Original Meaning

THE MALEDICTORIAN. Moving to the steppes of Moab across the Jordan River from Jericho (22:1), the Israelites are close to where they will enter Canaan. However, their perils east of the Jordan are not over yet. Chapters 22–24 record the dramatic story of Balak’s attempt, unbeknown to the Israelites, to have Balaam curse them.

With so many Israelites so close, King Balak of Moab and his people are seized by sickening dread because they see what Israel has done to the Amorites (22:2–3), who earlier defeated Moab (21:26–30). Slim indeed are your chances of winning against a team that has handily defeated another team that earlier defeated you!

According to Deuteronomy 2:9, the Lord has already commanded Moses not to disturb the Moabites or take any of their land, but poor Balak does not know this. So, ruling out a preemptive military strike, even with the help of his Midianite allies (Num. 22:4), he comes up with an alternative proactive strategy to utilize a secret weapon: a curse by Balaam. Balak does not expect Balaam to destroy the Israelites but only to soften them up and thereby even the odds to manageable proportions so that his ground troops will have a fighting chance (22:5–6). Balaam, a diviner (Josh. 13:22) who originated from the northeast by the Euphrates River, has an international reputation for pronouncing effective blessings, and when it comes to curses, you could say that he is the maledictorian in his class (Num. 22:6b).

For persuading Balaam to come on his errant errand, King Balak uses verbal flattery, an impressive delegation of Moabite and Midianite leaders (referred to as [tribal] elders)1 to convey the gravity of the request, and divination fees (22:6b–7). Balak’s message does not identify the Israelites as such (22:5, 11), perhaps so that Balaam will not recognize a conflict of interest that pits the Lord against his own people.

Balaam keeps the messengers overnight so that he can receive an answer from the Lord (22:8). This non-Israelite diviner is a kind of prophet and expects a revelation in the night (cf. Dan. 7:2, 7, 13). An eighth-century B.C. group of inscriptions correlates with the biblical story in important ways. These texts on plaster walls were discovered by archaeologists at the site of Deir ʿAllā, about eight kilometers east of the Jordan River and close to the northern bank of the Jabbok/Zerqa River, which flows into the Jordan some distance to the north of Moab. The inscriptions, which present literary similarities to the biblical Balaam oracles (e.g., poetic quality), are written in a Northwest Semitic dialect (with some affinities to Aramaic), which may be a form of Hebrew spoken by Israelites who lived in that Transjordanian region. In terms of content, the most striking feature is that Balaam son of Beor is remembered as a seer of the gods, who convey a disturbing message to him in an oracular vision at night.

The Deir ʿAllā writings are saturated with polytheism, express belief in divination, and portray Balaam as interacting with a number of gods in various ways: by receiving visions and through involvement with divination and possibly exorcism.2 If he was a polytheist, as depicted here, it appears that he would have dealt with whatever supernatural beings were relevant to the needs of his clients. Perhaps the Deir ʿAllā account reflects a stage in Balaam’s life that came after an apostasy from monotheistic devotion to Israel’s deity (Yahweh), but there is insufficient evidence to establish this.

Partly on the basis of the Deir ʿAllā inscriptions, S. C. Layton contends that King Balak called Balaam from Deir ʿAllā, where he had settled by “the river of the land of the Ammonites” (22:5—reading ʿammo [“his people”] as “Ammon,” with the Samaritan, Syriac Peshitta, and Latin Vulgate versions), that is, the Jabbok River.3 However, Noordtzij insists that “the River” must be the Euphrates, in accordance with prevailing use of this expression elsewhere.4 Since Balaam was from Pethor (perhaps = Pitru) of Aram in upper Mesopotamia, that is, northeastern Syria (22:5; cf. 23:7; Deut. 23:4),5 it seems possible that his connection with the deity of the Israelites is through their Aramean roots or relatives (Gen. 25:20; 28:5; 31:24).

