FAMILY AFFECTIONS (4)
FAMILY AFFECTIONS (4)
Genesis 48:8 - 22; Genesis 49:1,2; Genesis 50:22 - 26; Numbers 27:1 - 11
GWH-n Would you continue the thought of God being typified in Abraham and now in Jacob here?
JT I was just going to mention that. In order to rightly and fully apprehend the teaching connected with the family, we have to see that the patriarchs represent God Himself. They also represent the believer in his history; but no brother today could be regarded and spoken of as Jacob is here. You can see that Joseph regarded his father as more than an ordinary father. He regarded him as representative of God, there is therefore a sort of forecast of God’s own place in His family in Jacob’s position here. Then the position of Joseph becomes all the more interesting, because he represents the Lord Jesus in the manner in which he adjusts the family relationships.
RSS When you speak of the patriarchs, is it Abraham, Isaac and Jacob you have in mind? Do you confine your idea to the three?
JT Yes, they are so spoken of.
GWH-n Joseph’s father sends him to seek his brethren, and he is found in the fields of Dothan seeking them. What a lovely setting forth of the Lord Jesus coming into this scene, is it not?
JT Quite, and Joseph’s position (as already noted in the chapters leading up to chapter 45) becomes intensely interesting as illustrative of the Lord’s service today in adjusting the family relationships. It is said that “To us there is one God, the Father, ... and we for him”, 1 Corinthians 8:6. The whole family is for Him.
GWH “Of whom are all things, and we for [p. 386] him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him”, 1 Corinthians 8:6.
JT The “by whom” is much like Joseph here; the Lord is bringing in the family, and adjusting it so as to fit it for the Father. Hence, after Joseph’s final interview with Jacob and the blessing of his two sons, it says: “And Jacob called his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, and I will tell you what will befall you at the end of days. Assemble yourselves, and hear, ye sons of Jacob, and listen to Israel your father”, Genesis 49:1, 2. The whole family is in view, Joseph amongst them, but then Joseph already is given one portion above his brethren. That is to say, I apprehend, the Lord Jesus takes His place in the family, as pre-eminent in it, but nevertheless in it. He has obtained one portion above His brethren. He is first-born among many brethren.
RSS Why is it collective? “Behold, I die; and God will be with you, and bring you again to the land of your fathers, and I have given to thee one tract of land above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow”, Genesis 48: 21, 22.
JT It would be an allusion to the death and resurrection of Christ. In the chapter we have reference to the sovereignty and power of God in glorifying Christ.
RSS There was that in Satan’s hands, which was taken by divine power and conferred on Christ.
JT Joseph is now seen with his brethren. Consequent on his having received from Jacob the blessing, Jacob is recognised by Joseph in his own place. No one could have that place but Jacob, and it helps greatly, I think, in considering the family in the New Testament, because you have God accorded His rightful place in relation to it. In 1 Corinthians 8:6, as we said, it is, “There is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him”. Then in [p. 387] Ephesians 4:4 - 6, there are the different circles: “There is one body and one Spirit, as ye have been also called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all”. All the circles are for the Father. All must be for Him, and so in 1 Corinthians 15 again, having subjugated everything, the Son Himself becomes subject when He gives up the kingdom to Him who is God and Father — He is both — that God may be all in all.
RSS Why do you say Joseph accords Jacob the position which is even beyond the ordinary father?
JT If you look at the passage I think you will see that. It says: “Joseph brought them out” (the two lads) “from his knees, and bowed down with his face to the earth”, Genesis 48: 12. Thus he recognises that Jacob has the blessing to give.
WGR His distress that the blessing should be upon the head of the younger would indicate he wanted the blessing for the first-born.
JT Yes, who but a man who represented God, could, take such a place as Jacob takes here? Joseph had earlier brought him in and placed him before Pharaoh, and he blessed Pharaoh. “Without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better”. Joseph recognises this; being a man of faith he recognises his father as representative of God; in a sense, God Himself was there. Now, the Son becoming Man, we can see all this is transferred; all must apply now to Christ.
RSS Is the same thought indicated in connection with Isaac and the importance of the blessing?
JT It is the same thought in the three patriarchs.
RSS It is recognised by Rebecca in regard to her sons, and by both Esau and Jacob.
