The Bible Undressed

            There is a curious story in the book of Numbers about a prophet named Balaam.  It is curious for several reasons, including a talking donkey and the fact that Balaam is later reviled even though he does not seem to do anything wrong in the story.  First, read Numbers 22 – 24 for yourself.

            To recap, a king named Balak wants the prophet Balaam to put a curse upon the people  of Israel, who he sees as a threat to his kingdom (Num.22:1-6).  When Balak’s emissaries approach Balaam he responds that “I will bring word back to you as the Lord may speak to me” (Num.22:8).  And most curiously God does show up, but has to ask Balaam, “Who are these men with you?”  So Balaam has to explain to ‘omniscient’ God what the situation is.  God tells him not to go with them to curse these people, because “they are blessed.”  So Balaam obeys and sends the men away.

            The leaders of Moab send another delegation to Balaam.  Now, if you read commentaries about this Balaam is often accused of being a prophet-for-hire who wants Balak’s money, but note Balaam’s response: “Though Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold, I could not do anything, either small or great, contrary to the command of the Lord my God.” (Num.22:18)  He makes it clear that he must follow the command of God despite any monetary enticement.  And this time: “God came to Balaam at night and said to him, ‘If the men have come to call you, rise up and go with them; but only the word which I speak to you shall you do.’”  To be clear: God tells Balaam to go with them, to speak what God will tell him.

            So Balaam saddles his donkey and off they go.  But then, inexplicably, God gets angry at Balaam – for doing what He just told him to do!  God is so angry he sends an angel down to slay Balaam with a sword.  The donkey stops, seeing the angel in front of them; Balaam does not see it.  Now, this seems consistent with an old myth that animals are more sensitive to the spiritual realm – like seeing ghosts and such – than humans.  I have never understood that idea: humans are clearly closer to God than other animals (according to the Bible at least); so why should lesser animals be more sensitive to spiritual entities?  But I suppose when it comes to such unprovable things you can imagine it any way you want.

            So, the donkey stops before the angel, and unseeing Balaam strikes him for refusing to proceed.  Then, remarkably, to us at least, the donkey speaks!  “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” And Balaam takes this in stride and responds back: “Because you have made a mockery of me! If there had been a sword in my hand, I would have killed you by now.” “Am I not your donkey on which you have ridden all your life to this day? Have I ever been accustomed to do so to you?” And Balaam said, “No.”

Balaam and the Donkey, Rembrandt (1626)

            Balaam does not seem disturbed by the fact that his donkey is suddenly talking to him.  But more remarkable is that many people today are just as undisturbed by a talking donkey.  Yet, I suppose to make a donkey talk is no more miraculous than many other things in the Bible.  People have this great capacity for believing ancient miracle stories even though they would immediately reject such a story told by someone today.  Seriously, if I told you about a conversation I had with my pet you would first think I was joking and wait for a punchline, but if I persisted you would probably advise a psychiatric assessment.  Yet when people read this ancient story of a talking donkey they have no problem accepting it as fact rather than fable.  We are willing to believe so much in support of our chosen religion, are we not?

            Then God opens Balaam’s eyes so he can see the angel and its sword.  The angel rebukes Balaam, saying “because your way was contrary to me,” even though Balaam was told by God to go with the men!  So Balaam says he will turn around, but in fact the angel once again tells Balaam to go with the men.  So why was the angel going to kill Balaam if in fact he was supposed to continue on with the men?  It is a confusing story, in my human opinion.  I don’t see anything so far for which to fault Balaam.

            When Balaam reaches Balak he tells him up front: “Behold, I have come now to you! Am I able to speak anything at all? The word that God puts in my mouth, that I shall speak.”  And again God tells Balaam what to speak, including: “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed?

And how can I denounce whom the Lord has not denounced?” (Num.23:8)  Balak is upset; he wanted Balaam to curse Israel and instead he blesses them!  Balaam can only respond, “Must I not be careful to speak what the Lord puts in my mouth?”

            So Balak takes him to another place to look at the people of Israel, and God again tells Balaam what to say, which is of course yet another blessing on them.  Balak is again upset, and Balaam again reminds him that he can only speak what the Lord tells him.  This happens a third time, in which Balaam blesses Israel, and Balak becomes angry, saying, “I called you to curse my enemies, but behold, you have persisted in blessing them these three times!  Therefore, flee to your place now. I said I would honor you greatly, but behold, the Lord has held you back from honor.” 

            So, three times Balak was hoping for Balaam to curse Israel and three times Balaam speaks only what he received from the Lord, which was a blessing upon Israel, and he returns home empty-handed. Does this sound like a money-grubbing prophet-for-hire?  Yet he will be cast as an evil prophet.

