Numbers 35:30–36:13

Whoso killeth any person,.... Willingly, and through enmity and malice: the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of two witnesses; which is repeated partly to show, that this law concerning the cities of refuge was not designed to screen a murderer, who was guilty through malice prepense; and partly for the sake of what is added to it, that two witnesses are required in such a case, where a man's life is at stake, to prove the fact against him; which shows how careful the Lord is, and men should be, of the lives of his creatures, that no man suffer wrongfully; which is repeated again and again, that it might be observed, see Deuteronomy 17:6 but one witness shall not testify against any person, to cause him to die; which looks as if in other cases, in pecuniary matters, and the like, where life is not concerned, one witness may be sufficient; though it is always best and safest to have more if they can be had, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses everything may be established, Deuteronomy 19:15.

We have here the orders given concerning the cities of refuge, fitly annexed to what goes before, because they were all Levites' cities. In this part of the constitution there is a great deal both of good law and pure gospel. I. Here is a great deal of good law, in the case of murder and manslaughter, a case of which the laws of all nations have taken particular cognizance. It is here enacted and provided, consonant to natural equity, 1. That wilful murder should be punished with death, and in that case no sanctuary should be allowed, no ransom taken, nor any commutation of the punishment accepted: The murderer shall surely be put to death, v. 16. It is supposed to be done of hatred (v. 20), or in enmity (v. 21), upon a sudden provocation (for our Saviour makes rash anger, as well as malice prepense, to be murder, Matt. v. 21, 22), whether the person be murdered with an instrument of iron (v. 16) or wood (v. 18), or with a stone thrown at him (v. 17, 20); nay, if he smite him with his hand in enmity, and death ensue, it is murder (v. 21); and it was an ancient law, consonant to the law of nature, that whoso sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, Gen. ix. 6. Where wrong has been done restitution must be made; and, since the murderer cannot restore the life he has wrongfully taken away, his own must be exacted from him in lieu of it, not (as some have fancied) to satisfy the manes or ghost of the person slain, but to satisfy the law and the justice of a nation; and to be a warning to all others not to do likewise. It is here said, and it is well worthy the consideration of all princes and states, that blood defiles not only the conscience of the murderer, who is thereby proved not to have eternal life abiding in him (1 John iii. 15), but also the land in which it is shed; so very offensive is it to God and all good men, and the worst of nuisances. And it is added that the land cannot be cleansed from the blood of the murdered, but by the blood of the murderer, v. 33. If murderers escape punishment from men, those that suffer them to escape will have a great deal to answer for, and God will nevertheless not suffer them to escape his righteous judgments. Upon the same principle it is provided that no satisfaction should be taken for the life of a murderer (v. 31): If a man would give all the substance of his house to the judges, to the country, or to the avenger of blood, to atone for his crime, it must utterly be contemned. The redemption of the life is so precious that it cannot be obtained by the multitude of riches (Ps. xlix. 6-8), which perhaps may allude to this law. A rule of law comes in here (which is a rule of our law in cases of treason only) that no man shall be put to death upon the testimony of one witness, but it was necessary there should be two (v. 30); this law is settled in all capital cases, Deut. xvii. 6; xix. 15. And, lastly, not only the prosecution, but the execution, of the murderer, is committed to the next of kin, who, as he was to be the redeemer of his kinsman's estate if it were mortgaged, so he was to be the avenger of his blood if he were murdered (v. 19): The avenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer, if he be convicted by the notorious evidence of the fact, and he needed not to have recourse by a judicial process to the court of judgment. But if it were uncertain who the murderer was, and the proof doubtful, we cannot think that his bare suspicion, or surmise, would empower him to do that which the judges themselves could not do but upon the testimony of two witnesses. Only if the fact were plain then the next heir of the person slain might himself, in a just indignation, slay the murderer wherever he met him. Some think this must be understood to be after the lawful judgment of the magistrate, and so the Chaldee says, "He shall slay him, when he shall be condemned unto him by judgment;" but it should seem, by v. 24, that the judges interposed only in a doubtful case, and that if the person on whom he took vengeance was indeed the murderer, and a wilful murderer, the avenger was innocent (v. 27), only, if it proved otherwise, it was at his peril. Our law allows an appeal to be brought against a murderer by the widow, or next heir, of the person murdered, yea, though the murderer have been acquitted upon an indictment; and, if the murderer be found guilty upon that appeal, execution shall be awarded at the suit of the appellant, who may properly be called the avenger of blood. 