Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Numbers 24:7 - 24:7
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
And not only its dwellings, but Israel itself would also prosper abundantly. It would have an abundance of water, that leading source of all blessing and prosperity in the burning East. The nation is personified as a man carrying two pails overflowing with water. דָּלְיָו is the dual דָּלְיַיִם. The dual is generally used in connection with objects which are arranged in pairs, either naturally or artificially (Ges. §88, 2). “His seed” (i.e., his posterity, not his sowing corn, the introduction of which, in this connection, would, to say the least, be very feeble here) “is,” i.e., grows up, “by many waters,” that is to say, enjoys the richest blessings (comp. Deu 8:7 and Deu 11:10 with Isa 44:4; Isa 65:23). יָרֹם (optative), “his king be high before (higher than) Agag.” Agag (עֲגַג, the fiery) is not the proper name of the Amalekite king defeated by Saul (1Sa 15:8), but the title (nomen dignitatis) of the Amalekite kings in general, just as all the Egyptian kings had the common name of Pharaoh, and the Philistine kings the name of Abimelech.
(Note: See Hengstenberg (Dissertations, ii. 250; and Balaam, p. 458). Even Gesenius could not help expressing some doubt about there being any reference in this prophecy to the event described in 1Sa 15:8., “unless,” he says, “you suppose the name Agag to have been a name that was common to the kings of the Amalekites” (thes. p. 19). He also points to the name Abimelech, of which he says (p. 9): “It was the name of several kings in the land of the Philistines, as of the king of Gerar in the times of Abraham (Gen 20:2-3; Gen 21:22-23), and of Isaac (Gen 26:1-2), and also of the king of Gath in the time of David (Psa 34:1; coll. 1Sa 21:10, where the same king of called Achish). It seems to have been the common name and title of those kings, as Pharaoh was of the early kings of Egypt, and Caesar and Augustus of the emperors of Rome.”)
The reason for mentioning the king of the Amalekites was, that he was selected as the impersonation of the enmity of the world against the kingdom of God, which culminated in the kings of the heathen; the Amalekites having been the first heathen tribe that attacked the Israelites on their journey to Canaan (Exo 17:8). The introduction of one particular king would have been neither in keeping with the context, nor reconcilable with the general character of Balaam's utterances. Both before and afterward, Balaam predicts in great general outlines the good that would come to Israel; and how is it likely that he would suddenly break off in the midst to compare the kingdom of Israel with the greatness of one particular king of the Amalekites? Even his fourth and last prophecy merely announces in great general terms the destruction of the different nations that rose up in hostility against Israel, without entering into special details, which, like the conquest of the Amalekites by Saul, had no material or permanent influence upon the attitude of the heathen towards the people of God; for after the defeat inflicted upon this tribe by Saul, they very speedily invaded the Israelitish territory again, and proceeded to plunder and lay it waste in just the same manner as before (cf. 1Sa 27:8; 1Sa 30:1.; 2Sa 8:12).
(Note: Even on the supposition (which is quite at variance with the character of all the prophecies of Balaam) that in the name of Agag, the contemporary of Saul, we have a vaticinium ex eventu, the allusion to this particular king would be exceedingly strange, as the Amalekites did not perform any prominent part among the enemies of Israel in the time of Saul; and the command to exterminate them was given to Saul, not because of any special harm that they had done to Israel at that time, but on account of what they had done to Israel on their way out of Egypt (comp. 1Sa 15:2 with Exo 17:8).)
מַלְכֹּו, his king, is not any one particular king of Israel, but quite generally the king whom the Israelites would afterwards receive. For מַלְכֹּו is substantially the same as the parallel מַלְכֻתֹו, the kingdom of Israel, which had already been promised to the patriarchs (Gen 17:6; Gen 35:11), and in which the Israelites were first of all to obtain that full development of power which corresponded to its divine appointment; just as, in fact, the development of any people generally culminates in an organized kingdom. - The king of Israel, whose greatness was celebrated by Balaam, was therefore neither the Messiah exclusively, nor the earthly kingdom without the Messiah, but the kingdom of Israel that was established by David, and was exalted in the Messiah into an everlasting kingdom, the enemies of which would all be made its footstool (Psa 2:1-12 and Psa 110:1-7).