Well, please turn in your Bibles to Numbers chapter 27, and this story is going to bring the 24th in our series on women of faith. I think it adds a lot to the theology of women that we've been looking at. Numbers chapter 27, beginning to read at verse 1. Then came the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hefer, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, from the families of Manasseh, the son of Joseph, and these were the names of his daughters, Machlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. And they stood before Moses, before Eleazar the priest, and before the leaders and all the congregation by the doorway of the tabernacle of meeting saying, Our father died in the wilderness, but he was not in the company of those who gathered together against the Lord in company with Korah, but he died in his own sin and he had no sons. Why should the name of our father be removed from among his family because he had no son? Give us a possession among our father's brothers. So Moses brought their case before the Lord and the Lord spoke to Moses saying, The daughters of Zelophehad speak what is right. You shall surely give them a possession of inheritance among their father's brothers and cause the inheritance of their father to pass to them. And you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying, if a man dies 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. And 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 relative closest to him in his family, and he shall possess it. And it shall be to the children of Israel a statute of judgment, just as the Lord commanded Moses. Amen. Father, we thank You for this Scripture. You have said that we are to live by every word that proceeds out of Your mouth, that all Scripture is profitable. And I pray that we would gain profit from this for our own souls, that each one of us would be drawn into a closer, more knowledgeable relationship with You. And we pray this in Jesus' name. Amen. Well, the daughters of Zalophahad, I used to mispronounce this as Zalophehad, but it's closer to the Hebrew to say Zalophahad. Actually, the Hebrew is Zalophahad, with a lot of phlegm in it. They are such remarkable daughters, I thought, I cannot end this series without including something about them. And I believe that they are examples of faith on several levels, especially when we see their passion for covenant succession, which is going to be the main theme today. We'll see that they were driven, absolutely driven by God's promises for the future. You can also see the importance of their impact on Israel itself by the fact that there are three fairly long passages that rehash this history and spell out the implications of their story. There are 11 verses in Numbers 27, 13 verses in Numbers 36, and 6 verses in Joshua 17. And so God Himself by this repetition is indicating these are really important women, we need to understand their passions, their vision, what they were about. And it shouldn't be surprising that these women had a passion for covenant succession given their lineage. Verse 1 of chapter 27 traces their lineage back to Joseph, one of the heroes in the Hall of Faith in Hebrews chapter 11. So already it's setting up this theme of covenant succession. Now, might there have been gaps of unfaithfulness in that lineage? Yes, there might have been. But God's promise to Joseph was being lived out several generations later. Verse 1, Then came the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hefer, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh from the families of Manasseh, the son of Joseph. So yes, their own father was part of a generation that failed to believe God's promise in the wilderness. But these daughters are going to, even though they allude to that sin, they're going to absolutely deny that their father had the the disbelief of Korah or the rebellion of Korah, and we'll get into that in a bit. But even their names may indicate the journey of faith for the parents. That is, if their names reveal some progress in Israel's wandering history, which is one hypothesis. The firstborn, Machalah, means sickness or disease. And it may reflect one of the judgments that God imposed upon the Israelites. Maybe she was born during one of those plagues. The second name, Noah, means rest or comfort, and it may indicate a stage in the parents' walk where they found healing and they found comfort by looking to the Lord. Hogla means partridge and may reflect the scene of God's provision of food. Milka means counsel, may reflect the parents' learning from the repeated counsel that came from their leader Moses. And Tirza means pleasantness, perhaps an acceptance of their walk with God. And there seems to be a progression from negative to positive in their names. Now, we can't read too much into names, but A lot of commentators say that it was very common in Israelite history for their names to mean something significant from the history that they were born in. But whether the parents had faith in God's promises for the future or not we are going to see that these three girls definitely did. In Numbers 27 we see that they are convinced that Israel will inherit Canaan in the near future. OK, they aren't there yet. but they are beginning to act as if they're going to receive that inheritance. Their request has nothing to do with their present reality of wandering in the wilderness and has everything to do with that future promised inheritance in Canaan. And to me, that shows faith. They were so strongly driven by that promise of a future that they now boldly approach Moses in the present. In fact, Numbers 27 shows that these five daughters appeal to Moses concerning four very important faith issues. The first one was the issue of property, which they didn't have yet. They're not anywhere near Canaan. They haven't crossed the Jordan yet. And the second faith issue was the issue of marriage, which none of them had yet. Maybe they were too young to be married, but none of them were married yet. Then there is the third issue of inheritance, which in their case was a future inheritance. But that future inheritance is driving their actions even now. And then for the issue of covenant succession, which shows they've got faith. They're going to get married. They're going to have children. Their children are going to inherit the land. All four issues show enormous faith on the part of these girls. And so I have grown to love the story of the daughters of Zalophahat. They were definitely women of faith, and God blessed their faith by not only giving them an inheritance, but by blessing them with covenant succession, such remarkable covenant succession, that many dictionaries and conservative scholars believe that three cities