Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Numbers 22:22
And God’s anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants [were] with him.
22. After God has expressly given permission for Balaam to go, His anger would be surprising, and would seem to imply a capricious change of mind, were it not for the consideration that the narrative is derived from two different sources. In Num 22:22-34 Balaam travels on an ass, accompanied not by the great retinue of Moabite princes but simply by two of his own servants. The verses are from J , who relates that Balaam lived in the Ammonite country, some 40 miles distant, and the journey was made through cultivated land with vineyards and walls. See note on Num 22:5.
an adversary ] Heb. ‘a satan.’ In early days a catastrophe or trouble, no less than a favour or blessing, was understood to be due to the action of God; so that here Jehovah Himself, in the form of His angel, was Balaam’s adversary. That is to say, the divine action was personified. The result of this personification is that the Angel, for the most part, appears to be distinguished from Jehovah Himself. But see Num 22:35, where the Angel utters Jehovah’s own words. In later times such personifications became more definitely distinguished from God Himself, so that troubles and temptations were attributed to a malevolent spirit, who was hostile to God and men, and for whom ‘Satan’ became a recognised title. Cf. 2Sa 24:1 with 1Ch 21:1; and see G. A. Smith, The Book of the Twelve Prophets, pp. 410 19.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
22 34. Jehovah was angry with Balaam for going, and His ‘Angel’ hindered him on the way.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The angel – i. e., the Angel that led the Israelites through the wilderness (compare Num 20:16 and references), and subsequently appeared as the Captain of the Lords host to Joshua Jos 6:13. In desiring to curse Israel, Balaam was fighting against Israels Leader. The presence of the Angel in his path was designed to open his eyes, blinded by sin, to the real character of his course of conduct.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Gods anger was kindled; either,
1. Because he went of his own accord with the princes of Moab, and did not wait till they came to call him, i.e. urged him to go, which was the sign and condition of Gods permission, Num 22:20, but rather himself rose and called them, as it may seem from Num 22:21. Or,
2. Because those words, Num 22:20, did contain no approbation nor license, but a bare permission, and that. in anger, as Balaam might easily have understood, if he had considered his own heart, or the circumstances of his concession. This was no more an approbation than that passage of Christ to Judas, Joh 13:27, That thou doest, do quickly. Or,
3. Because he went with ill design, and desire to do contrary to what God had charged him, to wit, to curse the people, as plainly appears from the following story, and from Deu 23:5; for God hath been oft and justly angry with those who have done what God bade them, when they did it in evil manner, or for evil ends, as appears from Isa 10:6,7, and many other places.
The Lord stood in the way, i.e. to oppose and terrify, if not to kill him.
His two servants were with him; the rest of the company being probably gone before them. For in those ancient times there was more of simplicity, and less of ceremony; and therefore it is not strange that Balaam came at some distance after the rest, and attended only by his own servants.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
22. God’s anger was kindled becausehe wentThe displeasure arose partly from his neglecting thecondition on which leave was granted himnamely, to wait till theprinces of Moab “came to call him” [Nu22:20], and because, through desire for “the wages ofunrighteousness” [2Pe 2:15],he entertained the secret purpose of acting in opposition to thesolemn charge of God.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And God’s anger was kindled because he went,…. Though he had given him leave to go; but then it was upon condition that the princes called him to go with them, whereas he went without their call, and did not wait for it; and besides, he did not acquaint them, as he did not the messengers before, of what God had said, that he should not curse Israel, nor say anything contrary to this his will, which, had he told them, they would not have taken him with them; moreover, he went with an intention, with a good will to curse Israel, which must be displeasing to God, who knew his heart; so the Targum of Jonathan,
“and the anger of the Lord was strong, because he went to curse them;”
likewise, though he had a permission to go, it was in an angry manner, and was not agreeable to the Lord he should go, and therefore should not have gone notwithstanding; or, at least, he might expect some marks of the divine displeasure; so Jarchi observes, he saw that the thing was evil in the eyes of the Lord, or displeasing to him, and yet he desired it; just as the people of Israel, when the Lord bid them go up and possess the land, which case Aben Ezra instances in; they desired persons might be sent before hand to spy out the land, which, though permitted, they smarted for it: for not whatsoever God permits is well pleasing to him; besides, the words may be rendered h, “when he went”, or, “as he was going”; and so not a reason of the Lord’s anger, but expresses when it was kindled or broke forth:
and the angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary against him; that this was not a created angel, one of the ministering spirits, but the eternal one, the angel of Jehovah’s presence, appears from
Nu 22:35 that went before the people of Israel in the wilderness, not only to guide but to guard and protect them; and who was an adversary to their adversaries, and at all times stood up for their help and assistance against all those that hated and opposed them: Jarchi calls him an angel of mercy, who would have restrained Balaam from sinning, that he might not sin and perish, and so was rather a friend than an adversary, had he attended to him:
now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him; who, the Targum of Jonathan says, were Jannes and Jambres, the magicians of Egypt, of whom see 2Ti 3:8 these only were with him, the princes of Midian on some account or another being separated from him.
h “quum iret”, Noldius, p. 403.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Balaam’s Speaking Ass. – Num 22:22. “And the anger of God burned, that he was going ( ): and the angel of Jehovah placed himself in the way, as an adversary to him.” From the use of the participle instead of the imperfect, with which it is not interchangeable, it is evident, on the one hand, that the anger of God was not excited by the fact that Balaam went with the elders of Moab, but by his behaviour wither on setting out or upon the journey;
(Note: From a failure to observe the use of the participle in distinction from the preterite, and from a misinterpretation of the words of the angel of the Lord (Num 22:32), “I have come out as an adversary, for the way leads headlong to destruction,” which have been understood as implying that the angel meant to prohibit the seer from going, whereas he only intended to warn him of the destruction towards which he was going, the critics have invented a contradiction between the account of the speaking ass (Num 22:22-35) and the preceding part of the history. And in consequence of this, A. G. Hoffmann and others have pronounced the section from Num 22:22 to Num 22:35 to be a later interpolation; whilst Baur, on the other hand (in his Geschichte d. alttestl. Weissagung), regards the account of the ass as the original form of the narrative, and the preceding portion as a composition of the Jehovist. But there is no “contradiction” or “evident incongruity,” unless we suppose that the only reason for the appearance of the angel of the Lord was, that he might once more forbid the seer to go, and then give him permission, with a certain limitation. The other difference, which E. v. Ortenberg adduces, are involved in the very nature of the case. The manifestation of God, in the form of the Angel of Jehovah, was necessarily different in its character from a direct spiritual revelation of the divine will. And lastly, the difference in the expressions used to signify “ three times, ” in Num 22:28, Num 22:32-33, and Num 24:10, etc., prove nothing more than that king Balak did not mould his style of speaking according to that of the ass.)
and, on the other hand, that the occurrence which followed did not take place at the commencement, but rather towards the close of, the journey. As it was a longing for wages and honour that had induced the soothsayer to undertake the journey, the nearer he came to his destination, under the guidance of the distinguished Moabitish ambassadors, the more was his mind occupied with the honours and riches in prospect; and so completely did they take possession of his heart, that he was in danger of casting to the winds the condition which had been imposed upon him by God. The wrath of God was kindled against this dangerous enemy of his soul; and as he was riding upon his ass with two attendants, the angel of the Lord stood in his way , “ as an adversary to him, ” i.e., to restrain him from advancing farther on a road that would inevitably lead him headlong into destruction (cf. Num 22:32). This visible manifestation of God was seen by the ass; but Balaam the seer was so blinded, that it was entirely hidden from his eye, darkened as it was by sinful lust; and this happened three times before Jehovah brought him to his senses by the speaking of the dumb animal, and thus opened his eyes.
(Note: “To the great disgrace of the prophet, the glory of the angel was first of all apparent to the ass… He had been boasting before this of extraordinary visions, and now what was visible to the eyes of a beast was invisible to him. Whence came this blindness, but from the avarice by which he had been so stupefied, that he preferred filthy lucre to the holy calling of God?” ( Calvin.))
