The heads of the fathers’ households of the family of the children of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near, and spoke before Moses and before the princes, the heads of the fathers’ households of the children of Israel.
Parallel Translations
-
The heads of the fathers’ households of the family of the children of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near, and spoke before Moses and before the princes, the heads of the fathers’ households of the children of Israel.
-
And the chief fathers of the families of the children of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near, and spake before Moses, and before the princes, the chief fathers of the children of Israel:
-
And the heads of the fathers' houses of the family of the children of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near, and spoke before Moses, and before the princes, the heads of the fathers' houses of the children of Israel;
Cross-references (4)
Passages linked to Numbers 36:1 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Numbers 27:1 Then 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 came near. These are the names of his daughters: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.
- Numbers 26:29-33 The sons of Manasseh: of Machir, the family of the Machirites; and Machir became the father of Gilead; of Gilead, the family of the Gileadites. These are the sons of Gilead: of Iezer, the family of the Iezerites; of Helek, the family of the Helekites; and Asriel, the family of the Asrielites; and Shechem, the family of the Shechemites; and Shemida, the family of the Shemidaites; and Hepher, the family of the Hepherites. Zelophehad the son of Hepher had no sons, but daughters: and the names of the daughters of Zelophehad were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.
- Joshua 17:2-3 So this was for the rest of the children of Manasseh according to their families: for the children of Abiezer, for the children of Helek, for the children of Asriel, for the children of Shechem, for the children of Hepher, and for the children of Shemida. These were the male children of Manasseh the son of Joseph according to their families. But Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, but daughters. These are the names of his daughters: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.
- 1 Chronicles 7:14-16 The sons of Manasseh: Asriel, whom his concubine the Aramitess bore. She bore Machir the father of Gilead. Machir took a wife of Huppim and Shuppim, whose sister’s name was Maacah. The name of the second was Zelophehad; and Zelophehad had daughters. Maacah the wife of Machir bore a son, and she named him Peresh. The name of his brother was Sheresh; and his sons were Ulam and Rakem.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (21 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain It seemeth that the tribes contended who might marry…
It seemeth that the tribes contended who might marry these daughters to have their inheritance: and therefore the sons of Joseph proposed the matter to Moses.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain Num 36:1 And the chief fathers of the families…
Num 36:1 And the chief fathers of the families of the children of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near, and spake before Moses, and before the princes, the chief fathers of the children of Israel:
Ver. 1. And spake before Moses.] Who was their common oracle to inquire of in all doubtful cases. Like as at Rome, C. Scipio Nasica, whom the senate, by way of honour, called Optimus, had a house in the high street assigned him at the public charge, Quo faeilius consuli posset, that any man might go to him for counsel. And surely, as the Roman general never miscarried so long as he followed the advice of Polybius, his historian; so neither did or could this people do amiss, if ruled by Moses, who was the mouth of God. {Num 36:5}
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain The chief fathers of the families, who had the…
The chief fathers of the families, who had the care and management of the public affairs of that tribe committed to them.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain We have here the humble address which the heads…
We have here the humble address which the heads of the tribe of Manasseh made to Moses and the princes, on occasion of the order lately made concerning the daughters of Zelophehad. The family they belonged to was part of that half of the tribe of Manasseh which we yet to have their lot within Jordan, not that half that was already settled; and yet they speak of the land of their possession, and the inheritance of their fathers, with as great assurance as if they had it already in their hands, knowing whom they had trusted. In their appeal observe, 1. They fairly recite the former order made in this case, and do not move to have that set aside, but are very willing to acquiesce in it (Num 36:2): The Lord commanded to give the inheritance of Zelophehad to his daughters; and they are very well pleased that it should be so, none of them knowing but that hereafter it might be the case of their own families, and then their daughters would have the benefit of this law. 2. They represent the inconvenience which might, possibly, follow hereupon, if the daughters of Zelophehad should see cause to marry into any other tribes, Num 36:3. And it is probable that this was not a bare surmise, or supposition, but that they knew, at this time, great court was made to them by some young gentlemen of other tribes, because they were heiresses, that they might get footing in this tribe, and so enlarge their own inheritance. This truly is often aimed at more than it should be in making marriages, not the meetness of the person, but the convenience of the estate, to lay house to house, and field to field. Wisdom indeed is good with an inheritance; but what is an inheritance good for in that relation without wisdom? But here, we may presume, the personal merit of these daughters recommended them as well as their fortunes; however, the heads of their tribe foresaw the mischief that would follow, and brought the case to Moses, that he might consult the oracle of God concerning it. The difficulty they start God could have obviated and provided against in the former order given in this case; but to teach us that we must, in our affairs, not only attend God's providence, but make use of our own prudence, God did not direct in it till the themselves that were concerned wisely foresaw the inconvenience, and piously applied to Moses for a rule in it. For though they were chief fathers in their families, and might have assumed a power to overrule these daughters of Zelophehad in disposing of themselves, especially their father being dead and the common interest of their tribe being concerned in it, yet they chose rather to refer the matter to Moses, and it issued well. We should not covet to be judges in our own case, for it is difficult to be so without being partial. It is easier in many cases to take good advice than to give it, and it is a satisfaction to be under direction. Two things they aimed at in their representation: - (1.) To preserve the divine appointment of inheritances. They urged the command (Num 36:2), that the land should be given by lot to the respective tribes, and urged that it would break in upon the divine appointment if such a considerable part of the lot of Manasseh should, by their marriage, be transferred to any other tribe; for the issue would be denominated from the father's tribe, not the mother's. This indeed would not lessen the lot of the particular persons of that tribe (they would have their own still), but it would lessen the lot of the tribe in general, and render it less strong and considerable; they therefore thought themselves concerned for the reputation of their tribe, and perhaps were the more jealous for it because it was already very much weakened by the sitting down of the one half of it on this side Jordan. (2.) To prevent contests and quarrels among posterity. If those of other tribes should come among them perhaps it might occasion some contests. They would be apt to give and receive disturbance, and their title might, in process of time, come to be questioned; and how great a matter would this fire kindle! It is the wisdom and duty of those that have estates in the world to settle them, and dispose of them, so as that no strife and contention may arise about them among posterity.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain And the chief fathers of the families of the…
And the chief fathers of the families of the children of Gilead,.... The princes, as Aben Ezra; so the Septuagint version, which was the tribe of Manasseh, whose grandson Gilead was, as follows:
the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near; to the house of judgment, as the Targum of Jonathan, the sanhedrim or court of judicature, consisting of the following persons:
Read full note →
and spoke before Moses; the Septuagint version adds, "and before Eleazar the priest", as in Num 27:2.
and before the princes, the chief fathers of the children of Israel: the princes of the several tribes; or it may be rather the seventy elders.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain An inconvenience if heiresses should marry into another tribe,…
An inconvenience if heiresses should marry into another tribe, ver. 1-4. An appointment that they should marry in their own tribe, ver. 5-9. Zelophehad's daughters marry their cousins, ver. 10-12. The conclusion, ver.13.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain The inconveniences which might be produced by daughters,
CHAPTER XXXVI
The inconveniences which might be produced by daughters,
Read full note →
inheritances, marrying out of their own tribe, remedied on the
recommendation of certain chiefs of the tribe of Joseph, who
stated the case of the daughters of Zelophehad, 1-4.
