A COMMENTARY ON GENESIS 20 DEALING WITH THE LIE OF ABRAHAM THAT LED TO SARAH BEING TAKEN AS THE WIFE OF ABIMELECH.

1. Genesis 20
1 Now Abraham moved on from there into the
region of the Negev and lived between Kadesh and
Shur. For a while he stayed in Gerar,
1. His stay in Gerar became sort of a re-run of his stay in Egypt. He had lived in
Mamre for nearly 20 years, but now he moves into the territory of the Philistines.
We are not told what made him move, but there are some reasonable theories. For
one, the whole area down the hill from them where Sodom and the other cities had
been burned to a crisp was no longer the place that reminded them of the Garden of
Eden. It was now a disaster area and the smell of sulphur would be in the air for a
long time. It was not a long move, for Gill says it was only about 6 miles from
Mamre. Gerar was the capital city of the Philistines, and it has been demonstrated
to have been a very prosperous city by archaeologists.
2. Those who are looking for sin in Abraham's life can find it anywhere, and even in
this move to a new location. One author writes, "There is no indication here that
Abraham sought the Lord about his move to Gerar (20:1). Since the land of Canaan
was so crucial in God’s plan for Abraham and since God had blessed Abraham in
his years by the oaks of Mamre, I can’t believe that it was right for him to pack up
and move without consulting the Lord, especially into a situation that exposed him
to his old weakness." I quote this type of thing just to keep us aware that it is so easy
to assume that every prayer of Abraham's life is on record, when the fact is, it is
more likely that most of his prayers are not on record. To assume that he never
prayed about this move is to claim an omniscience that no man can possess. To
argue from silence is sometimes valid, but usually not when it draws a negative
conclusion on someone's character or actions. Abraham is a man of prayer, and so
give him the benefit of the doubt when there is no verse to confirm he prayed about
a major decision in his life.
2 and there Abraham said of his wife Sarah, "She
is my sister." Then Abimelech king of Gerar sent
for Sarah and took her.
1. And now for a rerun, for Abraham is doing again what he did when he went
down to Egypt. He gave people the impression that Sarah was his sister and not his
wife. As soon as he said this, she was available to be taken as a wife by any leader
who had the wealth to support another wife. Sarah was able to see the inside of

2. some pretty fancy places because she was taken into the king’s quarters and
prepared for marriage to the king. This worked before and God protected her and
Abraham came out looking like a rose, for the Pharaoh gave him great gifts, and
now it is going to happen again. It almost looks like these two have a scam going
where they entice leader to take Sarah for a wife and then receive a hugh gift in
return when they learn of their error. It was quite a con game, and it couldn't lose
because God made sure Sarah was not violated. By this means Abraham was able to
keep growing in wealth so that he could support the large number of people who
worked for him. We are told what the motive of Abraham was in doing this for a
second time, and it was for the same reason he did it the first time. It was for safety
and survival. He knew he could be killed by those who wanted to have Sarah if he
was her husband, but as a brother he would be treated with kindness, and so that
was his strategy. The thing that most puzzles me is that men condemn this strategy
so forcefully, and yet God does not say anything to condemn it. It makes me
suspicious that commentators are reading into it far more than is really there, just
as they do so often in making Lot look bad. They make Abraham look bad here, and
not because they have God's authority to do so, but just because they feel they must
so as not to give the impression that they support what seems evil.
2. Here below are some of the common comments on Abraham's fall into sin:
Arthur Pink is a great example of commentating on the badness of Abraham's
behavior. He writes, "The contents of Genesis 20 furnish a striking proof of the
Divine inspiration of the Scriptures. No fictitious historian would have recorded this
dark blot on the life of such an illustrious personage as Abraham. The tendency of
the human heart is ever toward hero worship, and the common custom of
biographers is to conceal the defects and blemishes in the careers of the characters
which they delineate, and this, had it been followed, would naturally forbid the
mention of such a sad fall in the life of one of the most venerated names on the scroll
of history. Ah! But herein the Bible differs from all other books. The Holy Spirit has
painted the portraits of Scripture characters in the colors of nature and truth. He
has given a faithful picture of the human heart such as is common to all mankind.....
Sad indeed, inexpressibly sad, was Abraham’s conduct. It was not the fall of a
young and inexperienced disciple, but the lapse of one who had long walked the
path of faith that here shows himself ready to sacrifice the honor of his wife, and
what is worse, give up the one who was the depositary of all the promises."
An unknown author writes what many others do as well and says, "This chapter
could be titled "dejavu" because it so closely resembles what happened in Egypt
between Pharaoh and Abraham (12:10-20). Even though Abraham is 100 years old
and Sarah 90 he is still worried that someone might want to kill him in order to take
his wife. All that I can say is that if Sarah can still turn a king's head at age 90 she
could have easily been Miss. Universe uncontested for several decades in a row.
However, all joking aside, this is, in one way, a sad testament to Abraham's faith.
Twenty-five years have passed since Abraham used the same tactics in Egypt to save
his own skin, by now, with all that he has gone through, you would tend to think
that Abraham wouldn't feel the need hide behind half-truths and deception. This

3. again illustrates the weakness and humanness from time to time of even God's
greatest men. It seems almost ironic that Abraham is praised throughout scripture
for his great faith yet he falls into the same sin a second time even after God
protected Him in Egypt. Additionally, in my mind, this chapter teaches that a truth
told with the intent to deceive is still a lie and thus carries consequences with it
(20:12)."
Calvin adds his censure:
" For it is impossible to excuse his gross negligence, in not calling to mind, that
he had once tempted God; and that he would have had himself alone to
blame, if his wife had become the property of another man. But if we
thoroughly examine ourselves scarcely any one will be found who will not
acknowledge, that he has often offended in the same way. It may be added,
that Abraham was not free from the charge of ingratitude; because, if he
had rejected that his wife had been wonderfully preserved to him by the
Lord, he would never again, knowingly and willingly, have cast himself
into similar danger. For he makes the former favor divinely offered unto
him, so far as he is able, of none effect. We must, however, notice the
nature of the sin, on which we have touched before. For Abraham did not,
for the sake of providing for his own safety prostitute his wife, (as
impious men cavil.) But, as he had before been anxious to preserve his
life, till he should receive the seed divinely promised to him; so now,
seeing his wife with child, in the hope of enjoying so great a blessing,
he thought nothing of his wife's danger. Therefore if we thoroughly weigh
all things, he sinned through unbelief, by attributing less than he ought
to the providence of God. Whence also, we are admonished, how dangerous a
thing it is, to trust our own counsels. For Abraham's disposition is
right, while fixing his attention on the promise of God; but inasmuch as
he does not patiently wait for God's helps but turns aside to the use of
unlawful means, he is, in this respect, worthy of censure."
Henry has strong words about this sin: " His sin in denying his wife, as before (ch.
xii. 13), which was not only in itself such an equivocation as bordered upon a lie,
and which, if admitted as lawful, would be the ruin of human converse and an inlet
to all falsehood, but was also an exposing of the chastity and honor of his wife, of
which he ought to have been the protector. But, besides this, it had here a two-fold
aggravation:-- (1.) He had been guilty of this same sin before, and had been
reproved for it, and convinced of the folly of the suggestion, which induced him to
it; yet he returns to it. Note, It is possible that a good man may, not only fall into sin,
but relapse into the same sin, through the surprise and strength of temptation and
the infirmity of the flesh. Let backsliders repent then, but not despair, Jer. iii. 22.
(2.) Sarah, as it should seem, was now with child of the promised seed, or, at least, in
expectation of being so quickly, according to the word of God; he ought therefore to
have taken particular care of her now, as Judg. xiii. 4."
One author went so far as to wonder how God could associate himself with such a
sinner as Abraham. He wrote, ".... the faithfulness of God to Abraham at this time

