The theology of the balaam oracles: a pagan diviner and the word of god

event and act of God at the same time. Furthermore, the chunks or

pieces of biblical history are to be interpreted in view of their place

in the total scope of holy history. The interpreter is to find out: how

each book of each section within a book, serves the purposes of holy

history..

(4) An interpreter knows the inside of this history only as he

identifies with it. This he does by faith in Christ, by which he parti-

cipates in regeneration. Thus the external principle of hermeneutics

is holy history and the internal principle is the interpreter's identifi-

cation with this history through faith in Christ.¹

Ramm then distinguishes between a wide sense of the term and

a narrow sense.

Heilsgeschichte is used in a wide sense and in a narrow sense.

In the narrow sense it means a particular scheme of interpretation

of holy history, as in Cullmann's Christ and Time. In a wide sense

it means the priority of the historical event over the Scriptures as

the primary datum of the biblical faith. In the latter sense the notion

of Heilsgeschichte has been widely accepted by Old and New Testament

scholars.²

In its more extreme forms, this child of J. C. K. von Hofmann

of Erlingen (in lectures dating from the year 1860),is used by theologians

with a thrust that Whitney says seems to be in the direction of evaporation

Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1966), pp. 55-56.

speaks on the theme in rather negative fashion, cf. pp. 250-51.

405

of history altogether.¹ His evaluation is stated in a polemical manner, but

We have seen already how Old Testament exegetes who develop-

ed their concepts in terms of Heilsgeschichte have devalued, or even caused

to "evaporate, " the historicity of the Balaam narrative. For purposes of

emphasis, we may review some examples. Coppens writes:

L'historiographie ancienne, qui par endroits telescope les evenements,

ne craint pas ailleurs de projeter dans le passe 1'announce de certains

evenements, a savoir quand a ses yeux ceux-ci etaient virtueilement

impliques dan les faits et les donees dune epoque plus ancienne. Ce

serait le cas ici. Aux yeux de l'hagiographe, les hauts faits de Saul

et de David etaient inclus dans l'avenir glorieux que le devin entrevit

et annonca a Balaq. Des lors, la prediction de ces faits pouvait lui

etre attribuee sans faire entorse a la verite historique.²

Thus, for Coppens it is of no major consequence that the writer of our acc-

ount has telescoped events, used vaticinia ex eventu, and otherwise reshap-

ed the history; for in all these changes, there was not, in the view of the

ancient writer, a problem of twisting historical truth. Rather he used truth

to his own ends.

Similarly, von Pakozdy suggests that the importance of the

narrative is not so much what happened in history, but what the redactor

et leur portee prophetique," Melanges Eugene Tisserant, Vol. I. 'Ecriture

Ahustolica Vaticanna, 1964), pp. 71-72.

406

of the old materials wished to preac) [was wollte er "verkundigen?"].¹

avers that what we have in the text is not to be considered as an accurate

reflection of historical events: "So, wie wir sie haben, konnen sie also

keinesfalls als Wiedergaben wircklichen Geschens gelten."²

For Mowinckel, Balaam is certainly not an historical figure in

our sense, but a figure of fairy-tale and legend: "Bil’am eine historische

Person im strengen Sinne des Wortes nicht ist. Man kann sich entweder

denken, dass der bekannte seher ursprunglich eine anonyme Sagengestallt

war, ein marchenhafter Vertreter des althebraisch-nordarabischen Seher-

(kahin- and hakim -) Typus uberhaupt."³

The representation of Balaam by the leading Dutch commentator

A. H. Edelkoort is quite negative respecting historical matters. He treaty

the narrative in the standard literary-analytical manner, speaking of the

present story as being "three threads promiscuously twisted" [ Deze drei.-

voudige inleiding doet veronderstellen, datt er in de Bileam-geschiedenis
¹ Ladislas Martin von Pakozdy, "Theologische Redaktionsarbeit

in der Bileam-Perikope (Nurn 22-24)," Von Ugarit Nach Qumran, ed. Otto

Eissfeldt (Berlin: Verlag Alfred Topelmann, 1958), p. 162.