The daughters of Zelophehad are commanded to marry in their own
tribe, 5, 6;
which is to be an ordinance in all similar circumstances, 7-9.
The daughters of Zelophehad marry their father's brother's sons,
and thus their inheritance is preserved in their own tribe,
10-12.
The conclusion of the commandments given by the Lord to the
Israelites in the plains of Moab, 13.
NOTES ON CHAP. XXXVI
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain Num 36:1-3. The chief fathers of the families, &c.…
Num 36:1-3. The chief fathers of the families, &c. — We read before of a provision made for the family of the heiresses of Zelophehad, a branch of the tribe of Manasseh, chap. 27.; and though Moses had secured them a distinct inheritance, yet some of the chief heads of that family, foreseeing that a great inconvenience might possibly happen in the marriage of these women, made a new petition to Moses, in the presence of the princes, or chief fathers of Israel, for a proper law to prevent it. They represented to him, that in case these heiresses should marry into other tribes, the estates they were invested in would, of course, be alienated from their own tribe, and be incorporated into that in which they married, by the right of their husbands.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain The daughters of Zelophehad had obtained an ordinance Num…
The daughters of Zelophehad had obtained an ordinance Num 28:6-11 which permitted the daughters of an Israelite dying without male issue to inherit their father’s property. The chiefs of the Machirites, of whom Zelophehad had been one, now obtain a supplemental enactment, directing that heiresses should marry within their own tribe.
Num 36:4
Read full note →
Be taken away - i. e. be permanently taken away. The jubilee year, by not restoring the estate to the tribe to which it originally belonged, would in effect confirm the alienation.
Num 36:11
Unto their father’s brothers’ sons - Or more generally, “unto the sons of their kinsmen.”
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain Galaad. The descendants of Machir, who were settled in…
Galaad. The descendants of Machir, who were settled in Galaad, were particularly interested, in knowing how their female relations of the house of Salphaad, were to dispose of their fortunes, which God had allowed them. They knew that, by the law, their husbands would obtain possession; and if those husbands should be of another tribe, part of the land allotted to Manasses might be lost. See chap. xxvii., and Josue xvii. 1, 3.
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain The Imperishability of the Tribes, and the tribal Inheritance…
FOURTEENTH SECTION
The Imperishability of the Tribes, and the tribal Inheritance in Israel; or the Limitation of the Right of Marriage of Heiresses
Read full note →
Num_36:1-13
1And the chief fathers of the families of the children of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near, and spake before Moses, and before the princes, the chief fathers of the children of Israel: 2And they said, The Lord commanded my lord to give the land for an inheritance by lot to the children of Israel: and my lord was commanded by the Lord to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother unto his daughters. 3And if they be married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then shall their inheritance be taken from the inheritance of our fathers, and shall be put to the inheritance of the tribe whereunto1 they are received; so shall it be taken from the lot of our inheritance. 4And when the jubilee of the children of Israel shall be, then shall their inheritance be put unto the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they are received: so shall their inheritance be taken away from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers. 5And Moses commanded the children of Israel according to the word of the Lord, saying, The tribe of the sons of 6Joseph hath said well. This is the thing which the Lord doth command concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, Let them marry2 to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry. 7So shall not the inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe: for every one of the children of Israel shall keep3 himself to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. 8And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers. 9Neither shall the inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe; but every one of the tribes of the children of Israel shall keep himself to his own inheritance. 10Even as the Lord commanded Moses, so did the daughters of Zelophehad: 11For Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters 12of Zelophehad, were married unto their father’s brother’s sons: And they were married into4 the families of the sons of Manasseh the son of Joseph, and their 13inheritance remained in the tribe of the family of their father. These are the commandments and the judgments, which the Lord commanded, by the hand of Moses, unto the children of Israel in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
[Num_36:2. De Wette: our; but the suffix refers to the speaker, the head and representative of this Gileadite family.—A. G.]
[Num_36:3. The construction is irregular; but the sense is clear. Keil, Knobel, refer להָםֶ to מָּטֶה, the tribe regarded according to its numbers. It refers rather to the daughters, the tribe which should be to them, into which they should marry.—A. G.]
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
This closing section of the book of Numbers may seem in the eyes of modern critics, as a mere unimportant notice, or incident; but it forms, viewed in its typical tendency, and according to the character of the Book of Numbers, a proper and fitting completion of the organization of the people of God, the hosts of Jehovah. Under the form of an occasional and special law, it establishes the typical perpetuity of the tribes of Israel and their inheritance in Canaan. The essential elements have already been considered in the comment upon chap. 27. The conditional gift of Canaan to Israel for all time is here presupposed. The consequence of this grant was the division of the land among the particular tribes by lot. Jehovah gave to each tribe its inheritance by lot. And as the inheritance must remain in its integrity, so also must the tribe; and indeed as the tribe, so also the individual family and the individual household, as the ordinance with respect to the levirate marriage, and the year of jubilee, clearly prove.
But now this fixed destination seemed to be endangered, by the law recently enacted, in regard to the inheritance of daughters; and the chief fathers of the Gileadite branch of the tribe of Manasseh, bring out this danger in the interests of their tribe. If the daughter-heiresses of Zelophehad married, out of their own tribe and carried over with them their inheritance, then their inheritance would be actually lost to the tribe at present, and definitively and permanently lost through the law of the jubilee, since at that time it would fall to the legal foreign heir.
Even although it had been purchased by the Manassites in the interval, [They rested their statement of their case upon what they correctly supposed to result from the distribution of the land by lot. What was so directly given by God could not be alienated. Keil: “Strictly speaking, the hereditary property would pass at once, when the marriage took place, to the tribe into which an heiress married. But up to the year of jubilee it was always possible that this hereditary property might revert to the tribe of Manasseh. If the marriage were childless, it would do so.” In other oases the year of jubilee would confirm the alienation of the inheritance. If the tribe had purchased it of the heiress, the year of jubilee would relinquish the title so acquired, while it would not disturb, but ratify the rights of the husband of the heiress. The year of jubilee afforded no relief in the case supposed.—A. G.]
