Wednesday, 30 November 2016

Noah and Her Sisters

     Noah was the great-great-great-great granddaughter of the patriarch Joseph. Her sisters were Mahlah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. They were the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, the son of Joseph (Num. 26:28-33).


     After four decades of living as nomads in the Sinai wilderness, it was time for the people of Israel to settle in the land of Canaan.1 The fertile region was to be divided among all Israelite tribes except the Levites, who would be supported by the tithing system as they rendered spiritual service to the nation.2
     The land was partitioned according to tribes and families, and the head of each family was to pass his inheritance on to his sons. But Zelophehad, the great-great-great grandson of Joseph, died in the wilderness and had no sons (1 Chron. 7:15). Although he did have five daughters, there was no provision in the law for a man’s daughters inheriting an estate.

An Exceptional Case

     Realizing their father’s legacy was in jeopardy, Zelophehad’s daughters took action. Despite the firmly established patriarchal society in which they lived, the five sisters stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the tribal leaders, and the entire community. They made the following appeal: “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” (Num. 27:4 NKJV).
     Such an unprecedented request caught Moses off guard. He didn’t know what to do. So he brought their case before the LORD, and this is what the LORD decreed: “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” (Num. 27:7). Moreover, additional provisions were made for others who might otherwise get overlooked in inheritance claims (vv. 9-11).

The Promise Fulfilled

     After Moses’ death, as the Israelites began inhabiting the Promised Land, the daughters of Zelophehad reminded Eleazar and Joshua that God had commanded Moses to give them an inheritance (Josh. 17:4a). “Therefore, according to the commandment of the Lord, he gave them an inheritance among their father’s brothers” (v. 4b). Accordingly, the territory of the tribe of Manasseh was significantly increased (vv. 5-6). Noah and her sisters, to ensure the property remained in the family, then married sons of their father’s brothers (Num. 36:10-12).

A Historical Moment

     Contrary to modern-day misconceptions, women in ancient Israel were not second-class citizens to be suppressed and mistreated with God’s approval. To better appreciate the true state of affairs, one needs only to understand the plight of women in the ancient world in general, where male domination was the norm.
     Among contemporary Greeks, females had few rights in comparison to their male counterparts. Since they were considered by nature inferior to men,3 women were not allowed to inherit or own property. In the early Roman Republic, females were under the authority and control of their fathers and husbands. Because they were deemed incapable of acting for themselves, ladies were legally obliged to have a male tutela (“tutor”) to ensure property was kept in the male-dominated family.4 Among the ancient Egyptians, where equity between the sexes was afforded some consideration, men still held the positions of authority and controlled their respective households and land ownership.5
     Even though it was very much a man’s world, Jewish law elevated women to a unique status. Wives, mothers, and widows were to be protected, supported, and treated with dignity and respect (Ex. 20:12; Lev. 19:3; Deut. 5:16; 10:18; 18-21; 27:16; Psa. 146:9; Prov. 18:22; 19:14; 31:10-31; et al.). Any injustice, contempt, or maltreatment of women among the Jews was contrary to and in violation of the divine will.6

Lessons to Learn

     Of the approximately two million Jews who entered the Promised Land (Num. 26:2, 51, 62), how is it that only one family had no sons? If we concede the providence and foreknowledge of God, this certainly made the allotment of property much less complicated according to customary birthright conventions. But what about the daughters of Zelophehad?
·      God expects his people to step out in faith and take action (Jas. 2:17). He doesn’t work through apathy, passivity, or laziness. Noah and her sisters took initiative in the pursuit of fairness.
·      God expects his people to trust him enough to confront fear (Psa. 27:1). Noah and her sisters, in a male-dominated culture, had the courage to take a stand for what is right.
·      God expects his people to put the interests of others before themselves (1 Cor. 10:24). Noah and her sisters were not selfishly demanding their perceived rights but seeking to preserve the legacy of their father and provide a future for their families.
·      God will always do what’s right (Deut. 32:4). Noah and her sisters were a test case, and the Lord turned a potential injustice into a blessing, not only for these five ladies but for many others who might otherwise be neglected.
·      While God has designated different roles for men and women, neither is superior to the other; both are equally valued in his sight (Gen. 1:27). Noah and her sisters provide a clear demonstration of this fundamental truth.
     Hopefully we can appreciate that the celebrated ark-builder was not the only hero of faith named “Noah” in the biblical record. Noah, the daughter of Zelophehad, along with her four sisters, impacted the world in which they lived and future generations as well. They remain worthy of our gratitude and recognition.
--Kevin L. Moore

