Numbers: Faith, Law, and History

Law of Inheritance

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Pentateuch

Lesson: Law of Inheritance

Genre:

Track: 50

Dictation Name: RR181AB50

Location/Venue:

Year:

Let us worship God. Put on the whole armor of God that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the Devil, for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all to stand. Let us pray.

O Lord, our God, we give thanks unto thee for all the mercies and blessings of the year past. We thank thee that thou art on the throne, that thy will shall be done and that by thy sovereign grace, thou hast made us a part of thy will, thy purpose, thy kingdom. Make us joyful, confidence, knowing that all things shall serve us in Christ, who maketh all things work together for good to them that love thee, to them that are the called according to thy purpose. Bless us and watch over us and our loved ones, and make us more fully faithful in the days ahead. In Christ’s name. Amen.

Our scripture this morning is Numbers 27:1-11. Our subject: The Law of Inheritance. “Then came the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph: and these are the names of his daughters; Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah. And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, 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. Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father. And Moses brought their cause before 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 die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren. And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father's brethren. And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his 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.”

The Bible is a land-based and property-oriented religion. As a result, the laws of inheritance are very important in the Bible. The interference of the modern state with inheritance, by controls and by taxes, is anti-Christian. The premise of “the earth is the Lord’s” is basic to the Bible and basic to biblical law. We meet with it, for example, in Exodus 9:29. It is the reason why God moved against Pharaoh. It is basic to God’s law, as we see in Deuteronomy 10:14. Psalm 24:1 celebrates it. “Because the earth is the Lord’s, He governs the laws of inheritance.

Historically, the oldest son has been the heir. I’m speaking not biblically, but historically. In England, although never made a law, the English nobility have followed this practice rigidly and very often, to their detriment. This rule made some sense in earlier centuries when the vocation of the nobility and of kings was battle. As a result, if you were of the nobility or royalty, you had the lowest and shortest life expectancy of any group in Europe. The casualties for number of men involved in battle in medieval warfare was very high, so a nobleman married very early in order to produce an heir to fight to retain the family realm.

But in the Bible, we have a different standard. First, the order in inheritance is the order of faith and character. Abraham’s heir was not Ishmael, his first born, but Isaac. Isaac’s heir was not Esau, his first born, but Jacob. Jacob’s heir was not Reuben, his first born, but Judah, his fourth born. The godly son was favored then, and in godly eras since then, in order to capitalize Christ’s kingdom and His people, inheritance, when religiously observed, was left the godly seed. To capitalize on an ungodly son, or a godly but foolish son was and is to do harm to the future under God. As a result, the law of inheritance is important in the Bible. It is the means of building up the kingdom, of capitalizing God’s people rather than God’s enemies.

Then second, we must think beyond the immediate. We are told in Proverbs 13:22, “A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children.” Short term thinking is regarded as ungodly. God’s kingdom extends throughout all of history and into eternity. We cannot limit our thinking and our planning to our lifetime. God, who created time in this world, requires us to live in time and in the realities of this world. It is ungodly to be a striver for a spirituality which is unrelated to this world.

Then third, the Bible affords a special protection and security to women in a godly society. Apart from the law of inheritance, a woman has another major financial security: the dowry. The dowry of virgins is cited in Exodus 22:16-17. If a man seduced a virgin, he was required by law to pay her a full dowry whether or not her father accepted him as a husband to his daughter. This meant she went into her marriage subsequently with still another dowry. The dowry was not specified but it was normally equivalent to three year’s wages. Now consider the security that gave to a woman if her husband was ever faithless. Because Jacob was taking Rachel far from her father’s close protection, he specified a dowry of seven year’s wages. This dowry was her protection money against abuse or desertion, and an inheritance also for her children. The dowry system assured the wife’s security and the stability of the family. A man did not readily wrong a wife who held so much family capital. Three years wages normally in gold, or silver, and sometimes in livestock or something similar.

Fourth, the clear implications of biblical law and practice was that faith and character took priority also over sex, on occasion. In Joshua 15:16-19 and Judges 1:12-15, we see that Caleb not only made his daughter Acsah his main heir, but he also granted her even more when she requested it. Caleb obviously saw more strength of faith and character in his daughter than in any male in his family. Very clearly, therefore, the position of a daughter was a strong one.

