Numbers 27

Updated
2001-05-26; 14:32:29utc

This chapter deals with two matters which, in our outline, fall under the heading:

C. Exceptions for Dividing the Land 27:1-11, and

D. Appointment for Israel's New Leader 27:12-23C. Exceptions for Dividing the Land: The inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad 27:1-11

The incident involving the inheritance of Zelophehad proves, on the one hand, that Judaism was not meant to be a purely male dominated religion, and on the other hand, that the name of the male members of a family marked the inheritance God gave to His people. The Pulpit Commentary remarks on this: "The case of Zelophehad's daughters is no doubt in keeping with that favorable consideration of women, as capable of claiming rights and holding a position of their own, which certainly distinguished the Mosaic legislation, and affected for good the Jewish character."

Zelophehad had five daughters, whose names are recorded: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah. These ladies valued the fact that they were members of the tribe of Manasseh, and they were proud of their father's name. They did not consider themselves merely to be the future wives of some men, and they were not willing to sacrifice their parental pride and let their family name go down in anonymity. So they spoke up in a way that demands our respect for their courage. The problem is, in a way, difficult for us to understand, since in our modern society names have lost their value. With some exceptions, names are no longer attached to character and immortality, as they were in Biblical times. The prevalent philosophy among people in the Old Testament seems to have been that a man had really died when his name was no longer remembered by his offspring.

The request of the ladies was not only an indication of their pride, but also of their faith. The people of Israel had not yet entered the promised land, and the division of the land was, as yet, a matter of hope only. Zelophehad's daughters dealt with God's promises as realities, and they acted upon them with foresight. Matthew Henry's Commentary says about this matter: "Those that seek an inheritance in the land of promise shall have what they seek, and other things shall be added to them. These are claims which God will countenance and crown."

Evidently, all five of them were still unmarried, and, consequently, they must still have been rather young. The annotation of The Pulpit Commentary on this is quite helpful to understand the portent of the girls' request: "The daughters of Zelophehad did not ask for any share of what had been their father's, but they asked that the lands which would have been assigned to their father in the settlement of Canaan might still be assigned to them, so that their father's name might attach to those lands, and be handed down with them. The request assumes that the 'brethren' of Zelophehad would receive an inheritance in the promised land, either personally or as represented by their sons; hence it seems clear that Zelophehad was not of the elder generation, which had forfeited all their rights and expectations in Canaan, but of the younger, to whom the inheritance was transferred (ch. xiv. 29-32). This is confirmed by the consideration that these women were not married until some time after this (ch. xxxvi. 11; cf. Josh. xvii. 3, 4), and must, therefore, according to the almost invariable custom, have been quite young at this time."

It is interesting to note that this particular matter of inheritance is mentioned three times in Scripture; that emphasizes the importance of inheritance.[ 1 ] It is brought up in the last chapter of Numbers, where it becomes clear that the request of the daughters would affect their marriages, and would put limitations on their choices for marriage. There is no indication in the Old Testament that the Jewish custom demanded that young girls marry without their consent. The daughters of Zelophehad imposed restrictions upon themselves by requesting this legislation, governing their father's inheritance. In our modern society it is generally taken for granted that marriages should be based, not so much on love between partners, as on being "in love." The fact that love could be the result of a higher motivation for marriage is not something that would be taken into consideration in our world of today. We do not even want to go into the matter that the bond of marriage itself is not thought to be relevant any more in our present age. Relationships are built upon transient amorous feelings; when those feelings change, the relationship breaks up, whether there is a legal marriage or not. The daughters of Zelophehad demonstrated that they believed in matters that were more important than being in love in considering matrimony. In their minds the inheritance God had promised to His people, and their father's share in this, took priority over their own desires for happiness.

Jesus leaves open the possibility of celibacy because of the kingdom of heaven. In Matthew's Gospel we read: "For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."[ 2 ] The implication of these words in our modern time seems to be that our choice of a marriage partner ought to be determined by God's priorities. The Apostle Paul gives some rather controversial advice about marriage in his first epistle to the Corinthians. One thing is very clear, however, that one of the conditions for a the marriage of a Christian is that his or her spouse is also a Christian. He says: "A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord."[ 3 ] Especially if God calls us to specific tasks in His kingdom, it is important that our choices, whether for marriage or for anything else, be determined by God's priorities.

