Numbers 36 - Pulpit Commentary vs Calvin John

Numbers 36

Numbers 36:1

Verse 1. - The chief fathers. The same phrase is more correctly translated in Exodus 6:25 "heads of the fathers." It is, however, probable that הָאָבור (fathers) is a contraction for בֵּית־הַאָבות (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 Numbers 26:29; 32:39 ff.); 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.

Numbers 36:2

Verse 2. - My lord. אֲדֹנִי. The singular form is constantly used in Hebrew, as in other languages, together with the plural personal pronoun (see at Genesis 23:6). The deference now paid to Moses (cf. chapter Numbers 32:25, 27) is in marked contrast to the treatment he had received from the former generation. Only Aaron (and that under the influence of terror - Exodus 32:22; Numbers 12:11) and Joshua (Joshua 11:28) had addressed him as Adoni before.

Numbers 36:3

Verse 3. - Whereunto they are received. Literally, as in the margin, "unto whom (לָהֶם referring to the men of the tribe) they shall be."

Numbers 36:4

Verse 4. - When the jubilee of the children of Israel shall be. It is remarkable that this is the only reference by name to the Jubilee (יובֵל, jubeel; not jubilee, which is the vulgar form of the same word derived from the Latin jubiheus) to be found in the Scriptures. Some allusions more or less doubtful have been pointed out in the prophets, but the only one which seems incontrovertible is in Ezekiel 46:17, and belongs to the ideal regime of that vision. Jeremiah's right of redemption over the lands of his family was probably due to the fact that they were priestly lands (Joshua 21:18; Jeremiah 1:1; Jeremiah 32:7-9), and as such incapable of permanent alienation. It is, therefore, doubtful whether the Jubilee was ever actually observed, although the principle upon which it rested, the equity of redemption which no Israelite could divest himself of, was undoubtedly acknowledged (see notes on Leviticus 25). Then shall their inheritance be put unto the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they are received. It is again remarkable that the one explicit reference to the Jubilee should be only to an indirect consequence of its practical working. The Jubilee could not really transfer the property of the heiress to her husband's tribe, but it would in effect confirm that transfer, and make it permanent. In practice no property would be considered to have finally changed hands until the year of Jubilee, when an extensive re-settlement took place, and when all titles not successfully challenged would be considered as confirmed. Since the title of the heiress's children could not be challenged, and since any intermediate disposition of the land must then determine, the Jubilee would seem to effect the transfer of which it compelled the recognition. It is, however, none the less strange that the Manassites should have laid such stress upon the practical effects of a piece of legislation which had never yet come into use. It seems to point to the conclusion that the same thing had been customary among them in their Egyptian homes, and that they were acquainted, at least by tradition, with its actual working.

Numbers 36:5

Verse 5. - The tribe of the sons of Joseph. "The tribe (matteh) of the Beni-Joseph." There were two, or rather in effect three, tribes of the Beni-Joseph; Moses referred, of course, to the one which had come before him.

Numbers 36:6

Verse 6. - Only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry. The direction is not altogether plain, since the tribe (matteh) contained several families (mishpachoth), and in this case one or more of the families were widely separated from the rest. Probably the words are to be read, "only to the tribe-family of their father," i.e., only into that mishpachah of Manasseh to which their father had belonged. Practically, therefore, they were restricted to the family of the Hepherites (Numbers 26:32, 33). This is made almost certain when we remember that the territory of the "family" was to be apportioned within the tribe in the same way, and with the same regard to relationship, as the territory of the tribe within the nation (see on Numbers 33:54).

Numbers 36:7

Verse 7. - Every one... shall keep himself to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. This was to be the general rule which governed all such questions. Every Israelite had his own share in the inheritance of his tribe, and with that he was to be content, and not seek to intrude on other tribes. Accordingly the decision in the case of the daughters of Zelophehad is extended to all similar cases.

Numbers 36:8

Numbers 36:9

Numbers 36:10

Numbers 36:11

Verse 11. - Mahlah, &c. It is a curious instance of the inartificial character of the sacred records that these five names, which have not the least interest in themselves, are repeated thrice in this Book, and once in Joshua (Joshua 17:3). It is evident that the case made a deep impression upon the mind of the nation at the time. Their father's brothers' sons. The Hebrew word דּוד is always translated "father's brother," or "uncle;" and that seems to be its ordinary meaning, although in Jeremiah 32:12 it stands for uncle's son. There is no reason to depart from the customary reading here. No doubt the daughters of Zelophehad acted according to the spirit as well as the letter of the law, and married the nearest male relatives who were open to their choice. The Septuagint

