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

slowing and tension-developing element.¹ It is incorrect to state that there

is no advance made by the use of the story. Comparison may be made with

the Joseph story (Gen. 37-50). There is considerable use of the device of

repetition in the Joseph chapters that may be compared to the thrice repeated

attempt of the Angel of Yahweh to frustrate the advance of Balaam. For ex-

ample, there is the repetition in the dreams of Joseph in Genesis 37:5-10

(giving him the derisive sobriquet "that dreamer" in Genesis 35:5-10). There

are also repetitions of dreams in Genesis 40-41.

¹ For these statements, see above, pp. 86, 120.

442

so-called "intrusion" of chapter 38 into the midst of the Joseph story. Re-

marks similar to those made concerning Numbers 22 are applied In this case

as well Genesis 37:36 details Joseph being sold to Potiphar, an officer of

Pharaoh. Genesis 39:1 begins with a restatement of the same factor. Hence,

chapter 38 might be said to "add nothing at all to the story. " There is no

advance in our knowledge of Joseph.

Yet for the careful reader, Genesis 38, which does not mention

the name "Joseph" once, forms a vital element in our understanding of Joseph's

character. For it is by contrast with the apostate acts of his older brother,

Judah, that the righteousness of Joseph is set in boldest relief. Judah reaches

such a spiritual nadir that he is forced to admit that his Canaanite daughter-

in-law demonstrated a righteousness higher than his in her incestuous act in

the guise of ritual cultic prostitution (Gen. 38:26). This is then, the bold and

graphic setting for the acts of Joseph in chapter 39 when daily (MOy MOy )

he was confronted with the seductive attempts of his master's wife (Gen. 39:1),

yet refused to compromise himself or his God. Further, the contrast is also

heightened when one sees Judah as a free agent in the land of promise, whereas

Joseph is a slave in the land of curse.

To regard Genesis 38 as an "unnecessary intrusion into the

story of Joseph is not the mark of ingenious scholarship; it is rather the patent

demonstration of an amazing lack of spiritual, and literary, perspicacity. The

443

same may be said respecting the story of the donkey and the Angel in Numbers

One illustration may suffice. Chapter XXXII, "Cetology," of Moby Dick by

Herman Melville "does not advance the story, " but is an integral and essential

element of the whole.

Hence, for the present writer, the claim that verses 21-34 of

chapter 22 of Numbers are unnecessary since there is no advance in verse

35 as over against verse 20, is a claim of less than a sophisticated reader.

We agree with Goldberg that if one cuts the donkey, story out of the narrative

the text would then be deprived of its most beautiful point. He writes:.

Dieses ganze Stilck ist bei allem Ernst doch voll beissendem

Spott: Der blinde Seher wird der sehenden Eselin gegenubergestellt.

Selbst deren Mund konnte Gott offnen--nur um etwas zu isagen, bedarf

er Bileams nicht. Eben darin erweist sich Bileam als die Verkehrung

des Propheten seines Zeitalters, des Moses. Dieser war nicht nur

Seher, einer, zu dem Gott von Angesicht zu Angesicht redet, sondern

ein Fursprecher seines Volkes. Ihn konnte man nicht mit Geschenken

zu irgendeinem Geschaft des Segnens oder des Fluchens izolen, ihm

wurde niemals Ehrung angetragen. Vielmehr leitete er sei.n Volk and

trug dessen Last trotz all der Unbill, die er erfahren musste.¹

The narrative is one of studied ridicule. We see the prophet

Balaam as a blind seer, seeing less than the dumb animal. In this graphic

representation of Balaam pitted against the donkey, we also see a more im-

portant contrast, as Goldberg avers: the contrast of Balaam and Moses. As

the present writer has argued earlier in this paper, 2 the long shadow of Moses

444

once. Certainly a Hebrew reader of the account of the folly of Balaam in the

donkey incident would be compelled to contrast the foolish Balaam with the

magnificent image of Moses. Moses spoke face to face with God. Balaam

was a blind "seer" instructed by the mouth of a dumb beast:

Hence, if the question is asked, What then is the purpose of

the donkey incident apart from its function of slowing the drama and increasing

the tension?--one may respond that the purpose seems to be polemical. Many

have observed the genuine humor in 1:he contrast of the seer and his donkey.