4. of failure is amazing. Had I been God, the last thing I would have considered would
be to reveal my relationship to Abraham. Even if my own character demanded that
I remain faithful to my promises, I would not have disclosed to Abimelech that
Abraham was a believer, albeit a carnal one. And yet God disclosed the fact that
Abraham was the object of His special care." "Abraham, who was to be a source of
blessing (12:2,3), had become a proverbial pain in the neck to those in whose land he
sojourned." "His conduct differs little from that of Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah.
Lot, by inviting the two strangers under his roof, assured them of protection. Rather
than break this commitment, he was willing to sacrifice the purity of his two virgin
daughters and give them over to the men outside his door. Abraham, fearing for his
own safety, was willing to give over his wife to the king (or any other citizen of
Gerar) to protect himself from harm."
Gill wrote, "And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, she [is] my sister,.... This he gave
out in all conversation he came into, and said it to every one that asked who she was,
which was little better than a lie; it at least was an equivocation and deception, and
not at all justifiable, and tended to expose his wife's chastity, and discovered a
distrust of divine Providence; the same infirmity be had given way to, and the same
evil he had fallen into in Egypt, Ge 12:11, and therefore was the more inexcusable
now; good men not only fall into sin, but have their relapses:"
Another author says he was worse than Lot, for Lot offered his daughters to be
raped to save the angels, but Abraham offers his wife to the same end for the sake of
saving his own hide. He is seen as one of the most despicable sinners in the Bible.
3.My question is, if it is such a dark blot on Abraham's life, and so inexpressibly
sad, and so worthy of censure, why does it not show up in the text. It is true he gets
rebuked by the king for deceiving him, but the king becomes his friend in the end,
and God never says a negative thing about it, but supports the strategy all the way.
What is sad is all the criticism thrown at Abraham by sinful men, when the God of
holiness does not have a single word of criticism. It makes me wonder if Bible
interpreters are on a different wave link from God, and from Moses the author of
this history. Pink later makes this statement, "Plainly, the evil compact which
Abraham made with Sarah was due to the feebleness of his faith in God’s power to
take care of them." God must have missed this insight, for he proclaims Abraham
all over the New Testament as one of the great pillars of faith. Pink is not alone in
making such criticism of Abraham, for the majority seem to support his views, but
they fail to get God's support, and this makes me question the validity of the
negative perspective. On each of the occasions where Abraham deceives a king and
he takes Sarah, it is the king who is held responsible for the wrongdoing in the
situation. God punishes them, or threatens them with punishment for their
movement toward sin. Never is Abraham told he was sinning, and never is he
rebuked by God. The evidence would support that there was no sin or wrongdoing
by Abraham at all, and all of the criticism of his actions come from commentators
and preacher who have made it a tradition. Could it be that we should be more

5. about expounding what the Word of God says, and not just expounding on the
words of men and their traditions? If God never says it was a sin, and never hints
that Abraham was wrong to practice this kind of deception about his wife, it may
just be that men are making accusations that are not valid. It is of interest that men
can admit that there is not a single reference to this being a sin in the Bible, and yet
still call it a sin. Here is an example:
Jim Boice has these beautiful words of comment. "I am especially impressed by the
way God showed His grace to Abraham. God did so when He spoke to Abimelech.
Moreover, in all the references to Abraham that we have in the remainder of the
Bible, never once does God bring up this incident as if to highlight Abraham’s
failure, not in Romans, not in Galatians, not in Hebrews 11. In that last passage
Abraham is praised with a faith which he showed in four situations in leaving Ur for
an unknown promised land and staying in the land in spite of great depravation and
danger, believing that God could give him a son when he and Sarah were past the
age of child bearing and being willing to offer up Isaac, counting that God could
raise him from the dead. Not once in all that great survey of Abraham’s progress in
the life of faith, does God refer to his past sin as if to shame him by the
remembrance of it."
4. Abimelech was the second sovereign to be swindled out of his shekels of silver for
Sarah. She was the woman most taken by men to be a wife of anyone in the Bible,
and who knows how many other times she and Abraham pulled this trick on some
king? It is really such a strange thing to be recorded twice, and not have a negative
word from God for doing it. In fact, it appears that God approves of their scheme,
for he does amazing things to guarantee that it does not lead to harm, but instead,
leads to benefits.
5. The difference this time is that Sarah is no longer a danger because of her beauty,
for she is now 90 years old and probably pregnant. Clarke suggests that she was
taken this time because Abimelech wanted to form an alliance with Abraham. He
was a rich man and any petty king would welcome a powerful chief like Abraham to
part of an alliance with him. Not only that, but Abraham was known after defeating
the 4 kings of the East as a strong military force, and who would not enjoy being
linked with one who could give you that king of security? Taking Sarah was his way
of securing the link with Abraham. I think Pastor Zeisler says it so well when he
writes, "Why did the lie about their marriage become standard for Sarah and
Abraham? Every time they had to move into a new region, they encountered new
families, new pressures, and new relationships. Abraham knew that if he had a
marriageable woman with him he would be welcomed with open arms. Since he was
a very rich man with a large family and large staff of able fighters, he could appear
to be a threat to the people of any new territory. And they would probably respond
with men of arms and threats in return. On the other hand, if there was an available
woman in his entourage, he could expect a positive reception. A marriageable