2. But if the homicide was not voluntary, nor done designedly, if it was without enmity, or lying in wait (v. 22), not seeing the person or not seeking his harm (v. 23), which our law calls chance-medley, or homicide per infortunium—through misfortune, in this case there were cities of refuge appointed for the manslayer to flee to. By our law this incurs a forfeiture of goods, but a pardon is granted of course upon the special matter found. Concerning the cities of refuge the law was, (1.) That, if a man killed another, in these cities he was safe, and under the protection of the law, till he had his trial before the congregation, that is, before the judges in open court. If he neglected thus to surrender himself, it was at his peril; if the avenger of blood met him elsewhere, or overtook him loitering in his way to the city of refuge, and slew him, his blood was upon his own head, because he did not make use of the security which God had provided for him. (2.) If, upon trial, it were found to be willful murder, the city of refuge should no longer be a protection to him; it was already determined: Thou shalt take him from my altar, that he may die, Exod. xxi. 14. (3.) But if it were found to be by error or accident, and that the stroke was given without any design upon the life of the person slain or any other, then the man-slayer should continue safe in the city of refuge, and the avenger of blood might not meddle with him, v. 25. There he was to remain in banishment from his own house and patrimony till the death of the high priest; and, if at any time he went out of that city or the suburbs of it, he put himself out of the protection of the law, and the avenger of blood, if he met him, might slay him, v. 26-28. Now, [1.] By the preservation of the life of the man-slayer God would teach us that men ought not to suffer for that which is rather their unhappiness than their crime, rather the act of Providence than their own act, for God delivered him into his hand, Exod. xxi. 13. [2.] By the banishment of the man-slayer from his own city, and his confinement to the city of refuge, where he was in a manner a prisoner, God would teach us to conceive a dread and horror of the guilt of blood, and to be very careful of life, and always afraid lest by oversight or negligence we occasion the death of any. [3.] By the limiting of the time of the offender's banishment to the death of the high priest, an honour was put upon that sacred office. The high priest was to be looked upon as so great a blessing to his country that when he died their sorrow upon that occasion should swallow up all other resentments. The cities of refuge being all of them Levites' cities, and the high priest being the head of that tribe, and consequently having a peculiar dominion over these cites, those that were confined to them might properly be looked upon as his prisoners, and so his death must be their discharge; it was, as it were, at his suit that the delinquent was imprisoned, and therefore at his death it fell. Actio moritur cum persona—The suit expires with the party. Anisworth has another notion of it, That as the high priests, while they lived, by their service and sacrificing made atonement for sin, wherein they prefigured Christ's satisfaction, so, at their death, those were released that had been exiled for casual murder, which typified redemption in Israel. [4.] By the abandoning of the prisoner to the avenger of blood, in case he at any time went out of the limits of the city of refuge, they were taught to adhere to the methods which Infinite Wisdom prescribed for their security. It was for the honour of a remedial law that it should be so strictly observed. How can we expect to be saved if we neglect the salvation, which is indeed a great salvation! II. Here is a great deal of good gospel couched under the type and figure of the cities of refuge; and to them the apostle seems to allude when he speaks of our fleeing for refuge to the hope set before is (Heb. vi. 18), and being found in Christ, Phil. iii. 9. We never read in the history of the Old Testament of any use made of these cities of refuge, any more than of other such institutions, which yet, no doubt, were made use of upon the occasions intended; only we read of those that, in dangerous cases, took hold of the horns of the altar (1 Kings i. 50; ii. 28); for the altar, wherever that stood, was, as it were the capital city of refuge. But the law concerning these cities was designed both to raise and to encourage the expectations of those who looked for redemption in Israel, which should be to those who were convinced of sin, and in terror by reason of it, as the cities of refuge were to the man-slayer. Observe, 1. There were several cities of refuge, and they were so appointed in several parts of the country that the man-slayer, wherever he dwelt in the land of Israel, might in half a day reach one or other of them; so, though there is but one Christ appointed for our refuge, yet, wherever we are, he is a refuge at hand, a very present help, for the word is nigh us and Christ in the word. 2. The man-slayer was safe in any of these cities; so in Christ believers that flee to him, and rest in him, are protected from the wrath of God and the curse of the law. There is no condemnation to those that are in Christ Jesus, Rom. viii. 1. Who shall condemn those that are thus sheltered? 3. They were all Levites' cities; it was a kindness to the poor prisoner that though he might not go up to the place where the ark was, yet he was in the midst of Levites, who would teach him the good knowledge of the Lord, and instruct him how to improve the providence he was now under. It might also be expected that the Levites would comfort and encourage him, and bid him welcome; so it is the work of gospel ministers to bid poor sinners welcome to Christ, and to assist and counsel those that through grace are in him. 4. Even strangers and sojourners, though they were not native Israelites, might take the benefit of these cities of refuge, v. 15. So in Christ Jesus no difference in made between Greek and Jew; even the sons of the stranger that by faith flee to Christ shall be safe in him. 5. Even the suburbs or borders of the city were a sufficient security to the offender, v. 26, 27. So there is virtue even in the hem of Christ's garment for the healing and saving of poor sinners. If we cannot reach to a full assurance, we may comfort ourselves in a good hope through grace. 6. The protection which the man-slayer found in the city of refuge was not owing to the strength of its walls, or gates, or bars, but purely to the divine appointment; so it is the word of the gospel that gives souls safety in Christ, for him hath God the Father sealed. 7. If the offender was ever caught struggling out of the borders of his city of refuge, or stealing home to his house again, he lost the benefit of his protection, and lay exposed to the avenger of blood; so those that are in Christ must abide in Christ, for it is at their peril if they forsake him and wander from him. Drawing back is to perdition.

