CH23.1

CH23.1.1

1. Sarah lived a hundred and twenty-seven years; these were the years of the life of Sarah.

CH23.1.2

2. And Sarah died at Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan; and Abraham went in to mourn for Sarah and to weep for her.

IN the first place, in order not to appear unacquainted with or not to have read the thoughts of the Jews, we shall review them briefly. The source of this information about the Jewish exegetical tradition is Lyra ad Gen. 23:1. ^†1 For they invent hidden meanings in this passage for the years of Sarah's age, because Moses does not simply state that Sarah lived 127 years, as we usually say, but adds the word “years” to each number: 100 years, 20 years, seven years. They maintain that this is done to indicate that Sarah was as beautiful in her hundredth year as she was in her twentieth, and that she was no less chaste and virtuous in her twentieth year than she had been in her seventh year.

Let us by all means grant them these figments, which were invented with a pious sentiment to bestow praise on the extraordinary virtue and the noble figure of an extraordinarily saintly matriarch who very much deserved such praise. We, too, are in the habit of doing this after the death of friends and relatives. We recount their commendable deeds and virtues, cover up their faults, and mention things that deserve praise. We do so in order to alleviate our grief and longing in this manner.

But it would be silly if one wanted to make from this a general rule or canon and apply it to all numbers of years. Thus when the years of the patriarchs are enumerated above, it would be altogether absurd if a similar comparison of the years of their life were undertaken in the case of each one.

I am surprised, however, that they did not rather consider why Moses uses the plural—“the lives of Sarah”—as though he intended

to say: “Sarah had lives.” A consideration of the years of the lives of Sarah would be more profitable.

For Moses is referring to the great and infinite variety of changes, misfortunes, and perils, as well as to the very widely different kinds of life that Sarah saw and bore. She was born in Babylon, and there she married. Soon after this she left with her husband and lived in Haran. Later on she dwelt in the land of Canaan. There Abraham was a sojourner. Finally he came to Egypt and Gerar. These most annoying changes and migrations the very saintly mother endured with great courage, and in regard to every outcome of all her misfortunes she was most patient.

And human life as a whole is actually such that because of the extraordinary change of all things one can call it “lives”; for we die as often as a new trial arises, and we become alive in turn when we are buoyed up and receive comfort.

Observe, I beg you, how great a variety and difference there is in the life of each person. Luther may have derived this information about “the ages of man” from Aristotle, History of Animals, Book VII, ch. 1, and from Horace, Ars poetica, lines 158 ff. ^†2 The first age is that of a seven-year-old boy. When this has come to an end, another period of seven years follows, just as philosophers and physicians, too, point out when they discuss the climacteric years during which striking changes take place. And Paul says about himself in 1 Cor. 13:11: Here the original has “2 Cor.” ^†3 “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways.” Such changes are part of the lives of the human race. For this reason that entire sequence of ages in each human being is justly called lives, because during any period of seven years we are changed into a different appearance, disposition, and understanding. In short, we die and become alive.

During the third period of seven years thoughts about marriage arise. When you have become a husband, the cares of the household or of the state follow. When you are elected to the senate, you are admitted to the deliberations and counsels of the rulers. There you must put on new manners and a new skin; for many inconveniences, burdens, and difficulties, as well as the hatred of neighbors and associates, will have to be borne. Often there will even be a lessening of prestige and esteem. This variety of new ways and of changes makes for a variety of lives.

This is what Moses wanted to indicate when he speaks of “the lives of Sarah.” It is as though he were saying: “Sarah, in conformity with differences in places and people, often adopted a different attitude and different ways. When she came to a place where she thought she would live pleasantly and quietly, she was compelled to move and to change her plans and feelings as she did so.” For this reason that saintly woman had many lives. More attention should have been given to these things, although it is easy for me to believe that in her hundredth year she was just as beautiful as she was in her twentieth.

Then one should much rather consider how Abraham delivered a beautiful funeral address about Sarah. For in the Holy Scriptures no other matron is so distinguished. Her years, lives, conduct, and burial place are described. In the eyes of God, therefore, Sarah was an extraordinary jewel on whom extraordinary love was bestowed, and she is mentioned deservedly by Peter as an exemplar for all saintly wives. He says (1 Peter 3:6) that she called Abraham lord and that “you are her daughters.” To all Christian matrons Peter holds her up as a mother.

Scripture has no comments even on the death of other matriarchs, just as it makes no mention of how many years Eve lived and of where she died. Of Rachel it is recorded that she died in childbirth (Gen. 35:16–19). All the other women it passes over and covers with silence, with the result that we have no knowledge of the death of Mary, the mother of Christ. Sarah alone has this glory, that the definite number of her years, the time of her death, and the place of her burial are described. Therefore this is great praise and very sure proof that she was precious in the eyes of God.

But these facts do not concern Sarah, who is already dead, as much as they concern us, who are still alive. For it is a very great comfort to hear that the departure and death of that most saintly matriarch and of all the fathers, in comparison with whom we are nothing, differs in no wise from our own death but was just as odious and ignominious as our own is. Their bodies were buried, consumed by worms, and hidden in the earth on account of their stench, not otherwise than if they had not been the corpses of saints; yet they were most saintly people, and, although departed, they are actually alive in Christ.

Accordingly, these things are written for our sakes, in order that we may know that the most saintly fathers and mothers underwent

the same experiences we are wont to undergo. Nevertheless, it is certain about them that in the eyes of God they live; and I believe that they—namely, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Adam, etc.—rose with Christ.

And this seems to have been the reason why Abraham went to so much trouble about the burial, lest his dead Sarah be buried in a foreign land. Later we shall hear the same thing about Isaac. Thus Jacob and Joseph wanted to be buried in the land of Canaan, not in Egypt.

This wish is proof that God implanted this sentiment in them, so that they desired and wanted to be buried in this land, which had been promised to them, with the sure hope that they would be raised with Christ. They wanted their burial place to be there, in order that they might repose not far from the Seed that would come; for Hebron is two or three miles distant from Jerusalem. Hence they undoubtedly rose with Christ for our comfort, lest we fear death when we see the horrible shape of our bodies after death.

Those who have no hope of the future resurrection (1 Thess. 4:13) are not at all concerned about the future life. Nor do they think about it. But these things were written for us in order that we may remember how from the beginning of the world all the saints died and were reduced to the same stench and ashes, as Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:43: Here the original has “1 Cor. 5.” ^†4 “It is sown in dishonor.” They underwent the same corruption and dishonor notwithstanding the fact that they were saintly in the flesh and in the spirit.

For thus it has pleased God to raise up from worms, from corruption, from the earth, which is totally putrid and full of stench, a body more beautiful than any flower, than balsam, than the sun itself and the stars.

I am mentioning these things in order that the examples of these saints may influence us; for those who are weak in faith are affected more and are drawn more pleasantly, as it were, to comfort by these less important examples than by the example of Christ. Because Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Sarah die in this way, the godly heart, though still weak, thinks: “Why should I object to or shudder at the lot common to all the saints?”

For it is not so much their own weakness that catches the eyes of the weak as that horrible appearance of dead bodies. Therefore

they think: “If I had such a body as Christ had, which death could not corrupt or worms consume, I would await the Last Day with greater courage.” When the death of Christ is set before them as an example, it somehow does not seem to be a death, because He rose again on the third day. Hence the weak are affected and strengthened more when they see that the corruption of the bodies of the patriarchs is like our own corruption.