Moses solves the question according to the divine direction, by regulating the marriage of heiresses; they may marry to whom they think best, only to the family of the tribe of their father. The right, therefore, to freedom in marriage is limited or conditioned by the order and necessities of the popular, social or national life. It is then related, Num_36:10-12, that in accordance with this direction, the five daughters of Zelophehad were married to their father’s brother’s sons, i. e., literally their cousins. [The Hebrew term, however, though ordinarily used to denote a father’s brother, is used in a wider sense, so that it admits of being rendered a friend or kinsman—those of their own kin or tribe.—A. G.]
It is with this theocratic conception as with the law of the jubilee, and other similar institutions. They melt away in the light of reality, but with that their typical and ideal significance appears all the more clearly. The inheritance which God gives remains sure not only to the people of God as a whole, and to the tribes in particular, but even to the individuals which compose the tribe. The antiquity, and the genuineness of these records is clear, not only from this law, but from many other similar institutions. The conclusion sets before us a definite lawgiving in the plains of Moab, which commences with the new census in chap. 26. [These are the commandments and the judgments. The words include all that was enacted after the Israelites reached the plains of Moab, and to which the history of Balaam serves as an introduction. Keil: “He, places the lawgiving in the plains of Moab by the side of the lawgiving at Mount Sinai (Lev_26:46; Lev_27:34), and brings it to a close, though without in any way implying that the explanation (בֵּאֵד Deu_1:5) further development and hortatory enforcement of the law and its statutes and judgments, which follow in Deuteronomy, are not of Mosaic origin.”
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
The book of Numbers closes with an apparently incidental and unimportant regulation of the law: but here as with the analogous incidents of the blasphemer (Lev_24:10) and the history of the Sabbath-breaker (Num_15:32), a great universal, theocratic thought is brought out and presented under a particular and isolated historical fact. In the first case it is the holiness of the name of Jehovah, as He is the covenant God of Israel, and represents the Israelitish religion itself; in the second case it is the sacredness of the Sabbath as the central point of the Israelitish religious service, its worship and its feasts; while here it is the thought of the sacredness of the Israelitish inheritance in its division among the tribes—in a typical sense the unchangeable and everlasting assurance of the divine inheritance for the people of God, in its consecrated membership.
HOMILETICAL HINTS
The secure position of the tribes by the law. The sacred nature of family, tribal and national types. The species of animals, not to speak of the races of men, a thought of God. This true even of the characteristics of individuals. Still this definiteness does not exclude the growth of new national types, for the creative power of God is still working in the existing world, as is evident from every individuality as a new microcosmic creation. (Traducianism, creationism and the theory of pre-existence are only relatively true.) The relegation of the divine creative energy to the inconceivable past is opposed to the belief in the living God. God, in His wisdom, joins the living principle to the genealogical pre-conditions, and preserving the original types, forms new varieties.
[Here, however, we must not lose sight of the reason of this special provision, in any statement of a general law with respect to the permanence of types, in consistency with the origin and growth of new varieties. The provision here, like all the other arrangements peculiar to the Jewish people, lies enclosed in the ends for which that people existed. It was necessary to the ends designed, and is to be considered, 1. In its connection with the whole genealogical history and life of the people, and 2. In its typical bearing, with respect to the inheritance of God’s people.—A. G.]
Footnotes:
[1]Marg. unto whom they shall be.
[2]Marg. be wives.
[3]Marg. cleave to the, etc.
[4]Marg. to some that were of the families.
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain 2. My lord — Moses, who had specially consulted…
2. My lord — Moses, who had specially consulted Jehovah in reference to this case. Num_27:5-6, note. The Hebrews, in their use of the singular pronoun my instead of our before lord, follow the established custom. Num_32:27.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain The chapter lays down a law that heiresses may…
P.
The chapter lays down a law that heiresses may not be married to anyone outside their own tribe. As in ch. 27, the present law is put in a concrete form. In ch. 27 it was ruled that the daughters of Zelophehad might inherit property, in order that the inheritance might not be alienated from the tribe of Manasseh. But it was realised that that law might, after all, be annulled if they were married to persons of other tribes. Here, therefore, the supplementary law is issued, forbidding them to do so.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain THE MARRIAGE OF HEIRESSES (verses Exo_6:25 "heads of the…
THE MARRIAGE OF HEIRESSES (verses Exo_6:25 "heads of the fathers." It is, however, probable that rwbah (fathers) is a contraction for twObahAtyBe (fathers" houses). The fathers" house was the next recognized and familiar division below the mishpachah (family). Probably the fathers" house included originally all the descendants of a living ancestor, who formed the bond of union between them; but this union no doubt survived in many cases the death of the common ancestor, whose authority would then devolve upon the oldest efficient member of the house. The families of the children of Gilead. "The mishpachoth of the Beni-Gilead" certainly did not include the Machirites, who were somewhat sharply distinguished from the other Manassites; (see above on Num_26:29 Num_32:39) it is even doubtful whether they included the Gileadites proper, who took their name (and perhaps traced their descent) from Gilead, but not from his sons. It may be confidently assumed that the Machirites, who had received an extensive and remote territory beyond Jordan, had nothing whatever to do with this application. It was the other section of the tribe, the mishpachoth of the six sons of Gilead, who were yet to receive inheritance by lot in Canaan proper, to whom the matter appeared so serious that they came to Moses about it.
Vers. 1-13. The sure inheritance.
Read full note →
The decision here recorded, and expanded into a general law, was wholly intended to preserve to each tribe and each family its own inheritance in the land of promise inviolate and undisturbed. Spiritually it can but point to the inheritance "incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away", (1Pe_1:4) for which we look. That there was any special intention in connection with this law to preserve intact the inheritance of Judah, or that it has any bearing on the tribal relationship of the earthly parents of the Divine child, is extremely unlikely. It would certainly appear that Mary had no patrimony, even if she had no brothers. Consider, therefore
I THAT THE OBJECT OF THE DIVINE LEGISLATION WAS BY ALL MEANS TO PRESERVE TO EACH ISRAELITE HIS FULL INHERITANCE IN CANAAN. Even so the final end of the dispensation of the gospel is that every one of the elect may obtain for ever that fullness of joy and of life which is prepared for him; to this end all things are made to work together.
II THAT IN ORDER TO SECURE THIS, NOT ONLY THE INDIVIDUAL POSSESSION: BUT ALSO THE JOINT INTEREST OF EACH IN THE TERRITORY OF HIS TRIBE WAS JEALOUSLY GUARDED FROM INVASION. Even so there will, no doubt, in the future reward be many elements of common as well as of individual happiness, and some of these common to those who have lived and suffered together as members of the same particular Church; these also will be preserved inviolable. Whatever special graces have been developed in the common Christianity of any Church will doubtless be reflected in the immortal state.
III THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL WAS TO KEEP TO HIS OWN LOT, AND NOT SEEK AFTER ANY ALLEN INHERITANCE. Even so every one of us should cultivate the grace given him, and seek the reward set before him, not coveting the gifts which belong to others, not aspiring to the glory to which he is not called.