6. woman would offer the hope of alliance and shared wealth to his new neighbors.
Since he did not have children, he never had a daughter to act as the eligible female.
Thus, he adopted the strategy with Sarah saying, "Pretend to be my sister so that
everywhere we go, we will not be perceived as a threat. This will give us time to
show that we intend these people no harm. Then when we finally tell them that you
are my wife, we will have already built a relationship" This was a survival strategy
for a nomadic people in a dangerous world. I think Abraham and Sarah agreed on
this strategy and used it throughout the years they traveled around the land of
Canaan."
The bottom line is that it was a strategy that worked, and was supported by God,
even to the point of doing miracles to protect Abraham and Sarah. God never
condemned it, but gave his approval by condemning only the kings who took Sarah.
In the light of the evidence I see no sin or backsliding on the part of this couple, and
no loss of faith, or any basis for the masses of negative criticism hurled at them by
commentators and preachers. God's Word is the final authority, and his Word has
only positives to say of this godly couple.
6. Why not see the whole picture from the point of view of Heb. 11, where this
couple are great heroes of faith? They believed that God would make sure that if
anything went wrong with their plan, which it did twice, that he would overcome
that negative event and turn it into good, and that is exactly what God did both
times, and they come away with great blessings. In this second case it is not only
riches that they get, but the offer to live anywhere in the land and be at peace with
the people. Instead of making it out that these two are horrible liars and faithless
scoundrels on the loose being a danger and pain to every poor king who wants a
fling with every new woman who crosses his path, why not give them the benefit of
the doubt, and see them as God sees them. God chastises and threatens each king
who takes advantage of them, and never utters a word of criticism of the couple. I
know it is going against the grain of just about everyone on the planet, but I say, if
God is for them, who are we to be against them?
7. Abimelech means my father a king, of father of a king, and it was a very common
name for kings among the Philistines. There are four other men with this name in
the Old Testament. This Abimelech rebuked Abraham for his deception, but A few
years after this Abimelech visited Abraham, who had removed southward beyond
his territory, and there entered into a league of peace and friendship with him. This
league was the first of which we have any record. It was confirmed by a mutual oath
at Beer-sheba (Gen. 21:22-34). This man is one of the righteous Gentiles in the Bible,
and God acknowledges it as the case. He knows this man operated with a clean
conscience, and thus did not judge him for taking Sarah.
3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream one

7. night and said to him, "You are as good as dead
because of the woman you have taken; she is a
married woman."
1. Dreams seemed to be a common way that God would communicate with those
who were outside of his chosen people. He gave Pharaoh a dream that Joseph
interpreted that changed the history of Egypt and many other countries. He gave
Nebuchadnezzar a dream that was interpreted by Daniel, and here now to a pagan
king of the Philistines. Keep in mind that the Philistines were not yet as wicked as
they were later to become as the enemies of God's people. God works in ways that
make sense to the people he is trying to reach, and dreams were considered by just
about all people a method by which the gods communicated.
2. Nobody else would tell this harem builder that he had taken a married woman,
and so God comes to him in a dream to give him this vital information. It is really
more like a nightmare than a dream, for God's introduction is about as scary as it
gets. He said, "You are as good as dead.." God is serious about what he has done to
Sarah, for he has plans for this woman that are the biggest plans in history. She may
already at this time be pregnant with the child that will lead to the Messiah who will
bless the whole world. She is a jewel to God that he treasures, and he will protect
her at all costs, even if he has to wipe out the whole community to get her released.
Abimelech is interfering with the grandest plan in history, and it is serious business
to be hauling off the mother of God's promised child into his harem. God does not
pull any punches, but lays in on the line. You have just signed your death warrant,
for you have chosen the wrong women, and you took her without her consent, and
with inadequate inquiry as to her marital status.
3. God does not take adultery lightly, as is the case with our sex-saturated society
where it is portrayed in film as no big deal. It is so serious an offense to God to take
another man's wife that it deserves the death sentence without trial. David had
many wives and it was fine with God, but when he took another man's wife it was
the end of home sweet home for him. He ruined his life by taking a wife that
belonged to another man. Even killing the other man was not as serious as the
taking of his wife, and for this he suffered the rest of his life. If ever there was a kick
out of life that kicked back tenfold, it is the act of adultery. Wise men learn from the
folly of those who fall for this common temptation, but there are plenty of fools who
insist on learning the hard way. God's tone of voice to Abimelech makes it clear that
he is not going to let his lust for another wife change the plans he has for this
woman. He offers him a choice: Die on the spot, or give her back to her husband,
and then says, "Deal or no Deal." Of course these words were left out because the
ancient people would not understand them. Abimelech did understand fully and he
responded immediately with fear and trembling.

8. 4 Now Abimelech had not gone near her, so he
said, "Lord, will you destroy an innocent nation?
1. This king was not a dimwit, for he knew that the death sentence God had in mind
was not just for him alone, but for all his people as well. But he also knew what
Abraham knew, and that is that God is fair and just, and he does not just
haphazardly wipe out people without just cause. So he asks the Lord is he will
destroy an innocent nation. He is not saying he had a righteous and sinless people,
but he is saying there has been no evil intent in my action of taking this woman
named Sarah into my harem. There is no guilt worthy of punishment, for what has
been done was done in ignorance of the facts. God does make a distinction between
sins of knowledge and sins of ignorance, and this king knows that much about God.
He knows he has not gone near Sarah to violate her in any way, and so he knows he
is not guilty of any sin against her. Gill points out that he would have known about
how God wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah, and he pleads that he and his people are
not in that category at all, and deserve no such wrath as they suffered.
5 Did he not say to me, `She is my sister,' and
didn't she also say, `He is my brother'? I have
done this with a clear conscience and clean
hands."
1. Here is a pagan king who acts as his own lawyer before God as his judge, and he
has a good case. He puts the facts before God, and the fact is Abraham and Sarah
had a conspiracy going to deceive me about their relationship. The king said he
talked to both of them and they confirmed each other. Each said they were just
brother and sister, and so when I took Sarah to be my wife I did it with a clear
conscience and clean hands. I had no reason to doubt that she was an available
woman. I did no conscious wrong is the basis of his defense.
2. Here we see that Abraham and Sarah are in complete agreement on their plan to
give everyone the impression that they are brother and sister. It was Abraham's
plan, but he persuaded Sarah to go along with it and she did just that. We don't
know if she liked it or not, but in obedience and submission to her husband she did
it everywhere they went. She is commended in the New Testament for her
submission to her husband, and is used as an illustration of what all Christian wives
are to be. Those who are convinced that their whole plan of deceiving people is the
same as the sin of lying cannot justify either Abraham or Sarah. She obeyed her

9. husband, but it was a lie they say and we must obey God rather than men. Sarah,
according to them, should have defied Abraham and told everyone that they were
husband and wife, and if this meant she had to be widowed, then so be it, for she
would have been obedient to God at all no matter the cost. All such thinking runs
contrary to the message of Scripture, and especially to the praise of this couple in
the New Testament. The implication of a lack of any negative word from God on
this issue makes it clear that Sarah could say the same thing as Abimelech-"I told
him Abraham was my brother with a clear conscience and clean hands." If you go
by God's response there was no sin involved in the life of the king or Abraham and
Sarah. They had a perfect right to say they were brother and sister and withhold the
information that they were married. Where is the law that says you have to let
people know you are husband and wife even if it puts you in a high risk situation? If
you cannot come up with such a law, then there is no law broken, and no sin
committed.
6 Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I
know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I
have kept you from sinning against me. That is
why I did not let you touch her.
1. All of this has been happening in a dream, and the king has been responding in
his sleep, but with great success, for God says that he buys the kings defense, and
that is why in mercy he does not judge him but keeps him from following through
on the direction that would lead him to sin. God will protect this pagan king from
the sin that otherwise would be a sure thing, and would lead to the death of him and
his people. Here is amazing mercy on a people not his chosen, but people who later
will be great enemies of his people.
2. God prevented sin in this case, and we wonder why he does not do so more often?
But we have no idea how often God works in the lives of people to lead them away
from a path that will lead to destruction. God is at work in so many lives that we
know nothing about. Prevention is a key factor in the lives of more than we can
imagine. All preventatives of sin and bad actions that lead to judgment and negative
consequences are part of the vast working of God's Spirit in this world. There is no
end of lives that are being spared because of the prevention of sin.
3. We are not given any details as to how God kept him from touching Sarah and
taking her to his bed. We get a clue in verse 17 that we will deal with there. God in
his providence made him impotent likely. It would be wonderful if God made
everyman who is intent on immoral sex to lose interest or become impotent, but God
does not regulate the world that way. He did it in this case because Sarah was to be