The “drawn sword” in the angel’s hand was a manifestation of the wrath of God. The ass turned from the road into the field before the threatening sight, and was smitten by Balaam in consequence to turn her or guide her back into the road.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| God’s Displeasure against Balaam; Remonstrance of Balaam’s Ass; The Angel Appears to Balaam. | B. C. 1452. |
22 And God’s anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him. 23 And the ass saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the ass, to turn her into the way. 24 But the angel of the LORD stood in a path of the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that side. 25 And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she thrust herself unto the wall, and crushed Balaam’s foot against the wall: and he smote her again. 26 And the angel of the LORD went further, and stood in a narrow place, where was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left. 27 And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam’s anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff. 28 And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? 29 And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee. 30 And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay. 31 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face. 32 And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? behold, I went out to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse before me: 33 And the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive. 34 And Balaam said unto the angel of the LORD, I have sinned; for I knew not that thou stoodest in the way against me: now therefore, if it displease thee, I will get me back again. 35 And the angel of the LORD said unto Balaam, Go with the men: but only the word that I shall speak unto thee, that thou shalt speak. So Balaam went with the princes of Balak.
We have here an account of the opposition God gave to Balaam in his journey towards Moab; probably the princes had gone before, or gone some other way, and Balaam had pointed out where he would meet them, or where they should stay for him, for we read nothing of them in this part of our narrative, only that Balaam, like a person of some quality, was attended with his two men-honour enough, one would think, for such a man, he needed not be beholden to Balak for promotion.
I. Here is God’s displeasure against Balaam for undertaking this journey: God’s anger was kindled because he went, v. 22. Note, 1. The sin of sinners is not to be thought the less provoking to God because he permits it. We must not think that, because God does not by his providence restrain men from sin, therefore he approves of it, or that it is therefore not hateful to him; he suffers sin, and yet is angry at it. 2. Nothing is more displeasing to God than malicious designs against his people; he that touches them touches the apple of his eye.
II. The way God took to let Balaam know his displeasure against him: An angel stood in the way for an adversary. Now God fulfilled his promise to Israel (Exod. xxiii. 22), I will be an enemy to thy enemies. The holy angels are adversaries to sin, and perhaps are employed more than we are aware of in preventing it, particularly in opposing those that have any ill designs against God’s church and people, for whom Michael our prince stands up, Dan 12:1; Dan 10:21. What a comfort is this to all that wish well to the Israel of God, that he never suffers wicked men to form an attempt against them, without sending his holy angels forth to break the attempt and secure his little ones! When the prophet saw the four horns that scattered Judah, at the same time he saw four carpenters that were to fray those horns, Zech. i. 18, c. When the enemy comes in like a flood the Spirit of the Lord will lift up a standard against him. This angel was an adversary to Balaam, because Balaam counted him his adversary otherwise those are really our best friends, and we are so to reckon them, that stop our progress in a sinful way. The angel stood with his sword drawn (v. 23), a flaming sword, like that in the hands of the cherubim (Gen. iii. 24), turning every way. Note, The holy angels are at war with those with whom God is angry, for they are the ministers of his justice. Observe,
1. Balaam had notice given him of God’s displeasure, by the ass, and this did not startle him. The ass saw the angel, v. 23. How vainly did Balaam boast that he was a man whose eyes were open, and that he saw the visions of the Almighty (Num 24:3; Num 24:4), when the ass he rode on saw more than he did, his eyes being blinded with covetousness and ambition and dazzled with the rewards of divination! Note, Many have God against them, and his holy angels, but are not aware of it. The ass knows his owner, sees his danger, but Balaam does not know, does not consider, Isa. i. 3. Lord, when thy hand is lifted up, they will not see, Isa. xxvi. 11. Let none be puffed up with a conceit of visions and revelations, when even an ass saw an angel; yet let those be ashamed of their own sottishness, worse than that of the beasts that perish, who, when they are told of the sword of God’s wrath drawn against them, while they persist in wicked ways, yet will go on: the ass understood the law of self-preservation better than so; for, to save both herself and her senseless rider, (1.) She turned aside out of the way, v. 23. Balaam should have taken the hint of this, and considered whether he was not out of the way of his duty; but, instead of this, he beat her into the way again. Thus those who by wilful sin are running headlong into perdition are angry at those that would prevent their ruin. (2.) She had not gone much further before she saw the angel again, and the, to avoid him, ran up to a wall, and crushed her rider’s foot,Num 22:24; Num 22:25. How many ill accidents are we liable to in travelling upon the road, from which if we are preserved we must own our obligations to the divine Providence, which by the ministry of angels keeps us in all our ways, lest we dash our foot against a stone; but, if we at any time meet with a disaster, it should put us upon enquiring whether our way be right in the sight of God or no. The crushing of Balaam’s foot, though it was the saving of his life, provoked him so much that he smote his ass the second time, so angry are we apt to be at that which, though a present uneasiness, yet is a real kindness. (3.) Upon the next encounter with the angel, the ass fell down under Balaam, Num 22:26; Num 22:27. He ought to have considered that there was certainly something extraordinary in this; for his ass was not restive, nor did she use to serve him thus: but it is common for those whose hearts are fully set in them to do evil to push on violently, and break through all the difficulties which Providence lays in their way to give check to them and to stop them in their career. Balaam the third time smote his ass, though she had now done him the best piece of service that ever she did him, saving him from the sword of the angel, and by her falling down teaching him to do likewise. (4.) When all this would not work upon him, God opened the mouth of the ass, and she spoke to him once and again; and yet neither did this move him: The Lord opened the mouth of the ass, v. 28. This was a great miracle, quite above the power of nature, and wrought by the power of the God of nature, who made man’s mouth, and taught him to speak, for otherwise (since we learn to speak purely by imitation, and therefore those that are born deaf are consequently dumb) the first man would never have spoken, nor any of his seed. He that made man speak could, when he pleased, make the ass to speak with man’s voice, 2 Pet. ii. 16. Here Mr. Ainsworth observes that the devil, when he tempted our first parents to sin, employed a subtle serpent, but that God, when he would convince Balaam, employed a silly ass, a creature dull and sottish to a proverb; for Satan corrupts men’s minds by the craftiness of those that lie in wait to deceive, but Christ has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. By a dumb ass God rebukes the madness of the prophet, for he will never want reprovers, but when he pleases can make the stones cry out as witnesses to him, Luk 19:40; Hab 2:11. [1.] The ass complained of Balaam’s cruelty (v. 28): What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me? Note, The righteous God will not see the meanest and weakest abused; but either they shall be enabled to speak in their own defence or he will some way or other speak for them. If God would not suffer a beast to be wronged, much less a man, a Christian, a child of his own. We cannot open the mouth of the dumb, as God did here, but we may and must open our mouth for the dumb,Pro 31:8; Job 31:13. The ass’s complaint was just: What have I done? Note, When we are prompted to smite any with hand or tongue, we should consider what they have done unto us, and what provocation they have given us. We hear it not, but thus the whole creation groans, being burdened, Rom. viii. 22. It was much that Balaam was not astonished to hear his ass speak, and put to confusion: but some think that it was no new thing to him (being a conjurer) to be thus spoken to by his familiars; others rather think that his brutish head-strong passion so blinded him that he could not observe or consider the strangeness of the thing. Nothing besots men worse than unbridled anger. Balaam in his fury wished he had a sword to kill his ass with, v. 29. See his impotency; can he think by his curses to do mischief to Israel that has it not in his power to kill his own ass? This he cannot do, yet he fain would; and what would he get by that, but make himself so much the poorer (as many do), to gratify his passion and revenge? Such was the madness of this false prophet. Here bishop Hall observes, It is ill falling into the hands of those whom the brute-creatures find unmerciful; for a good man regardeth the life of his beast. [2.] The ass reasoned with him, v. 30. God enabled not only a dumb creature to speak, but a dull creature to speak to the purpose. Three things she argues with him from:–First, His propriety in her: Am not I thy ass? Note, 1. God has given to man a dominion over the creatures: they are delivered into his hand to be used, and put under his feet to be ruled. 2. Even wicked people have a title to the possessions God gives to them, which they are not to be wronged of. 3. The dominion God has given us over the creatures is a good reason why we should not abuse them. We are their lords, and therefore must not be tyrants. Secondly, Her serviceableness to him: On which thou hast ridden. Note, It is good for us often to consider how useful the inferior creatures are, and have been, to us, that we may be thankful to God, and tender of them. Thirdly, That she was not wont to do so by him, and had never before crushed his foot, nor fallen down under him; he might therefore conclude there was something more than ordinary that made her do so now. Note, 1. The rare occurrence of an offence should moderate our displeasure against an offender. 2. When the creatures depart from their wonted obedience to us, we should enquire the cause within ourselves, and be humbled for our sin.