But those who are stronger in their faith simply despise death and proudly scoff at and make sport of it. They say: “What is death? What is hell? Christ, God's Son, died and was put under the Law. He overcame death by dying, and He restored life to us.”

If we were so strong and could believe without any doubt that Christ died for our sins and rose again for our justification and life (Rom. 4:25), no terror or fear would cling to us; for the death of Christ is a sort of sacrament which assures us that our death is nothing. But the weak are affected more by examples than by a sacrament, for because of the greatness of the Person of Christ it does not penetrate hearts so easily and persuade them to despise death.

Therefore we cling to examples that are analogous, just as I myself sometimes take more pleasure in the example of Sarah than in that of Christ. The reason is the weakness of my faith. Sarah's death has greater appeal and more comfort for me, since I know that she was a most saintly woman. Nevertheless, I hear that she dies, is buried, and is forgotten in such a shameful manner, as though she had been snatched from the sight not only of men but also of God and the angels. If this happened to her, I shall not be disturbed, even though the same thing happens to me.

But those who have greater strength of heart and faith cherish this sacrament; and because they believe that the Son of God died for them, they scoff at death and regard Satan and hell as a jest, in accordance with 1 Cor. 15:55: “O death, where is thy sting?” and Col. 2:15: “He disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in Himself.” Here Paul is speaking very mockingly and disdainfully about death.

The reason is that for Paul Christ is not only an example but also a sacrament, which is richer and far more sublime than an example. For the sacrament supplies in manifold ways and without limit whatever is lacking in the example. Sarah did not die for me; nor can she bestow life on me. But it is the majesty and importance

of the sacrament that it has life-giving power which will restore life to me in the resurrection of the dead.

The example of Sarah is the rhetoric, as it were, which draws, arouses, and persuades us to despise death; but the sacrament brings about and works in my body what was brought about in Abraham and many saints who were raised from the dead.

Therefore examples should not be scorned, since the rhetoric they employ is pleasant; but because the example of Christ is at the same time a sacrament, it is efficacious in us and not only teaches us, as do the examples of the fathers, but accomplishes what it teaches. It gives life, the resurrection, and deliverance from death.

The examples of the saints teach that one has to die, and they persuade us to bear death with composure. Over and above this, however, Christ's example says: “Arise. Be alive in death. Your putridity will become more radiant and more brilliant than the sun.” For Christ's example is a sacrament which bears witness and makes us certain; it not only teaches or persuades but proves and demonstrates necessarily that Christ's death imparts life to us.

Therefore those who are weak and have fearful consciences are doing what is right when they set before themselves the examples of the saints, with which to sustain and gradually stir up their faith more and more. But then they should also remember this, that what is lacking in the example of Christ so far as physical disgrace is concerned (for He was not disgracefully putrefied and consumed) was amply made up for and fulfilled on the cross and in the garden. If anyone had seen that horrible distress and torment of spirit and soul which He experienced in the garden, he would have said: “O how glorious the death of Abraham and Sarah was in comparison with that cross of Christ!” Accordingly, that which was lacking in the body was fulfilled in the spirit.

The arguments about the name of the place vary; for at Abraham's time it was called Kiriath-arba, not Hebron. Above (18:1) it is called the Valley of Mamre. The grammarians are at odds as to why this is done, and the question is still undecided. A quotation from Horace, Ars poetica, line 78. ^†5 Our translator has in civitate Arbeae. Therefore Arbea is a proper noun. Thus in German we call some cities Halberstadt, Carlstadt, etc.

If one considers the etymology, Kiriath-arba is the same as City of Four or Tetrapolis. Jerome adopts this etymology and says that

this name was given to the place because four patriarchs—Adam, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—and their wives were buried there. Jerome, Hebraicae quaestiones in Libro Geneseos, Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, LXXII, 28. ^†6 Concerning Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob there is certainly no doubt; but no one will find it easy to prove that Adam and Eve were buried in Kiriath-arba.

From Joshua (14:15; 20:7) one can gather that Hebron was formerly called Kiriath-arba and that the name was given to the city by a certain prince named Arba, who was powerful among the Anakim, that is, among those giants. He was a prominent man either because of his virtue and wisdom or because of his notorious vices, or he was powerful and famous for some other reason.

Thus among us Carlstadt gets its name from Carl, who was a great man among the kings. Halberstadt is named for a certain Albert, who was very prominent among the nobles. The name Carlstadt is connected with Charlemagne; Halberstadt was founded in 814 and became an episcopal see in 820. ^†7 But Arba got his name from a numeral, just as the Latins say Quintius, Octavius, Nonius.

Hence I do not approve of Jerome's opinion when he says that Adam was buried in that place, because such a destruction and confusion of the entire world came about as the result of the Flood that no traces of earlier tombs have remained. Thus the entire world became incomparably worse than that earlier one, both with respect to fruits and with respect to people. Paradise was laid waste and destroyed, and no one knows where Adam or Eve or other fathers were buried. For this reason neither their tombs nor any traces of them have come to light.

People also invent another tale; they say that Adam was buried on Mt. Calvary, where Christ was crucified later on. This idea goes back to the early church; cf. . ^†8 By this they want to point out that Christ died at the tomb of Adam or where the tree of knowledge stood. These are pious fictions, but to me it seems likely that Paradise was located in the neighborhood of Jerusalem.

But it is astonishing and noteworthy on account of the various migrations, of which we have made mention so many times, that Moses states that Sarah died in Hebron, although shortly before this he related that Abraham, Sarah, and Isaac dwelt at Gerar and were safe because of the favor and protection of King Abimelech.

Sarah was 90 years old when Isaac was born. But at this time Isaac is 37 years old. As these years went by, he must have increased in strength of mind and body. He was 20 when he was to be sacrificed. From that time up to the death of his mother Sarah 17 years passed. Meanwhile Abimelech died, and another king, who, as happens, was different from his predecessor, succeeded him. But with the change of kings the attitude of the people also changed, and at court as well as among the people the hatred and envy of Abraham, whom they had seen constantly increasing and acquiring great wealth, broke out afresh. Therefore since he was plagued by unjust hatred and insults and was expelled, he moved away and returned to his old encampment at Hebron. Otherwise he would have had no reason for going away.

But perhaps Abraham is not at home when death comes to Sarah. Perhaps he is busy with the affairs of his household, with selling the lands and possessions he had held at Gerar, or with similar things. God does not reveal this to him; nor does He keep him at home. But He lets him go away. When Sarah was confined to her bed, however, she no doubt sent a messenger to call her husband back. But death overtakes her before he returns. Therefore when he returns to Hebron, he finds his wife dead at home.

These events are recorded for our sakes, lest if at some time the same things should happen to us too, we imagine that we are experiencing something unusual or new in comparison with what happened to those who were very saintly and very dear to God. For the loss of one's very dear wife—and in one's absence at that—is a happening full of distress and grief. It will be remembered that these lectures were delivered at a time when the plague was raging in Wittenberg; see p. 91, note . ^†9

But, as Moses says, Abraham came to mourn for Sarah. He cannot call her back to life, and in the account that follows he no longer calls her his wife; he calls her his “dead one.” This is altogether pathetic. He undoubtedly kept before his eyes and in his heart her virtue, her piety, the habit of her entire life, her calm and pleasing ways, her gentle nature, and her respect and love for her husband. As has so often been stated, all these qualities were outstanding in her.

