Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Numbers 27:3
Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the LORD in the company of Korah; but died in his own sin, and had no sons.
3. he died in his own sin ] in the ordinary sinfulness of a man, like the rest of his generation who died during the forty years in the wilderness. They point out that their father had not taken part in the sin of Korah’s company, that is, he had not committed any crime great enough to deserve the alienation of the property from his family after his death.
Notice that the reference to Korah’s company is in agreement with the main part of the P story in ch. 16, in which Korah’s company were laymen and not Levites; for it is implied that Zelophehad, who was a Manassite, might have been one of them.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
But died in his own sin – i. e., perished under the general sentence of exclusion from the land of promise passed on all the older generation, but limited to that generation alone. By virtue of the declaration in Num 14:31 the daughters of Zelophehad claim that their fathers sin should not be visited upon them.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
He was not in the company of Korah, nor in any other rebellion of the people, which must be understood, because all of them are opposed to
his own sin, in which alone he is said to die. But they mention this only either,
1. Because he might possibly be accused to be guilty of this. Or,
2. Because he, being an eminent person, might be thought guilty of that rather than of any other, because the great and famous men were more concerned in that rebellion than others. Or,
3. To gain the favour of Moses, against whom that rebellion was more particularly directed, and more desperately prosecuted than any other. Or,
4. Because peradventure he died about that time, and therefore might be presumed guilty of that crime. Or rather,
5. Because that sin, and, as it may seem, that only of all the sins committed in the wilderness, was of such a flagitious nature, that God thought fit to extend the punishment not only to the persons of those rebels, but also to their children and families, Num 16:27,32, as was usual in like cases, as Deu 13:15; Jos 7:24; whence it is noted as a singular privilege granted to the children of Korah, that they died not, Num 26:11, whereas the children of their confederates died with them. And this makes their argument here more proper and powerful, that he did not die in that sin for which his posterity were to be cut off, and to lose either their lives or their inheritances, and therefore their claim was more just.
In his own sin; either,
1. For that sin mentioned Num 14, which they call his own sin, in opposition not to the rest of the people, for it was a common sin, but to his children, i.e. the sin for which he alone was to suffer in his person and not in his posterity, as God had appointed, Num 14:33. Or rather,
2. For his own personal sins; for,
1. These were more properly his own sins.
2. It was a truth, and that believed by the Jews, that death was a punishment for mens own sins.
3. The punishment of that common sin was not directly and properly death, but exclusion from the land of Canaan, and death only by way of consequence upon that.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
3. Our father died in thewilderness, and he was not . . . in the company of . . . KorahThisdeclaration might be necessary because his death might have occurredabout the time of that rebellion; and especially because, as thechildren of these conspirators were involved along with their fathersin the awful punishment, their plea appeared the more proper andforcible that their father did not die for any cause that doomed hisfamily to lose their lives or their inheritance.
died in his own sinthatis, by the common law of mortality to which men, through sin, aresubject.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Our father died in the wilderness,…. As all the generation of the children of Israel did, that came out of Egypt, who were twenty years old and upwards, excepting Joshua and Caleb:
and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the Lord in the company of Korah; which is observed, not so much to obtain the favour and good will of Moses as to clear the memory of their father from any reproach upon it, he dying in the wilderness; and chiefly to show that the claim of his posterity to a share in the land was not forfeited, he not being in that rebellion, nor in any other; so that he and his were never under any attainder:
but died in his own sin; which though common to all men, every man has his own peculiar way of sinning, and is himself only answerable for it,
Isa 53:6 he sinned alone, had no partner or confederate, whom he had drawn into any notorious and public sin, as mutiny, c. to the prejudice of the state, and the rulers in it so the Targum of Jonathan adds,
“and he did not cause others to sin,”
so Jarchi; some take him to be the sabbath breaker, Nu 15:32, others that he was one of those that went up the hill, Nu 14:44, most likely his sin was that of unbelief, disbelieving the spies that brought the good report of the land, and giving credit to those that brought an ill report of it; and so with the rest of the people murmured, for which his carcass, with others, fell in the wilderness, and entered not into the good land, through unbelief: a sin not punished in their children:
and had no sons. which was the reason of this application.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
3. Our father died in the wilderness. The plea they allege is no contemptible one, i.e., that their father died after God had called His people to the immediate possession of the promised land; for, if the question had been carried back to an earlier period, it might have originated many quarrels. This restriction with respect to time, therefore, aided their cause. In the second place, they plead that their father had committed no crime whereby he might have been excepted from the general allotment of the land; for in the conspiracy of Dathan and Abiram, they include by synecdoche, in my opinion, the other sins, whose punishment affected the posterity of the criminals. His private sin is, therefore, contrasted with public ignominy; for so I interpret what they say of his having “died in his own sin.” And surely it is mere childish nonsense which the Jews (199) affirm of his having been the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath-day, or one of the number of those who were slain by the bite of the serpents; and it is unnatural, too, to refer it to the curse under which the whole human race is laid. They distinguish, then, his private sin from any public crime, which would have caused him to deserve to be disinherited, lest the condition of their father should be worse than that of any other person. At the same time, they hold fast to the principle which is dictated to us by the common feelings of religion, that death, as being the curse of God, is the wages of sin.
(199) S.M. refers to this Rabbinical gloss. R. Sal. Jarchi tells us: “R. Akiba says, that he collected the wood; but R. Simeon says that he was one of those who were contumacious.” — Edit. Breihthaupt, in loco, p. 1243, and notes.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
3. Not in the company of Korah This part of their plea implies that the treason of Korah attainted the blood of the conspirators, and cut off their children from heirship.
Died in his own sin As other men died in the wilderness, in no special sin nor stroke of judgment, implicating and ruining others with himself.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Case is Put of a Their Father Who Has Died Having No Sons Before He Has received His Portion of the Promised Land ( Num 27:3 ).
