P.<\/p>\n
The chapter lays down a law that heiresses may not be married to anyone outside their own tribe. As in ch. 27, the present law is put in a concrete form. In ch. 27 it was ruled that the daughters of Zelophehad might inherit property, in order that the inheritance might not be alienated from the tribe of Manasseh. But it was realised that that law might, after all, be annulled if they were married to persons of other tribes. Here, therefore, the supplementary law is issued, forbidding them to do so.<\/p>\n
The daughters of Zelophehad had obtained an ordinance Num 28:6-11<\/span> which permitted the daughters of an Israelite dying without male issue to inherit their fathers property. The chiefs of the Machirites, of whom Zelophehad had been one, now obtain a supplemental enactment, directing that heiresses should marry within their own tribe.<\/P> Num 36:4<\/B><\/span><\/P> Be taken away – <\/B>i. e. be permanently taken away. The jubilee year, by not restoring the estate to the tribe to which it originally belonged, would in effect confirm the alienation.<\/P> Num 36:11<\/B><\/span><\/P> Unto their fathers brothers sons – <\/B>Or more generally, unto the sons of their kinsmen.<\/P> <\/p>\n Num 36:1-13<\/span><\/p>\n Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n The law for the marriage of heiresses<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>The righteousness of the case was acknowledged.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>The difficulty of the case was removed.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>The decision in this case was made the law for all similar cases.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>The decision of this case was of Divine authority.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>That the marriage of cousin-germans is not in itself unlawful, nor within the degrees prohibited, for then God would not haw countenanced these marriages. But–<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>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. (W. Jones<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Marriage<\/strong><\/p>\n 1<\/strong>. <\/em><\/strong>That marriage is a Divine institution.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>That the obligations involved in marriage are binding and sacred.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Personal choice as opposed to compulsion.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Personal affection as opposed to mere convenience.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>As to property.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>As to consanguinity.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>As to health.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>As to suitability.<\/p>\n 5. <\/strong>As to character. (W. Jones<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Sensible marriage<\/strong><\/p>\n No laws, however excellent, express, or multiplied, can reach every particular case which may arise; and still room will be left for the exercise of sound judgment and common sense. But when these are regulated according to the true meaning of the Word of God, and in dependence on Divine teaching, they will guide us through all perplexities, as far as our immediate duty is concerned. Yet the Lord frequently leaves us to feel our difficulties, that we may be habituated to reflect to search the Scriptures, and to trust Him more simply. All our inclinations ought to be subjected to the will of God: and in contracting marriage, future consequences to posterity, as well as to ourselves and our connections, should be taken into consideration. The Scriptures indeed suppose that esteem, affection, and preference are requisite in this important relation: but they know nothing of that irrational, ungovernable, and idolatrous passion, which, regardless of all consequences, and in defiance all authority, rushes headlong upon gratification; which is neither moderated by discretion, nor subordinated to the will of God; which is not rational esteem, nor tender friendship, nor congenial affection, but something vastly more rapturous, unintelligible, and undefinable: and which, with all its refinements, is inconsistent with common sense, the interests of society, the happiness of domestic life, and the Christian religion. Finally, though it is prudent to foresee and prevent disputes about temporal property, it would be better if we were equally quicksighted and attentive in respect of our spiritual and eternal interests. But the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light. (Thomas Scott<\/em>.)<\/p>\n CHAPTER XXXVI <\/P> The inconveniences which might be produced by daughters<\/I>,<\/P> inheritances, marrying out of their own tribe, remedied on the<\/I><\/P> recommendation of certain chiefs of the tribe of Joseph, who<\/I><\/P> stated the case of the daughters of Zelophehad<\/I>, 1-4.<\/P> The daughters of Zelophehad are commanded to marry in their own<\/I><\/P> tribe<\/I>, 5, 6;<\/P> which is to be an ordinance in all similar circumstances<\/I>, 7-9.