Dennis Tuuri

Please stand. Our subject for this Reformation Day sermon will be Zelophehad’s daughters and Joseph’s sons. Courage versus braggadocio. Joshua 17. There was also a lot for the tribe of Manasseh, for he was the firstborn of Joseph, to wit for Makir the firstborn of Manasseh, the father of Gilead. Because he was a man of war, therefore he had Gilead and Bashan. There was also a lot for the rest of the children of Manasseh by their families.

For the children of Abiezer, and for the children of Helek, and for the children of Asriel, and for the children of Shechem, and for the children of Hepher, and for the children of Shemida. These were the male children of Manasseh, the son of Joseph, by their families. But Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Makir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, but daughters. And these are the names of his daughters.

Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milkah, and Tirzah. And they came near before Eleazar the priest, before Joshua the son of Nun, and before the princes, saying, “The Lord commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brethren. Therefore, according to the commandment of the Lord, he gave them an inheritance among the brethren of their father. And there fell ten portions to Manasseh beside the land of Gilead and Bashan, which were on the other side Jordan.

Because the daughters of Manasseh had an inheritance among his sons, and the rest of Manasseh’s sons had the land of Gilead. And the coast of Manasseh was from Asher to Micmethah that lieth before Shechem. And the border went along on the right hand unto the inhabitants of En Tappuah. Now Manasseh had the land of Tappuah. But Tappuah and the border of Manasseh belonged to the children of Ephraim. And the coast descended unto the river, the river Kanah southward of the river.

These cities of Ephraim were among the cities of Manasseh. The coast of Manasseh also was on the north of the river. And the outgoings of it were at the sea. Southward it was Ephraim’s and northward it was Manasseh’s. And the sea is his border. And they met together in Asher on the north and in Issachar on the east. And Manasseh had in Issachar and in Asher, Beth Shean and her towns, and Ibleam and her towns, and the inhabitants of Dor and her towns, and the inhabitants of Endor and her towns, and the inhabitants of Taanach and her towns, and the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns, even three countries.

Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities, but the Canaanites would dwell in that land. Yet it came to pass, when the children of Israel were waxed strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute, but did not utterly drive them out. And the children of Joseph spake unto Joshua, saying, “Why hast thou given me but one lot and one portion to inherit, seeing I am a great people, for as much as the Lord hath blessed me hitherto?”

And Joshua answered them, “If thou be a great people, then get thee up to the wood country, and cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants, if Mount Ephraim be too narrow for thee.” Children of Joseph said, “The hill is not enough for us, and all the Canaanites that dwell in the land of the valley have chariots of iron, both they who are of Beth Shean and her towns, and they who are of the valley of Jezreel.”

And Joshua spake unto the house of Joseph, even unto Ephraim and to Manasseh, saying, “Thou art a great people, and hast great power. Thou shalt not have one lot only, but the mountain shall be thine, for it is a wood, and thou shalt cut it down, and the outgoings of it shall be thine. For thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots, and though they be strong.” Thank God for his word, and pray that he would illumine it to our hearts and understanding by the Holy Spirit.

Galloping through Joshua, jolting through Joshua, maybe a chapter a week. It’s fun. I was talking about it this morning to my wife that it’s kind of like eating fruitcake every week for me. There’s so much stuff in each of these chapters. You certainly could spend a long time going through each of them, but at the same time, it’s enjoyable to really cover a lot of territory in a week with my own personal studies.

I hope that it’s enjoyable and profitable to you to cover the gleanings of what I study as we share it here on Sundays as we worship God together by looking at his word. Come to Joshua 17. And this kind of concludes a certain portion of this book. We’re in the inheritance chapters, rather, and we’re dealing with the inheritance of Manasseh and we’ve talked about Ephraim. So we’ve had Judah, Ephraim, and Manasseh’s inheritance covered in these last few chapters ending in chapter 17. Chapter 18 and the next few chapters cover the rest of the tribes.

It’s kind of a division there. And you’ll see that the division point is the allotment that was given at Shiloh where the tabernacle is set up in verse one of the next chapter. We’ll get to that next week touching briefly on chapter 18. Next week is the first time I’m not going to do a whole chapter. We’re just going to focus on one verse as an election day sermon, but anyway, this kind of wraps up a portion of this.

And so, I think at the end of this chapter 17, that story of the sons of Joseph talking to Joshua is kind of a literary conclusion to these last couple of chapters. And we’ll deal with it that way. So, what we’re going to do first is, as we’ve done before many times, is to kind of do a quick overview of the chapter—what is going on here—and then look at the two stories, slash lessons that are presented in this chapter.