2. Balaam at length had notice of God’s displeasure by the angel, and this did startle him. When God opened his eyes he saw the angel (v. 31), and then he himself fell flat upon his face, in reverence of that glorious messenger, and in fear of the sword he saw in his hand. God has many ways of breading and bringing down the hard and unhumbled heart. (1.) The angel reproved him for his outrageousness (Num 22:32; Num 22:33): Wherefore hast thou smitten thy ass? Whether we consider it or no, it is certain that God will call us to account for the abuses done to his creatures. Nay, he shows him how much more reason he had to smite upon his breast, and to condemn himself, than to fly out thus against his ass (“Thy way is perverse before me, and then how canst thou expect to prosper?”), and how much wiser his ass was than himself, and how much beholden he was to her that she turned aside; it was for his safety, and not for her own, for had she gone on he had been slain, and she had been saved alive. Note, When our eyes are opened we shall see what danger we are in in a sinful way, and how much it was for our advantage to be crossed in it, and what fools we were to quarrel with our crosses which helped to save our lives. (2.) Balaam then seemed to relent (v. 34): “I have sinned, sinned in undertaking this journey, sinned in pushing on so violently;” but he excused it with this, that he saw not the angel; yet, now that he did see him, he was willing to go back again. That which was displeasing to God was not so much his going as his going with a malicious design against Israel, and a secret hope that notwithstanding the proviso with which his permission was clogged he might prevail to curse them, and so gratify Balak, and get preferment under him. It does not appear that he was sensible of this wickedness of his heart, or willing to own it, but, when he finds he cannot go forward, he will be content (since there is no remedy) to go back. Here is no sign that his heart is turned, but, if his hands are tied, he cannot help it. Thus many leave their sins only because their sins have left them. There seems to be a reformation of the life, but what will this avail if there be no renovation of the heart? (3.) The angel however continued his permission: “Go with the men, v. 35. Go, if thou hast a mind to be made a fool of, and to be shamed before Balak, and all the princes of Moab. Go, only the word that I shall speak unto thee, that thou shalt speak, whether thou wilt or no,” for this seems not to be a precept, but a prediction of the event, that he should not only not be able to curse Israel, but should be forced to bless them, which would be more for the glory of God and his own confusion than if he had turned back. Thus God gave him fair warning, but he would not take it; he went with the princes of Balak. For the iniquity of Balaam’s covetousness God was wroth, and smote him, but he went on frowardly, Isa. lvii. 17.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 22-27:
This event illustrates the two aspects of the will of God: (1) direct, and (2) permissive. He may allow what He does not endorse. He allowed Balsam to accompany Balak’s emissaries; He did not endorse this act.
This principle applies in today’s life. God may allow His child to follow a course of action that He disapproves, but He uses this as a means of judgment upon the disobedient spirit.
The “angel of the Lord,” likely the same as the one to whom Moses referred, Nu 20:16. This messenger from Jehovah resisted Balaam’s willful course of disobedience, for two reasons:
(1) Balaam’s own good, in that what he proposed to do was not in his own best interests; and
(2) Balaam’s purpose was to oppose God’s people Israel by pronouncing curses upon them, see 2 Kings 6:17; Ps 34:7.
A miracle is involved in this event: God allowed Balaam’s donkey to see His messenger of judgment, and to warn his master of his folly.
At the first sight of the angel, the donkey bolted from the path into the field. Balsam struck her, and forced her to return to the road.
As they traveled on their way, the road ran between two stone fences. The donkey saw the angel the second time, standing with drawn sword in the way. She lurched to the side, and smashed Balaam’s foot into the wall. Once more Balaam beat his faithful donkey, and continued his journey.
The road ran through a narrow pass, with embankments on either side. Once more the donkey saw the angel of the Lord in the path. This time, she fell down. Balaam was infuriated, and once more began to beat the hapless animal with his staff.
These events illustrate how God in His grace seeks to turn the, erring one from his way. They also show how sin and greed can
blind the eyes to spiritual realities.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
22. And God’s anger was kindled because he went. How is it consistent that God should be angry when Balaam had attempted nothing, thus far, contrary to His command? But we must bear in mind, what I have lately hinted, that God apparently permits much which He does not approve. He allowed the people in the wilderness to eat flesh: He permitted men to give a writing of divorce to their wives, and even to marry several at once; still it was not right for them to eat the flesh, nor were divorce and polygamy free from culpability. At any rate, Balaam sinned by pertinaciously urging what was sinful, and thus deserved the punishment of death, though God was pleased to mitigate it. On this point it behoves us also to be soberly wise, lest, when God’s secret judgments differ from our moral sense, we should cry out against Him. That prophet, who, having faithfully delivered his message, tasted bread on his way back, and this at the instigation of another prophet, so that he only fell through carelessness and want of reflection, He punished with death, (1Kg 13:0😉 in this case, the punishment which He inflicts upon an impostor and cheat, who (148) prostitutes his tongue for hire, is no harsher than to terrify him by threats. Here the temerity of the flesh would willingly lay hold of the occasion to find fault with God; but the fact was, that the punishment which awaited Balaam, and from which he did not finally escape, was delayed for a certain period in order to display more brightly the glory of God. Wherefore, if a doubt ever pervades our minds, when the reason for any of God’s works is not apparent, let us learn at once to repress it.
The external manifestation of God’s anger is afterwards described; i.e., that the Angel meets him with a drawn sword; wherein we may observe that, to the great disgrace of the Prophet, the glory of the Angel was first revealed to the ass. For, although the Angel had assumed a body, by the sight of which a brute-animal might be affected, how did it come to pass that the ass was terrified at this alarm ing sight, whilst the eyes of the Prophet were closed against it, unless because God wished to brand the stupidity of this faithless man with a mark of ignominy? He had previously boasted of his extraordinary visions; a vision now escapes him which was manifest to the eyes of a beast. Whence did such blindness as this arise, except from avarice, by which he was so stupified as to prefer filthy lucre to the holy calling of God? In a word, in him was fulfilled, what Scripture so often denounces against the reprobate, that he was struck by a spirit of dizziness and folly so as to be unable to perceive anything. I have already said, that although angels are naturally invisible, yet that they assume bodies whenever God so pleases, and act in the character of human beings. Who supplied the Angel with a sword? Even He, who created all things out of nothing. If any curious person should go further, and inquire of what material the sword was made? it will be easy to reprove his folly by another question, viz., Whether it is easier for mortal man or for God to apply iron and steel to their various purposes? And it might be the case that a bright light shone from the sword, as when the Cherubim were placed with swords to shut the entrance of Paradise against Adam. In a word, God clothed His Angel in such a form as might strike with terror both the brute-animal and the false prophet. But He began with the ass, in order to put the stolidity of the wicked man more completely to shame.
Moses proceeds to relate how the ass, first of all, was turned aside out of the way, and then, when she was met in a narrow place, how she tremblingly started back so as to crush her master’s foot against the wall, and at length how she fell down under him. Surely this miserable impostor ought to have been awakened, if he had not been fascinated by the devil. But Moses carefully details all these circumstances, in order to show that he was not only deprived of common sense, but so utterly astounded, as to pay no attention to a most illustrious miracle.