10. the mother of the promised child whose seed would lead all the way to the Messiah.
This was a crucial situation that God would not allow anything to foul up. He would
prevent any human action that threatened to mess up his plan. He would break into
history and do miracles to make sure that his plan would move forward. What is
amazing is that Abimelech did take Sarah with the intention of having sex with her.
She is a 90 year old woman, and yet still so attractive with sex appeal that a man
with a harem wants her as an addition. She was a rare woman to have such sexual
attraction at her age, and this just confirms that it was a wise and logical plan for
her and Abraham to give people the impression that they were brother and sister.
They were not just speculating, but knew that someone would likely want to kill
Abraham to possess her.
4. Henry has an interesting note here and writes, "He lets him know that he was
kept from proceeding in the sin merely by the good hand of God upon him: I
withheld thee from sinning against me. Abimelech was hereby kept from doing
wrong, Abraham from suffering wrong, and Sarah from both. Note, (1.) There is a
great deal of sin devised and designed that is never executed. As bad as things are in
the world, they are not so bad as the devil and wicked men would have them. (2.) It
is God that restrains men from doing the ill they would do. It is not from him that
there is sin, but it is from him that there is not more sin, either by his influence upon
men's minds, checking their inclination to sin, or by his providence, taking away the
opportunity to sin. (3.) It is a great mercy to be hindered from committing sin; of
this God must have the glory, whoever is the instrument."
5. Pink uses this text to support a theological viewpoint. He writes, "In these words
we have (as so often in Scripture) an apparently incidental statement which throws
great light upon a difficult problem and which positively refutes the proud
reasoning of the philosophic theologians. How often it has been said that in
endowing Adam with the power of choice God was unable to prevent his fall. But
how untenable are such theorizing in the face of the above passage! If God could
"withhold" Abimelech from sinning against Him, then had He pleased He could
have done the same with our first parents. Should it be asked why He did not
"withhold" Adam from sinning, the answer must be that He permitted sin to enter
that opportunity might be given to display His grace.”
Pink reads too much into this, for the king was innocent and acting on false
information. Adam and Eve had good information and were not innocent at all.
They had a direct command from God and they defied it. That God did this in this
situation is no reason to imply that he could have justly prevented Adam from
sinning and so wanted him to do so. God could prevent all sin, but this would be a
rejection of his whole purpose in making man a being with a will. If God can
prevent all sin and be just in doing so, then we are led to the conclusion that God is
the author of sin. “He who knows to do good and does it not is sinning.” This would
be the case with God, and it makes God the cause of all evil, and all for the purpose
of his glory and grace says Pink. The fact is the number one cause for people
denying God any glory is the belief that he allows so much sin and evil when he
could prevent it.

11. 6. It is clear here that it is possible for a pagan to still be a good man. Good and
moral people can be found in every culture, even when that culture is quite wicked
overall. Gill writes, "Abimelech's plea is admitted, and a very great testimony borne
to his integrity in this matter; and throughout the whole account he appears to be a
man of great honor and uprightness, especially in this affair, if not a good man."
Constable writes, "In king Abimelech we meet with a totally different character
from that of
Pharaoh [ch. 12]. We see in him a heathen imbued with a moral consciousness of
right, and open to receive divine revelation, of which there is not the slightest trace
in the king of Egypt."
7 Now return the man's wife, for he is a prophet,
and he will pray for you and you will live. But if
you do not return her, you may be sure that you
and all yours will die."
1. Do you think this was a tough decision for the king? "I can hold on to this woman
and end up dead with all my people, or I can give her back and live out my life with
a prophet of God to pray for me. What should I do?" An agonizing decision it was
not. God gave him the free will to choose either way, but his options were so limited
that he really did not have a choice, but he still had to make it and obey God and
give Sarah back if he wanted to live. He was free to die too, but that would be folly.
2. "He tells him that Abraham is a prophet, and he will pray for him. This is the
first time the word "prophet" appears in the Bible, and I find it interesting that in
this case it has nothing to do with telling the future. We often mistakenly define
prophecy as foretelling the future, but it is actually forth-telling the Word of God.
Very often it does have to do with God revealing the future to man, but many times
the gift of prophecy is manifested simply by quoting the Word of God. The exercise
of the gift of prophecy takes place as the Word of God is being spoken on a Sunday
morning or Thursday night teaching. It can also take place during the worship
service, as the Lord lays a Scripture on your heart, you can feel free to speak it forth
between the songs. As you forth-tell the Word of God, you are exercising the gift of
prophecy. God will inspire His prophet Abraham with His own words to pray for
Abimelech and his kingdom."
3. Gill describes what a prophet is: "familiar with God, dear unto him, a friend of
his, to whom he communicates his secrets; is able to foretell things to come, as well
as to interpret the mind of God, and instruct in the knowledge of divine things, all

12. which agrees with Abraham's character; and he is the first man that is dignified in
Scripture with the title of a prophet; so he is called in the Apocrypha:" He then
quotes this passage from the book of Tobit: "Beware of all whoredom, my son, and
chiefly take a wife of the seed of thy fathers, and take not a strange woman to wife,
which is not of thy father's tribe: for we are the children of the prophets, Noe,
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: remember, my son, that our fathers from the
beginning, even that they all married wives of their own kindred, and were blessed
in their children, and their seed shall inherit the land.'' (Tobit 4:12)
4. Gill goes on to stress the role of the prophet in prayer. ".... it being one part of the
business of a prophet to pray for others, and make intercession for them, especially
in any distress or trouble, see Jer 27:18. Prophets were praying persons, had usually
a great gift in prayer, and great power with God, and prevailed with him for the
good of others; and such an one was Abraham; and it is here intimated, that upon
the restoration of his wife to him, as he was familiar with God, and had an interest
with him, he would make use of it, and pray for Abimelech, that whatsoever offence
he had been guilty of to God or men, it might be forgiven, and that he might be
healed of the disease with which he was smitten, and so recover of it, and live in
health and happiness."
5. Calvin, who elsewhere is often critical of Abraham, here greatly honors him in the
light of God calling him a prophet. He wrote, "He calls Abraham a prophet, for the
sake of honor; as if he were charging Abimelech with having injured a man of great
and singular excellence; that he might not wonder at the greatness of the
punishment inflicted upon him. And although the word prophet is properly the
name of an office; yet I think it has here a more comprehensive import, and that it is
put for a chosen man, and one who is familiar with God. For since at that time, no
Scripture was in existence, God not only made himself known by dreams and visions
but chose also to himself rare and excellent men, to scatter abroad the seed of piety,
by which the world would become more inexcusable. But since Abraham is a
prophet, he is constituted, as it were, a mediator between God and Abimelech.
Christ, even then, was the only Mediator; but this was no reason why some men
should not pray for others; especially they who excelled in holiness, and were
accepted by God; as the Apostle teaches, that 'the fervent prayers of a righteous
man avail much.' (James 5: 16.)"
8 Early the next morning Abimelech summoned
all his officials, and when he told them all that had
happened, they were very much afraid.
1. I am amazed that he did not hop out of bed and go to Sarah's room and wake her
and get her back to Abraham in the night. Instead he has to go through channels