You’ll notice that this is really what we’ve done with most of Joshua, and it’s because that’s the way God wrote the book. In the case of the literary structure of Joshua we have these details—these lists of towns, kings, geographic areas, et cetera—interspersed with these little narratives, little stories. And you know, it’s important that we understand these stories and their literary structure. They tell us something about the whole chapter or the whole framework of the book that they’re found in. So we’ll do that again this week.

Now first of all, let’s look at the overall structure of this chapter. However basically you can outline it a lot of different ways. I’ve chosen to do the first three points dealing with Manasseh and then the summary section as a fourth point. Under part one of your outline—overview of Joshua 17—we have first of all Manasseh’s descendants given for us in verses 1-6. That isn’t quite true. Verse one kind of introduces us to the lot of the tribe of Manasseh. But essentially what you have in these first six verses tells us the lineage of Manasseh.

Now, before we go on very much further, it’s important to remember Manasseh and Ephraim, of course, were the two sons of Joseph in the land of Egypt. And we talked last week about Ephraim meaning doubly blessed. Manasseh was the firstborn. However, the name Manasseh means to forget, to cause to forget. And we read in Genesis 41:51, the following verse. It says that Joseph called the name of his firstborn Manasseh.

“For God said he hath made me forget all my toil and all my father’s house.” So when Joseph has his first son in Egypt, he calls him “caused to forget” because God has caused Joseph to forget and to rejoice after all the troubles that God has given Joseph. His second son is then named Ephraim—doubly blessed or doubly fruitful. And remember we talked last week about how though Manasseh is the firstborn, Ephraim becomes preeminent. The sovereign selection of God is indicated by Israel himself, or Jacob, who blesses the second born with the firstborn’s blessing—puts his right hand on the second born, much the same way as he had supplanted Esau. So now Ephraim will supplant Manasseh.

And throughout the history of the tribe of Manasseh in the Old Testament we see this. I mentioned last week the story of Gideon. In reference to Ephraim, Gideon was of the tribe of Manasseh. When God first comes to Gideon in Judges chapter 6, Gideon’s response to God is this. He says, “Oh my lord, wherein shall I save Israel? Behold, my family is poor in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father’s house.” He goes on to essentially say that Manasseh is seen as not having a lot of preeminence. And he’s saying even my household is not preeminent even in the context of this kind of weak, puny tribe Manasseh.

Well, it wasn’t really weak and puny, but compared to Ephraim, it was. Ephraim had the great preeminence. Manasseh, while it has more land—I didn’t do the map for you this week, but if you remember from the last couple of maps—Manasseh has a great deal more land. But the very fact that they’re kind of spread out on either side of the Jordan River, they have portions on both sides, kind of weakens them to a certain extent. And in any event, we see the sovereign working out of God’s selection of Ephraim as the preeminent over Manasseh.

Now, Manasseh does get two portions in the land. One on the east side of Jordan, one on the west side of Jordan, as the text tells us. They do get kind of the double portion that is due to the firstborn. Firstborn sons get the double portion of the inheritance. But essentially they’re supplanted by Ephraim. And it’s important to kind of keep that in context here when we get to the complaint of the sons of Joseph.

We mostly see, I think, Ephraim complaining more than Manasseh, although Manasseh is certainly culpable as well. We’ll get to that in a couple of minutes. So Manasseh, this tribe, historically then is kind of seen as the weaker of the two. Ephraim and Manasseh are always in that kind of context, and there’s this tension between the two. And frequently Ephraim’s envy—remember, we talked last week about the tribe of Ephraim. They’re surly, they’re prideful. We’ll see that again this week. Frequently, their surliness is exhibited against Manasseh.

In the case of Gideon, for instance—well, in any event, the genealogy then of Manasseh’s descendants are given to us in the context of this tribe. And the way it works is Manasseh has a single son, Makir, and Makir has a single son, Gilead. And then Gilead has five sons that are listed for us in the text, and then those five sons—one of them has six sons. I’m sorry. One of those six sons, Hepher, has no male descendants. However, his son, Zelophehad, Hepher’s son, Zelophehad, has no male descendants. So, we have five sons of Gilead who have the normal sort of lineage and a sixth son who has Zelophehad and Zelophehad only has daughters.

So, the way this works out is the descendants are traced out as ten—five male descendants and then the line of Hepher and Zelophehad ending in five daughters, five female descendants. So essentially Manasseh is treated as having ten children—five boys and five girls—even though he had six boys. The sixth boy results in the five girls. And so those are the descendants that are sketched out for us in these first six verses in terms specifically of the inheritance.

Now we’ll get more to the inheritance in just a couple of minutes here as we talk about Zelophehad’s daughters. But in the first six verses then of 17, all we have is essentially a delineation of the lineage of Manasseh—it’s five male descendants heirs and then the one other male descendant ending up with five daughters, females. And that’s the way the inheritance is sketched out.

