The Difficulty
Balaam, a non-Israelite prophet hired by King Balak of Moab to curse Israel, rides his donkey toward Moab. The angel of the LORD blocks the road with a drawn sword. The donkey sees the angel three times and veers off; each time, Balaam beats her. Finally, “the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, ‘What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?’” They proceed to have a conversation. Only then does God open Balaam’s eyes to see the angel. Most strangely of all, Balaam does not seem surprised that his donkey is talking. Did this actually happen? Is the story a fable? Why is it in the Bible? And why does 2 Peter reference it?
Responses
Historical Miracle / Literal Reading
Summary: God supernaturally enabled the donkey to speak; this is a straightforward miracle, and 2 Peter confirms the historicity.
The traditional reading holds that God, who made speech possible in humans, can enable speech in any creature he chooses. 2 Peter 2:16 states matter-of-factly that “a speechless donkey spoke with a human voice and restrained the prophet’s madness.” Peter treats this as a real historical event that happened to a real prophet. The miracle is no greater than creating speech in humans in the first place; if we grant God’s existence and Genesis 2:7, we have no reason to deny Numbers 22. The Deir ʿAlla inscription (discovered in 1967 in Jordan) mentions a prophet named “Balaam son of Beor” — confirming that Balaam was a known historical figure in the ancient Near East, which supports the historicity of the broader narrative.
Strengths
Honors Peter’s apostolic interpretation. Takes the text at face value. Archaeological support from Deir ʿAlla confirms Balaam’s historicity. If God exists, there’s no principled reason to exclude this miracle.
Weaknesses
Balaam’s lack of surprise is textually odd — if this really happened, why is he behaving as if it’s normal? Donkeys lack the vocal apparatus for human speech. The text has features of folklore (threefold repetition, animal as moral authority) that suggest literary artistry.
Further Reading
- 2 Peter 2:15–16 — the NT confirmation
- Ronald Allen, “Numbers” in Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Zondervan, 1990)
- Gordon Wenham, Numbers (TOTC, 1981)
- Jacob Hoftijzer and Gerrit van der Kooij, eds., The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAlla Re-evaluated (Brill, 1991) — on the archaeological evidence for Balaam’s historicity
Satirical / Folkloric Narrative
Summary: The episode is a deliberately comic, satirical tale — the donkey sees what the “seer” cannot, exposing Balaam’s spiritual blindness through role reversal.
Many scholars (Gordon Wenham, Dennis Olson, Baruch Levine) note that the Numbers 22 narrative is classic ancient Near Eastern folklore: threefold repetition, a supernatural encounter, an animal as moral authority, and heavy irony. The “seer” (the Hebrew term for Balaam) can’t see the angel; his donkey can. The mute animal speaks; the prophet is silenced. Balaam’s lack of surprise at the talking donkey is the narrator’s way of showing how thoroughly out of touch he is. The story is genuinely funny — and its humor carries a pointed theological message about blindness, greed, and the ironies of divine providence. Whether “it happened” is a different question from what the story means. Even the most conservative scholars acknowledge the episode has strong fable-like features.
Strengths
Takes seriously the text’s literary artistry and humor. Explains Balaam’s non-reaction as intentional characterization. The ANE context supports folkloric reading. Illuminates the story’s theological point.
Weaknesses
“It’s a fable” can be heard as “it didn’t happen,” which unsettles those who hold strict inspiration views. Doesn’t fully engage with 2 Peter’s apparently literal reference. May impose modern literary categories on ancient texts.
Further Reading
- Dennis Olson, Numbers (Interpretation, 1996)
- Baruch Levine, Numbers 21–36 (Anchor Bible, 2000)
- Gordon Wenham, Numbers (TOTC, 1981) — balanced treatment
- Ian Provan, “The Lord Spoke Through His Prophet” in Seriously Dangerous Religion (Baylor, 2014)
Visionary / Prophetic Experience
Summary: Balaam heard the donkey speak as part of a prophetic vision or altered state, not as external audible speech.
Some interpreters (C.S. Keener, some medieval Jewish commentators) propose that the speech was a vision or inner experience rather than external, audible sound. Balaam, as a diviner used to receiving messages through altered states, would have processed the donkey’s behavior as a prophetic communication. God “opened his eyes” (22:31) only at the end, suggesting the entire encounter was happening on a different plane of perception. This would explain Balaam’s lack of surprise — he was accustomed to such experiences — and preserve the text’s truthfulness without requiring literal donkey-throat speech.
Strengths
Accounts for Balaam’s unfazed response. Consistent with ANE prophetic practice. Balaam was specifically a diviner skilled in interpreting omens from animal behavior.
Weaknesses
The text reads as straightforward narrative, not visionary account. 2 Peter’s reference seems to describe objective speech. The “opening eyes” language in 22:31 may refer specifically to seeing the angel, not to the whole episode.
Further Reading
- C.S. Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (Baker Academic, 2011) — not specifically on this passage, but his general framework applies
- Philo of Alexandria, Life of Moses I.259–268 — ancient Jewish interpretation
- Ramban (Nachmanides) on Numbers 22 — medieval Jewish interpretation
Pedagogical / Theological Function
Summary: Regardless of what literally happened, the episode functions to teach theological lessons about spiritual perception, divine sovereignty, and the dangers of greed.
Many commentators (Walter Brueggemann, Terence Fretheim) focus on what the story does rather than what it is. The narrative exposes Balaam’s greed (he keeps going back to God hoping for different instructions), demonstrates that animals can perceive spiritual reality better than greedy prophets, and shows God’s protective sovereignty over Israel even when Israel is unaware. The comic reversal teaches humility: the prophet’s donkey is more spiritually perceptive than he is. The application for the reader is clear: am I like Balaam, pushing toward what I want and missing what God is doing? Am I blind to the angels in my path? The question of historicity matters less than the question of whether we are willing to be taught.
Strengths
Focuses on what the text accomplishes theologically and pastorally. Works regardless of historicity position. Rich for preaching. Honors the narrative’s actual purpose.
Weaknesses
Can be seen as sidestepping the historical question. Some will want a clearer answer on “did it happen?”
Further Reading
- Terence Fretheim, The Pentateuch (Abingdon, 1996)
- Walter Brueggemann, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Westminster John Knox, 2003), on Numbers
- R. Dennis Cole, Numbers (NAC, 2000)