It could not be more stunning, more humorous, more devastating. This is the

penultimate in polemics against paganism. It is well known that the ass has

been depicted from the earliest times as a subject of stupidity and contrari-

ness.¹ Whether this its deserved or not, it is a common enough element in
¹ Kramer lists a number of Sumerian proverbs on the ass, some

of which may be cited: "The donkey, as is well known, served as the chief

beast of burden and draught animal in ancient Mesopotamia, and the Sumerians

good-humoredly represented him as the slow-moving, and frequently foolish,

creature that he is in ]European-literature of a later date. His main objective

in life seems to be to act contrary to the wishes of his masters: for example:

. . . The donkey eats its own bedding:. . . Like a runaway donkey, my

tongue does not turn around and come back: . . . I will not marry a wife who

is only three years old as the donkey does." Samuel Noah Kramer, History

Begins at Sumer, Anchor Books (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday & Company,

Inc. , 1959), pp. 132-33; cf. idem, The Sumerians: Their History, Culture,

25; J. William Whedbee, Isaiah and Wisdom (New York and Nashville: Abing-

don Press, 1971), p. 40.

For an example of the proverbial stupidity of the donkey in a

445

wisdom literature to form the setting for the polemics against the powers of

course, the contrast between the respective deities. The incident of the

donkey of Balaam is thus best regarded as a satirical attack on paganism.

It is not to be deleted without the loss of the "best part."

Having spoken of the first issue, the relationship of the inci-

dent to the pericope, we may now turn to the second difficulty of the story,

the nature of the miracle. We may begin this brief study by quoting the poem

C. S. Lewis uses to preface his study on miracles.

Among the hills a meteorite

Lies huge; and moss has overgrown,

And wind and rain with touches light

Made soft, the contours of the stone.

AEsop, "The Ass's Brains."

The Lion and the Fox went hunting together. The Lion, on the

advice of the Fox, sent-a message to the Ass, proposing to make an

alliance between their two families. The Ass came to the place of

meeting, overjoyed at the prospect of a royal alliance. But when he

came there the Lion simply pounced on the Ass, and said :o the Fox:

"Here is our dinner for to-day. Watch you here while I go and have

a nap. Woe betide you if you touch my prey." The Lion went away

and the Fox waited; but finding that his master did not return, ven-

tured to take out the brains of the Ass and ate them up. When the

Lion came back he soon noticed the absence of the brains, and asked

the Fox in a terrible voice: "What have you done with the brains?"

"Brains, your Majesty. it had none, or it would never have fallen into

your trap, " WIT HAS ALWAYS AN ANSWER READY.

Charled W. Eliot, ed., Folk-Lore and Fable: AEsop, Grimm, Anderson, "The

Harvard Classics" (New York: P. F. Collier & Son, Corp., 1909), p. 41.

George Cansdale argues that the donkey has had a "bad press"

in folk lore, in his book All the Animals of the Bible Lands (Grand Rapids:

Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), pp. 73-74. But deserved or not, the

metaphore is very ancient.
446

Thus easily can Earth digest

A cinder of sidereal fire,

And make her translunary guest

The native of an English shire.

Nor is it strange these wanderers

Find in her lap their fitting place,

For every particle that's hers

Came at the first from outer space.

All that is Earth has once been sky;

Down from the sun of old she came,

Or from some star that travelled by

Too close to his entangling flame.

Hence, if belated drops yet fall

From heaven, on these her plastic power

Still works as once it worked on all

The glad rush of the golden shower.¹

The question of miracle brings immediately to the fore the dis-

unction between the Naturalist and the Supernaturalist, a discussion ably

treated by Lewis in his work on miracles. An important point he makes is

that "the difficulties of the unbeliever do not begin with questions about this

or that particular miracle; they begin much further back."² Nevertheless, even

for the Supernaturalist there are some limits on the kinds of miracles that are

admitted. Lewis writes, "It by no means follows from Supernaturalism that

Miracles of any sort do in fact occur."³ Some miracles are more difficult

for the Supernaturalist to accept than others. Such is the story of the speech

of the donkey of Balaam.
¹ C. S. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study (New York: The

Macmillan Company, 1947), p. 6.

447

lieve in miracles, but it is not easy to believe in all the miracles recorded

in the old Testament Scriptures" [ his emphasis ].¹ The same writer con--

tinues:

and in any revelation of his will to men. But to believe in some mir-

acles is not to believe in all miracles; and, obviously, some of the

miracles recorded in the Old Testament make a very large and heavy

demand on our faith; none of them, perhaps, a larger and heavier

demand than this, that "the dumb ass speaking with man's voice

forbad the madness of the prophet" [ II Pet. 2:16 ].²

Since it is only in the realm of fancy and fable that a:zimals

speak in human voices, most moderns regard the speech of the donkey as an

example of the fabulous, the fairy tale.³ Moriarty avers, "We only deceive

ourselves if we think that the sacred writer really believed that an ass at

one time complained to its owner. "⁴ Supposed mythical parallels are found

in classical literature--parallels suggesting the same type of fabulous genre.