JT Yes, it was. I think it helps us greatly to understand the book of Genesis if we see that the position of the patriarchs was occupied by Christ [p. 388] when He was here. What God is as Father must come out in Him. All the divine parental feelings and affections came out in Christ. He says, “Have I been so long time with you and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father”, John 14:9. He was no less than that, so Abraham, Isaac and Jacob represent God in this way, as the great parental witnesses, now all is in Christ in the fullest way. This is set forth in the position of Jacob in chapter 49 as he looks down the line, and sees by the Spirit the end from the beginning: the great parental instincts, feelings, and affections, are expressed in what he says. And so at the end we get, “These are the twelve tribes of Israel, and this is what their father spoke to them; and he blessed them: every one according to his blessing he blessed them”, Genesis 49:28. You see it is a blessing, but it is a blessing coupled with the strongest denunciations of the evil that should arise in them. The evil is not passed over, but it is the outgoing of a father’s heart. “Listen to Israel your father”. He is not blind to the guilt, nevertheless the blessing is for every one of the tribes. Even Dan (although later an apostate tribe), had his blessing.
RSS It is rather remarkable that he does not say, “Gather yourselves together, and I will bless you”, but it is, “I will tell you what will befall you at the end of days”. At the end of the chapter we get the Spirit of God making this comment, “Every one according to his blessing he blessed them”;(Genesis 49:28) whereas, on the other hand, I think Jacob speaks of blessing Joseph’s sons himself, does he not?
JT Yes, he said, “Bring them, ... that I may bless them”, and, “God ... bless the lads”, Genesis 48:9,16.
GWH-n Referring to John 14 again: “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; ... Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in [p. 389] me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also”, John 14:9 - 12. What the Lord had in view was to bring the disciples into the same current of life as Himself, by believing on Him, and that is really what is typified here, is it not?
JT Yes. Jacob in blessing the lads had in view that his name should be there. He said, “Let my name be named upon them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac”. You see the whole paternal testimony, or stamp was to be on Ephraim and Manasseh. Now that is one feature of the family — the parental stamp is on it. As the Lord says, the Father “makes his sun rise on evil and good”, and the disciples were to correspond with this. They were to “be the sons of your Father who is in the heavens”. See Matthew 5: 43 - 45. That is, the Father’s character is to be there; the evidence that the Father’s name is on us.
RSS Have you any thought why there are three, patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? And why “children of Israel”?
JT They are the children of Israel you mean?
RSS Yes, not the children of Abraham.
JT All that Abraham and Isaac were was passed on to Jacob, and dispersed amongst the tribes. The three would be a complete testimony to what is parental, and was passed on to this wonderful family.
RSS We should be great losers if we had not the testimony seen in those three men, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
JT Yes, each one had his own peculiar experience and place in the testimony.
GAT Has the blessing of Joseph’s sons any [p. 390] connection with the Lord leading His disciples out to Bethany, and lifting up His hands and blessing them?
JT Yes. You see, God, as the source of blessing, must enter into that. Of old Aaron was to bless the children of Israel, saying, “The Lord bless thee, and keep thee: the Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace”, Numbers 6:24 - 26. That was the blessing wherewith the high priest blessed Israel, but then it was the blessing of God. As I was saying, He is the source of all: “Of whom are all things”, (1 Corinthians 8:6) and everything must revert to Him. All that comes in between is for adjustment, and in the adjustment the Lord as Man becomes supreme in the family. He there acquires His own distinctive place. Since in grace He has taken a position in it. He is pre-eminent in it, but is in it, so Joseph is addressed in chapter 49, not Ephraim and Manasseh, and he has the blessing.
Ques Would you connect that with Hebrews 1: “Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows”, Hebrews 1:9?
JT Yes. “Above thy fellows”. God has given Him that place.
GAT Would you say that anyone who disowns Christ today has no claim upon God?
JT Quite. He is the test, you see. It is, “What think ye of Christ?” (Matthew 22:42). “Everyone that believes that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God”, 1 John 5:1. That is one mark of the family.
WGB “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father”, 1 John 2:23.
RSS Your thought is an important one in connection with the testimony of the fathers and the development of filial affections, being transferred to [p. 391] Christ.