in the region that they lived in were named after three of those five daughters. It's the cities of Tirzah, Hoglah, and Noah. And I placed the location of those three cities on the map in your outlines. Now, if indeed those cities were named after these women, it shows the incredible honor and respect that their descendants had for them. Their descendants appreciated their four mothers faith and passion for covenant succession. And if those commentators are correct, then this means that there are another 16 verses in scripture that memorialize at least three of those five women. OK, so with that as background, let's dive into the story. This is yet another passage that corrects the slanders that have been brought by feminists against patriarchy, a true biblical patriarchy that seen Genesis one through to the end of the Bible. Father rule is an incredible blessing to women when it follows the contours of the Bible unapologetically. And hyper-patriarchy is simply ignoring some of God's patriarchal instructions or going beyond them. This is giving us a fuller picture. But this story is intriguing because it deals with women who had no male in their lives, had no father, no brothers. who could answer for them. And then after giving an overview, I'll try to systematically apply it to ourselves under a few more points. Now, the first thing that I see is that these girls are not intimidated by power. Male rule does not bother them at all. In fact, they're very secure in it. They appeal to it. Verse 2. And they stood before Moses, before Eliezer the priest, before the leaders and all the congregation by the doorway of the tabernacle of beating, saying. Now, this is sort of like speaking up at the legislature of our state or, you know, at the congressional hearing. It could be very, very intimidating, but it shows that these women They didn't feel like they had to stay in the kitchen, so to speak. They had access to their leaders. Now, granted, their situation was unusual because they had no male to go to bat for them. But it doesn't seem that these leaders, Moses or any of them, thought that they were out of place and coming. Not at all. The fact that women are under authority does not mean women cannot appeal to authority. We've seen in other sermons in this series that women have the right of appeal to the elders. if they are facing injustice in their family. And that's exactly what these girls are doing. They're finding beautiful guidance and help within the biblical system of patriarchy. Now, in the next verses, they argue their case very systematically. It is obvious that they weren't talking off the top of their heads. Now, when you first read it, it seems like, well, there's not much that is there. But commentators point out they're arguing very, very well. First part of their argument explains why they are coming for judgment rather than their father, says, our father died in the wilderness. They were orphans. Apparently their mother had died as well. Next part of their argument explains why their father should not be denied an inheritance. And some commentators point out this argument implies the truth of both patriarchy and covenant succession. But he was not in the company of those who gathered together against the Lord in company with Korah, but he died in his own sin. In other words, though he was a sinner like all of us are, he was not one of those who had been disinherited because they had joined in the rebellion of Korah. No, they were not guilty of that sin. They were not in any way implicated. And the implication of their argument is that just as every other dead family had, was about to inherit a portion of Canaan, Zelophehad should be able to inherit as well. All of the other heads of family have died off too, except for Joshua and Caleb. And so since death did not disqualify them from passing on their inheritance, it should not disqualify Zelophehad. So these girls are not asking for charity. They're asking for justice. They're basing their arguments on the justice of the law of God, and the modern church needs to learn to do the same. Sadly, the modern church has ditched God's law, thinking that they want liberty. I tell you, you cannot deviate from the perfect law of liberty without automatically getting into bondage. You cannot. Now, the next phrase shows why justice is about to be violated. And he had no sons. Now, so far in the discussions that have been happening on the division of the land, the land is only going to be divided among the sons. And the girls do not object to that. That would be the normal practice in order to keep the land within the tribal boundaries that God had established. And Numbers 36, we'll look at that, is going to address that issue. But since there are no sons to inherit a portion of the promised land, this will mean that the land will be taken away from one of the patriarchs, from Zelophehad and from his heirs and will become the property of someone else. So they say, why should the name of our father be removed from among his family because he had no son? give us a possession among our father's brothers." And so again, their argument is going back one generation to their father. Every other non-Korah type father who died in the wilderness was going to receive a portion of the land on behalf of his family. Why should Zelophehad be an exception? Now, since the mother was dead, There was no way of applying the Leveret Law of Deuteronomy 25 in order to raise up a seed to Zelophehad and to keep the land within the family name. Now, the spirit of the Leveret Law applied, but not the letter of the law. In other words, there was no precedent in the law that applied to this case. Now, Gary North points out that there are ceremonial aspects to the situation that were unique to Israel and that didn't apply before Israel was a nation, didn't apply actually when they were in the exile. But even though there are ceremonial aspects to this story, the general equity principles of this story do apply, and they are actually key to resolving problems that have existed for women for thousands of years in various countries. And I'm going to use Africa as an illustration, since that's where I grew up. In some African nations, land is only owned by males, period. And a woman and her husband may have worked tirelessly for years to clear land and make it very productive. But if the husband dies, an uncle can swoop in the very next day, kick the mom and her kids off the land, and inherit that land, because only the male adults can inherit it. And they are left as beggars. They are left orphans. It is absolutely unjust. The Africa Bible commentary says that if this law of Moses was implemented throughout Africa, it would massively improve the rights of women. The