(148) “Qui vouloit vendre la grace du sainct Esprit;” who would sell the grace of the Holy Spirit. — Fr.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(22) Because he went.Literally, because he was going. The participle denotes the continuous act. He deliberately and resolutely proceeded on his journey with the messengers of Balak, in defiance of the warnings which he had received.
Stood in the way.Better, placed (or, stationed) himself in the way.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
22. God’s anger was kindled because he went The Hebrew is capable of the following interpretation: The anger of God burned when he was g oing. Why so, since he had permitted him to go? Because Balaam had changed his mind on the way, and had decided to curse Israel, a purpose which he could not hide from God, as it appears in Num 22:32, thy way is perverse. This encounter with the angel did not occur at the commencement, but rather toward the close, of the journey. The nearer Balaam came to his destination the more was his mind dazzled with the honours and riches in prospect, so that he was in danger of casting to the winds the condition imposed by God.
The angel of the Lord Jehovah himself in one particular phase of his self-manifestation. See Num 20:16, note; Gen 16:10; Gen 22:11-12; Exo 3:2-6.
For an adversary To turn him from his wicked purpose of cursing Israel, called in Num 22:32 his “perverse way.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Angel of Yahweh Bars The Way Three Times ( Num 22:22-35 ).
Num 22:22
‘And God’s anger was kindled because he went, and the angel of Yahweh placed himself in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding on his ass, and his two servants were with him.’
This verse puzzles many people. Why, they ask, was God angry if Balaam was only doing what he had been told? The reply is that while God had sent Him, He was angry at the very fact that he was going, or even needed to go. He was angry at the whole situation. The whole affair had aroused His wrath. And now that Balaam was actually going His anger at the overall situation was even more aroused, especially as He recognised that Balaam’s submission was not complete.
For this affair was not something of which He approved. He had recognised that if Balaam did not go, someone else would be called and that Balaam’s refusal to go would not have ended the matter. That indeed was the only reason that He had allowed him to go. But He did not believe that Balaam was approaching the matter with the right attitude. So in order to demonstrate His anger in the situation, and so that Balaam might be fully aware of it, He now sent His Angel to act as an adversary and oppose him. It was important that Balaam did not get carried away. He must learn of the precariousness of his situation.
For He recognised that Balaam was not just going as a meek and willing instrument of Yahweh. He was going as his own man. He had his own agenda, and he still probably thought that in the end he could bring Yahweh round to his way of thinking. While God did not mind him going, as long as he was going for the right reason, He knew that that had to be ensured, and that Balaam must be tamed. Thus God was determined to press home on Balaam that he was not as great and influential a man as he thought he was. He was to be made to recognise that, in the end, when it came to spirit contact, his ass was to be seen as more discerning than he was!
Therefore in order to demonstrate Who was in control He sent His angel, the Angel of Yahweh, Who stood in the way before Balaam, (who was riding astride his ass), in order to oppose him. But He did not make Himself visible to Balaam. Incidentally we learn here also that Balaam had two faithful servants with him, who rode in close formation with him. These would probably be the witnesses from whom the whole story was subsequently learned when they were captured among the Midianites later and questioned.
The Angel of Yahweh appears a number of times in the Old Testament when God wanted to reveal Himself visibly while hiding His glory. Compare Gen 16:7-13; Gen 21:17-20; Jdg 6:11-24; Jdg 13:3-23. Often the purpose was so that those visited might at first see Him as a man. But in each case it was finally made clear that it was God Himself. Yet the Angel is also partly differentiated from God, and even has communication with Him (Zec 1:12). The figure of the Angel therefore reveals the fact of interpersonal communion within God Himself. This would later come more into recognition in Jesus Christ. A good example of a similar figure of judgment to the One revealed here is found in 2Sa 24:15-17.
Num 22:23
‘And the ass saw the angel of Yahweh standing in the way, with his sword drawn in his hand, and the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the ass, to turn her into the way.’
It is an undeniable fact that in all kinds of ways animals are very often able to discern strange phenomena, disturbances in their surroundings, when men are oblivious of them. It is not so surprising therefore that an ass should discern an invisible supernatural presence when men were unable to do so (although it would be surprising to people of that day that Balaam could not discern it). Nor do we know what animals actually ‘see’ in such circumstances.
It is, however’ possible that ‘saw’ should be translated as ‘discerned’. What the ass actually saw we cannot know, nor did the ass inform Balaam (we only know the facts and what Balaam saw later – Num 22:31). So the thought may be that the ass ‘discerned’ this ‘spirit presence’ (the detail of which was later revealed to Balaam in Num 22:31) and turned aside so as not to have to go past it, with the detailed description being added by the writer who knew what the presence was because of Balaam’s later vision. On the other hand the Angel may have actually made Himself visible to the ass. But if so the ass does not later describe Him.
Whatever is the case the ass discerned what Balaam, the supposed ‘spirit’ discerner, did not. It discerned the presence of the Angel and sought to avoid Him. Balaam the ignorant therefore beat his ass for his waywardness, trying to force him back into the blocked pathway. He was thus depicted as less discerning in the spirit world than his ass, and not quite as great as he liked to appear.
Num 22:24
‘Then the angel of Yahweh stood in a narrow path between the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that side.’
The ass, having left the road to avoid the presence that it had discerned, took the only way open to it and went along a narrow path between two vineyards, which had walls on either side. So the Angel then moved and stood in that path.
Num 22:25
‘And the ass saw the angel of Yahweh, and she thrust herself to the wall, and crushed Balaam’s foot against the wall, and he smote her again.’
The ass, discerning the Angel again, pressed against one of the walls in order to avoid Him. It was clearly terrified at this strange presence. The result was that Balaam’s foot was trapped against the wall. So he beat his ass again. This repeated emphasis is in order to stress Balaam’s spiritual blindness. He himself was still totally unaware of the ‘presence’.
Num 22:26
‘And the angel of Yahweh went further, and stood in a narrow place, where there was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left.’
The angel then allowed the ass through by moving away, and the ass continued along the pathway to a place where it was so narrow that there was no way of turning any way at all. And there the ass discerned the mysterious presence standing in his way again.
Num 22:27
‘And the ass saw the angel of Yahweh, and she lay down under Balaam. And Balaam’s anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with his staff.’
This was just too much and with no alternative direction to take the ass now collapsed to the ground in fear. Meanwhile Balaam could not understand his ass’s strange behaviour and beat it again. Here was the great prophet and diviner, but he had no clue about what was happening, even though to his ass the spirit presence was obvious.
So Balaam is here depicted as very much limited. The ancients recognised that strange animal behaviour might well indicate activity of the gods, and therefore this behaviour of his ass should have warned Balaam that something unusual was happening. But he was shown to be so undiscerning that he not only failed to be aware of the presence of the Angel, but also failed to pick up the messages from his ass.
Num 22:28
‘And Yahweh opened the mouth of the ass, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have smitten me these three times?’
Then Yahweh intervened in order to ram home His message. He spoke through the ass. Moses was used to hearing the voice of Yahweh from between the cherubim (Num 7:89). Balaam received it from between the ass’s ears. It would be quite clear to all who was the greater prophet. But there is no reason why Yahweh should not speak in one way or the other. So to Balaam the voice seemed to be coming from his ass.
The question we may ask is, ‘Was there a genuine voice from the ass, or was it just within Balaam’s cognition?’ A man like Balaam would certainly have experiences of which ordinary men knew nothing. He would be used to ‘hearing voices’. So it is a question that we cannot answer. But what mattered was that Balaam got the message.
To him then the voice spoke as though from the ass. It asked why the ass should be blamed to such an extent that it had been beaten three times, that is, given a thorough beating.
Num 22:29
‘And Balaam said to the ass, “Because you have mocked me. I would there were a sword in my hand, for now I would have killed you.” ’
We must not read too much into a story expressed in simple terms, but Balaam’s lack of surprise may indicate that in fact Balaam was used to hearing spirit voices from his ass, and indeed sometimes used it as a kind of spirit medium. (Asses were not figures of fun in those days. Kings rode on them to their coronations. Some modern spiritists claim to have used their cats in the same way). Either way Balaam spoke back boldly to his ass. This was what this great man had come to! And he declared that quite frankly he felt like killing him. Indeed had he had a sword he would have done so. The comment would bring a wry smile to the reader’s face, for he would be aware that there was a drawn sword around, but it was not in the hand of Balaam but in the hand of the Angel of Yahweh.