IV THAT EACH TRIBE WAS, IN LIKE MANNER, TO KEEP TO ITS OWN INHERITANCE, AND NOT TO INTRUDE UPON ITS NEIGHBOURS. Even so the different branches of Christ"s Church, so far as they by the will of God divide the field between them, are strictly forbidden to invade one another"s heritage.
V THAT THIS WAS SECURED EVEN AT SOME COST OF LIBERTY OF CHOICE ON THE PART OF INDIVIDUALS. Even so the necessity of not intruding upon the portion of others must and does involve considerable self-restraint, and the sacrifice perhaps of cherished desires, on the part of individual members of the Church.
And note that this case so carefully recorded appears trivial, and unworthy of the space it occupies in Holy Writ. Nevertheless, it was not trivial, because it involved a most important principle, and because it was settled by an act of perfect obedience. And note again that the operation of the Jubilee, which Was so graciously designed for all Israelites, threatened in this case to aggravate an evil, which, however, was averted by Divine provision. There may be cases in which even the grace of the gospel may threaten hardship to some; but if there are, God will find a remedy.
It would not be right to press the example of Zelophehad"s daughters in a social sense, but we may draw the general moral lesson
1. That if any have exceptional opportunity of bestowing advantage on others, they should not consult their own fancy nor make an arbitrary choice, but be guided by the general good of all.
2. That none should put themselves forward in order to secure exceptional advantage, but let it fall to those for whom God has designed it.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain Let them marry to whom they think best; only…
Num_36:1-13
Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry.
Read full note →
The law for the marriage of heiresses
I. The case stated (Num_36:1-4). These proceedings of the heads of this family were orderly, respectful, reasonable, and commendable.
II. The case adjudicated (Num_36:5-9).
1. The righteousness of the case was acknowledged.
2. The difficulty of the case was removed.
3. The decision in this case was made the law for all similar cases.
4. The decision of this case was of Divine authority.
III. The adjudication acted upon (Num_36:10-12). They married their fathers brothers sons. By this it, appears, says Matthew Henry--
1. That the marriage of cousin-germans is not in itself unlawful, nor within the degrees prohibited, for then God would not haw countenanced these marriages. But--
2. That ordinarily it is not advisable; for, if there had not been a particular reason for it (which cannot hold in any case now, inheritances being not disposed of as then by the special designation of Heaven), they would not have married such near relations. The world is wide, and he that walks uprightly will endeavour to walk surely. (W. Jones.)
Marriage
1. That marriage is a Divine institution.
2. That the obligations involved in marriage are binding and sacred.
I. That persons should not be coerced in marriage.
1. Personal choice as opposed to compulsion.
2. Personal affection as opposed to mere convenience.
II. That there are important considerations which should regulate the choice in respect to marriage.
1. As to property.
2. As to consanguinity.
3. As to health.
4. As to suitability.
5. As to character. (W. Jones.)
Sensible marriage
No laws, however excellent, express, or multiplied, can reach every particular case which may arise; and still room will be left for the exercise of sound judgment and common sense. But when these are regulated according to the true meaning of the Word of God, and in dependence on Divine teaching, they will guide us through all perplexities, as far as our immediate duty is concerned. Yet the Lord frequently leaves us to feel our difficulties, that we may be habituated to reflect to search the Scriptures, and to trust Him more simply. All our inclinations ought to be subjected to the will of God: and in contracting marriage, future consequences to posterity, as well as to ourselves and our connections, should be taken into consideration. The Scriptures indeed suppose that esteem, affection, and preference are requisite in this important relation: but they know nothing of that irrational, ungovernable, and idolatrous passion, which, regardless of all consequences, and in defiance all authority, rushes headlong upon gratification; which is neither moderated by discretion, nor subordinated to the will of God; which is not rational esteem, nor tender friendship, nor congenial affection, but something vastly more rapturous, unintelligible, and undefinable: and which, with all its refinements, is inconsistent with common sense, the interests of society, the happiness of domestic life, and the Christian religion. Finally, though it is prudent to foresee and prevent disputes about temporal property, it would be better if we were equally quicksighted and attentive in respect of our spiritual and eternal interests. But the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light. (Thomas Scott.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain Let us notice—
THE LAW FOR THE MARRIAGE OF HEIRESSES
(Num_36:1-12)
Read full note →
Let us notice—
I. The case stated.
“And the chief fathers of the families of the children of Gilead, the son of Machir,” &c. (Num_36:1-4). The daughters of Zelophehad were heiresses, according to the law stated in Num_27:1-11 (see pp. 509, 510). There was a probability of their marriage, and it might have been to persons of some of the other tribes. (a) And, as Matthew Henry points out, it is probable that the heads of the tribe of Manasseh knew, that “at this time, great court was made to them by some young gentlemen of other tribes, because they were heiresses, that they might get footing in this tribe, and so enlarge their own inheritance. This truly is often aimed at more than it should be in making marriages, not the meetness of the person, but the convenience of the estate, to ‘lay house to house and field to field.’ ‘Wisdom indeed is good with an inheritance;’ but what is an inheritance good for in that relation without wisdom? But here, we may presume, the personal merit of these daughters recommended them as well as their fortunes.” But if they married to persons of another tribe, their inheritance would pass away from the tribe of Manasseh to the tribe or tribes to which their husbands belonged. It was in order to guard against this that the heads of the fathers’ houses of the family of Gilead the Manassite appealed unto Moses. In so doing they were actuated, not by selfish concern for their personal interests. Their respective inheritances would not be diminished by the marriage of these heiresses. But they urged that, if they married to persons of any of the other tribes,—
(1) The Divine allotment of the land would be invaded. “They said, The Lord commanded my lord to give the land for an inheritance by lot to the children of Israel,” &c.
(2) The territory of the half-tribe of Manasseh would be diminished. “If they be married to any of the sons of the other tribes,” &c. (Num_36:3-4). In this way the wealth and importance and power of the half-tribe would be lessened.
These proceedings of the heads of this family were orderly, respectful, reasonable, and commendable.
II. The case adjudicated.
“And Moses commanded the children of Israel according to the word of the Lord,” &c. (Num_36:5-9).
1. The righteousness of the case was acknowledged. “The tribe of the sons of Joseph hath said well.” The conduct of the elders was commended, &c.
2. The difficulty of the case was removed. The law by which the difficulty was removed comprised two simple clauses:—
(1) That the daughters of Zelophehad were not to be coerced in marriage. “This is the thing which the Lord doth command concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, Let them marry to whom they think best.” “Now if God left them to their liking,” asks Bishop Babington, “should men force their children against all love and liking? No, no, it is a sin, and not a small one, bitter to the child all the days of life, and not very sweet to the parents after they see the fruits of their violence. Let children dutifully regard parents, and parents charitably and religiously regard their children, who will beg with better will where they like than live without love in world’s abundance. We have known too often the child cry, the father cry, and the mother die for this fault, when it was too late.” (b)
(2) That the daughters of Zelophehad were to marry persons of their own tribe. “Only to the family of the tribe of their fathers shall they marry. So shall not the inheritance,” &c. Thus, while the former provision secured to them freedom in their marriages, this provision, by restricting the extent of their choice, secured their inheritance to the tribe of Manasseh.