Then in verses 7-11, the borders of Manasseh are sketched out for us geographically. In the context of this, as I said, Manasseh does actually retain the privilege of the firstborn since they do get land. Now a portion to them in addition to what they got on the east side of Jordan, they now get a portion of land on the west side of the river Jordan. They’re directly north. Some portions of their border are directly north of Ephraim. Other portions spread up. They have a large territory in pretty much the central area or the north central area of Canaan, and borders are sketched out for us in verses 7-11.

And in the context of that, there are several exceptions noted where Ephraim has particular cities allotted to it within the physical border of Manasseh. There’s like an intertwining between the two—these two sons of Joseph. Ephraim has some towns in Manasseh. Additionally, and perhaps to make up for that, the way that worked out, an allotment is given of towns for Manasseh in other—let’s see in verse 17, is it verse 11 rather? Yes—Manasseh has in Issachar and in Asher several other towns. So there’s some interplay between the tribes here, some interconnectedness where certain cities within areas are given to other tribes in terms of the border areas represented. So we have in those next four verses then the allotment of Manasseh’s borders and the significant thing there is to notice that indeed they do get another portion of land. They do essentially get a double portion of land then in this allotment to the west of the Jordan.

Then after that, we have Manasseh’s failure indicated to us in verses 12 and 13. “Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities, but the Canaanites would dwell in that land. Yet it came to pass when the children of Israel were waxed strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute, but did not utterly drive them out.”

Well, this is now a pattern, isn’t it? We saw Judah first of all could not drive out, could not eliminate the Canaanites. Then last week, we saw Ephraim, who would not eliminate the Canaanites and instead puts them under tribute. And now it seems like there’s an expansion in the failure of these tribes that are listed in terms of the inheritance. In verse 12, because now we were just given a list of cities which, by the way, in verse 11 are stronghold cities of the Canaanites. They were like armed fortresses. And verse 12 tells us that the children of Manasseh could not drive the Canaanites from any of those cities.

So now we have a whole bunch of cities listed that this tribe fails to drive the Canaanites out of. And so Manasseh’s failure is cited for us in verses 12 and 13. Although like Ephraim, they also put the Canaanites to tribute, as is recorded in verse 13. Then in verses 14 through 18 we have Joseph’s sons’ failure revealed in dialogue. So the fourth point of this basic overview of this chapter is: now we have a summary conclusion to really both Ephraim and Manasseh because now instead of talking about Manasseh and his inheritance in verse 12, we transition—now we’re talking about the sons of Joseph. The sons of Joseph are two: Ephraim and Manasseh. And Ephraim is dominant as we saw historically last week and we saw in the blessing portion as well of God’s providence giving dominance to Ephraim.

So I think we can read a lot of Ephraim into these next few verses. One commentator in his outline of this chapter calls this section, verses 14-18, “a narrative epilogue as theological conclusion,” and that’s a good way to put it. We have here a story, a narrative epilogue—an epilogue to the division of the inheritance of the tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh. And the whole point is a theological conclusion to this whole section of geography and inheritance and the delineation of these tribes, their borders, and their cities. There’s a theological conclusion drawn to this which we’ll develop as we go through this.

And that begins first of all in verse 14 with Joseph’s sons in gratitude, pride, and piety. Verse 14: “The children of Joseph spake unto Joshua, saying, ‘Why hast thou given me but one lot and one portion to inherit, seeing I am a great people? For as much as the Lord hath blessed me hitherto?’”

This narrative dialogue has begun when the sons of Joseph come to Joshua and say, “Hey, we’re a great big nation. We’re strong. We’ve been blessed by God, man. We need more inheritance than what you’ve given us here. So, let us have some more inheritance.” Well, of course, it’s not really Joshua’s choice, is it? I mean, while he is the civil ruler of the nation, the allotment is of course a portion by God. And so Joshua tells him in verse 15: “Joshua answered them, ‘If thou be a great people, then get thee up to the wood country, cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants, if not Ephraim be too narrow for thee.’”

He says, “Essentially, you’ve got more land than you’re actually occupying now anyway. Go cut those trees down and you’ll have a lot more land to kind of spread out into.” So I think Joshua essentially just in his reply to them tells them, “Hey, you know, you’ve got a thing here to do.”