Because the family is God’s basic institution on earth, the woman is given particular protection. The patriarchal character of the biblical family was only possible because of the moral requirements imposed on men, and the protection and security given to godly women. The term “dowry” survived in American law as, from a lawyer, “the right of a widow in respect of the property of her deceased husband.” This legal authority went on to say that “though the law contemplated that the property of a dead husband and father should go to his sons, or to his daughter or brethren or kinsmen, it may not be supposed that his widow was to be neglected, or sent away empty. To the contrary, it seems she always had a right of dower. The property was chargeable for her sustenance, and the rearing and education of the young children if there were any, and that she was entitled to a house in which to live, even under ancient Babylonian law, long before the time of Abraham. A wife was entitled to receive her dowry, and either a gift from her husband or the portion of a son, and also to dwell in the house of her husband as long as she lived. The dower has likewise been an institution of the English law since early Anglo Saxon times, and of American as well. Indeed, it has been said of this rite that it is as widespread as the Christian religion and enters into the contract of marriage among all Christians.” This was written before the end of World War 2. It no longer applies. The law since then certainly has not been improved.

In early America, the absence of a property tax made a woman’s status very secure. Now the widow faces internal Revenue taxes, state taxes, death taxes, and more.

Then fifth, it is especially important to note in verse 5, that Moses looked to God for a revelation and received it. The matter of inheritance was too important for Moses to act on inferences or personal opinions. The central institution of God, the family was at stake. The family and its future could be entrusted to a woman, a daughter. I have heard of instances prior to World War 1 where such situations meant that the daughter, on marrying, bore her father’s name, or in many instances, especially of her husband came from a good family, the two surnames were both used and hyphenated, especially in Europe and England. As for example, if her name were Smith and his Williams, the family name became then Smith-Williams. For other reasons as well, this practice is still common in England. The idea was that neither family line was allowed to die out.

Sixth, the daughters did not make undue claims about their father. When Zelophehad’s daughters came, they said, “He had not joined Korah and other leaders in their hostility to the Lord and Moses, but died in his own sin.” This apparently had reference to Zelophehad’s support of the false spies. His whole generation, except for Caleb and Joshua were against what God wanted.

There could be disinheritance for some sins such as blasphemy. Centuries later, Jezebel used such a fraudulent charge to seize Naboth’s vineyard and disinherit his line, in return for which God disinherited Ahab’s line and wiped them out. Nebuchadnezzar, on seeing God’s vindication of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, insisted in Daniel 3:29 on an order decreeing the end of any family that blasphemed against the God of the Hebrews. That family had to be eliminated. He was so impressed by the miracle.

Then seventh, by confirming the daughters in their inheritance, God made clear He was concerned with families, not merely the heads of families. In verse 11, it is plainly said that this decision is henceforth a part of God’s law.

Then eighth, nothing in this law of inheritance sets aside a woman’s dowry rights. This is an important fact. Feminism attacks the Bible because it makes clear man’s headship in the family, but it refuses to acknowledge the protection given to women. Here, an heiress receives title to her father’s estate or by implication, the double portion as against a foolish son, and she receives also a dowry from her husband and is thus further enriched and protected.

Then ninth, it is the father’s name which is perpetuated, although the woman or women became heir to the estate. The amount of wealth accumulating to the wife can be used to erase the fact that the family name is derived from the man. No amount of wealth could wipe out that fact. The family name went in terms of the father, and though the girl inherited, she then perpetuated the father’s name.

Then tenth, what was at stake was a title to a portion of the land. They were soon going to enter Canaan. They were going to divide up the land. The Bible is a land-based book. It sees the family and land as basic to godly order. Davies, a University of California scholar, after a study of the Bible from cover to cover concluded it is a land-based book. The purpose is that the whole earth be the Lord’s and belong to the people of God. The modern state works against God by legislating against the family and its land by taxes and controls.

Then eleventh, in verses 9-11, an order of inheritance is laid down. First, sons and their descendents, second, daughters and their descendents, third, the brothers of the family, and fourth, the kinsmen next in line in a father’s family. As in the laws of the levirate{?}, the name of the deceased man was assumed by whoever became the heir, whoever was the godly one, whether a son or daughter, or a relative.

Then twelfth, Calvin called attention to the fact that the daughters of Zelophehad pleaded for their own private advantage, but this by no means made their pleading wrong. It is an error to assume that private advantage means public wrong. That’s become a fundamental premise of many federal and state agencies today, that private advantage means public wrong, but as Calvin pointed out, that is not true. What these girls were looking forward to in pleading the private advantage was the fulfillment of God’s promises and they acted in faith.