The realistic way in which the daughters of Zelophehad presented their case before Moses is worth a closer look. They say: "Our father died in the desert. He was not among Korah's followers, who banded together against the LORD, but he died for his own sin and left no sons." The reference to Korah's rebellion seems to be puzzling, but we read about it in the previous chapter in the context of the census. Korah left sons who did receive an inheritance, in spite of their father's insurrection.[ 4 ] The Pulpit Commentary remarks about the phrase "he died for his own sin": "This cannot mean that Zelophehad was one of those who died in the wilderness in consequence of the rebellion of Kadesh. … Apparently his daughters meant to acknowledge that they had no complaint against the Divine justice because of their father's death, but only against the law because of the unnecessary hardship which it inflicted upon them." On the one hand this incident demonstrated the girls' pride in the name of their father, and on the other hand they recognized his sin. They did not idealize him as perfect. It is especially significant that the girls recognized the relationship between their father's sin and his death. In the context of the Israelite philosophy of life, it could also imply that the fact that Zelophehad left no sons behind at his death was considered a punishment for sin. But in any case the words confirm the biblical teaching that, in Paul's words: "The wages of sin is death."[ 5 ] It is true that we owe our mortality to Adam's sin, but we also inherited from him the tendency to sin, which demonstrates itself in our own sinful acts.

The result of the complaint of the daughters of Zelophehad is an important piece of legislation which regulates heritage in cases where there are no sons in the family. The Lord confirms that there is no difference in legal status before Him between male and female. In God's ordinance males are given priority over females in certain matters, but there is no question of superiority or inferiority. The Apostle Paul substantiates this in our new relationship with God in Jesus Christ, by saying: "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."[ 6 ]

Adam Clarke's Commentary states that in the Hebrew text some of the personal pronouns which refer to the daughters are in the feminine, whilst some that are masculine as if they refer to male members. This difference does not come through in the English translation. He dismisses the hidden meanings and spiritualization that some commentators have tried to deduct from this "curious anomaly," and concludes by saying: "Now the plain truth is, that the masculine is in the present printed text a mistake for the feminine. The Samaritan, which many think by far the most authentic copy of the Pentateuch, has the feminine gender in both places; so also have upwards of fourscore of the MSS. collated by Kennicott and De Rossi. Therefore all the curious reasons for this anomaly offered by interpreters are only serious trifling on the blunder of some heedless copyists."

Another interesting comment in the same commentary pertains to the names of the father and the daughters. Clarke himself also dismisses the importance of this, and he does not support the spiritual lessons some people draw from it, but the note is interesting enough to copy here: "Their names are mysterious; for Zelophehad, TSªLAAPªCHAD … signifies the shadow of fear or dread. His first daughter, MACHLAAH … infirmity; the second, NO`AAH … wandering; the third, CHAAGªLAAH … turning about or dancing for joy; the fourth, MILKAAH … a queen; the fifth, TIRTSAAH … well-pleasing or acceptable. By these names we may observe our reviving by grace in Christ; for we are all born of the shadow of fear, (Tselophehad,) being brought forth in sin, and through fear of death being all our life time subject to bondage, [Heb. 2:15]. This begets (Machlah) infirmity or sickness-- grief of heart for our estate. After which (Noah) wandering about for help and comfort we find it in Christ, by whom our sorrow is turned into joy (Choglah.) He communicates of his royalty (Milcah) to us, making us kings and priests unto God and his Father, [Rev. 1:6]. So we shall at last be presented unto him glorious and without blemish, being (Tirtsah) well-pleasing and acceptable in his sight. This is a specimen of pious INGENUITY, which has been endeavoring to do the work of an EVANGELIST in the church of God from the time of Origen to the present day."D. Appointment for Israel's New Leader 27:12-23

The second part of this chapter deals with the announcement of the imminent death of Moses, and the succession of leadership. In introducing this passage, The Pulpit Commentary notes: "It is impossible to determine the exact place of this announcement in the order of events narrated. It would appear from ch. xxxi. 1 that the war with the Midianites occurred later, and certainly the address to the people and to Joshua in Deut. xxxi. 1-8 presupposes the formal appointment here recorded; but the chronology of the concluding chapters of Numbers is evidently very uncertain; they may, or may not, be arranged in order of time. We may with good reason suppose that the summons to die was only separated from its fulfillment by the brief interval necessary to complete what work was yet unfinished (such as the punishment of the Midianites and the provisional settlement of the trans-Jordanic country) before the river was crossed."

