Numbers 27:1-11 Then came the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh… I. THE POSSIBLE INJUSTICE CONSEQUENT ON A STRICT ADHERENCE TO SOCIAL TRADITIONS. Try to imagine how this appeal of the daughters of Zelophehad arises. Canaan is now very near, the borders of it visible across the flood; and God has just told Moses the great general principles on which it is to be allotted. Thus the minds of the people are naturally filled with the thoughts of the inheritance. They can no longer complain of being in desolate places. There was good land even before they crossed Jordan (chapter 32), and so Canaan was looked forward to with great expectations. In such circumstances, every family would be on the look-out to anticipate and assert its share. The disciples after they had heard Jesus discoursing so frequently and earnestly on the coming kingdom of heaven, fell to in hot rivalry as to who should be greatest in the kingdom. So here we may well suppose that the sons of Hepher were only too ready to reckon the daughters of their brother Zelophehad as outside any right to the land that would fall to Hepher's children. Natural relations are only too easily trampled on in the greed of gain. Disputes over the division of property breed and sustain deadly quarrels among kindred (Luke 12:13). Very possibly the brothers of Zelophehad told their nieces that they had no claim to inherit, it being the settled custom that inheritances were to go to sons. Let them be satisfied with marriage into some other family. But the daughters felt pride in their father's name. They do not claim great things for him, feeling that such a claim would not accord with the lot of one who belonged to the doomed generation; but at all events they can say that he died in his own sin; he was free from the taint of that great rebellion which left so deep an impression on Israel's mind. Why then should his name perish from among his family, because he had no son? The answer which we are led to infer is very simple; very worldly also, it is true, but all the more conceivable because of that, "We cleave to our customs; we cannot even give way to feelings which are so creditable to daughters." This perhaps openly - then in their own hearts they would add, "They are only women; they can do nothing." II. A BOLD REVOLT AGAINST THE ARTIFICIAL DISABILITIES OF SEX. We have imagined an actual refusal to let these women share in the possession. But even if it were not actual, they have a shrewd idea of what will happen, and come appealing to Moses, in the most public manner, so that they may have his weighty authority to settle the matter before he goes. They were but women, yet they had all a man's decision and courage - and more than belongs to most men - to break away from all conventional notions rather than tamely submit to injustice. Paul's disapproval of women speaking in the churches was of course very good as pointing out a general rule, but probably he would have allowed, on a prudent occasion for allowing it, that it was a rule not without exceptions. He may have reckoned it well at the time, for reasons drawn from the state of a particular church, to make the injunctions express and decided. Who were to speak for these women, if not they themselves? When the down-trodden find no sufficient advocate among spectators, it is time for them to raise their own voices. Is it not plain that these women were the best judges of their own position? So in the pressure of modern social life, is it not very inconsistent with the maintenance of liberty and truth, to hinder women from asserting their claims in whatever way they deem best? They may indeed be unfit for many fields of labour which they profess their fitness and anxiety to occupy, but at all events let them discover the unfitness for themselves. Has it not been said beforehand of many achieved and glorious facts that they were impossible of attainment? Modern history abounds with such disgraced predictions. Paul said, "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind," which is surely every whit as needful and every whit as serviceable for the woman as the man. III. THE ACTION OF THESE WOMEN WAS JUSTIFIED BY THE RESULT. God approves their action, as they gain from him the authoritative laying down of a general principle, applied indeed to property, but surely of equal application to all disabilities of sex which arise in other ways than from the impassable limits of nature. God has written for the woman, in her own nature, certain laws she must not transgress, but he never gave man the right to construe these laws, certainly not after the domineering fashion he so frequently adopts. It is undoubtedly true that God made the woman for the man; human nature finds here its completeness, derives hence the means of its continuance, and that diversity of personality and character which constitute so much of the peculiar riches of humanity. But man is not therefore to settle the woman's sphere with his strong and irresponsible hand. Is it not a thing almost certain that many disabilities of sex have arisen through man being from the first the stronger? In the days when might made right - He took advantage of his strength to be First in the field. There is a parallel between much in man's treatment of woman and his treatment of the Sabbath. Christ had to free the Sabbath, in his day, from Pharisees. It had been so fettered up by opinionated, obstinate clingers to the traditions of the fathers, as to have become useless for its original purposes, a burden and a terror more than anything else. He freed it by the great declaration that the Sabbath was made for man, and now we have those who rush to the other extreme, and quote his words for purposes utterly alien from his own. So there are the two extremes in judging the place of woman and the scope of her life and service. Some, blindly wedded to custom, would shut woman up in strict limitations, which though not as degrading as those of a Turkish harem, are quite as unjust and injurious in their own way. Others there are who seem inclined to claim for women more than nature in its utmost kindliness will ever yield. Women, who know their own nature best, can be the only true judges, ever under the guidance of God himself, as to the capabilities of their sex. Paul pleading for oneness in Christ Jesus, says, that in relation to him, as there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, so there is neither male nor female. The woman is on the same level as the man in the sight of Christ. To Christ she is directly responsible, bound to serve him with the fullness of her powers. Hence to take the highest ground, that of allegiance to Christ, it is unfaithfulness to him to put even the smallest obstacles in the way of women acting as their own hearts tell them they may best serve their Master. IV. WE SEE A GOD OF EQUITY SHOWING HIS DISREGARD FOR MERE LEGAL RIGHTS. Nowhere is it shown more clearly than in the Scriptures that law is one thing and equity another. How should a world ignorant of the righteousness of God, and full of the selfish and domineering, make laws such as he will sanction and uphold? "We have law with us," the uncles may have said. Possibly so; but not the law of him who spoke from Sinai. Any law of men which contradicts the law of love to God, and love to the neighbour, is doomed in the very making of it. And is it not a blessed thing that such laws get broken and ultimately destroyed by the energy of an expanding life which cannot be contained within them? (Matthew 9:10-13; Matthew 12:1-13; Matthew 15:1-20; Matthew 19:8-9; Matthew 22:34-40; Romans 14:5; Galatians 3:28). - Y. Parallel Verses KJV: Then came the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph: and these are the names of his daughters; Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah. |
    |