JT Yes, I believe that is the thought we do well to get hold of.
RSS The necessary knowledge of the Father must be through Christ, which, of course, greatly enhances the thought of what Christ is and the revelation brought to us in Him.
JT That is what I was seeking to bring out. The gospels have to be read in that light.
RSS I think we see the moral necessity for this, because, as John’s gospel shows, and as the hymn we sang says:
‘Thou hast made known the Father, whom we’ve seen
In Thy blest Person — infinite delight!’ (137:4)
It is in Christ that we learn and see the Father.
JT And so the disciples in company with the Lord from the outset would be impressed with that. He would impress them with the fact that all the Father is was there in Him, and could only be known there.
RSS And that they appreciated Him thus is seen by that early verse in the gospel of John: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father), full of grace and truth”, John 1:14. It would indicate that the disciples had been impressed by Him in their measure.
JT Yes, and then the epistles bring in the adjustment. I think there is the complete adjustment of family relationships in the different epistles. There had to be the disentanglement of Jewish claims, for the “children” were primarily Jews; they had to be detached from Jewish relations. Joseph’s two sons were born of a Gentile mother and brought up in Egypt. Well, that had to be adjusted in relation to the other eleven sons whose experience was different and who were born for the most part in Padan-Aram. Therefore, the epistles afford the adjustment that [p. 392] was necessary to bring all the elements of the family into direct relation with God in heaven. The truth of sonship was used to this end.
GWH-r Is your thought the adjustment of Jews as well as Gentiles?
JT Yes, all have to come under it, and see “one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him”, 1 Corinthians 8:6. How are we to be for Him? As in the family, as sons. We have often sung, ‘And now as sons before Thy face’. Well, that brings in Joseph, so it says, “One Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him”. (1 Corinthians 8:6) I apprehend that He brings us in before God — He is the Son. The book of Genesis shows the place that Joseph had with Jacob. “Israel loved Joseph”, it says, and the Holy Spirit makes prominent the place that Joseph had with him, but then they must all be brought into accord with that; his own two sons as well as the other eleven needed adjustment, to be brought in suitably.
GWH “That he might form the two in himself into one new man”, Ephesians 2:15.
WCR What is learned of the Father now does not terminate, does it?
JT Oh, no, it is for ever. The education that we are receiving now is to abide. We are to be “for him”.
WCR The scripture you have quoted several times, “That God may be all in all”, (1 Corinthians 15:28) does not indicate that the thought of the Father terminates, and the thought of God becomes prominent; it is the full revelation of God more there.
JT Yes. You see in 1 Corinthians 15, it is “To him who is God and Father”, 1 Corinthians 15:24. Well, the idea of God must remain, but the idea of Father equally remains, and it is very striking that the Lord in the message through Mary places the Father first — “My Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”, John 20:17. That was the point then. His great thought [p. 393] was to bring them into the family. Both ideas remain, but when we are to be brought into it the Father is first mentioned.
GWH It has been said the last acts and words of great men are very significant. This is almost the last act of Jacob. Hearing that his father was sick, Joseph brings his sons to Jacob who blesses them. It shows the importance of the present moment, which is marked by blessing.
JT It does. Jacob calls his sons, after he has established Joseph’s position by giving him one portion above his brethren; and says, “Gather yourselves together, and I will tell you what will befall you at the end of days. Assemble yourselves, and hear, ye sons of Jacob, and listen to Israel your father”. You will observe there are two words ‘gather’ and ‘assemble’. First he says,”Gather yourselves together”, and then, “Assemble, yourselves, and hear, ye sons of Jacob, and listen to Israel your father”. The whole family now is spoken to by the great parental head, and the distinction between the two words helps. To be gathered is one thing and to be assembled is another.
WCR What is the distinction?
JT Well, the idea of being assembled is that each one knows his place and is in it intelligently. As gathered, all were in one place, to be spoken to — “I will tell you”, Jacob says. As assembled they were to hear: “Hear ye sons of Jacob, and listen to Israel your father”. Therefore, Reuben would have his position, Simeon, and Levi theirs, each would know his own place in the family.
GWH As appointed by the father’s will and mind?
JT Exactly, and each would know his particular place.
GWH And take it up intelligently.
