Charles Ellicott Commentary Genesis 20

Abraham journeyed from there. —That is, from Mamre, where he had stayed for so long, and which seems to have continued to be one of his homes. As he had been commanded to traverse the whole land (Genesis 13:17–18), we need not seek reasons for his removal. It was the rule of his life to move from place to place, both because of his cattle and also because in doing so he was taking possession of the country. There were, nevertheless, certain places which were his headquarters, such as Bethel, Mamre, and Beer-sheba.

The south country. —It is a proper name, the Negeb; see Note on Genesis 12:9. For Kadesh, see Genesis 16:14; for Shur, see Genesis 16:7; and for Gerar, see Genesis 10:19.

She is my sister. — Twenty years before, Abraham had acted in the same way in Egypt, and Pharaoh had rebuked him, but sent him away with large presents. We learn from this chapter, Genesis 20:13, that the false representation which twice brought them into trouble was habitual with the two; nor does Abraham ever seem conscious that he was acting in it wrongfully. To us it seems cowardly, in one who had so many men trained to battle, thus to expose his wife to danger; and to have recourse to deceit, at the very time when such abundant revelations were being made to him, also shows an apparent want of faith in God. But Holy Scripture neither represents its heroes as perfect, nor does it raise them disproportionately above the level of their own times.

Its distinguishing feature rather is that it always insists upon a perpetual progress upwards, and urges men onward to be better and holier than those who went before. Abraham was not on the same high spiritual level as a Christian ought to be who has the perfect example of Christ as his pattern, and the gift of the Holy Ghost for his aid; and the fact that God rescued him and Sarah from all danger in Egypt may have seemed to him a warrant that in future difficulties he would have the same Divine protection. Human conduct is always strangely checkered, but we have a wholesome lesson in the fact, that it was Abraham’s shrewd device which twice entangled him in actual danger.

Abimelech (called in Genesis 26:1, king of the Philistines, where see the note) ... took Sarah. — She was now ninety years of age, and naturally her beauty must have faded. Some, however, think that with the promise of a son her youth had been renewed, while others suppose that the purpose uppermost in the mind of Abimelech was political, and that what he really desired was an alliance with the powerful sheikh who had entered his territories.

God (Elohim) came ... — From the use of this title of the Deity, it has been said that this narrative is an Elohistic form of the Jehovistic narrative in Genesis 12:10-20. But we have seen that even in the History of the Fall, where the writer in so remarkable a manner styles the Deity Jehovah-Elohim, he nevertheless restricts Eve and the serpent in their conversation to the name Elohim.

With the same care in the application of the names, it is necessarily Elohim who appears to a heathen king; and if the title Jehovah had been used, it would have been a violation of the narrator’s rule. Moreover, the sole reason for calling that narrative Jehovistic is that in Genesis 12:17 it is Jehovah who plagues Pharaoh for Sarah’s sake. But equally here, in Genesis 20:18, it is Jehovah who protects Sarah from Abimelech; in both cases it is the covenant God who saves His people from injury.

You are but a dead man. —Hebrew, you die, or are dying. Abimelech was already suffering from the malady spoken of in Genesis 20:17 when Elohim appeared to him and warned him that death would be the result of perseverance in retaining Sarah. It was this malady which was the cause of the abstention spoken of in Genesis 20:4; Genesis 20:6.

A righteous nation. —Knobel has pointed out that there is an allusion here to the fate of Sodom. Though the malady was confined to Abimelech and his household, yet he sees destruction threatening his whole people, who, compared with the inhabitants of the Ciccar cities, were righteous. There is indirect proof of the truth of Abimelech’s assertion in the fact that death (Genesis 20:3) is acknowledged as the fitting punishment for adultery.

In the integrity of my heart ... — Not only does Abimelech assert this, but Elohim admits the plea. And yet this Philistine king indulges in polygamy, and claims the right of taking the female relatives of anyone passing through his territory to add them to his harem. But the words mean only that he was not consciously violating any of his own rules of morality. This illustrates the Gospel principle that people will be punished not by an absolute decree, but equitably, according to their knowledge (Luke 12:47–48).

Abimelech was doing wrong, and was suffering punishment, but the punishment was remedial, and for his advancement in knowing right and doing right. It is thus by means of revelation that people have attained a proper understanding of the moral law. Though often called "the law of Nature," yet Nature does not give it, but only acknowledges it when given. The inner light is only a faint and inconstant glimmering, but Christ is the true light, for only by Him does the law of Nature become a clear rule for human guidance (John 1:9; Romans 2:14–15; Matthew 6:23).