Moses had known for quite a while that he, himself, would not be allowed to enter Canaan. After the failure of the brothers at Meribah, the Lord had said to them: "Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them."[ 7 ] Aaron had already died, and so there was no reason for Moses to believe that God would change His mind. In his great address to the people in Deuteronomy we learn that Moses had not given up without a struggle. We read there that he says: "At that time I pleaded with the LORD: 'O Sovereign LORD, you have begun to show to your servant your greatness and your strong hand. For what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do the deeds and mighty works you do? Let me go over and see the good land beyond the Jordan-- that fine hill country and Lebanon.' But because of you the LORD was angry with me and would not listen to me. 'That is enough,' the LORD said. 'Do not speak to me anymore about this matter. Go up to the top of Pisgah and look west and north and south and east. Look at the land with your own eyes, since you are not going to cross this Jordan.' "[ 8 ] The moment had come when Moses would have to die and leave behind the work he had begun, without being able to finish it. At the onset, when God had called him to be the shepherd of His people, he had said: "O Lord, please send someone else to do it."[ 9 ] Now he could not tear himself away.

Death is almost as much of a mystery for us as life is. The New Testament gives us greater insight into what is awaiting us, and we have the confidence that the keys of death and Hades are in the hands of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet, death remains for each of us "the undiscover'd country, from whose bourn no traveler returns."[ 10 ] People have fantasized about the dead, as if the dead can look down upon us from above. The Bible gives us no reason for this kind of illusion. God did not comfort Moses with the assurance that he would be able to see Canaan from a higher vantage point. As a matter of fact, the very experience of looking at the promised land from the top of Mount Abarim suggests that this would be the only time Moses would get to see the country. Once in heaven, he would, undoubtedly, know that Canaan was only an image of the reality into which God wanted him to enter. But, being on this side of the line of separation, Moses was dealing with the picture of reality. It was the only thing he could see, the only thing that was important to him at this point.

Moses' ascension to the top of the mountain was, in a way, a concession the Lord gave to him, which had been given to no one else. We do not read that Aaron was given this kind of vision before he died, nor that anybody else of the departed ones had seen the goal towards which they had journeyed. God gave Moses this special dispensation to soften the punishment. As we read above, this concession was given to him in answer to prayer.[ 11 ]

Moses' reply to God's summons is rather moving. There is no longer any question about arguing or pleading; his final thoughts are for the people of Israel whom he is about the leave behind. Moses introduces a phrase that will be used several times in Scripture, of Israel being "like sheep without a shepherd." The same phrase is used on three other occasions in the Bible. The prophet Micaiah, in predicting Ahab's death, uses the very same words.[ 12 ] The prophet Isaiah uses the words in a much wider sense to describe the condition of all mankind on the Day of God's Wrath.[ 13 ] And, finally, Jesus borrows the words in expressing His compassion on the people of Israel, as reported by Matthew and Mark, where we read: "When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd."[ 14 ] The words evoke a moving picture of helplessness in the face of danger. Jesus tells His disciples: "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."[ 15 ] Sheep without a shepherd are in danger of being torn apart by the wolves. Moses' use of the phrase indicates that he recognizes the enemy. The prophet Ezekiel would later use the same image, although he did not literally use the same words. In his prophecy God condemns those who call themselves shepherd but do not fulfill the task God laid upon them.[ 16 ]

Of course, God never intended to leave His people to be a prey for the wolves. In Ezekiel's prophecy we further read: "For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: 'I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness.' "[ 17 ] Moses' request, and Ezekiel's prophecy both point toward Him who was to come, and who said of Himself: "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."[ 18 ] Moses announced his coming with the words: "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him."[ 19 ] What he could not know was that this prophet, this shepherd would be, at the same time, the Lamb of God. Even for us, this paradox is almost too great to grasp. The wolves are conquered by the superior power of the Lamb they would like to kill and devour.

At this point in Israel's history, Joshua had already risen to a very prominent position, almost to the point that it would hardly be deemed necessary to ask the Lord to appoint another shepherd. Joshua's succession of Moses was a forgone conclusion. This makes Moses' prayer so remarkable. Moses leaves open the possibility that God's conclusions may be different from man's conclusions. He addresses God in a rather unusual way as: "the LORD, the God of the spirits of all mankind." Other translations, such as the KJV, render the phrase with: "the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh." The latter suggests a clearer insight into the way man is created, as a creature endowed with a spirit which links him to his Creator in a way no other creature on earth is. Moses' use of the term also seems to indicate that the human spirit is what determines man's personality; that which distinguishes him, not only from other creatures, but also from other human beings. No two men are alike on earth, because no two spirits are alike. And the Lord, YHWH, the God of the spirits, knows which is which. That is the reason we read about Joshua that he is: "a man in whom is the spirit." God knew Joshua, even better than Joshua knew himself. The Pulpit Commentary takes this to mean that it was the Holy Spirit who was upon Joshua. It seems more logical, though, that God speaks about Joshua's own human spirit, which he had developed into a strong medium of fellowship with God. The Holy Spirit would be given him through the imposition of hands by Moses and Eleazar. This corresponds with what we read in Deuteronomy, where we read: "Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him."[ 20 ]