JT As assembled. Paul says, “I speak as to [p. 394] intelligent persons: do ye judge what I say” (1 Corinthians 10:15), which implies that they were to be in assembly. It is as assembled that each has his position, knows it, and listens in that position.
RSS And does he speak to them here in the order of their birth?
JT He does at the outset.
RSS That would, I think, be in line with your thought as to the various parts being assembled, finding their place and working in order.
JS I suppose there never is any confusion in a company when gathered, if they know their part and place in the assembly.
JT In the high priest’s breastplate each tribe had its place, so “Assemble yourselves” would imply that I know this. Peter, for instance, knew John’s place. He beckoned to John to ask the Lord. He knew John had that particular place, but then in the Acts, Peter stands up and addresses the brethren (chapter 1:15) and obviously they recognise that he has a place also.
GAT Martha was not in the good of what we are considering. If we come intelligently to our places we do not complain about others next to us.
JT I think one of the most important things for us to see is, what it is to be in assembly. Many are simply members of a congregation, whereas it is our great privilege to be in assembly.
GAT “Israel your father”, is the spiritual side, you said. Would “Ye sons of Jacob” be the natural side?
JT It is the side of responsibility, I think.
WER Is gathering the work of the Spirit?
JT There is such a thing as our coming together.
WCR It says in 1 Corinthians 11, “When ye come together in assembly”, 1 Corinthians 11:18.
JT That is what I was thinking of. It is not simply coming together but “together in assembly”.
WCR In chapter 12 we are shown the relation of each with the other, so that all function. As you were saying, the thought of assembling is that all might function properly.
GAT You were speaking about the mechanical idea. The parts are all sent to a certain place, and as put together, they become a whole.
JT They become one unit, and I think the word is therefore rightly used in that connection. It shows the importance of brethren learning to assemble instead of being simply members of a congregation; as assembled each one has his place and functions in it.
RSS Is not the Lord’s presence necessary in view of our being thus gathered, in order to rightly form us?
JT I think He comes to us as assembled, but we come together in assembly, in the light that governs the position.
WCR We come together sometimes as units, instead of seeing that each is to fit into his particular niche with a view to forming a whole?
JT That is what one has been endeavouring to convey. I believe many of our young people are quite irresponsible. They fail to accept responsibility as members of the body fitting in and functioning. They do not see the force of it, whereas the Lord would impress upon us, that it is our privilege to assemble. Of course, we never assume to be the assembly in any locality, but as coming together, each in the light of it, we are in order, and the Lord can take His place amongst us.
WCR When Judah came back from the captivity there were porters, doorkeepers, Nethinim and singers. They brought back sufficient for the service of God to function properly. Although the whole nation did not return to Jerusalem, there was sufficient there to answer to the mind [p. 396] of God.
GAT In John 20 it says the disciples were assembled, and Jesus came and stood in their midst. That is the condition to which He can come.
JT We ought to notice that the word ‘assembled’ should not be there. A feature with John is, he never emphasises the official side. He is dealing with persons, not with the public side, but with what is inside. The church comes down out of heaven for display, but inside it is more the family idea. The correct reading of John 20:19 is, “Where the disciples were”, without saying that they were assembled. They were within and He came to them.
GAT It does not fit in here, then.
JT It does not. 1 Corinthians fits in here. “I speak”, Paul says, “as to intelligent persons: do ye judge what I say”, 1 Corinthians 10:15. And then he proceeds to unfold the assembly, and each person addressed would be exercised to know what part they had in it.
GWH We come up in the light of assembly relations, do we not?
JT Quite. And, whilst you disclaim being the assembly, you do claim to be in the light of it and are functioning. This is a great truth if we could only lay hold of it.
WB-t It will not do for someone to try and assemble a meeting as you would assemble parts in a mechanical way.
JT No, it is for them to assemble. “When ye be come together in assembly”, 1 Corinthians 11:18. As you walk into the place where the saints are you regard yourself as of the assembly. You are of it. You may say, Well, others are also. Yes, they are; all the saints in the town are of it. They are not all present but I want to avail myself of what is available, and so I take my place with those who are recognising the assembling. This is a most important truth. The [p. 397] Lord is pleased to come in and help us as we recognise it.
