Genesis 20:16

A thousand pieces of silver. Although neither the word “pieces” nor the word “shekel” is in the Hebrew text, the latter word is undoubtedly the correct complement of the word “thousand.” Coined money did not exist in pre-Persian times. Precious metals were cast into bricks and evaluated according to weight. Since the weight of the shekel varied widely in different localities and at different times, it is difficult to estimate its present monetary value. A weight found in the ruins of Tell Beit Mirsim in Palestine gives a shekel of .402 oz. av. (11.4 gr.), one from Ugarit in Syria .335 oz. (9.5 gr.), whereas the Egyptian and Babylonian shekel varies from .31 to .345 oz. (8.8 to 9.8 gr.). If we take a shekel of 11.4 grams (.4 oz. av.) for a “piece of silver,” a thousand would weigh about 25 lb. av. Inasmuch as the buying power of money was much higher then than it is now, this figure should be increased considerably if it is to represent a true picture of the value of this gift. Abimelech probably used the expression “thy brother” in irony, as if he were saying “this ‘brother’ of yours.”

He is to thee a covering of the eyes. The meaning of the Hebrew statement thus translated is obscure. If literal, the “covering” would be a veil for the protection of the face; if figurative, it would be a gift intended to placate ill will. The Hebrew word translated “he” in the KJV, indicating Abraham, could be just as well translated “it,” referring to the gift. If the word refers to Abraham, Abimelech would mean either that he was herewith returning Sarah to Abraham’s protection, or that Abraham should take better care of her in the future. If, on the other hand, it refers to the gift, Abimelech would be saying, “Please accept my gift as evidence of your innocence, and also as a token of my desire to do right by you.” Three details of the context imply that this expression refers to the gift rather than to Abraham: (1) Abimelech desired the friendship of Abraham (see on v. 15). (2) The gift is the center of attention in the preceding statement. (3) The “covering” was to constitute evidence to her companions and to all others that the wrong had been righted and the case settled.

All that are with thee. Perhaps this refers to Sarah’s handmaids, who may have been with her at the time of the incident. “With all other” may refer to other members of Abraham’s large household, or may include all who might learn of it. See also the following paragraph. This suggests too that the “covering” may have been intended, in part at least, to save her “face” before the other members of her household, a most important consideration among Orientals.

Thus she was reproved. This expression in the Hebrew confronts us with two problems. (1) Some ancient versions omit the word “thus,” Heb. “and,” and combine this expression with the preceding phrase, “and with all other.” (2) Whether the original Hebrew read “she” or “you” is uncertain. The vowel pointing which makes the difference was added by the Masoretes several centuries after Christ. If the Masoretes were correct, then Sarah was “reproved” by Abimelech as being primarily to blame for the unfortunate situation. If, however, the Masoretes made the wrong choice, as some ancient versions imply, and if the preceding phrase, “and with all other,” is to be connected with “she was reproved,” the two together would read as follows: “and in all respects thou art justified,” or, “before every one you are righted,” as in the RSV. This rendering would agree more exactly with the context. The word translated “umpire” in Job 9:33, margin, is from the same root as the word here rendered “reproved.”