13. and do things by the book. It is no surprise that he got up early, for this matter had
to be resolved before God lost patience. They all knew about Sodom too, and so it
was really bad news that Abimelech had to share with his officials. Fear dominated
the meeting because it was a life and death issue, and they had to make sure Sarah
got back to Abraham unharmed.
9 Then Abimelech called Abraham in and said,
"What have you done to us? How have I wronged
you that you have brought such great guilt upon
me and my kingdom? You have done things to me
that should not be done."
1. Abimelech was having a royal fit over facing the threat of death just because
Abraham let him believe Sarah was an available mate. It was an outrage that he
should be thought guilty of evil when it was Abraham who was in the wrong for
letting him take his wife. He is casting all the blame back on Abraham. It could be,
however, that maybe he has enough wives and needs to leave strangers alone.
Whatever the case, God holds him responsible for doing wrong, and had he not been
ignorant he would have suffered greatly for his taking another man's wife. God
never once says Abraham was wrong in hiding the fact that Sarah was his wife. The
king is very disturbed, and rightly so, for he had done nothing to deserve the threat
he had from God. But the issue is, would he have done wrong had he known the
truth. Would he have had Abraham killed in order to take his wife into his bed.
Only God knows, and the fact that God never blames Abraham for his deception
implies that he knows Abraham was right, and he may have been killed for the sake
of taking Sarah.
2. Henry takes an absolute position on the issue of whether it is ever right to lie or
deceive and says, "Equivocation and dissimulation, however they may be palliated,
are very bad things, and by no means to be admitted in any case." This is a major
controversy, and I deal with it back in Chapter 12 where the deception about Sarah
first takes place.
3. Somone expressed this opinion, "Can a non-believer rebuke a believer and be
justified? Yes, for many a non-Christian can be more moral and fair than many a
believer. If people were saved by their moral behavior and character there would be
many more pagans in heaven than Christians." Although this has much truth to it,
there is exaggeration here, for overall the Christian population has a higher
standard of morality than the non-Christian population. Most of the pagans who
live a clean life have been greatly influenced by the Christians.

14. 4. Some authors get so radical in making Abraham out to be a sinful saint so as to
encourage believers to have hope even if they are living a terrible Christian life, that
they say wild thngs like the following: "One of the most important aspects of this
story is the one that’s never stated: Why doesn’t God ditch that loser Abraham and
hook up with Abimelech? Abimelech is the man who fears God/ Abraham fears
men. Abimelech testifies to his own righteousness, internal and external; and God
confirms his assertion/ Abraham tries to vindicate himself and every syllable he
utters condemns him more. Abraham evades responsibility for a sin he committed/
Abimelech shoulder’s responsibility for a sin — and a sin of ignorance at that —
that he might have committed. Why doesn’t God turn and make of Abimelech a
great nation?" It is as if the anti-Abraham group is trying to keep up with the anti-
Lot group. Both are experts in finding sinful behavior where God never spots it.
Omniscience does not impress these people, for they can see sin that God apparently
never sees. Don't waste your time trying to be omniscient when you can know more
just by having a super judgmental spirit.
10 And Abimelech asked Abraham, "What was
your reason for doing this?"
1. The king is trying to make sense out of this near tragedy that came upon him and
his people, and he wants to know the logic behind Abraham's behavior. He is
seeking for some answers, which is natural when a mystery suddenly pops up in
your life. He wants to get to the bottom of this mess and understand the motivation
that brought it about.
2. Someone trying to be funny, succeeded by having Abraham respond, "I do this all
the time. Don't think you're so special, Abimelech, we pull this stunt everywhere we
go." It is true, but we only have two times when it got them into trouble. We have no
idea how many other times they escaped trouble by this plan to deceive.
11 Abraham replied, "I said to myself, `There is
surely no fear of God in this place, and they will
kill me because of my wife.'
1. The evidence is that Abraham really did fear he could be killed by someone who
wanted to have his wife. That is why they made the plan to tell everyone they were
brother and sister. It was for protection. Abraham was not lying about his fear, and

15. if this is so, then who are we to condemn him for his strategy of trying to deceive
others about their true relationship when God does not anywhere do so? Abraham
and Sarah had just witnessed the destruction of Sodom and other cities because of
evil living that could not be changed. They had good reason to fear the actions of the
Canaanites, and they would assume that no evil was beyond them. The people of
Sodom were willing to kill to get sex, and how could they doubt that other pagans
would kill a husband to have sex with a his beautiful wife? We just cannot grasp the
fearfulness of what they were doing in traveling through this land of idolaters who
were heading for the same judgment that fell on Sodom. Those who call this a
pathetic excuse are sitting in a plush office in a land of freedom and security with no
fear, and they have the audacity to call Abraham a liar for saying he had a fear of
being killed. These same people would do the same thing as he did if they were
marching with their wife into some village in Baghdad with fighting going on all
around them. If deception of some kind could save their hide, they would be
deceivers, and proud of it if they survived.
2. One author writes, "Let me also say in passing that it was apparently in accord
with the custom of the time that if an unmarried woman was sojourning in the land
of a particular king or prince, then he had the right to claim her with dowry for his
harem. And so this custom would have been common and we can see from whence
Abraham’s scheme may have arisen in the first place. That, of course, does not
make it right, but it explains why this would have happened in the first place."
3. My question is, why does it not make it right? Are we to cooperate with evil
customs and leave ourselves open to be victims of the evil designs of others? The
problem was not the deception of Abraham and Sarah, but the evil tradition of
kings being able to basically take any women they found appealing into their harem.
That was a custom that was wrong, and Abraham had to take measures to insure
that this evil custom did not rob him of his wife. Is deception valid in dealing with
an evil custom? What about when slavery existed? Was it valid to lie and deceive to
protect a runaway slave? In wartime is it right to deceive an enemy? The whole
world of spying is based on deception to protect one's identity. It plays an important
role in the security of our nation, and who would call it sin to do what keeps us safe
from our foes?
4. Clarke has an excellent paragraph dealing with the prejudice of Abraham in
assuming that these people had no fear of God. He writes, "The cause why the
patriarch did not acknowledge Sarah as his wife, was a fear lest he should lose his
life on her account, for he said, Surely the fear, i.e., the true worship, of the true
God is not in this place. Such is the natural bigotry and narrowness of the human
heart that we can scarcely allow that any besides ourselves possess the true religion.
To indulge a disposition of this kind is highly blamable. The true religion is neither
confined to one spot nor to one people; it is spread in various forms over the whole
earth. He who fills immensity has left a record of himself in every nation and among
every people under heaven. Beware of the spirit of intolerance! For bigotry
produces uncharitableness; and uncharitableness, harsh judging; and in such a