Numbers 36:12

Numbers 36:13

Verse 13. - The commandments, הַמִּצות. This is one of the words which recur so continually in Deuteronomy and in Psalm 119. It is found four times in chapter 15, and in a few other passages of the earlier books, including Leviticus 27:34. The judgments. הַמִּשְׁפָטִים. A similar formula is found at the conclusion of Leviticus (Leviticus 26:46), where, however, "the commandments" represents a different word (הַחֻקִּים), and a third term, "the laws" (הַתּורֹת), is added. It is difficult to say confidently what is included under the "these" of this verse. Comparing it with Numbers 33:50, it would seem that it only referred to the final regulations and enactments of the last four chapters; but as we have no reason to believe that the later sections of the Book are arranged in any methodical order, we cannot limit its scope to those, or deny that it may include the laws of chapters 28-30. For a similar reason we cannot say that the use of this concluding formula excludes the possibility of further large additions having been subsequently made to the Divine legislation in the same place and by the same person, as recorded in the Book of Deuteronomy. All we can say is, that the Book of Numbers knows nothing about any such additions, and concludes in such sort as to make it a matter of surprise that such additions are afterwards met with. The continuity, which so clearly binds together the main bulk of the four books of Moses, ends with this verse. This fact does not of course decide any question which arises concerning the fifth book; it merely leaves all such questions to be determined on their own merits.

Numbers 36

1. And the chief fathers of the families. It might appear strange that God had given an imperfect law with reference to succession, as if what will be now stated had not occurred to His mind until Moses was reminded by the chief men of the families (of Machir,) (201) that it was unjust that the inheritances should be alienated, which would have been the case if the daughters of Zelophehad had married into other tribes, whereas their portion had fallen in the lot of the tribe of Manasseh. For whatever fell into the hands of those of another tribe, was a diminution of that lot. As, therefore, God had lately made provision for preserving the rights of individuals, He now treats of the general advantage or loss. What, then, can be the meaning of the objection, that God only half considered what was right? In my opinion, He so arranged His replies, that only when inquired of He assigned to each one his rights. The daughters of Zelophehad come, and demand justice of Moses and the elders, and God complies with their prayers. Now the heads of the tribe come, and agitate the question respecting the loss they would incur by the alienation of the inheritances; and it is then provided that other tribes should not be enriched by their loss. In short, whereas God might have spontaneously anticipated this, He preferred to grant it at the request of those who asked nothing but what was just and equitable. For it cannot be said that in this case it happened, as it often does, that, whilst every one pertinaciously maintains his own cause, and is eager to advance his own interests, one question arises out of another; for, when God has taken cognizance of the case, He pronounces that both parties only demanded what was right. It follows, therefore, that God designedly withheld His decisions until they naturally arose out of the circumstances of the case. It is a common saying that the law makes no provision for those things which rarely occur. (202) Thus it would have been commonly supposed that this law was superfluous; and especially it would have detracted somewhat from the authority of his teaching, if Moses had treated of this trifling matter, had not circumstances led to it. In fine, God allowed Himself to be interrogated familiarly with respect to doubtful points of no primary importance, in order that posterity might recognize His reply as a proof of His fatherly indulgence. Meanwhile, let us bear in mind that if heavenly things are the subject of as much anxiety to us, as earthly things were to the children of Manasseh, the rule that we should observe will always be made clear to us.



(201) Added from Fr.

(202) “De his, quae frequenter fieri solent, non quae raro, leges fieri debent.” 1. 3. et sequentibus ff. de legib.; 1. 3. Digest. si pars haeredit, petatur; 1.28. ff. de judiciis; 1. ea quae 64, de regul. juris.



2. And they said, The Lord commanded my lord. They here allege a kind of discrepancy, in that the tribes had had the land allotted to them agreeably to God’s command, but now their lots would be thrown into confusion, when the inheritance should pass over to another tribe. They assume it, however, to be an acknowledged impossibility, that God should be inconsistent with Himself: hence it was necessary that an interpretation should be delivered in order to remove the legal contradiction ( ἀντινομίαν ) The Law of God, say they, which ought to remain inviolable, enjoins that the land should be distxibuted by lot; how, then, will it accord that women should carry elsewhere the inheritance of their own tribe? Thus, in seeking a remedy for this evil, they submit themselves to God’s governance, and reverently accept what He had prescribed. And further, they enlarge upon the absurdity which would arisen from hence; viz., that in the fiftieth year, when they were to return to their original lots, so much would be withdrawn from the portion of the tribe of Manasseh as the daughters of Zelophehad had taken away with them. Reasonably, therefore, do they demand that a decree should be given to reconcile the two former laws, which otherwise appeared to be at variance with each other.



5. And Moses commanded the children of Israel. The account here given is not identical with the previous one, that Moses referred the matter to God; yet the same thing is more briefly stated, viz., that Moses answered the people out of the mouth of God, from whence we infer that God was consulted by him. Moreover, God not only decides in favor of the children of Manasseh, but approves of their appeal, in that they were contented with their allotment, and claim for themselves what could not be alienated without the violation of the Divine decree. From this particular occasion, a general law is laid down, that no woman to whom an inheritance had fallen, was to marry out of her tribe, because she would defraud her own relatives of her marriage portion. In this way, however, a free permission to marry was accorded to females, provided they renounced their paternal inheritance. The words, indeed, seem to be of wider application, i e., that no man should marry a wife, except of his own kindred; but the meaning of the law is to be sought from the cause which led to its enactment. Moreover, there is no doubt but that promiscuous marriages are here forbidden, in so far as they confound the order of hereditary rights.