Num 22:30
‘And the ass said to Balaam, “Am I not your ass, on which you have ridden all your life long to this day? Was I ever wont to do so to you?”. And he said, “No.” ’
The voice from the ass then pointed out that the ass had been his faithful companion for a long time. Could Balaam ever remember him behaving in this way before? The inference was that Balaam should therefore have known that something unusual was happening and should have discerned the apparition. He was supposed to be a discerner of spirits. Again the emphasis was on how lacking in discernment he was.
Num 22:31
‘Then Yahweh opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of Yahweh standing in the way, with his sword drawn in his hand. And he bowed his head, and fell on his face.’
And then Yahweh opened the eyes of Balaam. Note the stress. It required the power of Yahweh to give this prophet true discernment, and it was His power that enabled Balaam to see the unseeable (compare Num 24:3-4). And the result was that Balaam saw the angel of Yahweh, with His sword drawn in His hand, standing in the way to prevent them from moving forward. And then all he could do was bow his head and fall on his face just as his ass had done. Balaam could now do nothing before Yahweh except submit. It is being made apparent that his position did not give him a sense of superiority to the gods, especially to Yahweh.
Num 22:32-33
‘And the angel of Yahweh said to him, “Why have you smitten your ass these three times? Behold, I am come forth as an adversary, because your way is perverse before me. And the ass saw me, and turned aside before me these three times. Unless she had turned aside from me, surely now I would have even slain you, and saved her alive.” ’
Then the Angel spoke to him directly. All pretence was thrown aside. He made the position absolutely clear. He should recognise that the faithful ass had saved his life. Why then had he beaten it when all it had done was seek to save its master’s life? For He, ‘the Angel of Yahweh’, had come as his adversary to prevent his going forward, if necessary by slaying him, so as to emphasise even more that what he was aiming to do was displeasing to Yahweh. It was only the behaviour of his ass which had saved him. (So much for the ‘swallower of nations’).
Num 22:34
‘And Balaam said to the angel of Yahweh, “I have sinned, for I did not know that you stood in the way against me. Now therefore, if it displease you, I will get me back again.” ’
This brought home to Balaam the recognition that he was dealing with something such as he had never faced before. This situation was unusual and he recognised that Yahweh was angry at his behaviour. He admitted that his whole attitude was wrong. He should never have considered going with the men even though Yahweh had told him to. It was putting him into conflict with the spirit world, and that was not what he wanted. But he pointed out in mitigation that he had not realised what the true position was. It was not that he was trying to oppose God. He had not realised that the Angel was standing in the way against him (even though his ass did!). So if the Angel was displeased he would return home.
Num 22:35
‘And the angel of Yahweh said to Balaam, “Go with the men, but only the word that I shall speak to you, that you shall speak.” So Balaam went with the princes of Balak.’
The Angel of Yahweh was now satisfied that he had learned his lesson and informed him that he could again go forward, but that when he did so he must ensure that he only spoke what Yahweh told him to speak. Balaam had had his warning.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Balaam’s Ass Speaks
v. 22. And God’s anger was kindled because he v. 23. And the ass saw the Angel of the Lord standing in the way, and His sword drawn in His hand. v. 24. But the Angel of the Lord stood in a path of the vineyards, a wall being on this side and a wall on that side, v. 25. And when the ass saw the Angel of the Lord, she thrust herself unto the wall, v. 26. And the Angel of the Lord went further and stood in a narrow place, where there was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left, v. 27. And when the ass saw the Angel of the Lord, she fell down under Balaam, v. 28. And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, v. 29. And Balaam, v. 30. And the ass said unto Balaam, Am. not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? Was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he answered, Nay. v. 31. Then the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the Angel of the Lord standing in the way, v. 32. And the Angel of the Lord said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? Behold, I went out to withstand thee because thy way is perverse before Me; v. 33. And the ass saw Me and turned from Me these three times; unless she had turned from Me, surely now also I had slain thee and saved her alive. v. 34. And Balaam said unto the Angel of the Lord, I have sinned; for I knew not that Thou stoodest in the way against me. Now, therefore, if it displease Thee, I will get me back again. v. 35. And the Angel of the Lord said unto Balaam, Go with the men;
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Num 22:22. God’s anger was kindled because he went It may seem strange that God should first strictly forbid Balaam to go; should then, secondly, suffer him, and afterwards be angry with him for going. 1. With respect to the first, why he was first forbidden, and then suffered to go, Psalmanazar judiciously remarks, that it was for the greater pomp and grandeur of the thing. Had he been suffered to go with the first messengers, who, as the text intimates, were but few in number, and persons of a lower rank, their report of the extraordinary oppositions which he was to meet with on the way, having no other witness than they and the prophet’s two servants, might have been liable to suspicion, and so have failed of making a due impression upon those who had sent him. But when Balak sees himself obliged to send new ones of higher rank, as well as in greater numbers, (who may be supposed to have had a suitable retinue after them, being stiled princes, Num 22:15.) these accompanying the prophet all the way, and being eye and ear witnesses of what happened to him in his journey to the land of Moab, can hardly be supposed to have countenanced, much less combined with him to invent a fiction so contrary to his interest and their own sanguine expectations; and as this scene of wonders was to be a kind of prelude to Balak’s disappointment, their confirmation of it could not, but give it an unquestionable sanction with the Moabites and Midianites, and add weight to the prophecies which were to follow in favour of the Israelites. But, 2. Why was God angry with Balaam for going with the messengers, when he had permitted him to do so? The common solution which the Jewish and Christian writers give us is, that Balaam flattered himself God had, or might have, been prevailed upon to alter his intentions with respect to the Israelites, either by his sacrifices or enchantments; by which means he should gain considerable preferment, as well, as great reputation among the Moabites. But, if this had been the only cause of God’s anger, would he not more probably have suffered him to go on in his fond conceit, and then punished his presumption in the face of Moab and the Midianites, either by forcing him to bless instead of cursing, or by turning his curses into blessings, which would equally have answered his end, without being at the trouble of sending an angel to obstruct his way? It must be owned, that the crime which the angel says to his charge (see the note on Num 22:32.) is but obscurely expressed, and, according to most versions and commentators, implies no more than that he had warped or perverted his way before God; i.e. that he either proposed to himself a different issue of this expedition than God had decreed, or that he was mediating on some way to elude or frustrate the Lord’s designs, if he should find them contrary to his own and Balak’s expectation; or perhaps, lastly, was considering how to palliate the matter with Balak and his people, so as to avoid their resentment in case he did not succeed. In any of which cases, he appears to have had a greater regard to his own credit and interest than to God’s commission and design. Where, then, is the improbability of an angel being sent to reprove him for his selfish views, to enjoin him to proceed as he was directed, and to leave the issue of the whole to the Divine Providence? especially as such an extraordinary apparition could not but add a further weight to what he should afterwards be bid to say or do. Bishop Newton, in this view, observes, that the miracle was a proper sign to Balaam, and had a proper effect; and we may the more easily believe it, when we find Balaam afterwards inspired with such knowledge of futurity. It was not more above the natural capacity of the ass to speak, than it was above the natural capacity of Balaam to foretel so many distant events. The prophecies render the miracle more credible; and we shall have less reason to doubt of the one when we see the accomplishment of the other.