But what about the statement of Moses that Abraham came to mourn and weep? Did a man so great weep, sorrow, put on mourning clothes, and walk about with a sad and downcast expression? Where is that triumphant victor over so many exiles and wanderings

through Syria, Egypt, and the entire land of Canaan? Where is the man who overcame four kings and set Lot free, offered his dearly beloved son (nothing like this is found in any other historical account), was willing to slay his son “who was the hope of future generations and of the promise—and in this manner conquered and killed his loftiest natural affection?

Why, then, does Abraham weep? Why does he not show himself a man in this instance? He conducts himself exactly as if he lacked such a lofty spirit and such heroic impulses and had never been disciplined by any perils or adversities.

My answer is: By this example Holy Scripture shows that mourning or weeping over dead parents, a wife, or friends does not displease God. Indeed, it is wrong not to weep. The world, which is totally leprous, calls the lack of natural affection—which means not being influenced by affection or love for one's wife, children, or relatives—courage; Cf. Luther's discussion of pagan attitudes toward death in his Commentary on Psalm 90, Luther's Works, 13, 76–83. ^†10 but this is utter madness and is not a virtue.

But the saintly fathers were very softhearted people, and by nature they were purer. For this reason their natural affections surpassed those of others, who were without sensibility. For the saintlier one is and the more intimately one knows God, the more one understands the creatures and is attached to them.

Moreover, it belongs to mourning that you grieve and are sad from the heart, to the extent that a sad face, tears, sighs, and lamenting reveal your grief. It is for this reason that Moses writes clearly and commends Abraham's mourning and lamenting. Observe also how Jacob weeps on account of Joseph (Gen. 37:34–35). Accordingly, the saintly fathers were affected by the misfortunes and disasters of human nature. They wept with those who wept (Rom. 12:15). They were not logs and blocks of wood. No, they had most tender emotions and affections. For they had a knowledge of God. He who knows God also knows, understands, and loves the creature, because there are traces of divinity in the creature. This discussion of vestigia has its origin in the speculation about vestigia Trinitatis in Augustine, On the Trinity, for example, Book X, ch. 10:13, on “use” in relation to the Holy Spirit. ^†11

When in the beginning God created heaven and earth, the first trace of the Father was the substance of things. Later the form was added. In the third place, there was the goodness. But the godly

alone observe this difference in the creatures. The ungodly have no knowledge of it; for they know neither God nor the creatures, far less their use.

Moreover, the use of a thing concerns the Holy Spirit. He who sees the use of a thing sees the Holy Spirit, he who discerns the form or beauty of a thing sees the Son, and he who considers the substance and continuing existence of things sees the Father. These three—substance, form, and goodness—cannot be separated.

But in money a greedy person sees only substance, form, and weight; he is not aware that it is a trace of the Son. Nor does he consider the use of the thing, that is, what purpose it should serve—chiefly, of course, the glory of God, then the benefit of one's neighbor. The ungodly do not discern the goodness of things, even though they look to some extent at the substance and the form. Thus the man who lacks affection does not see the use of wife or children.

Abraham, however, understood for what use Sarah was given to him—not for lust but as a help for managing the domestics and for begetting and bringing up children. Because the ungodly do not understand this, they are not affected by it; they are nothing but stones. Such insensibility and lack of affection is indeed an indication of their leprous nature.

Accordingly, these things are recorded in praise of Abraham and to have us learn that it is commendable to weep for one's friends, just as above (19:27) he wept for the Sodomites, although in vain. Because we are human beings, we should feel the affection created by the Creator and put into our hearts, lest we be like the beasts.

Therefore we should take careful note of this description of the patriarchs whom Holy Scripture has thus set before our eyes, namely, that they are like us, are moved by human feelings, and speak like human beings; for human speech, feelings, heart, and soul are creatures of God, although they have been tainted by original sin.

The Holy Spirit praises the natural feelings. In fact, He does so in the case of the greatest men—men noted for their virtue, piety, and deeds. They were not logs, blocks of wood, or dullards who are not affected by anything, whether joyful or sad. It is the mark of the godly to be affected by the misfortunes, the joys, and the lot of pious people and to grieve even when their adversaries are in danger. And the Holy Spirit directs these sentiments in the godly.

Accordingly, just as anyone else grieves over the loss of his wife, so the saints, too, mourned the death of their people; and their

mourning is honorable and godly. Others, who do not mourn, boast of a certain manliness and firmness of character; but they are devoid of affection and are without knowledge of and indifferent toward things, that is, toward the creatures of God.

Abraham mourns because he has lost his wife Sarah, a godly and noble matron who managed the domestics and the entire rather large and extensive household. He lost the light of his home—the light that served as an example for the domestics in every kind of virtue. Sarah was a queen of queens and a mother of housemothers. This is what Abraham's example that is before us teaches concerning human emotions and mourning for the departed.

CH23.1.3

3. And Abraham rose up from before his dead, and said to the Hittites:

CH23.1.4

4. I am a stranger and a sojourner among you; give me property among you for a burying place, that I may bury my dead out of my sight.

The departed should be mourned, but in such a way that there is measure in things. Cf. Horace, Satires, I, 1, 106. ^†12 “Weep for your dead,” says Sirach (Ecclus. 22:10–11). “But weep with moderation,” that is, set a limit to your grief, “because he has found rest.” If you lose a brother, father, wife, or relative, there is a reason for your grieving and for your not being a log and a block of wood who would laugh when those who are very dear are being buried; for this it is not a time for laughing, and such an iron and stony attitude displeases God. Nevertheless, your weeping must be kept within bounds, lest you be consumed by excessive grief.

This being torn away from very dear parents, wife, or children is indeed painful; for they now lack the light, says Sirach (cf. Ecclus. 22:11), that is, they no longer enjoy this life and our association. But to this mourning there must be opposed what follows: “He has attained rest.” The extinction of light is the reason for mourning, but rest is the reason for comfort. “Therefore let him rest in peace,” should be your thought, “for I know that it is well with him. He is not in sorrow or distress; he is at rest. There he is sleeping and is waiting for a better life, just like us who are still living.” Thus it is our comfort that wife, son, and parents are sleeping and are not affected by hardships and afflictions but are resting gently in peace.

But when those awful and tragic calamities occur—as when David loses his son Absalom, who dies in mortal sin and is condemned—this is the bitterest sorrow and grief of all. Yet what else should one

do than leave the matter to God? But where the passing is peaceful and quiet, those who die sleep in peace. And this is what Moses has in mind when he says: “Abraham rose up.” He felt grief and sorrow as a result of his dearly beloved wife's death, but he overcame that very natural feeling and proceeded to think about the burial.

But this, too, is strange, that while all three—Sarah, Abraham himself, and their son—were still living, Abraham was never concerned about owning and acquiring property. Now that Sarah is dead, he is concerned about this. Concern about a place to sleep seems unnecessary when you are unable to get possession of it. Yet when Moses relates that Abraham bought a place for Sarah after she was dead, not while she was living, he does so with special application and uses more words than he is accustomed to employ.

Up to this time Abraham was an alien and was unable to change this rather difficult mode of life, but after the death of his wife he thinks about a burial place of his own. In the past, while he was in Canaan for 70 years more or less, several of his domestics, manservants or maidservants, undoubtedly died; but he was concerned about no one else as much as he was concerned about Sarah. Some he buried in Gerar, others in Egypt. Here he is seeking an undisputed place for her burial—a place that belongs to him.

To the Hebrews the word גֵּר denotes a stranger. In Ps. 39:12 we read: “I am a stranger with Thee, and a sojourner, like all my fathers.” Thus Paul says in Eph. 2:19: “You are no longer strangers and sojourners.” The word denotes an outsider and one who comes from a foreign place. Thus Abraham was a sojourner because he was not born in Canaan but had his origin in Chaldea.

A תּוֹשָׁב is a sojourner who is not a proprietor but is a stranger in the land in which he is living. He has nothing of his own. Christians are sojourners and guests in this world. Their native country and possession is in another place, because according to their physical birth they come into the world from nothing. Therefore they are sojourners and do not remain in the world but leave the world behind. Thus we are also גֵּרִים. We have been reborn by the Holy Spirit through Baptism and the Word, and we live on earth as strangers and sojourners.

Accordingly, Abraham is saying: “I come from a foreign land, and here I have nothing of my own. I am a sojourner in a twofold sense, and for this reason I have no place where I may bury my

dead.” In Ps. 39 David carefully ponders these words, and the matter deserves close attention. For so great a man with so numerous a household, namely, more than 400 men besides the women and children, wandered about and roamed for so long a time. If one computes it correctly, he had about 1,000 people; for where there are 400 men, they have with them the same number of women and children.

Therefore the management carried on by this patriarch was extraordinary. If you consider our times, it would be altogether impossible today. For it is a wonder of wonders that God supported him together with so large a household in a foreign land, and that Sarah had charge of all this. Accordingly, Abraham's administration or management of his household is no less remarkable than his church was. He is a stranger and sojourner together with all his household. But he undoubtedly encouraged and sustained himself with the promise.

Moreover, from this passage concerning the possession of the burial place a great sea of questions and opinions arises among teachers and for the Master of the Sentences. Peter Lombard, Sententiae, Book IV, Dist. 25, Patrologia, Series Latina, CXCII, 907. ^†13 For in scholastic theology the material for debating about simony was drawn from this passage, but they treat it in such an obscure and confused manner that it does not deserve to be brought to light and remembered. Two hundred years ago simony was a terrible crime; but as Julius boasts in a dialog written by Erasmus, the popes have barely retained the shadow of the word. Luther is referring to an anonymous attack on Pope Julius II, published about 1514 under the title Julius exclusus; it was widely believed that Erasmus had written it, and most scholars still incline to this opinion. ^†14

Simony is the purchase or sale of something spiritual for money or when someone accepts money and gives a gift or something spiritual. Thus when Simon Magus (Acts 8:17ff.) saw that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money, saying: “Give me also this power, that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” He wanted the Holy Spirit, purchased with money, to be in his power and to do what pleased him. Then Peter sternly rebuked him. “Your money perish with you,” he said, “because you thought that the gift of God is acquired with money.”

From that Simon the crime is called simony. It occurs when, in accordance with Simon's example, someone thinks that the gifts of God are to be bought with or sold for money. Christ does not sell His gifts and grace, but He has redeemed us without charge.

This is the true definition. Later on the canonists distorted it in an astonishing manner; for that part of the definition, “the gift of God for money,” they apply to everything men give to God. Thus they now call the revenues of the church “spiritual goods” This practice is reflected in the use of the German adjective geistlich for the clergy: ein Geistlicher is a clergyman. ^†15 because they are gifts of God, not gifts that God has given but gifts that men have offered to God. Is this not monstrous blindness and stupidity?

Moreover, they drag in a text from Moses (Lev. 27:9): “All of such that any man gives to the Lord is holy.” They maintain that such things—benefices, jewels, and other things originally contributed for the support of the ministers—are gifts offered to the church. But if one asks whether it is permitted to sell or buy them, their answer is: “By no means, because they are spiritual goods.”

But Peter understands gifts given by God in a passive and not in an active sense. Hence it is a fallacy of division and composition, as the dialectician says, when they confuse and jumble them. See p. 168, note , for a similar reference. ^†16 But how could they be teaching skillfully about this matter, since they are unconcerned about the gifts of the Holy Spirit and are submerged in simony and in gifts given to God, that is, things that are commonly called spiritual goods?

I have often deplored the misuse of these terms, “spiritual goods” and “spiritual persons,” as they call their priests. I would gladly have retained them in their true and proper use, but they became lost to us because of their misuse; and now revenues, taxes, houses, towns, and lands—things that pertain most of all to the state—are called spiritual gifts by the papists. But a spiritual man is he who believes and has been baptized, whether he is a layman or is in an ecclesiastical office; it does not denote a priest who has been anointed, shaved, and ordained for sacrifices for the benefit of the dead.

I am telling you this in order that you may know that in canon law there is utterly perverse misuse and terrible blindness in discussions about simony. The purchase or sale, not of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the active sense but of the gifts of men who have

given them to God or to the church, such as prebends, cities, and the like, is called simony by the canonists—for example, if someone sells a spiritual benefice, as they call it, a parish, or a benefice of an altar and a Mass; likewise if a bishop were to accept money and ordain a priest. Later they debate whether a simonist who has been ordained by a simonist is actually ordained or not. About these questions there are in existence wagonloads of books, yes, even oceans of them. The appropriate sections in the Corpus iuris canonici are Decretum Gratiani, Part IIa, causa I; Decretum Gregorii, Book V, title 3. ^†17

But if this definition of theirs remains true, then all the papistic bishops and canons are simonists pure and simple, and all are condemned to hell and the devil. They condemn themselves by their own canon law, not by evangelical law. The Bishop of Mainz paid the pope 20,000 guldens for the pallium; the Bishop of Wurzburg, 10,000. When Albert was appointed Archbishop of Mainz in 1517, he paid this fee but made arrangements with Rome and with the bankers of the House of Fugger that helped to precipitate the conflict over indulgences. ^†18 Canons paid 100 guldens. Are not all these men simonists? Accordingly, the entire papacy has been plunged and condemned into hell, because they are all simonists, not by our law but by their own.

About this the canonists have nothing to say; nor do they tolerate our censure. But if the ministers and pastors of our churches marry, they condemn and kill them. What else is this than the height of iniquity?

If a bishop had branded someone with this crime 400 years ago, everybody would have avoided associating with that person. Indeed, he would have been excommunicated. But now everything is venal. Meanwhile they order us to observe canons and decrees from which they themselves are completely free. They bark at us that the decrees of the popes are being disregarded and that ecclesiastical rank is held in contempt and broken down. But why do they themselves not observe these things? Among them nobody sins but the Son of God; nobody is just but the devil.

But would that the pope had the wisdom to recognize this boon, that our doctrine frees him from his books and decrees, and absolves him from the crime of simony, because he seizes only temporal things, namely, gold and silver, which are not spiritual, as Baptism, the Gospel, and the ministry of the Word are! He seeks or seizes none of these, which are the true gifts of the Holy Spirit. To be sure,

gold and silver are gifts of God; but they pertain to the state and to the household and are physical.