So Joshua became Moses' official successor in a public commissioning ceremony. This is the first record of a succession of office. Moses had become the leader of Israel because God had called him personally. Joshua became the leader through the imposition of hands by Moses and Eleazar. There was no repetition of the personal call. We could say that Joshua was called "in Moses." God says to Moses: "Give him some of your authority so the whole Israelite community will obey him." The KJV renders this with: "And thou shalt put some of thine honour upon him." The Septuagint uses the word dóxes which means "glory." Whether this means that Joshua's face became radiant, like Moses' was when he received the Ten Commandments, we do not know. We read in Exodus: "When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the Testimony in his hands, he was not aware that his face was radiant because he had spoken with the LORD."[ 21 ] It seems, however, that the radiance on Moses' face was not a lasting phenomenon, but faded away after a period of time. It was the result of his moments of intimacy with God. Since Moses had just been spoken to by God at the time of Joshua's ordination, it could very well be that the radiance was present. We would expect, though, to find some mention of it at this point; although it may have become so common in the forty years since the experience on Mount Sinai, that nobody any longer paid any attention to it. The amazing part would be that this radiance could be transmitted to someone else. It would certainly have enhanced Joshua's authority among the people he was going to lead into the promised land, if, during the public ceremony his face shone with the same supernatural radiance that had been occasionally on Moses' face.

Moses' shoes would be hard to fill by anyone. He still towers over everybody else in the pages of the Old Testament. Even the transmission of divine glory from Moses to Joshua would not bring about that Joshua superseded his predecessor in Israel's history. There is one, though, who would; one whose name is the same as this Old Testament hero. The name Joshua, or Jehoshua in Hebrew means "the Lord is salvation," or "there is salvation in YHWH." It is the name of Jesus. The writer to the Hebrews says about this: "Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself."[ 22 ] And that Jesus superseded the Old Testament Joshua is clear from the words in the same epistle: "For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God," and, "Therefore, holy brothers, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest whom we confess."[ 23 ] Moses may have transmitted some authority to his successor, Jesus confesses: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."[ 24 ] And as far as glory is concerned, Jesus is called "The Lord of glory."[ 25 ] Also, the offices of High Priest and Shepherd of the nation are both combined in Christ. This fact may be foreshadowed in the imposition of hands, by both Eleazar and Moses, during the commissioning service. Each of the two men transferred some of their authority to the new leader. This did not mean that Joshua became also the High Priest of the nation, but the one he portrayed would exercise both offices.

We read that Eleazar would "obtain decisions for him by inquiring of the Urim before the LORD." According to The Pulpit Commentary the literal reading is: "who shall inquire for him in the judgment of Urim." The commentary further observes: "The Urim of this passage and of 1 Sam. xxviii. 6 seems identical with the Urim and Thummim of Exod. xxviii. 30; Levit. viii. 8. What it actually was, and how it was used in consulting God, is not told us in Scripture, and has left no reliable trace in the tradition of the Jews; it must, therefore, remain forever an insoluble mystery. It does not appear that Moses ever sought the judgment of Urim, for he possessed more direct means of ascertaining the will of God; nor does it seem ever to have been resorted to after the time of David, for the 'more sure word of prophecy' superseded it. Its real use, therefore, belonged to the dark ages of Israel, after the light of Moses had set, and before the light of the prophets had arisen." There is also no record in Scripture that Joshua ever sought the will of God by consulting the Urim and Thummim. But the absence of a record does never prove anything conclusively.

[ 1 ] Besides this chapter, see ch. 36, and Josh. 18:3,4

[ 2 ] Matt. 19:12

[ 3 ] I Cor. 7:39

[ 4 ] See ch. 26:11

[ 5 ] Rom. 6:23

[ 6 ] Gal. 3:26-29

[ 7 ] ch. 20:12

[ 8 ] Deut. 3:23-27

[ 9 ] Ex. 4:13

[ 10 ] Shakespeare: (From Hamlet's soliloquy).

[ 11 ] See Deut. 3:23-27

[ 12 ] See I Kings 22:17; II Chr. 18:16

[ 13 ] See Isa. 13:9-16

[ 14 ] Matt. 9:36; Mark 6:34

[ 15 ] Matt. 10:16

[ 16 ] See Ezek. 34:1-10; also Zech. 10:2

[ 17 ] Ezek. 34:11,12

[ 18 ] John 10:11

[ 19 ] Deut. 18:15

[ 20 ] Deut. 34:9

[ 21 ] Ex. 34:29

[ 22 ] Heb. 3:3

[ 23 ] Heb. 3:1

[ 24 ] Matt. 28:18

[ 25 ] I Cor. 2:8