there be no grand uncles or brothers of the father of the deceased,
then the nearest akin succeeds to the inheritance.
Beyond the fifth degree the law does not proceed, because as the families
of the Israelites were kept distinct in their respective tribes, there must
always be some who could be called kinsmen, and were really such, having
descended without interruption from the patriarch of the tribe.
GILL, "Then came the daughters of Zelophehad,.... Who are mentioned
among the families of Manasseh, under that of the Hepherites, Num_26:33,
their father being dead, and they having no brethren, when they heard the
land was to be divided among those that were numbered, and who were only
males of twenty years old and upwards, were concerned, lest they should
have no share in the division of the land; and therefore came, according to
the Targum of Jonathan, to the house of judgment, or court of judicature,
where Moses, the princes, &c. were now sitting: the genealogy of
Zelophehad is given:
he was the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of
Manasseh, the son of Joseph; by which it appears he was of the tribe of
Manasseh, and of the fourth generation from him:
and these are the names of his daughters, Mahlah, Noah, ann Hoglah, and
Milcah, and Tirzah; in the same order their names are given in Num_26:33,
but in Num_36:11, it is a little altered, Noah and Tirzah change places,
which Jarchi says shows they were upon an equality one with another.
HENRY, "Mention is made of the case of these daughters of Zelophehad in
the chapter before, v. 33. It should seem, by the particular notice taken of it,
that it was a singular case, and that the like did not at this time occur in all
Israel, that the head of a family had no sons, but daughters only. Their case
is again debated (Num_36:1-13) upon another article of it; and, according to
the judgments given in their case, we find them put in possession, Jos_17:3,
Jos_17:4. One would suppose that their personal character was such as
added weight to their case, and caused it to be so often taken notice of.
K&D, "Claims of Zelophehad's Daughters to an Inheritance in the
Promised Land. - Num_27:1-4. The divine instructions which were given at
the mustering of the tribes, to the effect that the land was to be divided
among the tribes in proportion to the larger or smaller number of their
families (Num_26:52-56), induced the daughters of Zelophehad the
Manassite of the family of Gilead, the son of Machir, to appear before the
princes of the congregation, who were assembled with Moses and Eleazar at
the tabernacle, with a request that they would assign them an inheritance in
2

3. the family of the father, as he had died in the desert without leaving any
sons, and had not taken part in the rebellion of the company of Korah,
which might have occasioned his exclusion from any participation in the
promised land, but had simply died “through his (own) sin,” i.e., on account
of such a sin as every one commits, and such as all who died in the
wilderness had committed as well as he. “Why should the name of our
father be cut off (cease) from the midst of his family?” This would have
been the case, for example, if no inheritance had been assigned him in the
land because he left no son. In that case his family would have become
extinct, if his daughters had married into other families or tribes. On the
other hand, if his daughters received a possession of their own among the
brethren of their father, the name of their father would be preserved by it,
since they could then marry husbands who would enter upon their landed
property, and their father's name and possession would be perpetuated
through their children. This wish on the part of the daughters was founded
upon an assumption which rested no doubt upon an ancient custom,
namely, that in the case of marriages where the wives had brought landed
property as their dowry, the sons who inherited the maternal property were
received through this inheritance into the family of their mother, i.e., of
their grandfather on the mother's side. We have an example of this in the
case of Jarha, who belonged to the pre-Mosaic times (1Ch_2:34-35). In all
probability this took place in every instance in which daughters received a
portion of the paternal possessions as their dowry, even though there might
be sons alive. This would explain the introduction of Jair among the
Manassites in Num_32:41; Deu_3:14. His father Segub was the son of
Hezron of the tribe of Judah, but his mother was the daughter of Machir the
Manassite (1Ch_2:21-22). We find another similar instance in Ezr_2:61 and
Neh_7:63, where the sons of a priest who had married one of the daughters
of Barzillai the rich Gileadite, are called sons of Barzillai.
CALVIN, "1.Then came the daughters of Zelophehad. A narrative is here
introduced respecting the daughters of Zelophehad, of the family of Machir, who
demanded to be admitted to a share of its inheritance; and the decision of this
question might have been difficult, unless all doubt had been removed by the
sentence of God Himself. For, since in the law no name is given to women, it would
seem that no account of them was to be taken in the division of the land. And, in
fact, God laid down this as the general rule; but a special exception is here made,
i.e., that whenever a family shall be destitute of male heirs, females should succeed,
for the preservation of the name. I am aware that this is a point which is open to
dispute, since there are obvious arguments both for and against it, but let the decree
that God pronounced suffice for us.
Although (the daughters of Zelophehad) plead before Moses for their own private
advantage, still the discussion arose from a good principle; inasmuch as they would
not have been so anxious about the succession, if God’s promise had not been just as
much a matter of certainty to them as if they were at this moment demanding to be
3

4. put in possession of it. They had not yet entered the land, nor were their enemies
conquered; yet, relying on the testimony of Moses, they prosecute their suit as if the
tranquil possession of their rights were to be accorded them that very day. And this
must have had the effect of confirming the expectations of the whole people, when
Moses consulted God as respecting a matter of importance, and pronounced by
revelation that which was just and right; for the discussion, being openly moved
before them all, must have given them encouragement, at least to imitate these
women.
COFFMAN, "The narration of only two events makes up this chapter. These are:
(1) the new legislation that came because of an appeal by the daughters of
Zelophehad (Numbers 27:1-11), and
(2) Joshua's appointment as leader of Israel upon God's announcement of the
impending death of Moses.
The principal critical conceit with reference to this chapter is that which would
relegate it to the status of a very late interpolation into the Pentateuch following the
exile.[1] The basis of such an error is the acceptance of a false premise. The false
premise was stated thus by Gray: "There is no trace of such a right (the right of
females to inherit) prior to the times of the exile."[2] That proposition is false, and
so are all postulations based upon it. "In Egypt, where Israel had dwelt so long,
inheritance passed through mothers, and under an extenuating circumstance, that is
(exactly) what is being allowed in the text (here)."[3] (For more on this, along with a
Biblical example to the contrary, see under Numbers 27:5.) In addition, Keil cited
another example from pre-Mosaic times in the instance of Jarha (1 Chronicles
2:21,22).[4] Furthermore, the critical imagination that the post-exilic priesthood of
Israel would have been in any manner whatever inclined to legislate on such a
subject is ridiculous. The kings of Israel, long before the exile, ruthlessly and
effectively destroyed the whole concept of the "unalienable ownership of the land,"
as pertaining to the original tribes in perpetuity. The appeal, along with the
arguments presented by the daughters of Zelophehad, would have been an
impossibility during the period of history to which some critical scholars would
arbitrarily assign this chapter.
Another favorite critical mistake in the interpretation of this chapter appears in this
remark by Dummelow: "Moses receives intimation of his approaching death, and
Joshua is appointed leader in his place."[5] The word "intimation" is not a correct
designation of the information received by Moses about his impending death.
Synonyms for intimation are hunch, hint, premonition, suggestion, etc.[6] The
Sacred Text flatly declares that God said unto Moses, "thou shalt be gathered unto
thy fathers," just as his brother Aaron died because of sin at Meribah. Back of
Dummelow's remark that Moses received an intimation of his death is the critical
axiom that "God never said anything at all to Moses, or to anyone else"! Christians
4

5. should not be deceived by that type of denial.
WHEN MAY DAUGHTERS INHERIT?
"Then drew near the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead,
the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of
Joseph; and these are the names of his daughters: Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and
Milcah, and Tirzah. And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest,
and before the princes and all the congregation, at the door of the tent of meeting,
saying, Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not among the company of
them that gathered themselves together against Jehovah in the company of Korah:
but he died in his own sin; and he had no sons. Why should the name of our father
be taken away from among his family, because he had no son? Give unto us a
possession among the brethren of our father. And Moses brought their cause before
Jehovah."
Some have complained that the genealogical information here given would seem to
cover only about eight generations, which "is hardly in accord with the 470 years
(sojourn in Egypt) required by the narrative; some links however may have been
dropped."[7] Of course, this is an abbreviated list, as are doubtless many of the
others in the Pentateuch. We should ever bear in mind that Moses had no intention
here of furnishing us with an auditor's record of all the things related. "The names
of this passage are those of clans (or places), which is sufficient to show that this is
not a history of certain individuals, but a mode of raising a legal point."[8]
Although no clear-cut legislation conferred rights of inheritance upon daughters,
Cook informs us that the right surely existed long before the events of this chapter.
Note:
"A father, whether or not sons had been born to him, had the power either before
or at his death, to cause part of his estate to pass to a daughter; in which case her
husband married into her family, rather than she into his; and the children were
regarded as of the family from which the estate had come. A Biblical example of this
is Machir, one of the ancestors of Zelophehad; although he had a son Gilead, he left
also an inheritance to his daughter, the wife of Hezron of the tribe of Judah, by
reason of which their descendants (including Jair) were reckoned as belonging to
the tribe of Manasseh (Numbers 32:41; 1 Chronicles 2:21ff)."[9]
Jamieson is probably correct in his surmise that these daughters of Zelophehad
brought up the subject of their inheritance because at that very moment Moses and
the High Priest, and all the princes of the people were gathered in the tent of
meeting, or near it, making plans to divide up the land of Canaan among males only,
with their father's house left out because there had been no sons of his to register.
Consequently, they seized the opportunity to bring the matter to the attention of all
the leaders of the people, which they effectively did.[10]
5