In conformity with the true definition, therefore, we absolve the pope from this crime in which he implicated himself by his own law. We do so because he does not sell things that are properly called spiritual, for he does not have them. No, he sells certain offices and seizes for himself the wealth of the world. He does not sell the ministry. Indeed, he is not concerned about the ministry of God and the church. For this reason the charge of simony should not be lodged against him; but he should be charged with the crime of Verres and Dionysius, Verres, who died in 43 B.C., was a governor of Sicily, notorious for his bribery, whom Cicero prosecuted in 70 B.C.; Dionysius the Elder, who died in 367 B.C., was a tyrant of Syracuse, famed for his ruthlessness in war. ^†19 and he should be called robber of all robbers, thief of thieves, and brigand of brigands. For he is a man with a rapacious and insatiable gullet and a desire to devour and swallow material goods.

But simony, as Peter defines it, is the offense committed in the church when we accept money for the gifts of the Holy Spirit but not for material gifts. The canonists, who are out-and-out asses, confuse these two things. For there is no room for simony in the case of possessions of the household or of the state; it is committed only when the gifts of the Holy Spirit are involved.

But if the objection is made that those material goods have a connection with spiritual goods, the reply is: “This is certainly right; the household and the government have a connection with the church, because this present life cannot be sustained without food and drink. But that does not make all the things believers use spiritual, does it?”

It is simony when I sell for a price something spiritual that should be given gratis. But a church, a grave, and all other gifts given to the saints are not spiritual; they are simply material. They can be seized, divided, and sold. But we cannot steal, sell, or buy spiritual gifts; for they belong to the Holy Spirit, not to us.

But if a minister or pastor of a church were unwilling to give you instruction concerning the remission of sins and the blessings of the Gospel or refused you absolution unless you bought it from him for a hundred guldens, that would be simoniacal.

And in this sense the pope is a simonist, for he offers grace and remission of sins to all if they pay him a fixed sum of money. That is selling something spiritual and the grace of the Holy Spirit, although

these things cannot be sold even if you pay 1,000 or more guldens for one absolution. For in the first place, the pope does not have them, and in the second place, it is impossible to sell spiritual things. It is possible, however, to deceive those who are ignorant and to pretend that there is a sale.

But the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the blood of Christ are not for sale; nor is their sale possible except by deceit and some pretense in accordance with the choice and will of men. When the pope promises that he who brings five groschen will redeem a soul from purgatory, Technically the sale of indulgences was simony, although it was permissible to give or receive an offering in connection with an indulgence; as Luther had discovered in 1517, there were many people in the church who found this distinction too subtle. ^†20 then there is real simony; but it is based on falsehood, because no freeing of a soul follows, even though the price, the purchase, and the sale are there.

In this way the pope has concocted the fiction that he has the power to remit sins. He has usurped the Keys, sold remission of sins, and promised deliverance from hell and purgatory. But he merely carried off the money, while the wretched souls were left under the power of sin, hell, and the devil.

This is simony in the strict sense, namely, selling the gift of the Holy Spirit. But this gift is bestowed without charge. One can obtain it in no other way. To be sure, it can be put up for sale; but God is not purchased. Possession does not result from a simoniacal transaction. Therefore simony is factually impossible. As a matter of pretense, however, it is exceedingly common. For the name of the Lord is prostituted and sold. But simony itself is nothing but an empty sham.

Therefore the pope is a simonist in spiritual matters. He sells remission of sins and righteousness. In temporal matters he violates things that are sacred and is a robber who would sell Christ Himself if he had Him in his hands as the Jews had Him. The inclination to do so is certainly not wanting.

There was simony like this in the convents, both on the part of the seller and on the part of the buyer; anyone who paid a hundred guldens could have anniversaries celebrated. A reference to the anniversary Masses said in commemoration of the death of the faithful. ^†21 Therefore the entire

papacy is the church of Satan; it is full of robbery, sacrilege, and unspeakable abominations and blasphemies.

Here the question arises whether a minister of the Word may demand or receive support for his office. This problem occupied Luther frequently in the reconstruction of the churches of the Reformation; see, for example, Luther's Works, 9, pp. 138–140. ^†22 My answer is: “He may by all means, just as a poor person can accept some gift.” If I had such power that nobody could be absolved from sins unless he had paid me several guldens, I would rake together all the wealth of the world in a single day. But this is not permitted; and the pope, with satanic daring, has invented this way of making money. We are commanded to teach, comfort, and absolve all who accept it and believe; and they all receive this without pay, in accordance with the statement (Matt. 10:8): “You received without pay, give without pay.”

But just as Christians enjoy the ministry of the Word without pay, so they, in turn, must without pay support and defend their ministers and provide them with food and clothing in conformity with a sense of duty. In Gal. 6:6 we read: “Let him who is taught the Word share all good things with him who teaches.” 1 Tim. 5:17 states: “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.” And Christ Himself says (Matt. 10:10): “The laborer deserves his food.” In Is. 49:22 the Lord says that princes and kings will give gifts to the church. But these gifts are not prices, purchases, or sales. We must have our daily sustenance, food and drink; but absolution is not paid for with these. For who would be able to pay it? What are 100 or 1,000 guldens in comparison with the incalculable gift of the forgiveness of sins?

Therefore when we receive sustenance from the church, it is not a price equivalent to this gift, which is worth so much that the wealth of the whole world cannot pay for it. But because this stupendous and incalculable gift cannot be administered except by men who need food and clothing, it is necessary to nourish and support them. This, however, is not payment for the gift; it is payment for the service and the work.

Among the canonists there is another question: “If a minister of the church has saved 200 guldens from his work, may he purchase a farm or an estate with that money?” Cf. Peter Lombard, Sententiae, Book IV, Dist. 25, 5–8, Patrologia, Series Latina, CXCII, 907–908. ^†23 They say no, because it is

an ecclesiastical benefit. But I maintain that he may, because it is not a spiritual thing, even though the person administers spiritual things.

Hence the canonists err most disgracefully and do not know what simony is. They confuse spiritual and material goods, and according to their own law and their own conscience they are outstanding simonists. They rob and devour the property of pastors and churches, are worse than Verres and Dionysius, and distribute things that are truly spiritual for money, as though these things were spoils. Nevertheless, they take upon themselves the rule of the whole world and judgment concerning our doctrine and the Word of God; they order us to obey the pope, although they neither understand nor concern themselves about their own statutes and decrees.

Lyra touches on this discussion briefly and wants to slip away without further ado by stating that what Abraham bought was the location of the grave, not the grave. Lyra ad Gen. 23:4. ^†24 But this is a sophistical way of speaking, as even they themselves must acknowledge. Of course, Abraham did not buy a grave, because there was no grave at that place; but he was at liberty to provide one where he wanted it to be.

Besides, this example teaches that the dead should be buried with special honor and respect because of the faith in and the hope of the future resurrection. Before the times of the martyrs people had graves in every field, garden, and house. Later on, however, there was greater respect. Then special places and cemeteries were designated for burial, just as among the heathen, too, there were dignified funeral ceremonies. Therefore there is all the more reason for some reverence among Christians, on account of the article of faith concerning the resurrection of the flesh, lest we seem to be deprived of life and buried like horses and mules.

What follows has largely to do with customs except that one passage: “Give me the possession or ownership.” For what our translator renders with “the right of burial,” Luther's Latin text (cf. p. 197) does not contain these words. ^†25 is not in the Hebrew text. It is as though Abraham were saying: “I would not ask for even a footbreadth in this land during my life, but I am only seeking a place where I may dig a grave and set up a monument for my Sarah, who has died.”

