This is Lessons Learned from the Death of Sarah. It is the 20th Reading in our 3-year Torah Reading Cycle. And it is found in Bereshit/Genesis 23:1-23. And as in our previous readings, I will be referencing the Robert Alter translation of Torah entitled, “The Five Books of Moshe.”

 

So, I invite you to follow along with whatever translation you prefer and have. As in previous discussions, I’ll read the verses consecutively, and then comment accordingly. At the end, I’ll summarize my thoughts and reflections on the reading in what I call practical Messianic halachah.

 

Let’s begin.

 

 

23:1.  And Sarah’s life was a hundred and twenty-seven years, the years of Sarah’s life.

 

At this point, it can be safely presumed that Abraham was about 137-years old, he being 10-years older than Sarah (reference Gen. 17:17).

 

 

23.2.  And Sarah died in Kiriath-Arba, which is Hebron, in the land of Canaan, and Abraham came to mourn Sarah and to keen for her.

 

According to Rabbinic thinking, Kiriath-arba is the old or original name for Hebron. Some say the meaning of Kiriath-arba is “the city of four” (J.H. Hertz).

 

Now, this meaning has a clear meaning attached to it that I find fascinating.

 

But first, here’s an interesting translation from the Jerusalem Targum: “And Sarah died in the city of the giants.” What could that possibly mean?

 

Well, if we look at the Book of Joshua, we possibly find our answer: “Previously Hebron had been called Kiriath-arba. It had been named after Arba, a great hero of the descendants of Anak. And the land had rest from war” (14:15; NLT).

 

Turns out beloved, that Arba may have been a giant, otherwise known as Nephilim. We find in the Book of Joshua that Arba was Anak’s daddy (Jos. 15:13). And it was Caleb, the son of Jephunneh, who drove out (some sources say killed) the three sons of Anak from the Land. And thus, the naming of the city in that it signified this city being of these four Nephilim or giants.

 

We know from Torah that the Anakim were either giants or descendants of giants, whom the 2nd generation Hebrews in the wilderness would mark for destruction in their conquest of the Land of Canaan. Numbers describes these giants as Nephilim (Num. 13:33; NASB) and some of the Hebrews that went in to spy the land fearfully described themselves as grasshoppers in comparison to the Anakim (13:33; Deu. 1:28; 9:2). Hebron was one of the Anakim’s chief cities of the Anakim. However, we read of no encounters with Anakim during Avraham’s history as recorded in Genesis/Bereshit. I guess it’s conceivable that the Anakim either dwelt in another portion of Hebron or Kiriath-arba, or they migrated into the region years later. The text does not provide enough information to say one way or the other.

 

So, we can see that the writers of the Jerusalem Targum were preoccupied with the former inhabitants of Kiriath-arba, those being the Anakim or Nephilim or giants.

 

Beyond questions of Nephilim and so forth in the land of Kiriath-arba, is the larger question as to why Sarah died and why did she end up in Kiriath-arba/Hebron when at the time of the “Binding of Yitschaq,” the family lived in Beersheba.

 

Rabbinic thinking identifies Sarah as Yisra’el’s first “matriarch.” So, she holds a very special place in orthodox Judaism.

 

Midrash Rabbah explains Avraham’s coming to mourn Sarah phrase as being directly tied to Sarah dying as a result of grief that came over her upon learning of the “Binding of Isaac” (ref. STAR-19/Gen. 22). Thus, Avraham’s coming to mourn Sarah was Avraham returning from the land of Moriah only to find Sarah his wife dead.

 

Now, in the Ancient Book of Jasher, chapter 23, we have a very detailed addendum to last week’s Torah reading regarding the “Binding of Isaac,” leading into this week’s reading relating to Sarah’s passing and Avraham purchasing a plot in which to bury her.

 

The writer of Jasher adds what, would otherwise be found between Bereshit 22 and 23, that hasatan, disguising himself as an old man, came to Sarah there in Beersheba, while Avraham and Issac were finishing up their business in the Land of Moriah. Hasatan, as the old man, tells Sarah that Avraham had slaughtered her son Yitschaq and had offered him on an altar as a sacrifice. This false news, of course, sent Sarah completely sideways into absolute, irreconcilable grief and mourning. Even to the place of Sarah uttering that the laughter she found in being Yitschaq’s mother, had now turned into grief and mourning.

 

And despite her consoling herself, she set out to the byways, desperately searching for her son. Ultimately, she came to Hebron/Kiriath-arba, arriving at Shem and Eber’s home. But to no avail did she find her husband and son.

 

Hasatan, again disguised as the old man, approaches Sarah there in Hebron, and informs her that that which he’d told her back in Beersheba regarding her son Yitschaq being killed by her husband was incorrect: Yitschaq had not been sacrificed by her husband and he was very much alive. This news caused Sarah so much emotional stress that she died there in Hebron.

