Numbers 24:1-25 (2)

Numbers 24:1-25 (2)

17. I shall see him, but not now. Though the verbs are in the future tense, they are used for the present; and again, the pronoun him designates some one who has not yet been mentioned; and this is a tolerably common usage with the Hebrew, especially when referring to Jerusalem, or God, or some very distinguished man. The relative is, therefore, here put κατ ἐξοχὴν for the antecedent: and although there can be no doubt but that he alluded to the people of Israel, it is still a question whether he designates the head or the whole body; on which point I do not make much contention, since it is substantially the same thing.

Note 175. “I see him,” etc. — Lat.

The reason why Balaam postpones his prophecies to a distant period, is in order to afford consolation to Balak, for, as much as he possibly can, he seeks to avoid his ill-will, and therefore assures him that, although he denounces evil, it was not to be feared at an early period, since he treats of things which were as yet far off.

The second clause must be unquestionably restricted to the head of the people, called metaphorically “a Star,” and then expressly referred to without a figure; for this repetition is common with the Hebrews, by which they particularize the same thing twice over. Assuredly he means nothing else by “the Sceptre,” except what he had indicated by the “Star;” and thus he connects the prosperity of the people with the kingdom. Hence we gather that its state was not perfect until it began to be governed by the hand of a king. For, inasmuch as the adoption of the family of Abraham was founded on Christ, only sparks of God’s blessing shone forth until its completed brightness was manifested in Christ. It must be observed, therefore, that when Balaam begins to prophesy of God’s grace towards the people of Israel, he directs us at once to the scepter, as if it were the true and certain mirror of God’s favor. And, in fact, God never manifested Himself as the Father of this people except by Christ. I admit, indeed, that some beginnings existed in the person of David, but they were very far from exhibiting the fullness of the reality: for the glory of his kingdom was not lasting, nay, its chief dignity was speedily impaired by the rebellion of the ten tribes, and was finally altogether extinguished; and when David’s power was at its height, his dominion never extended beyond the neighboring nations. The coming forth of the Star and the Sceptre, therefore, of which Balaam speaks explicitly, refers to Christ; and what we read in the Psalm corresponds with this prophecy;

“The Lord shall send the sceptre of thy strength out of Sion.” (Psalm 110:2.)

Note 176. A. V., “The rod.”

Hence it follows that the blessing, of which Balaam speaks, descends even to us; for, if the prosperity of the ancient people, their rest, their well-ordered government, their dignity, safety, and glory, proceeded from the scepter as its unmixed source, there is no doubt but that Christ by His coming accomplished all these things more fully for us.

The destruction of the nation of Moab is added as an adjunct of the kingdom. And first, indeed, Balaam declares that “its princes shall be transfixed.” If any prefer to read its “corners,” the expression is metaphorical, implying that the Sceptre will break through its munitions, or destroy what may seem to be strongest. I do not doubt but that the same thing is confirmed in what is said of the children of Sheth;” for those who take it generally for the whole human race, violently wrest the text by their gloss. Balaam is speaking of the neighboring nations; and, when in the next verse he goes on to specify Edom, he adds Mount Seir by way of explanation. Since the form of the two sentences is identical, it is probable that none others than the Moabites are meant by the children of Sheth. Still the question arises why Balaam attributes to a single nation what was common to all, for all who were of the descendants of Sheth equally derived their origin from Noah. Some think that they boasted of this descent in order to conceal their shame, for we know that the founder of this nation sprang from an incestuous connection. But another more satisfactory reason occurs to me, viz., that they boasted, like the Amalekites, of the extreme antiquity of their race; since, therefore, they desired to be reckoned amongst the most ancient nations, it will not be improbable that by this ironical appellation their vain-glory was reproved. It may, however, have been the case that some one amongst the descendants of Moab was distinguished by this name. Still, as I have lately said, the Moabites as well as the Edomites were subdued by David, for David thus justly celebrates his triumphs over them,

Note 177. Dr. Boothroyd has a curious conjecture on this passage. he says, “Most of the ancients, after LXX., give to פאתי the signification of chiefs, princes, or the like. They are supposed to have read פחתי But I am persuaded that פאתי is the genuine reading, and to be taken here in the same sense as in Jeremiah 48:45, where a very similar passage occurs: and in both places, it is my belief, the word signifies whiskers.”

Note 178. “The children of Seth, i.e., all men; so the Chaldee.” — Corn. a Lapide in loco.

“Moab is my wash-pot; over Edom will I cast out my shoe,”
(Psalm 60:8;)

but then was merely typified, what Christ at length fulfilled, in that He reduced under His sway all adverse and hostile nations. Therefore it is said, he “shall destroy him that remaineth of the cities,” i.e., all enemies whom He shall find to be incorrigible.

