Numbers 27:3

The Case is Put of a Their Father Who Has Died Having No Sons Before He Has received His Portion of the Promised Land (Numbers 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.

Numbers 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'.