² Otto Eissfeldt, "Sinai -Erzahlung and Bileam-Spruche," HUCA,

XXXII (1961), p. 190.

XLVIII (1930), 237.

407

drie draden dooreen gestrengeld zijr].¹ Further, it is his impression

B. C. ). [Dat de thans voor ons liggende redactie van de spreuken van Bil-

earn vrij jong is, en wel uit den tijd van, of na den tweeden Jesaja (dus na

500 voor Chr. ), ... ].² Hence, little may be regarded as historical in

the strict sense.

Martin Noth in his commentary on the Book of Numbers also

displays a very low regard for the historicity of the events of our material.

"From the point of view of subject-matter, the Balaam story presents a

series of questions which are difficult to answer. It has nothing whatsoever

to do with the conquest tradition. ... It is probable that behind Balaam, too,

there stands a figure who is, in the last resort, historical."³

Perhaps the most important representative of the Heilsgeschichte

approach (in its negative stance) is Gerhard von Rad. He comments at some

length as to his view of the relationship of history and theology vis-a-vis

verklaring, " ed. F. M. T. Bohl and A. van Veldhuizen (Groningen: Bij.

J. B. Wolters' Uitgervers-Maatschappij, 1930), p. 170. 14

² Ibid., p. 21.

³ Martin Noth, Numbers: A Commentary, trans. by James !

Martin, "The Old Testament Library, " ed. G. Ernest Wright, et al.

(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1968), p. 172. These examples

from more recent works could be multiplied extensively by citing examples

from the older critical commentaries, e.g., Dillmann, Holzinger,

Baentzsch, Gray, et al.

the Salaam material, among other blocks. He writes:

In particular, events bearing a saving character retained for all pos-

terity; and in that posterity's eyes, a contemporaneousness which it

is hard for us to appreciate. The upshot is that, in what they present,

the later story-tellers blatantly make capital of experiences which,

although they are invariably brought in on the basis of the ancient

event in question, still reach forward into the story-teller's own day.

It is only from this standpoint that the story of Jacob's struggle (Gen.

xxxii. 22f. ), or the story of Balaam (Num. xxii-xxiv), or the thrice-

repeated story of the endangering of the ancestress of the race (Gen.

xii. 10ff., xx. iff. , xxvi. 5ff.) can be interpreted as they should.

What is historical here? Certainly some definite but elusive particu-

lar event which stands at the primal obscure origin of the tradition

in question--but what is also historical is the experience that Jahweh

turns the enemy's curse into blessing, and that he safeguards the

promise in spite of all failure on the part of its recipient, etc. [ I.e.,

Heilsgeschichte .1 Israel did not dream up this confidence, but came

to it on the basis of rich and wide experience of her history in fact;

and symbolising it in a person, she illustrated it in a story. This of

course occasions another and rather severe clash with our critical

way of thinking about history. Did the historical Balaam actually

curse, or did his mouth really utter blessings? We may assume that

it was only in the story that that which was given to Israel's faith be-

came presented as a visible miracle. The process of glorification is

quite clear in many of the stories about the Conquest--the events are

depicted with a splendour and a strong element of the miraculous which

are impossible to square with older strands in the report. The later

story tellers are so zealous for Yahweh and his saving work that they

over step the limits of exact historiography and depict the event in a

magnificence far transcending what it was in reality. These are texts

which contain an implicit eschatological element, since they anticipate

a Gloria of God's saving action not yet granted to men. [Emphasis

added, except for the last word.]¹

Hasel is quite correct in his comment that "von Rad is very
¹ Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I, 110-11. In a note on page

110, von Rad takes exception to the concept that "the conception of history

itself hardly plays any noticeable part for Israel," (a statement of L. Kohler

in his volume, Hebrew Man). Von Rad states, "These words are incompre-

hensible in face of the fact that Israel's faith gave itself sanction in a series

409

torical facts as they 'really happened.'"¹ Hence, when we read in von

Rad's Moses concerning the theological importance he finds the story of

Balaam to have, we must understand that the theological importance he

finds in the story is something altogether distinct from the historical events

"as they really happened."