Moreover, ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer,.... Though he would give all his wealth and substance, all his estates and possessions, and whatever he is worth in the world; for all that a man has he will give for his life; but these are not to be taken, nor anything, and everything his friends may offer for him; all is to be rejected, the life of such a man is not to be saved on any consideration: which is guilty of death; as he is who kills a man willingly and purposely; but one may be guilty of killing another, and yet not be deserving of death, when it is done ignorantly and accidentally with respect to him, for which reason this clause is added: but he shall be surely put to death; by the order of the civil magistrate; and if this is not done either through want of evidence, or the fault of the judge, or the criminal clemency of the chief governor, God sooner or later will take vengeance on such a person.

Moreover, ye shall take no satisfaction for him that is fled to the city of his refuge,.... Though for killing a man unawares: that he should come again to dwell in the land, until the death of the priest; the high priest; such a man's liberty was not to be purchased with money, nor even his life to be bought off, should he be taken without his city; a great ransom could not deliver him from the avenger, because he was guilty of this law, which so wisely and mercifully provided for him; and consequently guilty also of great ingratitude to God, as well as of a breach of his law, and of disrespect to his high priest, under whom he was protected.

So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are,.... The land of Canaan, as it had been by the old inhabitants of it, by idolatry, adultery, and murder: for blood it defileth the land: the shedding of innocent blood defiles a nation, and the inhabitants of it, brings guilt thereon, and subjects to punishment: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it; or "there can be no expiation" (b), or "atonement made" for it in any other way; the blood of the murderer is required at his hands, and nothing short of it will satisfy law and justice, see Genesis 9:6. (b) "non posset expiatio", Junius & Tremellius, Piscator; to the same sense Pagninus, Montanus, Tigurine version.

Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inherit,.... By the commission of such atrocious crimes, or suffering them to go unpunished, or by taking a compensation for the life of the guilty person: wherein I dwell; which is added to strengthen the exhortation, and as giving a reason why care should be taken not to pollute it, because the Holy God dwells there; as he did in the tabernacle erected for him, and in such a peculiar manner as he did not in other lands: for I the Lord dwell among the children of Israel; he now dwelt among them as their God, and their King; his tent or tabernacle being pitched in the midst of the camps of Israel; and so he would continue to dwell among them when they were come to the land of Canaan, so long as they observed his laws, statutes, and ordinances; and therefore it behoved them to be careful that they did not pollute themselves and their land, and cause him to depart from them.

We have here the humble address which the heads of the tribe of Manasseh made to Moses and the princes, on occasion of the order lately made concerning the daughters of Zelophehad. The family they belonged to was part of that half of the tribe of Manasseh which we yet to have their lot within Jordan, not that half that was already settled; and yet they speak of the land of their possession, and the inheritance of their fathers, with as great assurance as if they had it already in their hands, knowing whom they had trusted. In their appeal observe, 1. 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 (v. 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. 2. They represent the inconvenience which might, possibly, follow hereupon, if the daughters of Zelophehad should see cause to marry into any other tribes, v. 3. 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. This truly is often aimed at more than it should be in making marriages, not the meetness of the person, but the convenience of the estate, to lay house to house, and field to field. Wisdom indeed is good with an inheritance; but what is an inheritance good for in that relation without wisdom? But here, we may presume, the personal merit of these daughters recommended them as well as their fortunes; however, the heads of their tribe foresaw the mischief that would follow, and brought the case to Moses, that he might consult the oracle of God concerning it. 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, God did not direct in it till the themselves that were concerned wisely foresaw the inconvenience, and piously applied to Moses for a rule in it. For though they were chief fathers in their families, and might have assumed a power to overrule these daughters of Zelophehad in disposing of themselves, especially their father being dead and the common interest of their tribe being concerned in it, yet they chose rather to refer the matter to Moses, and it issued well. We should not covet to be judges in our own case, for it is difficult to be so without being partial. It is easier in many cases to take good advice than to give it, and it is a satisfaction to be under direction. Two things they aimed at in their representation:—(1.) To preserve the divine appointment of inheritances. They urged the command (v. 2), that the land should be given by lot to the respective tribes, and urged that it would break in upon the divine appointment if such a considerable part of the lot of Manasseh should, by their marriage, be transferred to any other tribe; for the issue would be denominated from the father's tribe, not the mother's. This indeed would not lessen the lot of the particular persons of that tribe (they would have their own still), but it would lessen the lot of the tribe in general, and render it less strong and considerable; they therefore thought themselves concerned for the reputation of their tribe, and perhaps were the more jealous for it because it was already very much weakened by the sitting down of the one half of it on this side Jordan. (2.) To prevent contests and quarrels among posterity. If those of other tribes should come among them perhaps it might occasion some contests. They would be apt to give and receive disturbance, and their title might, in process of time, come to be questioned; and how great a matter would this fire kindle! It is the wisdom and duty of those that have estates in the world to settle them, and dispose of them, so as that no strife and contention may arise about them among posterity.

And the chief fathers of the families. 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 (of Machir,) [201] that it was unjust that the inheritances should be alienated, which would have been the case if the daughters of Zelophehad had married into other tribes, whereas their portion had fallen in the lot of the tribe of Manasseh. For whatever fell into the hands of those of another tribe, was a diminution of that lot. As, therefore, God had lately made provision for preserving the rights of individuals, He now treats of 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 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. For it cannot be said that in this case it happened, as it often does, that, whilst every one pertinaciously maintains his own cause, and is eager to advance his own interests, one question arises out of another; for, when God has taken cognizance of the case, He pronounces that both parties only demanded what was right. It follows, therefore, that God designedly withheld His decisions until they naturally arose out of the circumstances of the case. It is a common saying that the law makes no provision for those things which rarely occur. [202] Thus it would have been commonly supposed that this law was superfluous; and especially it would have detracted somewhat from the authority of his teaching, if Moses had treated of this trifling matter, had not circumstances led to it. 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. Meanwhile, let us bear in mind that if heavenly things are the subject of as much anxiety to us, as earthly things were to the children of Manasseh, the rule that we should observe will always be made clear to us.