women would inherit the land from their husband, and it would be a strong negotiating point for further marriage if they so desired. Anyway, this African commentary says this. Zelophehad's daughters protested to Moses that it would be unjust if their family were forced to forfeit all claim to land just because their father had not had a son. If the law insisted that only the males would inherit the land, the needs of women and children would be overlooked and their position undermined. Deprived of any means to support themselves, widows and unmarried daughters would be reduced to poverty and possibly even to slavery or prostitution. This pattern is sometimes seen in Africa when widows are evicted from their husband's land because his male relatives claim it. The church in Africa needs to learn from this incident about its role as an advocate for laws that resonate with Christian teachings. It should call attention to laws that contradict the gospel message, such as those on widow inheritance, see article on this topic, and those that allow only men to inherit the land. And we'll look in a bit at how God provided for women who did not inherit the land, which is most of the women. But this law gave these daughters some leverage and protection since they were not married. And that was the key that made this situation unique. In God's law, everyone was provided for, male and female. They were provided for in different ways, but they were provided for. And I'll explain that in a bit in more detail, because there is huge, huge misunderstanding on this issue of inheritance and how it all works out. Verse 5 says, He didn't have an answer since God had not yet addressed this issue, and so he seeks God for more guidance. And without God in any way changing His purposes of males inheriting land in order to keep in the tribal boundary, God sides with the women on this issue, starting to read at verse 6. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, The daughters of Zelophehad speak what is right. You shall surely give them a possession of inheritance among their father's brothers, and cause the inheritance of their father to pass to them. And you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying, if a man dies and has no son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass 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 relative closest to him in his family, and he shall possess it. And it shall be to the children of Israel a statute of judgment, just as the Lord commanded Moses. Now, unlike monetary inheritance, which sometimes could go to both men and women, land almost always went to the male. And we'll address that issue in a bit and see why that is no longer the case in the New Covenant, even though the general equity of that principle continues to apply. But let's turn to Numbers 36, where a further twist in the story arises. Number is 36, and we will start at verse 1. Now the chief fathers of the families of the children of Gilead, the son of Makur, the son of Manasseh, of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near and spoke before Moses and before the leaders, the chief fathers of the children of Israel. Now the reason the leaders of Manasseh made this appeal for clarification is because the daughters came from Manasseh, And the potential for Manassas boundary lines being gobbled up by neighboring states and for states rights to be eroded gives them definite standing in court. You know, for state leaders to just go to the Supreme Court over any case was not allowed. They had to have legal standing. Well, they had legal standing here and. Verse 2 says, they said, the Lord commanded my Lord Moses to give the land as an inheritance by law to the children of Israel, and my Lord was commanded by the Lord to give the inheritance of our brother Zelophehad to his daughters. And so they're not questioning whether the law is just, they just want clarification. They say, now, if they are married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then their inheritance will be taken from the inheritance of our fathers and it will be added to the inheritance of the tribe into which they marry. So it will be taken from the lot of our inheritance. And when the jubilee of the children of Israel comes, then their inheritance will be added to the inheritance of the tribe into which they marry. So their inheritance will be taken away from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers. So there are two issues that they bring forward. State sovereignty will be eroded if men from other tribes marry these women. Second, they said, we need clarification that in the year of Jubilee, it will not make the land itself permanently lost to our tribe if the first issue is not addressed. OK, so there's two issues that are involved. And even though the ceremonial laws no longer apply, you can see why those two issues of tribal sovereignty and tribal territory go hand in hand. You really cannot separate the limited sovereignty of a state and its territory. And these women were definitely in the spotlight. They were under intense scrutiny. It would have been uncomfortable because they're breaking new legal ground that no one had crossed before. And the stakes are very high. Verse five. Then Moses commanded the children of Israel, according to the word of the Lord, saying, What the tribe of the sons of Joseph speaks is right. This is what the Lord commands concerning the daughters of Zalophahad, saying, Let them marry whom they think best, but they may marry only within the family of their father's tribe. So the inheritance of the children of Israel shall not change hands from tribe to tribe, for every one of the children of Israel shall keep the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. And every daughter who possesses an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel shall be the wife of one of the family of her father's tribe, so that the children of Israel each may possess the inheritance of his fathers. Thus no inheritance shall change hands from one tribe to another, but every tribe of the children of Israel shall keep its own inheritance. OK, so with that law enacted, the confusion was resolved. Men had certain rights. Women had certain rights. States had certain rights that even the federal government could not override. And if I was preaching on this, I would point to the division of powers, you know, that if I was preaching to magistrates, And I would give examples of how they need to be ever so careful that one state does not override the jurisdiction of another state. And this has been happening in recent years here in America. But anyway, it's a beautiful balance between jurisdictions of family, state and federal levels. Now, let's move on to the