16. spirit a man may think he does God service when he tortures, or makes a burnt-
offering of the person whom his narrow mind and hard heart have dishonored with
the name of heretic. Such a spirit is not confined to any one community, though it
has predominated in some more than in others. But these things are highly
displeasing in the sight of God. HE, as the Father of the spirits of all flesh, loves
every branch of his vastly extended family; and as far as we love one another, no
matter of what sect of party, so far we resemble HIM. Had Abraham possessed
more charity for man and confidence in God at this time, he had not fallen into that
snare from which he barely escaped. A hasty judgment is generally both erroneous
and harsh; and those who are the most apt to form it are generally the most difficult
to be convinced of the truth."
The reason I love this is because it is so true, and we all need to be aware of the
danger of prejudice, which I see as one of the greatest evils of Christians. On the
other hand, it is too strong to use this language against Abraham, for he was moving
around the land promised to him and his seed, and it was going to be taken from the
Canaanites because they were so evil they needed to be destroyed. They were not
there yet, but they were on their way, and Abraham had every reason to fear the
depth of their wickedness. Abimelech may have been a good guy as kings go, but
most would not think twice about killing a man to have his beautiful wife. A godly
man like David would do it, and so why doubt that the Canaanite kings would do
the same?
5. It amazes me how so many become anti-Abraham and call his reasons for what he
did mere weak and worthless excuses, when they can easily be taken as serious and
valid reasons for what he did. It is especially mysterious that they do so without any
word from God that it is all a sham, and that he is to be condemned for this
inexcusable behavior. According to them Abraham is just adding sin upon sin and
piling it up, while God, on the other hand, is saying my prophet Abraham will come
to the rescue in this whole mess.
6. Pastor Deffinbaugh, whom I love to study and quote, for he has given us so much
good Bible study, takes this anti-Abraham position. I quote him, for he represents
what many others are saying, and he says it well. I agree with him that the three
excuses that he accuses Abraham of making are indeed common excuses to defend
foolish and sinful behavior, but I totally disagree with him that these apply to what
Abraham is saying here to explain his plan to keep his marriage hidden from the
mind of strangers as they travel through unknown territory.
"Our disobedience is often camouflaged by excuses transparent to all but ourselves.
Abraham’s three excuses are easily seen to be a sham, and yet variations on these
three themes serve as justification for much wrong that we do.
The first is situational ethics, which is a system of ethics based upon the denial of
either the existence of God or His ability to act in man’s behalf. Situationalism
always posits a dilemma in which there is no alternative other than a sinful act. In
such cases we are forced to decide on the basis of the lesser of two evils.
First Corinthians 10:13 dogmatically asserts that the premise on which

17. situationalism is based is wrong. It teaches that God never places the Christian in a
circumstance where he or she must sin. The outcome, which we dread, is always a
figment of our fearful imagination, and not of reality. Abraham feared that someone
would kill him to take away his wife. It never happened, nor was their any reported
situation where this was even a remote possibility. Faith in a God Who is sovereign
in every situation keeps us from flirting with sinful acts which allegedly will deliver
us from emergency situations—ones in which godliness must be put on the shelf.
The second is dealing in technicalities rather than truth. The information Abraham
gave to Abimelech was totally factual (verse 12). Sarah was his sister. But what
Abraham failed to report made it all a lie. She was his wife, as well as his sister.
How often we allow people to draw the wrong conclusions or impressions by
withholding evidence. We want to give the impression we are spiritual when we are
not. We try to appear happy when our heart is breaking. We try to look
sophisticated when we are desperate and despondent. Faith is facing up to reality
and dealing openly with others, even when the truth may appear to put us in
jeopardy or may make us vulnerable.
The third, and very common, excuse is that of tradition. “We’ve always done it that
way.” That was Abraham’s excuse. All that it indicates is our persistence in sin. As
my uncle used to say of someone who always had a good word for everyone, “She
would say of the Devil, ‘He’s persistent.’” Tradition is not wrong, but neither does it
make any practice right."
12 Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of
my father though not of my mother; and she
became my wife.
1. What Abraham is saying here is that there is no lie involved in our plan to call
each other brother and sister wherever we go, for it is a fact that we are that. My
sister did become my wife, but that does not make her less my sister, and so it is just
a valid statement that we are brother and sister, although by two different mothers.
Commentators and preachers call the plan they carried out everywhere they went as
an outright lie. The word lie is used over and over by so many authors that it is
assumed by just about everyone that it is a lie. My problem with it is that God never
calls it a lie, nor does he ever say they should stop with their plan of saying they are
brother and sister. Even more amazing is that everyone can see it is a lie and a
terrible one at that, and yet God does not see it as such, for he never once condemns
them for saying it. They used it over and over everywhere, and yet God does not
once say they should knock it off and come up with a better plan. Clarke has this
note of confirmation: "The daughter of my father, but not-of my mother] Ebn
Batrick, in his annals, among other ancient traditions has preserved the following:
"Terah first married Yona, by whom he had Abraham; afterwards he married

18. Tehevita, by whom he had Sarah." Thus she was the sister of Abraham, being the
daughter of the same father by a different mother."
2. Nobody wants to accept these words of Abraham as a valid excuse for what he did
because if there is a valid excuse then he was not a liar, and if he was not a liar the
multitude of sermons based on saying it is a lie will have to be burned or thrown
away. This would be a shame after so many have worked so hard to make these two
whom God exalts to the highest level, look like the criminal element of society. They
say that not only did they lie, but they refused to repent of it even when they were
caught. One author wrote, "There is absolutely no indication of acceptance of
responsibility for sin, nor of sorrow or repentance. Abraham here is like one of our
children who is caught dead to rights. They are sorry they are caught but not
repentant for the wrong they have done. It also explains the repetition of this sin by
Abraham and, later, by his son Isaac. Abraham never said to himself, “I’ll never do
that again,” either in Egypt or in Gerar. In both cases Abraham escaped with his
wife’s purity and with a sizeable profit to boot. So far as I can tell, Abraham never
saw his deceptiveness as a sin. Consequently, it kept cropping up in later
generations."
3. If we wanted to join the critics of Abraham we would point out that he had an
unlawful marriage to Sarah, and they should have gotten a divorce and stopped
living in sin. Deut. 27:22 was quite clear when it said, "Cursed is he that lieth with
his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother." Also in Lev.
18:9 we read, "The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter
of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness
thou shalt not uncover."And again in even stronger language we read in Lev. 20:17,
"And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter,
and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they
shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness;
he shall bear his iniquity." So here we have another sin in their lives, for they are
living in a forbidden marriage. This could be convincing to those who do not know
the timeline of events in the Old Testament. This law came over 400 years after
Abraham and Sarah were married. It did not exist in their lifetime and so it was not
a law, and you cannot break a law before it becomes a law. So they had a perfectly
legal marriage in the eyes of God and man, and God fully approved for he was going
to start the bloodline to the Messiah through them. There were many sexual
relationships that were valid in the early days of the history of mankind that became
unlawful later, and so it is possible for something to be perfectly allright at one time
that becomes sinful at another time. Abraham and Sarah lived when it was right to
marry your sister.
13 And when God had me wander from my
father's household, I said to her, `This is how you