Now, it may sound funny if you know—if you’ve read or seen pictures of present-day Israel—you think, “What are the what’s the problem with all this wood country?” Well, I don’t want to make a big deal out of this, but at one time the area was heavily forested. And what we see there now in terms of the desolation of Israel and very few trees is a result of God’s curse over time against the people who are disobedient to him. So, the geography has radically changed. The land has changed in relationship to God’s eventually moving in judgment against that particular area that was manifested in a lot of different ways. We don’t want to get into all that, but realize that at the time of the division of the land of Canaan, these woods were a problem. The area was heavily forested.

If you’re trying to wipe out Canaanites and they’ve got these woods to hide in—and it’s kind of like, you know, Robin Hood, if you saw that movie—of course, if you’re in the forest, it’s pretty tough not just because of the superstitious side where people don’t want to come in there, but it’s tough to wage war. Guerrilla warfare—essentially, the Canaanites could do that in the context of these wooded areas.

I’d mentioned there also just in passing that this idea that it was heavily forested at one time and now essentially barren—that’s really central to the whole theme of Joshua, that geography and land is important in terms of blessing and cursing from God. And so it has to do with the whole big line here that’s being pictured for us—that what we do in our physical location is important. And what we’ll see surrounding us as a result of God’s blessing or curse is the result of our obedience or the disobedience of people.

So anyway, they—Joshua says, “We got the hill, these trees. You got this hill country. You can go cut these hills, these trees down, expand that way. You can have kind of a virtual enlargement of your land just by taking over what you haven’t done yet.”

Well, then the children of Joseph answer him back and they say, “The hill is not enough for us. And all the Canaanites that dwell in the land of the valley have chariots of iron, both they which are who are of Beth Shean and her towns, and they also are of the valley of Jezreel.”

So they answer Joshua and say, “Well, now you know, first of all, that hill country is not going to be big enough for us.” Now there’s some indication that the verbiage there could mean that they have a hard time clearing it as well. And they also say that the valley itself—even that you’ve given us here—these Canaanites have chariots of iron. We can’t even live in that portion. So give us other land here.

See, so it becomes more and more obvious that they’re discontent. They’re in ingratitude and grumbling as the basis in their own failure to walk in obedience to God’s command to clean out the Canaanites. Of course, they have iron chariots. They knew that going into it. Remember, God always encouraged them in Joshua chapter 1 and the ending portions of Deuteronomy. When you go in there, you’re going to see people that are larger and more numerous than you. And you’re going to see chariots, chariots of iron. Don’t let it frighten you. It shouldn’t have caught them by surprise.

But their lack of faith and their resultant failure of courage—it’s demonstrated here. And that’s why I refer to them as having a spirit of braggadocio. They are vain, loud, and essentially braggards, but not really having the wherewithal to follow through on what they want to do.

Well, Joshua answers with two more verses, 17 and 18. Joshua rather answers and he speaks unto the sons of Joseph, even to Ephraim and Manasseh, saying, “Thou art a great people and hast great power. Thou shalt not have one lot only, but the mountain shall be thine, for it is a wood, and thou shalt cut it down, and the outgoings of it shall be thine. For thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots, and though they be strong.”

So essentially in this chapter then we have the division to Manasseh. We have a long listing of the descendants of Manasseh—five boys, five girls essentially. Then we have the borders described of the inheritance on the west of the land. They’ve already gotten the land. They’ve already gotten land to the east of Jordan. Now they get land to the west of Jordan. And then we have this theological conclusion to the whole couple of chapters we’ve dealt with—this dialogue back and forth.

We’re going to look now at these two stories then. But before we go to the sons of Joseph and their problems, we’ll talk first about the daughters of Zelophehad and their courage. So moving on then from an overview of the chapter, now we’ll look at these two lessons or stories. First of all, the daughters of Zelophehad—I think there is a picture here of courage, of true courage. It’s a short story here.

Now of course the main narrative dealing with this particular setting, all this setup, is found in Numbers chapter 27. In Numbers 27, before they actually go into the land, when Moses is still talking about the division of the land prior to the partaking of the military conquest of Canaan—at that point in time is when the daughters of Zelophehad approached Moses and Aaron and the princes and all the congregation. Numbers 27.

So let’s turn to Numbers 27. We’ll look at that pretty summarily here, but it is important that you realize this because all that’s happening in Joshua 17 is the daughters of Zelophehad are acting on the basis of what happened back in Numbers 27. So we got to understand that first.

Numbers 27. They appear by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. In verse three, the daughters of Zelophehad start talking. They say this: “Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the Lord in the company of Korah, but died in his own sin, and had no sons.”

Okay, so they’re not covering up who their father was. They say he didn’t die in the revolt of Korah, but he died in his own sin. He was apparently—we don’t know for sure—but he was apparently one of those that believed the false report of the land instead of the good report of Joshua and Caleb. And so died off in the wilderness because of that rebellion, kind of ordinary rebellion. Some commentators think maybe what’s going on here is that if he had been in Korah’s rebellion, those people that died in that particular specific rebellion against God’s authority were disinherited totally. They’d have no basis for inheritance in the land.