next point. Verses 10 through 13 deal with the daughters' marriages. They followed the law of Moses. They navigated the rights and interests of both family and state, starting at verse 10. Just as the Lord commanded Moses, so did the daughters of Zelophehad. For Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married to the sons of their father's brothers. In other words, they married their cousins. Verse 12, they were married into the families of the children of Manasseh, the son of Joseph, and their inheritance remained in the tribe of their father's family. Now this shows that the women were not forced to marry against their wills. Verse 6 points out that they could marry whom they think is best. But these verses also show that even with the very personal and the highly emotionally charged issues of marriage, God can limit our choices. So it's not an absolute whomever they may wish. God can limit our choices. And even with issues of marriage, our choices must reflect God's kingdom outcomes, not simply our personal desires. Even marriage should reflect the four quadrants of ethical decision making that we have looked at in the past. Much more at stake in marriage than just love. Now, just as a side note, some have misused this passage to oppose interracial marriage, and this passage has absolutely nothing to do with that. And the proof is that other Israelite women were allowed to marry across tribal boundaries. I mean, Rahab, she married from outside the nation, right? They could marry across tribal boundaries. This is how you can explain how John the Baptist and Jesus could be cousins, and yet Jesus is from the tribe of Judah, and John the Baptist is from the tribe of Levi. Now, how did that work out? How could they be cousins? The mother of John the Baptist was adopted into the tribe of Levi when she married Zacharias, right? Yes, Elizabeth and Zacharias. So intertribal marriage was not outlawed. But what about property? If the woman had her own property, it would eventually revert to the husband or her male child when she died. So this law here is only making restrictions of marriage as it relates to inheritance of the land. Then verse 13 gives the timing and the non-negotiable imperative of these commands to Israel. It says, Now that's as far as I'm going to go this morning with the story. And before I give some detailed applications, I do want to give four overarching principles. These are not in your notes, but these principles are embedded in this story, and I think they're relevant to us. First, there is the issue of timing. God gave these laws before Israel entered the land. These laws were given in faith that they would possess the land. And so the point is that these laws presume covenant succession. There's an aspect of eschatology in these laws. They were planning and they were taking actions based on God's promises concerning the future, just like we need to be planning and taking actions based on God's promises concerning the future as well. That's what it means to live by faith. Living by faith is not a wild leap in the dark. It is living by the promises of God. A second overarching principle is that God gave these laws to help Israel steward the land. The land did not belong to them in an absolute way. It belonged to them as stewards, and that meant they were not allowed to treat their property, and it was property that belonged to them, but they couldn't treat it independently of God's law. There were laws against disinheriting the family. such as modern, gross, grossly unjust, eminent domain laws, hugely unbiblical. There were laws against polluting the land. And there are many other laws that show you've got to look to God's laws to how you care for your property. And we need to apply this overarching principle to everything that we own. We are stewards, not absolute owners. Third, private ownership is another overarching principle throughout these two chapters as well as in Joshua 17. These passages speak strongly against state ownership of land. Land always belonged to individuals or to families, does not belong to corporations, does not belong to feudal lords who keep amassing huge tracts of land to themselves, certainly does not belong to the state. Ezekiel 46, 18 says the prince shall not take any of the people's inheritance by evicting them from their property. He shall provide an inheritance for his sons from his own property so that none of my people may be scattered from his property. So family property rights are embedded into these laws. They speak very strongly against communism. The last overarching principle embedded in these passages is that God's law speaks to all of life and regulates all of life. And thus civic leaders came to Moses to get wisdom from his revelation, from the Word. And civic leaders need to continue to go to God's Word. These girls came to Moses for revelation and guidance and wisdom. And this speaks to covenant succession. We must look to the Word of God for our guidance. you. So those are some overarching principles embedded within the passage. I'm not going to delve into those further, but they are important. So let's end the sermon by looking at some of the practical applications that can be made from this. What are the abiding principles? Obviously, there are some things that have a historical context that don't continue. But what are the abiding principles? Well, the first application that I see is that women have legal rights. They have equal access to the law that men do. And we can see examples in the Bible of women going to the courts to protect their rights. And even, you know, Christ's parable of the unfortunate widow implies the right of women to have access to the law. This is so universally acknowledged, I won't dwell on it, but it is an important principle to keep in mind, especially when you're encountering slander from feminists who completely misrepresent patriarchy. Second, women have property rights. Though property rights were managed differently for men and for women, there were property rights for women that were built right into the law. And because there has been so much confusion on this subject of what parents may pass on to their children, I want to spend a bit more time on this point. There's much more flexibility than many people acknowledge. And we're going to start, first of all, what was unique to women? While the bride price went to the parents of the bride for the loss to the economy of that family, that the loss of their daughter would have. And I think, by the way, that is kind of in the background as well. There are other laws in the background to this story. But the dowry went to the bride herself and was not supposed to be spent by the husband or by anyone else. It was like a security