     1 The ancient land of Canaan roughly corresponds to present-day Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Israel.
     2 Num. 18:20-31; Josh. 13:7–19:48.
     3 Aristotle, Politics 1.1259b; cf. also Cicero, Pro Murena 12.27; Epictetus, Discourses 2.4.
     4 William Smith, William Wayte, and G. E. Marindin, eds. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (London: John Murray, 1890) <Link>. Under the Empire, it was not legal for women to buy or sell property until the reign of Claudius (AD 41-54), although they still could not vote or hold office (see A. Bell, Jr. Exploring the NT World 195-96).
     5 Bob Brier and Hoyt Hobbs, Ancient Egypt: Everyday Life in the Land of the Nile (New York: Sterling, 2013): 89 <Link>; Robert C. Ellickson and Charles DiA. Thorland, “Ancient Land Law: Mesopotamia, Egypt, Israel,” Faculty Scholarship Series 71:321 (1995): 354-56. <Link>
     6 The Talmud prescribed that a Jewish man offer the daily prayer: “Thank you God for not making me a Gentile, a woman, or a slave” (Menachot 43b-44a). When divorce became prevalent among the Israelites (Deut. 22:19, 29; Lev. 21:7, 13, 14), it was permitted only because of “hardness of heart” (Matt. 19:8), serving to protect women from unscrupulous husbands and the precarious charge of adultery (Deut. 24:1-4; cf. Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22).

Image credit:

Wednesday, 23 November 2016

Stop getting drunk at church and do it at home?

     Paul writes to the problem-plagued Christian community in Corinth: “For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not” (1 Cor. 11:21-22 ESV).
     Although the English rendering of the verb methúō in this passage is “drunk,” it is set in contrast to “hungry” (v. 21) – not necessarily meaning intoxicated but rather indicative of some having over-indulged in both food and drink (v. 22a), while others were left wanting. Such segregation and partiality among Christians show disdain and contempt for God’s church (v. 22b; cf. Jas. 2:1-9). If this is how they were going to act, they should eat and drink at home before they come to the assembly.
     The infinitive “to drink” in v. 22 does not specify what beverage is consumed any more than “to eat” specifies what is eaten. Earlier Paul had reminded the Corinthians that being a faithful Christian and being a drunkard [méthusos] are mutually exclusive (5:11; 6:10), and elsewhere Paul forbids intoxication [methúskō] (Eph. 5:18). Unless inebriants are necessarily in view, the sense of methúō is simply fullness or excessiveness (cf. John 2:10; Rev. 17:2, 6).
--Kevin L. Moore

Related articles: Scott Shifferd's Reconsider Biblical Drunkenness

Image credit:

Wednesday, 16 November 2016

Boasting in 2 Corinthians

     In the first nine chapters of 2 Corinthians the noun kaúchēsis (“boasting”) and the verb kaucháomai (to “boast”) are used a combined total of seven times (1:12; 5:12; 7:4, 14; 8:24; 9:2), whereas in three of the final four chapters they appear a combined total of nineteen times (10:8, 13, 15, 16, 17; 11:10, 12, 16, 17, 18, 30; 12:1, 5, 6, 9). The noun occurs four times in chaps. 1–9 (1:12; 7:4, 14; 8:24), and the verb only three times (5:12; 7:14; 9:2). In chaps. 10–12 the noun is used twice (11:10, 17) and the verb a hefty seventeen times (10:8, 13, 15, 16, 17 [x2]; 11:12, 16, 18 [x2], 30 [x2]; 12:1, 5 [x2], 6, 9). It would appear that the earlier allusions to “boasting” in the epistle are anticipating the discussion in the final chapters.
     Boasting is often viewed as an exhibition of prideful self-promotion and the opposite of selfless love (cf. 1 Cor. 13:4). Paul’s opponents in Corinth appear to have been engaging in this kind of self-centered boasting (2 Cor. 5:12; 10:12; 11:12, 18). Considering the cultural atmosphere, where social progression and status were of utmost importance, self-promotion and boasting were not uncommon in a community like mid-first-century Corinth (see A. C. Thiselton, First Corinthians 12-13).
     However, there is a different kind of boasting whose object is beyond self and is in fact motivated by love. The object of Paul’s boasting is threefold: (a) the spiritual health and faithfulness of fellow believers (2 Cor. 7:4, 14; 8:24; 9:2); (b) what God has accomplished through fallible human efforts (2 Cor. 10:7-18; 11:10, 16-33); and (c) Paul’s own weaknesses that exalt the power of God (2 Cor. 1:12; 11:30; 12:5b, 9). This type of boasting is well grounded if it is “in the Lord” (2 Cor. 10:17; cf. 1:14).
     Although Paul is reluctant to play the “boasting game,” he is compelled to do so because of the circumstances in Corinth at the time (2 Cor. 10:8; 11:10, 16-18; 12:1, 5a, 6). He has to authenticate his apostolic ministry due to unwarranted criticisms and the fact that the Corinthians have been swayed by them and have failed to defend him (4:2; 5:11-12; 11:21). His uneasiness about this kind of boasting is evidenced by the repeated reminders, “I am speaking in foolishness” (11:21b, 30; 12:1, 11). Paul’s boasting is not for self-glorification but for the benefit of these wavering readers.
-- Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts:

Image credit: