John Calvin Commentary Genesis 25

Then again Abraham took a wife. It seems very absurd that Abraham, who is said to have been dead in his own body thirty-eight years before the death of Sarah, should, after her death, marry another wife. Such an act was, certainly, unworthy of his dignity. Besides, when Paul commends his faith (Romans 4:19), he not only asserts that the womb of Sarah was dead when Isaac was about to be born, but also that the body of the father himself was dead.

Therefore, Abraham acted most foolishly if, after the loss of his wife, he, in the decrepitude of old age, entered into another marriage. Furthermore, it is inconsistent with Paul's statement that he, who in his hundredth year was cold and impotent, should, forty years later, have many sons.

Many commentators, to avoid this absurdity, suppose Keturah was the same person as Hagar. But their conjecture is immediately refuted in the context, where Moses says Abraham gave gifts to the sons of his concubines. The same point is clearly established from 1 Chronicles 1:32. Others conjecture that, while Sarah was still alive, he took another wife.

This, although worthy of grave censure, is, however, not entirely incredible. We know it is not uncommon for men to be emboldened by excessive license. Thus, Abraham, having once transgressed the law of marriage, perhaps, after the dispute concerning Hagar, did not desist from the practice of polygamy.

It is also probable that his mind had been wounded by the divorce from Hagar that Sarah had compelled him to carry out. Such conduct, indeed, was disgraceful or, at least, unbefitting the holy patriarch. Nevertheless, of all the conjectures that have been made, no other seems more probable to me.

If this is admitted, the narrative chronologically belongs elsewhere, for Moses frequently arranges material out of strict chronological order. And even if this reason is not considered conclusive, the facts themselves indicate a reversed order in the history. Sarah was past her ninetieth year when she gave birth to her son Isaac; she died at the age of one hundred and twenty-seven; and Isaac married when he was forty years old.

Therefore, nearly four years passed between the death of his mother and his marriage. If Abraham took a wife after this, what was he thinking, considering he had been accustomed to a single life for so many years? It is therefore reasonable to conjecture that Moses, in writing the life of Abraham, when he approached the end of Abraham's life story, inserted what he had previously omitted.

The difficulty, however, is not yet solved. For what was the source of Abraham’s renewed vigor, since Paul testifies that his body had long ago been withered by age? Augustine supposes not only that strength was given to him for a short time, which would be sufficient for Isaac’s birth, but that by a divine restoration, it flourished again for the rest of his life.

This opinion I willingly embrace, both because it magnifies the glory of the miracle and for other reasons. And what I have previously said, namely, that Isaac was miraculously born as a spiritual seed, is not contrary to this view, for it was especially on his account that Abraham’s failing body was restored to vigor.

That others were born later was, so to speak, incidental. Thus the blessing of God pronounced in the words Increase and multiply, which was specifically linked to marriage, is also extended to unlawful unions. Certainly, if Abraham married a wife while Sarah was still alive (as I think most probable), his adulterous union was unworthy of the divine blessing.

But although we do not know why this addition was made to the just measure of favor granted to Abraham, yet the wonderful providence of God appears in this: while many nations of considerable importance descended from his other sons, the spiritual covenant, of which the others also bore the sign in their flesh, remained in Isaac’s exclusive possession.

But unto the sons of the concubines. Moses relates that when Abraham was about to die, he formed the design of removing all cause of strife among his sons after his death by constituting Isaac his sole heir and dismissing the rest with suitable gifts. This dismissal was, indeed, apparently harsh and cruel; but it was in accordance with the appointment and decree of God, so that the entire possession of the land might remain for the posterity of Isaac.

For it was not lawful for Abraham to divide, as he pleased, that inheritance which had been granted in its entirety to Isaac. Therefore, the only course left to him was to provide for the rest of his sons in the manner here described. If any person should now select one of his sons as his heir, to the exclusion of the others, he would do them an injury; and, by applying the torch of injustice, in disinheriting a part of his children, he would light up the flame of pernicious strifes in his family.

Therefore, we must note the special reason why Abraham was not only induced, but compelled, to deprive his sons of the inheritance and to remove them to a distance; namely, to prevent the grant divinely made to Isaac from being necessarily disturbed by their intervention. We have said elsewhere that, among the Hebrews, she who is a partaker of the bed, but not of all the goods, is called a concubine.

