8 11<\/strong>. A formal statement of the law of inheritance. Failing sons, the property passes to a daughter; failing daughters, to brothers; failing brothers, to uncles; and failing uncles, to the next-of-kin (see on Num 27:8<\/span>).<\/p>\n And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel<\/strong>,…. The above affair occasioned a law to be made, in which all the people would have a concern, among whom such cases should happen, as after related:<\/p>\n saying, if a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter<\/strong>; as in the above case of the daughters of Zelophehad; what was determined as to their particular case was made into a general law.<\/p>\n On this occasion God issued a general law of inheritance, which was to apply to all cases as “a statute of judgment” (or right), i.e., a statute determining right. If any one died without leaving a son, his landed property was to pass to his daughter (or daughters); in default of daughters, to his brothers; in the absence of brothers, to his paternal uncles; and if there were none of them, to his next of kin. – On the intention of this law, see my Archaeol.<\/em> 142 (ii. pp. 212, 213); and on the law of inheritance generally, see J. Selden, de success. ad leges Hebr. in bona defunctorum<\/em>, Fkft. a. O. 1695.<\/p>\n 8. And thou shalt speak to the children of Israel. This question was the occasion of the delivery of a law, which was to be a perpetual and general rule as to the right of inheritance. But, although God prefers the daughters to all other relatives, when there is no male issue, still, with this single exception of the first degree, He admits none but males to the succession, and thus preserves the usual order. And surely it would be very unjust to exclude a man’s (natural) heirs on account of their sex; but when it became necessary to pass from his own children to other kindred, the prerogative of the male line began to be established. I speak of the land of Canaan, in which not only the name of Abraham but also that of the twelve tribes was to be preserved, in order that the memory (of God’s blessing) (200) might be more distinct and unclouded. <\/p>\n (200) Added from Fr. <\/p>\n (8) If a man die, and have no son . . . <\/strong>On the general law of inheritance which is here laid down, see Seldens De Successionibus, <\/em>London, 1636, and Keils Archol., <\/em>2, s. 142.<\/p>\n 8-11<\/strong>. <\/strong> A statute of judgment <\/strong> A statute or law, determining order in the succession of heirs to landed estates where there were no sons; namely, daughters, father’s brothers, paternal uncles, next of kin on the father’s side. The heirship of the daughters was on the condition that they did not marry out of their own tribe, (Num 36:6-12<\/span>\ud83d\ude09 otherwise the patrimony was forfeited. The seed of each class “to the world’s end” inherited to the exclusion of all others. According to Hebrew usage the widow was supported by the heirs till a dowry was granted her in the judgment hall. The daughters commonly received at marriage a tenth of the deceased father’s goods or personal estate, each a tenth of what remained, thus: 1\/10, 9\/100, 81\/1000. The sons inherited the remainder.<\/p>\n A General Case Is Then Made Of What Is To Happen When A Man Dies Having No Son ( Num 27:8-11<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> a). <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n This solution would settle the concerns of many still living fathers who only had daughters. Some who had as yet no male heir would undoubtedly have been concerned about what would happen to their name, and what would happen to their families, if they were slain in the forthcoming warfare before having a male heir. (Compare how a newly married man was excluded from warfare for one year to give him time to breed an heir- Deu 24:5<\/span>. It was put in terms of ‘cheering his wife’ but nothing would cheer her more than that). Now they could rest at peace. Their close family would still receive their portion posthumously after their death. <\/p>\n Num 27:8-9<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n “<\/strong> And you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying, “If a man die, and has no son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass to his daughter, and if he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers.’ <\/p>\n The point being established was twofold. Firstly that the family of every ‘head of family’ of the new generation would receive a portion in the land whatever happened to him, and whether he died or not, or whether he had a male heir or not. It was a guarantee that as long as he had children his name would thus be preserved and his family’s welfare ensured. If he had a daughter, she would receive his portion. And if he had no daughter his own brothers would receive it, with of course the responsibility to remember his name and look after his widow. <\/p>\n Num 27:10<\/strong><\/span> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n ‘And if he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father’s brothers.’ <\/p>\n And if he had no brothers then the land would pass to his uncles who would bear the same responsibility. <\/p>\n Num 27:11<\/strong><\/span> a <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n ‘And if his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his kinsman that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it.’ <\/p>\n And if he also had no uncles, his nearest male relative would inherit it, and would possess it. So would the inheritance remain in the family who would have a responsibility for the remembering of his name. At least in theory, no man of the new generation would ever die forgotten (unlike the old who died in the wilderness). <\/p>\n Num 27:11<\/strong><\/span> b<\/strong> <\/p>\n ‘And it shall be to the children of Israel a statute and ordinance, as Yahweh commanded Moses.’ <\/p>\n And this was so important that it was to be a statute and ordinance in Israel, as Yahweh had commanded Moses. <\/p>\n Note on Inheritance Laws.<\/strong> <\/p>\n We have in this passage an insight into the inheritance laws of those days. Land was to pass to the male heirs, with the firstborn receiving double because of his heavier responsibilities as head of the family (Deu 21:15-17<\/span>). This did not necessarily mean that the land was divided. It would often be wiser to keep the land as one and work it together. But each would have his name attached to part of the land. The women would be given their dowry when they married, something of value, in the case of the better off a dowry of gold and jewels and gorgeous clothing, and in the case of rulers even of cities. But then they would come under the auspices of their new family. Meanwhile the males would have provided for their dowries and would continue to provide for the old families. We can see why these young women were concerned. If they did not receive their father’s portion they would be thrown on charity for their provision. But it was also true that if their father’s name had no land attached to it, it would soon be forgotten. Land was closely connected with family. That was why in the year of Yubile all land would revert to the original family which had owned it (Lev 25:13<\/span>). That was one reason why names and lands were closely linked together. <\/p>\n End of note. <\/p>\n children = sons. <\/p>\n Reciprocal: 1Ch 2:34 – no sons<\/p>\n And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. 8 11. A formal statement of the law of inheritance. Failing sons, the property passes to a daughter; failing daughters, to brothers; failing brothers, to uncles; … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Numbers 27:8”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4571","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4571","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4571"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4571\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4571"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4571"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4571"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"