Thousands of years before the British constitution granted succession to the throne by the oldest heir, regardless of sex (2013), the daughters of Zelophehad raised a question of interest to many women. Normally, daughters received a generous dowry from their father, but the family land would be distributed among the sons. This would preserve the family name’s deep connection with the promised land. But what if there were no male heirs? 

I love these strong and intelligent women. Not only did they identify a legal loophole: they also anticipated their position when Israel came into the Promised Land (possibly anticipating that their tribe would be among the first to settle on the eastern side of the Jordan – see chapter 32). So their question, asked long before the land was conquered, arose from faith. God would fulfil his promises. 

This passage shows us how laws which constitute so much of the first five books of the Bible were formed: a new situation arose for which there was no precedent, and Moses had to seek God’s wisdom. The Bible does not answer all our questions. We also, collectively, need to seek God’s wisdom, in line with what he has already revealed, when dealing with new situations. (Zelophehad’s daughters’ question raises further questions in the final chapter of Numbers.)

You are a daughter, you are a son, of the King of kings. Soak in the wonder of this breathtaking privilege.

Until 2013, Britain’s heir to the throne was the monarch’s firstborn son. Only where there were no sons did the crown pass to the eldest daughter. With changes in succession laws, however, sons and daughters now enjoy equal rights to the throne. By law and custom, only sons enjoyed inheritance rights in Israel. Since Zelophehad had no sons, his daughters challenge this practice. First, the women’s actions represent a faith statement. Although the conquest is still an unrealised promise, these women act out of the assurance that it will take place, demonstrating that ‘faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see’.¹ Second, they had just cause for concern, since disappearance of the family name (v 4) was frequently associated with divine judgement and ‘an inheritance’ in the land (v 7) was linked to fellowship with God and inclusion in the covenant. Third, although they are assertive in approaching the tabernacle (v 2), these women are not aggressive but submit their concerns to God’s appointed leader. It says much for Moses’ leadership that he didn’t dismiss the case out of hand, citing tradition or personal opinion, but sought God’s direction (v 5).²

God doesn’t just rule in favour of these women, he declares this a law for all Israel (vs 8–11). Even this is only a step in the right direction. Progress is often viewed as moving with the times, but really it’s about moving closer to God’s original intention – in this case, going back to the beginning, where men and women were, equally, image-bearers of God and inheritors of his blessing.³ The coming of the new Moses, Jesus, represents a giant leap forward into a new community where women would be co-heirs – not merely inheriting in the absence of sons but equally together with sons.⁴

Where God’s Word is silent or unclear, the church must seek Spirit-shaped wisdom to make God-pleasing decisions.

¹ Heb 11:1, TNIV  ² See also Num 9:8; 15:32–35  ³ Gen 1:26–28  ⁴ Gal 3:27–29; 1 Pet 3:7