Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Numbers 22:22 - 22:40
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Num_22:22-40
36And when Balak heard that Balaam was come, he went out to meet him unto a city of Moab, which is in the border of Arnon, which is in the utmost coast. 37And Balak said unto Balaam, Did I not earnestly send unto thee to call thee? Wherefore camest thou not unto me? am I not able indeed to promote thee to honour? 38And Balaam said unto Balak, Lo, I am come unto thee: have I now any power at all to say any thing? the word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak. 39And Balaam went with Balak, and they came unto Kirjath-huzoth.40And Balak offered oxen and sheep, and sent to Balaam, and to the princes that were with him.
[Num_22:24. îִùְׁòåֹì a narrow or hollow way, 1Ki_20:10; Isa_40:12, handfuls. Perhaps a path so narrow that one could only pass along step by step.—A. G.]
[Num_22:19. Lit. I had killed thee—it had already been done.—A. G.]
[Num_22:32. ìְùָׂèַּï to be an adversary. éָøַè to precipitate, to be headlong.—A. G.]
[Num_22:33. àåּìַé , perhaps. There is no sufficient authority for the rendering unless, surely.—A. G.]
[Num_22:39. äֻöåֹú , streets of the city, in which markets were held or trade carried on.—A. G.]
Balaam prostrates himself before the angel of the Lord. For the first time the terror of Jehovah overcomes him. Had it come upon him immediately he would have died. The angel tells him that his ass had saved his life. He had withstood him in the way, because his way was headlong, one which would plunge him into destruction. [The rendering in our version unless she had turned from me, surely now, etc., is not in accordance with the usage of the language. The word rendered unless occurs nowhere else in that sense. It is perhaps. Perhaps she turned out before me. Why is not expressed. The result is that he was saved from death. But whether it was the instinctive affection of the animal for its master, as Keil supposes, or more probably the dread and terror which overwhelmed it, as the narrative seems to imply, which led it to turn, is not said.—A. G.]. Balaam confesses that he has sinned—but how? For I knew not that thou stoodest in the way against me.—He does not search deeply into the nature of his sin. His obedience, too, springs only from fear, when he says, if it displease thee I will get me back again. In the if his after fate is again foreshadowed. The same angel who withstood him in the way, now bids him to go on, but reminds him anew that he must speak only what he—now the angel of Jehovah—should say to him. [It was not the journey which was displeasing to God, but the spirit and intent with which it was pursued. The angelic appearance was for this purpose: to make a sharp and deep impression upon the mind of Balaam, to rouse his slumbering conscience, and to make him quick to hear and attentive to what Jehovah should speak. That was attained, although the moral condition of Balaam was not changed, and hence he is bidden to proceed.—A. G.]. This is now his purpose. He has made progress in the knowledge of God, has come nearer his salvation, because he proceeds with the determination to obey the word of Jehovah, but still because his insincerity continues he is still nearer destruction.
His reception by Balak is ceremonious and splendid, although accompanied by mild rebukes. The location of the city at which Balak met him corresponds entirely with the circumstances of the times. It lay upon the Arnon, formerly in a central position, now upon the borders, since the Amorites had formed out of the other half, the kingdom of Heshbon, within which the Israelites now lay encamped. Balaam declares at once that he had come indeed, but only to speak what God (Elohim) should put into his mouth. [He practices the same concealment here as with the messengers of Moab at first. He does not tell Balak that Jehovah had forbidden him to come and curse the people, and that only on the ground that it was blessed. Origen holds the notion, Bible Com., that as Balaam’s heart was filled with the lust of gain, God did not put the word into his heart, but only into his mouth.—A. G.]. Thus they enter in company the new capital—city of streets—perhaps as a new city still incomplete. The great project was inaugurated with solemn sacrifices. Keil thinks the city at which they met was Areopolis. Knobel prefers Ir Moab, since Areopolis lies too far to the south. Thence they went (Knobel, p. 137) northward, or northwestward along the Arnon to Kirjath-Huzoth (Jer_48:24; Jer_48:41, Keriot). The offerings which were brought immediately were, in the custom of antiquity, a prayer for success in their undertaking. [Kirjath-Huzoth lay not far from the Arnon, and near Bamoth-Baal. Its situation is now known as the ruins of Shihan, “which lie on a slight eminence about four miles west by south of the site assigned to Ar. or Ir.” Bible Com.—A.G.].
[It is scarcely a fair representation which Dr. Lange makes above, when he says, “It is in the interest of the negative criticism to insist upon the actual and external occurrences of the events here recorded,” as if the narrative was thereby involved in hopeless difficulty. The question is one merely of interpretation, dividing those who are firm believers both in the narrative as inspired, and in the miraculous nature of the events recorded. As stated by Hengstenberg, it is whether the speaking of the ass is to be regarded as an outward or inward occurrence, whether the words attributed to it, actually went from it to the external ear of Balaam, or were words only for his inward ear or sense, a perception by him in an ecstatic or visionary condition. He advocates adroitly and earnestly the latter view, (Geschichte Bileams, pp. 48–63) while Kurtz (Geschich. des Alten Bundes, Vol. 2, pp. 468–478) argues strenuously for the former. Both hold to the supernatural character of the event.