He was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him By which is not meant that he was not alone, separated from the rest of the company; for it is said expressly in the 21st verse, that he went with the princes of Moab, who, doubtless, were witnesses of this extraordinary scene. The difficulty, however, is easily solved, by an attention to the text. God, in the 20th verse, tells Balaam, if the men come to call thee, rise up and go with them. In this 22nd verse it is said, God’s anger was kindled because he went: the Hebrew is ki-holek hu, which may be rendered, because he went of himself; of his own proper inclination, without waiting to be called upon by the messengers of Balak: for we never read that they did call upon him. The Arabic version renders it, the anger of the Lord was kindled against him, because he went out of covetousness.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
D.BALAAMS JOURNEY AND HIS SPEAKING ASS
Num 22:22-40
22And Gods anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him. 23And the ass saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the ass, to turn her into the way. 24But the angel of the Lord stood in a path of the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that side. 25And when the ass saw the angel of the Lord, she thrust herself unto the wall, and crushed Balaams foot against the wall: and he smote her again. 26And the angel of the Lord went further, and stood in a narrow place, where was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left. 27And when the ass saw the angel of the Lord, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaams 28anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff. And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? 29And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee. 30And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass 4upon which thou hast ridden ever since 5I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto 31thee? And he said, Nay. Then the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face. 632And the angel of the Lord said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? Behold, I went out to withstand thee, 7because thy way is perverse before me: 33And the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive. 34And Balaam said unto the angel of the Lord, I have sinned; for I knew not that thou stoodest in the way against me: now therefore, 8if it displease thee, I will get me back again. 35And the angel of the Lord said unto Balaam, Go with the men: but only the word that I shall speak unto thee, that thou shalt speak. So Balaam went with the princes of Balak.
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 9Kirjath-huzoth.40And Balak offered oxen and sheep, and sent to Balaam, and to the princes that were with him.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
[Num 22:22. the participle was going denoting here not only a continuous journey, but a tendency and striving to the end.A. G.]
[Num 22:24. 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 theeit had already been done.A. G.]
[Num 22:32. to be an adversary. to precipitate, to be headlong.A. G.]
[Num 22:33. , perhaps. There is no sufficient authority for the rendering unless, surely.A. G.]
[Num 22:39. , streets of the city, in which markets were held or trade carried on.A. G.]
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
He saddled his ass and departed with the princely envoys and his own servants. But the anger of God was aroused, because he wentthat is, went cherishing the hope that he would still win Jehovah to his own wish and plan. Since he now goes out with hostile intent toward Gods people, he encounters the divine opposition in the definite form of the Angel of Jehovah. The seer himself is indeed blinded through his insincerity and falsehood; but his ass, on the contrary, has become clear-sighted. It undertakes his part as a sign that he has taken upon himself the part of the brute. He does not see the angel because his thoughts brood upon the brilliant future which presents itself to his view. Still in the back-ground of his being, stirred by his evil conscience, the visionary power partly freed from restraint, the terror of his spirit passed into the fear of spirits, which at first quickens the vision of the ass, and then indirectly, through its strange acts, works upon himself. Three times the ass starts back affrighted at the sight of the angel of the Lord standing in the way with a drawn sword threatening death, in his hand. It is not strange that the animal in sympathy with its master should think that it might pass by the angel. Thus at first it starts aside into the field; then when the angel bars the path between the vineyard walls, it presses closely against the wall, thereby crushing the foot of the prophet; and then at last when it must pass through a narrow path, in which there was no room to turn either to the right hand or the left, with the dread form right before it, the ass falls upon its knees. It has no power to proceed. But now Balaam, in the heat of passion, beats it the third time. Here Jehovah opens the mouth of the ass, and a conversation takes place between the rider and his beast. The visionary condition of the prophet had been already awakened and developed since he heard the ass speak; but it comes out decidedly when reminded that the faithful animal had never behaved in this strange way before, and that therefore some very unusual surroundings must be at work. Now Jehovah can open the eyes of Balaam, that he also may see the angel. Knobel here relates various similar instances of speaking animals, horses, cattle, sheep, and even generally of cases of brute speech (p. 184 and 185). The negative criticism is interested in asserting that according to the writer, the ass has actually (i.e. externally) spoken, and that Balaam heard its utterances with his ears. He enumerates a list of authors from Josephus to Baumgarten and Kurtz, who hold this positive view. When he cites the passage in 2Pe 2:16 in corroboration of this view, he allows to the New Testament as little as to the Old a symbolical method of expression, or one which recognizes the reality of the inner world. The other interpretation advocated by Maimonides, Herder, Jahn, Michaelis, Dathe, Steudel, Tholuck, Hengstenberg, that it was only in a vision or dream that Balaam heard the ass speak, and that the hearing of the words was barely (barely an inward!) an inward occurrence, he thinks may easily be disproved. The author says nothing of a vision or dream, etc.Hengstenberg has justly vindicated the reality of visionary states, and has adduced many arguments to prove that the narrative here treats of inner visions and voices in the form of external and bodily seeing and hearing. Hengstenbergs merit is all the greater because he did not have a clear hermeneutical understanding of the biblical, historico-ideal or symbolical style, on which to rest. His explanation of the offering of Isaac, of Jephthahs daughter, and of the Egyptian miracles, is entitled to a like praise, and one may well conjecture that his contempt for the superficial character of many of the negative critics, may have betrayed him later into extreme utterances. Keil seeks to establish an intermediate view. The angel did really appear upon the road, and in the outward world of the senses; but the form was not a grossly sensuous or material form, like the bodily frame of an ordinary being, for then Balaam would inevitably have seen him. This conception is perfectly justified, but then when he treats of the speaking of the ass, he falls back into a vacillating state between Kurtz and Hengstenberg. Expositors who regard the letter more than the spirit, sensuous more than inner experiences, have been led here to various and specious shifts and subterfuges. Against the supposition of a spectral angelic appearance, which might alarm an animal of any species akin to that here, we have nothing to mention; but the examples cited by Hengstenberg (after Passavant, pp. 5461) according to which the terrors of a visionary man, may prove the cause and occasion of the fright of an animal standing in sympathetic relations with him deserve consideration.
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 sinnedbut 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 henow the angel of Jehovahshould 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 Balaams 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 capitalcity of streetsperhaps 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. 4863) while Kurtz (Geschich. des Alten Bundes, Vol. 2, pp. 468478) 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 mans 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 eyeto his visionary conditionthe 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 openopen, i.e., in the visionary or ecstatic sense, his bodily eyes closed that his eyes within may be openhas 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 herecertainly there is no such condition until after the dumb ass speaks with mans 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 convictionsecret if not avowedthat 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 mans 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 Balaams 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 gainhis reawakening to the occurrences in the external worldso 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 mans 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 interpretationthe plain, obvious oneis 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 worldif the Angel was present to the sensesthere 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:
[4]Marg. Who hast ridden upon me.
[5]Marg. Ever since thou wast.
[6]Marg. bowed himself.
[7]Marg. To be an adversary unto thee.
[8]Marg. If it be evil in thine eyes.
[9]Marg. a city of streets.
[10]Marg. on he went solitary.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
GOD’S displeasure, it should seem, was not for the journey of Balaam; for the LORD had determined that he should be the unwilling instrument of good to his people, and confusion to his enemies. But it was from the secret malice in his heart against Israel, that he might yet, somehow or other, make Balak his friend in cursing them.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Balaam Stopped By an Angel
Num 22:22-35
One of the most pious and profound commentators has suggested that all this was seen in a vision; in other words, the narrative may be taken as Balaam’s report of a very marvellous dream. Any suggestion will do when men want to get rid of the supernatural. Under such circumstances, the very indifferent man may become an important personage. Anything that will rid us of lines beyond our own personal experience, and give us a sense of comfortable snugness within four visible points, will be received with gratitude by the natural heart. We like insulation. We are pleased with a clock that we can see, every tick of which we can hear, and every indication of which we can read. But the clock is not the time. The time is invisible, impalpable, in many regards incalculable; quite a ghost, a very solemn thing, always talking, and yet talking in a way that is not always clearly apprehended or understood. People like to be comfortable, and nobody can be comfortable with the supernatural who is not in harmony with it. If a certain miracle has not been wrought in the soul, the supernatural becomes a kind of ghost, a spectral presence, an uncanny possibility in the life, and had better be got rid of; and when the mind wants such riddance, any suggestion that will aid in that direction is received with effusive thankfulness. In this instance, we had better, perhaps, in the first place, endeavour to find out what are those things in the story which do lie within the limit of our own experience an experience which we are in danger of exaggerating into a kind of instinct and claim of infallibility. First of all, therefore, instead of troubling the mind with vexing questions which never can be settled, let us collect the lessons which are obviously within the circle of our own observation and experience; after that, we may be in a position to look at certain miraculous aspects and ascertain their import and their divine intention.