3. The decision in this case was made the law for all similar cases “And every daughter that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe,” &c. (Num_36:8-9).
4. The decision of this case was of Divine authority. “Moses commanded the children of Israel according to the word of the Lord, saying, … This is the thing which the Lord doth command,” &c. Hence the decision was binding both in the case which gave rise to it, and in all similar cases in subsequent times.
III. The adjudication acted upon.
“Even as the Lord commanded Moses, so did the daughters of Zelophehad,” &c. (Num_36:10-12). “They married their fathers’ brothers’ sons. By this it appears,” says Matthew Henry,—
“
1. That the marriage of cousin-germans is not in itself unlawful, nor within the degrees prohibited, for then God would not have countenanced these marriages. But,
“
2. That ordinarily it is not advisable; for, if there had not been a particular reason for it (which cannot hold in any case now, inheritances being not disposed of as then by the special designation of Heaven), they would not have married such near relations. The world is wide, and he that walks uprightly will endeavour to walk surely.”
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) Marriage has in it less of beauty, but more of safety, than the single life; it hath not more ease, but less danger; it is more merry and more sad; it is fuller of sorrows and fuller of joys; it lies under more burdens, but is supported by all the strengths of love and charity; and these burdens are delightful. Marriage is the mother of the world, and preserves kingdoms, and fills cities and churches, and heaven itself. Celibacy, like the fly in the heart of an apple, dwells in perpetual sweetness, but sits alone, and is confined, and dies in singularity; but marriage, like the useful bee, builds a house, and gathers sweetness from every flower, and labours and unites into societies and republics, and sends one colonies, and feeds the world with delicacies, and obeys their king, and keeps order, and exercises many virtues, and 618 promotes the interest of mankind, and is that state of good to which God hath designed the present constitution of the world.—Jeremy Taylor.
(b) The marriage life is always an insipid, a vexatious, or a happy condition. The first is, when two people of no genius or taste for themselves meet together, upon such a settlement as has been thought reasonable by parents and conveyancers, from an exact valuation of the land and cash of both parties. In this case, the young lady’s person is no more regarded than the house and improvements in purchase of an estate; but she goes with her fortune, rather than her fortune with her. These make up the crowd or vulgar of the rich, and fill up the lumber of the human race, without beneficence towards those below them, or respect towards those above them.
The vexatious life arises from a conjunction of two people of quick taste and resentment put together for reasons well known to their friends, in which especial care is taken to avoid (what they think the chief of evils) poverty, and insure to them riches, with every evil besides. These good people live in a constant constraint before company, and too great familiarity alone. When they are within observation, they fret at each other’s carriage and behaviour; when alone, they revile each other’s person and conduct. In company, they are in purgatory; when only together, in a hell.
The happy marriage is where two persons meet and voluntarily make choice of each other, without principally regarding or neglecting the circumstances of fortune or beauty. These may still love in spite of adversity or sickness: the former we may, in some measure, defend ourselves from; the other is the portion of our very make.—Sir R. Steele.
MARRIAGE
(Num_36:6)
We may notice briefly, by way of introduction,—
i. That marriage is a Divine institution. It was ordained by God (Gen_1:26-28; Gen_2:18-24; 1Co_11:9). It was solemnly confirmed by our Lord Jesus Christ (Mat_19:3-12), and by His Apostles (1Co_7:2; Eph_5:22-33; 1Pe_3:1-7).
ii. That the obligations involved in marriage are binding and sacred. Marriage itself is not obligatory. There are circumstances in which celibacy is undoubtedly commendable (Mat_19:12; 1Co_7:8). But when the marriage relation has been entered into, obligations of the most tender and sacred character have been incurred. These obligations are not simply those imposed by the civil authority, but those which pertain to it as an ordinance of God: Divine in its origin, it is Divine also in its obligations (Gen_2:18; Gen_2:24; Mal_2:14-16; Mat_19:4-6; Eph_5:22-33; 1Pe_3:1-7).
But, to confine ourselves to the text, two observations are here warranted on marriage in general:—
I. That persons should not be coerced in marriage.
“This is the thing which the Lord doth command … saying, Let them marry to whom they think best.” Here we have—
1. Personal choice as opposed to compulsion. Parents “who force their daughters into marriage,” said Lord Rochester, “are worse than the Ammonites, who sacrificed their children to Moloch—the latter undergoing a speedy death; the former suffering years of torture, but too frequently leading to the same result.”
“For marriage is a matter of more worth
Than to be dealt in by attorneyship;
For what is wedlock forcèd but a hell,
An age of discord and continual strife?
Whereas the contrary bringeth forth happiness,
And is a pattern of celestial bliss.”—Shakespeare.
Moreover, such coercion is a sad degradation of marriage; a grievous wrong to the persons coerced; and a heinous sin against God. But further, it seems to us that the text suggests that marriage should be entered into from—
2. Personal affection as opposed to mere convenience. In the clause now under consideration, it is the person, not the property, which is spoken of. “Let them marry to whom they think best.” Marriage is far too sacred a thing to be treated as a matter of mere convenience and arrangement. “I regard a man and a woman that come together in the marriage state as coming together in the most sacred of all possible conjunctions before God.” And to enter into this union without pure and strong affection, is an injury to the person married, and, as we said of marriage by coercion, a degradation of marriage itself, and a sin against God. (a)
II. That there are important considerations which should regulate the choice in respect to marriage.
One such consideration is mentioned in the text. The daughters of Zelophehad must marry whom they liked best; but they were not to marry any one of another tribe; for if they did so they would injure their own tribe by diminishing its Divinely allotted territory. “Only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry.” The inference is a just one, that while persons are to be free in their marriage, they are not to be rash or thoughtless; they should not overlook either their own true interests or the interests of others. (b) In the marriage choice, due weight should be given to considerations—
1. As to property. By this we do not mean that in marriage, money or other possessions should be a primary consideration, or that persons should not marry until they are in “well to-do” or easy circumstances. (c) But in marriage persons should pay due attention to the temporal interests of themselves and their families. No one is at liberty to injure by his marriage the interests of his family or of others. On this point the teaching of our text is indisputable.
2. As to consanguinity. In the Bible marriage is prohibited between “any that are near of kin” (Lev_18:1-18), with the exception of first cousins; and marriage between them as a rule is not desirable. (d)
3. As to health. Persons having within them the seeds of hereditary disease, should think long and deeply and unselfishly before they determine to enter the marriage state. It is an awful thing for any one to transmit disease to the next generation in his own children.