The ordinary reader here would be in no doubt as to what the writer intended. Using language in its common acceptation we have not only a real occurrence, but one in the world of the senses. The history of the interpretation, not only among the Jews but in the Christian Church, shows that this is the obvious import of the narrative. The other view owes its origin probably, not to anything implied or suggested in the narrative but to the feeling that in some way the record here was peculiarly open to reproach, or to the hope that the miracle might be relieved of the difficulties which attend it, or at least be brought more within the reach of our comprehension and explanation. The difficulties which are found in the narrative upon the ordinary interpretation, and which form the staple of the arguments against it, are that Balaam expresses no surprise or astonishment when the ass speaks with man’s voice, but actually proceeds to hold a conversation with it, as with a fellow-man; and that to suppose the ass actually to speak involves a breach of that eternal insuperable barrier which God has placed between man and the brute creation. We pass here with a brief sentence, the circumstance upon which great stress has been laid, that the servants of Balaam and the messengers of Balak do not appear to have heard the words of the ass; for it is not certain that either one or the other were present with Balaam at the time; it is probable that the Moabitish envoys had now gone on in advance to (Num_22:36), announce the approach of Balaam; and if they were actually present the fact that they are not mentioned proves nothing. Arguments from silence are confessedly invalid. We must free our minds, too, as far as possible, from the idea that Balaam is here in his prophetic calling or work. He is here simply as a man blinded by passion and struggling against his convictions and conscience. There is no prophetic communication made to him, and he certainly utters none. And even on the supposition, which is a violent one, that the words, Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, refer to the inward eye—to his visionary condition—the speaking of the ass occurred before he was in this condition, and was indeed on this supposition the occasion for his being brought into it. The fact therefore that Balaam afterwards speaks of himself as the man whose eyes are open—open, i.e., in the visionary or ecstatic sense, his bodily eyes closed that his eyes within may be open—has no bearing upon the interpretation of this passage. Whatever may have been true then, when he fell into a prophetic ecstacy or trance, there is no such condition here—certainly there is no such condition until after the dumb ass speaks with man’s voice.
But the difficulties; are they serious? Is it incredible or even strange that Balaam in his rage and blinded by his lusts, should have heard the articulate words uttered by his ass, and yet not manifest surprise and even go on in the conversation? The hardening and blinding power of sin cannot be exaggerated, especially when the sin is persisted in against the voice of conscience. In some respects Balaam was like those who heard the words and saw the miraculous work of our Lord, and still hated and persecuted Him. They saw enough to produce the conviction—secret if not avowed—that Christ was what He claimed to be: and yet they went from the open grave of Lazarus to plot His destruction. They blinded themselves to the light which shone upon them. This is the very process through which Balaam had been passing. Then too the very reply of Balaam to the reproach of his ass shows that he was swept away with insane rage. The violence of his passion leaves little room for reflection, and prevents his surprise, or his expression of it, if it was felt. It is true, moreover, that the difficulty here lies with equal weight against the theory that the words were only heard by Balaam in his ecstacy. For if it is difficult to conceive that Balaam should have heard the dumb ass actually use articulate speech, without uttering any astonishment, it is at least equally difficult to explain how he should hear the groans and shudderings of his ass, coming to his inward sense at least as articulate words; how he could be the conscious subject of supernatural power and still persist in his brutal passion without any reverence or fear. If the ass spake to him, although she did not speak literally, how could he go on and reason with her and give no sign of dismay? In either case the answer is found only in the fearful power of sin to blind the man, and make him insensible. Pharaoh could look over his wasted land, and see the signs of sorrow and death hanging from every door, and rise up and pursue the people of God; unaware, apparently, that God had dealt with him.
But is it true that the line which separates between the intelligent and brute creation, is here broken? Has the speaking ass crossed the wide chasm? If it has passed, as Kurtz says, from the sphere of nature to that of spirit, from the impersonal to the personal creature, then indeed the line has been broken and the objection to any such assumption would be of force. But no such change is here implied. The ass is not presented as a rational creature because she speaks with man’s voice. Then every parrot and speaking animal would have crossed the line. Mere articulate sounds do not constitute human speech; but words as the vehicle of thought, expression of the spirit. When the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, He enabled it to use articulate sounds instead of inarticulate groans. The form was changed, not the nature. She makes no revelation from God, does not speak to Balaam of his headlong way, simply utters the animal feelings and experiences under the brutal treatment of her master. Balaam would not understand her shudderings and groans, the natural and ordinary method of expression. God gave her articulate utterances in her case, the supernatural, extraordinary and therefore more startling and impressive utterance. It is the mere animal soul, feeling, experience put into the form of human speech. The animal has not changed its nature, has not passed into the rank of intelligent creatures. The line fixed by God, which separates the two, has not been broken through or crossed. The objections therefore to the actual historical occurrence, in the world of the senses, have no constraining force. All miraculous events involve difficulties to our minds. We are not competent to explain them. Any attempt to modify our interpretation of the record in order to avoid them is dangerous.
