John Calvin Commentary Joshua 15:18

"And it came to pass, when she came [unto him], that she moved him to ask of her father a field: and she alighted from off her ass; and Caleb said, What wouldest thou?" — Joshua 15:18 (ASV)

This passage presents a narrative of events that, as is clear from the book of Joshua, took place after Joshua’s death. However, so that no question would be raised by the novelty of the procedure (giving a fertile and well-watered field as a woman's patrimony), and so that no ambiguity would remain regarding the allotment for the tribe of Judah, the writer of the book considered it appropriate to include a history of what happened afterwards.

First, Caleb, after he had taken the city of Hebron, is said to have attacked Debir (or Kiriath-sepher) and to have declared that the person who was first to enter it would be his son-in-law. It appears that when he offered this rare prize to his fellow soldiers for taking the city, no small achievement was required.

This confirms what previously seemed to be the case: that it was a dangerous and difficult task assigned to him when he obtained his conditional grant. Accordingly, with the aim of urging the bravest to exert themselves, he promises his daughter in marriage as a reward for the valor of the man who should first scale the wall.

It is afterwards added that Othniel, who was his nephew (his brother's son), gained the prize by his valor. I do not know how it has crept into the common translation that he was a younger brother of Caleb, for nothing remotely plausible can be said in defense of this blunder. Therefore, some commentators unnecessarily confuse themselves trying to explain how Othniel could have married his niece, since such a marriage was forbidden by the Law. It is easy to see that he was not his wife's uncle, but her cousin.

But here another question arises: How did Caleb presume to promise his daughter in marriage before knowing her wishes? Although it is the duty of parents to arrange their daughters' marriages, they are not permitted to exercise tyrannical power and marry them to whomever they choose without consulting them.

For while all contracts should be voluntary, freedom should prevail especially in marriage, so that no one is forced to make a commitment against their will. But Caleb was probably influenced by the belief that his daughter would willingly consent, as she could not decently reject such honorable terms; for the husband to be given to her was no common man, but one who would excel all others in skill in battle. It is quite possible, however, that Caleb, in the heat of battle, inconsiderately promised what he did not have the power to fulfill. It seems to me, however, that according to common custom, the agreement implied the daughter’s consent and was only to take effect if it was obtained. God certainly heard Caleb's prayer when He gave him a son-in-law exactly as he wished. For if Caleb had been given free choice, there was no one he would have preferred.

And it came to pass as she came unto him, etc. Although we may conjecture that the young woman Acsa was of excellent morals and well-raised, since marriage with her had been offered as the special reward of victory, yet perverse greed on her part is revealed here. She knew that by divine Law women were specially excluded from hereditary lands, but she nevertheless coveted their possession and incited her husband with unfair complaints.

In this way, ambitious and covetous wives continually trouble their husbands until they force them to forget shame, modesty, and equity. For although the avarice of men is also insatiable, women are often much more rash. Husbands should therefore be all the more on guard against being ignited, so to speak, by the force of such insistent advice.

But a greater lack of self-control is displayed when she gains additional boldness from her husband's compliance and her father's indulgence. Not content with the field given to her, she demands for herself a well-watered district. And so it is that when a person has once overstepped the boundaries of righteousness and honesty, the fault is immediately followed by shamelessness.

Moreover, her father, in refusing her nothing, shows his exceptional affection for her. But it does not therefore follow that the wicked desire for gain, which blinds the mind and distorts right judgment, is any less hateful. Regarding Acsa’s dismounting from the donkey, some interpreters attribute it to deceit and cunning, as if she were pretending to be unable to stay on her seat from grief. In this way, her dismounting or falling off is made an indication of deceitfulness and flawed character. It is simpler, however, to suppose that she placed herself at her father’s feet in order to approach him as a supplicant. Be this as it may, by her cunning and flattery she gained his consent, and to that extent diminished her brothers' inheritance.