Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament · Numbers Capitolo 24

And not only its dwellings, but Israel itself would also prosper abundantly. It would have an abundance of water, that leading source of all blessing and prosperity in the burning East. The nation is personified as a man carrying two pails overflowing with water. דּליו is the dual דּליים . The dual is generally used in connection with objects which are arranged in pairs, either naturally or artificially ( Ges. §88, 2). “ His seed ” (i.e., his posterity, not his sowing corn, the introduction of which, in this connection, would, to say the least, be very feeble here) “is,” i.e., grows up, “ by many waters,” that is to say, enjoys the richest blessings (comp. Deuteronomy 8:7 and Deuteronomy 11:10 with Isaiah 44:4; Isaiah 65:23). ירם (optative), “ his king be high before (higher than) Agag.” Agag ( עגג , the fiery) is not the proper name of the Amalekite king defeated by Saul ( 1 Samuel 15:8), but the title ( nomen dignitatis ) of the Amalekite kings in general, just as all the Egyptian kings had the common name of Pharaoh, and the Philistine kings the name of Abimelech.

(Note: See Hengstenberg ( Dissertations, ii. 250; and Balaam, p. 458). Even Gesenius could not help expressing some doubt about there being any reference in this prophecy to the event described in 1 Samuel 15:8., “unless,” he says, “you suppose the name Agag to have been a name that was common to the kings of the Amalekites” ( thes. p. 19). He also points to the name Abimelech, of which he says (p. 9): “It was the name of several kings in the land of the Philistines, as of the king of Gerar in the times of Abraham (Genesis 20:2-3; Genesis 21:22-23), and of Isaac (Genesis 26:1-2), and also of the king of Gath in the time of David (Psalms 34:1; coll. 1 Samuel 21:10, where the same king of called Achish). It seems to have been the common name and title of those kings, as Pharaoh was of the early kings of Egypt, and Caesar and Augustus of the emperors of Rome.”)

The reason for mentioning the king of the Amalekites was, that he was selected as the impersonation of the enmity of the world against the kingdom of God, which culminated in the kings of the heathen; the Amalekites having been the first heathen tribe that attacked the Israelites on their journey to Canaan (Exodus 17:8). The introduction of one particular king would have been neither in keeping with the context, nor reconcilable with the general character of Balaam's utterances. Both before and afterward, Balaam predicts in great general outlines the good that would come to Israel; and how is it likely that he would suddenly break off in the midst to compare the kingdom of Israel with the greatness of one particular king of the Amalekites? Even his fourth and last prophecy merely announces in great general terms the destruction of the different nations that rose up in hostility against Israel, without entering into special details, which, like the conquest of the Amalekites by Saul, had no material or permanent influence upon the attitude of the heathen towards the people of God; for after the defeat inflicted upon this tribe by Saul, they very speedily invaded the Israelitish territory again, and proceeded to plunder and lay it waste in just the same manner as before (cf. 1 Samuel 27:8; 1 Samuel 30:1.; 2 Samuel 8:12).

(Note: Even on the supposition (which is quite at variance with the character of all the prophecies of Balaam) that in the name of Agag, the contemporary of Saul, we have a vaticinium ex eventu , the allusion to this particular king would be exceedingly strange, as the Amalekites did not perform any prominent part among the enemies of Israel in the time of Saul; and the command to exterminate them was given to Saul, not because of any special harm that they had done to Israel at that time, but on account of what they had done to Israel on their way out of Egypt (comp. 1 Samuel 15:2 with Exodus 17:8).)

מלכּו , his king, is not any one particular king of Israel, but quite generally the king whom the Israelites would afterwards receive. For מלכּו is substantially the same as the parallel מלכתו , the kingdom of Israel, which had already been promised to the patriarchs (Genesis 17:6; Genesis 35:11), and in which the Israelites were first of all to obtain that full development of power which corresponded to its divine appointment; just as, in fact, the development of any people generally culminates in an organized kingdom. - The king of Israel, whose greatness was celebrated by Balaam, was therefore neither the Messiah exclusively, nor the earthly kingdom without the Messiah, but the kingdom of Israel that was established by David, and was exalted in the Messiah into an everlasting kingdom, the enemies of which would all be made its footstool (Psalms 2:1-12 and Psalms 110:1-7).

return to '