Not taking Balaam’s divinely directed “no” for an answer, desperate Balak offers Balaam a tempting “blank check” to fill in any amount he wishes for his “honorarium” (22:15–17). The first part of Balaam’s answer—“Even if Balak gave me his palace . . .” (22:18)—is a model of piety that would make him a biblical paradigm of loyalty to the Lord, whom he claims as his God, if it were not for the rest of the story.

Balaam’s next words, however, betray a certain ambivalence. He invites the messengers to stay so that he can find out what else the Lord may have to say (v. 19). This is odd. Why would Balaam think the Lord might change his mind? Or perhaps we should ask: Why would Balaam hope the Lord might change his mind? The answer to this question is rather obvious: King Balak has “upped the ante” to the point that Balaam cannot resist!

Surprisingly, the Lord’s answer is indeed different: Balaam can go to Moab on condition that he do only what God tells him. Undoubtedly delighted at the prospect of satisfying his greed with his professional integrity intact, thereby “having his cake and eating it too,” Balaam wastes no time lest the Lord should withdraw permission. In the morning he rises, saddles his female donkey, and sets out with two servants (22:20–22; cf. Gen. 22:3 of faithful Abraham).6

Journey on a jenny. In spite of the fact that God allows Balaam to go, he is angry when the diviner leaves. To forcefully convey divine displeasure, “an angel of the LORD” (NJPS)7 takes his stand in the road as a śaṭan (i.e., adversary) to Balaam (22:22; see also v. 32). Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, śaṭan can designate the adversary of God and his people (Job 1–2; Zech. 3:1–2), namely, Satan (proper name without definite article; 1 Chron. 21:1). But here the term refers to a role played by an angel or messenger of God.8 Balaam is trotting into heavy opposition!

Balaam values his own insight and wisdom, but his life is saved by the lowly beast of burden that he mistreats for irritating him (22:33). She is his greatest asset. When the Lord uncovers Balaam’s eyes and he sees what she did, he reacts similarly (cf. 22:27) by prostrating himself before the awesome angel blocking the way with sword drawn (22:31; cf. Gen. 3:24).

The angel issues Balaam a ticket for reckless driving (22:32).The verb that NIV renders “is a reckless one” is yrṭ, which shows up only here in the Hebrew Bible. Because we have no other contexts to determine the meaning of this word, interpreters have offered a variety of guesses. If the way (derek) is that of Balaam and is a literal road or path, yrṭ may mean “blocked” (NJB), but if it is a figurative path (i.e., course of action or mission), it could mean “twisted”9 (i.e., “perverse” [NKJV, NRSV], “obnoxious” [NJPS], or “reckless” [NIV]).

While most readers take “the way” (hadderek) to be that of Balaam (e.g., NIV “your path,” following Samaritan Pentateuch, LXX, and Vulgate), Levine suggests that the angel may have said to Balaam, “for the mission was pressing upon me.”10 That is, the angel has to stop Balaam in order to carry out the angel’s urgent mission to convey a message to him. In any case, it is clear from the context that the Lord, represented by his angel, disapproves of what Balaam is doing and is determined to alter his course of action. If (against Levine) the angel explicitly holds Balaam accountable for his way “before me” (22:32), he speaks for the Lord, or possibly even as the Lord (cf., e.g., Judg. 6 and 13).11

Although Balaam confesses and offers to return home, as well he might (Num. 22:34), the angel tells him to continue, with the condition that he “speak only what I tell you” (22:35). When King Balak meets Balaam at the Moabite border, Balaam cites this condition of complete divine control (22:38) as an “escape clause” in case Balak should be dissatisfied with his utterances.

Balak extends hospitality to Balaam by sacrificing (Qal of zbḥ) animals at Kiriath Huzoth and sending them to Balaam and the princes with him, apparently primarily for them to enjoy a feast (22:39–40). The text does not identify the deity to which these non-Israelite sacrifices are offered, but it appears that they are related to the Israelite zebaḥ (so-called “sacrifice”) class of sacrifices (e.g., Lev. 3; 7:11–21), from which the offerer(s) could eat (7:15–21).