They’re saying, “Well, he was just kind of like your normal sinner. He wasn’t really, you know, wasn’t as bad as the revolt of Korah.” And they say, “But he had no sons. Okay. So why should the name of our father be done away from among his family because he hath no son? Give us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father.”

And Moses brought the case before the Lord. Didn’t know what to do. So he took it for counsel to the Lord. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, “The daughters of Zelophehad speak right. Thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father’s brethren. And thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them, and thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, ‘If a man dies and has no son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. And if he has no daughter, then you will give his inheritance unto his brethren. And if he has no brethren, then you’ll give his inheritance unto his father’s brethren. And if his father have no brethren, then you shall give the inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it, and it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of judgment as the Lord commanded Moses.’”

So we have here the enactment of new law—not new law really, an extension of the law and an application of the law to a particular case or circumstance. And so we have here an interesting example of how case law came to be developed in the people of Israel in the Old Testament. What happens then is that God directs Moses to set up laws of inheritance. And the laws of inheritance say that if a guy doesn’t have sons, then the inheritance goes to his daughters. Then if he doesn’t have daughters, it goes on down and gives a line of succession as it were for the land.

Now, this shows us, of course, the importance of land, the importance of inheritance, the importance of a long-term perspective of who we are, the blessings God has given to us. As I said last week, it’s important to realize we last a short period of time, but the thing—the land itself, the blessings that God gives us in terms of land and other items—are things that have perpetual value out into the future, particularly the land. So God wants us to think in terms of that. He wants us to think in terms of inheritance. He wants us to have wills, in other words, and he wants us to have wills that are consonant, that are consistent with his laws of inheritance.

Now, we know from other portions of scripture, as I said before, the oldest son gets a double portion of the inheritance. But we also know that inheritance is a matter of faith. It goes to faithful seed, as it were, as opposed to ungodly seed. The ungodly are disinherited. And over and over again in scripture, you see these lines of inheritance being turned on their heads somewhat apparently. But it’s because God’s inheritance always keeps in mind that the land belongs to the Lord and we’re stewards of it. And we cannot give it lawfully to our firstborn if our firstborn is not godly. It will not take care of that inheritance.

So the role of the father with the counsel of the mother becomes very determinative in what happens to inheritance. We have these laws to guide us. This is the way it’s supposed to work. But then another portion of the law tells us the ungodly shall not receive the land of the Lord, that the heritage is laid up for the godly seed instead of the ungodly one. And so it’s very important to see all these things working together.

Zelophehad’s daughters were godly. They were righteous. And so they deserve their portion of the inheritance. And God set up here a law relative to them.

Now Zelophehad’s daughters are mentioned later in the book of Numbers in terms of who they may marry in light of the Jubilee. That’s another story and not really relevant for us here. But at any event, now this promise has been given. This law has been established years before. People ask, why did they do this? Why did Zelophehad’s daughters approach Moses at this point in time instead of later when they were actually in the land? Well, we don’t know all the reasons, but we do know this. They were faithful women. They saw ahead. They knew that land would be conquered and divided up amongst the tribes of Israel.

So, they demonstrate their faith in God’s word here way back in the book of Numbers by talking about how the inheritance is going to be divvied up when they get over there and when God drives out the Canaanites. And he wants us to think that same way. What shall we do when God gives us the state house or when God gives us a portion of land or whatever it is? He wants us to have faith in his word and have long-term planning going on.

Well, I think that Zelophehad’s daughters here demonstrate a great deal of faith and courage. They have faith in God’s word. Now, they had faith back then in terms of the conquest. And now the conquest has happened and the allotments are beginning. They now have faith in God’s word to approach Joshua and the rulers of the nation to ask for what God had already given to them, to say God has commanded this. We want to now pick up what God has commanded. Same as Caleb had done earlier. It was easier for Caleb. He was a man. These were women. And it is a difficult thing, particularly in a culture that is heavily patriarchal in a proper sense as the Old Testament was.

Some people would see it as perhaps a kind of a scary thing for the daughters of Zelophehad to approach the primary civil ruler and ask for their land or their inheritance since God had promised. And I think there’s some truth to that. So I think it does demonstrate their courage, and that courage is based upon their faith. That faith has as an object not faith itself, but God’s command word. And so the daughters of Zelophehad are a picture to us of courage—to go ahead and possess what God has commanded is our rightful inheritance in the area of our endeavor.

As Woolstra says in his commentary, the daughters of Zelophehad demonstrate faith in the promise, and that makes them then appear before Eleazar the priest and Joshua. So they had faith, they had courage.

