Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Kitto Morning Bible Devotions: May 13
Today is: Saturday, April 20th, 2024 (Show Today's Devotion)
Select a Day for a Devotion in the Month of May: (Show All Months)
Num_22:6-35
As he could not but have been aware that the people he was called upon, by the ambassadors of Moab, to curse, were the peculiar objects of Jehovah’s care, a plain and decisive refusal to entertain the proposal made to him, was the only course open to a righteous man. But Balaam was not a righteous man. The rewards of divination were before him, and acted strongly upon his covetous mind; while, on the other hand, he feared to incur the Divine displeasure. He, therefore, between the two influences, parleyed with the temptation. He desired the messengers to lodge with him that night, and in the morning he would bring them word what Jehovah would have him do. That night God did commune with him, probably in a dream or vision, and in answer to his statement of the errand of the messengers told him with a distinctness which left his future conduct without excuse, “Thou shalt not go with them. Thou shalt not curse the people, for they are blessed.” Balaam, accordingly, arose in the morning and sent away the messengers. But in doing this he contrives to qualify the prohibition in such a manner as to intimate how willingly he would have gone, but that he was an under the necessity of submitting to the command of God. “Jehovah refuseth to give me leave to go with you.” He wished to go; he would have run greedily for reward; and restrained as he was by a servile fear of the Most High, he could not frame his lips to that positive denial which might have preserved him from further solicitation. The grounds on which his desire to go were based—his ambition and his love of gain—seem to have been manifest to the elders of Moab, and in accordance with their impression, the king, their master, was only induced by their report to send a more urgent application, by a more splendid and influential embassage—“princes more and more honorable”—with power to offer boundless rewards—all that his heart could wish.
When the new messengers arrived at Pethor, and stated their sovereign’s message, “Let nothing, I pray thee, hinder thee from coming unto me; for I will promote thee unto very great honor, and I will do whatsoever thou sayest unto me; come, therefore, I pray thee, curse me this people.” Balaam’s answer was worthy of a prophet of the Lord; but only shows that his perception of duty was clear enough to leave him without excuse: “If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of Jehovah my God, to do less or more.” Then, why not at once dismiss the messengers? He already knew the mind of God, and he ought to have known that “God is not a man that he should lie, nor the son of man that he should repent.” Instead of that he says, “Now, therefore, I pray you, tarry ye also here this night, that I may know what the Lord will say unto me more?” What “more?” Did Balaam fashion to himself a god after his own heart, and imagine that he also was to be moved from his declared purpose by the gifts and promises of Balak? Could he mean to insult God by his importunities? Did he hope to extort from Him, out of regard to his own worldliness, permission to bring a curse upon an entire nation, which had been so long and so notoriously the object of his covenant care? Even such was what Peter well calls “the madness of the prophet.” To rebuke it the Lord says to him, “Go, but yet the word that I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do.” Here his going in the abstract is not forbidden, but his going in order to curse. How are we to reconcile this with the Lord’s being angry with him because he went? Because He who knew his heart, saw that he did go in order to curse. His only inducement to go was the rewards which he hoped to win from Balak, and he knew that these could only be obtained by doing what he desired. To go, therefore, without the hope and desire of cursing, would have been useless. Had he also declared plainly to the messengers the full meaning of the communications he had received, and the conditions under which he went, there is little likelihood that they would have pressed for his attendance.
As it is, Balaam “rose in the morning and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab.” We have seen the high rank of Balaam argued from his riding upon an ass. But although princes and judges rode upon asses in those days, all were not princes and judges who rode upon asses. As far as appears, there was no other animal, except the camel, yet used in these parts for mounting; and, no doubt, differences of breed and color determined the value of the animal, and indicated the quality of the rider. The asses of that region generally are still much larger and finer animals than those we are in the habit of seeing, and some of the breeds are very handsome beasts indeed. We know that “white asses” were then (as is still the case in the East), particularly prized—as are white elephants in India—and were preferred by persons of high station. Such, probably, was the one that Balaam rode.
That Balaam saddled his ass, must not lead us to suppose that there were in these days any proper saddles. This is a far later invention, even for riding on horseback, and it is not even now, in the East, generally applied to asses. On this subject we have the negative evidence of sculptures. In Egypt, indeed, there are no equestrian sculptures at all, except as to riding in chariots. Classical sculpture has no saddles or saddle cloths. We used to think the earliest saddles were to be seen in the sculptures of the Sassanian dynasty at Shahpoor in Persia—but the following passage would take them back to the last age of the Assyrian empire—In the earliest sculptures (at Nineveh) the horses, except such as are led behind the king’s chariot, are unprovided with cloths or saddles. The rider is seated on the naked back of the animal. At a later period, however, a kind of pad appears to have been introduced; and in a sculpture at Kouyunjik was represented a high saddle, not unlike that now in use in the East.” Note: Lavard’s Nineveh, ii. 357.
The saddling of asses mentioned in Scripture probably consisted merely in placing upon their backs such thick cloths or mats as we see in some of the asses represented in the Egyptian paintings. Something of the same kind, or pieces of rug, felt, carpet, or cloth, are still in general use—although a kind of pad is now frequently to be seen upon asses in the large towns of Egypt, Syria, and Arabia—especially among those let out for hire. Such town asses have also bridles, and sometimes stirrups, none of which, any more than the pad, do we remember to have noticed on asses upon actual journeys, and we have known asses travel continuously on journeys quite as long as that which Balaam now undertakes, and that by persons whose position in life quite enabled them to ride a horse or mule had they so chosen. It would not be at all extraordinary, even now, that a person, expecting to be laden with riches and honors, should ride upon an ass—still less in an age and country where no other mode of conveyance, except that of riding upon camels, appears to have been known.