The same distinction has been adopted into the customs and sanctioned by the laws of all nations. So, we will afterwards see that Leah and Rachel were principal wives, but Bilhah and Zilpah were in the second rank, so that their condition remained servile, although they were admitted to the conjugal bed.

Since Abraham had made Hagar and Keturah his wives on this condition, it seems that he might lawfully bestow on their sons only a small portion of his goods; to have transferred, however, from his only heir to them, equal portions of his property, would have been neither just nor right.

It is probable that no subsequent strife or contention took place regarding the succession; but by sending the sons of the concubines far away, he guarded against the danger of which I have spoken, so that they would not occupy a part of the land which God had assigned to the posterity of Isaac alone.

And these are the days. Moses now brings us down to the death of Abraham; and the first thing to be noticed concerning his age is the number of years during which he lived as a pilgrim. For he deserves praise for his wonderful and incomparable patience, for having wandered for a hundred years while God led him about in various directions, contented, both in life and death, with the mere promise of God.

Let those be ashamed who find it difficult to bear the uneasiness of one year, or of a few years, since Abraham, the father of the faithful, was not merely a stranger for a hundred years but was also often driven into exile. Meanwhile, however, Moses expressly shows that the Lord had fulfilled His promise: You shall die in a good old age. For although he fought a hard and severe battle, yet his consolation was neither light nor small, because he knew that, amid so many sufferings, his life was the object of Divine care.

But if looking only to God sustained him throughout his whole life—amid the most boisterous waves, amid many bitter griefs, amid tormenting cares, and, in short, an accumulated mass of evils—let us also learn (so that we do not become weary in our course) to rely on this support: that the Lord has promised us a happy outcome to life, and one truly far more glorious than that of our father Abraham.

Then Abraham gave up the ghost. Those who suppose that this expression denotes sudden death, suggesting that he had not been worn out by long illness but died without pain, are mistaken. Moses rather means to say that the father of the faithful was not exempt from the common lot of humankind, so that our minds do not lose heart when the outward person is perishing. Instead, by meditating on that renewal which is stored up as the object of our hope, we may, with tranquil minds, allow this frail tabernacle to be dissolved.

Therefore, there is no reason why a feeble, emaciated body, failing eyes, trembling hands, and the loss of use of all our limbs should so dishearten us that we do not hasten, following the example of our father, with joy and alacrity to our death. But although Abraham had this in common with the human race—that he grew old and died—Moses, shortly afterwards, distinguishes between him and the general multitude of people regarding the manner of his dying: namely, that he would die in a good old age, and satisfied with life.

Indeed, unbelievers often seem to share in the same blessing; even David complains that they excelled in this kind of privilege. A similar complaint occurs in the book of Job: namely, that they live out their time happily, until in a moment they descend into the grave. But what I said before must be remembered: that the chief part of a good old age consists in a good conscience and in a serene and tranquil mind.

From this it follows that what God promises to Abraham can only apply to those who truly cultivate righteousness. For Plato says, with equal truth and wisdom, that a good hope is the nourishment of old age; and therefore, old men who have a guilty conscience are miserably tormented and are inwardly racked as if by a perpetual torture.

But to this we must add what Plato did not know: that it is godliness which causes a good old age to accompany us even to the grave, because faith is the preserver of a tranquil mind. Related to this is what is immediately added: he was full of days, so that he did not desire an extension of life.

We see how many are in bondage to the desire for life; indeed, nearly the whole world languishes between a weariness of the present life and an inexplicable desire for its continuation. That satiety of life, therefore, which causes us to be ready to leave it, is a unique favor from God.

And was gathered to his people. I gladly embrace the opinion of those who believe that the state of our future life is indicated in this expression, as long as we do not limit it, as some commentators do, to the faithful only. Instead, we should understand by it that humankind are brought together in death as well as in life.

It may seem absurd to worldly people for David to say that the reprobate are gathered together like sheep into the grave. However, if we examine the expression more closely, this gathering together would not occur if their souls were annihilated. The mention of Abraham’s burial will follow shortly. Now, he is said to be gathered to his fathers, which would be inconsistent with fact if human life simply vanished and people were reduced to annihilation. Therefore, Scripture, in speaking this way, shows that another state of life remains after death, so that a departure from the world is not the destruction of the whole person.

And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him. From this it appears that although Ishmael had long ago been dismissed, he was not utterly alienated from his father, because he performed the duty of a son in celebrating the funeral rites of his deceased parent. Ishmael, rather than the other sons, did this, since he was nearer.