Numbers 27:3

Num 27:3 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.

Ver. 3. But died in his own. sin.] i.e., By a natural and an ordinary death; not by a special plague, as that arch-rebel Korah. Death is the just hire of the least sin. {Rom 6:23} But some evildoers God doth not only put to death, but also hangs them up in gibbets, as it were, for public notice and admonition.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Num 27:3. But died in his own sin — The sin for which he alone was to suffer in his person, and not in his posterity, meaning, as some think, that incredulity for which all that generation was sentenced to die in the wilderness; and which, though, with respect to the rest of the people, it was not merely his own sin, since they were generally alike guilty; yet with respect to his children it was his own sin, a personal guilt, which God himself had declared should not affect his children, Num 14:31.

But, perhaps, by his dying in his own sin, we are only to understand that he died by a common ordinary death, not such a one as they shared who were partakers of the guilt of Korah and his companions.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

27:3-4 Zelophehad had not been part of Korah’s rebellion (16:1-50); if he had been, his property rights would apparently have been voided (see 15:30; cp. 1 Kgs 21:7-16). Israelite society was patriarchal and patrilineal, tracing ancestry and property through the male line. Zelophehad had no sons, but his daughters wanted his family property rights to continue. Zelophehad’s daughters thus made a reasonable appeal for property rights equal to those of males.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

According as all men die, for as much as they are sinners.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

3. he died in his own sin] in the ordinary sinfulness of a man, like the rest of his generation who died during the forty years in the wilderness. They point out that their father had not taken part in the sin of Korah’s company, that is, he had not committed any crime great enough to deserve the alienation of the property from his family after his death.

Notice that the reference to Korah’s company is in agreement with the main part of the P story in ch. 16, in which Korah’s company were laymen and not Levites; for it is implied that Zelophehad, who was a Manassite, might have been one of them.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Our father died in the wilderness,.... As all the generation of the children of Israel did, that came out of Egypt, who were twenty years old and upwards, excepting Joshua and Caleb:

and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the Lord in the company of Korah; which is observed, not so much to obtain the favour and good will of Moses as to clear the memory of their father from any reproach upon it, he dying in the wilderness; and chiefly to show that the claim of his posterity to a share in the land was not forfeited, he not being in that rebellion, nor in any other; so that he and his were never under any attainder:

but died in his own sin; which though common to all men, every man has his own peculiar way of sinning, and is himself only answerable for it, Isa 53:6 he sinned alone, had no partner or confederate, whom he had drawn into any notorious and public sin, as mutiny, &c. to the prejudice of the state, and the rulers in it; so the Targum of Jonathan adds,"and he did not cause others to sin,''so Jarchi; some take him to be the sabbath breaker, Num 15:32, others that he was one of those that went up the hill, Num 14:44, most likely his sin was that of unbelief, disbelieving the spies that brought the good report of the land, and giving credit to those that brought an ill report of it; and so with the rest of the people murmured, for which his carcass, with others, fell in the wilderness, and entered not into the good land, through unbelief: a sin not punished in their children:

and had no sons. which was the reason of this application.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

But died in his own sin - i. e., perished under the general sentence of exclusion from the land of promise passed on all the older generation, but limited to that generation alone. By virtue of the declaration in Num 14:31 the daughters of Zelophehad claim that their father’s sin should not be visited upon them.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Father, the portion which would have been assigned him; that so those whom we may marry, may take the inheritance, under the name of Salphaad, which some of the children may also bear. (Menochius)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

He was not in the company of Korah, nor in any other rebellion of the people, which must be understood, because all of them are opposed to

his own sin, in which alone he is said to die. But they mention this only either,

1. Because he might possibly be accused to be guilty of this. Or,

2. Because he, being an eminent person, might be thought guilty of that rather than of any other, because the great and famous men were more concerned in that rebellion than others. Or,

3. To gain the favour of Moses, against whom that rebellion was more particularly directed, and more desperately prosecuted than any other. Or,

4. Because peradventure he died about that time, and therefore might be presumed guilty of that crime. Or rather,

5. Because that sin, and, as it may seem, that only of all the sins committed in the wilderness, was of such a flagitious nature, that God thought fit to extend the punishment not only to the persons of those rebels, but also to their children and families, Num 16:27,32, as was usual in like cases, as Deu 13:15; Jos 7:24; whence it is noted as a singular privilege granted to the children of Korah, that they died not, Num 26:11, whereas the children of their confederates died with them. And this makes their argument here more proper and powerful, that he did not die in that sin for which his posterity were to be cut off, and to lose either their lives or their inheritances, and therefore their claim was more just.

