Definition: But Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, but daughters: and these [are] the names of his daughters, Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.

Explanation: Okay, let’s break down this verse from Joshua 17:3. It's a little unsettling, but it speaks about a situation in ancient Israel with some serious implications for the future. Here’s what it means in simple terms: Basically, this verse describes a problem with the lineage of the priestly family – the Shepherds. “But Zelophehad…” : This refers to a man named Zelophehad who was arguing against the selection of a new priest. He was a bit of a troublemaker and didn’t agree with the current leadership. “…the son of Hepher…” : Zelophehad came from Shepher, which was a city in Israel. “Hepher” is an old name for the city itself. “…the son of Gilead…” : Gilead was another man who was involved in this dispute. “…the son of Machir…” : Machir was also part of the group arguing against the new priest. “…the son of Manasseh…” : Manasseh was a further contributor to this conflict. The Key Point: Zelophehad had no sons . This is the crucial part. What does it mean? This verse tells us that the lineage of these four men – Zelophehad, Gilead, Machir, and Manasseh – produced no male heirs (sons). This was a significant problem because in ancient Israel, the priestly family held immense power and responsibility. They were responsible for performing rituals and sacrifices that were vital for the Israelites to stay under God's law. Why is this important? The Bible says that these four men were excluded from being chosen as the new priest. This was a major issue because it meant they couldn’t fulfill their duties, and it created a potential for instability in the religious system. It highlights a serious weakness in the leadership and the power structure of the time. In short: This verse describes a family with no male heirs, which caused problems within the priestly lineage and ultimately led to a disruption in the religious order. --- Do you want me to: Explain another part of this passage? Discuss the historical context of this story?