Note their concern. It was that the name of their father might be taken away, because no portion of land would be allocated to him and his family when the distributions were made now that they had conquered the land of Gilead and Bashan. If only males could inherit there would be no portion of land for his name to be attached to, because he had no male heir. But we need not doubt that they were also interested in possession of the land. Then they could take it with them when they married.
Num 27:3
“ Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not among the company of those who gathered themselves together against Yahweh in the company of Korah, but he died in his own sin, and he had no sons.’
They sought to establish their father’s credentials. They pointed out that he was not one of those who had rebelled against Yahweh in the company of Korah. He was not barred as a rebel. Note their mention of that here. It confirms that that incident was long remembered and that all recognised that such people did not deserve a part in the land. By their behaviour they had excluded themselves. But that was not true of their father.
Nor had he died for the sin of unbelief at Kadesh. He was not one of those doomed to die in the wilderness because of gross disobedience. Rather he died for his own sin, as all sinners must die.
So they did admit that he was a sinner, but only, they stressed, like all who were around him. He died because of his own sin, like all men and women die because of their sins, yet they wanted it recognised that he was no more blameworthy than any other sinner. They did not consider that his death without a male heir demonstrated that Yahweh was angry with him and was cutting his name off from Israel. And they sought confirmation of that fact.
That being so did his family not deserve their portion in the land just like everyone else? Yet as he had died without a son there would be no male in the family for the portion to be allocated to. Thus unless their plea was heeded there would be no allocation to his close family. This seemed wrong to them. There would be no way to perpetuate his name.
The principle behind their statement is interesting. There was a clear recognition that he died for his own sin, not for the sins of the tribe or of others. They were acknowledging individual responsibility. They also refused to accept that his early death had been due to his being under judgment. It had happened, but it did not prove that he was worse than anyone else. We must beware of reading into these ancient people the prejudices of our modern day. Here were five young women who knew what they believed. And they recognised the distinction between those whose sin permanently barred them from God’s mercy, and those whose sin which, while having its own consequences, did not cut people off from His gracious provision. Here was the difference between ‘unwitting sin’ and ‘sin with a high hand’.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Num 27:3-4. Our father died in the wilderness, &c. In these verses we have the petition of the daughters of Zelophehad, who urged that their father dying without male issue in the wilderness, in his own sin, i.e. by a common and ordinary death, (not such a one as they shared who were partakers of the guilt of Korah and his companions,) it was not right that the name of their father should be done away, i.e. rased out of the genealogical tables; for such was the case upon any family being extinct; upon which account they request a possession among the brethren of their father. Houbigant, however, is of opinion, that name is here used for memory, which is easily transmitted from fathers to sons by a paternal inheritance; as, on the contrary, their memory is soon blotted out who leave their inheritance to strangers. Philo gives Zelophehad the appellation of a man of an excellent character, and descended of a very considerable tribe; and Josephus calls him (Antiq. lib. iv. c. 7.) a person of condition and eminence. Philo’s account of the petition brought by the daughters is very just and probable: Upon their father’s death, says he, fearing lest the paternal estate should go out of the family, inasmuch as estates were to descend by the males, they came, with that decency and reverence which became their sex and age, to the governor of the people; and this not so much out of anxiety and concern for the estate, as from an earnest desire to preserve from extinction the name of their father, and the remembrance of his honourable birth and quality. “Our father,” say they, “is dead. He lived a quiet and contemplative life, and did not forfeit it among the multitude who were judicially cut off for their perverseness and rebellion. It is not to be imputed to his sin that he left no male issue. And here we, his daughters, stand before you as humble petitioners. As our father has left us orphans, we hope to find a father in you; for a father of his country stands in a prior and nearest relation to his subjects, than even a natural father to his own family.” De Vita Mos. lib. 3:
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Num 27:3 Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the LORD in the company of Korah; but died in his own sin, and had no sons.
Ver. 3. But died in his own. sin. ] i.e., By a natural and an ordinary death; not by a special plague, as that arch-rebel Korah. Death is the just hire of the least sin. Rom 6:23 But some evildoers God doth not only put to death, but also hangs them up in gibbets, as it were, for public notice and admonition.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
died. Compare Num 26:64, Num 26:65.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Rosenmuller translates this verse as follows: “Our father died in the wilderness, leaving no sons; nor was he among those who rebelled against the Lord with Korah, who died on account of his own sin.” Professor Dathe, however, understands by “his own sin,” that sin which was common to all the Israelites, who died on account of their unbelief.
died in the: Num 14:35, Num 26:64, Num 26:65
in the company: Num 16:1-3, Num 16:19, Num 16:32-35, Num 16:49, Num 26:9, Num 26:10
died in his: Eze 18:4, Joh 8:21, Joh 8:24, Rom 5:12, Rom 5:21, Rom 6:23
Reciprocal: Num 16:31 – General Deu 11:6 – he did unto 1Ch 2:34 – no sons Eze 33:8 – that wicked Luk 7:41 – the other
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Num 27:3. But died in his own sin The sin for which he alone was to suffer in his person, and not in his posterity, meaning, as some think, that incredulity for which all that generation was sentenced to die in the wilderness; and which, though, with respect to the rest of the people, it was not merely his own sin, since they were generally alike guilty; yet with respect to his children it was his own sin, a personal guilt, which God himself had declared should not affect his children, Num 14:31.
But, perhaps, by his dying in his own sin, we are only to understand that he died by a common ordinary death, not such a one as they shared who were partakers of the guilt of Korah and his companions.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
27:3 Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the LORD in the company of Korah; but died in his own {a} sin, and had no sons.
(a) According as all men die, for as much as they are sinners.