Then the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey
This phrase marks a miraculous intervention by God, where He enables an animal to speak. The Hebrew word for "opened" is "פָּתַח" (pathach), which implies a divine action of granting ability or permission. In the ancient Near Eastern context, animals were often seen as mere beasts of burden, yet here, God uses a donkey to convey His message, demonstrating His sovereignty over all creation. This act serves as a reminder that God can use the most unexpected means to fulfill His purposes and communicate His will.

and she said to Balaam
The donkey, a humble and lowly creature, becomes the mouthpiece of God, speaking directly to Balaam. The Hebrew verb "אָמַר" (amar) is used here, which is a common term for speaking or saying. This highlights the irony and the divine humor in the situation, as Balaam, a renowned seer, is unable to perceive the angel of the LORD, while his donkey can. This serves as a humbling lesson that human wisdom and status are insignificant compared to divine insight and revelation.

What have I done to you
The donkey's question is both simple and profound, inviting Balaam to reflect on his actions. The phrase underscores the innocence of the donkey and the irrationality of Balaam's anger. In a broader theological sense, it prompts readers to consider their own actions and attitudes, especially when they act out of frustration or anger without understanding the full picture. It is a call to self-examination and humility before God.

to make you beat me
The act of beating the donkey is a reflection of Balaam's frustration and lack of control. The Hebrew word "הִכִּיתַנִי" (hikithani) implies a physical act of striking, which in this context, is unjust and unwarranted. This phrase serves as a metaphor for how people often react harshly to situations they do not understand, rather than seeking God's guidance and wisdom. It is a reminder of the importance of patience and seeking divine perspective in times of confusion or anger.

these three times?
The repetition of the beating "three times" emphasizes Balaam's persistent blindness and stubbornness. In biblical numerology, the number three often signifies completeness or emphasis. This detail highlights the extent of Balaam's spiritual blindness and the need for divine intervention to open his eyes. It serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of ignoring God's signs and persisting in one's own way without seeking His guidance. The repetition also underscores God's patience and mercy, as He provides multiple opportunities for Balaam to recognize his error and repent.

(28) 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 adduce arguments to show that, whilst 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 than an objective interpretation to the language which is here employed. The following remarks may be made in regard to this interpretation:--(1) Consistency requires that the whole of the narrative should be interpreted either objectively or subjectively; and hence, that if the voice of the ass be interpreted as a subjective impression made upon the mind of Balaam, the appearance of the angel must be understood in the same manner. In this case, however, a difficulty arises which is as great, or greater, than that which the subjective theory is thought to remove. If the appearance of the angel to Balaam was subjective, the appearance must have been subjective also to the ass. In this case, moreover, it may be fairly alleged that if the line which divides the intelligent from the brute creation is transgressed by ascribing articulate speech to the ass, much more is that line transgressed by the supposition that an impression was produced in a subjective manner upon the mind of the ass. But (2) the real question at issue is not whether the recorded results might have been accomplished on the supposition that the incidents are to be explained subjectively, but what is the interpretation which the narrative itself suggests, and which the words of St. Peter (2Peter 2:16) require? In regard to the narrative itself, there is no intimation 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; whilst in regard to 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 which have been raised to the literal interpretation, grounded on the absence of any expression of surprise on the part of Balaam, and of any allusion to the effect produced upon the Moabitish 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; and (2) that, as in the case of those who were with St. Paul as he went to Damascus, we have no means of determining, on the assumption of the presence of witnesses throughout the miraculous occurrences described, what amount of those occurrences they may have seen and heard. The angel was visible, in the first instance, only to the ass. In like manner the angel may have been visible only to Balaam, not to those who were with him. So also in regard to the voice: it may have been audible only to him to whom it was addressed.