Then thirteenth, we find a very interesting application of this law in the book of Ruth. The property at stake belonged to Elimelech, Naomi’s husband. Naomi was not of Elimelech’s bloodline, nor was Ruth, her daughter in law. All the same, the property, when redeemed, went to Naomi and to Ruth, who was not even a Hebrew. This is an amazing fact. It tells us the degree to which marriage in God’s sight makes a couple one flesh, and the degree to which a godly daughter in law, who is a foreigner, still has first claim on the property as against blood relatives. Elimelech’s property rights were Naomi’s and their son, Killian’s property right became Ruth’s.

Then fourteenth, finally, we come to another startling fact, which has been summed up by an English scholar, N.H. Snath, “Normally, the heir receives two portions so that if there were five sons, it would be divided five ways and the main heir would receive two-fifths. Normally, the heir receives two portions, but here the five daughters are represented as all being heirs. That is, the main heir, and so we get the five daughters receiving ten portions. From a strict point of view, this makes little sense, but it makes no sense at all any other way.” This is what God ordered. Each daughter, being godly, would be treated as the main heir in the division of Canaan. We will meet again with the daughters of Zelophehad in Numbers 36. There, the issue is a different one. Namely, how the family is reckoned if a woman heiress marries outside of her clan. But what is clear is that patriarchal society, biblically ordered family life, is family centered, and it gives better status and treatment to a woman than in any other culture. The feminist’s rage against patriarchalism is both ignorant and wrong. Patriarchy required strong men and strong women, and modern culture produces neither. Let us pray.

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, we give thanks unto thee for this, thy word. We thank thee that thy word deals with the realities of our everyday life, our children and our children’s children. Teach us so to walk that we mindful that the earth is thine, work towards that end that the kingdoms of this world might become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ. In Christ’s name. Amen. Are there any questions now about our lesson? Yes?

[Audience] What happened to the dowry if the woman was unfaithful?

[Rushdoony] Then she lost it.

[Audience] Where would it go?

[Rushdoony] It went back to the husband. She could not waste the dowry. She could loan it to her husband, but he was accountable and had to replace it if he lost any amount of it. So that, it was for her protection, it was like an insurance policy, and it then went to her children. Now, as I said on other occasions, the first insurance company in the United States was the Presbyterian Minister’s Fund, and it was set up to take care of widows, to provide a dowry for ministers when they married, because the young ministers then had to go out into a new settlement and, with help, build the new church that was going to be started, and then build their own {?}, and I’m smiling because I recall the story of one such young minister who was going to marry a girl whose name was Dolly Battle, and one of his parishioners passed by when he was on the roof, finishing the construction, and said, “What are you doing parson?” and he said, “Preparing for Battle.” Well, since by the time they got married, you know, build a house as well as a church, it was a few years. They made provision for a dowry by taking out an insurance policy and created the first insurance company in the United States, just for the purpose of providing a dowry. Any other questions or comments? Yes?

[Audience] Are the brethren in verses 9 and 10, is that refer to male heirs, preference after the son and the daughter, or could that be to brothers or sisters?

[Rushdoony] No. If the man who dies has no daughter and no son who is qualified, or no son at all, it goes to his brothers, and then it goes to the godly brother as the main heir.

[Audience] But the ungodly{?} sister wouldn’t have preference before an uncle?

[Rushdoony] No. So, if he had two brothers, the one who was the more capable would receive the double portion and the other would receive a third.

[Audience] Another question I have is how did the dowry come to be, a fee paid by the family of the daughter?

[Rushdoony] Yes, a very good question. How did the dowry come to be a fee paid by the family of the daughter to get rid of the girl, as it were? That was a pagan practice, almost universally the pagan practice. A few peoples in the ancient, early area of Antiquity still had the premise which was godly, or the husband providing the dowry, but very quickly it became the other way, and it was especially devastating to European society, as it was to Ancient Egypt, because in order to prevent the wealth of the family from leaving with the girl, they promoted very close intermarriage between very close relatives; half sisters in Egypt, among the Pharaohs, and first cousins along the nobility and royalty of Europe, and that’s how monarchy really disappeared, because they were producing idiots, morons, or seriously retarded people. All you have to do is look at the picture, for example, of the Hapsburgs at the time of the Reformation, the deformed jaw, so that it was very difficult to understand them, or James I of England, a product of a great deal of intermarriage. There were, in Mary Queen of Scots, although she’s been made into such a martyr, that people won’t talk about the fact that there were serious mental quirks and problems in her, and James I had a misshapen body. He had an inability to speak properly. His tongue was oversized and his face out of proportion, so people had to guess at what he was saying, and that was true of more than one king of Europe, and finally, they did themselves in, with too many intermarriages. King George III came from a series of such intermarriages, and he was out of his mind, at least twenty years of his life. At times he had to be in a straight jacket, and his son, George IV, was mentally slow, that’s the kindliest thing to say about him. So, this is one reason why, in recent years, because Queen Victoria produced serious problems in the bloodline, the family has tried to marry out to marry people in the Scottish or British nobility so that they can lessen the likelihood of deformities, but it hasn’t restored a high order of intelligence yet to the line, which deteriorated sadly.