It lies quite within our experience that we do get our own way, and yet have a sense of burning and judgment, of opposition and anger all the time. Balaam was invited to go to Balak’s country and he said, No. He said No with some emphasis. He was a man of fine impulse, an his first impulse was generally healthy and strong in a right direction. Instead of giving a hesitant No he gave a bold round thunderous NO! Then Balak tried again; he also believed in importunity. He doubled the bribe, nay, he may have multiplied the bribe by ten. He sent more honourable princes; men who in their own country were accustomed to command, and they assumed the obeisant attitude with great grace and humility. Balaam said, No. But all the thunder had gone out of that No; it was a No which a mean man might have said. However he said I will pray about it, I will consult the Lord when he need not have consulted the Lord at all. Men forget that there is a time when they need not ask the Lord any questions. Never trouble the Lord to know whether you cannot do just a little wrong; he is not to be called upon in relation to business of that kind. He does not pray who palters with moral distinctions, who wants to make compromises, who is anxious to find some little crevice or opening through which he can pass into the land of his own desire. Whimpering hypocrite! miserable miscreant! thou wilt pray in order to get leave to go in the direction pleasant to the imagination or profitable to the pocket and call it prayer! wilt consult the oracle, wilt look to heaven, wilt inquire diligently in the Scriptures, wilt endeavour to find out some sign indicating what God means thee to do, whilst before thou didst pray thou hadst fashioned the answer. It was a mocker’s religion. Balaam got his own way so far. The Lord has a method of his own in this particular. Providence does shape itself curiously in some instances. The voice said to him, Go! you want to go; you have made up your secret mind to go, go; only the word that I bid thee speak, that shalt thou say; and Balak, who sent for an ally, shall find himself confronted with a missionary. These things lie quite obviously within our own experience. We need not describe them at all as theological; we have seen this in a score of instances, perhaps, in some instances, we ourselves have been the chief actors and sufferers. So far then we are upon the line of experience.
Men are stopped in certain courses without being able to tell the reason why. That also is matter of experience. The wind seems to be a wall before us; the road looks quite open, and yet we can make no progress in it. Our eyes deceive us, because surely this is a highway the king’s broad road and yet, scheme as we may, promise what we may, we can make no progress along that road. If an army met us, we could run home, and say, Lo! a host beset us, and we have fled before the furious opposition. But there is no army. If some beast of prey had rushed out from the hedge, we could have turned back and explained to our comrades in life that we were stopped by a threatening beast. But there is no such difficulty on the road that is at all visible to us. We lift up our hand, and say we will go in this direction, oppose us what may, and there is nothing to strike at. Again and again do we say, How is this? we came the first two miles easily, pleasantly, as if galloping over a flowery land at bright summer time, and we said in our hearts, This journey will be a right pleasant one all through; and suddenly we can go no farther. This is matter of experience. Let us constantly say to ourselves: We cannot account for the impossibility of progress. The business stands still; we have risen at the same hour in the morning, carried out the usual arrangements, been apparently on the alert all the time; and yet not one inch farther are we permitted to go. Suppose we have no God, no altar, no Church limitations, no ghostly ministry exerting itself upon our life and frightening us with superstition and spectre we are healthy reasoners, downright robust rationalists, men who can take things up and set them down, square-headed men, yet there is the fact, that even we such able-bodied rationalists, such healthy souls that any society would insure us on the slightest inquiry there we are, puzzled, mystified, perplexed, distracted. We will not use theological terms: we fall back upon the second grade of language; still there remains the substantial and abiding fact, that progress along this road is impossible. So far, this story affords no ground of serious difficulty, even to the reason and the mind in its soberest mood.
It also lies within the region of experience that men are rebuked by dumb animals. That is odd; but it is true. The whole Scripture is charged with that statement, and so charged with it as to amount to a practical philosophy in daily life: “But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee” “The stork in heaven knoweth her appointed times” “The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib” “Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise.” Dumb creatures are continually teaching us. They keep law with wondrous obedience. The poorest brutes are really very faithful to the rude legislation under which they live. If men could only be as drunk as a beast, they would never go far from the paths of sobriety. It is a foul slander upon the beast for a man to set himself beside it and say that he is as oblivious of law, as negligent of divine intention, as the brute that perishes. In temperance, in acceptance of discipline, in docility, I know not any beast that is ever used by man that may not teach some men, very distinctly, helpful and useful lessons. That the beast does not speak is the very smallest and poorest objection that can be taken to the teaching. It is putting speech in a false position, it is altogether altering the relations and perspective of things. What is speech? How is speech delivered? Is speech confined to the tongue? We must define the word speech, if we are to enter into the particulars of a controversy which can never be settled. But we cannot allow rude definitions to be given as if they were philosophical. There is the substantial fact, that the beasts of the field do teach us, rebuke us, humble us; and that they do not do all this through the medium of articulate speech as that term is understood by us, is a frivolous objection, and ought not to be taken account of in any court in which the presiding disposition is to find out substantial and eternal truths. So far, I see nothing in the story to disturb the sobriety of experience.
Then, again, it does lie within our cognition that men do blame second causes for want of success. Balaam blamed the ass. That is what we are always doing. There is nothing exceptional in this conduct of the soothsayer. We want to get on it is the beast that will not go. Who ever thought that an angel was confronting him that a distinct ghostly purpose was against him? Who ever imagined that he, a rationalist with a healthy digestion, was stopped on his course by some beneficent providence? He naturally feels that he ought not to have been stopped; he is a healthy-minded man, there is no nonsense about him, a practical man, shrewd, with eyes well-set in his head and that can see one colour in its distinction from another an eye skilled in proportion and distance and expression; he ought not to have been stopped. Yet he is arrested. He blames his surroundings, his assistants, his colleagues, his “stupid partner,” his “reluctant people.” He would have been miles ahead he might have been back by this time, but he was stopped by second causes. How much nobler the health of the man who says, I am but of yesterday, and know nothing; I cannot tell what a day may bring forth; it is good to be disappointed; it is beneficial for my soul’s health not to have my own way always; I wanted to go along this road, and to go at a very quick rate, but I am mysteriously arrested, and I cannot move through an invisible wall; but God built it I fall down before it as before an altar, and thank God for the stoppage! To some men, that appears to be the true reasoning. They have such self-distrust they have seen the consequences of leaning to their own judgment so frequently, they have tested life at so many points and find what a mystery it is that at last they have come to say, We see nothing as it really is; we know nothing as it really is; we are in the hands of the divine Father; not our will but thine be done. To some imaginations, that appears to be fanaticism; to others not altogether ridiculous in mental capacity, nor altogether unworthy of credit really genuinely-learned and cultivated men it seems to be the finest rationalism, the noblest sobriety, the most substantial conviction.
Does it not also lie within the range of our experience that men do want to get back sometimes but are driven forward? Did not Balaam want to return when he said, “If it displease thee, I will get me back again”? We cannot. Life is not a little trick, measurable by such terms. A man cannot make a fool of himself, and instantly turn round as if nothing had happened; we cannot drive a nail into a tree and take it out without leaving a wound behind. It does not lie within the range of our arm pontiffs though we be in the shabby church of reason to break the vessel of glass, and put it together again as if it had never been dashed to pieces. This is not in harmony with the mystery of the universe as we know it. This proposition of Balaam’s is the ridiculous imagination of men who suppose that they can sin against God and say, Now we will turn back; we will not do it again; we have blasphemed God now we will go to church. To get that sophism out of the human mind is the difficulty of God. It appears so easy to commit a sin, and then to say we are sorry that we committed it, and to go back home as if nothing had been done. What has been done? The universe has been dishonoured; the snowy purity of God has been stained; the great creation in all its harmonies has been shocked and distressed with a great pain. We ought not to infer anything to the disadvantage of God from such a method of providence. It means that we are more than we thought ourselves to be. Conduct is of greater consequence than we imagine. Humanity is a sublime mystery, as well as God; and there is no way backward, unless it be in consent with the Mind that constructed and that rules creation. Balaam would go back and remain at Pethor as if he had never left his native village; but the Lord said, No; go forward; only now be the representative of holy truth to the heathen king.