 

In the interim, Avraham and Yitschaq had completed their worship in the Land of Moriah and had returned back to their home in Beersheba. Sarah, of course, was nowhere to be found. Avraham conducted a desperate search of her, only to learn that she had traveled to Hebron in search of him and Yitschaq.

 

So, in response to that tip, Avraham and Yitschaq hastened to Hebron to find Sarah. Tragically, upon arriving in Hebron, they learned of Sarah’s sudden death. Both Avraham and Yitschaq are described as “mourning over her a great and heavy mourning.”

 

Now, I will mention here that neither Josephus nor Jubilees record any such addendum to the Genesis/Bereshit account. The only added information to the overall Bereshit account is that after the “Binding of Yitschaq” incident, Avraham and Yitschaq returned to and sojourned in Beersheba, presumably with Sarah, for many years. And so, after the passing of those years, the family pulled up stakes, for no expressed reason, and returned to Hebron/Kiriath-arba, where they sojourned 14-years. And it was after those 14-years spent in Hebron that Sarah died.

 

So, the orthodox Midrash of the passing of Sarah seems somewhat consistent with the Jasher accounting. And the interesting thing about the Jasher record is that the writer attributes Sarah’s death, although indirectly, to the devious works of hasatan, while the Bereshit, Josephus and Jubilee accounts leave us clueless as to the cause of Sarah’s death.

 

Now, I would caution us to attribute Sarah’s death simply to old age. For Avraham was roughly 10-years her senior (putting him at 137-years old here in this reading), and we will find in future readings, that he will go on to father several children beyond Yitschaq, ultimately dying at the ripe old age of 175.

 

 

 

23:3.  And Abraham rose from before his dead and he spoke to the Hittites,

 

It should be noted here that in Orthodox Judaism, when a person dies, their family and friends will engage in a ritual or tradition referred to as “sitting shiva.” This ritual or tradition involves the family and friends sitting down on the floor or ground and mourning for the deceased for seven-days. During the time of mourning, the next of kin is consoled by attending friends, relatives, and associates.

 

Now, some Jewish sources believe this tradition of “Sitting shiva” goes back to Avraham and the time of our Torah Reading here. And so, what we see taking place here is believed by some to be a nascent or early form of “sitting shiva/shiv’ah.”

 

Thus, the Abrahams and their friends and associates engaged in an unrevealed period of deep mourning and at the end of that mourning period, Avraham raises up from, let’s say his “sitting shiva/shiv’ah” and goes to take care of the business of burying his wife.

 

Interestingly, the Ancient Book of Jasher somewhat jives with this idea that maybe sitting shiva/shiv’ah has some traces back to this incident. It’s noted in the 24 chapter that Avraham went into great mourning and performed the rites of mourning for seven-days, and that all the inhabitants of the Land comforted Avraham and Yitschaq. Pretty interesting.

 

Now, other than what I’ve just mentioned, I know nothing more about the tradition or ritual of “sitting shiva/shiv’ah.” But I’m certain, like most traditions and rituals in orthodox Judaism, there are rabbinic rules attached to it.

 

The text records that Avraham “rose from before his dead,” indicating that during the time of mourning, Avraham and his family sat and slept on the ground (ref. 2 Sam. 12:16; Lam. 2:10).

 

And so, Avraham rises from his mourning and goes to one of the main inhabitants of that Land, the Hittites to acquire a burial plot for Sarah. These Hittites are and will be referred to me in this discussion on a number of occasions as “children of Heth” since they descended from Canaan and Heth.

 

23:4.  saying: “I am a sojourning settler with you. Grant me a burial-holding with you, and let me bury my dead now before me.”

 

Abraham describes his status in the land as one of “sojourner and settler.” Turns out that this is a legal term used in the ANE to designate an individual as a “resident alien.” Abraham is quite skilled at carefully articulating what he no doubt recognized the tenuousness of his legal residential status in the land. It was a reality, despite the fact that the unconditional covenant he held with Yah, contained therein was the provision that clearly stipulated that the very land, the whole of it actually, that he would be attempting to purchase just to bury Sarah belonged to him and his seed.

 

And this is the crux of our reading here today. We are sojourners in a land and world that has been promised to us as an inheritance. Yet, at the moment, this world is not our home; it doesn’t belong to us just yet.

 

The writer of Hebrews speaks to this reality when extolling the faithful virtues of the patriarchs:

 

“(9) By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise…(13) These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth” (Heb. 11:9, 13; KJV).

 

Orthodox Jewish thinking would place the Jew in this world as a resident. Consequently, he or she is instructed by Torah—whichever Torah the sages happen to be referring to here—to deal with this reality by “inhabiting and elevating” this world as opposed to trying to evade or escape the world. The greatest reality is that the Jew is meant to provide a “dwelling for G-d in the material realm by sanctifying the everyday materials of everyday life.”

