Charles Ellicott Commentary Numbers 22:28

"And Jehovah opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?" — Numbers 22:28 (ASV)

And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass. Many critics, who admit the miraculous character of the events recorded in this and the following verses, maintain the subjective character of some of the incidents, and they present arguments to show that, while the same results might have been brought about in either manner, it is more in accordance with the general analogy of Scripture to assign a subjective rather than an objective interpretation to the language used here. The following remarks may be made in regard to this interpretation:

1. Consistency requires that the whole of the narrative be interpreted either objectively or subjectively; and hence, if the voice of the ass is interpreted as a subjective impression made on Balaam's mind, the appearance of the angel must be understood in the same way.

   In this case, however, a difficulty arises that is as great as, or greater than, the one the subjective theory is thought to remove. If the angel's appearance to Balaam was subjective, the appearance must have been subjective to the ass as well. Moreover, in this case, it may be fairly alleged that if the line that divides the intelligent from the brute creation is transgressed by ascribing articulate speech to the ass, that line is much more transgressed by the supposition that an impression was produced subjectively on the mind of the ass.

2. But the real question at issue is not whether the recorded results might have been accomplished if we suppose that the incidents are to be explained subjectively, but what interpretation the narrative itself suggests, and what the words of St. Peter (2 Peter 2:16) require.

Regarding the narrative itself, there is no indication given that its respective portions are to be differently interpreted. Nor is it possible, without doing violence to its obvious meaning, to interpret some parts of it objectively and other parts subjectively. Furthermore, concerning the testimony of St. Peter, it would be impossible to conceive of a statement couched in terms more directly suggestive of a literal fact than the following: The dumb ass, speaking with man’s voice, forbad the madness of the prophet.

In regard to the objections that have been raised to the literal interpretation, based on the absence of any expression of surprise from Balaam, and any allusion to the effect produced on the Moabite princes and Balaam’s servants, it will suffice to observe:

1. that here, as elsewhere, no just inference can be drawn from the silence of Scripture;

2. that, as in the case of those who were with St. Paul on his way to Damascus, we have no means of determining, assuming witnesses were present throughout the miraculous occurrences described, how much of those occurrences they may have seen and heard.

The angel was visible, at first, only to the ass. Similarly, the angel may have been visible only to Balaam, not to those who were with him. Likewise, regarding the voice: it may have been audible only to the one to whom it was addressed.