Study

20. Behold I have received commandment to bless. He signifies that a command to bless had been given him, antl a positive law laid down for him. For, as has been said, he was not free and independent in this matter; but God had bound him to exercise the prophetic office, even against his own will. Hence he declares that it is not in his power to alter the revelation, of which he is the minister and witness. But there is a remarkable expression introduced in the midst of his declaration, viz., that God himself had blessed; whereby he intimates that the lot of men, whether adverse or prosperous, depends on the authority of God alone; and that no other commission is given to the prophets, except to promulgate what God has appointed; as if he had said, It belongs to God alone to decree what the condition of men is to be; He has chosen me to proclaim His blessing; it is not in my power either to reverse or withdraw it. Now, since Balaam here sustains the character of a true Prophet, we may gather from his words that no other power of binding or loosing is given to the ministers of the Word, except that they should faithfully bring forward what they may have received from God.

21. He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob. Some understand by און, aven, עמל, gnamal, idols, ¹⁶¹¹⁶¹     So the V., “Non est idolum in Jacob, nec videtur simulachrum in Israel.” which bring nothing but deadly labor and trouble to their worshippers; as if it were said that Israel was pure and untainted by such offenses, in that they duly served the one true God. But how will it be correct to say that God saw not idolatry in the people, when they had so openly fallen into it? For, although the golden calf was only made on one occasion, still their manifold and almost constant rebellions were such as to forbid these wicked and perverse men from being thus absolved. Since, however, these two words in connection signify all sorts of iniquities, which tend to men’s hurt, or to the infliction of harm and loss, a more proper meaning will be, that such iniquity is not seen in Jacob as to include him with the nations that are given to violence and crime. Nevertheless, even if we take it thus, the former question still arises; for we know that the Israelites were scarcely better than the worst of mankind. Some reply feebly, that it was not seen, because God did not impute it; but, in my opinion, nothing else is meant by these words but that the people were pleasing to God, because He had sanctified them. If any object, that they were not therefore any the more just or innocent, the answer is easy — that it is not here declared what they were, but only God’s grace is magnified, who deigned to exalt them as a holy nation. In this way Jerusalem was the holy city and the royal abode of God, though it was a den of thieves. On this ground Paul says that the children of Abraham were “holy branches,” (Romans 11:16,) because they sprang from a holy root. In the same sense they are everywhere called God’s Children, however degenerate they might be. God, therefore, is said to have seen no iniquity in them, with reference to His adoption; not that they were worthy of such exalted praise, as if a distinction were drawn between them and the other nations — not on account of their deserts, but from the mere good pleasure of God. Thus Paul elsewhere, after he has compared them with the Gentiles, and has shewn that they are their superiors in no respect, at length adds, “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much (he says) every way; “and adduces a mark of distinction which does not proceed from themselves, ¹⁶²¹⁶²     i.e., “That unto them were committed the oracles of God.” (Romans 3:1.) In a word, because it had pleased God to choose that people, He rather manifested His love towards Himself and His own grace, than towards their life and conduct.

Others take this passage otherwise, viz., that God did not behold iniquity, nor see perverseness in Jacob, because He was not willing that he should be unrighteously grieved or afflicted; as if it were said, If any one should wish unjustly to injure this people, God will permit no violence or injustice to be done to them, but will rather defend them as their shield. But if this sense be preferred, I should rather be disposed to take the vero indefinitely, as if it were said, Perverseness shall not be seen in Jacob; for when the Hebrews use the verb without a nominative, they extend the matter in question into a general proposition, and then the verb in the active voice may be suitably resolved into the passive. And thus the context will run better, since it is added immediately afterwards, “The Lord his God is with him,” whereby the reason seems to be given why perverseness (molestia) should not be seen against Jacob, viz., because God would be at hand to render him aid. For we know that His infinite power suffices to defend the safety of His Church, so that not even the gates of hell should prevail against it.

What follows directly afterwards, “The shout or the rejoicing of a king is among them,” I understand to be that God will always give them cause for triumph; for the word which the old interpreter elsewhere renders rejoicing (jubilationem,) seems here to be used for songs of rejoicing; but, since it also signifies the sound of a trumpet, it will not be inappropriate to take it as that the people shall be terrible to their enemies, because they shall boldly rush forward, or go down to the battle, as if God sounded the trumpet.