1 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.
2 They said, “Yahweh commanded my lord to give the land for inheritance by lot to the children of Israel. My lord was commanded by Yahweh to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother to his daughters.
3 If they are married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then their inheritance will be taken away from the inheritance of our fathers, and will be added to the inheritance of the tribe to which they shall belong. So it will be taken away from the lot of our inheritance.
4 When the jubilee of the children of Israel comes, then their inheritance will be added to the inheritance of the tribe to which they shall belong. So their inheritance will be taken away from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers.”
5 Moses commanded the children of Israel according to Yahweh’s word, saying, “The tribe of the sons of Joseph speak what is right.
6 This is the thing which Yahweh commands concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, ‘Let them be married to whom they think best, only they shall marry into the family of the tribe of their father.
7 So shall no inheritance of the children of Israel move from tribe to tribe; for the children of Israel shall all keep the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers.
8 Every daughter who possesses an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel shall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may each possess the inheritance of his fathers.
9 So shall no inheritance move from one tribe to another tribe; for the tribes of the children of Israel shall each keep his own inheritance.’”
10 The daughters of Zelophehad did as Yahweh commanded Moses:
11 for Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married to their father’s brothers’ sons.
12 They were married into the families of the sons of Manasseh the son of Joseph. Their inheritance remained in the tribe of the family of their father.
13 These are the commandments and the ordinances which Yahweh commanded by Moses to the children of Israel in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho.
7 passages from writers of 2 traditions, in their own words, each with their dates and tradition. The site doesn’t say who is right: read them beside the verses. About these
Reading as
Questions they answer differently
On verse
Oldest first.
Josephus37–c. 100JewishAntiquities of the Jews · on Numbers 36:1–9At this time the chief men of the tribe of Manasseh came to Moses, and informed him that there was an eminent man of their tribe dead, whose name was Zelophehad, who left no male children, but left daughters; and asked him whether these daughters might inherit his land or not. He made this answer, That if they shall marry into their own tribe, they shall carry their estate along with them; but if they dispose of themselves in marriage to men of another tribe, they shall leave their inheritance in their father's tribe. And then it was that Moses ordained, that every one's inheritance should continue in his own tribe.
At this time the chief men of the tribe of Manasseh came to Moses, and informed him that there was an eminent man of their tribe dead, whose name was Zelophehad, who left no male children, but left daughters; and asked him whether these daughters might inherit his land or not. He made this answer, That if they shall marry into their own tribe, they shall carry their estate along with them; but if they dispose of themselves in marriage to men of another tribe, they shall leave their inheritance in their father's tribe. And then it was that Moses ordained, that every one's inheritance should continue in his own tribe.
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Antiquities 4.7.5; translated by William Whiston (1737); the text of Project Gutenberg. The edition
A Jewish priest from Jerusalem who fought Rome in the war of 66–70 and afterwards wrote the history of his people for Greek readers.
John Calvin1509–1564ReformedCommentaries · on Numbers 36:1–4It 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 … 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. … 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.
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 … 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. … 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.
John Calvin, Commentaries, on 36:1; Calvin Translation Society (Edinburgh, 1843–1855); the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
The French reformer of Geneva, from whose teaching the Reformed and Presbyterian churches come.
Matthew Henry1662–1714English PresbyterianCommentary on the Whole Bible · on Numbers 36:1–4They 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. … 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. … But here, we may presume, the personal merit of these daughters recommended them as well as their fortunes; … 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
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. … 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. … But here, we may presume, the personal merit of these daughters recommended them as well as their fortunes; … 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
Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, on 36:1–4; 1706–1714; the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
An English Presbyterian minister whose commentary on the whole Bible Protestants have read for three centuries.
Matthew Henry1662–1714English PresbyterianCommentary on the Whole Bible · on Numbers 36:5–9They are not determined to any particular persons; there was choice enough in the family of their father: Let them marry to whom they think best. As children must preserve the authority of their parents, and not marry against their minds, so parents must consult the affections of their children in disposing of them, and not compel them to marry such as they cannot love. Forced marriages are not likely to prove blessings. … Yet they are confined to their own relations, that their inheritance may not go to another family. … The inheritances must not remove from tribe to tribe (Num 36:7), lest there should be confusion among them, their estates entangled, and their genealogies perplexed. God would not have one tribe to be enriched by the straitening and impoverishing of another, since they were all alike the seed of Abraham his friend.
They are not determined to any particular persons; there was choice enough in the family of their father: Let them marry to whom they think best. As children must preserve the authority of their parents, and not marry against their minds, so parents must consult the affections of their children in disposing of them, and not compel them to marry such as they cannot love. Forced marriages are not likely to prove blessings. … Yet they are confined to their own relations, that their inheritance may not go to another family. … The inheritances must not remove from tribe to tribe (Num 36:7), lest there should be confusion among them, their estates entangled, and their genealogies perplexed. God would not have one tribe to be enriched by the straitening and impoverishing of another, since they were all alike the seed of Abraham his friend.
Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, on 36:5–13; 1706–1714; the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
An English Presbyterian minister whose commentary on the whole Bible Protestants have read for three centuries.
John Wesley1703–1791MethodistExplanatory Notes upon the Old Testament · on Numbers 36:8–9This law was not general to forbid every woman to marry into another tribe, as may be reasonably concluded from the practice of so many patriarchs, kings, priests, and other holy men, who have married women of other tribes, yea sometimes of other nations, but restrained to heiresses, or such as were likely to be so. But if they had brethren, they were free to marry into any tribe, yet so that, if their brethren died, the inheritance went from them to the next a - kin of their father's tribe and family. And the principal reason why God was solicitous to preserve tribes and families unmixed was, that the tribe and family too, out of which the Messiah was to come, and by which he should be known, might be evident and unquestionable.
This law was not general to forbid every woman to marry into another tribe, as may be reasonably concluded from the practice of so many patriarchs, kings, priests, and other holy men, who have married women of other tribes, yea sometimes of other nations, but restrained to heiresses, or such as were likely to be so. But if they had brethren, they were free to marry into any tribe, yet so that, if their brethren died, the inheritance went from them to the next a - kin of their father's tribe and family. And the principal reason why God was solicitous to preserve tribes and families unmixed was, that the tribe and family too, out of which the Messiah was to come, and by which he should be known, might be evident and unquestionable.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament, on 36:8–13; Bristol, 1765. The edition
The Anglican priest who began the Methodist movement; his notes on the Bible were written for ordinary readers.
Adam Clarkec. 1760–1832MethodistCommentary on the Holy Bible · on Numbers 36:13Thus ends the book of Numbers, containing a series of astonishing providences and events. Scarcely any piece of history in the sacred writings is better calculated to impress the mind of a serious reader with a sense of the goodness and severity of God. In every transaction his holiness and justice appear in closest union with his benevolence and mercy. … The journeyings of this people, from the time they left Egypt, exhibit a series of providential wonders. … Art thou, like the Israelites, come into the plains of Moab, on the very verge of the promised land? Jordan alone separates thee from the promised inheritance.
Thus ends the book of Numbers, containing a series of astonishing providences and events. Scarcely any piece of history in the sacred writings is better calculated to impress the mind of a serious reader with a sense of the goodness and severity of God. In every transaction his holiness and justice appear in closest union with his benevolence and mercy. … The journeyings of this people, from the time they left Egypt, exhibit a series of providential wonders. … Art thou, like the Israelites, come into the plains of Moab, on the very verge of the promised land? Jordan alone separates thee from the promised inheritance.
Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible, on 36:13; 1810–1826; the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
A Methodist preacher and scholar from Ulster, whose commentary on the whole Bible took him nearly forty years.
Jamieson, Fausset and Brownpublished 1871Presbyterian and AnglicanA Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments · on Numbers 36:5–12The plea appeared just and reasonable; and, accordingly an enactment was made by which the daughters of Zelophehad, while left to the free choice of their husbands, were restricted to marry not only within their own tribe, but within the family of their father's tribe--that is, one of their cousins. This restriction, however, was imposed only on those who were heiresses. The law was not applicable to daughters in different circumstances (Ch1 23:22) --for they might marry into another tribe; but if they did so, they were liable to forfeit their patrimonial inheritance, which, on the death of their father or brothers, went to the nearest of the family kinsmen. Here was an instance of progressive legislation (see also Exo 18:27) in Israel, the enactments made being suggested by circumstances. But it is deserving of special notice that those additions to, or modifications of, the law were confined to civil affairs; while the slightest change was inadmissible in the laws relating to worship or the maintenance of religion.
The plea appeared just and reasonable; and, accordingly an enactment was made by which the daughters of Zelophehad, while left to the free choice of their husbands, were restricted to marry not only within their own tribe, but within the family of their father's tribe--that is, one of their cousins. This restriction, however, was imposed only on those who were heiresses. The law was not applicable to daughters in different circumstances (Ch1 23:22) --for they might marry into another tribe; but if they did so, they were liable to forfeit their patrimonial inheritance, which, on the death of their father or brothers, went to the nearest of the family kinsmen. Here was an instance of progressive legislation (see also Exo 18:27) in Israel, the enactments made being suggested by circumstances. But it is deserving of special notice that those additions to, or modifications of, the law were confined to civil affairs; while the slightest change was inadmissible in the laws relating to worship or the maintenance of religion.
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, on 36:5–12; 1871; the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
Three ministers, two Scottish Presbyterians and an Irish Anglican, whose commentary on the whole Bible was written to be short and plain.
Numbers 36
Numbers 36:1–13, World English Bible
Numbers 36 in the Bible · Told in the Story: Chapter 13, The Journey Remembered
What others have written
7 passages from writers of 2 traditions, in their own words, each with their dates and tradition. The site doesn’t say who is right: read them beside the verses. About these
Oldest first.
