Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Numbers 27:4
Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us [therefore] a possession among the brethren of our father.
Give unto us – As representing our father; that so he, through us his representatives, may enjoy a like inheritance with his brethren.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Be done away; as it will be, if it be not preserved by an inheritance given to us in his name and for his sake. Hence some gather that the first son of each of these heiresses was called by their fathers name, by virtue of that law, Deu 25:6, whereby the brothers first son was to bear the name of his elder brother, whose widow he married.
A possession in the land of Canaan upon the division of it, which, though not yet conquered, they concluded would certainly be so, and thereby gave glory to God by believing.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
4. Give unto us a possession amongthe brethren of our fatherThose young women perceived that themales only in families had been registered in the census. Becausethere were none in their household, their family was omitted. So theymade known their grievance to Moses, and the authorities conjoinedwith him in administering justice. The case was important; and as thepeculiarity of daughters being the sole members of a family would beno infrequent or uncommon occurrence, the law of inheritance, underdivine authority, was extended not only to meet all similar cases,but other cases alsosuch as when there were no children left bythe proprietor, and no brothers to succeed him. A distribution of thepromised land was about to be made; and it is interesting to know thelegal provision made in these comparatively rare cases for preservinga patrimony from being alienated to another tribe. (See on Nu36:5).
Nu27:12-17. MOSES BEINGTOLD OF HISAPPROACHING DEATH,ASKS FOR A SUCCESSOR.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son…. Or be withdrawn, and his family lose their part and share on that account; this they thought was unreasonable: according to the Targum of Jonathan, to prevent the name of their father being lost, and his part in the land, their motion was, that their mother might marry their father’s brother, according to the law in De 25:5, with which Jarchi agrees; but it does not appear that that law was as yet in being; though how otherwise the name of their father would be preserved, than by raising up seed in that way, is not easy to say; except, as some think, it was done by a son of one of those heiresses, or by the first son of everyone of them, being called after the name of their grandfather Zelophehad, or their mother’s grandfather Hepher; though the Jews t commonly by the “name” understand no other than the “inheritance”, which seems to be confirmed by what follows:
give us therefore a possession among the brethren of our fathers; a part with their uncles, or their children; by which they express their faith that the children of Israel would inherit the land, though as yet it was not conquered, nor even entered into; and might signify, as some think, their concern to have a part and portion in the heavenly inheritance the land of Canaan was typical of; and if so, as Ainsworth observes, they may be considered as five wise virgins indeed.
t Pesikta, T. Bab. Jebamot, fol. 49. 1. Moses Cotzensis Praecept. Affirm. 51. Apud Selden. de Succession. ad leg. Ebra. c. 14. p. 97, 98.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
4. The name of our father Their father having died without male issue, and there being at that time no provision whereby female children could perpetuate his name, nor his name and property could be transmitted to the nearest male descendant, his name, with its family rights, would become blotted out.
Give unto us a possession This was to be transmitted to a son bearing the name of his mother’s father.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“ Why should the name of our father be taken away from among his family, because he had no son? Give to us a possession among the brethren of our father.”
Now if he had had a son that son would have received his portion in Gilead and Bashan. No one would have argued. He would also have maintained the name of the family in the clan and in Israel. Furthermore he would have seen to the marriage settlements for the girls, so that they could make good marriages. They would not have had to be married empty handed. But by his death without a male heir it was being suggested that this would not now happen. Not only would no land be attached to his name, but his daughters would in fact lose out greatly. For the fact that he had had no son would result in no land being allocated to his immediate family as a result of their victories. His name would therefore be lost, having no land for it to be attached to, and his daughters would be bereft of the support that he had deserved. The head of a related family would, of course be expected to take them under his wing, but they would go there as dependants and suppliants with no property. What they wanted was to ensure that their deceased father would posthumously receive an allocation of land, which would then be passed on to them so that they could take it with them as dowry, with his name permanently attached to the land so that he was remembered for ever.
There are a number of examples elsewhere, where men who married women who owned land became members of the woman’s tribe, so vitally was the name of the tribe and the family connected with the land. See, for example, the case of Jarha, who belonged to pre-Mosaic times and is mentioned in 1Ch 2:34-35. It would explain the introduction of Jair among the Manassites in Num 32:41; Deu 3:14. His father Segub was the son of Hezron of the tribe of Judah, but his mother was the daughter of Machir the Manassite (1Ch 2:21-22). Another example is found in Ezr 2:61; Neh 7:63, where the sons of a priest who had married one of the daughters of Barzillai the rich Gileadite, were called ‘sons of Barzillai’.
But as we shall see later the leaders of Manasseh were concerned that if these young women received land in their father’s name, they married within the clan so that the land might be preserved to Manasseh, and this they gladly agreed to do The story would have a happy ending. A good note on which to end the book (Num 36:1-12).
This suggests that after the conquest when land was passed on it still retained its attachment to the family name of the original recipient throughout the generations. This was why the prophets were so angry at those who took advantage of bad times to add land to land, thus blotting out the memory of the land’s original owner for ever. It was a crime against the memory of Israel.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Num 27:4 Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us [therefore] a possession among the brethren of our father.
Ver. 4. Give unto us, therefore, a possession. ] This plea for a part in a land not yet conquered is a proof of their faith, and could not but encourage others. Such a masculine faith was that of Mrs. Anne Askew, martyr, who thus subscribed her confession: Written by me, Anne Askew, that neither wisheth for death, nor feareth his might; and as merry as one that is bound for heaven. a I will not bid you good night – said Helen Stirk, a Scotchwoman, to her husband, at the place where they both suffered martyrdom – for we shall suddenly meet in the heavenly Canaan. b And was it not by the force of her faith, – that “substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen,” Heb 11:1 – that Crispina gaudebat, cum tenebatur, cum audiebatur, cum damnabatur, cum ducibatur. c
a Act. and Mon., fol. 1128.
b Ibid., 1154.
c Aug., in Psal. cxxxvi.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Why . . . ? Figure of speech Erotesis. App-6.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Why: Exo 32:11, Psa 109:13, Pro 13:9
done away: Heb. diminished
Give: Jos 17:4
Reciprocal: 1Ch 2:34 – no sons
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Num 27:4. Be done away As it will be, if it be not preserved by an inheritance given to us in his name and for his sake. Hence some gather, that the first son of each of these heiresses was called by their fathers name, by virtue of that law, (Deu 25:6,) by which the brothers first son was to bear the name of his elder brother, whose widow he married. Give us a possession In the land of Canaan, upon the division of it, which, though not yet conquered, they concluded would certainly be so, and thereby they gave glory to God.