Here is, I. The matter settled by express order from God between the daughters of Zelophehad and the rest of the tribe of Manasseh. The petition is assented to, and care taken to prevent the inconvenience feared: The tribe of the sons of Joseph hath said well, v. 5. Thus those that consult the oracles of God concerning the making of their heavenly inheritance sure shall not only be directed what to do, but their enquiries shall be graciously accepted, and they shall have not only their well done, but their well said, good and faithful servant. Now the matter is thus accommodated: these heiresses must be obliged to marry, not only within their own tribe of Manasseh, but within the particular family of the Hepherites, to which they did belong. 1. 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. 2. Yet they are confined to their own relations, that their inheritance may not go to another family. God would have them know that the land being to be divided by lot, the disposal whereof was of the Lord, they could not mend, and therefore should not alter, his appointment. The inheritances must not remove from tribe to tribe (v. 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. II. The law, in this particular case, was made perpetual, and to be observed whenever hereafter the like case should happen, v. 8. Those that were not heiresses might marry into what tribe they pleased (though we may suppose that, ordinarily, they kept within their own tribe), but those that were must either quit their claim to the inheritance or marry one of their own family, that each of the tribes might keep to its own inheritance, and one tribe might not encroach upon another, but throughout their generations there might remain immovable the ancient landmarks, set, not by their fathers, but by the God of their fathers. III. The submission of the daughters of Zelophehad to this appointment. How could they but marry well, and to their satisfaction, when God himself directed them? They married their father's brothers' sons, v. 10-12. By this it appears, 1. That the marriage of cousin-germans is not in itself unlawful, nor within the degrees prohibited, for then God would not have countenanced these marriages. But, 2. That ordinarily it is not advisable; for, if there had not been a particular reason for it (which cannot hold in any case now, inheritances being not disposed of as then by the special designation of Heaven), they would not have married such near relations. The world is wide, and he that walks uprightly will endeavour to walk surely. IV. The conclusion of this whole book, referring to the latter part of it: These are the judgments which the Lord commanded in the plains of Moab (v. 13), these foregoing, ever since ch. xxvi., most of which related to their settlement in Canaan, into which they were now entering. Whatever new condition God is by his providence bringing us into, we must beg of him to teach us the duty of it, and to enable us to do it, that we may do the work of the day in its day, of the place in its place.

And they said, The Lord commanded my lord. They here allege a kind of discrepancy, in that the tribes had had the land allotted to them agreeably to God's command, but now their lots would be thrown into confusion, when the inheritance should pass over to another tribe. They assume it, however, to be an acknowledged impossibility, that God should be inconsistent with Himself: hence it was necessary that an interpretation should be delivered in order to remove the legal contradiction (antinomian) The Law of God, say they, which ought to remain inviolable, enjoins that the land should be distxibuted by lot; how, then, will it accord that women should carry elsewhere the inheritance of their own tribe? Thus, in seeking a remedy for this evil, they submit themselves to God's governance, and reverently accept what He had prescribed. And further, they enlarge upon the absurdity which would arisen from hence; viz., that in the fiftieth year, when they were to return to their original lots, so much would be withdrawn from the portion of the tribe of Manasseh as the daughters of Zelophehad had taken away with them. Reasonably, therefore, do 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. The account here given is not identical with the previous one, that Moses referred the matter to God; yet the same thing is more briefly stated, viz., that Moses answered the people out of the mouth of God, from whence 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, in that they were contented with their allotment, and claim for themselves what could not be alienated without the violation of the Divine decree. From this particular occasion, a general law is laid down, that no woman to whom an inheritance had fallen, was to marry out of her tribe, because she would defraud her own relatives of her marriage portion. In this way, however, a free permission to marry was accorded to females, provided they renounced their paternal inheritance. The words, indeed, seem to be of wider application, i e., that no man should marry a wife, except of his own kindred; but the meaning of the law is to be sought from the cause which led to its enactment. Moreover, there is no doubt but that promiscuous marriages are here forbidden, in so far as they confound the order of hereditary rights. Footnotes: [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.