Well, Balaam set forth with the princes of Moab, and attended by two servants of his own. After a while the Moabites seem to have gone on before, for when the subsequent transactions occurred, the presence of the servants alone is indicated. In the East the roads are like bridle paths across commons—and even through cultivated grounds are wholly unenclosed, except where they pass through gardens and plantations in the neighborhood of towns. Now, as Balaam rode contentedly along, he little knew that the angel of the Lord had gone forth for an adversary to oppose his progress. He saw him not. But the ass beheld him standing in the way with a drawn sword in his hand, and he turned aside out of the path, wide into the fields through which it passed. The prophet forced him back by blows into the road. But presently they came to a place where a digression from the road was not possible, seeing that it was confined by vineyard walls on the right hand and on the left. This shows that they were approaching a town or village, and suggests that the Moabite lords had gone on to prepare a place for the diviner’s reception. In this narrow way the ass again saw the angel, and being no longer able to swerve into the field, or turn back (the two servants being behind), he forced himself up against the wall, and crushed the foot of his master. At this Balaam was wroth, and again smote his beast, which then moved on, the angel having for the moment disappeared. But a little further on, where the road was narrower still, the ass once more beheld the angel, and in the excess of his alarm fell to the ground under his master. On this Balaam smote him still more severely with his staff. Then, lo, a wonder! the ass spoke as with a man’s voice, expostulating with him against this cruel treatment, “What have I done to thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?” A common author would have paused here to describe the astonishment felt by Balaam at hearing his ass speak. But it is a fine and truthful trait of the sacred writer, that he represents the prophet as too much overcome by his wrath to notice the extraordinary character of this fact; but at once answered the ass, as if his utterance had been the most common circumstance in the world. He answers quite naturally: “Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in my hand; for then would I kill thee.” The ass replied, in effect: “Hast thou not always ridden upon me? and have I ever been wont to be restive and obstinate?” implying that it must be supposed he had not now acted so contrary to his habits without strong reason. Balaam was constrained to acknowledge the truth of this appeal, and at that moment the real cause of the animal’s unusual behavior became apparent. Until now he had seen nothing to prevent him from proceeding on his way—but his eyes were now opened and he beheld the angel, and bowed himself reverently before him.
How is this most remarkable transaction to be understood? Some have been inclined to think that the matter took place in a trance or vision, and that although the matters were realities to Balaam, they were so to him only. In short, that they were not open to his external sense, but to his internal perception. This is implied in his eyes being said to be opened, when he saw the angel. For doubtless his external sense was open before—and what remained to be opened was the internal perception, which is inoperative without spiritual quickening. In proof of this view, it would appear that the transaction was not obvious to the sense of the servants of Balaam, who are said to have been with him. We see no objection to this view in itself, for it merely brings it into the same class of revelations which met Paul on his journey to Damascus, which is expressly said to have been distinct to his sense only—the words which passed being audible to him alone—the rest heard only what seemed to them the rolling of distant thunder, while the light that struck him blind by its intensity upon his quickened sense, had upon them no such effect, for they saw it only as “a great light.” This explanation, however, which assumes that the circumstance did really occur, though perceptible to Balaam only, is different from that which regards it as a mere dream, which had no existence but in his imagination; and different also from that which regards all the circumstances as literal. Those who take the latter view have much to urge in favor of it. Besides the usual objections to the introduction of a vision without intimation in an historical narrative, there is the assertion of St. Peter, that “the dumb ass, speaking with a man’s voice, rebuked the madness of the prophet.” Besides, what seems to us the strongest objection to any ether than a literal view—and one which has escaped the notice of commentators—is this: We are told not only what Balaam did see, whether literal or not, but what he did not see. The angel was present, had changed his position, and had alarmed the ass no less than three times, before Balaam was aware of his presence. Not seeing is a mere negation of perception—and Balaam, even in a vision; could not dream that he did not see the angel. If there were a vision, there was therefore something literal before the vision commenced. Why do we wish for a vision? Not for the sake of avoiding the actual appearance of the angel, for such appearances we have had on former occasions. Is it to avoid the speaking of the ass? But if there were a vision, the words, “the Lord opened his eyes,” must be taken to mark when that vision commenced. Then, if at all, he was thrown into a different state. But then the ass had already spoken. Besides, we do not suppose that the ass thought or reasoned, though there is perhaps nothing beyond the sense or comprehension of an ass in the words which were uttered; nor that the animal had any intention or volition in the utterance of these words. Words appropriate to the rebuking of the prophet were made to flow from the mouth of the ass, without any intention or consciousness on the part of the poor animal.
Balaam now confessed his error to the angel, and offered to return home. But the answer is: “Go with the men; only the words that I shall speak unto thee, that shalt thou speak.” By this it is evident that this man had gone with an eager anxiety to win the rewards offered to him; and the purpose of this manifestation was not to prevent the journey, but to impress upon his mind that he was to speak only that which should be given him to declare by Jehovah, and to make him feel the peril of transgression.