The entire land was promised to Abraham and belonged to him

by every right as a gift of his own. Yet he does not have possession of a footbreadth but is an exile, and together with Sarah he dies as a sojourner in his own land.

These things the prophets and the apostles observed with spiritual eyes, and somewhat more profoundly than others; for because Abraham, who is the lord of this land by divine authority, is an exile in it with Sarah and his son Isaac, it is signified in the spirit that we are strangers on earth and are living as if we were in exile.

For St. Paul says 2 Cor. 5:6: “As long as we sojourn in the body.” But if we are exiles in the body, which is ours in a very special sense, and our life in the body is nothing else than a sojourn, how much more are the things which we possess on account of the body, namely, fields, home, and money, nothing else than exiles and sojourns! The body is a gloomy prison, as it were, in which the soul is kept confined as in a prison and dungeon. The idea of the body as a prison is found in Plato, Cratylus, 400c, Gorgias, 493a, and other places; Luther may have known it through Augustine, Against the Academics, I, 3.9. ^†26 Therefore half of us is nothing, as it were, and a stinking cadaver in a grave.

Accordingly, it is sufficiently evident that the patriarchs extracted and examined the very kernel in the promises and did not concern themselves with the shell alone. Thus Abraham understood that the promise given to him included the true fatherland and the true life, namely, the future life and a life better than this one—a life which is not a servitude and captivity of the soul.

When David calls himself a sojourner (Ps. 39:12), one could wonder why he is saying this, since he was a most powerful king of Israel and was in possession of the Promised Land. But he regards these things as trivial and has in sight another and far better habitation, which is a matter of no concern to those who are busily engaged in robbery and usury in this life, as if there would be no future life.

But how empty and transitory it is to glory and take pride in the goods and riches of this world, since no human being can be sure of his life for a single moment! Thus we all feel, see, and realize that we carry about with us a body that is half like a corpse and dead. Nevertheless, very many have the conviction that this life is the best and will last forever. Their shameless eagerness and insatiable desire to grab by fair means or by foul An allusion to the Latin proverbial saying per fas et nefas. ^†27 makes it clear that this

is what they think. Why do they do this? Doubtless because they are in the devil's exile, are going astray, and are entangled in the cares and anxieties of this life.

Therefore the faith and patience of Abraham is praised. He is looking for another possession—an eternal possession beyond this Promised Land. He wants Sarah to be buried in this land in order that she may be raised with Christ when He rises from the dead. Meanwhile he himself sojourns in his own land as in a foreign country. God does not grant him a footbreadth, not even a grave; but he buys a place from the inhabitants for a price. Therefore he was not afflicted with that shameful greed to accumulate riches as though he had to remain in this life forever. But with his whole heart he was intent on the promised Christ. Him he beheld in the promise, and he waited joyfully for His coming to this earth. Next there are things that have to do with proper conduct. But they are altogether honorable and profitable.

CH23.1.5

5. The Hittites answered Abraham:

CH23.1.6

6. Hear us, my lord; you are a mighty prince among us. Bury your dead in the choicest of our sepulchers; none of us will withhold from you his sepulcher or hinder you from burying your dead.

In his description of this agreement Moses is very wordy. But the Holy Spirit is doing this first of all in honor of that most noble matron Sarah, who is the mother of all the patriarchs, prophets, and most distinguished leaders and kings. In no other historical accounts does one find men like these. For this reason no other funeral is described so magnificently in the Holy Scriptures as Sarah's. Doubtless Christ wanted His ancestress to be buried with honor, as her good qualities deserved. For she ruled the domestics with discipline and piety. She was a far more excellent abbess than ours are in external and domestic matters. The abbesses of the nuns should not only not be compared with her; they should be relegated to complete obscurity. For what are they in comparison with Sarah, the mother of most illustrious princes and kings, who managed her household in such a commendable manner during her lifetime? But what else are the works of the abbesses than horrible idolatry, no matter what they do?

But because this entire passage has to do with proper conduct, one should note first the example of courtesy and respect among this

people. Remarkable politeness beams in their speech, manners, and actions. Surely it would be hard to find such politeness in our age either among the old or the young. For this is how they address Abraham: “My lord, you are a prince of God.” This is extraordinary respect, and the very men who are lords of the land and possess it by divine right show this respect to Abraham.

In the second place, one should consider the extraordinary modesty in Abraham's request. I think that Ephron, about whom more will be said later on, was a prince in Hebron. Abraham does not approach him immediately but first addresses those who are beneath him. He ingratiates himself with the greatest humility.

The Holy Spirit did not want to pass over these facts; it was His purpose to point out that He demands these qualities and esteems them highly. For this reason He presents the examples of great men, in order that we may learn that mutual respect among men is necessary and pleasing to God, so that we may yield to one another and, as Paul teaches in Rom. 12:10: “Outdo one another in showing honor,” and in Phil. 2:3: “In humility count others better than yourselves.”

Thus this detailed description is by no means useless. For we were not born as swine, mules, blocks of wood, or logs but with faces turned upward toward the stars; An allusion to Ovid, Metamorphoses, Book I, lines 84 ff. ^†28 and God has put into the human being a rational soul, which understands what the difference is between things that are honorable and things that are shameful, so that it recognizes the good in others and shows them honor. Therefore that boorish and brutish life which is manifest in the rude and barbarian manners of our people is not becoming to Christians.

And our country in particular has produced men without any culture, discipline, and courtesy. Consequently, you could say that the peasants, burghers, and nobles of these regions are more like swine than like men; such strangers they are to every kind of good breeding. Therefore I am often wont to wonder why God revealed the light of the Gospel to such uncouth and rude people first.

The poets relate that Ulysses once lost his companions and that they were all changed into swine. The companions of Ulysses were changed into swine by Circe, Odyssey, Book X, lines 210 ff. ^†29 The same transformation seems to have happened to our people. Yet there is less danger among those who are uncultivated. But if this evil spreads to the teachers of the

church who, on account of their particular gifts, claim everything for themselves and, because of some silly and boorish arrogance, despise everybody else, for whom they should have friendliness and love—this is a great plague for the churches.

Therefore learn from this example to control your manners in such a way that you accustom yourself to courtesy, modesty, and respect toward all. It is for this reason that Moses so earnestly and with so many words sets before our eyes the example of Abraham, who requests with the utmost modesty and humility that a part of the land be sold to him and does not insist with any impudence or rudeness. Even though he seems to be doing this out of necessity, since he is a sojourner, nevertheless, since so many good qualities and gifts had been showered upon him, he had reason to be proud. But he forgets all these things and addresses the people of Hebron respectfully and courteously.

They, in turn, greet him as a lord, even though he is a sojourner, and in word and deed they show extraordinary courtesy and kindness. In their dealings with the sojourner and stranger they also forget their own right and sovereign power in the land.

These are truly good works. Even though they pertain to civil affairs, they should be contrasted with all the revolting activities of the monks, whose sole occupation is to accustom young men received into their order to a foolish and disgusting humility foreign to the conduct of honorable and saintly men. Young people should rather learn humility, courtesy, and respect from this account.

Nevertheless, the hypocrites, like the apostate Witzel, George Witzel (1501–73) had joined the cause of the Reformation in 1525 but had reverted to Roman Catholicism and taken a Roman Catholic parish in 1533; he wrote violently polemical treatises against Luther and his supporters. ^†30 who said that we stressed civil works too much in our teaching, reject these as ordinary; and if you should ask them what else should be done, they say that one should go into a church, bellow in a chorus, and mumble prayers. But this and similar examples clearly prove their hypocrisy, because the Holy Spirit does not disdain to relate and praise these civil works so painstakingly.