Moses commanded the children of Israel according to the word of the Lord--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.

These are the commandments and the judgments, which the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses unto the children of Israel in the plains of Moab--The Israelitish encampment was on an extensive plateau north of the Arnon, which, though wrested from the Moabites by Sihon and Og, still retained the name of its original possessors. The particular site, as indicated by the words "Jordan near Jericho," is now called El-Koura--a large plain lying not far from Nebo, between the Arnon and a small tributary stream, the Wael [BURCKHARDT]. It was a desert plain on the eastern bank, and marked only by groves of the wild, thorny acacia tree. Next: Deuteronomy Introduction

And the chief fathers of the families of the children of Gilead,.... The princes, as Aben Ezra; so the Septuagint version, which was the tribe of Manasseh, whose grandson Gilead was, as follows: the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near; to the house of judgment, as the Targum of Jonathan, the sanhedrim or court of judicature, consisting of the following persons: and spoke before Moses; the Septuagint version adds, "and before Eleazar the priest", as in Numbers 27:2. and before the princes, the chief fathers of the children of Israel: the princes of the several tribes; or it may be rather the seventy elders.

And they said,.... One in the name of the rest: the Lord commanded my lord; that is, Moses, whom they address in a very respectable manner, being the chief governor of the nation under God: to give the land for an inheritance by lot to the children of Israel; which command may be seen, in Numbers 26:53, and my lord was commanded by the Lord to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother; or kinsman, being of the same tribe: unto his daughters; who sued for it, and upon Moses's consulting the Lord about it, it was ordered they should have it, Numbers 27:1 and which these princes observed was likely to be attended with the following inconvenience.

And if they be married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel,.... Which was not an unreasonable supposition, and perhaps was judged very probable and likely, if some method was not taken to prevent it; which they might conclude from the application of some young men of the other tribes unto them: then shall their inheritance be taken from the inheritance of our fathers, and shall be put to the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they are received; for the inheritance given unto them would of course, the above being the case, descend to their sons, and whose fathers being of other tribes, it would be fixed there: so shall it be taken from the lot of our inheritance; which gave them some concern; for though this was no personal injury to them, nor any detriment to their families and estates, yet, as it was a lessening of their tribe, they were uneasy at it; and the rather they might be, since half their tribe was to settle on that side Jordan, where they now were: and now all this, the suit of the daughters of Zelophehad for their father's inheritance, which was granted them, the address of young men to them as heiresses, the concern of the heads of the tribe of Manasseh on this account; all this, I say, being before they entered into the land, or it was conquered by them, or divided to them by inheritance, show their strong faith and assurance that they should possess it.

And when the jubilee of the children of Israel shall be,.... At which time inheritances were to be restored to the original proprietors of them; yet this would be of no service in the present case, but rather the contrary, since it would fix the inheritances of these daughters in another tribe or in other tribes into which they should marry; and so Aben Ezra and Jarchi interpret it, "though" there shall be a jubilee, that will be of no advantage; it will not remedy this inconvenience: for then shall their inheritance be put unto the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they are received; it being one principal part of the business of the jubilee year to settle the inheritances of every tribe; and these daughters being married into another tribe, of consequence their inheritance would be placed there; or should it be sold by their husbands, or their sons, at the year of jubilee it would be restored to them as of such a tribe: so shall their inheritance be taken away from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers; and thereby be a lessening of it; and every tribe being ambitious of preserving and increasing its grandeur, this affair sensibly affected the heads of this tribe.

