John Calvin Commentary Genesis 23

And Sarah was one hundred and twenty-seven years old. It is remarkable that Moses, who relates Sarah's death in a single word, uses so many words in describing her burial; but we will soon see that the latter account is not superfluous. Why he alludes to her death so briefly, I do not know, except that he leaves more for his readers to reflect upon than he expresses.

The holy fathers saw that they, in common with reprobates, were subject to death. Nevertheless, even while painfully leading a life full of suffering, they were not deterred from advancing with fearlessness toward the goal. From this it follows that, being animated by the hope of a better life, they did not give way to fatigue.

Moses says that Sarah lived one hundred and twenty-seven years. Since he repeats the word years after each of the numbers, the Jews invent the idea that this was done because she had been as beautiful in her hundredth year as in her twentieth, and as modest in the prime of her life as when she was seven years old.

This is their custom; while they wish to prove themselves skillful in honoring their nation, they invent frivolous trifles which betray a shameful ignorance. For instance, in this case, who would not say that they were entirely ignorant of their own language, in which this kind of repetition is very common?

The discussion by others concerning the word חים (lives) also lacks substance. The reason the Hebrews use the word lives in the plural for life cannot, it seems to me, be better explained than by the reason the Latins express some singular concepts using plural forms. I know that human life is manifold because, beyond merely vegetative life and beyond the sense they share with brute animals, humans are also endowed with mind and intelligence.

This reasoning, therefore, is plausible but not sound. There is more semblance of truth in the opinion of those who think that the various events of human life are signified; that life, since it has nothing stable and is agitated by perpetual vicissitudes, is rightly considered as many lives. I am, however, content to refer simply to the idiom of the language, the reason for which should not always be investigated with excessive curiosity.

And Sarah died in Kirjath-arba. It appears from Joshua 15:54 that this was the more ancient name of the city, which afterwards began to be called Hebron. But there is a difference of opinion respecting the etymology. Some think the name is derived from the fact that the city consisted of four parts, as the Greeks call a city divided into three orders Tripoli, and a given region Decapolis, from the ten cities it contained.

Others suppose that Arba is the name of a giant, whom they believe to have been the king or the founder of the city. Others again prefer the notion that the name was given to the place from four of the Fathers, Adam, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were buried there with their wives.

I willingly suspend my judgment on a matter of uncertainty and not very necessary to be known. It more concerns the present history to inquire how it happened that Sarah died in a different place from that in which Abraham lived. If anyone should reply that they had both changed their abode, the words of Moses are opposed to that, for he says that Abraham came to bury his dead.

From this it is easily inferred that he was not present at her death; nor is it probable that they were separated merely by being in different tents, so that he might walk ten or twenty paces for the sake of mourning while a more important duty had been neglected. For this reason, some suspect that he was on a journey at the time.

But to me it seems more likely that their abode was then at Hebron, or at least in the valley of Mamre, which adjoins the city. For, after a little breathing time had been granted him, he was soon compelled to return to his accustomed wanderings. And although Moses does not say that Abraham had paid his wife, while she was still alive, the due attentions of a husband, I think that he omits it as a thing indubitably certain, and that he speaks particularly of the mourning as a matter connected with the care of burial.

We shall afterwards see that they lived separately: not as being in different regions, but because each inhabited separate, though contiguous, tents. And this was no sign of dissension or of strife but is rather to be ascribed to the size of the family.

For as Abraham had much trouble in governing so large a group of servants, so his wife would have equal difficulty in keeping her maids under chaste and proper discipline. Therefore, the great number of servants, whom it was not safe to mix together, compelled them to divide the family.

But it may be asked, what purpose could it serve to approach the body for the sake of mourning over it? Was not the death of his wife sufficiently sad and bitter to call forth his grief, without this additional means of excitement? It would have been better to seek the alleviation of his sorrow than to cherish and even augment it by indulgence.

I answer: if Abraham came to his dead wife in order to produce excessive weeping and to pierce his heart afresh with new wounds, his example is not to be approved. But if he both privately wept over the death of his wife, as far as humanity prescribed, exercising self-government in doing it; and also voluntarily mourned over the common curse of mankind, there is no fault in either of these.

For to feel no sadness at the contemplation of death is rather barbarism and stupor than fortitude of mind. Nevertheless, as Abraham was a man, it might be that his grief was excessive. And yet, what Moses soon after adds, that he rose up from his dead, is spoken in praise of his moderation; from which Ambrose prudently infers that we are taught by this example how perversely they act who occupy themselves too much in mourning for the dead.

Now, if Abraham at that time assigned a limit to his grief and put a restraint on his feelings, when the doctrine of the resurrection was still obscure, they are without excuse who, at this day, give free rein to impatience, since the most abundant consolation is supplied to us in the resurrection of Christ.