In his own sin; either,

1. For that sin mentioned Num 14, which they call his own sin, in opposition not to the rest of the people, for it was a common sin, but to his children, i.e. the sin for which he alone was to suffer in his person and not in his posterity, as God had appointed, Num 14:33. Or rather,

2. For his own personal sins; for,

1. These were more properly his own sins.

2. It was a truth, and that believed by the Jews, that death was a punishment for men’s own sins.

3. The punishment of that common sin was not directly and properly death, but exclusion from the land of Canaan, and death only by way of consequence upon that.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

3. Not in the company… of Korah — This part of their plea implies that the treason of Korah attainted the blood of the conspirators, and cut off their children from heirship.

Died in his own sin — As other men died in the wilderness, in no special sin nor stroke of judgment, implicating and ruining others with himself.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the Lord. He had not been amongst the two hundred and fifty who gathered themselves together in support of Korah s pretensions. It does not appear why they should have thought it necessary to make this statement, unless they felt that the fact of his having died without sons might raise suspicion against him as one who had greatly provoked the wrath of God. But died in his own sin. This cannot mean that Zelophehad was one of those who died in the wilderness in consequence of the rebellion at Kadesh (see the next note). Apparently his daughters meant to acknowledge that they had no complaint against the Divine justice because of their father"s death, but only against the law because of the unnecessary hardship which it inflicted upon them.

The man who died in his own sin.

I A PLEA FOR FAVOURABLE CONSIDERATION. The daughters of Zelophehad felt that if he. had been numbered among the conspirators with Korah, it would have been very difficult for them to stand forward and make this claim. It is one of the saddest things in a world of sad things that the innocent children of guilty parents are made to inherit the shame of the parental offence. The parental name, instead of being one of the sweetest sounds to fall upon their ears, becomes one of the most hideous and torturing. Not seldom they are looked upon with suspicion, and though it be admitted they cannot help the parents" crime, yet they begin life with a millstone round their necks. The words of these women, meant only as a plea for themselves, inflicted at the same time a blow, none the less severe because unconsciously given, on any children of Korah (Num_26:11) or of his confederates who might be present. Not that it made any real difference to the principle of the matter in question, whether Zelophehad died in his own sin or as partaker in a huge rebellion, but it did make a difference in the spirit with which these women presented their case. The fact that they were women did not make them afraid to go into the face of the whole congregation, but if they had been children of Korah, the chances are that a sense of shame would have compelled them to suffer wrong. What an admonition to those who stand among temptations to some shameless and heinous deed to ponder well the consequent stain and difficulty that may come to their innocent progeny! That the sins of the fathers are visited on the children is a fact apparent in nature, but society heartily accepts the principle, and only too often works it out in the most unsparing fashion.

II IT WAS THE RIGHT SPIRIT OF APPROACH TO GOD IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. Zelophehad belonged to the doomed generation. He may indeed have been a better man than most, but a census had just been taken which revealed the fact that there was not a single survivor of the generation; and it was not the time to say more in way of commendation than that Zelophehad died in his own sin. A deferential humble recollection of the holiness of Jehovah we may well believe to have marked the present approach of these women. He would hardly have connected the assertion of a general principle with their request if there had been anything unseemly or insolent in the manner of it. We shall do well not to claim too much for men in the way of commendation, when we are thinking of them in relation to God. We must neither abase them too low nor exalt them too high, but preserve the golden mean of a loving, charitable, and Christian appreciation. How offensive in the hearing of God many eulogies of men must sound, where not only superlative is piled on superlative, but altogether erroneous principles of judgment are adopted. There is a time and a need to praise devoted servants of God, and to maintain their reputation for fidelity, zeal, and spiritual success, but never let it be forgotten that the very best of men, to say the least of him, dies in his own sin. That will be largely his own consciousness. Whatever his services may have been, it is in the grace, wisdom, and ample preparedness of God in Christ Jesus that he will find his only hope. It only needs a little thought to see the impropriety of praising men, because they are laden with the free gifts of God"s grace, and at the very time when the suitability of those gifts is especially made manifest. Any sort of praise of human excellence and service which even for a moment pushes into the background the universal depravity of man and the universal necessity of God" s grace and mercy, is thereby self-condemned.

III THOUGH A MAN DIE IN HIS OWN SIN ONLY, YET THAT IS ENOUGH TO WORK IRREPARABLE MISCHIEF. It was well to be able to say of Zelophehad that he had kept out of Korah"s conspiracy, but it was a poor thing to say, if there was nothing better behind. Out of negations, nothing but negations will ever come. It is of no avail to keep out of ten thousand wrong ways, unless we take the one right way. The sum of human duty is to leave undone all the things which ought to be left undone, and to do all the things which ought to be done. Your own sin, small as it may seem in your present consciousness, is enough to bring death. The mustard seed of inborn alienation from God will grow to a mighty and everlasting curse if you do not stop it in time. Those who have passed through untold agonies because of conviction of sin, once laughed at sin as a little thing. They did not dream it would give them such trouble, and drive them about incessantly till they got the question answered, "What must I do to be saved?" Sin sleeps in most, as far as the peculiar consciousness of it is concerned, but when it wakes it will prove itself a giant. Look at the analogy in physical life. A man says that he is full of health and vigour, and he looks it; he even gets complimented upon it. Suddenly, in the midst of these compliments, he is stricken down with a fierce disease, and a few days number him among the dead. Why? The real disease was in him already, even with all his consciousness of health. There must have been something in his body to give the outward cause a hold. Our present consciousness is no criterion of our spiritual state. The word of God in the Scriptures, humbly apprehended and obeyed, is the only safe guide to follow.