<\/P> The daughters of Zelophehad marry their father’s brother’s sons<\/I>,<\/P> and thus their inheritance is preserved in their own tribe<\/I>,<\/P> 10-12.<\/P> The conclusion of the commandments given by the Lord to the<\/I><\/P> Israelites in the plains of Moab<\/I>, 13. <\/P> NOTES ON CHAP. XXXVI<\/P><\/p>\n The chief fathers of the families, <\/B>who had the care and management of the public affairs of that tribe committed to them. <\/P> <\/p>\n 1. the chief fathers of the familiesof the children of Gilead<\/B>Being the tribal governors inManasseh, they consulted Moses on a case that affected the publichonor and interests of their tribe. It related once more to thedaughters of Zelophehad. Formerly they had applied, at their owninstance, to be recognized, for want of male heirs in their family,as entitled to inherit their father’s property [Nu27:1-11<\/span>]; now the application was made on behalf of the tribe towhich they belongedthat steps might be taken to prevent thealienation of their patrimony by their alliance with husbands ofanother tribe. The unrestricted marriages of daughters in suchcircumstances threatened seriously to affect the tenure of land inIsrael, as their inheritance would go to their children, who, by thefather’s side, would belong to another tribe, and thus lead, througha complication of interests and the confusion of families, to an evilfor which even the Jubilee could not afford a remedy. [See on Le25:13<\/span>].<\/P><\/p>\n And the chief fathers of the families of the children of Gilead<\/strong>,…. The princes, as Aben Ezra; so the Septuagint version, which was the tribe of Manasseh, whose grandson Gilead was, as follows:<\/p>\n the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near<\/strong>; to the house of judgment, as the Targum of Jonathan, the sanhedrim or court of judicature, consisting of the following persons:<\/p>\n and spoke before Moses<\/strong>; the Septuagint version adds, “and before Eleazar the priest”, as in Nu 27:2<\/span><\/p>\n and before the princes, the chief fathers of the children of Israel<\/strong>: the princes of the several tribes; or it may be rather the seventy elders.<\/p>\n The occasion for this law was a representation made to Moses and the princes of the congregation by the heads of the fathers’ houses ( for , as in Exo 6:25<\/span>, etc.) of the family of Gilead the Manassite, to which Zelophehad<\/em> (Num 26:33<\/span>) belonged, to the effect that, by allotting an hereditary possession to the daughters of Zelophehad, the tribe-territory assigned to the Manassites would be diminished if they should marry into another tribe. They founded their appeal upon the command of Jehovah, that the land was to be distributed by lot among the Israelites for an inheritance (Num 36:2<\/span> compared with Num 26:55-56<\/span>, and Num 33:54<\/span>); and although it is not expressly stated, yet on the ground of the promise of the everlasting possession of Canaan (Gen 17:8<\/span>), and the provision made by the law, that an inheritance was not to be alienated ( Lev 25:10<\/span>, Lev 25:13<\/span>, Lev 25:23<\/span>.), they understood it as signifying that the portion assigned to each tribe was to continue unchanged to all generations. (The singular pronoun, my Lord, in Num 36:2<\/span>, refers to the speaker, as in Num 32:27<\/span>.) Now, as the inheritance of their brother, i.e., their tribe-mate Zelophehad, had been given to his daughters (Num 27:1<\/span>), if they should be chosen as wives by any of the children of the (other) tribes of Israel, i.e., should marry into another tribe, their inheritance would be taken away from the tribe-territory of Manasseh, and would be added to that of the tribe into which they were received. The suffix (Num 36:3<\/span>) refers ad sensum <\/em> to , the tribe regarded according to its members.<\/p>\n The Law of Inheritance.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD> B. C.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> 1452.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE> 1 And the chief fathers of the families of the children of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near, and spake before Moses, and before the princes, the chief fathers of the children of Israel: 2 And they said, The LORD<\/B> commanded my lord to give the land for an inheritance by lot to the children of Israel: and my lord was commanded by the LORD<\/B> to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother unto his daughters. 3 And if they be married to any of the sons of the other<\/I> tribes of the children of Israel, 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: so shall it be taken from the lot of our inheritance. 4 And when the jubilee of the children of Israel shall be, then shall their inheritance be put unto the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they are received: so shall their inheritance be taken away from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers.<\/P> 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.<\/I><\/span> 2<\/span>): The Lord commanded to give the inheritance of Zelophehad to his daughters;<\/I> 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.<\/I><\/span> 3<\/span>. 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;<\/I> 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.<\/I><\/span> 2<\/span>), 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.<\/P><\/p>\n NUMBERS – CHAPTER THIRTY-SIX<\/strong><\/p>\n Verses 1-4:<\/p>\n “Chief fathers,” or “heads of the fathers,” as in Ex 6:25. These were the official representatives of the children of Gilead, Beni-Gilead, of the tribe of Manasseh.<\/p>\n “Lord,” adoni, <\/strong>a title of respect toward Moses. Aaron had used this title, Ex 32:22; Nu 12:11, as had Joshua, Nu 11:28.<\/p>\n The question of the officers of Gilead dealt with the provision for the daughters of Zelophehad, see Nu 27:1-11. They feared that should any of these daughters marry men of other tribes, their inheritance would be lost to the tribe of Manasseh. This was a legitimate question, for according to the established inheritance laws, this would indeed be the case. They asked Moses for clarification of this matter, to establish a legal precedent for future cases.<\/p>\n Concerning the “Jubilee,” see comments on Le 25:10-17.<\/p>\n The “Jubilee” would effectively confirm the transfer of the inheritance of the heiress of her husband’s family and tribe, and thus make it permanent. It was this eventuality that the Gileadites challenged.<\/p>\n 1. 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. <\/p>\n (201) Added from Fr. <\/p>\n (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. <\/p>\n REFUGE CITIES AND SALVATION<\/strong><\/p>\n Chapters 35, 36.<\/p>\n Your reading of the Book of Numbers has familiarized you with the Divine appointment of these cities, their number, location and purpose. It was God who suggested them; He determined that they should be six in all; He saw to it that they were located so as to be within half a days journey from every man; and he fixed their purpose as a refuge for man-slayer.<\/p>\n They were appointed as a refuge from law. <\/strong>Not by Divine appointment but by human practice was death for the man-slayer accomplished by the next of kin. Now in this city of refuge God makes provision for the man-slayer who shall do his deed without malice aforethought. It was softening grace against inexorable law; it was the appointment of Divine love against the practice of human anger. But a few years ago the law of this land made every black man born beneath our flag, a slave of some white master. The only possible escape from that slavery was to cross the Canadian line and come under the flag that made all the people, touched by its ample folds, free. When a fugitive slave crossed the Ohio river, or the Mason and Dixon line, he came into the country of friends, but in that fact he found no certain salvation. Even there the law could lay its hand upon him and drag him back to prison or the plantation. But the law of the land did not reach one inch beyond the Canadian line. So the common law of this ancient people became inoperative at a line 2000 cubits outside the limits of the refuge cities. What a type this of the salvation that we have in Christa salvation which Paul expressly teaches to be freedom from the power of the law.<\/p>\n This city of refuge was easily accessible. <\/strong>Many a time I have read sermons that would speak as though the gates of the city of refuge were open day and night, and I think that likely. But it is not declared in the Word. A better access than the open gate was offered to every fleeing soul. The suburbs of these cities allotted to the priests for the grazing of their cattle were sacred grounds, and the record is that the man did not have to make his way over a closed gate or even through an open one. All he had to do was to get himself within that suburban line. What a marvelous illustration of the accessibility of Christ! No wonder Christ uttered that gracious sentence, Him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out.<\/em> Accessible to the sinner is this God, this Saviour, this refuge from sin and the slayer.<\/p>\n Again, these cities provided a perfect shelter. <\/strong>In the Book of Joshua we read,<\/p>\n And if the avenger of blood pursue after him, then they shall not deliver the slayer up into his hand; because he smote his neighbour unwittingly, and hated him not beforetime.<\/em><\/p>\n And he shall dwell in that city, until he stand before the congregation for judgment, and until the death of the high-priest that shall be in those days; then shall the slayer return, and come unto his own city, and unto his own house, unto the city from whence he fled (Jos 20:5-6<\/em><\/span>).<\/em><\/p>\n One of the first buildings erected after the founding of Rome was one to the god of refuge. That was open to all who came. Here the slave was free from his master, the debtor from his creditor, and the murderer from the avenging magistrates. Such were these cities of refuge, and yet they only promised and typified that one refuge which is yours and mine; and David said, God is our refuge. Paul, in his Epistles to the Hebrews, speaks of the<\/p>\n strong consolation which we have who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:<\/em><\/p>\n Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;<\/p>\n Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an High Priest forever after the order of Melchisedec (Heb 6:18-20<\/em><\/span>).<\/em><\/p>\n Beloved, if your salvation and mine is secure, so long as our High Priest lives, then indeed it is forever and ever. <\/p>\n Safe in the arms of Jesus,<\/p>\n Safe on His gentle breast,<\/p>\n There by His love oershaded,<\/p>\n Sweetly my soul shall rest.<\/p>\n Hark! tis the voice of angels,<\/p>\n Borne in a song to me,<\/p>\n Over the fields of Glory,<\/p>\n Over the jasper sea.<\/p>\n Safe in the arms of Jesus,<\/p>\n Safe from corroding care,<\/p>\n Safe from the worlds temptations, <\/p>\n Sin cannot harm me there.<\/p>\n Free from the blight of sorrow,<\/p>\n Free from my doubts and fears;<\/p>\n Only a few more trials,<\/p>\n Only a few more tears.<\/p>\n Jesus, my hearts dear refuge,<\/p>\n Jesus has died for me;<\/p>\n Firm on the Rock of Ages,<\/p>\n Ever my trust shall be.<\/p>\n Here let me wait with patience,<\/p>\n Wait till the night is oer;<\/p>\n Wait till I see the morning <\/p>\n Break on the golden shore.<\/p>\n <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n THE LAW FOR THE MARRIAGE OF HEIRESSES<\/p>\n (Num. 36:1-12<\/span><\/em>)<\/p>\n Let us notice<\/p>\n I. The case stated.<\/strong><\/p>\n And the chief fathers of the families of the children of Gilead, the son of Machir, &c. (Num. 36:1-4<\/span>). The daughters of Zelophehad were heiresses, according to the law stated in Num. 27:1-11<\/span> (see pp. 509, 510). There was a probability of their marriage, and it might have been to persons of some of the other tribes. (a)<\/em> And, as Matthew Henry points out, it is probable that the heads of the tribe of Manasseh knew, that 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. But if they married to persons of another tribe, their inheritance would pass away from the tribe of Manasseh to the tribe or tribes to which their husbands belonged. It was in order to guard against this that the heads of the fathers houses of the family of Gilead the Manassite appealed unto Moses. In so doing they were actuated, not by selfish concern for their personal interests. Their respective inheritances would not be diminished by the marriage of these heiresses. But they urged that, if they married to persons of any of the other tribes,<\/p>\n (1) The Divine allotment of the land would be invaded. They said, The Lord commanded my lord to give the land for an inheritance by lot to the children of Israel, &c. <\/p>\n (2) The territory of the half-tribe of Manasseh would be diminished. If they be married to any of the sons of the other tribes, &c. (Num. 36:3-4<\/span>). In this way the wealth and importance and power of the half-tribe would be lessened.<\/p>\n These proceedings of the heads of this family were orderly, respectful, reasonable, and commendable.<\/p>\n II. The case adjudicated.<\/strong><\/p>\n And Moses commanded the children of Israel according to the word of the Lord, &c. (Num. 36:5-9<\/span>).<\/p>\n 1. The righteousness of the case was acknowledged<\/em>. The tribe of the sons of Joseph hath said well. The conduct of the elders was commended, &c.<\/p>\n 2. The difficulty of the case was removed<\/em>. The law by which the difficulty was removed comprised two simple clauses:<\/p>\n (1) That the daughters of Zelophehad were not to be coerced in marriage. This is the thing which the Lord doth command concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, Let them marry to whom they think best. Now if God left them to their liking, asks Bishop Babington, should men force their children against all love and liking? No, no, it is a sin, and not a small one, bitter to the child all the days of life, and not very sweet to the parents after they see the fruits of their violence. Let children dutifully regard parents, and parents charitably and religiously regard their children, who will beg with better will where they like than live without love in worlds abundance. We have known too often the child cry, the father cry, and the mother die for this fault, when it was too late. (b)<\/em> <\/p>\n (2) That the daughters of Zelophehad were to marry persons of their own tribe. Only to the family of the tribe of their fathers shall they marry. So shall not the inheritance, &c. Thus, while the former provision secured to them freedom in their marriages, this provision, by restricting the extent of their choice, secured their inheritance to the tribe of Manasseh. 4. The decision of this case was of Divine authority<\/em>. Moses commanded the children of Israel according to the word of the Lord, saying, This is the thing which the Lord doth command, &c. Hence the decision was binding both in the case which gave rise to it, and in all similar cases in subsequent times.