6. "But he died in his own sin ..." (Numbers 27:3). This admission by the daughters of
Zelophehad apparently refers to the general sin of all the children of Israel who
refused to go up and possess Canaan (Numbers 14:26-30).[11] They did not claim
that their father was without sin, but that he was not guilty in the matter of Korah's
outright rebellion against Moses (and against God).
COKE, "Numbers 27:1-2. Then came the daughters of Zelophehad, &c.— In the
last register of the Israelitish families, notice was taken of Zelophehad, son of
Hepher, in the tribe of Manasseh, who died without male issue, and left five
daughters his only heirs, chap. Numbers 26:33. These women, being informed that
the land of Canaan was to be divided among the heads of families of tribes,
mentioned in that register, which consisted only of males, imagined that they, being
females, were to be excluded from all settled inheritance in the lands and estates in
that country, and, consequently, that the name and family of the Hepherites would
become utterly extinguished; whereupon they drew up a representation of their
case, which they laid before Moses in a full court of the high priest and judges,
assembled with him at the tabernacle. See Exodus 18:25. By all the congregation is
meant the seventy elders, or representatives of the people, chap. Numbers 11:24.
EBC, "The twenty-seventh chapter is partly occupied with the details of a case
which raised a question of inheritance. Five daughters of one Zelophehad of the
tribe of Manasseh appealed to Moses on the ground that they were the
representatives of the household, having no brother. Were they to have no
possession because they were women? Was the name of their father to be taken
away because he had no son? It was not to be supposed that the want of male
descendants had been a judgment on their father. He had died in the wilderness, but
not as a rebel against Jehovah, like those who were in the company of Korah. He
had "died in his own sins." They petitioned for an inheritance among the brethren
of their father.
The claim of these women appears natural if the right of heirship is acknowledged
in any sense, with this reservation, however, that women might not be able properly
to cultivate the land, and could not do much in the way of defending it. And these,
for the time, were considerations of no small account. The five sisters may of course
have been ready to undertake all that was necessary as occupiers of a farm, and no
doubt they reckoned on marriage. But the original qualification that justified
heirship of land was ability to use the resources of the inheritance and take part in
all national duties. The decision in this case marks the beginning of another
conception - that of the personal development of women. The claim of the daughters
of Zelophehad was allowed, with the result that they found themselves called to the
cultivation of mind and life in a manner which would not otherwise have been open
to them. They received by the judgment here recorded a new position of
responsibility as well as privilege. The law founded on their case must have helped
to make the women of Israel intellectually and morally vigorous.
6

7. The rules of inheritance among an agricultural people, exposed to hostile incursions,
must, like that of Numbers 27:8, assume the right of sons in preference to
daughters; but under modern social conditions there are no reasons for any such
preference, except indeed the sentiment of family, and the maintenance of titles of
rank. But the truth is that inheritance, so-called, is every year becoming of less
moral account as compared with the acquisitions that are made by personal
industry and endeavour. Property is only of value as it is a means to the
enlargement and fortifying of the individual life. The decision on behalf of the
daughters of Zelophehad was of importance for what it implied rather than for
what it actually gave. It made possible that dignity and power which we see
illustrated in the career of Deborah, whose position as a "mother in Israel" does not
seem to have depended much, if at all, on any accident of inheritance; it was reached
by the strength of her character and the ardour of her faith.
The generation that came from Egypt has passed away, and now {Numbers 27:12}
Moses himself receives his call. He is to ascend the mountain of Abarim and look
forth over the land Israel is to inhabit; then he is to be gathered to his people. He is
reminded of the sin by which Aaron and he dishonoured God when they failed to
sanctify Him at the waters of Meribah. The burden of the Book of Numbers is
revealed. The brooding sadness which lies on the whole narrative is not cast by
human mortality but by moral transgression and defect. There is judgment for
revolt, as of those who followed Korah. There are men who like Zelophehad die "in
their own sins," filling up the time allowed to imperfect obedience and faith, the
limit of existence that fails short of the glory of God. And Moses, whose life is
lengthened that his honourable task may be fully done, must all the more
conspicuously pay the penalty of his high misdemeanour. With the goal of Israel’s
great destiny in view the narrative moves from shadow to shadow. Here and
throughout, this is a characteristic of Old Testament history. And the shadows
deepen as they rest on lives more capable of noble service, more guilty in their
disbelief and defiance of Jehovah.
The rebuke which darkens over Moses at the close and lies on his grave does not
obscure the greatness of the man; nor have all the criticisms of the history in which
he plays so great a part overclouded his personality. The opening of Israel’s career
may not now seem so marvellous in a sense as once it seemed, nor so remote from
the ordinary course of Providence. Development is found where previously the
complete law, institution, or system appeared to burst at once into maturity. But the
features of a man look clearly forth on us from the Pentateuehal narrative; and the
story of the life is so coherent as to compel a belief in its veracity, which at the same
time is demanded by the circumstances of Israel. A beginning there must have been,
in the line which the earliest prophets continued, and that beginning in a single
mind, a single will. The Moses of these books of the exodus is one who could have
unfolded the ideas from which the nationality of Israel sprang: a man of smaller
mind would have made a people of more ordinary frame. Institutions that grow in
the course of centuries may reflect their perfected form on the story of their origin;
7

8. it is, however, certain this cannot be true of a faith. That does not develop. What it is
at its birth it continues to be; or, if a change takes place, it will be to the loss of
definiteness and power. Kuenen himself makes the three universal religions to be
Judaism, Mohammedanism, and Christianity. The analogy of the two latter is
conclusive with regard to the first-that Moses was the author of Israel’s faith in
Jehovah.
And this involves much, both with regard to the human characteristics and the
Divine inspiration of the founder, much that an after-age would have been utterly
incapable of imagining. When we find a life depicted in these Penta-teuchal
narratives, corresponding in all its features with the place that has to be filled,
revealing one who, under the conditions of Israel’s nativity, might have made a way
for it into sustaining faith, it is not difficult to accept the details in their substance.
The records are certainly not Moses’ own. They are exoteric, now from the people’s
point of view, now from that of the priests. But they present with wonderful fidelity
and power what in the life of the founder went to stamp his faith on the national
mind. And the marvellous thing is that the shadows as well as the lights in the
biography serve this great end. The gloom that falls at Meribah and rests on Nebo
tells of the character of Jehovah, bears witness to the Supreme Royalty which Moses
lived and laboured to exalt. A living God, righteous and faithful, gracious to them
that trusted and served Him, who also visited iniquity-such was the Jehovah
between whom and Israel Moses stood as mediator, such the Jehovah by whose
command he was to ascend the height of Abarim to die.
To die, to be gathered to his people-and what then? It is at death we reckon up the
account and estimate the value and power of faith. Has it made a man ready for his
change, ripened his character, established his work on a foundation as of rock? The
command which at Horeb Moses received long ago, and the revelation of God he
there enjoyed, have had their opportunity; to what have they come?
The supreme human desire is to know the nature, to understand the distinctive
glory of the Most High. At the bush Moses had been made aware of the presence
with him of the God of his fathers, the Fear of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. His duty
also had been made clear. But the mystery of being was still unsolved. With sublime
daring, therefore, he pursued the inquiry: "Behold when I come unto the children of
Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and
they shall say to me, What is His name? what shall I say unto them? "The answer
came in apocalypse, in a form of simple words:-"I AM THAT I AM." The solemn
Name expressed an intensity of life, a depth and power of personal being, far
transcending that of which man is conscious. It belongs to One who has no
beginning, whose life is apart from time, above the forces of nature, independent of
them. Jehovah says, "I am not what you see, not what nature is, standing forth into
the range of your sight; I Am in eternal separation, self-existent, with underived
fulness of power and life." The remoteness and incomprehensibility of God remain,
although much is revealed. Whatever experience of life each man sums up for
himself in saying "I am," aids him in realising the life of God. Have we aspired?
8

9. have we loved? have we undertaken and accomplished? have we thought deeply?
Does any one in saying "I am" include the consciousness of long and varied life?-the
"I Am" Of God comprehends all that. And yet He changes not. Beneath our
experience of life which changes there is this great Living Essence. "I AM THAT I
AM," profoundly, eternally true, self-consistent, with whom is no beginning of
experience or purpose, yet controlling, harmonising, yea, originating all in the
unfathomable depths of an eternal Will.
Ideas like these, we must believe, shaped themselves, if not clearly, at least in dim
outline before the mind of Moses, and made the faith by which he lived. And how
had it proved itself as the stay of endeavour, the support of a soul under heavy
burdens of duty, trial, and sorrowful consciousness? The reliance it gave had never
failed. In Egypt, before Pharaoh, Moses had been sustained by it as one who had a
sanction for his demands and actions which no king or priest could claim. At Sinai it
had given spiritual strength and definite authority to the law. It was the spirit of
every oracle, the underlying force in every judgment. Faith in Jehovah, more than
natural endowments, made Moses great. His moral vision was wide and clear
because of it, his power among the people as a prophet and leader rested upon it.
And the fruit of it, which began to be seen when Israel learned to trust Jehovah as
the one living God and girt itself for His service, has not even yet been all gathered
in. We pass by the theories of philosophy regarding the unseen to rest in the
revelation of God which embodies Moses’ faith. His inspiration, once for all, carried
the world beyond polytheism to monotheism, unchallengeably true, inspiring,
sublime.
There can be no doubt that death tested the faith of Moses as a personal reliance on
the Almighty. How he found sufficient help in the thought of Jehovah when Aaron
died, and when his own call came, we can only surmise. For him it was a familiar
certainty that the Judge of all the earth did right. His own decision went with that of
Jehovah in every great moral question; and even when death was involved, however
great a punishment it appeared, however sad a necessity, he must have said, Good is
the will of the Lord. But there was more than acquiescence. One who had lived so
long with God, finding all the springs and aims of life in Him, must have known that
irresistible power would carry on what had been begun, would complete to its
highest tower that building of which the foundation had been laid. Moses had
wrought not for self but for God; he could leave his work in the Divine hand with
absolute assurance that it would be perfected. And as for his own destiny, his
personal life, what shall we say? Moses had been what he was through the grace of
Him whose name is "I AM THAT I Am" He could at least look into the dim region
beyond and say, "It is God’s will that I pass through the gate. I am spiritually His,
and am strong in mind for His service. I have been what He has willed, excepting in
my transgression. I shall be what He wills; and that cannot be ill for me; that will be
best for me." God was gracious and forgave sin, though He could not suffer it to
pass unjudged. Even in appointing death the Merciful One could not fail to be
merciful to His servant. The thought of Moses might not carry him into the future of
his own existence, into what should be after he had breathed his last. But God was
9