And Moses commanded the children of Israel,.... Even all the tribes of Israel, whom the following law concerned, as well as the tribe of Manasseh: according to the word of the Lord; whom no doubt he consulted on this occasion, as he did when the daughters of Zelophehad applied unto him about the inheritance of their father: saying, the tribe of the sons of Joseph hath said well; in showing such a concern for the welfare of their tribe; the consideration of which would be of service to them all, and therefore was worthy of notice. Aben Ezra observes, that the heads of the fathers spoke for the sake of every tribe, what was for the good of them all, and therefore was well spoken.

This is the thing which the Lord doth command concerning the daughters of Zelophehad,.... Concerning this affair relative to them; the Targum of Jonathan paraphrases the words,"not for the generations that rise up after the division of the land, but for the daughters of Zelophehad;''as if this order only respected them, or what might happen before the land was divided, but not after; and this is the general opinion of the Jewish writers; but it seems, that as the following law not only concerns them, but all heiresses, so all such after as well as before the division of the land, since the reason of it holds good after as before: saying, let them marry to whom they think best; whom they like best, who are most acceptable to them; as it was reasonable they should, and not have such forced upon them, whose persons were disagreeable to them: only into the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry; they were to marry not only such as were of the tribe of Manasseh, but of their father's family in that tribe; they could only marry into the family of the Hepherites; see Numbers 26:32.

So shall not the inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe,.... Which shows that this concerns all the tribes of Israel, though yet not fully expressed, as it is afterwards: for everyone of the children of Israel shall keep himself to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers; or cleave (a) to a wife in that tribe for marriage; this word is used in the original institution of it, Genesis 2:24 though they were not strictly obliged to marry in their own tribe; and frequently they did intermarry with other tribes, which, had it been unlawful, would not have been done, as it was by kings, and priests, and others; nor was there any danger of an inheritance going into another tribe by a man's marrying into it; wherefore this signifies only, that they were to be careful to keep their inheritances in their tribe; and therefore if any of them had no sons, only daughters, he was to marry them in his own tribe and family, that the inheritance might not remove, as follows(a) "adhaerebunt", Montanus, Vatablus, Junius & Tremellius.

And every daughter that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe if the children of Israel,.... For the same law which gave the daughters of Zelophehad right to their father's inheritance, gave every other daughter in Israel a right to inherit where there were no sons, Numbers 27:8 and every such daughter, according to this law: shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father; marry into her father's tribe and family; by which it appears that such who were not heiresses might marry persons of another family, and even of another tribe: that the children of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers; of his father's brethren, or of those that are near akin to him.

Neither shall the inheritance remove from one tribe to another,.... Which was one end of the year of jubilee, but that did not sufficiently secure it without this law, as this case shows: but everyone of the tribes of Israel shall keep himself to his own inheritance; the chief view of which was, that it might clearly appear of what tribe and family the Messiah sprang when he came.

Even as the Lord commanded Moses, so did the daughters of Zelophehad. They married into, the family of their father's tribe, according to the following account.

For Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah,.... The names of the daughters of Zelophehad, and the same as in Numbers 26:33, only the order a little varied, Tirzah and Noah here changing places; there they are according to their birth, here they are according to their marriage, as Aben Ezra thinks; though Jarchi is of opinion, that being thus differently placed shows that they were equal to one another, and one was not preferred to the other: these were married unto their father's brothers' sons; so that they were first cousins.

And they were married into the families of the sons of Manasseh, the son of Joseph,.... The family of the Hepherites, of which they were. Aben Ezra observes, that their being married into families, and not a family, is a sign that their uncles' sons were not all of them brethren, or the sons of one man, but of more, though all sons of one or other of their father's, brethren: and their inheritance remained in the tribe of the family of their father; by means of these marriages, even both in their father's tribe and family.

These are the commandments and the judgments,.... The judicial laws concerning the division of the land of Canaan, the case of inheritances in it, and the cities of refuge: which the Lord commanded by, the hand of Moses unto the children of Israel, in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho; where the Israelites had been ever since they were first observed by Balak king of Moab, and where the various things had been done recorded in the preceding chapters from that time.