|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
1 This was
the allotment for the tribe of Manasseh as Joseph's firstborn, that is, for
Makir, Manasseh's firstborn. Makir was the ancestor of the Gileadites, who
had received Gilead and Bashan because the Makirites were great soldiers. 2 So this
allotment was for the rest of the people of Manasseh --the clans of Abiezer,
Helek, Asriel, Shechem, Hepher and Shemida. These are the other male
descendants of Manasseh son of Joseph by their clans. 3 Now
Zelophehad son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Makir, the son of
Manasseh, had no sons but only daughters, whose names were Mahlah, Noah,
Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah. 4 They went
to Eleazar the priest, Joshua son of Nun, and the leaders and said, "The
LORD commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brothers." So
Joshua gave them an inheritance along with the brothers of their father,
according to the LORD's command. 5
Manasseh's share consisted of ten tracts of land besides Gilead and Bashan
east of the Jordan, 6 because
the daughters of the tribe of Manasseh received an inheritance among the
sons. The land of Gilead belonged to the rest of the descendants of Manasseh.
7 The
territory of Manasseh extended from Asher to Micmethath east of Shechem. The
boundary ran southward from there to include the people living at En Tappuah.
8 (Manasseh
had the land of Tappuah, but Tappuah itself, on the boundary of Manasseh,
belonged to the Ephraimites.) 9 Then the
boundary continued south to the Kanah Ravine. There were towns belonging to
Ephraim lying among the towns of Manasseh, but the boundary of Manasseh was
the northern side of the ravine and ended at the sea. 10 On the
south the land belonged to Ephraim, on the north to Manasseh. The territory
of Manasseh reached the sea and bordered Asher on the north and Issachar on
the east. 11 Within
Issachar and Asher, Manasseh also had Beth Shan, Ibleam and the people of
Dor, Endor, Taanach and Megiddo, together with their surrounding settlements
(the third in the list is Naphoth). 12 Yet the
Manassites were not able to occupy these towns, for the Canaanites were
determined to live in that region. 13 However,
when the Israelites grew stronger, they subjected the Canaanites to forced
labor but did not drive them out completely.
"because
the daughters of the tribe of Manasseh received an inheritance among the
sons. The land of Gilead belonged to the rest of the descendants of
Manasseh." Joshua 17 : 6
Anyone
who follows the world affairs of the last century is aware that there just
doesn't seem to be enough room for all the people who want to live in
Palestine. Not only was this plot of land an endlessly contested intersection
for various trade routes in times long past, today it is a hotly contested
mecca- a holy destination- for millions of people of differing faiths. It is
to no surprise that the rightful ownership of the portions of this little
chunk of stony land is not a simple matter to resolve. The
issue recounted in our text today is just one more illustration of a dispute
about how the land of Canaan ought to be apportioned. Joshua and Eleazar the
Priest, along with the tribal leaders of Israel have been making allotments
to all the tribes, and assigning specific parcels of land to the various
family clans within each tribe. And following the prevalent custom of the
day, the land was handed to the male leader of each family clan. So far, so
good, of course, until the daughters of Zelophehad (who had presumably died
already) realized that since their father had no sons, they would get no land
apportioned to them. There was no male - no head of the family clan - to whom
the land could be given. The daughters of Zelophehad would have to join the
household (become the property of) of one of Zelophehad's brothers. Not
surprisingly, the daughters object. Are they not Israelites, too? Are they
not worthy of inheritance? Is their family clan not worthy of an
apportionment, a legacy in the land of promise? Why should their name and
lineage die out just because they were women? Did not God intend for all the
tribes of Israel, for all her people, to flourish in the land of promise, the
land flowing with milk and honey? And did not God make specific provision to
ensure just that (Numbers 26,27)? Joshua understands their plight, remembers
the Lord's stipulation for just such a case, and so commands that the
daughters of Zelophehad receive an inheritance in proportion to the rest of
Zelophehad's siblings. Case
closed. Or
is this just the beginning ...? In
the wisdom literature of the Bible there is a pointed focus on the nature and
place of women in God's kingdom (Proverbs 31, for example). So, too, when we
first encounter Job, we are told that he has seven sons and three daughters.
What is interesting is that at the end of the book, Job is again blessed with
seven sons and three daughters-but further, the daughters are now named and
included in the inheritance, despite the fact that there were sons through
whom the normal inheritance and lineage could proceed. Likewise,
the prophet Joel declares that in God's great day of vindication, God's
Spirit will be poured out on all people, both sons and daughters, both men
and women. And
in a similar vein, when Matthew recounts the genealogy of Jesus, he makes
special note of the women that God includes in the lineage-Rahab, Ruth, and
Mary. What
does this all mean for the Church, for God's people, today? Once
again, many people of deep faith and much learning hotly debate this question.
But this much seems plain: God ensures that there is room for all His
children. No one, whether male or female, Jew or Gentile, slave or free is to
be excluded from the Spirit-filled bounty of God's promise. God's inheritance
includes everyone; no-one is excluded when God's gifts are poured out among
His people.
Help
me to be especially sensitive to welcome and include those persons that
others tend to overlook, disparage, or ignore. Amen.
In
almost every social circumstance, we can all too easily fall into
customs-patterns of behavior or understanding-whereby certain people
naturally get included but others tend to be excluded. We notice this most
particularly when we enter a new situation. "Insiders" seem to have
more opportunity, influence, and ease than do others. And this is true in
family settings-ask a new in-law what s/he observed when first introduced to
your extended family, for example-in work environments, and even in the
church. Reflect
for a moment on each of these environments-church, work, home. Ask yourself:
What privileges do I assume in each of these settings? Then ask: Does
everyone have these same privileges? If not, what can you do to better
include them in the privilege and promise of the blessings God has poured out
among us? [Top] [Living Life Home] [SWIM Home]
|
|
||||
|
|
|
Copyright (c)1995-2000 Tyrannus Press & SWIM.All rights reserved. |
|