<\/p>\n III. The adjudication acted upon.<\/strong><\/p>\n Even as the Lord commanded Moses, so did the daughters of Zelophehad, &c. (Num. 36:10-12<\/span>). They married their fathers brothers sons. By this it appears, says Matthew Henry,<\/p>\n<\/p>\n 1. That the marriage of cousin-germans is not in itself unlawful<\/em>, nor within the degrees prohibited, for then God would not have countenanced these marriages. But,<\/p>\n<\/p>\n 2. That ordinarily it is not advisable;<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n ILLUSTRATIONS<\/em><\/p>\n (a)<\/em> Marriage has in it less of beauty, but more of safety, than the single life; it hath not more ease, but less danger; it is more merry and more sad; it is fuller of sorrows and fuller of joys; it lies under more burdens, but is supported by all the strengths of love and charity; and these burdens are delightful. Marriage is the mother of the world, and preserves kingdoms, and fills cities and churches, and heaven itself. Celibacy, like the fly in the heart of an apple, dwells in perpetual sweetness, but sits alone, and is confined, and dies in singularity; but marriage, like the useful bee, builds a house, and gathers sweetness from every flower, and labours and unites into societies and republics, and sends one colonies, and feeds the world with delicacies, and obeys their king, and keeps order, and exercises many virtues, and 618 promotes the interest of mankind, and is that state of good to which God hath designed the present constitution of the world.Jeremy Taylor<\/em>.<\/p>\n (b)<\/em> The marriage life is always an insipid<\/em>, a vexatious<\/em>, or a happy<\/em> condition. The first is, when two people of no genius or taste for themselves meet together, upon such a settlement as has been thought reasonable by parents and conveyancers, from an exact valuation of the land and cash of both parties. In this case, the young ladys person is no more regarded than the house and improvements in purchase of an estate; but she goes with her fortune, rather than her fortune with her. These make up the crowd or vulgar of the rich, and fill up the lumber of the human race, without beneficence towards those below them, or respect towards those above them.<\/p>\n The vexatious<\/em> life arises from a conjunction of two people of quick taste and resentment put together for reasons well known to their friends, in which especial care is taken to avoid (what they think the chief of evils) poverty, and insure to them riches, with every evil besides. These good people live in a constant constraint before company, and too great familiarity alone. When they are within observation, they fret at each others carriage and behaviour; when alone, they revile each others person and conduct. In company, they are in purgatory; when only together, in a hell.<\/p>\n The happy<\/em> marriage is where two persons meet and voluntarily make choice of each other, without principally regarding or neglecting the circumstances of fortune or beauty. These may still love in spite of adversity or sickness: the former we may, in some measure, defend ourselves from; the other is the portion of our very make.Sir R. Steele<\/em>.<\/p>\n MARRIAGE<\/p>\n (Num. 36:6<\/span><\/em>)<\/p>\n We may notice briefly, by way of introduction, ii. That the obligations involved in marriage are binding and sacred<\/em>. Marriage itself is not obligatory. There are circumstances in which celibacy is undoubtedly commendable (Mat. 19:12<\/span>; 1Co. 7:8<\/span>). But when the marriage relation has been entered into, obligations of the most tender and sacred character have been incurred. These obligations are not simply those imposed by the civil authority, but those which pertain to it as an ordinance of God: Divine in its origin, it is Divine also in its obligations (Gen. 2:18<\/span>; Gen. 2:24<\/span>; Mal. 2:14-16<\/span>; Mat. 19:4-6<\/span>; Eph. 5:22-33<\/span>; 1Pe. 3:1-7<\/span>).<\/p>\n But, to confine ourselves to the text, two observations are here warranted on marriage in general:<\/p>\n I. That persons should not be coerced in marriage.<\/strong><\/p>\n This is the thing which the Lord doth command saying, Let them marry to whom they think best. Here we have<\/p>\n 1. Personal choice as opposed to compulsion<\/em>. Parents who force their daughters into marriage, said Lord Rochester, are worse than the Ammonites, who sacrificed their children to Molochthe latter undergoing a speedy death; the former suffering years of torture, but too frequently leading to the same result.<\/p>\n For marriage is a matter of more worth Moreover, such coercion is a sad degradation of marriage; a grievous wrong to the persons coerced; and a heinous sin against God. But further, it seems to us that the text suggests that marriage should be entered into from<\/p>\n 2. Personal affection as opposed to mere convenience<\/em>. In the clause now under consideration, it is the person, not the property, which is spoken of. Let them marry to whom they think best. Marriage is far too sacred a thing to be treated as a matter of mere convenience and arrangement. I regard a man and a woman that come together in the marriage state as coming together in the most sacred of all possible conjunctions before God. And to enter into this union without pure and strong affection, is an injury to the person married, and, as we said of marriage by coercion, a degradation of marriage itself, and a sin against God. (a)<\/em><\/p>\n II. That there are important considerations which should regulate the choice in respect to marriage.