Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Kitto Morning Bible Devotions: February 25
Today is: Wednesday, April 24th, 2024 (Show Today's Devotion)
Select a Day for a Devotion in the Month of February: (Show All Months)
Gen_20:16
It was probably owing to the confusion into which the country was thrown by this awful judgment, that Abraham soon after removed his encampment to a more distant place than he had visited since his return from Egypt. This was in the territories of Gerar, over towards the Mediterranean. The people here were, even thus early, Philistines, and had a king named Abimelech. Here the very same thing took place, with respect to Sarah, as had happened in Egypt; and she was delivered from the danger by the same means. Indeed, there is much, in other respects, very similar in the state of things, and in the condition of regal power in this country and in Egypt, at the time of Abraham’s journey thither; and if the people who then ruled in Lower Egypt were, as there is reason to think, the intrusive dynasty of conquering strangers known to history as the Hyksos or Shepherd kings, Note: In corroboration of this opinion, it may be pointed out, that there is a most marked difference between the Pharaoh of the time of Abraham, and him of the time of Joseph—in language, religion, and court usages. By that time also nomad shepherds had become an abomination to the Egyptians, on account of the memories of that race from whose tyrannies they had been lately delivered. In Joseph’s time, all is Egyptian, implying that the native race of kings had then recovered its power and expelled the intruder. there is abundant reason to infer, that the Philistines were, in their origin, a branch of the same race which had extended itself in this direction. We find in both a more orderly regal government than among the princes of Canaan. On entering both, Abraham is led to deny his wife, from fear of the regal power. In both, he communicates directly with the kings; both monarchs knew and feared, in a certain sense, the name of the Lord; both spoke the language of Abraham (which the native Egyptians did not, Gen_42:23); both exercised the same rights over women, and both make use of them in the case of Sarah. The differences arise chiefly from the character of the men; and Abimelech is the more interesting character of the two. He indeed, like Pharaoh, loads Abraham with gifts of slaves, oxen, and sheep, in atonement for his unknowing injustice; but he does not send the patriarch away, but says with princely courtesy—“Behold my land is before thee; dwell where it pleaseth thee.”
His remonstrance with Abraham is also highly dignified and becoming; and the neat sarcasm, too complimentary to wound, with which he closes that remonstrance, is highly worthy of attention. In our Bible it is read thus—it is to Sarah he speaks—“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, adds the sacred historian—“thus she was reproved.” It must be confessed that this does not read very intelligibly. It is generally agreed, that the words rendered “a covering for the eyes,” or “eye-covering,” denotes a veil: and it appears to us, that Abimelech means to say, that having given this money, she may procure therewith a veil—such as, according to the custom of towns, may hide her fatal beauty; or such as may indicate her wifehood, that she may not again be taken for an unmarried woman. It is under this view that a learned German translator thus renders the text—“Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand shekels of silver: with it buy thee a veil, and wear it before all that are with thee, and before all other, so that thou mayst be distinguished.” The words undoubtedly denote an “eye-covering;” and we think it has not been clearly explained how this should come to denote a veil. It is, as it seems to us, because there is a kind of veil or head-wrapper used in the East, which does not cover the eyes, but leaves exposed so much of the face as lies between the forehead and the mouth, and it was not this kind of veil, but one which should cover the face wholly, and therefore, the eyes also—that Sarah was counselled to wear.
In further explanation, it is to be observed that, even at the present day, unmarried females among the pastoral tribes do not wear any kind of veil. The married women do partially veil the face by means of a kind of kerchief, passed around the head, with the ends drawn round the neck, and covering the lower part of the face below the mouth. In towns the face is wholly covered; and this custom is so far adopted among the tribes which lie near large towns, and have much intercourse with them, that the men compel their women to appear veiled before strangers. Now, if these usages anciently existed, as there is every reason to suppose, Sarah, when passing as Abraham’s sister, must have gone unveiled, when seen at all. As a married woman, she would have worn the head-dress which covered part of the face; but now Abimelech counsels her, not only to do that—not only to assume the veil proper to her order, but, while near the town, to shade her dangerous attractions altogether, even to the extent of covering her eyes with the kind of veils worn by the women of towns. Thus understood, the words of Abimelech afford a very fine example of a compliment, wrapped up in a good-humored reproof.
It has been urged against this interpretation, that the sum named is too large for the purpose. We do not, however, know the precise value of these pieces of silver. But the whole amount could not have been very considerable; and the higher class of veils are at this day very expensive. But granting that it were more than the occasion required, there is surely an obtuse literality in exacting, that the money should have so precise a relation to the object indicated by the king. How often do we see a sum of money presented, which is suggested in a gay or off-hand manner, to be for the purchase of a nosegay or a ribbon, although sufficient for a much more large and costly appropriation. In our own case this is regarded as a graceful under-valuation of the offering—and why not so in the case of Abimelech?
There is a wedding custom among the Bedouins, which strongly illustrates the distinction made by the veil between a married and unmarried woman. The custom has not come under our own cognizance, and it rests on the high authority of Burckhardt, who states, “that the bride is taken to her father’s tent by her young men, who there place her in the women’s apartment; and one of the bridegroom’s relatives immediately throws over her an abba or man’s cloak, completely enveloping her head, and exclaims, ‘None shall covet thee but such a one!’” This also brings to mind poor Ruth’s supplication to Boaz, that he would take her matrimonially under his protection—“Spread thy skirt over thine handmaid.”
It appears from all this, that the use of the veil as a covering for the face of women, had already come into use in towns, but was not employed any more than at present, among the pastoral tribes, nor does it appear to have been at any time in general use as a covering for the face among the Hebrew women.
Mr. Fordyce, in his excellent Observations on Genesis, is clearly wrong in supposing, from the facts stated, that veils were not yet in use; but he rightly accounts for the origin of the practice—“It appears to have been introduced in consequence of the want of regular government, or the mismanagement of the country. A man who had a beautiful wife or daughter, desired her to cover herself with a veil, lest she should be coveted and carried off by violence. The veil was thus a mark of beauty, or that the woman was in danger on account of her good looks. Hence women of more ordinary features were led to covet it, that they, too, might get credit for beauty; and so the veil became fashionable, all women used it, and use it to this day in these countries. It never was in general use in Europe, where polygamy did not exist, and the free and bolder spirit of the people rendered such proceedings dangerous on the part of the chiefs.”