for her, an insurance policy, should there be a death or a divorce. It was a kind of inheritance. This is why Rachel and Leah complained that Laban had consumed their inheritance. A dowry was a kind of inheritance. Now, why was it considered an inheritance? when the dowry was given to the parents rather than directly to the wife. It's because this is the way patriarchy works. It was given to the parents. The parents then gave it to to the bride. Genesis 31 verse 4 says, Then Rachel and Leah answered and said to him, Is there still any portion or inheritance for us in our father's house? Laban was robbing them of what was rightfully theirs, and so their only recourse was to flee with what was rightfully theirs. They were not engaged in theft or anything. They were just taking what was rightfully theirs. Laban was an abusive, manipulative, suffocating leader. He was not a true biblical patriarch and for feminists to say otherwise is slander. Nothing less than slander. Jesus speaks of a woman who owns 10 coins in Luke 15 verses 8-10. She owns them, they are not community property. Those coins were part of a dowry that was strung around her neck, they were drachmas. A drachma was worth the price of a sheep. or a fifth of the price of an ox. And so she wore it as a necklace. This was like an insurance policy for her in case her husband died. Sometimes the dowry was land property, though this was rare. And because it was land, the land would revert to the male either the husband or a son once she died. And I'll give you some examples of that. 1 Kings 9.16 speaks of the area of Gezer being given as a dowry to Solomon's wife. Joshua 15.19 shows Caleb giving his daughter Aksah the upper springs and the lower springs as an inheritance of property. Now obviously a male child would eventually inherit those springs since it was land. Land was unique. But ordinarily, a dowry was money, jewels, gold, something else of value that was easier to store. It wasn't usually land, though it could be. But even apart from the dowry, women did sometimes receive other kinds of inheritance from their parents, especially if the parents were wealthy. Let me give you some examples. Job 42.15 says, In all the land were found no women so beautiful as the daughters of Job, and their father gave them an inheritance among their brothers. So righteous Job shared his inheritance among both brothers and sisters. Now, obviously, that was before Israel was in the land. But it does show giving an inheritance to worthy daughters is not wrong. Exodus 3.22 speaks of vast plunder from Egypt being given to both sons and daughters as their respective possessions. Genesis 24.53 shows Abraham's servant giving silver, jewelry, gold, and clothing to Rebekah and giving precious things to her brother and to her mother. OK, in terms of ownership, those are important. So the question comes, why did the land ordinarily have to go to the men within the tribe? And there are at least two reasons. And the first one has to do with ceremonial law. While there were enduring property right issues inherent in those laws. Because of the laws of Jubilee and of states' tribal claims, these were restricted. And because of this typological function, Levites should only own property or apartments inside Levitical cities, numbers 35-8, or they could own property outside the country. So that indicates it's something unique to Israel itself, Jeremiah 29, 5 and 28, but they could not own farmland within Israel permanently. Numbers 18, 20, 35, 2, Deuteronomy 10, verse 9. All tribal land was given permanently as a possession to the other tribes until the time of Christ and not to the Levites. And so that's one interesting limitation that revolves around ceremonial law. Second reason is a bit more controversial, OK? But I think it's important to realize it wasn't just women who couldn't inherit most Israelite property. Most men within any tribe could not inherit the land from their parents. And you'll see some people arguing otherwise, but it makes no logical or mathematical sense whatsoever. Let me explain what I mean by that. Just imagine Joshua's generation, each family inheriting a huge tract, 500 acres of land. There's no way it would be that big because no one person could farm that much by himself or with an oxen. 500 acres, so we're going to be extra generous in our calculation just so you can see how this works. And then imagine that each family had 10 sons, which was not at all unusual in that day. Well, that would mean in the second generation that each of your sons would only inherit 50 of those 500 acres. That's a sizable reduction. If your sons had 10 sons, they would each get five acres. If each of their sons had 10 sons, they would each get half an acre, which is, you know, about a third of the size of my small yard. And that's just three generations from the original generation. You can see within four generations, the land would be unfarmable. It would not sustain a family. And within a few generations, you'd have a postage size stamp, a stamp sized piece of property. So take out of your mind forever the idea that every son got a portion of the land inheritance. It simply was not so mathematically. It is absolutely impossible. It was rarely the case. Matt might have started off being that way. There's debate on that. But it didn't continue. Don't think it is women alone who didn't inherit the land. Instead what happened is that the firstborn son, or some other worthy son, was usually the one to inherit the farm. And because he inherited the farm, he would be responsible to care for the parents in their elderly years. Now, if a father didn't trust his firstborn son, and there are several examples of this, he would give it to a different son. That son would not inherit it. Or if the parent was not a farmer, the firstborn or some other worthy son would get a double portion. You've seen that phrase in the scripture, a double portion of the business profits or the monetary inheritance. In other words, he would get twice as much inheritance as the other sons. And here's the beauty of that system. By only allowing one son to inherit the farm, it kept the farm from being broken up into impossibly small patches of yard. But it also forced Israel to prosper through division of labor and specialization among sons and daughters. The other sons and daughters would learn trades and other skills that would enable Israel as a whole to prosper exponentially, generation after generation. New businesses would fill niches that had never existed before. The way most people interpret the inheritance laws, Israel would have remained a stagnant economy and eventually every farm would go belly up. It just would not succeed. The inheritance laws forced industrialization and economic diversity and promoted increasing prosperity. That's not a curse, that is a blessing. Now let's dig into this deeper. Going back to the illustration of ten sons and only one of them receiving the farm, let's compare and contrast the nine non-firstborn sons and their inheritance to that of the daughters. I think this is a more fair comparison between the men and the women. Wealthy people like Job could easily bless sons and daughters alike with inheritance since no one would need to financially care for Job in his old age. He'd have plenty of servants, plenty of money for him to take care of himself. And if he needed to be, I mean, any of the kids would be so vastly wealthy, it would not make any dent in their income. They could they could take care of it just from the businesses that Job gave them a jumpstart on. Not everyone would be able to do as Job did and give equal inheritance to daughters and sons because not everyone is equally wealthy. What would happen with poorer families is that the wife's main inheritance would be the dowry that her fiance gave to her through her parents. Plus, she would have the financial support of her new husband, who had presumably received an inheritance from his parents. and was building on that inheritance with his own accumulated wealth. Now, since a man is commanded to provide for his own family, the woman would be well taken care of. She's inheriting, you know, an inheritance through her husband, right? And certainly Providence could potentially drain her of her dowry, much like Laban was trying to do with his daughters. But her husband would likely be equally drained, since they would have each other's backs in those dire circumstances. But through the dowry laws, there really was an equal provision for both the sons and the daughters of even poor families. and I think it would be good to resurrect the dowry system. One modern practice, and this was the only dowry that Kathy got, but one modern practice that's sort of equivalent, but it's really not quite the same, is getting a huge life insurance policy on yourself, where your wife would be the beneficiary if you die. And so if you died, you would not be poverty stricken. It's not entirely equivalent, but it would help. It's kind of inheritance, sort of. It does expire. So in that sense, it's not the same. And she can't use it if there were to be a divorce, unless she poisoned her husband or something. She couldn't use it there if you got a divorce. And you have to keep making payments on it. So don't think that insurance is completely a replacement of dowry. I really do not think that it is. But at least it's a stopgap measure of security. But there is no reason why all children cannot be financially blessed by parents with the one who takes care of them in their old age getting extra. Gary North has written several commentaries that go through all of the biblical evidence. I want to read a very short summary from one of those commentaries. He says the dowry functioned in Israel as an alternative to inheritance by daughters. Sons inherited. Sons had the responsibility of caring for aged parents, not daughters and sons-in-law. To whom much is given, much is expected. Because the daughter could not inherit, she was not obligated to share in her parents' support. But because she would not share in her parents' support, she was not supposed to receive her dowry from her father's capital, for this would deplete the portion remaining to her brothers. The system was consistent. Such a system guaranteed that being a daughter would not be regarded by her family as being an economic liability. The bride price kept daughters from draining the inheritance that normally went to sons. A daughter did not normally remain economically responsible for her parents. She became responsible for her husband's parents. Why? Because legally, she was adopted into the family of her husband. Thus, inheritances in Israel went to sons who later cared for aged parents, and dowries went to daughters who extended their original family's ethical standards over time, though not the family's name. Now he addresses the situation of when all of the sons are ethically deficient or totally untrustworthy, but the daughter is very trustworthy to take care of the parents. What do you do in that situation? Because life sometimes is not fair. It's not what you would expect to be the ideal. So after looking at several biblical principles, Gary North summarizes by saying, Parents must use their wealth to endow those who will carry their religious vision into the future, though not necessarily their names. Covenantally faithful daughters should inherit in that circumstance. And I agree, especially if the daughter is caring for the parent. Now in another place, North addresses another issue and he says, should the daughter bring assets of her own to the marriage, they should remain her property in case of a divorce. They are not community property, they are her protection. At her death, these assets would normally go to her children. Now unfortunately, some states are community property states. I don't think that's biblical. I think Texas is one of those. Now, can a husband and a wife voluntarily pool all of their resources? Of course they can. We're just talking about the minimum of what says not what's voluntarily done, but the minimum of the law's provisions. Now I've spent a lot more time on this property issue, but it's mainly because I've gotten so many questions on this, I wanted to make sure I covered, and I probably still haven't answered all of your questions. We can talk about those maybe after the sermon. But all those other scriptures are perfectly consistent with what is going on with the daughters of Zelophehad. Now let's move on to marriage rights and liberties. In Numbers 36, 6, Moses makes an interesting statement about these young unmarried daughters. He says, let them marry whom they think best. This shows an active processing of options by the women and deciding whom they want to marry. They're not passively acquiescing to some arranged marriage, putting no thought into it themselves. I'm not against arranged marriages, by the way. In many countries, they've worked out quite fine, but there always needs to be the right or the power of veto, where the daughter says, I don't think so, to that arranged marriage. And certainly the Bible speaks of the man as usually taking the initiative in this process. It speaks of him seeking a wife, finding a wife, taking a wife. It also speaks of the father, fathers giving their daughters in marriage, finding wives for their sons. Jeremiah 29, verse six. And so parents should be involved. But the way some people interpret this data, they they imply that the daughters are just totally