I shall see him, but not now; I shall behold him, but not nigh:— For the exposition of the following verses, we are indebted to the excellent dissertations of the learned bishop of Bristol.
"I shall see, &c. rather, I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not nigh; the future tense in the Hebrew being often used for the present. He saw with the eyes of prophesy, and prophets are emphatically styled seers. There shall come a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel. The star, and the sceptre, are probably metaphors borrowed from the ancient hieroglyphics, which much influenced the language of the East; and they evidently denote some eminent and illustrious king or ruler, whom he particularizes in the following words: And shall smite the corners of Moab, or princes of Moab, according to other versions. This was executed by David; for he smote Moab, and measured them with a line, casting them down to the ground; even with two lines measured he to put to death, and with one full line to keep alive; that is, he destroyed two thirds, and saved one third alive: and the Moabites became David's servants, and brought gifts. See 2 Samuel 8:2."
"And destroy all the children of Sheth— If by Sheth was meant the son of Adam, then all the children of Sheth are all mankind; the posterity of Cain, and Adam's other sons, having all perished in the deluge. But it is very harsh to say, that any king of Israel would destroy all mankind; and therefore the Syriac and Chaldee soften it, that he shall subdue all the sons of Sheth, and rule over all the sons of men. The word occurs only in this place, and in Isaiah 22:5 where it is used in the sense of breaking down, or destroying; and as particular places are mentioned, both before and after, so it is reasonable to conclude, that not all mankind in general, but some particular persons, were intended by the sons of Sheth. The Jerusalem Targum translates it, the sons of the East, the Moabites lying east of Judea. Rabbi Nathan says, that Sheth is the name of a city on the borders of Moab. Grotius imagines Sheth to be the name of some famous king among the Moabites. Poole says, that Sheth seems to be the name of some place or prince in Moab, eminent at that time, though now unknown. Vitringa, in his commentary upon Isaiah, conceives that the Idumeans were intended, the word Sheth signifying a foundation, or fortified place; because they trusted greatly in their castles and fortifications. But the Idumeans are mentioned afterwards, and it is probable, that as two hemistichs relate to them, two also relate to the Moabites; and the reason of the appellation assigned by Vitringa is as proper to the Moabites as to the Idumeans. It is common in the stile of the Hebrews; and especially in the poetic parts of Scripture; and we may observe it particularly in these prophesies of Balaam, that the same thing, in effect, is repeated in other words, and the latter member of each period is exegetical of the former, as in the passage before us: I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not nigh.—There shall come a star out of Jacob; and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel.—And again in the next verse: and Edom shall be a possession; Seir also shall be a possession for his enemies. There is great reason, therefore, to think, that the same manner of speaking was continued here; and consequently that Sheth must be the name of some eminent place or person among the Moabites."
"Ver. 18. Edom shall be a possession, &c.— This was also fulfilled by David; see 2 Samuel 8:14 who himself, in two of his Psalms 60:8; Psalms 108:9 has mentioned together his conquest of Moab and Edom, as they are also joined together in this prophecy. Seir is the name of the mountains of Edom; so that even their mountains and fastnesses could not defend the Idumeans from David and his captains."
"And Israel shall do valiantly— As they did particularly under the command of David, several of whose victories are recorded; 2 Samuel 8 together with his conquest of Moab and Edom."
"Ver. 19. And shall destroy him that remaineth of the city— Not only defeat them in the field, but destroy them even in their strongest cities; or, perhaps, some particular city was intended, as we may infer from Psalms 60:8; Psalms 108:10. We read particularly, that Joab, David's general, smote every male in Edom; 1 Kings 11:15-16."