4. As to suitability. This applies to age, to tastes, to tempers, to station, to pursuits. In innumerable instances where there has been no open disagreement, no bitterness or strife, lives have been impoverished, disappointed, and beclouded by unsuitable marriages. (e)
5. As to character. The rule for Christians is expressly laid down by St. Paul: “She is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord” (1Co_7:39). And expositors, both ancient and modern, are almost universally agreed that the expression “only in the Lord,” means, “within the limits of Christian connexion.… let her marry a Christian” (Alford) And Barnes: “That is, only to one who is a Christian; with a proper sense of her obligations to Christ, and so as to promote His glory.” Many and weighty reasons may be adduced to enforce this. We mention only two—
(1) In marriages in which this rule is violated, the deepest and holiest aspects of the relationship are unrealised; because in such unions there can be no mutual sympathy on those subjects which are most important and most precious to the heart of the Christian.
(2) Such unions involve the most serious peril to the Christian character. (f)
Consider well the ancient inquiry, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” And let Christians “marry to whom they will; only in the Lord.”
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) How thoroughly unprincipled are frequently the inducements to this connexion. I denounce every marriage as unprincipled that is not based on mutual esteem and love—every marriage that is not a bona-fide union of hearts. When such a connection is entered into for the sake of external symmetry and beauty merely, the selection being made solely by the eye, which sees no more, and looks for no more, than the well-proportioned form or “the blooming tincture of the skin,” without regard to the qualities of the mind and heart, “the spirit of the union” is, in such cases, a false fire, without the hallowed purity and warmth of genuine heart love: and it is many a chance to one that it speedily cools down even to extinction, leaving only the cold, heartless, lifeless form, without a spark of the living and glowing fire—the spirit, the soul, of connubial love and joy. What, indeed, could be left remaining of that which never had any real existence? And money! money! money! what shall I say of that vilest of degradations and abuses, by which the most sacred, intimate, tender, and indissoluble of earth’s relations, one which ought to be cemented and secured by the very finest and most delicate sensibilities and most inviolably honourable sentiments and feelings of the heart, is reduced to a base and sordid summing up of cash columns and bank interest, or a problem in land measuring and farm stock. “The love of money” (not money, observe, but the love of money) is said, by the highest authority, to be “the root of all evil”; and of the many evils that have sprung from this productive root, the one I am now noticing is assuredly none of the least. A money marriage is a marriage in form only; recognised indeed in human courts, but hardly owned as legitimate in the court of heaven. It is a mere mercantile bargain, a trading co-partnery, a union of purses (and hardly even that, for purses are kept with great jealousy where money is the object, and that object is to get a purse rather than to give one—the eager and covetous aspirant having often none to give), and not at all a union of affections. Now, if men and women will be thus unprincipled, as well as foolish, in forming the connection, is it wonderful that they should find but little happiness in it? Would not the greater wonder be that they found any at all?—Ralph Wardlaw, D.D.
(b) With what hasty, light, foolish inconsideration do men and women jump at random into a connection that is to last for life, and of necessity most intimately and most unceasingly to affect the happiness of all their future days. How often is this done as if it were a mere holiday frolic, which could be broken off at will, as soon as they get tired of it! They hope they are to be happy. They have no doubt of it. But the reason of their having no doubt is their never having bestowed a single reflection on the grounds that exist for the hope. Had they done so, they might have found them much more scanty than those for fear. But it is a wedding, and that is enough. They have got married. The charm is in the word. As to congeniality of sentiment, and feeling, and desires, and habits, and pursuits, with all else that comes amongst the likelihoods of social harmony and happiness, such things have never entered into the calculation. Indeed there has been nothing of calculation or forethought in the matter. And is it to be wondered at, then, that they who thus wed in haste should repent at leisure?—Ibid.
(c) I do not believe any man was ever happier than when, having married early (and early marriages are usually virtuous marriages), and married for love, he and his companion went down into life together, and every day was a day of engineering to fit their means to their necessities, in their single slenderly furnished room, where they conferred together how to put scrap with scrap, and eke out pittance with pittance, and everything was calculated by pennies. How often, in later life, when people become rich, do the husband and wife look at each other and say, “After all, my dear, we never shall be happier than when we first started out together.” Thank God, a man does not need to be very rich to be very happy, only so that he has a treasure in himself. A loving heart, a genuine sympathy, a pure, unadulterated taste, a life that is not scorched by dissipation or wasted by untimely hours, a good sound body, and a clear conscience—these things ought to make a man happy.—H. W. Beecher.
(d) The use of such expressions (as, “near of kin,” Heb. “flesh of his flesh,” Lev_18:6), undoubtedly contains an appeal to the horror naturalis, or that repugnance with which man instinctively shrinks from matrimonial union with one with whom he is connected by the closest ties both of blood and of family affection. On this subject we need say no more than that there is a difference in kind between the affection that binds the members of a family together, and that which lies at the bottom of the matrimonial bond, and that the amalgamation of these affections cannot take place without a serious shock to one or the other of the two; hence the desirability of drawing a distinct line between the provinces of each, by stating definitely where the matrimonial affection may legitimately take root.—W. L. Bevan, M.A., in Bibl. Dict.
(e) In this great whirligig of the world, there is nothing stranger than the mating and mismating of men and women. There is no question that is more insoluble, and more often asked, than this, “What on earth ever tempted that woman to marry that man?” You cannot answer it, I cannot, and she cannot. There is but one other question like it, and that is, “What on earth tempted that man to marry such a woman?” He cannot tell, and she cannot, and nobody can. So it is, and so it will be, all the time, here and there, and everywhere. And, while there are some who, disappointed, rebound and break away into immoralities, or into an indifference which is an immorality in the realm of love, there are others of a greater soul, who give their whole life to fidelities in their relation. They know that they do not love. They know that there is that in them which is capable of development, but which they have never known. There are prophecies in themselves, which they do not want to awaken, of what their soul is capable of. If they read a book where the heroism of love is described, they shut the book, and tears flow from their eyes, and they say, “Oh! what might have been.” But that is not safe, and they banish it, and go on in the usual way. Early and late they are faithful.—H. W. Beecher.