passive, that they don't they're not involved at all. And it's just not true. And hopefully we disposed of that idea with Ruth, the Ruth sermon. But there are many other scriptures that show how important it is for women to be thinking through options. They have rights in this department. I have three scriptures here that show that women have the right to veto their dad's suggestions for a husband. And certainly this passage shows that the law wants women to think about whom they think best to marry. They need to agree to the marriage or it is not a covenant. It is not a covenant. First Corinthians 739 speaks of a woman who is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes only in the Lord. So there's that restriction again. Whatever restrictions the Lord puts in place need to be followed. Now granted, both passages show women who are alone. That's not the ideal. Fathers should be involved. But even during the ideal, women have to process. And my book on biblical romance teases apart the norms and all of the exceptions to the norms. But it definitely spells out women's rights as they relate to marriage. Well, let's spend some time looking at the character of these women. And this is the part that really made me begin to love these five girls. First of all, we've already seen that they were women of faith. They had faith that they would get land in the land of Canaan. They had faith even before they crossed the River Jordan. It was a long time before. This means that they are absolutely convinced that Israel will inherit the land, and this makes these women's faith stand in stark contrast to the lack of faith that Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and the others who refused to conquer the land, refused to go in. Second, they had faith that they would have children. Francis Nickel points out that when God commands Moses to give them a possession of inheritance among their father's brothers, the them is masculine throughout, referring to the sons of these daughters who don't even exist yet. He says in Hebrew, the word them is masculine, referring to the prospective offspring. The daughters were considered representatives of their own expected sons. So by faith, they're already representing their future offspring. They're planning for their future offspring. They're seeking the welfare of their future offspring. And there are other indicators that they had faith. They're going to get married. They're going to have children. They're going to have land to pass on to their children. OK, so there's faith. Second, they were intelligent. Their arguments may on the surface just seem like a simple request. But if you read more deeply in the commentaries, you'll realize, whoa, there's a lot implied in each of those statements. They're brilliant arguments. They appealed a legal precedent. They fit their dad into that legal precedent. They showed how their situation would actually violate God's intentions in the law and respectfully ask for a decision that would alleviate this apparent conflict in the law. You never get the impression in Scripture that guys are bright and women are dumb. God made men and women equally in His image. And, you know, these are just five of several examples we've looked at of very intelligent women. Third, they were articulate. Naturally, women are a lot of times more articulate than us men, so that's not surprising. But here were women speaking before men in the highest court of the nation. And it's true, there are places where the Scripture says women keep silent, church worship, they're certainly not to rule. But God values articulate women clearly speaking their minds into important situations like this. Their articulation of the issues benefited men and women for ages to come. In fact, this court case has been referenced in American law books all the way up into the last I saw was the early 1900s. Fourth, they were strong and assertive of their rights. Now, sure, they did so with very gracious and humble speech, but they knew they were right and they humbly gave reasons as to why the decision should go their way. We men need to pay attention to the humble way that Moses responded to their request. He took them seriously. He was not dismissive. This is what true patriarchy looks like. What passes for patriarchy in some homes is simply abusive chauvinism. Fifth, they were united. They had obviously thought through what to say, and they made sure that they were in total agreement. Though only one of them was probably acting as the spokesperson, the text is clear. This is what all of them were feeling. Being united in a crest adds weight to the request. But it does force you to think things through carefully ahead of time, rather than just winging it in frustration. Sixth, they were confident that they were right. Being knowledgeable about biblical law helps women to gain confidence before others. There is nothing unsubmissive about being confident in your opinions. Now, if things don't go your way, you can still be sweetly submissive, but women are not asked by God to turn off their minds, and women would have to turn off their minds if they could never disagree with their authority figures. You can disagree and respectfully articulate your disagreement without in any way being unsubmissive. Now, 1 Peter 3 says, yes, you shouldn't nag and you shouldn't spread discontent or undermine, but disagreements do not constitute lack of submission. These girls were confident that they were right. Seventh, they were purposeful. And their purpose was not just for themselves. They knew this was going to set precedent for other women and for the nation. Being purposeful is the opposite of blowing up, flying off the handle, or being impulsive. But at the same time, they didn't whine, complain, or rebel. They were respectful. Next, they handled discrimination with poise. While they didn't agree with what was happening, neither were they ruffled. They entered into the courtroom with poise. And then the last characteristic that I noticed is that they were very respectful of their father, even though they didn't put him on a pedestal, which is idolatry. I mean, they acknowledge he was a sinner. They did not want him associated in any way with the rebellion of Korah, which means they were protecting his reputation. The reputation of our ancestors is an important thing to protect, not in an idolatrous way, but truly they should not be slandered. And they did not want his name to be erased from the land divisions that would be happening, which shows they valued their heritage. And so it was an honoring of the father. for them to ensure that his name would be on the list of those who received an inheritance. And I think it's sad when children do not honor parents who