I think the verses you've posted are grossly misunderstood, dear darth frosty (peace to you!). It is classic contract law, pure and simple. The definition of a "contract" is:
"An agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entitiesin which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration. The existence of a contract requires finding the following factual elements: a) an offer; b) an acceptance of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds; c) a promise to perform; d)a valuable consideration (which can be a promise or payment in some form); e) a time or event when performance must be made (meet commitments); f) terms and conditions for performance, including fulfilling promises; g) performance."
At that time, a man "sold" his daughter in that he exacted a "price" for her... a dowry. NOT because she was a possession/piece of property, but because of her value... to him (he and her mother will grow old and at that time a daughter would be invaluable as to their care, so she has some value to him/her mother/the family. The man who takes her away - they were nomadic, remember - must know this. Charging him a price makes sure he does). The man who "bought" her is simply the man paid the dowry to have her. Meaning, one didn't just take a man's daughter from him and the family for nothing (you know, like today, when the father "gives away" his daughter... for "love"... or sometimes for nothing at all. Sometimes, the daughter gives her self away... for nothing at all. I digress). This man becomes the woman's husband ("husbandly owner" meaning he purchased the RIGHT to lay with her and RESPONSIBILITY to care for her).
So, let's look at this issue in a more "real" light:
Amon wants Shechem's daughter, Hannah(who maybe wants Amon, too; maybe not, but that's another thread). Amon tells Shechem that he wants to marry Hannah and promises care for her as his wife. He "offers" Shechem 300 shekels ("valuableconsideration") for Hannah. In exchange for Amon's "promise" to care for Hannah, Shechem hands over Hannah ("acceptance") and Amon pays him ("payment") the shekels. The contract is "executed" and Amon must now "perform" but do so under the agreed upon "terms and conditions."
What are the terms and conditions? These:
1. Amon cannot not "sell" her to foreigners (i.e., he may not have cared for her at all but faked his promise because he really wanted to make a profit off her by selling her for 400 shekels. Selling her to another Israelite would not have been a problem because it wouldn't have been easily done. She would be an adulteress and the other Israelite guilty of coveting another man's wife).
2. If Amon doesn't want her after all, he can:
(a) Give her back (for which Shechem must refund "bride price" paid by Amon); or
(b) Arrange for her to marry his son (in which case Amon must treat her like a daughter... and not a wife, which she is - the verse talks about taking "another" wife. In this case, however, her share is not diminished as she now becomes the son's responsibility - his father bought that "right" on his behalf).
3. If Amon wants her and keeps her as his wife, but alsotakes on another wife:
(a) Her share can never be reduced; she is entitled to what she received as an ONLY wife... no matter HOW many additional wives Amon takes on. Thus, she still gets:
(i) The same amount of falafel for dinner;
(ii) The same amount and quality of veils; AND
(iii) The same amount of "marriage due."
However,
(b) If Amon fails to honor the agreement as to any of these three rights, she gets to walk (and go where she pleases with whomever she pleases) and he forfeits a refund of his payment.
So, the entire issue was merely "contract law" which the entire Anglo-American system is based/built on. "We" just forget where we get it from. What was the purpose of this "law"? To make Amon think VERY hard about who he chose to marry. Marriage was a binding contract... for which the "purchaser" had to pay and price AND perform.
Now, for those who wish to cry, "OMIGAWD, she was SOLD... how can that be RIGHT?" I would say to you... think: how else was a woman to get along back then? Do we really believe she could have struck out on her own? And what, opened a shish-kabob stand? Cleaned... tents? Maybe open a veil-less camel-wash??? There were barbarics and marauders back then, dear ones. Bands of men who raped and killed first THEN took... nah, they didn't even bother to take names. True, there were exceptional women who might have been able to hold their own against one or two... or even four... men (most of those only exist in action films, today). But there were bands who thought absolutely NOTHING of taking a woman and running a "train" on her to the point of killing her. There were even men (and women) who ate other men. And women. And their children.
Back then, a woman needed protection... and deserved care. Yes, yes, I understand that it's not like that NOW. But it was THEN. In exchange for that care and protection, SHE provided care (meaning, a close encounter of a different kind)... and hearth. She bore a man children. But the husband could NOT be abusive or negligent. In such case, she really could walk, if she had a mind to... and "somewhere" to go. Even to another man, because neglect effected her release from the man.
Pure-d contract law, dear ones. And a pretty good "bargain", if you ask me, given the times. Because other nations were not so "nice" or accommodating to THEIR women.
I hope this helps and again, wish you all peace!
A slave of Christ, who's really kind of glad to be living during these "days"...
SA