Moreover, it is evident that God endowed Abraham and his church with extraordinary influence and distinction among the heathen, just as above at the court of King Abimelech, who grants him the use of the land and esteems him highly, although he owned nothing of it and was compelled to leave after the king had died.

Thus the people of Hebron, a heathen nation, honor him and call him a prince of God; this shows that they heard Abraham's sermons and believed in the God of Abraham. For wherever the most saintly patriarch was, he produced very much fruit through the Word and Spirit by teaching, exhorting, and reproving; and through his preaching the heathen heard and saw the great deeds of God and therefore believed and were saved. Consequently, they properly respected him as a lord, just as Sarah addressed him as lord (Gen. 18:12), and they called him a prince of God.

It is great good fortune when princes have with them guests of this kind, recognize God and Christ in them, and treat them with respect, and when the guest and priest, in turn, does his duty by teaching in a godly and faithful manner. It is a very rare blessing for godly priests to have a safe and quiet place where they may teach. It is an extraordinary gift, which the devil, the most malevolent enemy of God and the salvation of man, often obstructs and disturbs.

But where there is such harmony that the princes of a land honor, protect, and support ministers for spreading abroad spiritual things, one may truly say that a paradise of the world is there.

But if ministers are despised, ridiculed, and treated with contempt, as happened to Isaiah and other prophets—Is. 57:4: “Against whom do you open your mouth wide and put out your tongue?”—although they were most excellent and most faithful teachers, it is the surest evidence of God's wrath and of impending disasters; for contempt of so great a blessing as is tendered to men by godly ministers has never gone unpunished.

On the other hand, the condition of ungodly and wicked priests is commonly better; for they have princes who are most obsequious and very ready to grant every favor, just as the pope made all the kings and princes of the world beholden to him and exceedingly lavish, not only with their properties and wealth but also with their bodies. But in return for such great favors he led them astray and gained them for the devil.

Today the ministry has been successfully cleansed of all error and idolatry. But how is it received and treated in the world? It is reviled, expelled, and trampled underfoot; and the ministers are killed.

Through His boundless favor God has granted us hospitality under Their Most Serene Highnesses the Princes of Saxony, Duke John

Frederick, the elector, and his brother Ernest. Cf. Luther's Works, 13, pp. x–xi. ^†31 But as great as are the benignity, the favor, and the goodwill of the princes, so great are the exceedingly savage hatred, the ill will, and the contempt among the nobles, officials, burghers, and peasants, who, if they could do what they desire, would long since have expelled us from these abodes.

Therefore the affection, respect, and courtesy of the Hebronites toward Abraham are amazing. They recognized that he was a guest who was making all the inhabitants and citizens of that place rich, not with wealth, with gold and silver, but with heavenly and spiritual gifts, since he pointed out the way of salvation and freed their souls from sin and hell through the Word, in short, that he abounded in every kind of blessing. Accordingly, they, in turn, have a high regard for him, love him, and gladly listen to him, just as above he encountered similar goodwill at the court of King Abimelech.

Furthermore, “prince of God” is the honorable and impressive title with which the Hebronites address Abraham, not because he ruled over them politically, but because he had a large number of domestics in his house, more than 1,000 men. On this account they call him a prince of God who rules the best and saintliest men in his house. It is as though they were saying: “We do not have such a faithful people, such saintly, obedient, and humble servants as you have. Your rule is godlike, and it makes men saintly.”

And it is indeed an extraordinary gift of God when princes rule their subjects wisely and well, and the subjects, in turn, are obedient. For God makes both: a seeing eye, that is, a real teacher, bishop, or magistrate; and a hearing ear, that is, obedient subjects and listeners. Where either is lacking, there is anarchy and a very evil situation; for it is not enough if you are only a hearing ear without a seeing eye, and vice versa.

Among the Hebronites Abraham was the seeing eye by virtue of his teaching and his rule over his domestics, and the Hebronites were the hearing ear. There the Word bore abundant fruit.

But if the eye does not see—as the pope is a blind and accursed eye—and the ear nevertheless hears—as up to this time we have most eagerly heard and accepted his traditions—there one has the surest road to destruction.

Today we have the seeing eye, that is, the pure doctrine of the Word; but we do not find a hearing ear, because our doctrine is held

in contempt, yes, is horribly cursed. Where both are to be found, however, God has surely brought this about, and it is a divine miracle, in which God and the angels in heaven take pleasure.

The other evidence of their goodwill and courtesy toward Abraham is the fact that they point out a place. “Go,” they say, “Wherever you please, into the garden of the prince or of some counselor.” For among them everyone customarily buried his dead at the place which pleased him. “Thus we are offering you not only the common burial place but one of the choicer spots.”

Their deference is surely remarkable, and without a doubt they learned it in the church of Abraham, who trained and educated them with respect to the spirit and made them well mannered with respect to the flesh. And they make an additional statement. “There will be nobody who could hinder you,” they say. “You will be free to choose whatever you wish.”

CH23.1.7

7. Abraham rose and bowed to the Hittites, the people of the land.

CH23.1.8

8. And he said to them: If you are willing that I should bury my dead out of my sight, hear me, and entreat for me Ephron the son of Zohar,

CH23.1.9

9. that he may give me the cave of Machpelah, which he owns; it is at the end of his field. For the full price let him give it to me in your presence as a possession for a burying place.

In the first place, Abraham rises before the Hebronites as before men who are older and higher in rank; for he thought that honor should be shown them as the lords of the land. And this is proper and godly. God created us to accord honor to one another, not to be haughty, rude, devoid of feeling, and boorish.

Thus if I show honor to an officer of the state or to a pastor of the church, I am according honor to him as a person ordained by God, not as a brother from the midst of brothers.

In the same manner honorable matrons and virgins, but parents and teachers above all, should be honored, not so much on their own account but because they are creatures of God and God Himself is honored in them, as Augustine says: “Mutually honor God in yourselves.” Luther frequently quoted this saying from Augustine,cf. . ^†32

In the second place, Abraham bows to the people of the land. Here the kinds of bowing must be distinguished. In the first place, one bows by prostrating the face or body to the ground and taking hold of the feet of those to whom we are bowing. This extreme position is appropriate for kings and princes. Thus the Shunammite woman took hold of the feet of Elisha (2 Kings 4:27). Peter fell down at Jesus' knees (Luke 5:8). The second kind is to bend the knees or to fall on the knees. The third is to incline the head and to grasp both hands. On this entire problem cf. Luther's Works, 36, pp. 290 ff. ^†33

Strictly speaking, therefore, the bowing referred to here denotes the posture of the body one assumes by inclining the head, by failing down on one's knees, or by prostrating one's face, in accordance with the custom of individual nations and men or as befits the rank of him to whom one bows. But it is not the worshiping in spirit of which Christ speaks in John 4:24.

Moreover, Abraham rose, not that he had prostrated himself or had bent his knees, but he bowed his head and perhaps grasped their hands and at the same time kissed them, a custom which that people had. These are commendable customs of humility, respect, and courtesy; they should be especially praised and presented to our youth, so that it may accustom itself to them and rid itself of its habitual boorishness.