One example is the speech of Xanthus to Achilles:

1st series, 1 (1877), 397.

(2 vols.; Copenhagen: G. E. C. Gads Forlag, 1948), I, 240-41.

Ass; or a Problem in New Testament Hermeneutics, " CBQ, XX (January, 1958),

50-56.

448

armed Hera had endowed him with human speech--and he bowed his

head till his mane touched the ground as it hung down from under the

yoke-band. "Dread Achilles," said he, "we will indeed save you now,

but the day of your death is near, and the blame will not be ours, for

it will be heaven. and stern fate that will destroy you. Neither was it

through any sloth or slackness on our part that the Trojans stripped

Patroclus of his armor. It was the mighty god whom lovely Leto bore

that slew him as he fought among the foremost, and vouchsafed a

triumph to Hector. We two can fly as swiftly as Zephyrus who they

say is fleetest of all winds; nevertheless it is your doom to fall by the

hand of a man and of a god."

When he had thus said the Erinyes stayed his speech, and

Achilles answered him in great sadness, saying, "Why, O Xanthus,

do you thus foretell my death? You need not do so, for I well know

that I am to fall here, far from my dear father and mother; none the

more, however, shall I stay my, hand till I have given the Trojans

their fill of fighting."

So saying, with a loud cry he drove his horses to the front.¹

Others, not wishing to posit legend, fable or fairy tale in the

biblical text, have argued that the miracle was internal and subjective rather

than external and objective. Maimonides, for example, suggested that the

event was a dream vision which Balaam had at night.² There is no indication
¹ Homer, The Iliad, trans, by Samuel Butler, ed. by Louise R

Loomis, "The Classics Club" (Roslyn, N.Y.: Walter J. Black, Inc. , 1942),

XIX, 404-417 (p. 307). Gordon says, "The speech of Xanthus (IL 19:404-17),

the horse of Achilles, is of a piece with the talking of Balaam's ass in the

Bible (Numbers 22:28-30). "Cyrus H. Gordon, The Ancient Near East (3rd ed.;

New York: W. W. Norton &Company, Inc., 1965), p. 110.

(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972), p. 70; cf. William W. Bass, "The-

ology No Issue: An Evangelical Appraisal of Rosmarin's Jewish-Christian

Theological Barriers, " JETS, XIV (Winter, 1971), 7.

449

in the text that the event was a dream vision, however. Perhaps -~he strongest

treatise on Balaam. Hengstenberg was a Supernaturalist, but he argued that

the incident of the donkey's speech was a miracle internal to Balaam rather

than external (in the donkey).¹ Beek also internalized the story by saying

that the speaking of the ass was Balaam's bad conscience.²

The proper starting point, however, is the text itself, not in

our philosophical difficulties with a concept. And the text quite simply re-

lates the event as an objective, external phenomenon. Noth is clear and to

the point on this factor.

The ass's ability to speak, with which may' be compared the speaking

of the serpent in Gen. 3. 1ff. , is not an element that is particularly

stressed or even necessary; it is, however, an integral part of the

narrative and is attributed to a miracle on the part of Yahweh (v. 28a)
¹ E. W. Hengstenberg, A Dissertation on the History and Proph-

ecies of Balaam, trans. by J. E. Ryland (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1848),

pp. 376-88. For counter arguments, see David Adams Martin, "The Balaam

Oracles and Exegesis and Exposition of Numbers 22-24" (unpublished mas-

ter's thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1950), pp. 33-35. A rather

strange view was given by Irenaeus as reported by Beegle. Irenaeus usually

eschewed allegorical interpretation, but he regarded Balaam's ass as a type

of Christ. See Dewey M.. Beegle, The Inspiration of Scripture (Philadelphia:

The Westminster Press, 1963), p. 107.

Arnold J. Pomerans, "Foreword" by H. H. Rowley (London: Hodder and Stough-

ton, 1959), p. 79. In this respect the donkey becomes a sort of Jiminy

Cricket to the Pinocchio Balaam. The biblical text speaks often of internal

and subjective elements. Warrant for such in our passage, however, appears r

to be lacking.

450

which indicates how directly and unusually Yahweh acted in this

The biblical text says, "Yahweh opened the mouth of the don-

key and she said to Balaam . . . " (Num. 22:28a). The plain wording of this

passage seems decisive. If one were to take the ass cum grano salis, how

would one then regard the Angel of Yahweh who is the more important (!)

figure in the story? May He also be dismissed with a laugh as simple

naivite on the part of the writer? If the speech of the donkey is regarded as

an internal phenomenon, is the appearance of the Angel of Yahweh (theophany!)

also to be regarded as internal?