(f) I need not say that much of the happiness of human life depends upon the marriage unions which are formed. It is one thing to view the subject of marriage in the light of passion or convenience, and another to regard it as an institution by which human life may be developed and trained to the highest uses and enjoyments. I do not hesitate to lay down the broad principle that where there is incongruity of religious conviction between man and woman, happiness of the deepest and purest kind is entirely out of the question. This principle is impartial in its application, having equal reference to the woman as to the man, and to the man as to the woman. Take the case of a young woman who has deep religious convictions and sympathies: she has been trained under religious influences, her habits have been identified with the sanctuary from very early life: she has taught in the school, she has served in connection with many agencies of the Church, and altogether her name has become honourably associated with benevolent operations; she is sought in marriage by a young man who has no religious convictions or sympathies, who, in fact, is worldly-minded, grovelling, earthly; he may, indeed, be a man of education, literary refinement, of good social position, of captivating address; nay, more—I will go further, and say, he may be a man against whom society is unable justly to point the finger of reproach. Wherever he is known he is respected for many social excellencies. Viewed in a worldly sense, the young man may be pronounced an eligible candidate for the lady’s hand, yet, in the presence of such conditions, I have distinctly to give it as my opinion that happiness of the highest kind is impossible in such a connection. There must, on the woman’s part, be more or less of sacrifice of the convictions and sympathies which have distinguished her whole life. Her religious emphasis will he modified; more or less of a chill will subdue her Christian zeal; her works of benevolence will be in some degree impaired; there may not be any great outward difference in her manner, but her soul must have felt the desolation of an impoverishing influence.
We know the ordinary excuse that is made when the Christian marries one who has no devotional sympathies: the generous, hopeful, self-sacrificing woman openly avows her belief that in a very little time she will be able to bring her intended husband to a right decision; she knows (poor creature!) that there is something good in him; she has heard (O mocking ear!) him say words which she construed into a noble intention on his part; she is sure all will be right by and by; a little patience, a little humouring, and a little instruction—then all will be right! This is the dream of her love, the inspiration of her ill-directed hope. Don’t account me cruel when I denounce it as an imposition—a deceit—a lie.—Joseph Parker, D.D.
MAN’S NEED OF MORAL DIRECTIONS, AND GOD’S COMMUNICATIONS TO MAN
(Num_36:13)
This verse refers to all the laws which were given in the plains of Moab (chap. 25–36), and concludes the record of that legislation in the same way as the record of the legislation at Sinai was concluded (Lev_26:46; Lev_27:34). The text suggests—
I. Man’s need of moral direction.
It is here implied that man requires “commandments and judgments” from the Lord. He needs moral guidance.
1. Conscience is not a reliable guide. Conscience has been deteriorated by sin. It sometimes slumbers, as in the case of David after his great crimes (2Sa_12:1-6). It sometimes leads astray, as in the case of Saul the persecutor (Act_26:9). “It is a safe guide only when it is directed by the commandment of the Lord.” (a)
2. The light of nature is not an adequate and reliable guide. It seems to us that many persons ascribe to the light of nature what unassisted human reason would never have discovered, had it not been previously revealed in the Scriptures. (b)
But taking “natural religion to signify that religion which men discover in the sole exercise of their natural faculties, without higher assistance,” we pronounce it an inadequate moral and spiritual guide for man. There are great obligations which the light of nature does not reveal; e.g., that of worship to God, and that of universal benevolence to man. Human nature has deep cravings to which natural religion offers no response. We cry out for forgiveness of sin; but natural religion can afford no satisfaction to our anxious hearts. Over the graves of our beloved dead we ask earnestly and importunately, “If a man die shall he live again?” but nature is silent as those graves. The state of religious knowledge amongst even the most distinguished minds, who had not been blessed with a spiritual and Divine revelation, affords conclusive evidence of the inadequacy of natural religion for man’s moral and spiritual guidance, (c)
II. Man’s need of special direction when entering upon new enterprises and experiences.
The commandments and judgments referred to in the text were given to “the children of Israel in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho.” They were about to set forward to take possession of the Promised Land; and these commandments and judgments were for their guidance and control in the novel scenes and engagements to which they were advancing. And as we go forward into untrodden ways and new undertakings, we need directions from Heaven. We may obtain such directions by studying the revealed will of God; by seeking for them at the throne of grace; and by carefully observing the indications of Divine providence, (d)
III. God’s communications to man.
The Lord met Israel’s need of guidance and control by His gracious communications.
Notice—
1. Their nature. “Commandments and judgments.” This implies His supreme authority. He has a right to command men. This right rests upon,—
(1) His relations to man. He is our creator, &c. (e)
(2) His personal character. He is infinitely righteous and wise and kind. He is supreme in authority because He is supreme in excellence.
2. Their method. “The Lord commanded by the hand of Moses.” He makes known His will to man through man. “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
Since God has graciously revealed His will for our guidance, it is both our obligation and advantage to follow it fully and at all times.
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) Conscience, as an expression of the law or will and mind of God, is not now to be implicitly depended on. It is not infallible. What was true to its office in Eden, has been deranged and shattered by the Fall, and now lies, as I have seen a sun-dial in the neglected garden of an old desolate ruin, thrown from its pedestal, prostrate on the ground, and covered by tall rank weeds. So far from being since that fatal event an infallible directory of duty, conscience has often lent its sanction to the grossest errors, and prompted to the greatest crimes. Did not Saul of Tarsus, for instance, hale men and women to prison; compel them to blaspheme; and imbrue his hands in saintly blood, while conscience approved the deed—he judging the while that he did God service? What wild and profane imaginations has it accepted as the oracles of God! and as if finds had taken possession of a God-deserted shrine, have not the foulest crimes, as well as the most shocking cruelties, been perpetrated in its name? Read the “Book of Martyrs,” read the sufferings of our own forefathers, and under the cowl of a shaven monk, or the trappings of a haughty churchman, you shall see conscience persecuting the saints of God, and dragging even tender women and children to the bloody scaffold or the burning stake.
With eyes swimming in tears, or flashing fire, we close the painful record, to apply to Conscience the words addressed to Liberty by the French heroine, when passing its statue, she rose in the cart that bore her to the guillotine, and throwing up her arms, exclaimed, “O Liberty, what crimes have been done in thy name!” And what crimes in thine, O Conscience! deeds from which even humanity shrinks; against which religion lilts her loudest protest; and which furnish the best explanation of these awful words, “If the light that is in you be darkness, how great is that darkness!”
So far as doctrines and duties are concerned, not conscience, but the revealed Word of God, is our one only sure and safe directory.—Thos. Guthrie, D.D.