The following morning, Balak takes Balaam up to a place with a view—Bamoth Baal, “high places of Baal”—where he can visually connect with Israel from a safe distance (Num. 22:41) in order to aim his imprecatory “smart bombs.” Ironically, whereas Israelites looked on Moses’ bronze serpent in order to be healed (21:8–9), Balaam is now gazing at Israelites. He too believes in a “line of sight” (we might say “wireless”) link, but his goal for them is the opposite of theirs.

Bridging Contexts

TAKING “NO” FOR an answer. Numbers 22:22 is puzzling: The Lord is angry with Balaam for going to Moab, even though he has given him permission (20:20). Why does God not hold Balaam to his earlier answer (20:12)? We could ask the same question about why the Lord was angry with the Israelites at Kibroth Hattaavah when they gathered quail he had sent for them to eat (11:31–33).

It appears that in both cases the Lord is testing people by giving them what they want in order to see whether they will show some restraint in accordance with what they already know to be right. The Israelites and Balaam both flunk by single-mindedly gravitating to self-gratification. In Balaam’s case there is an additional aggravating factor: He is setting out to enrich himself at the expense of God’s people, who are divinely blessed. Understanding the firm nature of the blessing, he should have taken God’s first “no” as the final answer.

There may be another reason for God’s apparently contradictory treatment of Balaam, which could apply even if God really wanted him to go to Moab: to set up an opportunity for overwhelmingly impressing on Balaam the fact that his message will come only from the Lord.

When the Lord tells Balaam that he should speak only what the Lord gives him, Balaam most likely still expects to use his patented methods. By speaking through the donkey God demonstrates that he has something entirely different in mind and that the delivery of the message will not depend in the least on this famous diviner’s mantic skills. Yahweh can open a dumb beast’s eyes and fill his mouth, so certainly he can manage to do the same with Balaam.12

When the “angel of the LORD” brings Balaam to a screeching halt, his confession (22:34) betrays two hints of ambivalence. (1) He admits that he has sinned because he did not know that the “angel” was standing in the road. While he partly addresses his fault in beating his faithful donkey, which he should not have done in any case, he does not speak to the more serious problem of his attempt to profit as a prophet by cursing people whom the Lord has blessed.

(2) Balaam expresses his willingness to turn around with the words, “Now if you are displeased, I will go back” (emphasis supplied). Is there any doubt that the Lord is displeased? He has just informed Balaam, “I have come here to oppose you because your path is a reckless one before me” (22:32) and “I would certainly have killed you by now” (22:33). It takes a lot of nerve for Balaam to say “if”! In spite of all that has happened, Balaam has not given up on the possibility of going to Moab.

If Balaam had unconditionally surrendered to the Lord, as Saul/Paul later surrendered to Christ under somewhat similar circumstances while on the road to persecute Christian believers in Damascus (Acts 9), he would have insisted on returning home at once. But earthly reward blinded Balaam to the needs of God’s people. There is a story about a rabbi who illustrated the way this kind of blindness works. A rich but miserly member of his congregation had stubbornly refused making a contribution to the temple building fund. So the rabbi called the man into his study, took him to the window, and asked him what he saw.

“People,” answered the rich man.

Then the rabbi led him to a mirror. “Now what do you see?” “Myself.”

The rabbi said, “The window is glass and the mirror is glass. But the glass in the mirror is covered with a little silver, and no sooner is a little silver added than you cease to see others and see only yourself.”13

First Kings 22 shows how the Lord deals with those who rebel against him and refuse to take “no” for an answer: He gives them “over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices” (Ps. 81:12) and thereby suffer the consequences. Even after a penetrating and sophisticated warning, King Ahab characteristically spurned divine counsel. He went to Ramoth Gilead anyway and died miserably as a result (1 Kings 22:29–37).

