Genesis 20:16

And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved.

I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver. [The word sheqel (H8255) is often omitted: cf. Genesis 37:28; Deuteronomy 22:19; Hosea 3:2.]

He is to thee a covering of the eyes. This is commonly understood to mean a veil to conceal her charms, and be a public manifestation to all that she was a married woman (1 Corinthians 11:10). As Calvin expounds it-`If you were unmarried, you would be exposed to many and great perils. But since God has given you a husband to be the guardian of your chastity, it becomes you to conceal yourself under that covering. Why should you voluntarily lay it aside?' But not to dwell on the extraordinary amount given, if the money was designed solely for the purchase of a veil, there is no certain evidence that in oriental countries the use of the veil was at any period confined to married women х kªcuwt (H3682) `eeynayim (H5869), a covering of the eyes]. Gesenius ('Lex.') defines this phrase to be 'a present offered as an expiation for some fault, in order that one may shut his eyes upon it; or a present made in the hope of pardon; an atonement, a penalty.' According to this definition, the right interpretation of the clause before us is as follows: 'Lo this' (namely, the thousand shekels) is given as a compensation for all that has happened with thee-and before all - i:e., publicly. The Septuagint renders it in the same manner, tauta estai soi eis timeen tou prosoopou sou. - timee (G5092) being used in the sense of fine, penalty (see the note at Genesis 32:21: cf. Job 9:24).

Thus she was reproved, [Hebrew, wªnokaachat (H3198)] - and she was convicted, had nothing to say in excuse (Gesenius). According to this view, these words contain a remark by the historian. But if the interpretation we have given of the preceding clause be correct, there was no reproof either expressed or implied; and accordingly De Wette, Tuch, Knobel, and Delitzsch, who consider these words as the concluding part of Abimelech's address to Sarah, render them thus; 'and with these (i:e., the thousand shekels) justice has been done to thee-I have made full reparation for the wrong.' This appears to be the true interpretation. For after the explanation given in Genesis 20:12, and the refreshing influence, doubtless, produced upon the sick king's soul by the prayers and conversation of the patriarch, Abimelech had evidently no intention of censuring Abraham and Sarah for what they had done. On the contrary, he was humbled in penitential sorrow, took all the blame upon himself, and displayed an extreme anxiety to make an adequate expiation for the injury he had committed. [The Septuagint gives here a totally different sense-kai panta aleetheuson, and on all occasions speak the truth.]

We need not wonder at finding in this chapter the narrative of an adventure with the King of Gerar similar to what occurred to Abraham with the Egyptian monarch on account of Sarah. It originated in a royal privilege sanctioned by the character and customs of the East; and therefore what happened to Sarah must have been a thing of frequent occurrence, as clearly appears from the explanatory statement of Abraham to Abimelech (Genesis 20:13). All oriental history shows that princes in that quarter of the world are not very scrupulous as to the taking away the lives of considerable people, when these stand in their way. And if the like spirit was common in Egypt and in Gerar in the time of Abraham, it is neither incredible nor very unlikely that the beauty of Sarah should be much talked of, or that Abraham should be apprehensive of his life on that account (Hackett).

But it has been urged as an objection against the historical character of this narrative, that the idea of a woman belonging to a wandering tribe of shepherds, and, moreover, of about ninety years of age being possessed of charms to captivate the heart of a luxurious prince, is an absurd and incredible fiction. The well-known frequent marriages of oriental sovereigns with women in humble life, as well as the high consideration and wealth of some pastoral people in the East, are sufficient to remove the first objection to the credibility of the story. Then, as to the second-namely, the great age of Sarah-not to dwell on the circumstance that men and women in patriarchal times retained their physical vigour far beyond the age which our experience assigns as the period of bodily decay-we are informed, on apostolic authority, that Sarah's bodily powers, and consequently her fresh and youthful countenance were preternaturally renewed (Hebrews 11:11). Besides, oriental kings are known to have frequently taken certain women into their harems for political reasons, irrespectively either of age or appearance; and therefore it might be that Abimelech was desirous of strengthening his throne by an alliance with so great and wealthy a nomadic chief as Abraham.

Further still, it has been objected to this narrative that it is of a tenor beneath the dignity of the inspired volume. But since the object of the sacred historian was to show how constant and faithful the Lord was to His covenant, by his timely interposition for the rescue of Sarah, notwithstanding the weakness and aberrations of His servants, the insertion of this narrative is perfectly consistent with the character and design of the sacred history.