But there is a difficulty about the dumb ass rebuking the perverse prophet? So there is. I would be dismayed by it if I were not overwhelmed by greater miracles still. This has come to be but a small thing a very momentary wonder, a riddle which a child might guess, as compared with more astounding circumstances. A more wonderful thing than that an ass should speak is that a man should forget God. If you challenge me to the consideration of both the subjects, and take them in the order of their importance, in proportion as I am a sound reasoner and in a healthy condition of conscience and imagination, I cannot hesitate which to assign the overwhelming importance. That a man should forget deliverances that a man should be delivered from the jaws of the lion and the bear and should forget the deliverance that is a more astounding circumstance than that all the beasts of the field should open their mouths in articulate and impressive eloquence. Why do we vex our little selves with little questions, instead of exciting our greater selves by greater problems? The miracle that astounds the Lord is that we should have forgotten that he had nourished and brought up children and that they should have rebelled against him. We childish, foolish, vain, are busy with little puzzles in the history of miracles, whilst the infinite impeachment is uttered by all the thunders of the universe, that we have forgotten God, turned away from the fountain of waters, and have hewn out to ourselves cisterns broken cisterns that could hold no water. Riddle-loving, easily tickled and amused, excited by miracles of the smallest quantity and the feeblest quality, we are wondering if the ass did speak to Balaam; whilst all the angels of God might stand appalled in looking on any sinful man who ever lifted his hand against the majesty of Heaven. There are historical miracles, there are miracles of a physical and material kind, there are mysteries to which we have no immediate answer; but there are other mysteries which involve destiny, and to these miracles we think it best to address ourselves in the first instance. The miracles of a physical and historical kind may admit of postponement as to their consideration; but that men should have forgotten God, and insulted law, and done unrighteously, these are mysteries which must not be delayed in their explanation and settlement.
So we come again and again to the great practical inquiry, Being on the wrong road, how shall we get back? There is no answer in man. If Balaam could have retraced his steps, put up his ass in the stable and gone about his business as if nothing had occurred, it would have been but a paper universe. That he could not do so, that he was under the pressure of mightier forces, indicates that the universe is itself a tragedy, and that the explanation of every character, every incident, and every flush of colour, must be left for another time, when the light is stronger and the duration is assured. Meanwhile, we can pray, we can look up, we can say, each for himself, “I have sinned.”
Prayer
Almighty God, receive us everyone in the name of thy Son Jesus Christ, we humbly beseech thee. There is room in thine heart for every one; thou dost miss the least. Teach us the minuteness of thy care that we may give to thee the keeping of our whole life, reserving nothing for our own regard, but delivering the whole space of life, great and small, to the rule and blessing of Heaven. We will do nothing without thee; though the temptation be strong to arise and move on and begin the battle and seize the gate, yet will we stand still until we are sure of thy bidding to move. Thou hast made one star differ from another star in glory; thou hast set one man above another; thou hast made one life the ruler of many lives. The distribution is entirely in God’s hands; we would accept it and adore the sovereignty which it represents. But thou hast a place for every one: thou hast omitted nothing from thy reckoning; to every man thou sayest, Why stand ye idle in the marketplace? thou wilt find a position for every life. We bless thee for this confidence; it delivers us from care; it helps us patiently to wait. Thou hast marked our life by many a sign we cannot mistake. It is thy life: it was thy life before it was ours; it is only ours because it is thine. Thou dost close the door upon us suddenly and open another door that we did not know to be in existence; thou takest away from us our staff and thou puttest into our hand a still stronger one. We cannot tell what thou doest. Thou sendest winter in the midst of summer, and a glow of heavenly light amid the clouds that darken the heavens. Thy will be done evermore. As for our sin, if it is not always present to us, it is always in our heart, a reckoning to be settled, a guilt to be pardoned; but if the sin is there, behold, the Cross of Christ is still within the vision of our faith, and the blood of Jesus Christ thy Son cleanseth from all sin. We will not fall into despair: we will not turn our imagination into the plague of our life; but looking to the heavens and to thy revelation in the Holy Book and to the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, even in the deep pit we will take heart again and our hope shall be strong in God. Let a morning light be in our hearts; let a. gracious blessing make us glad; may the Spirit of the Living One destroy all death within us and make us now joyous and rich with the assurance of immortality. Amen.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
Num 22:22 And God’s anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants [were] with him.
Ver. 22. And God’s anger.] Deus saepe dat iratus quod negat propitius.
And his two servants were with him.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
God’s anger. Note ‘Elohim, not Jehovah.
went = was really going. Emphasized to show that even this condition was not meant as a condition, but was to be taken rather as irony. It shows also Balaam’s determination to go, whether or no.
stood = stationed himself.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
anger
(Cf) (See Scofield “Gen 46:3”). In Num 22:12 the directive will of Jehovah is made known to Balaam, in Num 22:20 Jehovah’s permissive will. The prophet is now free to go, but knows the true mind of the Lord about it. The matter is wholly one between Jehovah and His servant. The permission of Num 22:20 really constitutes a testing of Balaam. He chose the path of self-will and self- advantage, and Jehovah could not but gravely disapprove. The whole scene, Num 22:22-35 prepared Balaam for what was to follow.
angel
(See Scofield “Heb 1:4”)
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
God’s: 2Ki 10:20, Hos 1:4
and the angel: Num 22:35, Gen 48:15, Gen 48:16, Exo 3:2-6, Hos 12:4, Hos 12:5
stood: Num 22:32, Exo 4:24, Lam 2:4
Reciprocal: Jdg 19:3 – his servant 2Pe 2:16 – the dumb
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Num 22:22. Because he went Namely, of his own accord, and did not wait till the princes of Moab came to call him, which was the sign and condition of Gods permission, but rather himself rose and went to call them. The apostle describes Balaams sin here to be, that he ran greedily into an error for reward, Judges 11. For an adversary To oppose, if not to kill him. His servants with him The rest of the company being probably gone before them. For in those ancient times there was more of simplicity, and less of ceremony, and therefore it is not strange that Balaam came at some distance after the rest, and attended only by his own servants.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Num 22:22-35. Balaams Journey to Balak without Gods Consent.This section is clearly not the sequel of the preceding, but the continuation of Num 22:5-14, and (as far as Num 22:34) is derived from J. Balaam disregards the Divine prohibition to go to Balak which is recorded in Num 22:12, but is made aware of Yahwehs anger in the course of his journey. The ass was the animal commonly used by the Hebrews for riding in times of peace (Gen 22:3, Exo 4:20, Jdg 10:4, 1Ki 2:40, 2Ki 4:22, Zec 9:9). The speaking of a dumb animal (alluded to in 2Pe 2:16) is paralleled in the OT only by the speaking of the serpent in Genesis 3; but similar fanciful stories of animals that used human language occur in Homer, Il. xix. 407, Livy, iii. 10, xxiv. 10. In Num 22:35 the disobedient prophet is apparently allowed to continue his journey; but the words uttered by the angel are virtually identical with Gods words in Num 22:20 (E); so that possibly Js version of the angels reply has been lost and replaced by a passage from the other source. It may perhaps be inferred from Num 22:37 that Balaam returned home and that Balak went to seek him there.
Num 22:32. thy way is perverse: better (with Syr.), thou hast made thy way (or journey) headlong (i.e. precipitate).
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
22:22 And God’s anger was kindled because he {k} went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants [were] with him.
(k) Moved rather with covetousness than to obey God.