As Unger insists, "the case of the speaking ass is an instance

of the omnipotence of God, and is not to be explained away by unbelief."²

The speaking of the ass is demanded by the wording of the Old Testament

passage and is confirmed in explicit terms in the New Testament. Peter

writes, "for a dumb donkey, speaking with a voice of a man, restrained the

madness of the prophet," (II Pet. 2:16). For the biblicist this should be de-

terminative. .

A rather remarkable phenomenon in terms of New Testament

citations of Old Testament passages has been observed by conservative

have observed that Noth's view of the historicity of the Balaam narrative is

quite negative. This citation from him is given, then, not to argue that he

believes the miracle "really happened, " but to demonstrate that he regards fy

the text to be relating a miracle.

² Merrill F. Unger, Unger's Bible Handbook (Chicago: Moody

Press, 1967), p. 133.

451

scholars. It seems that some of the most perplexing data of the Old Testament

for their contributions to our knowledge of the acts of God. Allis observes:

It is most instructive and illuminating to study the New Testa-

ment use of passages which modern scholars would regard as myth,

legend or folklore and seek to "demythologize, " in order to find in

them some element of truth which the modern mind can regard as pro-

fitable. The appeal to the account of the creation of woman (Gen.

2:21f.) by Paul (I Cor. 11:8; I Tim. 2:13), to a primitive monogamy

(Gen. 2:23f. ) by Jesus (Matt, .19:5), to the flood by Jesus (Matt. 23:

37f.) and by Peter (I Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5), to the brazen serpent

(Num. 21:8) by Jesus (John 3:14), to the speaking ass (Num 22:28)

by Peter (2 Peter 2:16), to Jonah in the belly of the great fish (Jonah

2:1) by Jesus (Matt. 12:40), illustrate the striking difference between

the two methods of interpretation. What the one treats as difficulties

to be gotten rid of, the other appeals to as significant evidences of

God's activity in human affairs. [Emphasis added.]¹

The speech of the donkey is thus to be regarded as a genuine

element in the righteous acts of Yahweh. Yet we should view this miracle in

some perspective and not attempt to make more of it than the text does. In

the Numbers account the emphasis should not be placed unduly on the don-

key. Theology is ever about God. We must not let the strange zoology take

the spotlight away from the central theology. Respecting this issue Vischer

avers:

Assuredly [Israel seems to have forsaken its blessing ] --yet never-

comparably more wonderful than the fact that Balaam's ass opens its

mouth to speak), the LORD transforms the curse in the mouth of Balaam

into blessing. Despite all Israel's infidelity the blessing of Abraham

452

We should not, therefore, make more of the speech of the don-

key than is made by the text. As miracles go, this is a rather minor item

Far too often the incredulous Naturalist sidetracks the pressured believer into

a prolonged defense of relatively minor miracles such as the fish of Jonah and

the donkey of Balaam. In this way he diverts attention from the issue which

is of supreme import: the miracle of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.²

If in fact Christ has risen from the dead (I Cor. 15:3-8), then

God's use of Balaam's donkey for a moment is of minor significance. Com-

pared with the resurrection of our Lord, the donkey's speech is but a rough

common stone beside a lustrous diamond. Conversely, if Christ is not. risen

from the grave, the gift of intelligent speech to all the animals of creation

could not assuage the despair which would result to the broken believer. For,

"if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is

vain" (I Cor. 15:14).

The miracle of the donkey must also be seen in the perspective

of the power of God. We ever live with too small a view of God. We need

to have our minds expanded, not with hallucinagenics or a drug-produced

euphoria, We need to have our minds expanded by the liberating Word of
¹ Wilhelm Vischer, The Witness of the Old Testament to Christ,

Vol. I, trans. by A. B. Crabtree (London: Lutterworth Press, 1950), p. 233.

the grand miracle of the incarnation. See Lewis, Miracles, p. 112.

453

God (John 8:32). Job's description of the vast power of God demonstrated in

majestic impact (Job 26). Yet, in view of all we know of God's mighty acts,

Job has to conclude:

Look! These are just the! fringes of His ways;

And what faint whisper we! hear of Him!

But his mighty thunder--who could attend? [ Job 26:14 ]

Surely, he who refuses the possibility of God using a lowly creature in what-

ever way He desires, has a rather petty view of the One whom universes are

unable to contain.