WCR The truth of 1 Corinthians 12 is to overcome independency of one another.
JT And everyone, no matter how insignificant he may regard himself, or however obscure he may be, has a place to fill. So chapter 14 is the thing in working order, and what is emphasised in that chapter is the intelligence. “I will sing with the spirit, but I will sing also with the understanding”, 1 Corinthians 14:15.
GWH Though it is a broken day you would not allow the brokenness to hinder you from assembling. You would do so in the light of what the assembly is in the mind of God.
JT Quite. Well now, in suggesting the passage In Genesis 50 want to call attention to the manner in which Joseph passes on parental affections to the children, and how it bears fruit in later years. The family seed that he sowed (for the children were born on his knees), bore fruit in later generations. It says in verse 22, “And Joseph dwelt in Egypt, he and his father’s house; and Joseph lived a hundred and ten years”. The children of Israel, therefore, had the benefit of Joseph’s presence with them for a great many years in Egypt; and it goes on to say that, “Joseph saw Ephraim’s children of the third generation; the sons also of Machir the son of Manasseh were born on Joseph’s knees”. See what a parent he was!
RSS His great grandchildren.
JT Yes. What an immense thing it was for that family to have a parent like Joseph! He would continue in that way, all that was in the patriarchs, and it portrayed itself in the manner in which he took account of his posterity. He “saw Ephraim’s children to the third generation; the sons also of Machir, the son of Manasseh were born on Joseph’s knees”.
[p. 398] GWH Do you think the action of Joseph suggests to us the service of the Lord Jesus as nourishing us in divine love? It is marvellous to picture the Lord carrying on such service with the saints, establishing them in all that is of God.
JT Yes. The fact that Joseph was so linked with the patriarchs and had direct contact of course with his father, is very striking, and all this seems to enter into his own relations with his posterity. Abraham had set this forth. It says, he “dwelt in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise” (Hebrews 11:9); and Joseph carries on this same method in regard to his descendants.
WCR That is what is suggested in the sons of Machir being born upon his knees?
JT That is what I was thinking. It is very remarkable that they should thus have been born, showing what a parent he was.
WCR Would it suggest there should be the paternal thought and desire with the people of God now, to see that there is that brought in to carry on the testimony?
JT I think so. One would like to maintain that instinct, and you see how, in Numbers 27, the posterity of Machir on the feminine side showed that they profited by all this, they valued the inheritance.
WCR Is that the reason you read about the daughters of Zelophehad?
JT Yes. “Then drew near the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir”. “Our father died”, they say, “in his own sin”, but they desired the inheritance. Abraham had conveyed to Isaac and Jacob the thought of the inheritance — “heirs with him of the same promise”, Hebrews 11:9, and I apprehend that every true father — Joseph and those that followed — would convey to their children what a great inheritance they had.
RLG I was thinking of the prophetic word of [p. 399] Jacob, there is no blessing given to the first three sons. It is all warning, is it not? But they seem to recover themselves most beautifully when you come to Moses’ blessing of them: “Let Reuben live, and not die”, (Deuteronomy 33:6) and Levi comes into wonderful blessing. He has recovered himself entirely.
JT Yes, I think Moses’ blessing contemplates the work of the Spirit. There is no failure contemplated, so that recovery is complete in the Spirit, but if you want to get an account of young men and young women go to their father. He knows about them. Young people are known best to their parents. They may seem very nice young people in the meeting, and all that, but if you want to get an estimate of them go to their parents. Jacob knew, he could tell.
WHF Moses’ blessing is connected with the purpose of God. He views them in that light.
JT Yes, he does, and it is after the Spirit comes in typically; Numbers 21. They are viewed as not in the flesh but in the Spirit, but a true father will take account of the failures of his children. He does not ignore them.
WHF So Jacob knew more about them than Moses in that way.
JT Yes, he did.
RLG Proverbs tells us to, “Hear ... the instruction of a father”, Proverbs 4:1.
GAT Is your thought that in their generations certain families were faithful to their parents, and so we should be faithful to our Father — God?
