Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Joshua 17:3
But Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, but daughters: and these [are] the names of his daughters, Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.
3. But Zelophehad ] He seems to have been the second son of his father, Hepher. He had been born during the bondage in Egypt, and came out thence with Moses, but died in the wilderness, as did the whole of that generation (Num 14:35; Num 27:3). He died without male heirs.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 3. Zelophehad – had no sons, but daughters] See this case considered at large in the notes on Nu 27:1-7; Nu 36:1, &c.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
No sons, but daughters; of whom see Poole “Num 26:33“; see Poole “Num 27:1“.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
But Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, but daughters,…. The descent of this man is particularly given, to show the truth and reality of it, upon which his daughters made their request, and that granted and now claimed:
and these [are] the names of his daughters, Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah,
Milcah, and Tirzah; by the same names, and in the same order they are called in Nu 26:33; the order is a little different in
Nu 36:11.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
‘ But Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, but daughters. And these are the names of his daughters, Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.’
We note first that in Jos 17:2 it is made clear that Hepher was not necessarily the direct descendant of Machir, and the connection may be tribal, although it is always possible for there to be two or more bearing the same name. This inheritance of daughters where men had no sons was confirmed by YHWH to Moses at an earlier time when these forthright daughters of Zelophehad had approached Moses about their position (Num 27:1-11). But in this case they were required to marry within the tribe so that their inheritance would not pass outside the tribe (Numbers 36). To inherit directly brought tribal responsibility. The names of the daughters are represented elsewhere, but if actual women, princesses of the sub-tribe, had not been directly involved there would have been no reason for inventing an artificial situation. See for Mahlah a family of Manasseh (1Ch 7:18), for Hoglah compare Beth-hoglah (Jos 15:6), for Tirzah see Jos 12:24. This merely demonstrates a similar environment with similar names in use.
The whole situation is interesting in bringing out the fact that the subject of dividing the land did not just begin here. It had been under serious consideration for a considerable period of time. Preparatory land surveys had probably already taken place under Moses, and information recorded ready for when the time came.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Ver. 3. But Zelophehad, &c. Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, having no male issue, his share was subdivided between his five daughters. They had claimed it in the wilderness before the conquest; and God having approved of their plea, they might well plead their right, and assuredly succeed. Note; If in the wilderness of the world we secure a title to glory under the Divine promise, we shall not fail, when the conquest, at death, is completed, to possess our inheritance.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
The daughters of Zelophehad opened an interesting subject upon this occasion before; and here they follow up the same business in a very suitable manner. See Num 36 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Jos 17:3 But Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, but daughters: and these [are] the names of his daughters, Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.
Ver. 3. But Zelophehad. ] These daughters of his are commended by their names, by their masculine faith, and by their modesty in suing for their portion. See their plea and success in Num 27:1-3 , &c.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Zelophehad. Compare Num 26:33; Num 27:1; Num 36:2.
but = but [only]: or “but [he had]”.
Milcah. Some codices, with three early printed editions, Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate, read “and Milcah”.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Num 26:33, Num 27:1, Num 36:2-11
Reciprocal: Num 36:1 – Gilead Jos 17:5 – ten portions