Balak’s set up here for Balaam to deliver the curse he has paid for handsomely is rather elaborate. Seven separate altars have been erected, each equipped with both a bull and a ram to be simultaneously sacrificed. Together, the King of Moab and the prophet for hire offer up these animals on the altars.
It makes me wonder. What is really going on here? It feels phony. We already know what Balaam knows, that he can only speak what God tells him to speak. Is all this just a show, like a corrupt evangelist might do? Back in 1992, Steve Martin played a phony faith healer in the movie “Leap of Faith,” a film that shows us how miracles and healings can be staged by a charlatan televangelist. There have been many of these hucksters posing as ministers of God who have been exposed as frauds in recent years. Was Balaam just faking it so he could get paid?
I don’t think so. The over-theatrical set up Balak has laid out for Balaam was probably a sincere effort, as it was in keeping with ancient Canaanite religious practices. The emphasis on the number seven as the number of completion was a prevalent practice at the time. The abundance of sacrificial animals was also purposeful, as it provided all the livers and other organ material for Balaam, who practiced animal divination, would need to get the job done.
The frightening thing here is Balaam was an authentic pagan prophet and a skilled cultic practitioner— if you can point to someone who was a “real life” sorcerer, Balaam was the “real deal.” Because of this, it would appear that Balaam had some twisted concept of an ethical standard. “Honor among Warlocks,” or what have you. Balaam was obviously an immoral corrupt man who had no ethics when it came to personal relationships, social order, or the technicalities of legal matters, but he did have a depth of experience and clearly understood the seriousness of the supernatural forces that he dealt with for a living. At heart, he was greedy and covetous, ready to sell himself out and sell his soul for the right opportunity (and the gig with Balak to curse Israel for a hefty fee was just such an opportunity), but he wasn’t a fake or charlatan. He wasn’t just making it all up. He knew he couldn’t mess with these spiritual forces, whether it was rooted in demonic pagan mythology and witchcraft or the God of Israel. He was only able to produce an authentic prophetic message. Or at least what he believed was an authentic prophetic message. He had already faced an angel armed with a sword. He dares not produce a message that was false or ran against the words that God would give him.
So, Balaam goes to confer with God. Verse 3 says he “went off to a barren height,” presumably alone, and “God met with him” (v. 4). It seems strange, but the implication here is that Balaam has a certain level of experience at being in the Lord’s presence. Despite Balaam’s character flaws, it appears that God spoke with him, at least from time to time. Verse 5 lays out the method: “the Lord put a word in Balaam’s mouth,” and simply commanded him to speak it. Apparently, this was all supernatural. We don’t see God explaining or dictating what Balaam is supposed to say. Balaam is not taking notes. To compare it to technology that did not exist at the time, it was as if God downloaded the speech into Balaam’s brain.
And what an amazing message it was! This is the first of seven “oracles” or prophecies that Balaam spoke regarding the people of Israel. These each occur at Numbers 23:7-10, 18-24; and Numbers 24:3-9, 15-19, 20, 21-22, and 23-24. The first four consist of some of the most exquisite poetry found in the scriptures, rivaling the Psalms of David, with long introductory narrative bridges and descriptive imagery. The last three are brief, harder to decipher, and delivered quickly, one after the other in a staccato pattern. It is astounding to consider that the Lord used this weasely gangster of a sorcerer-for-hire as the conduit for what amounts to a beautiful song extolling the glory of his plans for his chosen people, some of which has been used in hymnals and praise choruses by Christian worshipers down through the ages. Yet my amazement is tempered by the concept within this same narrative that has God using Balaam’s donkey as an instrument to convey a message of warning to him.
The first of Balaam’s oracles has him declaring the exact opposite of what Balak was paying him to do — stating “How can I curse those whom God has not cursed?” As noted, even though Balaam was a scoundrel, he could not (or at least would not) declare a spiritual message or divination that was not technically true (I don’t think this was as inspired so much out of a commitment to ethical standards, as fear of reprisal from the angel he had met bearing a sword!).
In v. 11, the king is astonished that Balaam has not come through with the “merchandise” he has ordered. Balaam’s defense is that he “must speak what the Lord puts in [his] mouth.” Balak, who obviously is steeped in the belief that occult forces could manipulate reality, is desperate to use those forces against Israel. So, he apparently thinks if he can just change the setting or perspective for Balaam, he can get what he wants. This is in keeping with how the ancients viewed the occult. Because of Balaam’s position or “office” as a sorcerer, the king believed that all Balaam had to do was speak the words that would curse Israel, and the the curse MUST happen, because he believed that a sorcerer had the power to manipulate the spirit world. The change in location was also in keeping with how Balak understood the nature of pagan spiritism. He moved Balaam to a place where the Israelite camp could be observed with the naked eye, but the actual size of the camp would be difficult to determine, hoping that because Balaam would not be able to literally see how big and powerful the army of Israel was, it would assist in reducing the enemy’s power in the spiritual realms.
Of course, Balaam’s second message exceeded the first in the way he blessed Israel. The message God “downloads” into Balaam this second time consists of a direct rebuke to the King. Ironically, in v. 20, Balaam now declares that not only is he compelled to bless Israel, that there is no possible way for that to change! Verse 23 makes it clear that “there is no divination against Jacob, no evil omen against Israel.” Balaam makes it clear here that, try as he might, King Balak will never succeed in using occult forces to defeat Israel.
One commentator I looked at while doing research for my comments on Chapter 23 noted that a primary reason why Balaam could not muster up a curse against Israel and had to declare a blessing on the people of God was because they were, in their present season, not walking in obvious or significant sin. They had overcome the difficulties they had struggled with regarding uncleanness, complaining, and rebellion. The strength of their relationship with God in the here and now was a major factor in there being a shield against sorcery and divination against Israel. In language Paul would provide centuries later in Romans 8:31, if God is for Israel, then no one can be against them.
However, the Mosaic covenant contains a series of warnings presented as a series of promises related to blessings and curses (e.g. Leviticus 26). The Lord promised to bless the children of God if they were generally obedient and curse them if they were generally or significantly disobedient. When Balaam noted in verse 21 that “no misfortune is seen in Jacob, no misery observed in Israel,” other translations render “misfortune” as “evil,” “sin,” or “iniquity,” and translate “misery” as “wickedness.” Balaam was therefore accurately observing that under the law of Moses, the current spiritual condition of the people of God required that God bless them.
There is a legal term used in the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church that is useful in describing this concept — “peccatum flagrans.” “Peccatum” means “sin,” “moral offense,” or “transgression;” “flagrans” means “burning,” “blazing,” “ardent,” or “passionate.” It is also the root of the English word "flagrant," meaning openly or obviously offensive. The latin term was historically used to describe a sin that is "flaming in the eyes of God" or "stinking in his nostrils." In the context of Numbers 23, it refers to an active, open, and heinous sin, as opposed to hidden or smaller faults.
The reason why Balaam declares that he can’t possibly utter a curse upon Israel at the time, there was no “peccatum flagrans” in the Israelite camp — therefore there could be no curses or enchantment hurled against them. BUT — this concept hints at the opposite side of this principle. If Israel could be enticed into general or significant sin, then perhaps they would – under the covenant they made with the Lord – bring a curse upon themselves. Despite his corrupt nature, Balaam knew that the only spiritual force that could bring a curse upon Israel was God himself. He therefore understood that nothing but Israel’s own sin could move God to do so. This correct understanding would lead Balaam to later come up with his own corrupt, wicked plan to lure the Israelites into flagrant sin for the purpose of defeating them (see Numbers 25).
- John Russell