 

And so, in this sense, the orthodox Jew sees him/herself as a stranger in this world and this is primarily because his/her true home is located in the spirit realm, and he/she must exist in holiness and G-dliness (ref. Lubavitcher Rebbe).

 

 

I also want to mention here that in Avraham’s mentioning to the Hittites his legal residential status in the land, that he was affirming to them, or stating the obvious, that unlike them, he owned no real property/no land. Avraham, conversely, lived in tents and he lived the life as a Bedouin, traveling here and there with his family and servants and his flocks.

 

So, in Avraham’s opening statement to the Hittite counsel could be seen as a means of setting himself up to be officially admitted into the community as rather a permanent resident, made permanent through the acquisition of real estate, if one could go so far as calling the purchase of a burial plot real estate. But, we will see that the acquisition of the burial cave would come with a parcel of land making Avraham an official member of Hebron/Kiriath-arba. The point we will see is real life: If you don’t pay for something, you really don’t own it.

 

Regardless, the irony to be had here is that in heaven’s eyes, Avraham already owned all the land of the Hittites, yet for now, Avraham had to pay for it.

 

We draw from this verse a couple of mainstays as it relates to how the members of the original Hebrew Faith treated their dead. One, they paid respect for their deceased loved ones by mourning them for a defined period of time. And two, they buried their loved ones. The love we have for one another and members of our family as covenant members, will reflect in the way we treat those who die in our midst. Despite Avraham’s steadfast, deep, abiding relationship with Yah, the steadfast, deep and abiding love and relationship he had with Sarah cannot be overlooked.

 

Rav Shaul wrote that we men ought to love our wives as our own bodies (Eph. 5:28, 33).

 

A great many men in particular, come into this faith of ours and they, for whatever reason, lose the love they once had for their wives. But we must remember Yah’s original purpose of marriage and that was fulfill in His human creation, not only the proper method for procreation, but to create a means of complete worship of Him. What do I mean by that? Well, combined, a biblically-based, covenant-keeping husband and wife are capable as a unified couple, to worship and glorify Father beyond that of just the single man or woman. [See my post on marriage.] And so, under such a paradigm, the true-man of Yah will love his wife as much as he loves himself. Indeed, that love is at a different level than the love he will have for Yehovah. The love that he will have for Elohim is one that incorporates the healthy, loving relationship he has with his wife. And vice versa for the women. It’s not about choosing Yah over one’s spouse; the understanding being that our spouse completes us and facilitates our worship and covenant relationship with the Almighty. It’s a beautiful thing.

 

And so, we see here in our Torah Reading, despite it being absent in all our previous reading involving Avraham, evidence of Avraham’s deep and abiding love for his wife Sarah. And I say that this serves as an example and reminder of the love we men must have for our wives.

 

In terms of burial, it was and remains the primary means of caring for the remains of Hebrew loved ones. Some Jewish commentators assert that cremation is repugnant to Judaism, and that it defies both the Oral and Written Laws.

 

In terms of those of us in the Hebrew Faith, the question of whether or not cremation is prohibited as the rabbis say it is, is not supported in scripture. Yes, the unwavering tradition and practice of our ancient Hebrew cousins was burial. However, there is no discernible mitzvah against cremation. I personally lean towards burial, but I would not be one to say scripture prohibits cremation.

 

Cremation is popular in our 21st western society for a number of reasons. One of the main reasons is that cremation tends to be more cost effective than burial. Burials have become in many cases cost prohibitive. And so, we must look at this important issue from a perspective that is proper and in true alignment with scripture. The bigger point of our story here today is not so much the practice or tradition of burial. But rather, it’s about Avraham’s love for Sarah and his having to appropriately take care her remains within the framework of this ANE society.

 

________________________________________________________

 

Another aspect of this Reading that I wish to touch upon is the importance of recognizing our pilgrim status in the world. Beloved, as materially and physically depicted in Avraham’s life, he being covenanted the Land, during his life existed as a sojourner; a nomad of sorts, living in tents, having no physical possession or ownership of the Land. We are sojourners and nomads in this world. This world is not our home. Thus, we have no business delving into the affairs of this world and its governments and societies beyond our having to live and operate for purposes of sustaining and caring for ourselves and our families.

 

I find it fascinating that hardcore Messianics find themselves on the front line of the modern day social justice warrior situation that has gripped this nation. These are deep into claiming what they believe is rightfully theirs in this country, and many are claiming that which they believe to be rightfully theirs, in the name of Jesus. I guess in many ways this is part and parcel of the “dominion theology” or “dominionism” political belief system that gripped a great chunk of Evangelical Christianity about 5-years ago. Dominion theology, for those of you who may not be familiar with the phrase or title, is the mindset that certain sects of Evangelical Christian have related to taking this nation back for Christ. There is essentially a false sense that God will use the church to usher in an age where the nation will be governed by Christian principles and ideology. The problem with this wishful thinking and belief system is that those who hold to such theological thinking are evidently poor students of scripture. Even the most immature Christian will have some knowledge that this world, including this nation, is governed by the demigod of this world: hasatan (Eph. 2:2-3; 6:12; Joh. 8:44; 12:31). And the only way that this nation, much less this world will ever come into full compliance with the laws and ways of the Kingdom of Yah is when Yahoshua returns and restores paradise lost and binds and confines hasatan and his ilk for 1,000 years (Rev. 20:2-7).