Two extracts of the citation from his book on Moses respecting

the story of Balaam may now be given, extracts from the longer quote made

at the beginning of the present chapter. Von Rad begins: "This whole story

of Balaam is not a tale told without a purpose. In the form in which we now

have it, it is the expression of certain quite definite beliefs, of the central

doctrines of the Old Testament revelation."² Then at the end of the section

quoted above, we read:

All history has a secret inner side, which is hidden from the eyes of

the natural man. The story of Balaam turns history inside out and

makes the miracle plain. Balaam comes desiring to curse; and, we

may say, in the very teeth of his desires the curse is turned into a

blessing.³

In his expressing the words, "in the form in which we now have

von Rad indicates his estimation of the extant Hebrew text. He is in

410

the kernel of historical truth from which the accretions of tradition had

their origin. But the more telling expression for our present discussion,

the role of Heilsgeschichte, is his line, "All history has a secret inner

side." It is the "secret inner side" of history that interests von Rad as a

theologian, not the (supposed) events themselves.¹ As Norman K. Gottwald

has stated, von Rad (along with Alt and Noth) "regards it as impossible to

treat Moses as anything more than a legendary construct."²

Gottwald feels that Walther Eichrodt is not nearly so skeptical

of the traditions of the Pentateuch as is von Rad. But he, too, holds an

ambiguous relationship between faith and history. Gottwald points out this

"Achilles' heel" in Eichrodt's work [and in form-critical Heilsgeschichte

in general] in a devastating manner.

How could this unsatisfactory consequence follow from so brill-

iant and exhaustive an enterprise? This shortcoming has nothing to

do with personal inadequacies of the author. The ambiguity in his

attitude toward faith and history is no idiosyncrasy. In this regard
¹ Hasel, Old Testament Theology, p. 57, states: "Von Rad

proceeds from a kind of secret center, which reveals itself in his basic

thesis, namely that the establishment of God's self-revelation takes place

in his acts in history." An extensive review of von Rad's Theology of the

ed. Robert B. Laurin, pp. 63-89. In this review G. Henton Davies deals

with von Rad's concept of faith and history on pp. 73-77 [ in what may be

a somewhat more favorable manner than is prudent] .

411

evocativeness and in his ambiguous impressionism. The Achilles'

heel of his work is well articulated in a remark he makes by way of

summarizing his treatment of the names of God:

We are dealing not with the symmetrical. growth of a unified

basic plan., but with a wealth of tensions, compelling an ever

fresh and unique delineation of the knowledge of God. For the

divine reality to which this refers is ultimately beyond reason

and therefore only to be expressed in contradictory formulations

[Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, I, 205].

The divine reality beyond reason is Eichrodt's deus ex machina which

proves useless, for how can there be either a history or a theology of

a God who is unknowable? The cross section to which he has committed

himself as a tool of inquiry must remain schizophrenically stretched

between a historical summary and a theological pointer. In terms of

neo-orthodox theology, in which Eichrodt is broadly at home, there

can be no resolution of the tension of faith and history but only an

exhilarating zest and incohesiveness which teases and baffles both

the historian and the believer.¹

It is thus due to these more or lest negative viewsof the essen-

tial historicity of the Old Testament, and the expedient of searching for
^l Ibid., p. 55. The "deus ex machina" of "the divine reality

beyond reason" in fact may be seen to be the Achilles' heel of all treatments

of Old Testament Heilsgeschichte, when there is a divorce of Heilsgeschichte

from "what really happened." Goldingay avers, "Because Israel's faith, the

perspectival images she offers, is so bound up with history, this feature of

the Old Testament viewpoint cannot be treated as a husk that can be discard-

ed without affecting the kernel. And even if it were legitimate to seek to sep-

arate kernel from husk in this way, the possibility of doing so is questionable;

'it hangs the passion of faith on the slenderest of threads.'" John Goldingay

"'That You May Know That Yahweh Is God': A Study in the Relationship Be-

tween Theology and Historical Truth in the Old Testament, " TB, XXIII (1972),

p. 87. The quotation he uses is from V. A. Harvey, The Historian and the

that if one attempts to distinguish Historie and Geschichte, "the string be-

tween the kite of interpretation and the ground of events is cut, not so that

the kite can fly free, but so that it can get lost, " pp. 88-89.