19. can show your love to me: Everywhere we go, say
of me, "He is my brother."
1. What we need to see is that Abraham and Sarah are just carrying out an
agreement they made for their safety as they planned to enter into a strange land. It
is a thought out strategy to deal with a very real danger. They were not trying to be
evil, but trying to be wise in facing the unknown. They were aware of how kings had
the authority to take any women they found appealing, and Sarah was appealing, so
they came up with a plan to try and outwit this evil that they would likely face as
they traveled from place to place. If they were wrong to plan for their own
protection in this way, and by this method, you would think that God would have
told them to scratch that plan and come up with a better idea, but there is no such
command like this recorded. In other words, God's silence on an issue that he knew
about, and did not correct, is the same as approval. There was no reason they could
see why they should not tell everyone that they were brother and sister, and so that
was their plan and what they did.
2. Some authors are so determined to make Abraham out to be the bad guy that
they read into the text all kinds of things that are not there. One author comments
on this verse and says, "..we find Abraham virtually blaming God for his troubles --
or his supposed troubles -- in v. 13: "When God had me wander," as if he is saying,
"If it hadn't been for God, I wouldn't be in this mess." This is very nearly
blasphemy. And then, on top of all that, there is the complete failure of faith. Why,
it had only been shortly before this that God, in 18:10, had promised Abraham that
he would have a son within the year. But it is as if God had never said a word, as if
God's word and promise mattered nothing. Then, to make matters worse,
Abraham's disappointing weakness and selfishness is set in contrast to Abimilech's
generally honorable conduct: while Abraham is indifferent to the honor of his wife,
Abimilech is concerned for her reputation; while Abraham shows no concern for his
nation, the promised descendants of God's covenant with him, Abimilech takes
notice of the danger posed by these circumstances to his people and nation. While
Abraham showed little reverence for the words God had spoken to him, Abimilech
can't act on God's warning fast enough!"
My only response to this is, thank God this author was not on the committee that
voted on who would get into the great faith chapter of Heb. 11. But wait a minute! It
was not a committee, but God himself who made Abraham and Sarah the two most
recognized in that chapter as righteous and faithful. I choose God's perspective on
these two, and not the ravings of men who love to see sin in the saints. It is there, to
be sure, but not everywhere that they find it. To find it in this verse is to abuse the
Scripture.
3. Henry has a theory about this pact that Abraham and Sarah made, and he writes,
"It may, for aught I know, be suggested that God denied to Abraham and Sarah the
blessing of children so long to punish them for this sinful compact if they will not
own their marriage, why should God own it? But we may suppose that, after this

20. reproof which Abimelech gave them, they agreed never to do so again, and then
presently we read (ch. xxi. 1, 2) that Sarah conceived." It is a truly clever theory, but
if God did not like what they were going to do, he could have told them from the
start not to do it, rather than go through all they endured and put others through to
learn it was not a good plan. And there is no hint that they agreed never to do it
again.
4. Barnhouse stretches way out to make Abraham worse than Scripture reveals him
to be. He had a plan, and he thought it was the best plan to go by, but Barnhouse
makes him a criminal. He even makes a suggestion as to how he should have
apologized. It is too bad God did not think of this. He writes, ""There is a terrible
meaning in this verb wander which Abraham uses. The Hebrew word occurs exactly
fifty times in Scripture and never in a good sense. It is used of animals going astray,
of a drunken man reeling, or staggering, of sinful seduction, of a prophet's lies
causing the people to err, of the path of a lying heart. Six other words are translated
wander, any one of which Abraham might have used, but he used the worst word
available." (Barnhouse)
"Abraham should have said: 'Forgive me, Abimelech, for dishonoring both you and
my God. My selfish cowardice overwhelmed me, and I denied my God by fearing
that He who called me could not take care of me. He is not as your gods of wood and
stone. He is the God of glory. He is the living God, the Creator, the most High God,
possessor of heaven and earth. He told me He would be my shield and my exceeding
great reward, and supplier of all my needs . . . In sinning against Him, I sinned
against you. Forgive me, Abimelech.'" (Barnhouse)
5. Barnhouse is not alone in his view, but Zeisler goes one step further and makes it
a situation where Abraham is blaming God for the entire mess. He writes, "If we
look at Gen.20:13, we can discover some of the dynamic behind Abraham's
willingness to lie. As he was speaking to Abimelech, who was shocked that Abraham
would treat him in such a manner, he said, "It came about that when God caused
me to wander from my father's house we developed this strategy." The undertone in
this statement "God has caused me to wander" suggests why Abraham was willing
to do what he did as he wandered from place to place. Never having a city of his
own, he continually had to engage a new stronghold of people as he wandered and
had to face danger anew each time. He recognized that he would not have been in
this mess if it had not been for God: "God caused me to wander from my father's
house." This is exactly what Adam said when he was caught in sin. When God came
to him, he complained of "the woman you gave me. YOU gave her to me. If you had
not done what you have done, I would be innocent of my sin." I think Abraham did
not even realize that he harbored resentment against God for the repeated danger in
which he was placed. Yet it was this resentment, which led him to adopt the
defensive strategy that said, "I am willing to lie and deceive people because it is
God's fault that I am in this mess anyway. My only recourse is to find a way to
defend myself."
6. My problem with all of the negative things said of Abraham is that these negatives

21. are coming from man's perspective and not from God's perspective. When men of
God do wrong in the Old Testament they are usually rebuked and even judged for
their sin. In Abraham's case he comes out smelling like a rose as he receives great
gifts from the one he is supposed to have offended. This is contrary to all the rest of
Scripture. If God does not take pot shots at Abraham for his actions, who are we to
do so? The New Testament had nothing be the highest praise for Abraham, and yet
so much of what I read by commentators on the Old Testament make him out to be
one of the great scoundrels of the Bible. There is something wrong with this picture,
and my guess the problem is not with God's revelation, but with man's
interpretation. I prefer to stick to the positive image of the New Testament on this
man of God and not read negatives in where God does not. If the Master does not
find blame, then neither should his fellow servants. God's attitude seems clearly to
be one of approval of Abraham's plan, for not once is he rebuked for implementing
it.
14 Then Abimelech brought sheep and cattle and male
and female slaves and gave them to Abraham, and he
returned Sarah his wife to him.
1. Abraham was already wealthy with vast herds, and now he is given another gift
of more wealth to enhance his richness. These kings always seem to have a lot of
extra male and female slaves, and this just proves Abraham's point about being
afraid when he went into a different territory, for these slaves were gotten by killing
off other tribes and taking people into captivity. Abraham did not need more slaves
I would assume, but he did need his wife back, for she was going to have his
promised child before the year was over. It cost Abimelech a small fortune to take
Sarah for a night, and all he got out of it was a nightmare, and probably a severe
headache. He was thankful, however, to survive, and so it was a gift he was glad to
give to have this whole affair over with.
2. Gill actually has a positive word here as he writes, " In a good measure satisfied
with what Abraham had said to excuse himself; and these gifts he gave unto him,
that he might, as Jarchi observes, pray and intercede for him, that he and his family
might be healed, having understood by the divine oracle that he was a prophet, and
if he prayed for him he would be restored to health:" If Gill is right, and I think he
is, then Abimelech, like God, missed all of the evil that so many others find in
Abraham's defense of his action.
15 And Abimelech said, "My land is before you; live