 

Beloved, none of what I’m saying here is meant to be demoralizing. Dominion Theology and its various spin offs are contrivances meant to mislead Yah’s people by focusing their attention on the present kingdoms of this world instead of the coming Kingdom of Yah. We have a blessed hope which should energize us and help us focus on the tasks given us (Tit. 2:13). Master instructed us to do a few things: (1) Seek first and foremost Yah’s kingdom and Yah’s righteousness (Mat. 6:33); (2) love one another as He loved us (Joh. 13:34); (3) keep His commandments which are His Father’s commandments which are the commandments contained in Torah (Joh. 14:15; 15:10); (4) take up our cross and follow Him, which means to leave everything behind, die to self, and be His disciple (Mat. 16:24; Mar. 8:34); (5) and make disciples of all nations (Mat. 28:19). All of which means that we’ve not been called to be social justice workers.

 

 

 

 

23:5.  And the Hittites answered Abraham, saying: “Pray, hear us, my lord.

 

 

It should be noted that from a biographical standpoint, these Hittites, the text denotes were descendants of Canaan’s son Heth (Gen. 10:15; 23:3, 5, 20). Their general geographical dwelling was Hebron, which is the place where our story is taking place (Gen. 23:2, 3, 19).

 

The Hittites, no doubt the descendants of these very folks whom Avraham sojourned amongst, Yisra’el would be tasked with utterly destroying them, which they did not fully accomplish as commanded (Deu. 7:1-2). Why were these marked for destruction by Yah? Clearly these descendants of Heth were engaged in pagan worship that Yah did not approve of (Exo. 23:23-24). Yehovah described their pagan practices as abominable (Deu. 20:17).

 

But for the moment, these Hittites basically ruled the region of Hebron and Avraham had to conduct business and engage socially with them since he was sojourning in their land.

 

 

23:6.  You are a prince of God among us! In the pick of our graves bury your dead. No man among us will deny you his grave for burying your dead.”

 

Interestingly, the LXX notes the Hittites referring to Avraham as “a king from God” while the Onkelos notes the Hittites referring to Avraham as “prince before the Lord…among them.”

 

1. H. Gottstein suggests that the actual reference these men made towards Avraham may be more in line with the Hebrew terminology of “Nasi’ ‘elohim.” It was common in formal gatherings of the ANE for folks to address people in what is described as the “superlative.” In this case, the men referred to Avraham as “mighty prince.” Some scholars attribute a meaning to that of a “tribal chief.”

 

It can’t be ignored, regardless what the so-called, self-professing scholars say, that the locals of Hebron recognized Avraham as having a special relationship with Yehovah. Thus, the given title “prince of Elohim.” It’s not that these Hittites served or worship Yehovah, but rather, these ancient ones recognized multiple gods and they were sensitive to the influences certain gods had within and outside their community. Which is a strong statement when comparing the sensibility of folks back then to now. Questions of intelligence and sophistication aside, the ancients were a bit more sensitive to spiritual things than this 21st century generation. And so, these gentlemen recognized that there was something exceptional about Avraham and Avraham’s relationship with Yehovah. These no doubt were well aware of Avraham’s many miraculous exploits and Avraham’s exclusive worship of the One God, Yehovah. Avraham’s history among the Hittites stretched back many decades (ref. Gen. 13:18).

 

And although it is likely that these Hittites did not worship Yah, or if they did, they worshiped Yah within the framework of their pantheon of gods, they held an appreciable degree of respect for the aged patriarch of the Hebrew Faith. And as a result of that respect, they generously offer Avraham, as the ESV Commentary describes, “the use of one of the choicest of their own tombs for the burial of Sarah.”

 

It’s interesting to see how beautifully laid out here the respect the children of Heth had for Avraham. So much so, that something as personal and important as procuring a burial plot for his family member, despite him being a recognized sojourner in their country, would be rendered unto him without price. In other words, you Avraham, you’re respected among our people, by all means select a burial plot from any of the families our people and bury your loved one. No one will deny you that privilege.

 

You see, although Avraham would ultimately agree to pay full price for a parcel of burial property, the heathen of the land was willing to accommodate the patriarch’s need of burying his loved one. For certainly this is a lesson in personal conduct and righteous living. When we live in accordance with Yah’s instructions in righteousness, and we treat our fellow man according to those instructions in righteousness, we become a testimony to the unconverted world. Yes, the unconverted world will persecute us and at some point, they will martyr us if Yah wills for us to remain to that time, but in the interim, when we live uncompromisingly in Yah’s Ways, even the unconverted will respect us. They may not like us. They may ridicule us. But they will be forced to respect us.