On the other hand it may be said: 1. That the rule “that we are not to conceive of dreams, visions or ecstacies in the biblical history unless they are clearly and undoubtedly intimated in the record” seems a good rule and well established (Kurtz, p. 468). There is no intimation of a vision or ecstacy here. The whole drift of the narrative bears against such a supposition. The state of Balaam’s mind, the conscious conflict going on within him, between his conviction of what was right, and the power of his lusts; the eager pursuit of wealth, though he knew it was “the wages of unrighteousness,” upon which he was now apparently more intent than ever, now that he had gone so far, was standing upon the borders of Moab, and saw the coveted prize almost within his grasp, precludes the idea of a visionary condition. Lange, and even Hengstenberg himself, concedes that it was not developed until the ass startled, terrorstricken at the sight of the angel, restive, unmanageable, groaning under its cruel scourgings, had awakened it. There is nothing surely in the brutal passion which Balaam manifests, which should have prepared him to interpret the inarticulate groans of the ass into human speech. The statement “that the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam” is no intimation that a change had occurred in his internal state or condition. It is the opening of the outward bodily eye, as we have already seen, which had been closed by the eager, intent pursuit of gain—his reawakening to the occurrences in the external world—so that his senses were now in full exercise.
2. The words “the Lord opened the mouth of the ass,” although Keil in his attempt to occupy a middle ground holds that they are not decisive, “that all that they imply is that the ass spake in a way that was perceptible to Balaam,” appear to be inexplicable on the theory that the miracle was wrought in Balaam. It is not said that the Lord opened the ears of Balaam, or that at this stage of the narrative any effect had been wrought upon him. He was still under the uncontrolled sway of his lusts and passion. The power of God was upon the dumb animal, opening his mouth to speak, as the Apostle Peter says (2Pe_2:16) “with man’s voice.” It does not meet the force of this argument to say, that there was indeed some extraordinary divine work calling forth the words (!) of the ass, but that how the words were heard, with the outward ear or not, is not said, for the point here is, that the narrative seems to say and must be understood to say, unless the words are wrested to meet the exigencies of a theory, that the supernatural power was upon the ass. Its mouth was opened. And this interpretation—the plain, obvious one—is confirmed by the words of the Apostle, who gives us not his own construction, but that which had been common with the people of God, from the event itself down to his day, and to which he sets his seal as speaking by the Holy Ghost.
3. The speaking of the ass and the appearance of the angel are closely connected. If the one is heard only in the inward ear of Balaam, the other appears only to his inward eye. All externality is lost. The whole occurrence is subjective, and we have no criterion left by which to test its character, or distinguish it from any mere vivid imagination. Then how are we to explain the fact, admitted by all, (though attributed by Hengstenberg to a kind of second sight) that the ass saw the angel, not in a vague, dim, shadowy form, but distinctly and repeatedly, as a definite form, sword in hand, and in a threatening attitude. The narrative will not allow us to suppose that the angel was distinctly and visibly present to the ass, and only inwardly present to Balaam. If the one occurred in the external world—if the Angel was present to the senses—there is a strong presumption that the words were spoken to the external ear or sense of Balaam.
4. The whole object of the Angelic appearance in its humbling effect upon Balaam, and the result upon the prophetic word which he should utter, is secured more certainly upon the theory that the words were actually spoken by the ass, and actually heard by the prophet. If the whole effect was wrought in Balaam, if the ass did nothing more than to groan and cry out under the abuse it suffered, if it saw no Angel, or only sympathized with its master, who interpreted these groans and shudderings into words, then there was nothing so humbling to the pride of the Seer. He may have been ashamed upon reflection, of his blindness and passion and lust. On any theory the event was impressive. But if he who prided himself upon having eyes for divine revelation did not see in his blindness what the ass saw so clearly; if the irrational brute reproved and admonished his rational but unreasonable master; if the cowering, shrinking ass falling to the ground in terror has thus saved his owner from the doom upon which he was madly rushing; if he was thus brought to feel that his lusts had led him to take the place of the brute, it was an humbling but salutary experience. He saw clearly enough that his own desires and passions could not be followed; that he must indeed speak only the words which the Angel says: I shall speak unto thee. That was the end sought; and how effectually it was secured we learn when we hear the prophet saying at his first interview with Balak: have I now any power at all to say any thing? The word that God putteth in my mouth that shall I speak.—A. G.]
Footnotes:
Marg. Who hast ridden upon me.
Marg. Ever since thou wast.
Marg. bowed himself.
Marg. To be an adversary unto thee.
Marg. If it be evil in thine eyes.
Marg. a city of streets.
Marg. on he went solitary.