Verse 28. - And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass. On the face of it this expression would seem decisive that an audible human voice proceeded from the ass's mouth, as St. Peter beyond doubt believed: ὑποζύγιον ἀφωνον ἐν ἀνθρώτου φωνῇ φθεγξάμενον. It is truly said, however, that a passing illusion of this kind, while it testifies that the Apostle understood the words, like all his contemporaries, in their most natural and simple sense, does not oblige us to hold the same view; if he was mistaken in this matter, it does not at all affect the inspired truth of his teaching. Two theories, therefore, have been proposed in order to avoid the difficulties of the ordinary belief, while vindicating the reality of the occurrence. It has been held by some that the whole affair took place in a trance, and resembled St. Peter's vision of the sheet let down from heaven (Acts 10:10), which we rightly conceive to have been purely subjective. This is open to the obvious and apparently fatal objection that no hint is given of any state of trance or ecstasy, and that, on the contrary, the wording of the narrative as given to us is inconsistent with such a thing. In verse 31 Balaam's eyes are said to have been opened so that he saw the angel; but to have the eyes open so that the (ordinarily) invisible became visible, and the (otherwise) inaudible became audible, was precisely the condition of which Balaam speaks (Numbers 24:3, 4) as that of trance. According to the narrative, therefore, Balaam was in an ecstasy, if at all, after the speaking of the ass, and not before. By others it has been put forward, somewhat confusedly, that although Balaam was in his ordinary senses, he did not really hear a human voice, but that the "cries" of the ass became intelligible to his mind; and it is noted that as an augur he had been accustomed to assign meanings to the cries of animals. If instead of "cries" we read "brayings," for the ass is endowed by nature with no other capacity of voice, being indeed one of the dumbest of "dumb" animals, we have the matter more fairly before us. To most people it would appear more incredible that the brayings of an ass should convey these rational questions to the mind of its rider than that the beast should have spoken outright with a man's voice. It would indeed seem much more satisfactory to regard the story, if we cannot accept it as literally true, as a parable which Balaam wrote against himself, and which Moses simply incorporated in the narrative; we should at least preserve in this way the immense moral and spiritual value of the story, without the necessity of placing non-natural constructions upon its simple statements. Supposing the miracle to have really occurred, it must always be observed that the words put into the ass's mouth do nothing more than express such feeling's as a docile and intelligent animal of her kind would have actually felt. That domestic animals, and especially such as have been long in the service of man, feel surprise, indignation, and grief in the presence of injustice and ill-treatment is abundantly certain. In many well-authenticated cases they have done things in order to express these feelings which seemed as much beyond their "irrational" nature as if they had spoken. We constantly say of a dog or a horse that he can do everything but speak, and why should it seem incredible that God, who has given the dumb beast so close an approximation to human feeling and reason, should for once have given it human voice? With respect to Balaam's companions, their presence need not cause any difficulty. The princes of Midian and Moab had probably gone on to announce the coming of Beldam; his servants would naturally follow him at some little distance, unless he summoned them to his side. It is very likely too that Balaam was wont to carry on conversations with himself, or with imaginary beings, as he rode along, and this circumstance would account for any sound of voices which reached the ears of others.

Parallel Commentaries ...


Then the LORD
יְהוָ֖ה (Yah·weh)
Noun - proper - masculine singular
Strong's 3068: LORD -- the proper name of the God of Israel

opened
וַיִּפְתַּ֥ח (way·yip̄·taḥ)
Conjunctive waw | Verb - Qal - Consecutive imperfect - third person masculine singular
Strong's 6605: To open wide, to loosen, begin, plough, carve

the donkey’s
הָאָת֑וֹן (hā·’ā·ṯō·wn)
Article | Noun - feminine singular
Strong's 860: A female donkey

mouth,
פִּ֣י (pî)
Noun - masculine singular construct
Strong's 6310: The mouth, edge, portion, side, according to

and she said
וַתֹּ֤אמֶר (wat·tō·mer)
Conjunctive waw | Verb - Qal - Consecutive imperfect - third person feminine singular
Strong's 559: To utter, say

to Balaam,
לְבִלְעָם֙ (lə·ḇil·‘ām)
Preposition-l | Noun - proper - masculine singular
Strong's 1109: Balaam -- a prophet

“What
מֶה־ (meh-)
Interrogative
Strong's 4100: What?, what!, indefinitely what

have I done
עָשִׂ֣יתִֽי (‘ā·śî·ṯî)
Verb - Qal - Perfect - first person common singular
Strong's 6213: To do, make

to you
לְךָ֔ (lə·ḵā)
Preposition | second person masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew

that
כִּ֣י (kî)
Conjunction
Strong's 3588: A relative conjunction

you have beaten
הִכִּיתַ֔נִי (hik·kî·ṯa·nî)
Verb - Hifil - Perfect - second person masculine singular | first person common singular
Strong's 5221: To strike

me these
זֶ֖ה (zeh)
Pronoun - masculine singular
Strong's 2088: This, that

three
שָׁלֹ֥שׁ (šā·lōš)
Number - feminine singular
Strong's 7969: Three, third, thrice

times?”
רְגָלִֽים׃ (rə·ḡā·lîm)
Noun - feminine plural
Strong's 7272: A foot, a step, the pudenda


Numbers 22:28 NIV
Numbers 22:28 NLT
Numbers 22:28 ESV
Numbers 22:28 NASB
Numbers 22:28 KJV

Numbers 22:28 BibleApps.com
Numbers 22:28 Biblia Paralela
Numbers 22:28 Chinese Bible
Numbers 22:28 French Bible
Numbers 22:28 Catholic Bible

OT Law: Numbers 22:28 Yahweh opened the mouth of the donkey (Nu Num.)