            Just a bit later in Numbers 31 Moses has the people of Israel attack Midian (see post #17 for more on this disturbing story), and Balaam is one of the casualties (Num.31:8).  Then as Moses instructs his men to kill the women of Midian he explains, “Behold, these [the women] caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the Lord” (Num.31:16).  This is described in Numbers 25, but with no mention of Balaam (who had returned home at the end of chapter 24).  Was there more to the story, that got left out?  Anyway, the men of Israel were attracted to the women of Moab and Midian with the result that they started to worship their gods.  And it’s the women who get the blame.  I don’t get that.  The women were simply worshipping their usual gods.  It was the men of Israel who abandoned their faith and went after other gods.  But the women get the blame.  It’s almost as if these stories were written by men.

            Then in Deuteronomy, which is kind of a retelling of the Exodus experience, we read this: “No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the Lord; none of their descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall ever enter the assembly of the Lord, because they did not meet you with food and water on the way when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you.  Nevertheless, the Lord your God was not willing to listen to Balaam, but the Lord your God turned the curse into a blessing for you because the Lord your God loves you” (Deut.23:3-5).  Again Balaam gets the blame, even though in the story Balaam repeatedly seeks the Lord’s guidance and speaks only what the Lord gave him to speak.  Balaam never said that he was going to curse Israel; right from the start he sought the Lord’s guidance about this.  This claim against Balaam is repeated in Joshua 24:9 & 10, and Nehemiah 13:2.  He is also mentioned in Micah 6:5 – “My people, remember now what Balak king of Moab counseled and what Balaam son of Beor answered him” – but that seems more ambiguous about Balaam’s role.

            Unfortunately for Balaam he doesn’t get any better press in the New Testament.  In the short letter of Jude it says when speaking of false teachers in the church, “Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah” (v.11).  Again there is the implication of “pay” for doing wrong, but that is not supported by the story.  The people being described in Jude are quite awful and it doesn’t seem fair to compare them to obedient Balaam.  The same charge against Balaam is repeated in the book of 2^nd Peter.  Note: many scholars see the similarities between Jude and 2^nd Peter and believe 2^nd Peter was based on Jude rather than being an actual letter by Peter.  That letter says: “…they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness…” (2:15).  Even though Balaam took no money from Balak in the story.

            To make things worse for Balaam he gets a bad mention in the last book in the Bible, Revelation.  In speaking to the church in Pergamum Jesus says, “But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality” (2:14).  Whoa!  Now it is Balaam who is trying to get Balak to be a “stumbling block” for Israel rather than the other way around.  And now he’s not just charged with leading Israel into immorality, but also leading them to eat food sacrificed to idols.  This seems to have been a big issue in the early church, as it is mentioned in the book of Acts and in Paul’s letters, too. I get the feeling the author of Revelation wanted to make a point about it, and used poor Balaam  to make his point.

            So, the story of Balaam is curious on a number of points.  Obviously there is the talking donkey.  Supposedly omniscient God has to ask Balaam why the men are visiting him,  There is a sword-wielding angel, visible only to the donkey, who opposes Balaam, even though he was doing what he was told by God.  God Himself talks to Balaam, who then faithfully speaks what God told him.  Three times he blesses Israel instead of cursing them, even though he would have been handsomely paid for cursing them.  So he goes home empty-handed.  And for this he is reviled as an evil prophet-for-hire, seducing the men of Israel and leading them to loose women and false idols.  I wonder if there were more stories of Balaam actually doing such things that for some reason were omitted from the written records. 

            If you read the story carefully you will see, as is often the case in early books of the Bible, that the Supreme Being is sometimes called “God” (Elohim) and sometimes “Lord” (Yahweh).  See posts 1 and 2 for more detail about this split personality of the Creator.  I wonder if the original stories featured a pagan prophet who does in fact curse Israel and leads them astray, but when the Jews adopted the story into their lore they changed it to have him express Yahweh’s blessings on Israel.  But in so doing the evil actions of Balaam were omitted, leaving us with a story of Balaam doing what is right while leaving intact the later condemnations of him as an evil prophet.

            Or did the authors/editors of these stories simply choose Balaam as a scapegoat, to blame for the sins of the sons of Israel?  Seems to me the blame should be on the ones sinning, not on someone said to be a bad influence.  But then blaming someone else is still common today.  Some Christians blame Satan for seducing them to commit sin – “The Devil made me do it!” – rather than putting the blame on their own sinful desires.  Some men blame women for causing them to lust.  “She was dressed like a slut!”  Keep in mind Jesus said to pluck out your eye if that’s the problem; he didn’t blame the woman.  We really should look within for the source of our wrongdoing, rather than seeking scapegoats and excuses.  So, if the sons of Israel proved unfaithful and “played the harlot with the daughters of Moab” (Numbers 25:1), don’t blame Balaam!  Put the blame on those turning their backs on their own religion and people.

            Poor Balaam!  Portrayed for all eternity as a dirtbag!  But I don’t see him that way.  How about you?