So that form of dowry put the responsibility on the father to provide money that went to another man. It did not put the responsibility on the young man to earn the money and to demonstrate his responsibility. Now, on occasion, say the boy’s family might provide it, but that was not the best recommendation for a husband, you see? If you had a daughter to give in marriage, you would prefer a young man who accumulated the dowry through his work, because you would then know he had character, but if his father handed it to him, you would have very serious doubts about his qualification as a man. Yes?

[Audience] The only place I’ve seen this adoption of both family names seems to be in Latin American countries. You know, they take the names of both sides of the family for offspring.

[Rushdoony] Yes, they do, but it doesn’t remain. For example, if the mother’s name is adopted, the son has it but his children will have the name of his wife as their last name, together with his father’s name. For example, the mission in Juarez which we help, the pastor’s name is Reverend Jose Lopez-Luna. Lopez is his father’s name, Luna his mother’s name, and his sons will have Lopez and the mother’s last name, so the father’s name is carried on down the line, but with each generation, a new mother gives a new last name at the end. But, in Scotland and in England, you do have still hyphenated names, mostly inherited. The practice is not common as it once was.

[Audience] Feminists, now a days, in the United States, have adopted hyphenated names.

[Rushdoony] Yes, and in some instances are insisting on maintaining their own name and having their husband maintain his own. This presents the children with a problem now as they’re beginning to grow up. Yes?

[Audience] With regard to the inheritance, it was the godly son or the first born son that received the double portion?

[Rushdoony] It was the oldest and capable son. In other words, if he were godly but not very capable as a manager to assume headship, he did not receive the double portion, and all boys could be passed over.

[Audience] I’m also wondering if the person had godly sons and godly daughters and they were capable. Would they all be entitled to an inheritance or just the sons, or how would it work?

[Rushdoony] Well, he would have to assess which one would be entitled to the double portion. The others would receive a portion, but not unless they were godly.

[Audience] So, a godly daughter, even if she had godly brothers, was still entitled to at least a portion.

[Rushdoony] No, only if they were passed over, because she was going to receive a dowry, but if it were decided that the sons did not have the capability to manage the estate, to put it in modern terms, the sons could be totally passed over, or might receive a minor inheritance. We’re not told a thing as to why Caleb made Acsah his main heir, but he clearly did, and was ready to give her above and over what he had at first promised.

[Audience] One thing you mentioned was a person seducing a virgin having to pay a dowry. Now under certain circumstances, I don’t know where I read this, that fornication was punished by death, I’m confused there.

[Rushdoony] No, rape was punished by death. But fornication, the father could determine whether or not marriage should ensue, and the father could refuse, but in any case, he had to provide the dowry of a virgin.

[Audience] Now that was a man who took the {?} so the father does not provide an inheritance to his daughters, only to his sons, if both were godly.

[Rushdoony] Yes, if both were godly and there was a son who was capable of headship, you see, he received the double portion. The girl did not, unless she were of such character that he felt he had to make her the main heir, because it was assumed in biblical law, that she was going to be dowered, which meant that she could have more than the main heir would.

[Audience] The dowry would not come from the parent. It would come from the person wanting to marry her.

[Rushdoony] Exactly. Now, just compute in your mind your annual income by three, and realize that that is what the dowry was. It meant substantial empowering of the wife. It meant a great deal of stability to the family, and the disappearance of the dowry system has lead to easy marriage and easy divorce, and both are bad. Well, our time is virtually up, so let us conclude with prayer.

Our Father, thy word is truth, and thy word is the answer to the problems of our time, and of all time. Give us a delight in thy word, that it may indeed by a lamp unto our feet. And now go in peace. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost bless you and keep you, guide and protect you this day and always. Amen.

End of tape