 

In responding to a theological challenge by a Jewish lawyer regarding which was the greatest Torah law, Master replied:

 

“(37) …Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. (38) This is the first and great commandment. (39) And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as they self. (40) ON THESE TWO COMMANDMENTS HANG ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS” (Mat. 22:37-40; KJV).

 

Clearly Avraham honored these mitzvot and the result of him doing so was Yah’s friendship and respect from those outside his camp.

 

 

 

 

23:7.  And Abraham rose and bowed to the folk in the land, to the Hittites.

 

 

The “folk in (of) the land” in Hebrew is “Am ha-aretz,” in context here, is specifically referencing to what some biblical scholars see as an assembled Council of Hittites.

 

Now, that which was to be proposed by Avraham, that being the acquisition of a burial plot for Sarah in ANE, would require some consensus on the part of the local council.

 

Rabbinic sources state that of the 49-times that this Hebrew phrase is recorded in the Tanach, 42 of those “am ha-aretz” mentions point specifically to some political or social event. In this particular instance, “am ha-aretz” is about this ancient Hittite council or assembly.

 

 

 

23:8.  And he spoke with them, saying, “If you have it in your hearts that I should bury my dead now before me, hear me, entreat for me Ephron son of Zohar,

 

 

23:9.  and let him grant me the cave of Machpelah that belongs to him, which is at the far end of his field. At the full price let him grant it to me in your midst as a burial-holding.

 

Now, regarding this Cave of Machpelah, the so-called sages cannot let even something like this go without a good story attached to it. According to some, this cave was unique in that it had an upper and lower chamber that served as the resting place for multiple couples to include Adam and Eve, Abraham, and Sarah of course, Isaac and Rebecca, and Jacob and Leah. I found such thinking to be slightly entertaining, but also revealing. For it shows us that even some of the most innocuous elements in Torah can have elements added to it by the very ones, that being sages, who should know better than to add to or take away from Yah’s Word; Yah’s instructions in righteousness. It’s one thing to surmise what something meant or looked like as recorded in scripture, but it’s an entirely different thing to make such bold assertions when no such evidence is to be had from the written word. Just thought I’d share with you this fun rabbinic tidbit.

 

So, the $21.67 question that yearns for an answer is: Why would Avraham turn down a free burial plot? He’d been offered burial property for free by the Hittites, yet he insists on not just purchasing the property, but in paying full price. Why? The most likely answer is that by him paying full price for the plot there would never be any question of his ownership of the property. If Avraham were to accept the property for free, what would prevent the original owner or his descendants from coming back and laying claim to the land. If the land were conveyed to Avraham for free, he’d have no true claim to ownership of it. However, if Avraham paid full price for the property, he’d have that claim of ownership.

 

As an aside, this verse is a testimony to the fact that it was a very common practice among many communities of the ANE to bury their dead in caves. So, Avraham’s request of the Hittite assembly or council that he acquires one of the council member’s caves to serve as burial site for Sarah would not have been an unusual one. And this tradition and practice carried over into the Hebrew Faith, at least well into the first century C.E. Recall that our Master Yahoshua was buried in a borrowed tomb which could be categorized as a cave of sorts (Joh. 19:38-42). My dear brother Robert Bills pointed me to a book entitled “Golgotha” by a Robert Cornuke. Now, despite the book’s emphasis being to bring to the reader’s attention evidence that the traditional locations for the Temple Mount and Golgotha are incorrect, the author does a fantastic job revealing to the reader the most likely place Yeshua was buried for those three-days and three-nights. And that likely place a rocky escarpment with multiple cave-like intrusions in it. And those cave-like intrusions served as burial places for many of the citizens of Yerushalayim in Yahoshua’s day.

 

So, what we have here in terms of Avraham attempting to acquire a cave to bury Sarah is somewhat of an important issue. And, later, I will comment further on this very touchy issue of Hebrews burying their dead.

 

 

 

 

23:10.  And Ephron was sitting in the midst of the Hittites, and Ephron the Hittite answered Abraham in the hearing of the Hittites, all the assembled in the gate of his town, saying:

 

The mention here of Ephron sitting in the midst of the children of Heth, is suggestive to some biblical commentators that he was actually presiding over what some have described here as an assembly or council. To me, the fact that the text emphasizes that Ephron was “sitting in the midst of the Hittites” makes his leadership of council appear to be a reasonable conclusion. And why not? Avraham, who the citizens of Hebron referred to as a “Nasi Elohim,” entering into an important business transaction with one of the principal leaders of this Hittite community. It’s a very interesting story.