10. His; and he was God’s.
So the personal drama of many acts and scenes draws to a close with forebodings of
the end, and yet a little respite ere the curtain falls. The music is solemn as befits the
night-fall, yet has a ring of strong purpose and inexhaustible sufficiency. It is not the
"still sad music of humanity" we hear with the words, "Get thee up into this
mountain of Abarim, and behold the land which I have given unto the children of
Israel. And when thou hast seen it, thou also shalt be gathered unto thy people, as
Aaron thy brother was gathered." It is the music of the Voice that awakens life,
commands and inspires it, cheers the strong in endeavour and soothes the tired to
rest. He who speaks is not weary of Moses, nor does He mean Moses to be weary of
his task. But this change lies in the way of God’s strong purpose, and it is assumed
that Moses will neither rebel nor repine. Far away, in an evolution unforeseen by
man, will come the glorification of One who is the Life indeed; and in His revelation
as the Son of the Eternal Father Moses will share. With Christ he will speak of the
change of death and that faith which overcomes all change.
The designation of Joshua, who had long been the minister of Moses, and perhaps
for some time administrator of affairs, is recorded in the close of the chapter. The
prayer of Moses assumes that by direct commission the fitness of Joshua must be
signified to the people. It might be Jehovah’s will that, even yet, another should take
the headship of the tribes. Moses spake unto the Lord, saying, "Let Jehovah, the
God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation which may go
out before them, and which may come in before them, and which may lead them out
and which may bring them in: that the congregation of Jehovah be not as Sheep
which have no shepherd." One who has so long endeavoured to lead, and found it so
difficult, whose heart and soul and strength have been devoted to make Israel
Jehovah’s people, can relax his hold of things without dismay only if he is sure that
God will Himself choose and endow the successor. What aimless wandering there
would be if the new leader proved incompetent, wanting wisdom or grace! How far
about might Israel’s way yet be, in another sense than the compassing of Edom!
Before the Friend of Israel Moses pours out his prayer for a shepherd fit to lead the
flock.
And the oracle confirms the choice to which Providence has already pointed. Joshua
the son of Nun, "a man in whom is the spirit," is to have the call and receive the
charge. His investiture with official right and dignity is to be in the sight of Eleazar
the priest and all the congregation. Moses shall put of his own honour upon Joshua
and declare his commission. Joshua shall not have the whole burden of decision
resting upon him, for Jehovah will guide him. Yet he shall not have direct access to
God in the tent of meeting as Moses had. In the time of special need Eleazar "shall
inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before Jehovah." Thus instructed, he
shall exercise high authority.
"A man in whom is the spirit"-such is the one outstanding personal qualification.
"The God of the spirits of all flesh" finds in Joshua the sincere will, the faithful
10

11. heart. The work that is to be done is not of a spiritual kind, but grim fighting,
control of an army and of a people not yet amenable to law, under circumstances
that will try a leader’s firmness, sagacity, and courage. Yet, even for such a task,
allegiance to Jehovah and His purpose regarding Israel, the enthusiasm of faith,
high spirit, not experience-these are the commendations of the chief. Qualified thus,
Joshua may occasionally make mistakes. His calculations may not always be perfect,
nor the means he employs exactly fitted to the end. But his faith will enable him to
recover what is momentarily lost; his courage will not fail. Above all, he will be no
opportunist guided by the turn of events, yielding to pressure or what may appear
necessity. The one principle of faithfulness to Jehovah will keep him and Israel in a
path which must be followed, even if success in a worldly sense be not immediately
found. The priest who inquires of the Lord by Urim has a higher place under
Joshua’s administration than under that of Moses. The theocracy will henceforth
have a twofold manifestation, less of unity than before. And here the change is of a
kind which may involve the gravest consequences. The simple statement of Numbers
27:21 denotes a very great limitation of Joshua’s authority as leader. It means that
though on many occasions he can both originate and execute, all matters of moment
shall have to be referred to the oracle. There will be a possibility of conflict between
him and the priest with regard to the occasions that require such a reference to
Jehovah. In addition there may be the uncertainty of responses through the Urim,
as interpreted by the priest. It is easy also to see that by this method of appealing to
Jehovah the door was opened to abuses which, if not in Joshua’s time, certainly in
the time of the judges, began to arise.
It may appear to some absolutely necessary to refer the Urim to a far later date. The
explanation given by Ewald, that the inquiry was always by some definite question,
and that the answer was found by means of the lot, obviates this difficulty. The
Urim and Thummim, which mean "clearness and correctness," or as in our passage
the Urim alone, may have been pebbles of different colours, the one representing an
affirmative, the other a negative reply. But inquiry appears to have been made by
these means after certain rites, and with forms which the priest alone could use. It is
evident that absolute sincerity on his part, and unswerving loyalty to Jehovah, were
an important element in the whole administration of affairs. A priest who became
dissatisfied with the leader might easily frustrate his plans. On the other hand, a
leader dissatisfied with the responses would be tempted to suspect and perhaps set
aside the priest. There can be no doubt that here a serious possibility of divided
counsels entered into the history of Israel, and we are reminded of many after
events. Yet the circumstances were such that the whole power could not be
committed to one man. With whatever element of danger, the new order had to
begin.
Moses laid his hands on Joshua and gave him his charge. As one who knew his own
infirmities, he could warn the new chief of the temptations he would have to resist,
the patience he would have to exercise. It was not necessary to inform Joshua of the
duties of his office. With these he had become familiar. But the need for calm and
sober judgment required to be impressed upon him. It was here he was defective,
11

12. and here that his "honour" and the maintenance of his authority would have to be
secured. Deuteronomy mentions only the exhortation Moses gave to be strong and of
a good courage, and the assurance that Jehovah would go before Joshua, would
neither fail him nor forsake him. But though much is recorded, much also remains
untold. An education of forty years had prepared Joshua for the hour of his
investiture. Yet the words of the chief he was so soon to lose must have had no small
part in preparing him for the burden and duty which he was now called by Jehovah
to sustain as leader of Israel.
ELLICOTT, "Our father died in the wilderness.—The preceding chapter records
the fulfilment of the sentence of exclusion pronounced on the generation which came
out of Egypt after the completion of the twentieth year of their age. The argument
used by the daughters of Zelophehad appears to be that their father was not one of
those who signally provoked the Divine displeasure, so that he might justly have
forfeited for himself and his descendants a share in the possession of the promised
land. “He died,” they say, “in his own sin.” There is a Jewish tradition that
Zelophehad was the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath day, and was stoned
(Numbers 14:32). The more common interpretation of the expression is that he
committed only the ordinary sins of human frailty (see Numbers 5:6), and that he
died “the common death of all men,” and was “visited after the visitation of all men”
(see Numbers 16:29), and consequently did not entail upon his posterity any special
punishment for the sins which he had committed. In obedience to the directions
contained in the preceding chapter (Numbers 26:52-56), the land of Canaan was to
be portioned out, in accordance with the results of the census which had recently
been taken. amongst the males who were upwards of twenty years of age; and
consequently the daughters of Zelophehad, would not have shared in the
inheritance. Keil (in loc.) quotes several instances in which the sons of mothers who
possessed landed property were received through that inheritance into the family of
their mothers, and included in the tribe to which the mothers belonged. In this case
the desire of the daughters of Zelophehad was that their father’s name should be
perpetuated—i.e., that their sons should be enrolled as descendants of Zelophehad,
and should succeed to that portion of the land which, under ordinary circumstances,
would have fallen to his sons, had he left any behind him. Bishop Wordsworth
observes that, inasmuch as we are to regard the inheritance of Canaan as being a
figure of the heavenly possession, the answer which was returned to the inquiry of
Moses respecting the daughters of Zelophehad may be regarded as an indication
that “in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female,” and that women, no less than
men, are “heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:28-29).
POOLE, "The law of inheritance: for daughters on defect of sons; and on defect of
them to the brother; and if there be none, to the next kinsman, Numbers 27:1-11.
God commands Moses to go up into a mountain to view the land of Canaan, and die
there: the reason, Numbers 27:12-14. Moses prays to the Lord to appoint an able
successor, Numbers 27:15-17. Joshua chose, and confirmed in his office by
imposition of hands before all the people, Numbers 27:18-23.
12

