Why always "their sons"?

[Lila]

What's the reason the Scripture keeps referring to families in the way of XY man and his sons, where are the daughters left? Does it mean it wasn't significant enough to include it when listing the generations or were there simply not born any females at those specific situations referenced?

In 1 Chronicles 7:15 it stroke me that on this occasion it's pointed out that Zelophehad had only (-my Bible has this addition of "only") daughters. Like it was another anomaly?

I just wished I could make better sense of this.

 

[aineo]

Lila, I think there are a couple of possibilities. The lineage of a family came through the sons of a man, and the inheritance typically stayed with the sons. An example of this is the land owned by a man. His sons would have been left his land. Had he no sons, his daughters would have been left the land, but this land could have theoretically become the land of another tribe had the daughter married outside of her tribe. This is addressed in Numbers 36:8:

Numbers 36:8 Every daughter who comes into possession of an inheritance of any tribe of the sons of Israel shall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father, so that the sons of Israel each may possess the inheritance of his fathers.

The Bible tells us in Deuteronomy 21:17 that the firstborn son is the beginning of his father's strength.

Deuteronomy 21:17 But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the firstborn.

This isn't the only place that a firstborn son is referred to as his father's strength. I just realized, in this context (and all contexts, I suppose) Jesus is the strength of the Father.

I think it was certainly a sign of strength and blessing for a man to be blessed with sons. That doesn't mean he didn't value his daughters, but if a man had only daughters, his wealth could become that of another family upon his death.

When scripture mentions that a man had only daughters, it probably is indicating it was an anomaly. I think a man would have likely continued to have children, had his wife or wives been able to, until he had a male.

I think this is one of those topics that can make one think that the daughters were of no value, but I do not believe that is what the Bible teaches. We see an example of a valuable woman in Proverbs 31 - if a woman was of "no value", such a passage would not be present. Psalms 144:12 is a place where blessings are spoken on the sons and the daughters. I think this is simply a case where belongings passed through sons, even in the case of children (after all, a man 'gave' his daughter away at marriage), and a man with no sons would likely not have a documented lineage to speak of, and as said above, his wealth would be passed on to another family, albeit in his same tribe.

 

[UntoldGlory]

Well said aineo.

 

[Lila]

Had he no sons, his daughters would have been left the land, but this land could have theoretically become the land of another tribe had the daughter married outside of her tribe.

Aineo, thank you very much for looking into this for me and typing it up, I really appreciate it!

.. a man would have likely continued to have children, had his wife or wives been able to, until he had a male.

:-D Wow, I had to giggle. But I think you are dead right. It was so common to add wives/ concubines that this is most likely why it was so common to for sure have sons..

I think this is one of those topics that can make one think that the daughters were of no value...

I refused staying with that conclusion hence wanted to see how else I can look at it.

 

[FollowingHim]

Consider the purpose of these records in scripture, and I think it will become clearer.
Scripture generally only records the names of people who contributed in some way to the history being recorded, or their ancestors so that their lineage can be shown. Just as we do today, where wives and children take their father's surname but not their mothers (usually), lineage was recorded patriarchally - father to son to son. So we have recorded:
- Everyone who did something interesting (male or female), and
- Their father, grandfather, great-grandfather etc (male)
So men may be mentioned for two reasons, and women only for one. Most sons of key people must be mentioned, as if they didn't do something interesting themselves their descendents did, and their names must be recorded to show this lineage. But only daughters who did something of particular interest are mentioned, meaning far fewer daughters are recorded.

 

[windblown]

When I'm feeling down on my gender's representation, I like to comfort myself with Ruth 4:15:

"...for thy daughter in law, which loveth thee, which is better to thee than seven sons..."

And I love the imagery in Psalms 144:12:

"That our sons may be as plants grown up in their youth; that our daughters may be as corner stones, polished after the similitude of a palace."

 

[Carolina Butterfly]

When I'm feeling down on my gender's representation, I like to comfort myself with Ruth 4:15:

"...for thy daughter in law, which loveth thee, which is better to thee than seven sons..."

And I love the imagery in Psalms 144:12:

"That our sons may be as plants grown up in their youth; that our daughters may be as corner stones, polished after the similitude of a palace."

Beautiful, Windblown. And you're right: very comforting.

It's not that men are better or preferred to women. They simply have a different function. Men function best in their capacity and realm, as do women.

Take cheer, for you are helping to raise up those sons. Teach them well.

 

[aineo]

It's not that men are better or preferred to women. They simply have a different function.

We would all do well to remember this.