 

It should be noted that what we are reading here is an example of a common land ownership transaction and transfer. Virtually all such important legal business transactions customarily took place at the city’s gateway. As such, the men of the city would assemble themselves in sort of a town council and conduct their business. So, what we’re seeing here is most certainly a legal business transaction common to the ANE. Even the dialog that is recorded here between Ephron and Abraham is typical of ANE financial documents that recorded the “conveyance of property” (Alter).

 

The second half of the verse mentions that Ephron answered Avraham in the hearing of the Hittites and all the assembled in the gate of his town. Some biblical scholars suggests that this verse paints an eye-opening picture of the common practice of ANE business and political discourse being conducted, not only in open public, but also conducting those business transactions at the city’s gate, in this case, Kiriath-arba’s city gate. Certainly, Avraham’s intentions to acquire a suitable burial site for his deceased wife was of such a major concern that he wanted the transaction to be done in an open and transparent environment, witnessed by many individuals, both within and outside the Hittite council. And of course, such important transactions required witnesses and transparency, and the gate of Kiriath-arba offered that environment.

 

And we will find that indeed Avraham’s purchase was witnessed by several people in verse 18.

 

 

23:11.  “Pray, my lord, hear me. The field I grant you and the cave that is in it. I grant it to you in full view of my kinfolk. I grant it to you. Bury your dead.”

 

Alter’s translation here once again takes on the issue that we touched on in our previous reading, having to do with the exhortation insertion that translates in the English as “pray” or “I pray thee.” Depending on which Hebrew manuscript is referenced, the insertion may be that of “pray” which we see here, or “no” as we see in virtually every English translation that is based on the Masoretic Hebrew manuscript. It’s a conflict between “lu” for “pray” versus “lo” for “no.” Alter explains that what we have here is more likely Ephron employing and inserting politeness in his discussion with Abraham.

 

Alter also points out a rather interesting fact: Avraham when he first proposes purchasing property in which to bury Sarah, he endeavors to purchase Ephron’s cave, that’s it. But then Ephron throws in the surrounding land upon which the cave sits, which is curious. It would seem at first brush that Ephron was perhaps showing Abraham favor but giving him more than he’d ever bargained for. But Alter senses an ulterior motive behind Ephron’s seeming generous offer. Alter suggests that Ephron’s throwing in the land with the cave was a ploy to extract more money from Abraham, which seems to be a reasonable assertion given the final purchase price charged to Abraham. Abraham will essentially overpay for the property.

 

And again, we see in this verse another beautiful example of a common ANE business transaction practice or protocol: Ephron’s three-pronged “I grant you…I grant it to you…I grant it to you is a formal conference of the property from him to Abraham. What we see here is Ephron essentially trying to close the deal.

 

 

 

23:12.  And Abraham bowed before the folk of the land,

 

 

23:13.  Saying: “If you would but hear me—I give the price of the field, take it from me, and let me bury my dead there.”

 

 

23:14.  And Ephron answered Abraham, saying:

 

 

23:15.  “Pray, my lord, hear me. Land for four hundred silver shekels between me and you, what does it come to?

 

Ephron’s asking price here, for the cave and land, is certainly ambiguous to our 21st century western experiences and ignorance of ANE monetary values. Alter attempts to help put this price of 400 silver shekels in perspective by comparing it to the purchase price of property that is recorded in other parts of scripture. And although he doesn’t provide us insight into what passages he compared Abraham’s purchase with, he comes to the conclusion that Abraham sorely overpaid Ephron for his property.

 

As distasteful as this may seem to us—that is Ephron’s taking advantage of Abraham—we have to make allowances for Ephron. Abraham is recorded in verse 13 as stating to Ephron that he would pay him full price for his property. So, when Ephron all but robs Abraham here in this verse, we have to recognize that from a business sense, Abraham did not have much of a financial leg to stand on here. And we will see in the next verse that Abraham recognized this reality and humbly agreed to the deal without any counter offering.

 

 

23:16.  Go bury your dead.” And Abraham heeded (I.e., Abraham agreed to Ephron’s offer) Ephron and Abraham weighed out to Ephron the silver that he spoke of in the hearing of the Hittites, four hundred silver shekels at the merchants’ tried weight.

 

The terminology of 400-shekels of silver predates the use of money, which means that this 400-shekels is indicative of the payment in silver being tendered using agreed upon weights, which essentially what shekels means in ANE context.

 

So then, Ephron makes it clear that his asking price is 400 silver shekels, despite the little dance he does with seemingly throwing out the arbitrary number of 400 silver shekels, which actually is not an arbitrary price. The 400 silver shekels is what Ephron felt and or what he wanted for his property; it was indeed his asking price for the property. And it was now up to Avraham to formerly agree to the price and ante-up the silver.

 

 

 

 

23:17.  And Ephron’s field at Machpelah by Mamre, the field and the cave that was in it and every tree in the field within its boundaries all around,

 

 

23:18.  Passed over to Abraham as a possession, in full view of the Hittites, all the assembled in the gate of his town.