"We see how exactly this prophesy has been fulfilled in the person and actions of David; but most Jewish as well as Christian writers apply it primarily, perhaps, to David, but ultimately to the Messiah, as the person chiefly intended, in whom it was to receive its full and entire completion. Onkelos interprets it of the Messiah. 'When a prince,' says he, 'shall arise f the house of Jacob, and Christ shall be anointed of the house of Israel, he shall both slay the princes of Moab, and rule over the sons of men;' and with him agree the other Targums. Maimonides understands it partly of David, and partly of the Messiah; and with him agree other rabbis.—It appears to have been generally understood by the Jews as a prophesy of the Messiah, because the false Christ, who appeared in the reign of the Roman emperor Adrian, assumed the title of Barchochebas, or Son of the Star; in allusion to this prophesy, and in order to have it believed that he was the star whom Balaam had seen afar off. The Christian fathers seem unanimous in applying this prophesy to our Saviour, and to the star which appeared at his nativity. Origen, in particular, produces it as one of the plainest and clearest prophesies of the Messiah; and both he and Eusebius affirm, that it was in consequence of Balaam's prophesies, which were known and believed in the East, that the magi, upon the appearance of a new star, came to Jerusalem, to worship him who was born king of the Jews. Most divines and commentators apply the prophesy principally to our Saviour; and by Moab and Edom they understand the enemies and persecutors of the church. It must be acknowledged, that many prophesies of Scripture have a double meaning, literal and mystical, respect two events, and receive a twofold completion. David was, in several things, a type and figure of the Messiah. If by destroying all the children of Sheth be meant, ruling over all mankind, this was never fulfilled in David. A star did really appear at our Saviour's nativity, and in Scripture he is stiled the Day Star, 2 Peter 1:19 the Morning Star, Revelation 2:28; Revelation 22:16 the Bright and Morning Star; perhaps in allusion to this very prophesy. Bishop Warburton assigns a further reason: speaking of the two sorts of metaphor in the ancient use of it, the popular and common, and the hidden and mysterious, he says, 'The prophetic writings are full of this latter sort: to instance only in the famous prediction of Balaam, There shall come a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel.' This prophesy may, possibly, in some sense, relate to David; but, without question, it belongs principally to Christ. Here the metaphor of a sceptre was common and popular to denote a ruler, like David, but the star, though, like the other, it signified in the prophetic writings a temporal prince or ruler, yet had a secret and hidden meaning likewise. A star, in the Egyptian hieroglyphics, denoted God; and how much hieroglyphic writing influenced the Eastern languages we shall see presently. Thus God, in the prophet Amos, ch. Numbers 5:25-26 reproving the Israelites for their idolatry on their first coming out of Egypt, says, Ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun, your images, the star of your God, which ye made to yourselves. The star of your God is a sublime figure, to signify, the image of your God; for a star being employed in the hieroglyphics to signify God, it is used here, with great elegance, to signify the material image of a God: the words, the star of your God, being only a repetition, so usual in the Hebrew tongue, of the preceding Chiun, your images; and not, as some critics suppose, the same with your God Star, sidus Deum vestrum. Hence we conclude, that the metaphor here used by Balaam of a star was of that abstruse mysterious kind, and so to be understood; and, consequently, that it related only to Christ, the eternal Son of God. But though, for these reasons, the Messiah might be remotely intended, yet we cannot allow that he was intended solely; because David might be called a star by Balaam, as other rulers and governors are by Daniel 8:10 and by St. John, Revelation 1:20 and we must insist upon it, that the summary intention, the literal meaning of the prophesy, respects the person and actions of David; and for this, particularly, because Balaam is here advertising Balak what the Israelites should do to the Moabites hereafter."
"Ver. 20. He looked on Amalek, &c.— From the Moabites he turned his eyes more to the south and west, and looked on their neighbours the Amalekites; Amalek, says he, was the first of the nations; the first and most powerful of the neighbouring nations, or the first that warred against Israel, as it is in the margin of our Bibles. 'The latter interpretation is proposed by Onkelos, and other Jews, I suppose, because they would not allow the Amalekites to be a more ancient nation than themselves; but most good critics prefer the former interpretation, as more easy and natural; and for a very good reason, because the Amalekites appear to have been a very ancient nation: they are reckoned among the most ancient nations thereabouts. See 1 Samuel 22:8. They are mentioned so early as in the wars of Chedorlaomer, Genesis 14:7 so that they must have been a nation before the times of Abraham and Lot, and consequently much older than the Moabites, or Edomites, or any of the nations descended from those patriarchs. And this is a demonstrative argument, that the Amalekites did not descend from Amalek, the son of Eliphaz, and grandson of Esau, as many have supposed only from the similitude of names, (Genesis 36:12.) but sprung from some other stock; and probably, as the Arabian writers affirm, from Amalek, or Amlak, the son of Ham, and grandson of Noah. 'Amlak et Amlik, fils de Cham, fils de Noe. C'est celui que les Hebreux appellent Amalek, pere des Amalekites,' says Herbelot; but it is to be wished that this valuable and useful author had cited his authorities. According to the Arabian historians, they were a great and powerful nation that subdued Egypt, and held it in subjection for several years. See Univ. Hist. b. 1. c. iii. p. 281.—They must certainly have been more powerful, or at least more courageous, than the neighbouring nations, because they ventured to attack the Israelites, of whom the other nations were afraid. But though they were the first, the most ancient, and powerful of the neighbouring nations, yet, says the prophet, their latter end shall be that they perish for ever. Here Balaam unwittingly confirms what the Lord had before denounced by Moses. Exodus 17:14. Balaam had before declared, that the king of Israel should prevail over the king of Amalek; Numbers 24:7 but here the menace is carried further, and Amalek is consigned to utter destruction. This sentence was, in a great measure, executed by Saul, 1 Samuel 15:7-8. When they had recovered a little, David invaded them again, 1 Samuel 27:8-9 and made a further slaughter and conquest of them at Ziklag, 1 Samuel 30. At last the sons of Simeon, in the days of king Hezekiah, smote the rest of the Amalekites that were escaped, and dwelt in their habitations, 1 Chronicles 4:41-43. And where is the name or the nation of Amalek subsisting at this day? What history, what tradition concerning them, is remaining any where?
They are but just enough known and remembered to shew, that what God had threatened he has punctually fulfilled."
"Ver. 21. He looked on the Kenites, &c.— Commentators are much at a loss to say, with any certainty, who these Kenites were. There are Kenites mentioned, Genesis 15:19 among the Canaanitish nations; and Le Clerc imagines, that they were the people here intended: but the Canaanitish nations are not the subject of Balaam's prophesies, and the Canaanitish nations were to be rooted out; but these Kenites were to continue as long as the Israelites themselves, and to be carried captive with them by the Assyrians. Bochart is of opinion, that those Kenites, as well as the Kenizzites, not being mentioned by Joshua in the division of the land, were extinct in the interval between Abraham and Moses. The most probable account of these Kenites, I conceive, to be this. Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, is called in Exodus 3:1 the priest of Midian; and in Joshua 1:16 the Kenite. We may infer, therefore, that the Midianites and the Kenites were the same, or, at least, that the Kenites were some of the tribes of Midian. Now of the Kenites, it appears from Joshua 1:16 that part followed Israel; but the greater part, we may presume, remained among the Midianites and Amalekites. We read, 1 Samuel 15:6 that there were Kenites dwelling among the Amalekites, and so the Kenites are fitly mentioned here next after the Amalekites. Their situation is said to be strong and secure among the mountains. Strong is thy dwelling-place, and thou puttest thy nest in a rock; wherein is an allusion to the name, the same word in Hebrew signifying a nest and a Kenite, Nevertheless, the Kenite shall be wasted until Ashur carry thee away captive. The Amalekites were to be utterly destroyed, but the Kenites were to be carried captive. And, accordingly, when Saul was sent by divine commission to destroy the Amalekites, he ordered the Kenites to depart from among them; for the kindness which some of them shewed to Israel, their posterity was saved, 1 Samuel 15:6. This passage shews that they were wasted, and reduced to a low and weak condition: and as the kings of Assyria carried captive not only the Jews, but also the Syrians, and several other nations, Exodus 16:9; Exodus 19:12-13 it is most highly probable, that the Kenites shared the same fate with their neighbours, and were carried away by the same torrent; and, especially, as we find some Kenites mentioned among the Jews after their return from captivity, 1 Chronicles 2:55."
"Ver. 23. He took up his parable, and said, &c.— This verse is by several commentators referred to what precedes, but it relates rather to what follows: He took up his parable, is a preface used when he enters upon some new subject. The exclamation, Alas, who shall live when God doth this! implies, that he is now prophesying of very distant and very calamitous times."
"Ver. 24. And ships— Or rather, for ships, as the particle vau often signifies for. Chittim was one of the sons of Javan, who was one of the sons of Japheth, by whose posterity the isles of the Gentiles, i.e. Europe, were divided and peopled; together with the countries to which the Asiatics passed by sea; for such the Hebrews call islands, Genesis 10:5. Chittim is used for the descendants of Chittim, as Asshur is put for the descendants of Asshur, i.e. the Assyrians; but what people were the descendants of Chittim, or what country was meant by the coasts of Chittim, is not easy to determine. The critics and commentators are generally divided into two opinions: the one asserting that Macedonia, and the other that Italy was the country here intended; and each opinion is recommended and authorised by some of the first and greatest names in learning. But there is no reason why we may not adopt both opinions, and especially as it is very well known that colonies came from Greece to Italy; and as Josephus observes, Antiq. lib. 1: cap. 6 p. 17 that all islands, and most maritime places, are called Chethim by the Hebrews, and as manifest traces of the name are to be found in both countries, the ancient name of Macedonia having been Macettia, and the Latins having before been called Cetii. What appears most probable is, that the sons of Chittim settled first in Asia Minor, where were a people called Cetei, and a river called Cerium, according to Homer and Strabo. From Asia they might pass over into the island of Cyprus, which, Josephus says, was possessed by Chethim, and called Chethima; and where was also the city Citium, famous for its being the birth-place of Zeno, the founder of the sect of the Stoics, who was therefore called Cittiean; and from thence they might send forth colonies into Greece and Italy. It plainly appears, that wherever the land of Chittim, or the isles of Chittim, are mentioned in Scripture, there are evidently meant some countries or islands in the Mediterranean. See Isaiah 1:12.Jeremiah 2:10. Ezekiel 27:6. Daniel 11:29-30. See also Genesis 1:1; Genesis 8:5. When Balaam, therefore, said that ships should come from the coast of Chittim, he might mean either Greece or Italy, or both: the particular names of those countries being at that time perhaps unknown in the East; and the passage may be better understood of both, because it was equally true of both; and Greece and Italy were alike the scourges of Asia."
"And shall afflict Asshur— Asshur, as we noted before, signifies properly the descendants of Asshur, the Assyrians; but their name was of as large extent as their empire; and the Syrians and Assyrians are often confounded together, and mentioned as one and the same people. Now it is so well known, as to require no particular proof, that the Grecians under Alexander subdued all those countries. The Romans afterwards extended their empire into the same regions; and as Dio informs us, Assyria, properly so called, was conquered by Trajan. See Dion. Hist. Rom. lib. 68: p. 783."
"And shall afflict Eber— Two interpretations are proposed of the word Eber, either the posterity of a man so called, or the people who dwelt on the other side of the river Euphrates. If by Eber we understand the posterity of Eber, then Balaam, who was commissioned to bless Israel at first, prophesied evil of them at last, though under another name. We may however avoid this seeming inconsistency, if we follow the other interpretation, and by Eber understand the people who dwelt on the other side of the Euphrates, which sense is given by Onkelos, and approved by several of the most able commentators, both ancient and modern. The two members of the sentence would then better connect together, and the sense of the latter would be somewhat exegetical of the former; and shall afflict Asshur, and shall afflict Eber, i.e. shall afflict the Assyrians, and other neighbouring nations bordering upon the river Euphrates. Beyond the river, is indeed a phrase, which sometimes occurs in Scripture: but where does beyond alone ever bear that signification? I know Genesis 10:21 is usually cited to establish this meaning; but that text is as much controverted as this; and the question is the same there as here, whether Eber be the proper name of a man, or only a preposition signifying beyond, and beyond signifying the people beyond the Euphrates: Isaiah's manner of speaking of the same people is, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria; see Isaiah 7:20 and one would expect the like here; shall afflict Asshur, and shall afflict them beyond the river. But which-soever of these interpretations we prefer, the prophecy was alike fulfilled. If we understand it of the people bordering on the Euphrates, they as well as the Assyrians were subdued both by the Greeks and Romans. If of the posterity of Eber, the Hebrews were afflicted, though not so much by Alexander himself, yet by his successors the Seleucidae, and particularly by Antiochus Epiphanes, see 1 Maccabees 1 : They were worse afflicted by the Romans, who not only subdued and oppressed them, but at last took away their place and nation, and sold and dispersed them over the face of the earth."
"He also shall perish for ever— That is, Asshur and Eber, mentioned as one and the same people, or rather Chittim. He also shall be punished even to perdition; shall be destroyed, as well as Amalek; for, in the original, the words are the same concerning both. If Asshur be meant, the Assyrian empire was destroyed, and perished long ago. If Chittim be meant, the Grecian empire was entirely subverted by the Roman, and the Roman in its turn was broke to pieces, some fragments of which are now remaining. See Hyde, Rel. Pers. p. 57."
The Bishop concludes from the foregoing observations, that Balaam was a prophet divinely inspired; or he could never have foretold so many distant events, some of which are fulfilling in the world at this time. "And what a singular honour," says he, "was it to the people of Israel, that a prophet called from another country, and at the same time a wicked man, should be obliged to bear testimony to their righteousness and holiness! The commendations of an enemy, among enemies, are commendations indeed; and Moses did justice to himself, as well as to his country, in recording these transactions. They are not only a material part of his history, but are likewise a strong confirmation of the truth of this religion. Balaam's bearing witness to Moses, is somewhat like Judas attesting the innocence of Jesus." See Dissert. on Prophecies, vol. 1: p. 130, & seq.