And spake unto the sons of Heth. Moses is silent regarding the rite Abraham used in burying his wife's body: but he proceeds at great length to recount the purchase of the tomb. We will see shortly why he did this, when I will briefly allude to the custom of burial.

It is well known how religiously this has been observed in all ages and among all peoples. Ceremonies have indeed been different, and people have endeavored to outdo each other in various superstitions; meanwhile, burying the dead has been common to all.

This practice has not arisen from foolish curiosity, from the desire for fruitless consolation, or from superstition, but from the natural sense with which God has imbued human minds—a sense He has never allowed to perish, so that people might be witnesses to themselves of a future life.

It is also unbelievable that those who have spread certain outrageous expressions in contempt of burial could have spoken from the heart. Truly, it is fitting for us, with magnanimity, to disregard burial rites—as we would riches, honors, and the other comforts of life—to such an extent that we should calmly bear being deprived of them. Yet it cannot be denied that religion brings with it the care of burial.

And certainly (as I have said), it has been divinely engraved on the minds of all people from the beginning that they should bury the dead, from which they have also always regarded tombs as sacred.

I confess, it has not always entered the minds of pagans that souls survived death and that the hope of a resurrection remained even for their bodies; nor have they been accustomed to engage in such pious meditation whenever they laid their dead in the grave.

But their lack of consideration does not disprove the fact that they had such a representation of a future life placed before their eyes as left them inexcusable.

Abraham, however, since he had the hope of a resurrection deeply fixed in his heart, diligently cherished its visible symbol, as was fitting. The importance he attached to it is evident from the fact that he thought he would be guilty of defilement if he buried his wife's body among strangers after death.

For he bought a cave to possess a holy and pure tomb for himself and his family.

He did not desire to have a foot of earth on which to pitch his tent; he was only concerned about his grave. He especially wished to have his own family tomb in that land, which had been promised to him as an inheritance.

This was to bear witness to posterity that God's promise was not extinguished either by his own death or by that of his family, but that it instead then began to flourish. It was also to show that those who were deprived of sunlight and life-giving air yet always remained joint partakers of the promised inheritance.

For while they themselves were silent and speechless, the tomb cried aloud that death formed no obstacle to their taking possession of it.

Such a thought could not have existed unless Abraham by faith had looked up to heaven.

And when he calls his wife's corpse his dead, he intimates that death is a kind of divorce that still leaves some remaining connection.

Moreover, only a future restoration cherishes and preserves the principle of this altered connection between the living and the dead.

But it is better to briefly examine each detail in its order.

I am a stranger and a sojourner with you. This introductory sentence tends to one or the other of these points: either that he may more easily gain what he desires by humbly asking for it, or that he may remove all suspicion of greed on his part. He therefore confesses that since he had only an uncertain dwelling among them, he could possess no tomb unless by their permission.

And because, during life, they had permitted him to dwell within their territory, it was humane not to deny him a tomb for his dead. If this interpretation is accepted, then Abraham both gains their favor for himself by his humility, and in declaring that the children of Heth had dealt kindly with him, he encourages them, by this praise, to continue showing the same generosity with which they had begun.

The other interpretation, however, is not inconsistent; namely, that Abraham, to avoid the resentment that might attach to him as a purchaser, declares that he desires the possession, not for the advantage of the present life, not from ambition or greed, but only in order that his dead may not lie unburied; as if he had said, I do not refuse to continue to live as a stranger among you, as I have until now done; I do not desire your possessions, in order that I may have something of my own, which may enable me in the future to contend for equality with you; it is enough for me to have a place where we may be buried.

Thou art a mighty prince among us. The Hittites freely offer a burial place to Abraham wherever he might please to choose one. They testify that they do this as a tribute to his virtues. We have seen before that the Hebrews give a divine title to anything that excels.

Therefore, we are to understand by the expression, ‘a prince of God’, a person of great and singular excellence. And they properly distinguish him whom they revere for his virtues with this eulogy, thereby testifying that they ascribe to God alone whatever virtues in people are deserving of praise and reverence.

Now, some seed of piety manifests itself in the Hittites by thus honoring Abraham, whom they acknowledge to be adorned with rare gifts of the Spirit of God. For profane and brutal people trample underfoot, with barbarous contempt, every excellent gift of God, as swine do pearls.

And yet, we know with how many vices those nations were defiled. How much greater, then, and more disgraceful is our ingratitude, if we give no honor to the image of God when it shines before our eyes? Abraham’s holiness of conduct gains him such favor with the Hittites that they do not envy his preeminence among them. What excuse, then, is there for us, if we hold in less esteem those virtues in which the majesty of God is conspicuous? Truly, their madness is diabolical, who not only despise the favors of God but even ferociously oppose them.