(b) When truths are once known to us, though by tradition, we are apt to be favourable to our own parts, and ascribe to our own understanding the discovery of what, in reality. we borrowed from others; or, at least, finding we can prove what at first we learned from others, we are forward to conclude it an obvious truth which, if we had sought, we could not have missed. Nothing seems hard to our understandings that is once known; and because what we see we see with our own eyes, we are apt to overlook or forget the help we had from others who showed it to us, and first made us see it, as if we were not at all beholden to them for those truths they opened the way to, and led us into. For knowledge being only of truths that are perceived to be so, we are favourable enough to our own faculties to conclude that they, of their own strength, would have attained those discoveries without any foreign assistance; and that we know those truths by the strength and native light of our own minds, as they did from whom we received them by theirs; only they had the luck to be before us. Thus the whole stock of human knowledge is claimed by every one as his private possession as soon as he, profiting by other’s discoveries, has got it into his own mind; and so it is; but not properly by his own single industry, nor of his own acquisition. He studies, it is true, and takes pains to make a progress in what others have delivered; but their pains were of another sort who first brought those truths to light which he afterwards derives from them. He that travels the roads now, applauds his own strength and legs, that have carried him so far in such a scantling of time, and ascribes all to his own vigour, little considering how much he owes to their pains who cleared the wood, drained the bogs, built the bridges, and made the ways passable, without which he might have toiled much with little progress. A great many things which we have been bred up in the belief of from our cradles, and are now grown familiar and, as it were, natural to us, under the Gospel, we take for unquestionable, obvious truths, and easily demonstrable, without considering how long we might have been in doubt or ignorance of them had Revelation been silent. And many others are beholden to Revelation who do not acknowledge it. It is no diminishing to Revelation that reason gives its suffrage, too, to the truths Revelation has discovered; but it is our mistake to think that, because reason confirms them to us, we had the first certain knowledge of them from thence, and in that clear evidence we now possess them.—John Locke.
(c) They who speak of the sufficiency of human reason in matters of morals and religion, owe all their best views to that fountain of inspiration from which they so criminally turn aside. For how otherwise is in that those fundamental principles in morals and religion which modern philosophers have exhibited as demonstrable by the unassisted powers of the human mind, were either held doubtfully, or connected with some manifest absurdity, or utterly denied, by the wisest moral teachers among the Gentiles, who lived before the Christian revelation was given? They had the same works of God to behold, and the same course of providence to reason from; to neither of which were they inattentive. They had intellectual endowments, which have been the admiration of all subsequent ages; and their reason was rendered acute and discriminative by the discipline of mathematical and dialectic science. They had everything which the moderns have, except the Bible; and yet on points which have been generally settled, among the moral philosophers of our own age, as fundamental to natural religion, they have no just views, and no settled conviction. “The various apprehensions of wise men,” says Cicero, “will justify the doubtings and demurs of sceptics; and it will then be sufficient to blame them when others agree, or any one has found out the truth. We say not, that nothing is true; but that some false things are annexed to all that is true, and that with so much likeness, that there is no certain note of judging what is true, or assenting to it. We deny not that something may be true; but we deny that it can be perceived so to be; for what have we certain concerning good and evil? Nor for this are we to be blamed, but nature, which has hidden the truth in the deep.”
On this subject Dr. Samuel Clark, though so great an advocate of natural religion, concedes that, “of the philosophers, some argued themselves out of the belief of the very being of a God; some by ascribing all things to chance, others to absolute fatality, equally subverted all true notions of religion, and made the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, and a future judgment, needless and impossible. Some professed open immorality; others, by subtle distinction, patronised particular vices. The better sort of them, who were most celebrated, discoursed with the greatest reason, yet with much uncertainty and doubtfulness, concerning things of the highest importance,—the providence of God in governing the world; the immortality of the soul; and a future judgment.”—Richard Watson.
(d) For notes and illustrations on this point, see pp. 152–154, 164.
(e) This point is illustrated on pp. 38, 39.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain The Law Regarding Heiresses
The Law Regarding Heiresses
According to Num_27:1-11 it was decided that, if a man left no sons, his daughters might inherit his property. But if the daughters married into another tribe, the property would go with them, and so be alienated from the tribe to which they formerly belonged. If it were sold after their marriage, it would revert at the year of Jubilee, not to the original tribe, but to that into which it had been transferred by marriage. To obviate this diminution of the lands originally assigned to each tribe, it is here enacted that no heiress shall marry outside the tribe of her father.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain 12. The Security of the Inheritance
12. The Security of the Inheritance
CHAPTER 36
Read full note →
1. The applicants and their statement (Num 36:1-4)
2. The response of Moses (Num 36:5-12)
3. The epilogue (Num 36:13)
The chapter explains itself. But what is the lesson? It is evident that the inheritance given by the Lord must remain with those to whom it is given. And this brought security and comfort to the daughters of Zelophehad. It brings security and comfort to our hearts when we consider that our inheritance in Christ can never be taken from us. It belongs to us and we belong to the inheritance. The same is true of Israel with its earthly inheritance, the promised land.
Thus ends the wilderness book, a marvellous book, like every other portion of God’s holy Word. May we remember in the study of this book, as stated in the introduction, that “all these things happened unto them for ensamples; and they are written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world are come” (1Co 10:11). May we pass the time of our sojourning here with fear, realizing our separation unto God, the priestly and Levite service which belongs to us till we reach our eternal inheritance.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain The Objection Raised
The Objection Raised
v. 1. And the chief fathers of the families of the children of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near and spake before Moses and before the princes, the chief fathers of the children of Israel, voicing an objection which had come to them with regard to a recent decision;
Read full note →
v. 2. and they said, The Lord commanded my lord (Moses) to give the land for an inheritance by lot to the children of Israel; and my lord was commanded by the Lord to give the inheritance of Zeiophehad, our brother, that is, of the member of their tribe, unto his daughters.
v. 3. And if they be married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then shall their inheritance, according to the provision, as it now stood, be taken from the inheritance of our fathers and shall be put to the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they are received; so shall it be taken from the lot of our inheritance. The consequence, as they saw it, would be that the territory of the several tribes would not remain intact and that a general confusion would result.
v. 4. And when the jubilee of the children of Israel shall be, then shall their inheritance, that of Zeiophehad’s daughters, be put unto the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they are received, by the fact of their marriage; so shall their inheritance be taken away from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers. Until the Year of Jubilee there was always a possibility of a childless marriage or of the sale of the property to members of the tribe of Manasseh; but after the Year of Jubilee the last chance would be gone, and relief would no longer be possible.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 This is the name of a man. See how…
Machir
This is the name of a man. See how you translated this man's name in Numbers 26:29. (See: How to Translate Names)
Read full note →
You were commanded by Yahweh
This can be stated in active form. AT: "Yahweh commanded you" (See: Active or Passive)
Zelophehad
This is the name of a man. See how you translated this man's name in Numbers 26:33. (See: How to Translate Names)
translationWords
family
clan
Gilead
Manasseh
Joseph (OT)
Moses
head
Israel
Yahweh
command
lord
lots
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 36:1-13 The five daughters of Zelophehad had petitioned for,…
36:1-13 The five daughters of Zelophehad had petitioned for, and had been granted, equitable property rights (27:1-11). Here the ramifications of that decision are discussed.
36:1-4 Women who inherited land might marry men from another tribe; their land would then be lost by their ancestral tribe and transferred to their husband’s tribe. The Year of Jubilee (Lev 25:8-55) normally provided the means for land to return to its original owner, but it pertained only to land that was sold, not to land acquired through marriage.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.