Now this is also relevant in the second part of the outline under this portion of the story of the daughters of Zelophehad—to remember the linkage between inheritance and war. This isn’t overtly stated in the text, but remember the whole context, the whole framework of the inheritance laws that God has given to us is the pursuit, carrying out of the war of God against those who would rule not for him but for themselves or for false gods. So the inheritance is given to these tribes for the very purpose of continuing to drive out Canaanites. This is demonstrated by the failure of the tribe of Manasseh to do that.

So consider the courage that it takes in the faith of God in terms of believing that his word says we should go to the rulers of this land and seek our inheritance that he has promised in his word. But consider also that faith and the resulting courage of it is a faith that God will give them victory as they pursue warfare against the Canaanites in their inheritance.

Remember that’s what the whole point of the land is. You get in there and it’s not just, you know, going to Disneyland. It’s going to a Disneyland that’s filled with thieves and murderers and bad guys who are in radical opposition to God. And the daughters of Zelophehad said, “Give us the land.” And by implication, we can read into that as we did with Caleb, that they are going to be faithful to go up and pursue warfare.

These are dominion women. These are no blushing violets. These are strong women with a strong sense of God’s word and faithfulness to it. And as a result, they are strong in their heart and courageous. They’re a picture of that very thing to us.

There, notice in this story there is no appointment of a covenant head here. This is a discussion that a handful of us have had over a number of years. And this is one more little piece of evidence for us to consider as we seek how to represent unattached women in the context of this church or other covenant communities as well. Notice that the daughters of Zelophehad do not come with their oldest sons making the petition for them. And notice that the rulers of Israel do not tell the daughters of Zelophehad that you’ll be represented by this tribe over here.

No, they receive their full inheritance apart from the covenantal headship of a man. Now, God is always our covenantal head. And in the daughters of Zelophehad, they are allowed full title to that land directly, not by representation of other men. That’s very significant.

It’s interesting too along this same line—a few of us have talked about this. We’ve talked about this before—that a wife or any contract or oath that she enters into, a husband can nullify within the first day or so upon his hearing it. And of course that means he should hear all covenants that his wife enters into. Not so a widowed woman. She can enter into a covenant and nobody can nullify that contract as her covenant head. So the scriptures paint a strong vision of single women who are mature in the faith and in their resultant courage from God. They represent them as having covenantal headship in and of themselves and not the necessity of the appointment of a male covenant head.

Fourth, notice that the daughters of Zelophehad exhibit a godly self-interest. Calvin points this out in his commentary on this passage. Calvin says here that the self-interest of the daughters of Zelophehad—it does not result in public harm. You know, that’s a primary axiom today of political philosophy, right? Everybody thinks that self-interest is a bad thing and self-interest will always result in public damage.

But notice the daughters of Zelophehad are motivated by self-interest. They want what is theirs, and they do it correctly. It is a proper thing to want and desire proper self-interest within the bounds and commandments of God’s law. And that proper sense of self-interest is what drives the whole culture then onto blessing and onto resultant exercise of dominion in various tasks. So the daughters of Zelophehad demonstrate to us the proper use of self-interest in the context of God’s calling to us.

And finally, I mention here the daughters’ names—from withering or wavering affliction to queenly delight. And if you look at the names of the five daughters of Zelophehad, the first two have the concept of affliction and being worn out, as it were, wavering, et cetera. And the last three names of the daughters of Zelophehad mean partridge—kind of a royal bird—queenly and delightsome. And I just, you know, you don’t want to read too much into the names of the scriptures, but there is a picture here for us of the development of a godly group of women and how they start with a sense of affliction.

They’re the only, you know, the only godly seed in this particular man’s line. No godly sons, that is, in this life—just women. And so there’s a development first of an element of “gosh, this isn’t the best way.” But that situation responded to correctly with courage and faith in God’s word becomes delightfulness and becomes royalty to them, as it were. They’re true dominion women. And as a result, whatever task, whatever conflict, whatever the situation that God puts them in the context of becomes blessing to them as they respond to it in obedience to God and to his word.

Yes, it’s difficult. Yes, it takes courage. Yes, it takes perseverance. Yes, it takes faith in God’s word. But the application of that, regardless of the lot that God gives you in life, is what develops delights and a sense of dominion and blessing from God.

And the daughters of Zelophehad—their very names tell us that. It’s interesting that Zelophehad itself, his name means “protection against fear.” And that is the key, I think, to the daughters of Zelophehad and the blessing they inherited in the land of promise—was their protection against fear. They lived up to their father’s name. They were courageous women.

