Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Numbers 24:21 - 24:21
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The third saying relates to the Kenites, whose origin is involved in obscurity (see at Gen 15:19), as there are no other Kenites mentioned in the whole of the Old Testament, with the exception of Gen 15:19, than the Kenites who went to Canaan with Hobab the brother-in-law of Moses (Num 10:29.: see Jdg 1:16; Jdg 4:11; 1Sa 15:6; 1Sa 27:10; 1Sa 30:29); so that there are not sufficient grounds for the distinction between Canaanitish and Midianitish Kenites, as Michaelis, Hengstenberg, and others suppose. The hypothesis that Balaam is speaking of Canaanitish Kenites, or of the Kenites as representatives of the Canaanites, is as unfounded as the hypothesis that by the Kenites we are to understand the Midianites, or that the Kenites mentioned here and in Gen 15:19 are a branch of the supposed aboriginal Amalekites (Ewald). The saying concerning the Kenites runs thus: “Durable is thy dwelling-place, and thy nest laid upon the rock; for should Kain be destroyed until Asshur shall carry thee captive?” This saying “applies to friends and not to foes of Israel” (v. Hoffmann), so that it is perfectly applicable to the Kenites, who were friendly with Israel. The antithetical association of the Amalekites and Kenites answers perfectly to the attitude assumed at Horeb towards Israel, on the one hand by the Amalekites, and on the other hand by the Kenites, in the person of Jethro the leader of their tribe (see Exo 17:8., Ex 18). The dwelling-place of the Kenites was of lasting duration, because its nest was laid upon a rock (שִׂים is a passive participle, as in 2Sa 13:32, and Oba 1:4). This description of the dwelling-place of the Kenites cannot be taken literally, because it cannot be shown that either the Kenites or the Midianites dwelt in inaccessible mountains, as the Edomites are said to have done in Oba 1:3-4; Jer 49:16. The words are to be interpreted figuratively, and in all probability the figure is taken from the rocky mountains of Horeb, in the neighbourhood of which the Kenites led a nomade life before their association with Israel (see at Exo 3:1). As v. Hoffmann correctly observes: “Kain, which had left its inaccessible mountain home in Horeb, enclosed as it was by the desert, to join a people who were only wandering in search of a home, by that very act really placed its rest upon a still safer rock.” This is sustained in Num 24:22 by the statement that Kain would not be given up to destruction till Asshur carried it away into captivity. אִם כִּי does not mean “nevertheless.” It signifies “unless” after a negative clause, whether the negation be expressed directly by לֹא, or indirectly by a question; and “only” where it is not preceded by either a direct or an indirect negation, as in Gen 40:14; Job 42:8. The latter meaning, however, is not applicable here, because it is unsuitable to the עַד־מָה (until) which follows. Consequently אִם yl can only be understood in the sense of “is it that,” as in 1Ki 1:27; Isa 29:16; Job 31:16, etc., and as introducing an indirect query in a negative sense: “For is it (the case) that Kain shall fall into destruction until...?” - equivalent to “Kain shall not be exterminated until Asshur shall carry him away into captivity;” Kain will only be overthrown by the Assyrian imperial power. Kain, the tribe-father, is used poetically for the Kenite, the tribe of which he was the founder. בָּעֵר, to exterminate, the sense in which it frequently occurs, as in Deu 13:6; Deu 17:7, etc. (cf. 2Sa 4:11; 1Ki 22:47). - For the fulfilment of this prophecy we are not to look merely to the fact that one branch of the Kenites, which separated itself, according to Jdg 4:11, from its comrades in the south of Judah, and settled in Naphtali near Kadesh, was probably carried away into captivity by Tiglath-Pileser along with the population of Galilee (2Ki 15:29); but the name Asshur, as the name of the first great kingdom of the world, which rose up from the east against the theocracy, is employed, as we may clearly see from Num 24:24, to designate all the powers of the world which took their rise in Asshur, and proceeded forth from it (see also Ezr 6:22, where the Persian king is still called king of Asshur or Assyria). Balaam did not foretell that this worldly power would oppress Israel also, and lead it into captivity, because the oppression of the Israelites was simply a transitory judgment, which served to refine the nation of God and not to destroy it, and which was even appointed according to the counsel of God to open and prepare the way for the conquest of the kingdoms of the world by the kingdom of God. To the Kenites only did the captivity become a judgment of destruction; because, although on terms of friendship with the people of Israel, and outwardly associated with them, yet, as is clearly shown by 1Sa 15:6, they never entered inwardly into fellowship with Israel and Jehovah's covenant of grace, but sought to maintain their own independence side by side with Israel, and thus forfeited the blessing of God which rested upon Israel.
(Note: This simple but historically established interpretation completely removes the objection, “that Balaam could no more foretell destruction to the friends of Israel than to Israel itself,” by which Kurtz would preclude the attempt to refer this prophecy to the Kenites, who were in alliance with Israel. His further objections to v. Hoffmann's view are either inconclusive, or at any rate do not affect the explanation that we have given.)