20. And when he looked on Amalek. This people had already been destined to destruction by a Divine decree; but what God had before declared, is here again ratified by Moses. Although the vengeance, which God was about to take, lay dormant for many ages, it was at length experimentally proved that God had not threatened in vain. But, whilst it is true that they were destroyed by Saul, still we learn from the history that some still survived, and again inhabited their land. In order, therefore, to arrive at the entire accomplishment of this prophecy, we must come to Christ, whose kingdom is the eternal destruction of all the wicked. Poor and unsatisfactory is the view of some commentators who think that Amalek is called “the first of the nations,” because they first took up arms against Israel, and encountered them in order to prevent their advance. Rather is the pride of Amalek indirectly rebuked, because they claimed superiority for themselves over other nations, and this on the score of their antiquity, as if they had been created together with the sun and moon. There is then a pointed comparison between this noble origin, and the slaughter which awaited them at their end.

Note 179. “So all the paraphrasts,” says Drusius, in Poole’s Syn. See margin A. V., and the gloss in the Geneva Bible.

21. And he looked on the Kenites. I have not yet referred to the sense in which Balaam is said to have seen the Kenites, as well as the other nations; and now, also, I should refrain from doing so, if some did not attribute it to prophetical vision, in which opinion I cannot agree: for Moses relates as a matter of history that Balaam turned his face in the directions in which they respectively lived: and, although he did not actually see the people themselves, the sight of the place in which they dwelt was sufficient for the purpose of prophecy.

By the Kenites I understand the Midianites, who were contiguous to the Amalekites; for it is altogether unreasonable to refer the name to the descendants of Jethro. Forty years had not yet elapsed since Jethro had left his son with Moses; and his was only one small family in the wilderness of Midian, whereas mention is here made of a people already celebrated. Balaam, therefore, designates by synecdoche the Midianites, and devotes them also to the punishment they well deserved. Of this Gideon was in some measure the minister and executioner, when he routed their immense army with three hundred men; and his victory is celebrated in Psalm 83:11, and Isaiah 9:4. It is probable that their power was broken at that time.

22. Until Asshur shall carry thee away captive. It is a harsh and unnatural construction to apply this to the Kenites; and the majority, indeed, consent that it should be referred to the Israelites; yet they differ as to the meaning of it, for some take it affirmatively, that the Kenites should be wasted, until the Assyrians should conquer the Israelites and carry them away captive; some, however, take it interrogatlvely, as if it were an abrupt exclamation, How long shall Asshur hold thee captive? Thus they conceive the prolonged exile of the people is indicated. Undoubtedly it was the purpose of the Spirit to shew, by way of correction, that their prosperity, which had been previously mentioned, should be mixed with heavy afflictions: for slavery is a bitter thing, and exile even worse. Hence we gather that, though the Church is blessed by God, it is still in such a way as that it shall not cease to be exposed to various calamities. The interrogation, therefore, will be most appropriate.

Note 180. It will be seen that the A. V. renders the clause interrogatively in the margin, though with a slight difference from the sense of C.

24. And ships shall come from the coast of Chittim. It is unquestionable that the word Chittim is sometimes used for the Greeks. Some, indeed, imagine that the Macedonians alone are strictly called by this name; it is, however, plain that it is applied generally to the whole of Greece. But since the countries beyond the sea were not so well known to the Jews as to allow of their distinguishing them, Scripture sometimes transfers this same name to Italy. Without doubt in Daniel, (Daniel 11:30,) “the ships of Chittim” must be taken for those of Italy or Rome; because the angel there predicts that the ships of Chittim would come, which should overcome, and render frustrate the efforts of Antiochus; which was plainly brought to pass by the mission of Popilius. With regard to the present passage, first of all the Greeks under Alexander afflicted both Judea and Assyria; and then another affliction followed at the hands of the Romans. Since, however, Balaam has begun to prophesy of the kingdom of Christ, it is probable that the Romans are included together with the Greeks. But from hence we more clearly perceive, what I have lately adverted to, that the children of God are not so exempted from common evils as not to be often involved in them promiscuously with unelievers, as if their conditions were precisely identical. Although the Hebrews are placed on a par with the Assyrians as their companions in misfortune, still a consolation is added, i.e., that the Assyrians also shall perish like Chittim, when they have persecuted the Church.

Note 181. See C. on Daniel, (C. Soc. Edit.,) vol. 2, pp. 316, 317, 318. “Writers on the geography of the Bible entertain remarkably different ideas as to the country or countries intended by this denomination. The most probable opinion seems to us to be that which considers that the Hebrews used it to express, in a general sense, all the coasts and islands of the Mediterranean Sea, so far as known to them.” — Illustr. Corn. in loco.

What Moses adds in conclusion, viz., that Balaam returned to his people, and Balak also went to his place, tends to the commendation of God’s grace, since He dissipates the evil counsels of the wicked like clouds, and overthrows their machinations; even as Moses commemorates elsewhere this peculiar blessing of God. Micah, too, celebrates this amongst other Divine mercies:

Note 182. This deliverance is commemorated by Moses again in Deuteronomy 23:4, 5, 6; but the Fr. reads Joshua for Moses, and refers to Joshua 24:9

“O my people, (he says,) remember now what Balak king of Moab consulted, and what Balaam the son of Beor answered him,” etc. (Micah 6:5.)

The sum is, that the enemies of the chosen people departed in dishonor without accomplishing their purpose, since God put them to confusion.