JT That is the teaching of it. You see the epistles are intended to set us up in relation to God as Father. “If ye invoke as Father him who, without regard of persons, judges according to the work of each, pass your time of sojourn in fear”, 1 Peter 1:17. “That ye may be the sons of your Father” (Matthew 5:45), the Lord says. Now that you are adjusted and set up in relation to the Father, the next thing [p. 400] is to reflect His character. Jacob says, “Let my name be named upon them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac”, Genesis 48:16. It is the Father’s name that is to be on us. The Lord says in His prayer to the Father, “When I was with them I kept them in thy name”, and then “I have made known to them thy name, and will make it known; that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them and I in them”, John 17:12, 26. The family in that way is marked off by the Father’s name; and the Father’s characteristics are to be seen in us.
RSS The name signifying what is set forth in the person. It is remarkable that the names of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were upon Ephraim and Manasseh.
JT Well now, these five women stand out, being in the direct line of Joseph through Machir, as illustrative of family tuition and training; in due time they value what came down to them through their fathers. They valued the inheritance and would have it.
WB Why do they mention their father in connection with his death? “He was not in the band of them that banded themselves together against Jehovah in the band of Korah; but he died in his own sin”, Numbers 27:3. Why did they bring that in?
JT I think they were spiritual women. They evidently had a great abhorrence of party spirit, as every spiritual person has. They say their father “was not in the band of them that banded themselves together against Jehovah in the band of Korah”. They apprehended that, as you can see. They say, “he died in his own sin”. It was a sorrowful thing that he died thus, but it was better he should die in his own sin than in the band, because Korah’s sin was apostasy. They were spiritual women and distinguished between discipline for individual guilt and discipline because of being in a band. That is the most terrible thing. Korah’s band was a terrible uprising of the flesh. You cannot but admire the way they present their case. It says, “And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes, and the whole assembly, at the entrance of the tent of meeting”. That is to say, typically they recognise the Lord Jesus in Moses, and as High Priest, in Eleazar, and those who are leaders among the saints in the princes, and the whole assembly; and they are in a public position at the entrance of the tent of meeting. They avow before all that they desire the inheritance.
JAR Would you say they were in the full sense of what would keep up their father’s inheritance.
JT They were. In the last chapter of the book the question of husbands came up. The tribe of the sons of Joseph took occasion to bring up that question, which was in order; the daughters of Zelophehad did not do so, they valued the inheritance and desired it.
GWH “That ye should know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints”, Ephesians 1:18. That ye may know it. It greatly pleased Jehovah here when they were set for things. It says, “And Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying, The daughters of Zelophehad speak right”.
JT The Holy Spirit mentions that they spoke and what they said was right.
WGR What came up in the last chapter of Numbers as to their choice of husbands would be governed entirely now by their spiritual intelligence. They could not make a wrong choice there if the inheritance was before them. They had spiritual discernment and would not marry outside their own tribe then.
JT They were to marry whom they pleased, but in their [p. 402] own tribe.
WCR And in view of the inheritance, that it might not pass from tribe to tribe but be kept in its right place.
RSS Does not a very important principle come out in the passage just referred to in the end of Numbers? The affections of these women were to be confined to a certain sphere. There was no doubt ample scope in the tribe of Manasseh but they were not to go beyond that.
JT It says, “and the chief fathers of families of the sons of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near, and spoke before Moses, and before the princes, the chief fathers of the children of Israel”, Numbers 36:1. And then it says: “Moses commanded the children of Israel according to the word of Jehovah, saying, The tribe of the sons of Joseph hath said well. This is the thing which Jehovah hath commanded concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, Let them marry whom they please; only they shall marry one of the tribe of their father, that no inheritance of the children of Israel pass from tribe to tribe, for every one of the children of Israel shall, keep to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers”. (Numbers 36:5 - 7) And then it says, “even as Jehovah had commanded Moses, so did the daughters of Zelophehad”. (Numbers 36:10) And then, they “were married unto their uncles’ sons. To those that were of the families of the sons of Manasseh, the son of Joseph, were they married; and their inheritance remained in the tribe of the family of their father”, Numbers 36:11,12. These women were subject to God’s commandments.
RSS And set forth that principle of which we were speaking. I mean our affections should be controlled. Take for instance the question of marriage, we are not to be married to unbelievers. If there is a tendency in that direction we should immediately check it, for it would be lawlessness to pursue such a course.