But not so the sons of Joseph. The daughters of Zelophehad, if they’re a picture of courage, the sons of Joseph are a picture of braggadocio, vain glorying, pompousness, surliness, pride, and really a failure to demonstrate an act of submission or faith in God’s word.

Let’s turn then to them. And I think it’s important here to sort of—I want to read this dialogue again and take some editorial license with it in the sense of putting some intonations to the reading of it. And I hope I think I’m right on this. I think that my studies have led me to say that this is the right way to read this.

The dialogue that goes back and forth. Children of Joseph speak unto Joshua saying, “Why hast thou given me but one lot or one portion to inherit? See, I’m a great people, for as much as the Lord hath blessed me hitherto.” Joshua answers them, “If thou be a great people, then get thee up to the wood country. Cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants, if it be too narrow for thee.”

Children of Joseph say, “The hill isn’t enough for us, and all the Canaanites that dwell in the valley of the land of the valley have chariots of iron. Both they who are of Beth Shean and her towns, and those who are in the valley of Jezreel.” Joshua speaks unto the house of Joseph, even to Ephraim and Manasseh, saying, “Thou art a great people, and you have great power. Thou shalt not only have one lot only, but the mountain shall be thine. Yes, it is a wood, and thou shalt cut it down, and the outgoings of it shall be thine, for thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though they have chariots of iron, and though they be strong.”

I think there’s a note of sarcasm in Joshua’s response to the sons of Joseph. If you’re such a great people, well, go ahead, conquer the land that’s already been given to you. Cut down those trees. The word “cut down” the trees can also be used was also used the cutting down portion of cutting down enemies and those cut down those other inhabitants of that land. Cut down those trees. Cut down those Canaanites. Go ahead. You want to be a little larger? And fine, expand your borders out. That’s what God wants. He doesn’t want contraction. He wants expansion. And you can do that right within your own territory already just by getting going here, not having fear.

Yeah, they got chariots of iron, but hey, so what? So I think in this story of Joshua’s response to the sons of Joseph, we see highlighted some of the sins of the sons of Joseph. They have the sin first of all of ingratitude. When they approach Joshua, do they are they thankful for their lot, for their inheritance? No, they grumble about it. Caleb and Zelophehad made their appeal to authority on the basis of what God had commanded them in terms of their inheritance. All they wanted was their lot in life that God had already said should be theirs.

What the sons of Joseph want is not their lot in life that God is a portion to them. The very base, basic sin here then of the sons of Joseph is ingratitude. And it always is. Romans 1, we’ll talk about this next week some in light of measure nine—homosexuality. What is it? It’s a result of ingratitude to God, not of a thankful spirit. Romans 1 tells us that. We’ll develop that next week.

So, it’s a basic problem with the sons of Joseph is a failure of thankfulness to God for their particular lot in life. And as a result, they enter into their second sin, which is grumbling. They grumble about that. Their heart attitude is ingratitude. And then their speech becomes grumbling. “We’re such a great people. We feel so constrained. Hey, this isn’t right. We should have another portion here. Give us more land to live in. Huh?”

Now, you notice by the way their piety—in this in a negative sense, not true godly piety. The daughters of Zelophehad are a picture of true piety. Piety is not a blushing violet. Piety looks for what God wants, has devotion to his command and his word, and moves in relationship to that respectfully and responsibly to the God who then ordains him certain rulers.

But the sons of Joseph, their piety—false piety. “God has blessed us. We wouldn’t be asking about this but God has blessed us, and we’re really big now, and so we need more land, and God didn’t quite get it right. We need more property.”

I’ve seen this time after time. Personal sin in the context of the covenant community, as we see here, is frequently cloaked in the garbs of piety. I mean, I’ve seen it over and over and over again. People do what they do supposedly because of the blessings of God or the insights of God or whatever it is, but their grumbling, in fact, is plain disobedience.

Bush in his commentary says this: “How prone men are to be discontent with their lot. A dissatisfied mind, a disposition to murmur, envy, and covet rather than to be content, thankful, and liberal is alas, too often characteristic of those who are really highly favored of heaven. Would they but survey their blessings in all their length and breadth and extract the most out of those that they are capable of yielding?”

Second, Bush says: “Note that our complaints of comforts withheld are often no more than testimonies of our own supineness and negligence and fear of the cross. From an ignorable fear that our enemies are too many or too high for us or too mighty for us, and that we can do nothing, we sit down and attempt nothing. And yet we complain of providential allotments. Thus it is that the foolishness of man perverts his way, and even his heart frets against the Lord.”

