John Calvin Commentary Numbers 36
John Calvin Commentary
Numbers 36
John Calvin Commentary
Numbers 36
"And the heads of the fathers` [houses] 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 spake before Moses, and before the princes, the heads of the fathers` [houses] of the children of Israel:" — Numbers 36:1 (ASV)
And the chief fathers of the families. It might appear strange that God had given an imperfect law regarding succession. It could seem as if what will now be stated had not occurred to Him until Moses was reminded by the chief men of the families (of Machir)201 that it was unjust for inheritances to be alienated. This alienation would have happened if the daughters of Zelophehad had married into other tribes, since their portion had fallen within the lot of the tribe of Manasseh.
For whatever fell into the hands of those from another tribe, was a reduction of that lot. Therefore, since God had recently made provision for preserving the rights of individuals, He now addresses 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 arranged His replies in such a way that He assigned to each one his rights only when He was asked. The daughters of Zelophehad came and demanded justice from Moses and the elders, and God complied with their prayers. Now the heads of the tribe came and raised the question concerning the loss they would incur from the alienation of the inheritances. Provision was then made that other tribes should not be enriched by their loss.
In short, while God could have spontaneously anticipated this, He preferred to grant it at the request of those who asked only for what was just and equitable. For it cannot be said that in this instance it happened, as it often does, that while everyone stubbornly maintains his own cause and is eager to advance his own interests, one question leads to another. For when God examined the case, He declared that both parties had only demanded what was right.
It follows, therefore, that God intentionally withheld His decisions until they naturally arose from the circumstances of the case. It is a common saying that the law makes no provision for things that rarely occur.202 Thus, it would have been commonly supposed that this law was superfluous. Indeed, it would have somewhat detracted from the authority of Moses' teaching if he had dealt with this trifling matter, had circumstances not led to it.
Finally, God allowed Himself to be consulted familiarly regarding doubtful points of no primary importance, so that posterity might recognize His reply as a proof of His fatherly indulgence. Meanwhile, let us remember that if heavenly things are the subject of as much concern to us as earthly things were to the children of Manasseh, the rule we should follow 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.
"and they said, Jehovah commanded my lord to give the land for inheritance by lot to the children of Israel: and my lord was commanded by Jehovah to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother unto his daughters." — Numbers 36:2 (ASV)
And they said, The Lord commanded my lord. They allege here a kind of discrepancy: the tribes had the land allotted to them according to God’s command, but now their lots would be thrown into confusion when the inheritance would pass to another tribe.
They assume, however, that it is an acknowledged impossibility for God to be inconsistent with Himself. Therefore, it was necessary for an interpretation to be delivered to remove the legal contradiction (ἀντινομίαν): The Law of God, they say, which ought to remain inviolable, enjoins that the land should be distributed by lot. How, then, will it be consistent for women to carry the inheritance of their own tribe elsewhere?
Thus, in seeking a remedy for this evil, they submit themselves to God’s governance and reverently accept what He had prescribed. Furthermore, they elaborate on the absurdity that would arise from this: namely, that in the fiftieth year, when they were to return to their original lots, as much would be withdrawn from the portion of the tribe of Manasseh as the daughters of Zelophehad had taken away with them.
Reasonably, therefore, they demand that a decree should be given to reconcile the two former laws, which otherwise appeared to be at variance with each other.
"And Moses commanded the children of Israel according to the word of Jehovah, saying, The tribe of the sons of Joseph speaketh right." — Numbers 36:5 (ASV)
And Moses commanded the children of Israel. The account given here is not identical to the previous one (that Moses referred the matter to God); yet the same thing is more briefly stated, namely, that Moses answered the people from the mouth of God, from which 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, since they were contented with their allotment and claim for themselves what could not be alienated without violating the Divine decree.
From this particular occasion, a general law is established, that no woman to whom an inheritance had fallen was to marry outside her tribe, because she would defraud her own relatives of her marriage portion. In this way, however, free permission to marry was granted to women, provided they renounced their paternal inheritance.
The words, indeed, seem to have a wider application, that is, that no man should marry a wife except from his own kindred; but the meaning of the law is to be sought from the cause that led to its enactment. Moreover, there is no doubt that indiscriminate marriages are forbidden here, insofar as they confound the order of hereditary rights.
Jump to: