Numbers 22–24; 31:1–16

The story of Balaam and Balak always makes me feel like I am missing something important. In the reading assignment itself for this week, Balaam never says anything other than what the Lord instructs him to say, even though it is obvious that Balak is trying hard to tempt him to do otherwise.

And yet the most important questions in the lesson clearly have to do with the part that got left out. The lesson includes the following bullet: “On his way to Moab, Balaam tried three times to force his donkey forward (Numbers 22:22–30). In what way was this like Balaam’s relationship with the Lord? What are some modern parallels of individuals and groups stubbornly trying to do what they want rather than submitting to God’s will or to the righteous counsel of parents or leaders?” (Old Testament: Class Study Guide, “I Cannot Go Beyond the Word of the Lord,” p. 12.)

This is a really fascinating pair of questions. First off, Balaam didn’t realize at first that an angel was blocking the way. After he had this information revealed to him, however, he offers to go home, and the angel tells him that he can continue, although he does emphasize again that Balaam is not to say anything other than what the Lord directs him to say (vv. 31, 34–35). So based on the text, there is only one sense in which you can argue that this story is about not following the counsel of the Lord: the one where an individual or a group does not realize that they are making decisions that are counter to God’s will. This is not a story about willful disobedience unless you add in the New Testament citations at the end of the lesson (2 Peter 2:15–16, Jude 1:11, and Revelation 2:14).

I do not believe that the scriptures discourage us from being persistent about things. Clearly, the right kind of stubbornness is the kind where you are stubborn about doing the right thing. However, it is easy to assume that if someone else is “stubbornly trying to do what they want rather than submitting to God’s will,” that person is wrong and needs to straighten up, whereas you (you lucky person) are the far-sighted individual who got it right and knows just how to direct the erring person back into the paths of righteousness.

Sometimes, of course, you will be right.

But sometimes, what you ought to be reading instead is Matthew 7:3: “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

You can’t make peace with anybody, and you can’t figure out what constitutes justice in a particular case, if you assume that you are right and the other person or group is wrong. Although I understand the thinking behind questions such as the ones above, which encourage you to notice individuals or groups being stubborn, I think it is also easy to do this unrighteously. It is important for us to guard against that kind of we’re-the-good-guy and they’re-the-bad-guy kind of thinking.

We have to be willing to look deeper into the motives of the other person, and perhaps be willing to examine our own conduct more thoroughly. Does this mean accepting an “anything goes” sort of view, where we are uncomfortable condemning anything? No. To my mind, that in turn is a case of something Isaiah warns us against in Isaiah 5:20: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

Sometimes you have to make a decision about what is good and what is evil, and act accordingly. Doing so righteously, however, is something that takes some effort and insight.

Sunday School Notebook - May 2006 - Susan Morgan