IV THOUGH A MAN MUST NEEDS DIE IN HIS OWN SIN, HE MAY ALSO DIE IN THE FULNESS OF CHRIST"S SALVATION FROM SIN. The end of life, with all its gloom, with all its manifestations of despair, callousness, and self-righteousness in some, is in others an occasion to manifest in great beauty the power of God in the spirits of men. One must die in his own sin, yet he may also experience the cleansing of that blood which takes away all sin. One must die in his own sin, yet this very necessity may also lead to dying in the faith of Jesus, in the hope of glory, and in the arms of infinite love.

V WE SHOULD AIM THAT NOTHING WORSE THAN DYING IN OUR OWN SIN MAY BE SAID OF US. It is bad enough that sin should be dominant, even without compelling us to leave the ordinary paths of life; those reckoned, among men, useful and harmless. It is bad enough to feel that in us there are the possibilities of the most abandoned and reckless, of the worst of tyrants, sensualists, and desperadoes; only lacking such temptations, associations, and opportunities: as may make the possible actual. Be it ours, if we cannot show a spotless record, if we cannot claim a personality that started from innocence, at all events to show as little of harm to the world as possible. We cannot keep out of Zelophehad"s company; let us keep out of Korah"s. There is a medium between being a Pharisee and a profligate. Y.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

In his own sin - For his own personal sins. It was a truth, and that believed by the Jews that death was a punishment for mens own sins.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

והוא לא היה וגו׳ AND HE WAS NOT [… IN THE CONGREGATION OF KORAH] — Because they intended to state בחטתו מת, that HE DIED IN HIS OWN SIN they felt compelled to say he had taken no part in the sin of those who murmured, nor had he been in the congregation of Korah who incited the people against the Holy One, blessed be He (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 133:3, Bava Batra 118b), but he had died through his own sin only, and had not made others to sin with him (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:3). — As regards what this sin was, R. Akiba said that he was the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath day (Numbers 15:32); R. Simeon said that he was one of those who presumed to disobey God’s command (Numbers 14:44) (Shabbat 96b).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

[OUR FATHER DIED IN THE WILDERNESS], AND HE [Zelophehad] WAS NOT [AMONG THE COMPANY OF THEM THAT GATHERED THEMSELVES TOGETHER AGAINST THE ETERNAL IN THE COMPANY OF KORACH]. “Since they came to say, but he died in his own sin, they had to say [that he did] not [die because of participating] in the sin of those who murmured, 11:1. nor [because he was] amongst the company of Korach who incited [the people] against the Holy One, blessed be He; but [he died] in his own sin, and did not cause others to sin with him.” This is Rashi’s language. But he did not explain why they [the daughters of Zelophehad] came to say that he died in his own sin, when they should [only] have said: ‘Our father died in the wilderness, and he had no sons!’ For that was the fitting thing to say [since the cause of his death was not relevant, and it is not right for children to stress their father’s sin]! But in the opinion of our Rabbis they had to say that he was not among the company of Korach, because the company of Korach did not receive a portion in the Land, and likewise the murmurers in the company of Korach, [and the daughters of Zelophehad knew this] because it had become known amongst the people from the court of Moses. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained it in a similar manner, saying that the daughters thought that those who had gathered together against the Eternal would not inherit in the Land.In my opinion, according to the simple meaning of Scripture, they spoke in this way because they thought that Moses our teacher hated the company of Korach more than all other sinners who died in the desert, because they had rebelled against him and had denied [the Divine approval of] all his deeds; therefore they thought that perhaps because he hated them [the company of Korach] he would say: Let there be none to extend kindness unto him; neither let there be any to be gracious unto his fatherless children. Therefore they informed him that he [their father] was not one of them, and they furthermore hinted that he was not amongst those who died in one of the plagues [which came as a punishment for the sin of the people], but that he died [a natural death] in the wilderness in his bed. And the meaning of [the expression] but he died in his own sin is that they said that he had died in the wilderness in his sin, because he was not worthy to enter the Land [and this in itself is considered the punishment for a sin]. Or it may be as the poet Rabbi Yehudah Halevi, of blessed memory, explained, that it is connected [in meaning] with [the phrase following it]: and he had no sons, as people say nowadays: “Such-and-such an event happened because of [certain] sins.”

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.