13. Perceiving that the males only were numbered, and that the land was to be divided
to them only, they put in their claim for a share in their father’s inheritance.
WHEDON, "Verse 1-2
1, 2. The five daughters of Zelophehad, discovering the defect in the order for the
division of Canaan given in the last chapter, by which they were disinherited, sons
only being named, (see Genesis 31:14,) confident in the justice of their claim, with
commendable enterprise determined to appeal to the highest human tribunal. Their
appearance at the door of the tabernacle, before the supreme court of their nation,
pleading the rights of their sex, presents a scene worthy the brush of the historical
painter. It is the first woman’s rights convention on record. Their success justifies
the efforts of their successors in modern times to secure a removal of all disabilities
which are oppressive to their sex, and illustrates the nobility of the law-making sex,
who have but to be clearly shown the injustice of any of their statutes in order to be
moved to a rectification of the wrong.
Verses 1-11
ZELOPHEHAD’S DAUGHTERS — LAW OF INHERITANCE, Numbers 27:1-11.
The Hebrew law of inheritance, in common with the usage of most Oriental nations,
endowed the sons only, the eldest having a double portion, the daughters all being
supposed to be married and cared for by their husbands. Up to this time no
provision had been made for daughters in case of failure of male issue, nor for
perpetuating the father’s name. The supplementary legislation in this chapter and in
xxxvi, in striking resemblance to Athenian laws, endows the brotherless daughter
till she marries a near relative and brings forth a son, who bears the name, not of his
father, but of his maternal grandfather, and inherits his mother’s portion. These
heiresses married their “father’s brother’s sons,” and their inheritance remained in
the tribe of their father. Numbers 36:11-12; Joshua 17:4. For the intermingling of
legislation with the narrative, see Introduction, (1.)
BI 1-11, "The daughters of Zelophehad.
Women’s rights—a parable
I want to use this incident for a twofold purpose.
I. In respect to its general teaching.
1. I would exhibit for your imitation the faith which these five young
women, the daughters of Zelophehad, possessed with regard to the
promised inheritance.
2. There was this feature, too, about the faith of these five women—they
knew that the inheritance was only to be won by encountering great
difficulties.
3. I commend the faith of these women to you because, believing in the
13

14. land, and believing that it would be won, they were not to be put about by
the ill report of some who said that it was not a good land.
4. Being thus sure of the land, and feeling certain about that, we must
next commend them for their anxiety to possess a portion in it. Why did
they think so much about it? I heard some one say the other day,
speaking of certain young people, “I do not like to see young women
religious; they ought to be full of fun and mirth, and not have their
minds filled with such profound thoughts.” Now, I will be bound to say
that this kind of philosophy was accredited in the camp of Israel, and
that there were a great many young women there who said, “Oh, there is
time enough to think about the good land when we get there; let us be
polishing up the mirrors; let us be seeing to our dresses; let us
understand how to put our fingers upon the timbrel when the time
comes for it; but as for prosing about a portion among those Hivites and
Hittites, what is the good of it? We will not bother ourselves about it.”
But such was the strength of the faith of these five women that it led
them to feel a deep anxiety for a share in the inheritance. They were not
such simpletons as to live only for the present. These women were taken
up with prudent anxious thoughts about their own part in the land. And
let me say that they were right in desiring to have a portion there, when
they recollected that the land had been covenanted to their fathers. They
might well wish to have a part in a thing good enough to be a covenant-
blessing.
5. But I must commend them yet again for the way in which they set
about the business. I do not find that they went complaining from tent to
tent that they were afraid that they had no portion. Many doubters do
that; they tell their doubts and fears to others, and they get no further.
But these five women went straight away to Moses. He was at their head;
he was their mediator ; and then it is said that “Moses brought their
cause before the Lord.” You see, these women did not try to get what
they wanted by force. They did not say, “Oh, we will take care and get our
share when we get there.” They did not suppose that they had any merit
which they might plead, and so get it; but they went straight away to
Moses, and Moses took their cause, and laid it before the Lord. Dost thou
want a portion in heaven, sinner? Go straight away to Jesus, and Jesus
will take thy cause, and lay it before the Lord.
II. With a view of giving the whole incident a particular direction—
1. Does it not strike you that there is here a special lesson for our
unconverted sisters? Here are five daughters, I suppose young women,
certainly unmarried, and these five were unanimous in seeking to have a
portion where God had promised it to His people. Have! any young
women here who would dissent from that? I am afraid I have! Do you not
desire a portion in the skies? Have you no wish for glory? Can you sell
Christ for a few hours of mirth? Will you give Him up for a giddy song or
an idle companion? Those are not your friends who would lead you from
the paths of righteousness.
2. Has it not a loud voice, too, to the children of godly parents? I like
14

15. these young women saying that their father did not die with Korah, but
that he only died the ordinary death which fell upon others because of
the sin of the wilderness; and also, their saying, “Why should the name
of our father be done away from among his family because he had no
son?” It is a good thing to see this respect to parents, this desire to keep
up the honour of the family. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
The request of the daughters of Zelophehad; the rights of women
I. The request of the daughters of Zelophehad.
1. Was presented in an orderly and becoming manner. “They stood
before Moses and before Eleazar the priest,” &c. (Num_27:2). The made
their request a regular manner, and to the proper authorities!
2. Was eminently fair and reasonable While their father, by reason of
sin, was, in common with the generation to which he belonged, excluded
from the promised land, yet he had not done anything for which his
children should be deprived of an inheritance therein.
3. Indicated becoming respect for their father. They vindicate him from
the guilt of sharing in any of the rebellions except the general one; and
they evince an earnest desire for the perpetuation of his name and
family.
4. Implied faith in the promise of God to give Canaan to the Israelites.
5. Implied an earnest desire for a portion in the promised land.
II. The Divine answer to their request.
1. Was given by Jehovah to Moses in response to his inquiries. Notice
here—
(1) The humility of Moses. He does not presume to decide the case
himself, &c.
(2) The direction which God grants to the humble. “The meek will He
guide in judgment,” &c.
2. Commended the cause of the daughters of Zelophehad. “The
daughters of Zelophehad speak right.”
3. Granted the request of the daughters of Zelophehad. “Thou shalt
surely give them a possession,” &c. (Num_27:7).
4. Included a general law of inheritance. “And thou shalt speak unto the
children of Israel,” &c. (Num_27:8-11). Thus a great benefit accrued to
the nation from the request of the daughters of Zelophehad. (W. Jones.)
The daughters of Zelophehad
1. The rectification of things that are wrong sometimes seems to come
from man and not from God. Look at this case. It was the women
15

16. themselves who began the reform. Providence did not stir first. The five
women gave this reform to the economy of Israel. So it would seem on
the face of the story, and many people look at the face and go no farther,
and so they blunder. Suggestions are from God. The very idea,, which we
think our own is not our own, but God’s. “He is Lord of all,” of all good
ideas, noble impulses, holy inspirations, sudden movements of the soul
upward into higher life and broader liberty. This is His plan of training
men. He seems to stand aside, and to take no part in some obviously
good movements, and men say, “This is a human movement, a political
movement, a non-religious movement,” not knowing what they are
talking about, forgetting that the very idea out of which it all sprang
came down from the Father of lights, that the very eloquence by which it
is supported is Divinely taught, that the very gold which is its sinew is
His: they do not go far enough back in their investigation into the origin
of things, or they would find God in movements which are often credited
to human genres alone.
2. Everywhere the Bible is full of the very spirit of justice. It is the Magna
Charta of the civilised world. This is the spirit that gives the Bible such a
wonderful hold upon the confidence of mankind. Look at this case as an
example. The applicants were women. All the precedents of Israel might
have been pointed to as the answer to their appeal. Why create a special
law for women? Why universalise a very exceptional case? Why not put
these people down as sensational reformers? Yet, the case was heard
with patience, and answered with dignity. Oh, women, you should love
the Bible! It is your friend. It has done more for you than all other books
put together. Wherever it goes it claims liberty for you, justice for you,
honour for you.
3. Every question should become the subject of social sympathy and
matter of religious reference. These women were heard patiently. It is
something to get a hearing for our grievances. Sometimes those
grievances perish in the very telling; sometimes the statement of them
brings unexpected help to our assistance. This case is what may be called
a secular one; it is about land and name and inheritance; and even that
question was made in Israel simply a religious one. In ancient Israel,
with its priestly system, men had to go to the leader and the priest first;
in Christianity we can go straight to God; we have no priesthood but
Christ; the way to the throne is open night and day. Oh, wronged and
suffering woman, tell thy case to the Father! Oh, man, carrying a burden
too heavy for thy declining strength, speak to God about the weight, and
He will help thee with His great power. (J. Parker, D. D.)
A rightful claim
It does the heart good to read such words as these at a time like the present,
when so little is made of the proper standing and portion of God’s people,
and when so many are content to go on from day to day, and year to year,
without caring even to inquire into the things which are freely given to them
of God. Nothing is more sad than to see the carelessness with which many
16