 

The Ancient Book of Jasher records that “Avraham wrote this transaction, and he wrote it and testified it with four witnesses” (24:7). And the very next verse lists the names of those witnesses. And Jasher proceeds to record that Avraham kept this purchase agreement, if you will, for purposes of documenting that this burial plot would be his and his seed’s possession forever (verse 10). And in confirmation of this agreement being some sort of covenant, Jasher notes that the purchase of the field and the cave “were made sure unto Abraham and unto his seed after him from the children of Heth” (24:11).

 

 

23:19.  And then Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the Machpelah field by Mamre, which is Hebron, in the land of Canaan.

 

 

23:20.  And the field and the cave that was in it passed over to Abraham as a burial-holding from the Hittites.

 

Alter concludes that what we have recorded here in these four-verses is emblematic of financial transactions involving the conveyance of property in the ANE.

 

Interestingly, secular leaning theologians view this whole transaction as Abraham, now about 137-years of age, taking decisive action to “lay future claim to possession of the land” (Alter; pg. 116). But I agree with Alter’s citing of Meir Sternberg, an Israeli biblical scholar, that this whole reading is indicative of the challenges inherent in Abraham life of covenant: sojourning in a land that is promised to him and having to buy property just to bury his wife; the covenant threatened by the proposed “binding” test of Isaac; and the nomadic and sojourning life that Abraham had to endure despite the great promises inherent in the covenant. Covenant life was not easy.

 

Speaking of covenant, some Hebrew scholars view the official transfer of the land here, from Ephron to Avraham, as a covenant. In other words, the transfer of the cave and the field from Ephron to Avraham is memorialized by way of a covenant between Avraham and the children of Heth. The term indicating this transaction was that of a covenant between the children of Heth and Avraham is the English term “passed over.”

 

How does covenant come into a real estate transaction?

 

The land was believed to be under the ownership of the children of Heth. The children of Heth agreed (I.e., covenant) with Abraham possession of the land.

 

Interestingly, this parcel of land and the cave remain as one of three-hotly contested pieces of real estate in the Land, all three of which were purchased by a patriarch: (1) this cave and attached field of Machpelah, purchased by Avraham for 400-silver shekels; (2) the alleged Temple Mount site, purchased by King David from Ornan for 600 shekels of gold (1 Chr. 21:25); and (3) Joseph’s tomb, purchased by Ya’achov/Jacob at Shechem for four-hundred pieces of silver (Gen. 33:19). (Midrash Rabbah; Genesis 33:19)

 

The other thing I’d like to point out to you is an obscure mention in the Book of Jubilees that Avraham’s interaction with the Hittites over the acquisition of the burial plot was another test put forth to him by the Court of Heaven. (If you’ve not had the opportunity listen to or read our discussion on Yah testing His loved ones, I invite you to click on this link to do so. The post was entitled “When our Covenant Relationship with God is Tested.”) This test was meant to determine how Avraham would handle this somber situation. And of course, the writer of Jubilees affirms that Avraham did indeed pass the test, showing that he was patient with the Hittites; such that Avraham patiently conversed with the children of Heth. The text describes this character trait of Avraham as a “patience of spirit.”

 

In his passing this test, the text denotes that Yah granted Avraham grace before the inhabitants of the Land and that somehow the sale of the burial plot for 400-silver shekels was somehow a good deal.

 

 

Thoughts and Reflections-Practical Messianic Halachah

 

Many rabbinic commentators and commentaries on this Torah Reading passage focus on the burial aspect of our story.

 

As many of you know, I reference Messianic teacher, author, and commentator Tim Hegg, of Torah Resources, quite often in my discussions. I honor and respect Mr. Hegg for his balanced and in-depth exposition of Yah’s Word from a Messianic perspective.

 

But, as it relates to our reading today, Hegg’s contention was that this reading was primarily about the Hebrew practice of burying one’s dead; the efficacy and responsibility of Messianics to bury their dead as opposed to cremating them. And Hegg was not the only commentator I came across in my preparations for this week’s reading who felt this reading was about burial over cremation. In fact, the title for this reading given by most rabbinic sources, including Hegg’s commentary on this passage, was “The Death and Burial of Sarah.” And so, I was surprised to see, given the other spiritual take-aways and lessons that can be learned from this reading, that so much emphasis was being placed on the practice of burying one’s dead. Some sources went so far as to stipulate that Yah commanded his people to bury their dead as opposed to cremating them.

 

But back to Hegg for a moment. Hegg in his commentary strongly advocates burial for Yah’s people, based in part, on this week’s reading. He contends that burying is the only way to preserve the image of Elohim that resides with every human at death, and he cites Psalm 139:14 as a support passage. He further contends that when one’s body is cremated, that image of Yah that humans are naturally endowed with is disrespected and lost to some extent.