But undoubtedly Abraham also had other reasons for this respect, not so much because they were the people of the land—that is, its lords and inhabitants—as on account of the godliness and the virtues of every kind he observed in them.

But no one knows how long they remained like this. It is well known that nearly all peoples of all lands preserve their discipline and virtuousness and foster decency for no longer than 20 years. All secular and sacred accounts bear witness of this.

Once men have been brought to the knowledge of God and moral respectability, they preserve their devotion to godliness and good morals for 20 years at most; for because of their indifference and their contempt for the prevailing situation they gradually become more and more corrupt, until they become involved in shameful deeds and horrible crimes. Read the accounts of David, of Solomon, of all the kings, and also of Augustine. Luther is probably thinking of passages like Augustine, The City of God, Book V, ch. 12. ^†34Indeed, consider our own age.

Does experience not teach that when the heavenly doctrine was restored, it gave very great pleasure at first? Now, however, “this worthless food” (Num. 21:5) is causing more and more loathing and nausea.

Thus at the time of Abraham the Hebronites were rather godly and pious. Later on, however, at the time of Moses and Joshua, they were destroyed, evidently after the doctrine concerning God had been lost and discipline had become lax.

Above (Gen. 14) Moses related the same things about the Sodomites. When Abraham had freed them from great danger by repulsing their enemies, they were virtuous for a while; but after seven years such disgraceful deeds prevailed that they were burned and consumed by fire and brimstone from heaven.

After so great a light of the Gospel our Germany, too, seems all but possessed by the devil. Our young people are wild and unruly; they are intolerant of discipline. The old people are held in the clutches of greed, usury, and many other execrable sins. Doubtless this is how we thank God for the Word of grace and His only begotten Son, as Moses complains in Deut. 32:6: “Do you thus requite the Lord, you foolish and senseless people?”

Accordingly, it is not at all surprising that punishments and misfortunes of every kind follow. But these are the ways of the times and the misfortunes of the world. “So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good” (Gen. 6:10), The original has “Gal. 2.” ^†35 each in his station by learning the Holy Scriptures and improving our ways, while the doctrine of the Gospel flourishes and shines, as Christ admonishes (John 12:36): “While you have the light, believe in the light.” For the devil busies himself with the opposite and at all times foists his frauds and darkness upon the unwary.

CH23.1.10

10. Now Ephron was sitting among the Hittites; and Ephron the Hittite answered Abraham in the hearing of the Hittites, of all who went in at the gate of his city:

CH23.1.11

11. No, my lord, hear me; I give you the field, and I give you the cave that is in it; in the presence of the sons of my people I give it to you; bury your dead.

CH23.1.12

12. Then Abraham bowed down before the people of the land.

CH23.1.13

13. And he said to Ephron in the hearing of the people of the land: But if you will, hear me; I will give the price of the field; accept it from me, that I may bury my dead there.

CH23.1.14

14. Ephron answered Abraham:

CH23.1.15

15. My lord, listen to me; a piece of land worth four hundred shekels of silver, what is that between you and me? Bury your dead.

CH23.1.16

16. Abraham agreed with Ephron; and Abraham weighed out for Ephron the silver which he had named in the hearing of the Hittites, four hundred shekels of silver, according to the weights current among the merchants.

CH23.1.17

17. So the field of Ephron in Machpelah, which was to the east of Mamre, the field with the cave which was in it and all the trees that were in the field, throughout its whole area, was made over

CH23.1.18

18. to Abraham as a possession in the presence of the Hittites, before all who went in at the gate of his city.

Ephron tries to persuade Abraham to take the field as a gift, without the payment of money. “What is it between me and you?” he says. “You are a prince of God; I am rich. What is it, even if I should sell it for 400 shekels?” This is godly and praiseworthy reverence toward the prophet and teacher. But Abraham modestly declines and wants to have it as his own and as purchased for a price.

For he thought or said: “I know that you are pious and honest people, but after experiencing the changeableness of others elsewhere I have learned to buy more cautiously. In Egypt and in Gerar I experienced the goodwill and respect of many, yet I was eventually expelled. Although I had done the Sodomites a great favor, in the end their remembrance of it and their gratitude were very small. Thus if I were to accept this field without cost, perhaps after your death your descendants, having forgotten your goodwill toward me and your gift, would again seize it and would disinter and remove my Sarah. For since we are sojourners and in a strange land, they would say, as the Sodomites said to Lot (Gen. 19:9):'This fellow came to sojourn, and he would play the judge!' Therefore I shall buy it, in order that your descendants may not have any right at all to take it back.”

Observe, I beg you, how prudently spiritual men do business even

in civil and secular matters—not like the monks, who pretend to have spiritual interests only, even though all their works are completely carnal. But the true saints live in the world and carry on civil activities, and with remarkable prudence at that. They are respectful, courteous, prudent, and cautious; and they have an understanding of all civil obligations.

Moreover, Abraham bought the field in the sight and presence of all citizens—“all who went in at the gate of the city,” says Moses. They all were present as witnesses that this field was the property of Abraham and of all his descendants forever. At that time written documents In place of the meaningless singraphae in the Weimar text we have followed the Erlangen text and read the word syngraphae, familiar from its use by Cicero. ^†36 and seals were not yet in use.

This is another virtue of Abraham, namely, the prudence with which he deals with men, whose descendants usually are changeable and fickle, as can commonly be observed in all families—of David, of Solomon, and of other outstanding men. Very rarely do children conform to the paternal character and virtue.

Abraham's request was also very modest; he wanted to be satisfied with some part in a very remote corner which would not be at the most convenient place but would be little suited for other purposes. Ephron, however, grants him the entire field, not merely a corner, then also the cave which is in the field. He himself withdraws to another estate or field, of which he undoubtedly had many.

But Abraham weighs out the 400 silver shekels according to the weights current among the merchants, for this is the Hebrew way of speaking. They call it money according to the weights current among the merchants, as we express it in German with geng und geb, dos auff dem marckt gilt. The phrase “in the ears of the people”—that is, while the people heard, witnessed, and confirmed the contract—is repeated several times in the text.

This example reminds us that we should deal wisely and cautiously with people because of their descendants, who are changeable, but that we should conduct ourselves in a courteous, honorable, and humble manner with those who are present.

The shape and location of that double cave are uncertain. I think that there were two caves and that they were rather large, because Isaac, Jacob, and their wives were buried in the same place.

CH23.1.19

19. After this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah east of Mamre (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan.

CH23.1.20

20. The field and the cave that is in it were made over to Abraham as a possession for a burying place by the Hittites.

Up to this point Moses has described the death and burial of Sarah in many words which contain excellent doctrine and outstanding examples of manners, because—in addition to Abraham's heroic qualities of faith, hope, and love—the Holy Spirit also praises in him those civil qualities, namely, reverence, humility, modesty, moderation, and justice. Accordingly, in the one Abraham there is a great number and host of all virtues, whether you are looking for those that pertain to the church and are spiritual or those that are civil and pertain to the household. Nothing surpasses his faith. Furthermore, how great his love toward the Sodomites was! How great his patience in exile was! Finally, how great his reverence, friendliness, and generosity were toward the lords of the land, because he does not want to take the field without cost and be a burden to the inhabitants! The whole doctrine of ethics could be gathered better from this source than Aristotle, the jurists, and the canonists have propounded it. Hence the words of this detailed description are not superfluous or unprofitable.