have poured their lives into them. Modern children could learn from these daughters. Now, since so much of this story is wrapped up in the theology of covenant succession, I want to end by quickly listing five essentials of covenant succession that we can learn from these five unmarried girls. And Jason Diffner's book will fill out the picture much, much more, but the seeds of covenant succession can be seen here as well. The first essential is that most people need to get married and have lots of kids. I mean, simple logic tells you that. You're not going to have covenant succession if you're not married and having lots of kids, right? And Numbers 36 and Joshua 17 says they got married, they had kids. And even Paul's dialogue in 1 Corinthians 7 about the unique situation of singleness shows that it was an unusual circumstance and a temporary exception. He starts 1 Corinthians 7 by giving the norm, saying in verse 2, let each man have his own wife and let each woman have her own husband. That is the norm. And I have seen some people who are so fearful of the risks of marriage and the responsibility of marriage that they keep putting off marriage forever. And then I've seen other people who want to get married and they want to get married to the ideal. And I tell them, you're not perfect. Why in the world would you expect a perfect person to marry you? No, they're never going to get married. Or if they do get married, they're going to be sadly disappointed that this person was not who they thought they were. Right. So the norm is to get married to sinners. Yes, that's the norm. Get married to sinners who are growing in grace. And I've seen others who get married, don't plan to have any children. That is not right. The dominion mandate has never been rescinded. And in fact, it is repeated in the New Testament. very clearly repeated. Let me read that to you. God commands younger widows to, quote, marry, bear children, that's a command, marry, bear children, manage the household, 1 Timothy 5.14. That's the dominion mandate. So to most of you, I would say, get married and have lots of kids. You have no future without it, period. But being married and having children is not enough. In my notes here, I have almost as many scriptures that speak of the curse of the wicked having many children as there are that speak of the blessing of the righteous having many children. Fruitfulness is not a blessing in the abstract. It is a blessing within the context of covenant faithfulness. For example, Deuteronomy 28, 18 tells unfaithful Israelites who claim to be in the covenant, but they're unfaithful, he says, cursed shall be the fruit of your body. So the blessing of children is within the context of covenant faithfulness. And so the next essential in having covenant succession is to have faith in God's promises. including difficult to believe promises like the meek shall inherit the earth. That's a tough one to believe, but you got to believe it. OK, the five sisters expressed their faith by contrasting themselves with the unbelieving families of Corun, Dathan and Abiram, who perished under God's judgment, who refused to possess the land. These daughters had the same faith that Christ called for when he said the meek shall inherit the earth without faith in God. Baptism is meaningless, and God's promises of covenant succession will not come to fruition. Since we've already looked at their faith, I won't say more on that point. The next characteristic that is essential to covenant succession is a commitment to raise our children in the fear and nurture of the Lord. Now obviously this flows from faith. very active faith. While faith lays hold of God's inheritance on behalf of our children, it takes strong character to engage in whatever steps are necessary to see our children also laying hold of the covenant by faith. And almost every commentary shows this act of taking and passing on of the faith in these five sisters in Numbers 36. When we take baptism vows for our children, we commit ourselves to doing everything in our power to make sure that our children will embrace the covenant for themselves. It will not automatically happen. It must be worked at. Fourth, The raising of our children must be defined by God's word alone. And so the fourth essential of covenant succession is that parents are willing to embrace God's law, live by God's law, pass that law on to their children. This was stated in Numbers 36.10, which says, just as the Lord commanded Moses, so did the daughters of Zelophehad. It's implied also in their contrast of themselves with the rebels. When we apply the sign of the covenant to our children, we are committing ourselves to submit to God's law rather than to rebel against God's law like Korah, Nathan, and Abiram did. The last essential of covenant succession that was illustrated in Numbers 27, 36, is that parents must have future orientation without depreciating the benefits of the past. Now, we can get imbalanced if we park exclusively in either direction. Some people live in the past, and they fail to appreciate, no, there has to always be growth and change in the kingdom. in the future. Others are so preoccupied with the new that they neglect their heritage. And I think it's covenant theology that enables you to maintain that balance between the future and the past. The past benefit that Numbers 36 focused on was the inheritance of their father, the law of God, faith of Abraham. Future orientation was expressed by most of what we looked at today. Well, in the same way, our children can stand on our shoulders and benefit from the spiritual heritage that we have given them and the financial heritage we have passed on, but our children must want that heritage passed on to the next generation, not just using it up on theirs. After all, God promised that He would be a God to us and to our children after us, what, to a thousand generations. And we should hope and pray for growth in every generation, financial growth, spiritual growth, dominion growth. May God give each of our families the passion for covenant succession that the daughters of Zuluf Ahad had. Amen. Father, so much in these chapters, even stuff that we have not yet covered, but I pray that these principles would be principles that would grab us and that we would be successful in passing on the faith to our children, to our children's children. Father, we long to see a time when there truly is a thousand generations of those who love you. And we know that it is not achievable by our efforts. It's by your grace alone that this can happen. But we look to your grace. We believe in your grace with the daughters of Zalophahad. We have faith in your power to accomplish the impossible. And so we pray these things in Jesus name. Amen.