412

theological truth in some kind of a "secret center"; that the entire concept

on the extremes of the Heilsgeschichte school in which "the theological con-

fession of God's activity is so wrenched apart from history as to leave it

almost completely a cultic myth, divorced radically from the concrete

reality, the significance of which the confession claims to be expounding."¹

Further, he adds, "the 'history of salvation' becomes non-historical, and

resort is made to a type of existentialism in order to make it relevant.

In short, this type of biblical theology uses history to get rid of history."²

R. K. Harrison also calls for caution in the use of the word

because of its more negative connotations. "The manner in which the term

for some caution in its use."³ Nevertheless, the same writer goes on to

state that there may well be a genuine use of the term in which history is

not divorced from theology. "As 'holy history, 'the history of salvation,'

or 'saving history,' the word would appear to describe an accredited Bibli-

cal situation with a certain accuracy."⁴ It is the use to which the scholar

Greenfield (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1969), p. 164.

413

cludes in saying:

Quite obviously a purely historical kind of investigation can

scarcely do justice to a situation that is basically theological in na-

ture, as neo-orthodox scholars have recognized. Thus any accred-

ited "salvation history" must have the topics of sin and redemption

firmly established as central themes in the history of the Hebrew,

people. Through them it must relate these concepts to human his-

tory as a whole. In this way a basic concern of the Old Testament

will be paramount, and will not ultimately be subsumed under what

may be considered to be a more urgent task, namely that of recon-

structing structing and rewriting the historical material according to some

specific analytical scheme, as von Rad and others have done. While

method is of great importance in any constructive endeavor, espec-

ially in the field of Old Testament theology, it must always remain

the servant of the scholar, and not his master.¹

John Bright, the eminent Old Testament theologian and histor-

ian of Union, Theological Seminary in Richmond, Virginia, also points to

the role of Heilsgeschichte. He terms the meaning of the word, "a history

of God's redemptive purpose."² And then he presents the proper approach

of Heilsgeschichte as related to real history.

The Old Testament offers a theological interpretation of history. A

concern with the meaning of history, and of specific events within

theological concern" [emphasis added ].³

It is the opinion of this writer that Bright's A History of Israel ^4
1 Ibid., pp. 449 -50.

² John Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament (Nashville

and New York: Abingdon Press, 1967), p. 137.

414

old Testament "records a real history, and it interprets every detail of

that history in the light of Yahweh's sovereign purpose and righteous will. "

There are occasional lapses, however, in Bright's History, where he, too,

attempts a "reconstruction job," particularly in the sections concerning the

early history of Israel. But his work stands in bold relief and remarkable

contrast to the history of the people of Israel written by his European coun-

terpart, Martin Noth.¹ This latter scholar, and many in his tradition,

uses Heilsgeschichte as an escape from history and form criticism as an

escape from textual data.

Bruce K. Waltke has warned of the abuses of form critical

scholars who use Heilsgeschichte as an escape from history. The funda-

mental error in these approaches, he states, is one of a philosophical and

theological bias against the supernaturalistic and theistic faith of the! Old

Testament writers.

Their theological bias can be seen in their analysis of the first two

declarative statements concerning Israel's history. The first state-
see John Bright, A History of Israel (2d ed. ; Philadelphia: The Westminster

Press, 1972). The first edition of this classic treatment was published in 1959.

(2d ed. ; New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1960). See also two recent

works on the history of Israel by European scholars: Georg Fohrer, History

of Israelite Religion, trans. by David E. Green (Nashville and New York:

Abingdon Press, 1972); Roland de Vaux, Histoire ancienne d'Israel: des

et Cie, 1971).

415

ment is "And Yahweh said untc Abram, 'Get thee out . . . !" and the

presents both statements as facts of history: in the first instance

Abram responded to this revelation. To the form critic, however,

only the second statement is an historical fact, whereas the first

statement reflects Israel's later interpretation of this historical fact--

and apart from factual history. The difference is theological.: the

form critic describes Israel's history from a humanistic, rationalis-

tic viewpoint whereas the biblical prophets present Israel's history

from a theistic, supernaturalistic viewpoint.¹