Women with a Story to Tell: The daughters of Zelophehad.

 I said that we were ready to leave the Pentateuch in our survey of women with a story to tell, but I missed an important group (which, to my chagrin, makes my point in this series). In the last two weeks, we have tried to give widows a voice, following God’s lead. Now it is daughters in a patriarchal and patrilineal society who need a voice; and they get it!

 We should be somewhat familiar with the meaning of patrilineal. As an anthropologist, I teach about it frequently when I talk about how families can be formed, how inheritance is passed from one generation to the next, and how authority is assigned. Societies around the world may be patrilineal, matrilineal, or bilateral, with some exceptions. Our society, blending several European traditions, tends to be bilateral in inheritance, that is, both sons and daughters inherit, though not always equally. Yet. for the purposes of assigning last names and building multi-family groups, we tend toward being patrilineal. Those are the Johnsons (father, married sons, grandsons, and their wives), and those are the Bitkowskis (same core group). 

 In fully patrilineal societies, like cattle-herders in east Africa, the genealogies necessary to give order to society consist of an ancestral male (long passed away), his sons, and their sons, and so on. Women marry outside the clan and so are lost to a different large family group. The clan leader is usually the oldest living male with the proper skills of leadership. This authority passes from brother to brother and then on to the next generation of sons and nephews. The early Israelites were also sheep, goat, and cattle herders, and they also used patrilineal principles to organize their society. 

 (In matrilineal societies, with which I am more familiar from my research in the Pacific Islands, men and women share areas of authority, and both succession and inheritance passes from mother’s brother to sister’s son. Makes for a different kind of society). 

 So, it is a bit jarring, if you are brave enough to read through all the patrilineal genealogies in the Book of Numbers, to find the following passage.

 “The sons of Joseph by their clans: Manasseh and Ephraim. The descendants of Manasseh: of Machir, the clan of the Machirites; and Machir was the father of Gilead; of Gilead, the clan of the Gileadites. Etc. … Now Zelophehad son of Hepher had no sons, but daughters: and the names of the daughters of Zelophehad were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. These are the clans of Manasseh….” (Numbers 26: 28-29, 33-34). 

 Now, this is interesting, but it does not yet present a problem until God says to Moses at the end of the list of clans: 

 “To these the land shall be apportioned for inheritance according to the number of names” (Numbers 26: 53). 

 The problem is that, after the list of the daughters of Zelophehad, there is no statement that they founded a clan. They do not have a clan name in the number of names. God’s statement that follows the whole section is generic. It applies to the clan of the Machirites, the clan of the Gileadites, and so on. But Zelophehad did not found a clan, and Mahlah was not a clan leader. Now there is a problem looming. There is no clan of Zelophehad because he has no sons, and without a clan, his descendants will receive no land in his name. 

 Moses does not see a problem. After all, God gave him this law. Could the law be lacking in some way? None of the other patriarchs seem motivated to act.  God seems to have made no provision for daughters. 

These five women, the daughters of Zelophehad normally stay at home, inside the tent until they are sent out or called out by a man, their father, brother, uncle, or husband. Their father, we will find out, died long ago. They have no brothers. Nor are any uncles or husbands mentioned, so we don’t know about them. What can women do who have no man to stand up for them? 

“Then the daughters of Zelophehad came forward. Zelophehad was son of Hepher son of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh, of the clans of Manasseh, son of Joseph. The names of his daughters were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. They stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the leaders, and all the congregation, at the entrance of the tent of meeting, saying, …” (Numbers 27: 1-2). 

 Wow! They not only left their tent, they walked toward the seat of power. The term ‘came forward’ sounds like something from a courtroom scene. Maybe it's just a minor claims court? No! It is the high court of the land because there sits Moses, supported by the high priest and the clan elders, and a large group of … men. They approached ‘the tent of meeting’ which is described in Exodus 27 as the holy home of the ark of the covenant and the place where burnt offerings are made, a place frequented mainly by priests. What are these women doing there? 

 These women had a story to tell and they are going to tell it.

“Our father died in the wilderness; he was not among the congregation of those who gathered themselves together against the LORD in the congregation of Korah but died for his own sin, and he had no sons. Why should the name of our father be taken away from his clan because he had no son? Give to us a possession among our father’s brothers” (Numbers 27: 3-4). 

 Look carefully at what these sisters have done. They know their genealogy. They know the history of Israel, specifically that there was a rebellion in the wilderness and that the followers of a rebel named Korah all died at the hand of God. They know that their father’s name, and thus his existence, will soon disappear from the ledgers because he did not found a clan and his descendants were not assigned an allotment of land. Smart, aren’t they? 

 They also know how to approach patriarchal authority, and what arguments to use to get their attention. They boldly go where no woman has gone before. 

 Let me add one more point. They know about Yahweh, and they know God’s character. Otherwise, why even try? They know that God is fair and will give justice to a humble and needy cause. 

 On the other hand, what they are doing could be construed as a challenge to authority. Moses could pull out the God card and say something like: ‘God said it, we believe it, and that settles it!’ That is a political ploy to resist change. Fortunately, though he doesn’t know what to do, Moses is smarter than that. God is not the god of the males only in any society; God is the God of all people. 

 “Moses brought their case before the LORD. And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘The daughters of Zelophehad are right in what they are saying; you shall indeed let them possess an inheritance among their father’s brothers and pass the inheritance of their father on to them’” (Numbers 26: 5-7).

 Now, Moses could have kept this quiet. He usually talked with Yahweh alone. But, there had never been a man like Moses who talked with God and then obeyed. Moses is transparent and reliable, not corruptible and self-serving.  

 It turns out that the law that God gave to the Israelites was not set in stone, so to speak. Rather, it was a living law open to revision and addition. This is not the way we usually think of it, but the daughters of Zelophehad had more faith than we do. They serve a living God. Here are the additions concerning inheritance. 

 “You shall also speak to the Israelites, saying: If a man dies and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance on to his daughter. If he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers. If he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father’s brothers. And if his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to the nearest kinsman of his clan, and he shall possess it. It shall be for the Israelites a statute and ordinance, as the LORD commanded Moses” (Numbers 26: 8-11). 

 Does that cover every possible event? No, probably not. But it gives the people a sense of where God is at on these issues, and others.

 What about the ‘revision’ that I suggested might be possible? Here is an example. In Exodus, God introduced himself as a righteous God, so much so that he would punish the children for the sins of the parents.

“You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me” (Exodus 20: 5; see also Deuteronomy 5: 9).

 That seems unfair, doesn’t it? Not quite like God. Listen to what God told Jeremiah, the prophet, at a later date. 

 “In those days they shall no longer say: ‘The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge. But all shall die for their own sins; the teeth of the one who eats sour grapes shall be set on edge’” (Jeremiah 31: 29-30). 

 It’s not like the people made up this proverb. Instead, it follows directly from what God said to Moses in Exodus. However, now God is doing something new, though it is hinted at in the Old Covenant of Moses.

 “The days are surely coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah” (Jeremiah 31: 31). 

 The daughters of Zelophehad found their voice and were bold because they trusted in the merciful and gracious God that they knew. They presented their case and the supposedly unchangeable law was changed. They remind us that God is interactive, always working with the marginalized, the poor, the alien, the widow, and the orphan…and the daughters.