22. wherever you like."
1. What a contrast we see with the two kings who took Sarah into their harem. The
Pharaoh was anxious to get rid of Abraham and his people. He hurried them on
their way with gifts and considered it good riddance. This king was grateful for
Abraham's prayer that restored him and his family to health, and so he was ready
to bond with Abraham. He offered him the opportunity to live on his land and be
his neighbor. Thank heavens he never got to read all of the anti-Abraham literature
that makes him look like a fool for falling for all of his lies. He would have been just
like the Pharaoh had he known how Abraham's excuses were just a sham. He would
have booted him out of the land with joy that he was out of his sight for good.
Lacking the insights he could have had from this uninspiring material, he thought of
Abraham as a friend and looked forward to a continued relationship with him. My
land is your land, is his response to the honest sharing of Abraham's motivation in
what he did. Now Abraham had the same option that he gave Lot. He has to choose
just which part of this land is the best place for him and his people. Thank heavens
again that it is not revealed what part he chose, for it would be called a selfish choice
by the anti-Abraham group.
16 To Sarah he said, "I am giving your brother a
thousand shekels of silver. This is to cover the offense
against you before all who are with you; you are
completely vindicated."
1. Notice how convinced this king is of Abraham's defense. Abraham said it is no lie,
we are brother and sister. So what does the king do? He calls Abraham Sarah's
brother. He does not say I am giving your husband all of this silver, but I am giving
your brother this loot. " I can just hear a certain group of commentators shouting,
"You fool, it is all a lie. You are a victim of a scam artist, and you are honoring a
man whom you should be cursing." I know they are shouting this for they say this is
a sarcastic remark to rebuke Sarah for her lie. He is actually being nasty as he
hands over this silver fortune. Such is the nonsense some read into this response of
the king just before he needs Abraham to pray for his healing. If you believe that
you will fall for all of the anti-Abraham slander. Fortunately, the king does not
hear this voice and goes ahead to be kind to Abraham and Sarah. This gift said, I
am sorry for what I did, and declare that Sarah has not been touched, but is free of
all blame in this matter, and is completely vindicated. I have been the offender and I
acknowledge that by this gift of a thousand shekels of silver. Like God, this king had
not a bad word to say here of either Abraham or Sarah. As always they come out of
this experience smelling like a rose.

23. 2. Those who persist in calling their plan a sin refuse to accept that the king says the
offense was against them. One author just can't let it go and he writes, "While it’s
right for a wife to submit to her husband, it’s not right for her to submit to him in
doing wrong. But in spite of their sin, God graciously blessed Abraham and Sarah,
financially through Abimelech’s gifts, and with the birth of Isaac (21:1-7). God
graciously was willing to be associated with Abraham, even in his sin, by calling
Abraham his prophet. If I were God, I’d want to keep it quiet that Abraham knew
me until this thing blew over. But God didn’t disown Abraham for this failure. In
the many other references to Abraham in the Bible, God mentions his faith often,
but He never mentions this sin. Amazing grace!" God does not mention it, but notice
how often he does, and so it is with all who persist in the theory that Abraham is a
sinful saint in his strategy to survive.
3. Pink also follows the line that Abraham is the bad guy here. He writes, "And how
did God act? Did He lose patience with Abraham, and cast off one so fickle and
inconsistent? Manifestly Abraham had dishonored the Lord in acting as he did, in
setting such an evil example before these heathen (Philistines). Yet, behold the grace
of Him with whom we have to do. Instead of casting him off, God interposed and
delivered Abraham and his wife from the peril which menaced them."
17 Then Abraham prayed to God, and God healed
Abimelech, his wife and his slave girls so they could
have children again,
1. Here we get a clue as to how God prevented Abimelech from taking Sarah to his
bed. If he had to be healed along with his wife and his slave girls, it meant that he
was either made impotent, or all of them had some kind of sexual disease that made
it offensive to have sex. His whole household was cut off from sex by some means so
that nobody was engaged in it due to the problem they were all having. As soon as
Abraham prayed God healed this problem so that they could all go back to the
normal sex routine of their lives and continue to have children. This is one of the
strangest miracles of the Bible, for it was a double miracle. It was by miracle that
they had to cease their sexual practices, and then another miracle that they were
healed and could resume their sexual practices. It was a double sex related miracle.
This story has a happy ending with nobody suffering for sin, and everybody happy
to be back to normal.
Abimelech and his wife and all the rest of his household were rejoicing that they
could be back in baby making mode, and Sarah was back in the arms of Abraham,
and they were in that same mode, for they were promised that they would have a
baby in less than a year from this strange experience.
2. Someone adds this note, "This was not a faith healing. It did not depend on the

24. people being healed, but upon Abraham's prayer and God's grace. Faith does not
always play a role in healing. Paul healed the father of the king of Malta as an act
of love and with no hint of faith on his part-Acts 28. This issue of faith is complex
for there are text that make faith the key to healing but others make it a non-issue."
God healed here because there was no reason to keep them suffering after the issue
that brought the suffering had been settled. There was really no reason for
Abraham to pray even, for God could have just reversed the miracle he did to close
down their sex life without any prayer. The fact that he made his miracle of
restoration based on Abraham's prayer is evidence that God wanted Abraham to be
respected by Abimelech, and this is what happened. It is also is evidence that God is
saying that there was no sin involved in Abraham and Sarah in saying they were
brother and sister. If God hated this as much as preachers and commentators do,
why did he exalt Abraham instead of putting him down a peg or two for this which
so many call an abominable sin? The only sin that God even mentions in this whole
story is the one he
prevented.
3. It is of interest that we have a prayer for the healing of those who are not a part of
God's people. Many are convinced that we cannot pray for unbelievers to be healed
, but Scripture will not support limiting God's healing power to believers. Many
non-believers get healed, and there is no reason why we should not lift up suffering
non-
Christians for God to show his grace in healing them.
18 for the LORD had closed up every womb in
Abimelech's household because of Abraham's wife
Sarah.
1. Abimelech and all of his household were basically neutered, and this could have
been the end of his family growth had God not reversed the curse. Gill has his guess
about these closed wombs and says, " With large tumors probably, so that they
could not cohabit with their husbands and conceive.." Pastor Deffinbaugh agrees
with what we have said above and writes, "By means of some undisclosed physical
malady, no one in the royal household was able to conceive. Further, it seems that
sexual activity was prohibited altogether. This would ensure Sarah’s purity, as well
as prevent the birth of a child by Abimelech. The revelation Abimelech received in
the dream thus explained the reason for the plague, which had fallen upon his
household. This also sheds light on the great fear of the male servants in
Abimelech’s household. They, too, suffered from this affliction which prohibited
normal sexual activity. In a culture that placed a high value on many offspring and
virility, the situation would have been taken as critical. And so it was."