So the sons of Joseph are a picture of that unthankfulness. They’re also a picture of blessing, right? I mean, sure, Judah gets the lawgiving and the authority of that, but the sons of Joseph become preeminent in terms of the placement in the land itself. They get the best portion. Ephraim did. And Manasseh gets the biggest portion. And how frequent it is in the context of the church and the covenant community that those who are given the most blessings become the least thankful and the most assured of their own privilege.

And also, as Bush points out, those who instead of looking at their own failures, their own lack of faith, and freely own up to it, blame that instead upon the God who doesn’t meet them where they want to be met at blessed the way they want to be blessed. Their unthankfulness leads to grumbling. Their grumbling also leads to a distortion of truth.

Chapter 16 of the book of Joshua does tell us they only got one portion, one lot in the land. There’s a technical truth to their request. But look at that portion. It is more than a double portion. If we look at Manasseh spread out on the east and on the west and Ephraim down in their wonderful territory, they have nothing to grumble about. They take the truth and instead of outright lying, they always distort the truth. And Ephraim does that same thing later in its history. As we pointed out last week, it was true.

Gideon did not bring up Ephraim to do war against the Midianites at first, as Jordan says, because he was afraid those prideful, surly group would get mad at him or what he did, so he just left him alone over there. So Ephraim was right when they came up against Gideon and said why didn’t you call us up—but their attitude was all wrong and they really distorted the truth as well here, complaining that they didn’t have enough land because they were a great people. In fact, they were not the greatest of people. They were not the largest of the tribes at all. And yet they had by far the largest allotment of land between the two of them. They distort the truth.

Fourth, their sin involves pride and natural privilege. I talked about this again last week. We’ll just touch on it briefly again here. Here is the pride of Ephraim and then also some of Manasseh. Those who have great giftings from God yet think somehow that they have a natural privilege then to the blessings of God.

Again quoting from Bush’s commentary, he says that the request and the answer are both characteristic. “The words of the proud Ephraimites and the deeds of the humble Joshua. The true hero of the tribe of Ephraim should never be forgotten. Joshua’s own greatness was emphatically of that kind which is proved by deeds and not by words. There are not many famous sayings recorded from his lips. The arrogance of the Ephraimites on the other hand may be abundantly illustrated from Old Testament history by the stories of their behavior to Gideon and Jephthah and even to David in later times. They were constantly asserting their right to the supremacy in Israel without exhibiting any justification or qualification for it.”

The prideful Ephraimites. You know, I was thinking about this last week. Remember we talked about with Jephthah? They actually came across the Jordan, went to Jephthah, complained, and essentially called the Gileadites enemy troops. And Jephthah then waged war upon Ephraim, the largest son of Joseph.

And you know, I was thinking about Psalm 78 or Psalm 83 that we sang not too long ago about how God, we pray that God would rise up and strike his enemies. And commentators have wondered what Psalm 78 is all about, what battle is being described, because you have all the historic enemies of God accumulated together. I think that there is at least an application of that psalm to the warfare that Jephthah and the rest of Israel was forced to conduct upon another tribe of Israel, Ephraim, when their pride, surliness, et cetera had become full-blown in rebellion against God.

My point is that the Ephraimites had become the Amorites. They had become the power of the sons of Lot. And we think somehow because we’re Christians and because we can make a bright profession of faith, and maybe have the right doctrinal standards, that we’re favored of God. But God says no. There’s no indication that Ephraim ever had improper doctrine. But what they had was pride run amuck. And what they had was surliness as a result. And what they ended up with was chastening and scourging by God as if they were the sons of Lot themselves.

Now that’s what God calls us to do as well—to be warned. We have two paths here. The courage of the daughters of Zelophehad based on the faith in God’s word, and the braggadocio, the rebellion, essentially, of the sons of Joseph, who complain against God’s word, who grumble about it, who are prideful and think they have the ability because they’re the firstborn—as Joseph became in the providence of God and the blessings of God. The blessings lead to pride, but pride leads to presumption and sin.

They also resulted in a fearfulness here, you know, when Joshua calls their bluff and says, “Sure, you can have more land. Cut down those trees you guys haven’t cut down yet and inhabit that portion of the land.” Their fear begins to come through. That’s why it’s, you know, it’s a false boasting of what they can do.

And I’ve mentioned on your outline there environmentalism. They say, “Hey, we can’t be expected to cut down those trees and to take even the valley now because those guys got chariots of iron.” They look at the environment in which they exist and say they’re limited by that environment instead of being seen as commanded by the word of God to ignore the environment and to be assured by him that they can conquer over it.

This is one of the biggest sins that besets the Christian church and of course the rest of the culture as well in America today—a feeling somehow that the environment determines us. And we look at problems in our lives, difficulties here, bad wife here, bad church, bad friends, people doing this, that, the other thing, and think somehow we can’t respond obediently. God says—