17. professing Christians treat such allimportant questions of the standing,
walk, and hope of the believer and the Church of God. If God, in the
aboundings of His grace, has been pleased to bestow upon us precious
privileges, as Christians, ought we not to seek earnestly to know what these
privileges are? Ought we not to seek to make them our own, in the artless
simplicity of faith? Is it treating our God and His revelation worthily, to be
indifferent as to whether we are servants or sons—as to whether we have
the Holy Ghost dwelling in us or not—as to whether we are under law or
under grace—whether ours is a heavenly or an earthly calling? Surely not. If
there be one thing plainer than another in Scripture, it is this, that God
delights in those who appreciate and enjoy the provision of His love—those
who find their joy in Himself. “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, The
daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a
possession of an inheritance among their father’s brethren; and thou shalt
cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them” (Num_27:5-7). Here
was a glorious triumph, in the presence of the whole assembly. A bold and
simple faith is always sure to be rewarded. It glorifies God, and God
honours it. Need we travel from section to section, and from page to page of
the holy volume to prove this? Need we turn to the Abrahams, the Hannahs,
the Deborahs, the Rahabs, the Ruths of Old Testament times? or to the
Marys, the Elizabeths, the centurions, and the Syro-phoenicians of the New
Testament times? Wherever we turn, we learn the same great practical
truth that God delights in a bold and simple faith—a faith that artlessly
seizes and tenaciously holds all that He has given—that positively refuses,
even in the very face of nature’s weakness and death, to surrender a single
hair’s breadth of the Divinelygiven inheritance. Hence, then, we are deeply
indebted to the daughters of Zelophebad. They teach us a lesson of
inestimable value. And more than this, their acting gave occasion to the
unfolding of a fresh truth which was to form the basis of a Divine rule for all
future generations. The Lord commanded Moses, saying, “If a man die, and
have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.”
Here we have a great principle laid down, in reference to the question of
inheritance, of which, humanly speaking, we should have heard nothing
had it not been for the faith and faithful conduct of these remarkable
women. If they had listened to the voice of timidity and unbelief—if they had
refused to come forward, before the whole congregation, in the assertion of
the claims of faith; then, not only would they bare lost their own inheritance
and blessing, but all future daughters of Israel, in a like position, would
have been deprived of their portion likewise. Whereas, on the contrary, by
acting in the precious energy of faith, they preserved their inheritance; they
got the blessing; they received testimony from God; their names shine on
the page of inspiration; and their conduct furnished, by Divine authority, a
precedent for all future generations. Thus much as to the marvellous results
of faith. But then we must remember that there is moral danger arising out
of the very dignity and elevation which faith confers on those who, through
grace, are enabled to exercise it; and this danger must be carefully guarded
against. This is strikingly illustrated in the further history of the daughters
of Zelophehad, as recorded in the last chapter of our book. “And the chief
fathers,” &c. (Num_36:1-5). The “fathers” of the house of Joseph must be
17

18. heard as well as the “daughters.” The faith of the latter was most lovely; but
there was just a danger lest, in the elevation to which that faith had raised
them, they might forget the claims of others, and remove the landmarks
which guarded the inheritance of their fathers. This had to be thought of
and provided for. It was natural to suppose that the daughters of
Zelophehad would marry; and moreover it was possible they might form an
alliance outside the boundaries of their tribe; and thus in the year of
jubilee—that grand adjusting institution—instead of adjustment, there
would be confusion, and a permanent breach in the inheritance of
Manasseh. This would never do; and therefore the wisdom of those ancient
fathers is very apparent. We need to be guarded on every side, in order that
the integrity of faith and the testimony may be duly maintained. (C. H.
Mackintosh.)
Woman is the conscience of the world
Now, to live as one wishes, is said to be the rule of children. To live as one
ought is the rule of men. And it is the office of woman in the world to assist
men to live as they ought; to lift them to those higher levels of moral
attainment, moral beauty, and power, which of themselves they will not
gain. Woman has been said to be the conscience of the world, and there is a
profound truth in that. Her moral intuition is clearer, her moral affection is
apt to be sweeter and more powerful. It was the startled conscience of a
Roman woman that almost held Pilate back from his transcendent crime. It
was the conscience of Blanche of Castile which melted the noblest king
France ever had, Louis IX. It was the sense of righteousness in the Scotch, in
the Dutch, in the French, in the German women which upheld the
Reformation and would not let it sink and die. It was the conscience of the
American women which was the one invulnerable, irresistible, unsilenced
enemy of American slavery. Whatever statesmen might plan about it,
whatever political economists might think about it, whatever merchants
might dream about it, every woman’s heart knew, that was not blighted and
overshadowed by the influence of the present system, that it rested on a lie,
and it was that conscience in the American women sending half a million of
men out, its instruments and ministers, on the bloody field, which finally
overcame and swept from existence that detestable system. That conscience
of woman is the tower which society will always need to have developed and
regnant within it, and there is no other office so great. I do not care what
philosopher is expanding his vast system of philosophic thought; I do not
care what statesman is planning for his country’s future; I do not care what
architect is lifting the edifice into the air or is strewing the canvas with the
splendour of his own spirit, there is no other office so grand on earth as that
committed to woman—Christianly culture, in fellowship with God, of
bringing up her acute and dominant moral sense into contact with the
minds of men, that ultimate and supremest law of the universe, the law of
righteousness, for which the planets and the stars were builded; she
glorifies herself and she glorifies God in that sublime ministry. (R. S. Storrs,
D. D.)
18

19. PETT, "Introduction
F. FUTURE PROSPECTS IN THE LAND (chapters 26-36).
We now come to the final main section of the book. It will commence with the
numbering of Israel, a sign that they were making ready for the final push, and is
divided up into rededication and preparations for entering the land (chapters
26-32), and warning and encouragement with respect to it (chapters 33-36). The first
section concentrates on the mobilisation and dedication of the people of Yahweh,
and the punishment of those who by their behaviour hinder that mobilisation and
dedication.
In terms of the overall pattern of the book the first section covers the mobilisation of
Israel, the appointment of Joshua on whom was the Spirit and the death of Moses
For Sin (chapters 26-27), which compares with the earlier murmuring of Israel, the
appointment of elders on whom came the Spirit, and the plague on Miriam because
of sin (chapters 11-12). This then followed by the dedication of Israel through
Feasts, Offerings and Vows and the purifying of Transjordan through vengeance on
the Midianites and settlement of the two and a half Tribes (chapters 28-32) which
compares with the purification and dedication of Israel in chapters 5-10.
Analysis of the section.
(I). Preparation for Entering the Land (chapters 26-32).
This can be divided up into:
a Numbering of the tribes for possessing the land (Numbers 26:1-51).
b Instructions concerning division of the land (Numbers 26:52-62).
c Vengeance had been brought on those who had refused to enter the land (Numbers
26:63-65).
d Regulation in respect of land to be inherited by women and others (Numbers
27:1-11).
e Provision of a dedicated shepherd for the people of Israel (Numbers 27:12-23).
e Provision of a dedicated people and future worship in the land (Numbers 28-29).
19

20. d Regulation in respect of dedicatory vows made by women and others (Numbers
30)
c Vengeance to be obtained on Midian (Numbers 31:1-24).
b Instructions concerning division of the spoils of Midian (Numbers 31:25-54).
a Settlement of the Transjordanian tribes in possessing land (Numbers 32).
(II) Warning and Encouragement of The Younger Generation (chapters 33-36).
a Review of the journey from Egypt to the plains of Moab (Numbers 33:1-49).
b Instruction concerning the successful possession of and dividing up of the land in
the future (Numbers 33:50 to Numbers 34:15).
c The Leaders who will divide the land for them are appointed (Numbers 34:16-29).
d Provision of cities for the Levites. (Numbers 35:1-5)
d Provision of cities of refuge and prevention of defilement of the land (Numbers
35:6-34).
c The Leaders of the tribe of Manasseh approach Moses about the possible loss of
part of their division of the land as a result of the decision about the daughters of
Zelophehad (Numbers 36:1-4).
b Instruction concerning women who inherit land so as to maintain the dividing up
of the land which they successfully possess (Numbers 36:5-12)
a Final summary of the book and colophon. The journey is over. They are in the
plains of Moab opposite Jericho (Numbers 36:13).
In this section stress is laid on preparation for entering the land.
(I). Overall Preparation for Entering the Land (chapters 26-32).
The preparations include the mobilisation of Israel, instructions as to what to do on
entering the land, appointment of a new commander-in-chief in whom is the Spirit,
instructions concerning the worship to be offered to Yahweh, a description of the
‘atonement’ for the sin of Baal-peor and purification of the land by the slaughter of
the Midianites, and the settling in of the tribes in their land on the east of Jordan,
preparatory to their soldiers joining the offensive on Canaan.
Chapters 26-27.
20

21. 1). Initial Preparations for Entering the Promised Land From The Numbering of
The Army To The Appointment of Joshua As Their New Commander-in-Chief
(26-27:23).
Analysis.
a The second ‘numbering’ of the army in readiness for entry into the land (Numbers
26:1-51).
b Provision for the possession of the land (Numbers 26:52-62).
c The men of the previous generation not to enter the land (Numbers 26:63-65).
c Faithful men to be allowed to inherit in the land posthumously (Numbers 27:1-11).
b Moses ‘possesses’ the land by viewing it but is not to enter the land (Numbers
27:12-14)
a The solemn appointment of Joshua as commander-in-chief ready for entry into the
land (Numbers 27:15-23).
The first step in all this would be the numbering of Israel.
Chapter 27 Regulation In Respect Of Land To Be Inherited By Women and
Relatives Where There Is No Full Blood Male Heir And The Provision Of a
Shepherd For The People of Israel (Numbers 27:12-23).
This chapter divides into three sections, the provision concerning land to be granted
to a man’s family posthumously where he died before entering the land and had no
male heir to receive his portion; the command to Moses to ascend a mountain in
Abarim (Mount Nebo - Deuteronomy 32:48-52) to behold the land and possess it by
sight before he died, and the appointment of a new Shepherd for the people, at
Moses’ request, in the person of Joshua, a man in whom is the Spirit, in liaison with
Eleazar the Priest. Joshua was one of the two men of the old generation who was not
to die.
So these three incidents deal with three different types of men in their dealings with
life and death. The first deals with one who was of the new generation, but who died
in the wilderness (for he died for his own sins not because of the sin of the people).
And yet in his daughters he would inherit the land. The second deals with the one
who would die without entering the land, but not as those who died in the
wilderness as a punishment had died. He (Moses) would be ‘gathered to his fathers’
as Aaron had been. But he would inherit the land by seeing it with his eyes. And the
third deals with a member of the old generation who would enter the new land alive
and would indeed inherit the land.
21