The prophecy itself commences with a picture from the “end of the days,” which rises up before the mental eye of the seer. “ I see Him, yet not now; I behold Him, but not nigh. A star appears out of Jacob, and a sceptre rises out of Israel, and dashes Moab in pieces on both sides, and destroys all the sons of confusion.” The suffixes to אראנּוּ and עשׁוּרנּוּ refer to the star which is mentioned afterwards, and which Balaam sees in spirit, but “not now,” i.e., not as having already appeared, and “not nigh,” i.e., not to appear immediately, but to come forth out of Israel in the far distant future. “A star is so natural an image and symbol of imperial greatness and splendour, that it has been employed in this sense in almost every nation. And the fact that this figure and symbol are so natural, may serve to explain the belief of the ancient world, that the birth and accession of great kings was announced by the appearance of stars” (Hengstenberg, who cites Justini hist. xxxvii. 2; Plinii h. n. ii. 23; Sueton. Jul. Caes. c. 78; and Dio Cass. xlv. p. 273). If, however, there could be any doubt that the rising star represented the appearance of a glorious ruler or king, it would be entirely removed by the parallel, “a sceptre arises out of Israel.” The sceptre, which was introduced as a symbol of dominion even in Jacob's blessing (Genesis 49:10), is employed here as the figurative representation and symbol of the future ruler in Israel. This ruler would destroy all the enemies of Israel. Moab and (Numbers 24:18) Edom are the first of these that are mentioned, viz., the two nations that were related to Israel by descent, but had risen up in hostility against it at that time. Moab stands in the foremost rank, not merely because Balaam was about to announce to the king of Moab what Israel would do to his people in the future, but also because the hostility of the heathen to the people of God had appeared most strongly in Balak's desire to curse the Israelites. מואב פּאתי , “ the two corners or sides of Moab,” equivalent to Moab on both sides, from one end to the other. For קרקר , the inf. Pilp. of קוּר or קיר , the meaning to destroy is fully established by the parallel מחץ , and by Isaiah 22:5, whatever may be thought of its etymology and primary meaning. And neither the Samaritan text nor the passage in Jeremiah (Jeremiah 48:45), which is based upon this prophecy, at all warrants an alteration of the reading קרקר into קדקד (the crown of the head), since Jeremiah almost invariably uses earlier writing in this free manner, viz., by altering the expressions employed, and substituting in the place of unusual words wither more common ones, or such as are similar in sound (cf. Küper, Jerem. libror, ss. interpres atque vindex, pp. xii.ff. and p. 43). - כּל־בּני־שׁת does not mean “ all the sons of Seth,” i.e., all mankind, as the human race is never called by the name of Seth; and the idea that the ruler to arise out of Israel would destroy all men, would be altogether unsuitable. It signifies rather “ all the sons of confusion,” by which, according to the analogy of Jacob and Israel (Numbers 24:17), Edom and Seir (Numbers 24:18), the Moabites are to be understood as being men of wild, warlike confusion. שׁת is a contraction of שׁאת (Lamentations 3:47), and derived from שׁאה ; and in Jeremiah 48:45 it is correctly rendered שׁאון בּני .

(Note: On the other hand, the rendering, “all the sons of the drinker, i.e., of Lot,” which Hiller proposed, and v. Hoffmann and Kurtz have renewed, is evidently untenable. For, in the first place, the fact related in Genesis 19:32. does not warrant the assumption that Lot ever received the name of the “drinker,” especially as the word used in Gen 19 is not שׁתה , but שׁקה . Moreover, the allusion to “all the sons of Lot,” i.e., the Moabites and Ammonites, neither suits the thoroughly synonymous parallelism in the saying of Balaam, nor corresponds to the general character of his prophecies, which announced destruction primarily only to those nations that rose up in hostility against Israel, viz., Moab, Edom, and Amalek, whereas hitherto the Ammonites had not assumed either a hostile or friendly attitude towards them. And lastly, all the nations doomed to destruction are mentioned by name. Now the Ammonites were not a branch of the Moabites by descent, nor was their territory enclosed within the Moabitish territory, so that it could be included, as Hoffmann supposes, within the “four corners of Moab.”)

In the announcement of destruction which is to fall upon the enemies of Israel through the star and sceptre out of the midst of it, Moab is followed by “its southern neighbour Edom.”

return to '

