Why does the Bible have these stories about the daughters of Zelophehad?

Have you ever read about the daughters of Zelophehad?

In reading through the Bible, I’ve skimmed over their stories more than a few times. They’re also included in the liturgical readings. We hear about them in a few places:

Numbers 27:1-11 - they ask Moses for inheritance rights

Numbers 36:1-12 - their tribal leaders ask that their inheritance remain within the tribe

Joshua 17:3-6 - the daughters receive the inheritance rights they requested

Overall, it’s quite a bit of text dedicated to these apparently minor characters. Three times? Why?

But in trying to figure out why their stories are in the Bible, I found myself quite frustrated.

In the commentaries I read, I found restatements of what the text says with little explanation of why their stories matter to our lives today.

The general story is that their father died, they had no brothers or husbands, and only men could inherit property. So, without official modification to Israel’s legal regulations, their father’s death would jeopardize their entire lives.

Feminism?
Some commentators state that these women are feminists who boldly advocated for women’s rights. While I wish this was true, the concept seems anachronistic.

After all, the daughters appeal is, in part, “Why should the name of our father be taken away from his clan?”

Second, in the final resolution of the story, Moses requires, “Any daughter who possesses an inheritance from an Israelite tribe must marry someone from the clan of her ancestral tribe, so that each of the Israelites will possess the inheritance of his fathers” (Numbers 36:8).

That is, in both stories, the legal concern is for the Israelites to possess the inheritance of their fathers. For this reason, among others, there are significant tensions in seeing this as an manifesto for women’s rights, though it definitely points in the right direction. For its fulfillment, we need to wait until, for instance, Galatians 3:27-29, which indisputably clarifies that men and women are both Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise.

Patriarchy?
Other commentators are concerned with the patriarchal nature of the texts.

Why did God organize a society with a legal code that favored men over women?

It’s a challenging question. I think Paul Copan’s response, using the wisdom of Jesus, is best:

How then did God address the patriarchal structures, primogeniture (rights of the firstborn), polygamy, warfare, servitude/slavery, and a number of other fallen social arrangements that were permitted because of the hardness of human hearts?

He met Israel partway. As Jesus stated it in Matthew 19:8, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.”

We could apply this passage to many problematic structures within the ancient Near Eastern context: “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted servitude and patriarchy and warfare and the like, but from the beginning it has not been this way.” They were not ideal and universal (Is God a Moral Monster?, 60)

But I still wanted a deeper, better understanding of this passage.

After considerable searching, I found a fascinating explanation by pastor Dean Ulrich in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (41/4 (December 1998)).

To make it more accessible, I want to recount the main points of his argument.

First, we have to consider if the book of Numbers even has a structure.

At the outset, he surveys how often scholars argue that Numbers lacks structure and organization.

But then he suggests this is wrong. In particular, he notes:

[Dr. Dennis] Olson cogently argues for a two-part outline founded on the censuses in Numbers 1 and 26. The book tells the tale of two generations, one that died because of unbelief (Numbers 1–25) and a second that must live by faith (Numbers 26–36).

The second must learn from the mistakes of the first. Otherwise it too will perish without participating in the inheritance of Canaan. The two censuses not only divide the book in half but also are integrally connected to the two wilderness events that figure most prominently in the confirmation of the writer’s thesis.

The spy story (Numbers 13–14) and the request of the Gadites and Reubenites (Numbers 32) are the two pivotal events—one for each generation. Each concerns Israel’s hesitation
to enter the promised land.

He summarizes,

The way into the promised land was not so much geographic (crossing the Jordan) as it was theological (paying careful attention to the law).

Therefore the book of Numbers calls the reader to an active faith in God’s promises. A lack of faith will yield death, but obedience will preserve a future inheritance. Hope for the imminent or distant future demands faith in the present.

Numbers 26–36 does not say whether the second generation persevered in covenantal obedience or not. The reader who is interested in the fate of the second generation must consult the book of Joshua.

Nevertheless the open-endedness of Numbers deliberately puts the reader in the shoes of the second generation and makes a claim on his ultimate commitments.

Which is more likely?

That the author (and any editors) of Numbers collected a random set of stories and put them together? Or that they wanted to remember these stories to warn God’s people against disobedience and encourage them to place their faith in God?

Therefore, we need to read even the smaller stories in light of the bigger picture:

According to David J. A. Clines, “the theme of the Pentateuch is the partial fulfillment—which implies also the partial nonfulfillment—of the promise to or blessing of the patriarchs.” Even ostensibly provincial rulings, such as those that concern Zelophehad’s daughters, must be interpreted in view of this overarching perspective.

It makes sense, right? Once we know the context, as defined in part by the structure and overarching themes, then we have a frame of reference for making sense of the smaller stories.

The next puzzle is the focus on the land.

Why is land so important? In modern America, land is still important, but it primarily functions as a kind of security, wealth, or status.

Ulrich’s argument continues,

Numbers, then, fits, into a larger corpus that looks beyond itself to the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. By means of exodus, God proved his faithfulness to the patriarchs and their seed. On the strength of God’s word to Abraham (Gen 15:13–16), Moses’ generation could expect to inherit the promised land.

The promise of land, however, could be apprehended only by a faith that manifested itself in obedience. The Pentateuch not only recorded the covenantal promises but also prescribed the way of obedient faith.

Therefore Israel’s law was not an end in itself. Rather, the law prepared God’s people to conduct themselves as a kingdom of priests in the midst of a pagan world (Exod 19:6). The eschatological hope of the Pentateuch is the reunification of the world in the worship of Abraham’s God.

Israel will bring blessing to the nations (Gen 12:2–3). The land acts as the stage for the drama of Israel’s evangelistic mission. Depending on Israel’s obedience or disobedience, the stage would be set with blessings or curses (emphasis added).

With this, we have clarity about the functional significance of land in the Old Testament.

If the people of Israel are in the land of Israel, then they are faithful (or receiving patient mercy before judgment comes).

If the people of Israel are forbidden from entering the land, or exiled from it, then they have received judgment for their sins.

(Which raises a related, interesting question: what is the ‘land’ in the New Testament, after the arrival of Jesus?)

With a more robust understanding of the meaning of land, we can finally turn to understand the question raised by Zelophehad’s daughters.

What is the significance of their request?

Ulrich writes:

As indicated by God’s answer (Num 27:7), the daughters of Zelophehad asked a question dealing with the essence of covenantal membership. Unlike the first generation they displayed a faith that expected God to bless those who cling to his promises. God could not simply disinherit them because the vicissitudes of life did not grant a son to their father. The certainty of the covenant did not depend on favorable circumstances but on the faithful character of God.

Here at the beginning of the story about the second generation the author of Numbers presents these daughters as examples of true Israelites. Such people persist in their commitment and prove their election by God. To these people God delights to give an inheritance.

Again, I think ‘feminism’ is anachronistic in the extreme, as it’s a very modern term introduced roughly three millennia later.

But what is brought into very sharp, clear focus is that five women, without male protection, at risk of losing all property rights and economic status, appeal to God by speaking to his prophet, Moses, and ask for what is theirs on the basis of faith.

And remarkably, God guides Moses to grant their request!

Think about it! How often do men write stories where women are the heroes to be imitated?

However, there’s still a question to be resolved:

Why is the story separated into two parts in Numbers? Editorial laziness?

Ulrich raises it:

What remains unclear is the separation of Num 27:1–11 from its sequel in Numbers 36. 6. This latter narrative presents the concerns of the clan leaders within the tribe of
Manasseh…

Quite possibly the men of Manasseh voiced their concern soon after Moses had reported the Lord’s edict to the daughters. That someone separated these two related incidents does not seem to make sense. Or does it?

Burke O. Long demonstrates from OT historical texts that “the resumptive repetition of words, phrases, or sentences to form a framework around other literary material” does not signify clumsy redactional activity but deliberate narrative technique.

So, what is the point of the story being split into two?

Ulrich brings it all together:

According to Josh 17:3–4, the daughters of Zelophehad eventually received their father’s tracts of land.

The writer of Joshua recorded that these women made a special effort to remind Eleazar, Joshua, and the leaders about the Lord’s pronouncement through Moses. Whether this earlier decision had been forgotten by the leaders is not specified.

The daughters, however, did not forget God’s promise but clung to it until the moment of its fulfillment. That the book of Numbers does not record the actual inheritance of the land accentuates the steadfast faith of these daughters.

Their legacy frames the intermediate hortatory material with a real-life illustration of dynamic confidence in God.

Rather than being haphazardly separated and/or appended to the end of the book, Num 27:1–11 and 36:1–13 form an inclusio that frames the deliberately unfinished story of the second generation.

Zelophehad’s daughters exemplified the faith that tenaciously clung to the Lord despite adverse circumstances. In contrast to the shortsightedness and concomitant unbelief of the first generation, the daughters’ eschatological outlook provided the necessary impetus for obeying the stipulations of the covenant.

What a stunning conclusion:

These vulnerable women are the picture of faith in God that bookend the entire second half of Numbers.

I didn’t expect to find this from a study of such minor characters.

Given that it is so surprising, I wanted to test if this interpretation makes sense.

As I continued looking, I found additional support from Dennis Cole in the New American Commentary. He writes,

As noted above on v. 5, faithful obedience to the Lord’s commands is one of the key themes, if not the central theme, of the Book of Numbers. Note the parallel usage of the Hebrew ṣiwwâ (command) in the chiastic structure of vv. 5 and 6 with vv. 10 and 13:

36:5 Moses commanded the Israelites according to the word of Yahweh

36:6 This is the word which Yahweh commanded for the daughters of Zelophehad

36:10 According to that which Yahweh commanded Moses, thus the daughters of Zelophehad did

36:13 These are the commandments & statutes which Yahweh commanded by the hand of Moses for the Israelites.

So, there it is. The second narrative about them ends with an emphatic, repetitive chiasm that highlights that the daughters of Zelophehad were women of faith and obedience who honored God.

At first glance, these stories appear to be scattered, strange, irrelevant texts about land inheritance in ancient Israel.

But upon deeper study, we discover that these vulnerable women are spiritual examples that we are invited to admire and imitate.

These stories then point to a larger truth: God rewards the faith of his people, regardless of their gender, social status, or power.

It’s a shame that their story is sometimes relegated to women’s Bible studies — all of God’s people, men and women, need to reflect on their example,

So: May Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah be women we remember, honor, and imitate - and experience God’s care for our challenging circumstances.

2 Likes