22. One question that was raised by the closing verses of the last chapter was, what
about those who died in the wilderness who were not of the older generation, who
did not die because of that sin? Were they to be equally punished by not receiving a
portion of the new land if they had no male heirs? Of course if they had male heirs
those would receive their portion. A portion of the new land would be allocated to
their families. But what if they died without a male heir? Their family would receive
no portion of the land that had been promised to the man prior to his dying. Their
name would not be remembered in Israel, for they would possess no land, even
though they had daughters. Could that be right in the eyes of Yahweh? The answer
was to be ‘no, it is not right’.
It is not accidental that this comes immediately after the description of those who
through their unbelief died in the wilderness. They had been faced with a challenge,
had been unable to trust God, and had drawn back from obedience, and had been
sentenced to die miserably in the wilderness. How great a contrast there was
between them and these five brave young women of the tribe of Manasseh. They too
were faced up with a challenge as the Manassites began to discuss the distribution of
their new possessions. They saw themselves as being frozen out, as being thrust to
one side, and their father’s name as dying out from Israel. But they believed in
Yahweh. They believed that He would not allow them to be treated unfairly and
allow their father’s name to perish unjustly. And with great boldness and
trepidation they approached Moses and the congregation of Israel to seek to have
this great wrong righted. We cannot imagine what huge courage it would have
taken, for rarely did young women such as they come to the door of the tent of
meeting. But they believed in Yahweh and refused to be daunted, and He saw and
gave them what they asked.
They also stand in stark contrast to the women of Moab. It was not theirs to seek to
lead men astray after other gods, and to drag men to destruction. Rather they would
fight to ensure the preservation of their father’s name , and were deeply concerned
for the inheritance that Yahweh had for them. This was the quality of the new
generation, and Moses knew that the story would serve as an inspiration to Israel to
take their courage in both hands and move forward to establish their names in the
land which Yahweh had in store for them.
Verse 1-2
Chapter 27 Regulation In Respect Of Land To Be Inherited By Women and
Relatives Where There Is No Full Blood Male Heir And The Provision Of a
Shepherd For The People of Israel (Numbers 27:12-23).
This chapter divides into three sections, the provision concerning land to be granted
to a man’s family posthumously where he died before entering the land and had no
male heir to receive his portion; the command to Moses to ascend a mountain in
Abarim (Mount Nebo - Deuteronomy 32:48-52) to behold the land and possess it by
sight before he died, and the appointment of a new Shepherd for the people, at
22

23. Moses’ request, in the person of Joshua, a man in whom is the Spirit, in liaison with
Eleazar the Priest. Joshua was one of the two men of the old generation who was not
to die.
So these three incidents deal with three different types of men in their dealings with
life and death. The first deals with one who was of the new generation, but who died
in the wilderness (for he died for his own sins not because of the sin of the people).
And yet in his daughters he would inherit the land. The second deals with the one
who would die without entering the land, but not as those who died in the
wilderness as a punishment had died. He (Moses) would be ‘gathered to his fathers’
as Aaron had been. But he would inherit the land by seeing it with his eyes. And the
third deals with a member of the old generation who would enter the new land alive
and would indeed inherit the land.
One question that was raised by the closing verses of the last chapter was, what
about those who died in the wilderness who were not of the older generation, who
did not die because of that sin? Were they to be equally punished by not receiving a
portion of the new land if they had no male heirs? Of course if they had male heirs
those would receive their portion. A portion of the new land would be allocated to
their families. But what if they died without a male heir? Their family would receive
no portion of the land that had been promised to the man prior to his dying. Their
name would not be remembered in Israel, for they would possess no land, even
though they had daughters. Could that be right in the eyes of Yahweh? The answer
was to be ‘no, it is not right’.
It is not accidental that this comes immediately after the description of those who
through their unbelief died in the wilderness. They had been faced with a challenge,
had been unable to trust God, and had drawn back from obedience, and had been
sentenced to die miserably in the wilderness. How great a contrast there was
between them and these five brave young women of the tribe of Manasseh. They too
were faced up with a challenge as the Manassites began to discuss the distribution of
their new possessions. They saw themselves as being frozen out, as being thrust to
one side, and their father’s name as dying out from Israel. But they believed in
Yahweh. They believed that He would not allow them to be treated unfairly and
allow their father’s name to perish unjustly. And with great boldness and
trepidation they approached Moses and the congregation of Israel to seek to have
this great wrong righted. We cannot imagine what huge courage it would have
taken, for rarely did young women such as they come to the door of the tent of
meeting. But they believed in Yahweh and refused to be daunted, and He saw and
gave them what they asked.
They also stand in stark contrast to the women of Moab. It was not theirs to seek to
lead men astray after other gods, and to drag men to destruction. Rather they would
fight to ensure the preservation of their father’s name , and were deeply concerned
for the inheritance that Yahweh had for them. This was the quality of the new
generation, and Moses knew that the story would serve as an inspiration to Israel to
23

24. take their courage in both hands and move forward to establish their names in the
land which Yahweh had in store for them.
The Provisions For Inheritance When They Have Entered The Land Where There
Was No Male Heir (Numbers 27:1-11).
Analysis.
a The young unmarried daughters of Zelophehad draw near for a judgment by
Moses (Numbers 27:1-2).
b The case is put of their father who died having no sons before entry into the land
had established his family’s portion in the land (Numbers 27:3).
c The daughters request that he be granted a portion posthumously so that they may
receive it as his inheritance among their father’s brothers and this preserve his
name in Israel (Numbers 27:4).
d The case is brought before Yahweh (Numbers 27:5).
d Yahweh answers the case to Moses (Numbers 27:6).
c The daughters were to receive their inheritance among their brothers (Numbers
27:7).
b Provisions concerning what is to happen when a man dies having no son to ensure
the carrying on of his name (Numbers 27:8-11 a).
a The judgment is established as Yahweh commanded Moses (Numbers 27:11 b).
The Daughters of Zelophehad Draw Near For a Judgment by Moses (Numbers
27:1-2).
What follows deals with an important question. Here was a man who had obeyed
Yahweh and fought for Him, and yet whose name would die because he died
without a male heir before land could be granted his family. Thus no land would be
allocated to his name, and his name would die out in Israel. And his family would
seemingly receive no lasting inheritance. Would this be right?
A further reason behind this passage was to enthuse Israel as they sought to enter
the land by making them see that Yahweh would ensure that all were blessed. Even
if they were slain in battle and had no male heir, their family would not be allowed
to suffer. When the portions were allocated, none of the new generation would be
omitted except those who had openly rebelled, even if they had died prior to the
distribution without a male heir. Land would be allocated to them for their families.
24

25. Numbers 27:1
‘Then drew near the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead,
the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of
Joseph; and these are the names of his daughters; Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and
Milcah, and Tirzah.’
In this passage five women of one family approached Moses concerning their rights
of inheritance, and the continuing of the name of their father. As he had had no son
the continuation of his name would depend on their receiving land in his name. So
taking their courage in both hands they appealed to the tribunal of Israel. They
were alone in the world. There was no male ready to come and stand with them. But
they had each other, and they trusted in Yahweh.
The details are given of their tribal and clan connections in view of the matter in
hand, that is, their share in the inheritance of the land. Manasseh was the tribe,
Gilead the sub-tribe, Hepher the clan and Zelophehad the family head. All would be
important in determining what they inherited. This information would thus be laid
before the judges.
It should be noted that this was at this time a red hot issue. The lands of Gilead and
Bashan from the Arnon northwards were being allocated to the Reubenites, the
Gadites, and the descendants of Machir, one of whom had been the father of these
five young, unmarried women. And they thought that they had reason to fear that
they would be excluded from receiving a portion of that land. Discussion would
undoubtedly already be taking place, and they may already have been informed that
in view of their position they did not come into the reckoning. Their quality was
shown in that they were not willing to accept this situation which would mean their
father’s name being forgotten in Israel because no land was connected with it.
For it was in order to obtain land that Israel had journeyed all this way. It was the
hope of land that had partially sustained them. Surely then just because he had died
without a male heir, that did not mean that his family was excluded from owning
land?
PULPIT, "The daughters of Zelophehad. The genealogy here given agrees with
those in Numbers 26:29-33 and in Joshua 17:3. These women would appear to have
been in the eighth generation from Jacob, which hardly accords with the 470 years
required by the narrative; some links, however, may have been dropped
PARKER, " Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah
Numbers 27:1
25