“ And Edom becomes a possession, and Seir becomes a possession, its enemies; but Israel acquires power.” Whose possession Edom and Seir are to become, is not expressly stated; but it is evident from the context, and from איביו (its enemies), which is not a genitive dependent upon Seir, but is in apposition to Edom and Seir, just as צריו in Numbers 24:8 is in apposition to גּוים . Edom and Seir were his, i.e., Israel's enemies; therefore they were to be taken by the ruler who was to arise out of Israel. Edom is the name of the people, Seir of the country, just as in Genesis 32:4; so that Seir is not to be understood as relating to the prae-Edomitish population of the land, which had been subjugated by the descendants of Esau, and had lost all its independence a long time before. In Moses' days the Israelites were not allowed to fight with the Edomites, even when they refused to allow them to pass peaceably through their territory (see Numbers 20:21), but were commanded to leave them in their possessions as a brother nation (Deuteronomy 2:4-5). In the future, however, their relation to one another was to be a very different one; because the hostility of Edom, already in existence, grew more and more into obstinate and daring enmity, which broke up all the ties of affection that Israel was to regard as holy, and thus brought about the destruction of the Edomites. - The fulfilment of this prophecy commenced with the subjugation of the Edomites by David (2 Samuel 8:14; 1 Kings 11:15-16; 1 Chronicles 18:12-13), but it will not be completed till “the end of the days,” when all the enemies of God and His Church will be made the footstool of Christ (Psalms 110:1.). That David did not complete the subjugation of Edom is evident, on the one hand, from the fact that the Edomites revolted again under Solomon, though without success ( 1 Kings 11:14.); that they shook off the yoke imposed upon them under Joram ( 2 Kings 8:20); and notwithstanding their defeat by Amaziah (2 Kings 14:7; 2 Chronicles 25:11) and Uzziah (2 Kings 14:22; 2 Chronicles 26:2), invaded Judah a second time under Ahaz (2 Chronicles 28:17), and afterwards availed themselves of every opportunity to manifest their hostility to the kingdom of Judah and the Jews generally, - as for example at the conquest of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans (Ezekiel 35:15; Ezekiel 36:5; Obadiah 1:10 and Obadiah 1:13), and in the wars between the Maccabees and the Syrians (1 Macc. 5:3, 65; 2 Macc. 10:15; 12:38ff.), - until they were eventually conquered by John Hyrcanus in the year b.c. 129, and compelled to submit to circumcision, and incorporated in the Jewish state (Josephus, Ant. xiii. 9, 1, xv. 7, 9; Wars of the Jews, iv. 5, 5). But notwithstanding this, they got the government over the Jews into their own hands through Antipater and Herod (Josephus, Ant. xiv. 8, 5), and only disappeared from the stage of history with the destruction of the Jewish state by the Romans. On the other hand, the declarations of the prophets (Amos 9:12; Obadiah 1:17.), which foretell, with an unmistakeable allusion to this prophecy, the possession of the remnant of Edom by the kingdom of Israel, and the announcements in Isa 34 and Isaiah 63:1-6, Jeremiah 49:7., Ezekiel 25:12. and Ezekiel 35:1-15, comp. with Psalms 137:7 and Lamentations 4:21-22, prove still more clearly that Edom, as the leading foe of the kingdom of God, will only be utterly destroyed when the victory of the latter over the hostile power of the world has been fully and finally secured. - Whilst Edom falls, Israel will acquire power. חיל עשׂה , to acquire ability or power (Deuteronomy 8:17-18; Ruth 4:11), not merely to show itself brave or strong. It is rendered correctly by Onkelos, “ prosperabitur in opibus ;” and Jonathan, “praevalebunt in opibus et possidebunt eos .”

return to '

“ And a ruler shall come out of Jacob, and destroy what is left out of cities.” The subject to ירדּ is indefinite, and to be supplied from the verb itself. We have to think of the ruler foretold as star and sceptre. The abbreviated form וירדּ is not used for the future ירדּה , but is jussive in its force. One out of Jacob shall rule. מעיר is employed in a collected and general sense, as in Psalms 72:16. Out of every city in which there is a remnant of Edom, it shall be destroyed. שׁריד is equivalent to אדום שׁארית (Amos 9:12). The explanation, “destroy the remnant out of the city, namely, out of the holy city of Jerusalem” ( Ewald and Baur), is forced, and cannot be sustained from the parallelism.

return to '

The second saying in this prophecy relates to the Amalekites. Balaam sees them, not with the eyes of his body, but in a state of ecstasy, like the star out of Jacob. “ Beginning of the heathen is Amalek, and its end is destruction.” Amalek is called the beginning of the nations, not “as belonging to the most distinguished and foremost of the nations in age, power, and celebrity” ( Knobel), - for in all these respects this Bedouin tribe, which descended from a grandson of Esau, was surpassed by many other nations, - but as the first heathen nation which opened the conflict of the heathen nations against Israel as the people of God (see at Exodus 17:8.). As its beginning had been enmity against Israel, its end would be “even to the perishing” ( אבד עדי ), i.e., reaching the position of one who was perishing, falling into destruction, which commenced under Saul and was completed under Hezekiah.

return to '