Centuries later, Paul spoke of similar rebellion during the Christian era (2 Thess. 2:10–12):

They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

When the Lord has clearly revealed his will to us, our role is to accept and follow it, not to engage in false piety by attempting to circumvent our duty through asking for a second opinion.

Contemporary Significance

OF DONKEYS AND HUMILITY. The story of Balaam and his donkey captivates young children, who love to hear every detail and act it out in charades accompanied by giggles, using Daddy as the hapless beast of burden and enjoying the novelty of beating on him with impunity. Children accept miracles more easily than adults, and the idea of a talking donkey (over three thousand years before Mr. Ed, the talking horse) is delightful. For my daughter, who from a young age has been strongly inclined toward animal rights activism, the most satisfying element is the rebuke of Balaam, the animal abuser (cf. Prov. 12:10).

Contributing to the humor of the donkey story is its remarkable irony. Three times Balaam’s donkey sees what the “seer” does not, and he vents his frustration (22:23, 25, 27). Just as God will put words in Balaam’s mouth (22:38), her speech is enabled by the Creator (22:28, 30). R. Alter points out that this episode anticipates Balaam’s three visions with eyes unveiled (cf. 23:9; 24:3–4, 17), to which King Balak reacts with frustration (23:11, 25; 24:10–11), except that the donkey plays the role of Balaam and Balaam acts as Balak.14 Notice that unlike the other talking animal in the Bible—the serpent in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3)—the donkey utters undeceptive truth.

Most amusing is the fact that Balaam answers his donkey (22:29–30) as if he were used to conversing with her regularly. Against his accusation that she is abusing him (22:29) after he has been abusing her (22:23, 25, 27), she gets him to admit that her present actions are a departure from the norm (22:30b), implying that there is an unusual reason of which he is not aware. In a stunning reversal, the donkey is like a human and the human is asinine! Don Quixote ruthlessly focused on chasing a delusion of grandeur has become Donkey Xote.

Needless to say, this should have been a humbling experience for Balaam. He thought he was special because God spoke through him, but now God spoke through his donkey, to whom he considered himself so superior.

Hearing God speak to us is no indication that we are unusually spiritual or mature or important. God is able to communicate with whomever he chooses. . . .

Now imagine that the donkey had responded to that event as many of us might be tempted to. Suppose the donkey had returned to its stable all puffed up because of its superior spiritual insight: “I was able to discern the angelic presence when even the prophet himself was ignorant!” What if the donkey had put on airs and considered itself in an exalted spiritual class above the other quadrupeds?15

Whether we are human or donkey, male or female, young or old, rich or poor, educated or uneducated, asking who is superior to whom is to miss the point: God can use whomever or whatever he chooses, including even stones (Luke 19:40; cf. Matt. 3:9; Luke 3:8). It is God who is superior, and none of us are excluded from service to him. Here is a call for humility and for treating each other with respect (cf. Rom. 12:10; 1 Cor. 12:21–25).

Aesop delivered a wise observation through a delightful fable:

An Ass once carried through the streets of a city a famous wooden Image, to be placed in one of its Temples. As he passed along, the crowd made lowly prostration before the Image. The Ass, thinking that they bowed their heads in token of respect for himself, bristled up with pride, gave himself airs, and refused to move another step. The driver, seeing him thus stop, laid his whip lustily about his shoulders and said, “O you perverse dull-head! it is not yet come to this, that men pay worship to an Ass.”

The moral is: They are not wise who give to themselves the credit due to others.16

By contrast, Corrie ten Boom reflected on her own ministry:

When Jesus rode into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday on the back of a donkey, and everyone was waving palm branches and throwing garments on the road and singing praises, do you think that for one moment it even entered the head of that donkey that any of it was for him? . . . If I can be the donkey on which Jesus Christ rides in His glory, I give Him all the praise and all the honor.17

Ironically, humbly accepting the roles God has given us as his servants, as Corrie did, liberates us to be who we really are.18