26. These are the names of five women; the five women were five sisters; the five sisters
were daughters of a man called Zelophehad. This man had five girls, but no boys.
He was a quiet Prayer of Manasseh , and took no part in a certain great rebellion
against the Lord, in which Korah and his company justly perished. This man
Zelophehad died in his own bed; he had committed no public sins; he had only
sinned in the usual way, and died in the usual way, and so far there was an end of
him. One day these five women put their heads together on a family subject. There
was something that disturbed them, took away their sleep, and made them
grievously discontented. The result of their deliberation was that they determined to
make a public speech, and a great audience they had, viz, Moses, and Eleazar the
priest, and the princes, and all the congregation of Israel, and they stood by the door
of the tabernacle of the congregation and made their statement. They said, with
wonderful conciseness of manner, keeping themselves strictly to facts, and coming to
the point with admirable brevity:—Our father died in the wilderness: he was not
one of those who took part in the sin of Korah; he died quietly, not tragically; he
had no sons, and according to the present law of Israel the name of our father dies,
and it is just as if he had never lived, though he has left five girls who bear his name
and love his memory; now we ask you to look at this case; it is peculiar; see if
anything can be done under such extraordinary circumstances; and give us, women
though we be, give us a possession in Israel, give us property in the land, create a
legal status for us amongst the brethren of our father. It was a practical speech, and,
as our judges say, it started quite a novel point. It was for Moses to say what should
be done, but he could not speak on the spur of the moment, so he took time to
consider, and "brought their cause before the Lord." The answer from heaven
was,—Certainly: the women ask only for that which is right; thou shalt cause the
inheritance of their father to pass to them, and out of this particular instance there
shall arise a new law of succession in Israel, "If a man die, and have no Song of
Solomon , then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter, and if he
have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren, and if he
have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father"s brethren, and
if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman
that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it: and it shall be unto the
children of Israel a statute of judgment, as the Lord commanded Moses." These are
the circumstances which furnish us with our subject, and it will be for us now to
discover what there is in them to instruct and comfort us.
1. The rectification of things that are wrong sometimes seems to come from man and
not from God. Look at this case. It was the women themselves who began the
reform. Providence did not stir first. The five women gave this reform to the
economy of Israel. So it would seem on the face of the story, and many people look
at the face and go no farther, and so they blunder and lie. Suggestions are from
God. The very idea which we think our own is not our own, but God"s. "Every good
gift and every perfect gift... cometh down from the Father of lights." He inspires the
prayer which he means to answer. He says, Arise, when he is prepared to meet us.
An idea occurs to you, and you think it admirable, and call it your own; you will
change your policy; enlarge your business; go to another town; strike out another
26

27. line: you will alter the machinery, patent an invention, introduce yourself to a firm,
and you think this is all your own doing. That is the fatal error. "We are fellow-
workers with God." "He is Lord of all,"—of all good ideas, noble impulses, holy
inspirations, sudden movements of the soul upward into higher life and broader
liberty. This is his plan of training men. He seems to stand aside, and to take no part
in some obviously good movements, and men say, "This is a human movement, a
political movement, a non-religious movement," not knowing what they are talking
about,—forgetting that the very idea out of which it all sprang, came down from the
Father of lights, that the very eloquence by which it is supported is divinely taught,
that the very gold which is its sinew is his: they do not go far enough back in their
investigation into the origin of things, or they would find God in movements which
are often credited to human genius alone. We do not see all. The finest threadlets
are hidden from us. Now and again, in a dream, we may catch a sight of the ladder
connecting heaven and earth, but it is always there, the highway of angels, the path
into the skies.
2. Everywhere the Bible is full of the very spirit of justice. It is the Magna Charta of
the civilised world. This is the spirit that gives the Bible such a wonderful hold upon
the confidence of mankind. Look at this case as an example. The applicants were
women. All the precedents of Israel might have been pointed to as the answer to
their appeal. Why create a special law for women? Why universalise a very
exceptional case? Why not put these people down as sensational reformers? Yet, the
case was heard with patience, and answered with dignity. O women, you should love
the Bible! It is your friend. It has done more for you than all other books put
together. Wherever it goes it claims liberty for you, justice for you, honour for you.
Repay is service by noble endeavour to make it everywhere known. Not only were
the applicants women, they were orphans. Their father dead, no brother to take
their part, nothing left them but the memory of a man dead and gone. Yet the God
of the Bible is their friend. He says, "They are right." He will not break the bruised
reed. The weak are as the strong before him, and the friendless as those who are set
in families. A God so just, so pitiful, so mindful of individual cases and special
desires, is the God who will save the world! This God of justice is the God of love.
We shall see more of him as we go from page to page of his book; one day we may
see him on a Cross dying for man! Give any nation the Bible, and let that nation
make the Bible its statute book, and every class in the community will have justice:
masters will be just to their servants; servants will be just to their masters; family
peace will be protected; social relations will be purified; common progress will be
guaranteed. This spirit of justice is the social strength of the Bible. No life is to be
tampered with; the small cause as well as the great is to be heard; no kid is to be
seethed in its mother"s milk; no fruit tree is to be cut down even in time of war; no
bird"s nest is to be wantonly destroyed; all men are to be honoured, helped, and
saved. A book with a tone like this should be protected from the sneers of persons
who have never actually studied its ennobling pages.
3. Every question should become the subject of social sympathy and matter of
religious reference. These women were heard patiently. It is something to get a
27

28. hearing for our grievances. Sometimes those grievances perish in the very telling;
sometimes the statement of them brings unexpected help to our assistance. This case
is what may be called a secular one; it is about land and name and inheritance; and
even that question was made in Israel simply a religious one. It was not political. It
was not an outside question. The Lord was King of Israel, and to the King the
appeal must be made. Is Christianity farther from God than was Judaism? Are
there some questions which we now take into our own hands? Does God take no
interest in our merchandise, in our land, in our professions? Can he not still tell the
physician what to do, the merchant what to buy, the mariner how to go, the lawyer
how to plead? In ancient Israel, with its priestly system, men had to go to the leader
and the priest first; in Christianity we can go straight to God; we have no
priesthood but Christ; the way to the throne is open night and day. O wronged and
suffering woman, tell thy case to the Father! O Prayer of Manasseh , carrying a
burden too heavy for thy declining strength, speak to God about the weight, and he
will help thee with his great power.
Selected Note
In no history can there be found, save in the Bible, an equal number of charming
female portraits. But the formative influence of female character as seen in the Bible
must be referred to the pure and lofty religious ideas which the Biblical books in
general present. If woman there appears as the companion and friend of Prayer of
Manasseh , if she rises above the condition of being a bearer of children to that
noble position which is held by the mother of a family, she owes her elevation in the
main to the religion of Moses and that of Jesus.... Bringing to bear on the domestic
ties his own doctrine of immortality, our Lord made the marriage bond co-existent
with the undying soul, only teaching that the connection would be refined with the
refinement of our affections and our liberation from these tenements of clay in
which we now dwell ( Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:3, seq.; Matthew 22:23, seq.).
With views so elevated as these, and with affections of the tenderest benignity, the
Saviour may well have won the warm and gentle hearts of Jewish women.
Accordingly, the purest and richest human light that lies on the pages of the New
Testament comes from the band of high-minded, faithful, and affectionate women
who are found in connection with Christ from his cradle to his cross, his tomb, and
his resurrection. These ennobling influences have operated on society with equal
benefit and power. Woman, in the better portions of society, is now a new being.
And yet her angelic career is only just begun. She sees what she may be, and what
under the gospel she ought to be; and ere very long, we trust, a way will be found to
employ in purposes of good energies of the finest nature, which now waste away
from want of scope, in the ease and refinements of affluence, if not in the
degradations of luxury—a most precious offering made to the Moloch of fashion,
but which ought to be consecrated to the service of that God who gave these
endowments, and of that Saviour who has brought to light the rich capabilities, and
exhibited the high and holy vocation, of the female sex.
28

29. 2 and stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the
leaders and the whole assembly at the entrance to
the tent of meeting and said,
BARNES, "By the door of the tabernacle of the congregation - The place of
solemn assembly of the elders. The daughters of Zelophehad made their suit
to the princes, the heads of tribes and of families, who were making the
census under the superintendence of Moses and Eleazar.
GILL, "And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and
before the princes, and all the congregation,.... Who were now sitting in
court, to hear and try causes brought before them; here were Moses the
chief magistrate, Eleazar the high priest, the princes of the several tribes,
and the representatives of the whole congregation, or it may be the seventy
elders; a very grand and august assembly, before whom these ladies
appeared, and from whom they might expect to have justice done them:
by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation; near to which this court
was held, both for the convenience of the people, to apply to in case of need,
when they came thither to worship, and of Moses, to seek the Lord in case of
any difficulty that might arise, as now did:
HENRY, "Here is, I. Their case stated by themselves, and their petition
upon it presented to the highest court of judicature, which consisted of
Moses as king, the princes as lords, and the congregation, or elders of the
people who were chose their representatives, as the commons, Num_27:2.
This august assembly sat near the door of the tabernacle, that in difficult
cases they might consult the oracle. To them these young ladies made their
application; for it is the duty of magistrates to defend the fatherless, Psa_
82:3. We find not that the had any advocate to speak for them, but they
managed their own cause ingeniously enough, which they could do the
better because it was plain and honest, and spoke for itself. Now observe,
BENSON, "Numbers 27:2. Before the princes — By princes, it seems, are meant the
heads of the tribes, or the highest of the judges appointed Exodus 18:25, called there
the heads of the people; and by all the congregation is intended the seventy elders or
representatives of the people, Numbers 11:24. At the head of all these sat Moses, and
next to him the high-priest. By the door of the tabernacle — Nigh unto which, it
29

