LS1910 - 16 Caleb dit: Je donnerai ma fille Acsa pour femme à celui qui battra Kirjath-Sépher et qui la prendra.
Community answers are sorted based on votes. The higher the vote, the further up an answer is.
Society in biblical times among the nations and peoples of the Middle East was much more patriarchal, or male-oriented, than in Western culture today. Women (especially those still living in their father's household) did not have many of the prerogatives that we (thousands of years later) would now regard as their natural rights. The Bible (particularly the Old Testament) contains multiple instances of women being promised in marriage to a man solely on the basis of the wishes of the woman's father, or as the result of dealings between the woman's father and the woman's suitor, with no indication of any input from the woman, and, in some cases (such as with Isaac and Rebekah in Genesis 24), with the woman not even having met the man who was to be her husband until after she had already been promised to him in marriage. As antiquated (and even oppressive) as this may seem to us today, it was intended for the woman's protection, both personally, and in her key role of carrying on the purity of the family's bloodline through the begetting of children. This had particular significance for the people of Israel, who lived in the midst of pagan cultures that engaged in abhorrent practices such as human sacrifice. Caleb was acting in this tradition in the passage cited in the question. As the father of the woman often did in cases like this, he required the man who wanted to be his daughter's husband to perform a feat of bravery or danger, both to prove the genuineness and honor of the man's intentions, and to give an indication of the man's leadership abilities (as well as of his being favored by God) through accomplishing the task that he was required to carry out.
The passage of scripture does not mention whether or not Caleb’s daughter consented to being offered as a bride. Therefore the presumption that she did not consent is invalid. There is nothing in the passage to confirm that she either consented or did not consent - therefore the question is a moot point. Given the culture of the time it is more likely that she did consent. But that two is conjecture. It is important not to read our cultural assumptions into scripture.
All answers are REVIEWED and MODERATED.
Please ensure your answer MEETS all our guidelines.
A good answer provides new insight and perspective. Here are guidelines to help facilitate a meaningful learning experience for everyone.