<\/strong><\/p>\n One such consideration is mentioned in the text. The daughters of Zelophehad must marry whom they liked best; but they were not to marry any one of another tribe; for if they did so they would injure their own tribe by diminishing its Divinely allotted territory. Only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry. The inference is a just one, that while persons are to be free in their marriage, they are not to be rash or thoughtless; they should not overlook either their own true interests or the interests of others. (b)<\/em> In the marriage choice, due weight should be given to considerations<\/p>\n 1. As to property<\/em>. By this we do not mean that in marriage, money or other possessions should be a primary consideration, or that persons should not marry until they are in well to-do or easy circumstances. (c) But in marriage persons should pay due attention to the temporal interests of themselves and their families. No one is at liberty to injure by his marriage the interests of his family or of others. On this point the teaching of our text is indisputable.<\/p>\n 2. As to consanguinity<\/em>. In the Bible marriage is prohibited between any that are near of kin (Lev. 18:1-18<\/span>), with the exception of first cousins; and marriage between them as a rule is not desirable. (d)<\/em><\/p>\n 3. As to health<\/em>. Persons having within them the seeds of hereditary disease, should think long and deeply and unselfishly before they determine to enter the marriage state. It is an awful thing for any one to transmit disease to the next generation in his own children.<\/p>\n 4. As to suitability<\/em>. This applies to age, to tastes, to tempers, to station, to pursuits. In innumerable instances where there has been no open disagreement, no bitterness or strife, lives have been impoverished, disappointed, and beclouded by unsuitable marriages. (e)<\/em><\/p>\n 5. As to character<\/em>. The rule for Christians is expressly laid down by St. Paul: She is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord (1Co. 7:39<\/span>). And expositors, both ancient and modern, are almost universally agreed that the expression only in the Lord, means, within the limits of Christian connexion. let her marry a Christian (Alford<\/em>) And Barnes: That is, only to one who is a Christian; with a proper sense of her obligations to Christ, and so as to promote His glory. Many and weighty reasons may be adduced to enforce this. We mention only two<\/p>\n (1) In marriages in which this rule is violated, the deepest and holiest aspects of the relationship are unrealised; because in such unions there can be no mutual sympathy on those subjects which are most important and most precious to the heart of the Christian. Consider well the ancient inquiry, Can two walk together, except they be agreed? And let Christians marry to whom they will; only in the Lord.<\/p>\n ILLUSTRATIONS<\/em><\/p>\nFuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
I. <\/strong>The case stated (Num 36:1-4<\/span>). These proceedings of the heads of this family were orderly, respectful, reasonable, and commendable.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>The case adjudicated (Num 36:5-9<\/span>).<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>The adjudication acted upon (Num 36:10-12<\/span>). They married their fathers brothers sons. By this it, appears, says Matthew Henry–<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>That persons should not be coerced in marriage.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>That there are important considerations which should regulate the choice in respect to marriage.<\/p>\nFuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/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: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
3. The decision in this case was made the law for all similar cases<\/em> And every daughter that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe, &c. (Num. 36:8-9<\/span>).<\/p>\n
i. That marriage is a Divine institution<\/em>. It was ordained by God (Gen. 1:26-28<\/span>; Gen. 2:18-24<\/span>; 1Co. 11:9<\/span>). It was solemnly confirmed by our Lord Jesus Christ (Mat. 19:3-12<\/span>), and by His Apostles (1Co. 7:2<\/span>; Eph. 5:22-33<\/span>; 1Pe. 3:1-7<\/span>).<\/p>\n
Than to be dealt in by attorneyship;
For what is wedlock forcd but a hell,
An age of discord and continual strife?
Whereas the contrary bringeth forth happiness,
And is a pattern of celestial bliss.Shakespeare<\/em>.<\/p>\n
(2) Such unions involve the most serious peril to the Christian character. (f)<\/em><\/p>\n