30. appears, was the place where Moses and the chief rulers assembled for the
administration of public affairs. This was very convenient, because they had
frequent occasion of having recourse to God for his direction.
PETT, "Numbers 27:2
‘And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes
and all the congregation, at the door of the tent of meeting, saying,’
What courage they had. Following correct procedure they brought their request
officially so that it could be considered by all Israel, although more strictly by
Moses, Eleazar and the chieftains. That it was at the door of the tent of meeting
demonstrated that they sought a decision before Yahweh. They came hesitantly and
shyly, bolstering each other up, as the representatives of their family name. They
clearly had a deep certainty that Yahweh would deal rightly with them. What could
have been a better example to Israel at this time than this? In context it is full of
meaning. Out of context it becomes just another dispute about land.
It should be noted here, as it will be noted later, that this very approach brings out
that womenfolk were thus not of necessity excluded from having their part in such
important matters. As with the widows and divorcees mentioned later in regard to
oaths (Numbers 30:9), where they were the ‘head’ of their particular family
grouping they had equal rights to all other family heads. The reason that men
usually took prominence was simply because it was they who were usually the heads
of the family and responsible for their welfare and protection. But that did not
totally exclude women in the right circumstances.
Yet it would not be easy for them. Standing in that holy place, facing the great men
of the nation, they must have quailed. The courage that they mustered exceeded far
that which was required to face up to the Anakim. These men of Israel whom they
had to face were ‘giants’ indeed. But they believed that they were in the right. And
they believed in Yahweh.
PULPIT, "By the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, i.e; evidently by the
entrance of the sacred enclosure. Here, in the void space, in the midst of the camp,
and close to the presence-chamber of God, the princes (i.e; the tribe princes who
were engaged upon the census) and the representatives of the congregation
assembled for the transaction of business and for the hearing of any matters that
were brought before them.
3 “Our father died in the wilderness. He was not
30

31. among Korah’s followers, who banded together
against the Lord, but he died for his own sin and
left no sons.
BARNES, "But died in his own sin - i. e., perished under the general
sentence of exclusion from the land of promise passed on all the older
generation, but limited to that generation alone. By virtue of the declaration
in Num_14:31 the daughters of Zelophehad claim that their father’s sin
should not be visited upon them.
GILL, "Our father died in the wilderness,.... As all the generation of the
children of Israel did, that came out of Egypt, who were twenty years old
and upwards, excepting Joshua and Caleb:
and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together
against the Lord in the company of Korah; which is observed, not so much
to obtain the favour and good will of Moses as to clear the memory of their
father from any reproach upon it, he dying in the wilderness; and chiefly to
show that the claim of his posterity to a share in the land was not forfeited,
he not being in that rebellion, nor in any other; so that he and his were
never under any attainder:
but died in his own sin; which though common to all men, every man has his
own peculiar way of sinning, and is himself only answerable for it, Isa_53:6
he sinned alone, had no partner or confederate, whom he had drawn into
any notorious and public sin, as mutiny, &c. to the prejudice of the state,
and the rulers in it; so the Targum of Jonathan adds,"and he did not cause
others to sin,''so Jarchi; some take him to be the sabbath breaker, Num_
15:32, others that he was one of those that went up the hill, Num_14:44,
most likely his sin was that of unbelief, disbelieving the spies that brought
the good report of the land, and giving credit to those that brought an ill
report of it; and so with the rest of the people murmured, for which his
carcass, with others, fell in the wilderness, and entered not into the good
land, through unbelief: a sin not punished in their children:
and had no sons. which was the reason of this application.
HENRY, "What their plea is: That their father did not die under any
attainder which might be thought to have corrupted his blood and forfeited
his estate, but he died in his own sin (Num_27:3), not engaged in any
mutiny or rebellion against Moses, particularly not in that of Korah and his
company, nor in any way concerned in the sins of others, but chargeable
only with the common iniquities of mankind, for which to his own Master
he was to stand or fall, but laid not himself open to any judicial process
31

32. before Moses and the princes. He was never convicted of any thing that
might be a bar to his children's claim. It is a comfort to parents, when they
come to die, if, though they smart themselves for their own sin, yet they are
not conscious to themselves of any of those iniquities which God visits upon
the children.
JAMISON,"Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not ... in the
company of ... Korah — This declaration might be necessary because his
death might have occurred about the time of that rebellion; and especially
because, as the children of these conspirators were involved along with
their fathers in the awful punishment, their plea appeared the more proper
and forcible that their father did not die for any cause that doomed his
family to lose their lives or their inheritance.
died in his own sin — that is, by the common law of mortality to which
men, through sin, are subject.
CALVIN, "3.Our father died in the wilderness. The plea they allege is no
contemptible one, i.e., that their father died after God had called His people to the
immediate possession of the promised land; for, if the question had been carried
back to an earlier period, it might have originated many quarrels. This restriction
with respect to time, therefore, aided their cause. In the second place, they plead
that their father had committed no crime whereby he might have been excepted
from the general allotment of the land; for in the conspiracy of Dathan and Abiram,
they include by synecdoche, in my opinion, the other sins, whose punishment
affected the posterity of the criminals. His private sin is, therefore, contrasted with
public ignominy; for so I interpret what they say of his having “died in his own sin.”
And surely it is mere childish nonsense which the Jews (199) affirm of his having
been the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath-day, or one of the number of
those who were slain by the bite of the serpents; and it is unnatural, too, to refer it
to the curse under which the whole human race is laid. They distinguish, then, his
private sin from any public crime, which would have caused him to deserve to be
disinherited, lest the condition of their father should be worse than that of any other
person. At the same time, they hold fast to the principle which is dictated to us by
the common feelings of religion, that death, as being the curse of God, is the wages
of sin.
COKE, "Numbers 27:3-4. Our father died in the wilderness, &c.— In these verses
we have the petition of the daughters of Zelophehad, who urged that their father
dying without male issue in the wilderness, in his own sin, i.e. by a common and
ordinary death, (not such a one as they shared who were partakers of the guilt of
Korah and his companions,) it was not right that the name of their father should be
done away, i.e. rased out of the genealogical tables; for such was the case upon any
family being extinct; upon which account they request a possession among the
brethren of their father. Houbigant, however, is of opinion, that name is here used
for memory, which is easily transmitted from fathers to sons by a paternal
inheritance; as, on the contrary, their memory is soon blotted out who leave their
32

33. inheritance to strangers. Philo gives Zelophehad the appellation of a man of an
excellent character, and descended of a very considerable tribe; and Josephus calls
him (Antiq. lib. iv. c. 7.) a person of condition and eminence. Philo's account of the
petition brought by the daughters is very just and probable: Upon their father's
death, says he, fearing lest the paternal estate should go out of the family, inasmuch
as estates were to descend by the males, they came, with that decency and reverence
which became their sex and age, to the governor of the people; and this not so much
out of anxiety and concern for the estate, as from an earnest desire to preserve from
extinction the name of their father, and the remembrance of his honourable birth
and quality. "Our father," say they, "is dead. He lived a quiet and contemplative
life, and did not forfeit it among the multitude who were judicially cut off for their
perverseness and rebellion. It is not to be imputed to his sin that he left no male
issue. And here we, his daughters, stand before you as humble petitioners. As our
father has left us orphans, we hope to find a father in you; for a father of his
country stands in a prior and nearest relation to his subjects, than even a natural
father to his own family." De Vita Mos. lib. 3:
TRAPP, "Numbers 27:3 Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the
company of them that gathered themselves together against the LORD in the
company of Korah; but died in his own sin, and had no sons.
Ver. 3. But died in his own. sin.] i.e., By a natural and an ordinary death; not by a
special plague, as that arch-rebel Korah. Death is the just hire of the least sin.
[Romans 6:23] But some evildoers God doth not only put to death, but also hangs
them up in gibbets, as it were, for public notice and admonition.
POOLE, " He was not in the company of Korah, nor in any other rebellion of the
people, which must be understood, because all of them are opposed to
his own sin, in which alone he is said to die. But they mention this only either,
1. Because he might possibly be accused to be guilty of this. Or,
2. Because he, being an eminent person, might be thought guilty of that rather than
of any other, because the great and famous men were more concerned in that
rebellion than others. Or,
3. To gain the favour of Moses, against whom that rebellion was more particularly
directed, and more desperately prosecuted than any other. Or,
4. Because peradventure he died about that time, and therefore might be presumed
guilty of that crime. Or rather,
5. Because that sin, and, as it may seem, that only of all the sins committed in the
wilderness, was of such a flagitious nature, that God thought fit to extend the
33

34. punishment not only to the persons of those rebels, but also to their children and
families, Numbers 16:27,32, as was usual in like cases, as Deuteronomy 13:15 Joshua
7:24; whence it is noted as a singular privilege granted to the children of Korah, that
they died not, Numbers 26:11, whereas the children of their confederates died with
them. And this makes their argument here more proper and powerful, that he did
not die in that sin for which his posterity were to be cut off, and to lose either their
lives or their inheritances, and therefore their claim was more just.
In his own sin; either,
1. For that sin mentioned Num 14, which they call his own sin, in opposition not to
the rest of the people, for it was a common sin, but to his children, i.e. the sin for
which he alone was to suffer in his person and not in his posterity, as God had
appointed, Numbers 14:33. Or rather,
2. For his own personal sins; for,
1. These were more properly his own sins.
2. It was a truth, and that believed by the Jews, that death was a punishment for
men’s own sins.
3. The punishment of that common sin was not directly and properly death, but
exclusion from the land of Canaan, and death only by way of consequence upon
that.
BENSON, "Numbers 27:3. But died in his own sin — The sin for which he alone
was to suffer in his person, and not in his posterity, meaning, as some think, that
incredulity for which all that generation was sentenced to die in the wilderness; and
which, though, with respect to the rest of the people, it was not merely his own sin,
since they were generally alike guilty; yet with respect to his children it was his own
sin, a personal guilt, which God himself had declared should not affect his children,
Numbers 14:31.
But, perhaps, by his dying in his own sin, we are only to understand that he died by
a common ordinary death, not such a one as they shared who were partakers of the
guilt of Korah and his companions.
WHEDON, " 3. Not in the company… of Korah — This part of their plea implies
that the treason of Korah attainted the blood of the conspirators, and cut off their
children from heirship.
Died in his own sin — As other men died in the wilderness, in no special sin nor
stroke of judgment, implicating and ruining others with himself.
34