Josephus37–c. 100JewishAntiquities of the Jews · on Numbers 36:1–9At this time the chief men of the tribe of Manasseh came to Moses, and informed him that there was an eminent man of their tribe dead, whose name was Zelophehad, who left no male children, but left daughters; and asked him whether these daughters might inherit his land or not. He made this answer, That if they shall marry into their own tribe, they shall carry their estate along with them; but if they dispose of themselves in marriage to men of another tribe, they shall leave their inheritance in their father's tribe. And then it was that Moses ordained, that every one's inheritance should continue in his own tribe.
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Antiquities 4.7.5; translated by William Whiston (1737); the text of Project Gutenberg. The edition
A Jewish priest from Jerusalem who fought Rome in the war of 66–70 and afterwards wrote the history of his people for Greek readers.
John Calvin1509–1564ReformedCommentaries · on Numbers 36:1–4It 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 … 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. … 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.
John Calvin, Commentaries, on 36:1; Calvin Translation Society (Edinburgh, 1843–1855); the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
The French reformer of Geneva, from whose teaching the Reformed and Presbyterian churches come.
Matthew Henry1662–1714English PresbyterianCommentary on the Whole Bible · on Numbers 36:1–4They 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. … 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. … But here, we may presume, the personal merit of these daughters recommended them as well as their fortunes; … 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
Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, on 36:1–4; 1706–1714; the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
An English Presbyterian minister whose commentary on the whole Bible Protestants have read for three centuries.
Matthew Henry1662–1714English PresbyterianCommentary on the Whole Bible · on Numbers 36:5–9They are not determined to any particular persons; there was choice enough in the family of their father: Let them marry to whom they think best. As children must preserve the authority of their parents, and not marry against their minds, so parents must consult the affections of their children in disposing of them, and not compel them to marry such as they cannot love. Forced marriages are not likely to prove blessings. … Yet they are confined to their own relations, that their inheritance may not go to another family. … The inheritances must not remove from tribe to tribe (Num 36:7), lest there should be confusion among them, their estates entangled, and their genealogies perplexed. God would not have one tribe to be enriched by the straitening and impoverishing of another, since they were all alike the seed of Abraham his friend.
Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, on 36:5–13; 1706–1714; the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
An English Presbyterian minister whose commentary on the whole Bible Protestants have read for three centuries.
John Wesley1703–1791MethodistExplanatory Notes upon the Old Testament · on Numbers 36:8–9This law was not general to forbid every woman to marry into another tribe, as may be reasonably concluded from the practice of so many patriarchs, kings, priests, and other holy men, who have married women of other tribes, yea sometimes of other nations, but restrained to heiresses, or such as were likely to be so. But if they had brethren, they were free to marry into any tribe, yet so that, if their brethren died, the inheritance went from them to the next a - kin of their father's tribe and family. And the principal reason why God was solicitous to preserve tribes and families unmixed was, that the tribe and family too, out of which the Messiah was to come, and by which he should be known, might be evident and unquestionable.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament, on 36:8–13; Bristol, 1765. The edition
The Anglican priest who began the Methodist movement; his notes on the Bible were written for ordinary readers.
Adam Clarkec. 1760–1832MethodistCommentary on the Holy Bible · on Numbers 36:13Thus ends the book of Numbers, containing a series of astonishing providences and events. Scarcely any piece of history in the sacred writings is better calculated to impress the mind of a serious reader with a sense of the goodness and severity of God. In every transaction his holiness and justice appear in closest union with his benevolence and mercy. … The journeyings of this people, from the time they left Egypt, exhibit a series of providential wonders. … Art thou, like the Israelites, come into the plains of Moab, on the very verge of the promised land? Jordan alone separates thee from the promised inheritance.
Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible, on 36:13; 1810–1826; the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
A Methodist preacher and scholar from Ulster, whose commentary on the whole Bible took him nearly forty years.
Jamieson, Fausset and Brownpublished 1871Presbyterian and AnglicanA Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments · on Numbers 36:5–12The plea appeared just and reasonable; and, accordingly an enactment was made by which the daughters of Zelophehad, while left to the free choice of their husbands, were restricted to marry not only within their own tribe, but within the family of their father's tribe--that is, one of their cousins. This restriction, however, was imposed only on those who were heiresses. The law was not applicable to daughters in different circumstances (Ch1 23:22) --for they might marry into another tribe; but if they did so, they were liable to forfeit their patrimonial inheritance, which, on the death of their father or brothers, went to the nearest of the family kinsmen. Here was an instance of progressive legislation (see also Exo 18:27) in Israel, the enactments made being suggested by circumstances. But it is deserving of special notice that those additions to, or modifications of, the law were confined to civil affairs; while the slightest change was inadmissible in the laws relating to worship or the maintenance of religion.
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, on 36:5–12; 1871; the text of the Free Use Bible API. The edition
Three ministers, two Scottish Presbyterians and an Irish Anglican, whose commentary on the whole Bible was written to be short and plain.