 

Look, I get the maybe burying a loved one is preferable to cremating them. I personally don’t care for cremation myself. But, from a practical standpoint, ideology aside, we must recognize that when humans die and their bodies are put in the ground or in a cave for that matter, unless those bodies undergo extensive preservation procedures, they decompose and the elements that make up the human body returns to earth from which it came. And when you think about it, there are no remains to be had for any of our biblical patriarchs. As revered and loved as they may be by us, everyone of their bodies, with possibly the exception of Enoch and Elijah, everyone of their bodies, which were buried, decomposed, and returned to the dust of the earth. Nothing of them whatsoever remains.

 

Now, it seems to me, to completely disavow cremation as a means of responsibly taking care of a loved one’s remains because all the patriarchs were buried and not cremated, and that cremation erases or damages the image of Yah in man, certainly ignores what happens to the body when it is buried. Such sentiments add to the sense of great lost that one may have at the death of a loved one, the elements of guilt and stress, especially when there is no money to bury a loved one. To insist that cremation somehow compromises the image of Yah that humans have been endowed with, suggests to me that there is a great misunderstanding as to what scripture means that man was made in the image of Yah. I did a post entitled “Made in the image of God, Genesis 1:1-2:3” where I go into detail what it means to have been made in Yah’s image. And if you’ve not had the opportunity to read or listen to that post, click the hyperlink in this discussion’s transcript to be taken there.

 

But the point is that being made in Yah’s image has more to do with possessing Yah’s character traits (e.g., a will that acts; the ability to reason and think and create; the capacity to love; etc.) than the physical form of the human body.

 

Look, I am by no means advocating or promoting cremation for the people of Yah. As I just said, I don’t care at all for cremation. However, what I am saying is that burdening Yah’s people with guilt and stress during their hour of grief is unloving and uncaring. Not everyone can afford to bury their loved ones. I remember growing up in the black community in Baltimore in the 1960’s. The vast majority of folks in that community were poor or had very little in terms of finances. And I remember the tremendous stress and strain my family members endured when a family member passed away and they had to come up with funds to bury them. You see, cremation was not something that was done in that community in those days. But those family members had to put themselves in financial woes to bury their loved ones. Some had to go into debt of some type. Still others had to beg family members to either lend or give them the money for burial. I remember my mother having to scrape up large sums of money to bury each of my uncles and aunts because their respective family members did not have money to bury them.

 

Yes, the Hebrew Faith traditionally buries their dead. But what is a faithful family to do if their loved one dies, and they lack the funds to bury them? Cremation, as distasteful as it may seem to most, tends to be significantly more affordable, especially in this day and age than burial.

 

Furthermore, there is NO mitzvah that prohibits cremation, despite the historical and cultural example of burial being the traditional practices of our ancient cousins. But we must also bear in mind that burying a loved ones was not exclusive to the Hebrew community or the Hebrew Faith. We see very clearly laid out here before us that the Hittites, and no doubt the other surrounding cultures and people, buried their dead in caves. Burial was a custom and traditional practice of most ANE peoples, not just to the Hebrews.

 

 

To me, the take-aways or practical halachah to be had here in our Reading is (1) Avraham dearly loved Sarah and we see his love clearly displayed when she passed. It is a reminder that we husbands must love our wives to such an extent that she is as an indispensable part of our very being. And (2), that this world is not our home.

 

The writer of Hebrews brilliantly highlights this reality when he wrote:

 

“(14) For here (this world; this nation; this state; this city in which we dwell) we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come. (15) Through Him (Him being Yahoshua) then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to Yehovah, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His Name. (16) And do not neglect doing good and sharing, for with such sacrifices Yah is pleased. (17) Obey your leaders and submit to them (our leaders being those Yah has placed over us as an assembly of Messianic believers in Messiah), for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you” (13:14-17; NASB).

 

Master commanded us to:

 

“Seek first His (Yehovah’s) Kingdom, as well as His righteousness…” (Mat. 6:33).

 

In giving us this most important directive, Master was by default supporting the contention that this world is not our home. We, Yah’s elect, are tasked with promoting and looking forward to the Kingdom of Yah. The Kingdom of Yah is our true home, despite the fact that we must work the fields of this mundane world; live and walk in covenant with our Elohim; love Yah and one another until our Master returns for us.

 

Beloved, we are not called to be patriots or social justice workers in this world. We are not called to involve ourselves in many of the affairs of this world. We are to focus on the affairs of the Kingdom.

 

 

Although we are children of promise or children of covenant, like Avraham, who scripture suggests was the only individual on the planet in covenant with Yehovah at that time, we must recognize that until Yah fulfills the whole of the covenant and its related and attached promises, we must (1) realize that we are sojourners in this world as this world in its present state is not our home; and (2) we are from time-to-time forced to deal with the peoples of this world. And we must learn to deal with them in accordance with Kingdom principles; shrewdly and faithfully, such that the world sees Yah in us.