Commentaria in Numeros
Where note: The Prophets say that Christ slew, struck, pierced through nations, because he slew their morals and vices, and made them as it were new men, so that from impious they became pious, from unjust just, from drunken sober, and from unchaste chaste; and so he as it were slew one and the same man, while he gave him life: for he slew Peter, for example, a drunkard, fornicator and extortioner, while by his grace he made him sober, chaste and just, etc. See Canon 42.
Secondly, the chiefs of Moab mystically are the princes of the idolatrous nations, who worship the demon. For Moab in Hebrew is the same as “from the father,” namely born by incest; and such are idolaters, who are born of their father the devil, by infidelity, as it were by incest. So Abulensis.
Again, Rabanus by the chiefs of Moab understands the demons themselves; for these are the chiefs and fathers of the spiritual Moabites, that is, of the impious and idolaters. These Christ pierced through when he spoiled principalities and powers of their dominion, and nailed and fixed them to his cross, triumphing over them in himself, as Paul says.
AND SHALL WASTE ALL THE CHILDREN OF SETH—that is, all men. So the Chaldee; for all men after the flood are descended from Noe, and consequently from Seth: for all the progeny of Cain perished in the flood. For Christ wasted all men, by killing “What a city, sister, wilt thou see this, what kingdoms rising by such a marriage!”
And in that, Aeneid X, 524: “By my father’s shades, by the hopes of rising Iulus.”
Why the word “sceptre” in the Alexandrian interpreters is read as “man” (anthropos), Lambert Bos gives a very probable reason, Prolegomena to the Old Testament, chapter 3: namely that they wrote anthos, and this was changed by copyists into anthropos, because in manuscripts the word anthropos is found written anthos, perhaps even anthos. Hesychius indeed has this: anthos, flower, germ; but germ is the same as branch, which the word sounds, and flower: hence there was some reason why flower should be called branch, but none why it should be called man. For “the chiefs of Moab” the Hebrew is “both sides of Moab,” that is, all the borders of the land of Moab, say Maurer and Rosenmüller; or, the twin side of the body of the Moabites, that is, the Moabites, as Patrizi will have it, both because there is no reason why only the uttermost borders of the Moabites should be said to be struck, nor why they should be expressed by the dual form; and because the verb is used only where the discourse is of persons to be struck. That the Alexandrians and the Vulgate, who translated “chiefs,” signify by corners or borders, by metaphor, the chiefs or rulers holding and sustaining the people, one may conjecture.
their morals and vices, and subduing them to himself, as I said a little before. Whence the Chaldee for “shall waste” translates, shall rule. Again, in the judgment Christ shall waste the whole world and all the wicked.
Note: For “shall waste” the Hebrew is kirkar, which descends from kir, that is, a wall, and is of contrary significations. For first it signifies to unwall, that is, to throw down walls, to waste, and, as the Septuagint translate, to graze down and plunder. Secondly, it signifies to shut in with a wall, to take captive, to imprison, so that the Hebrew kerker is the same as the Latin carcer: which signification here fits best. For the sense is, as if to say: Christ shall shut in all men by his laws, his Church, his faith and grace, and so shall as it were imprison impiety and the impious. So Oleaster (2).
a) Rosenmüller with many translates “shall destroy,” comparing Isaias 22:5, where the ancients render that verb “searching,” from the root “to dig.” The same sense would be brought out if you derive it from “wall,” as from the root “to root out” is derived the verb which in the pihel signifies he rooted out. But (1) Isaias can be, nay must be, understood in another sense, as will be said below; (2) if, as seems more probable to Patrizi, the sons of Seth are men who cleave to Christ and live rightly, this part of the discourse, “and shall destroy,” etc., would be false; (3) since the verb “shall strike” must be joined with the noun sceptre, and this gives the most apt sense, the verb must be joined altogether with the noun star, to express what it is about to do: but how can the star be said to be going to destroy all the sons of Seth, whoever they may finally be? Why should a destroyer be presented under the image of a star?
b) Miegius, in a special dissertation on the prophecy of Balaam, ascribes to this verb the notion of calling together, because in Chaldee it sounds “he crowed, he clucked,” in this sense, he shall call together by clucking like a hen, as Christ speaks of himself, Matthew 23:37; and the etymon “wall” favours it, whence to call together to the wall. But against it: (1) that the verb expresses the voice not only of hens, but of other birds, nay of serpents; (2) that to cluck is not the same as to call together by clucking; (3) that clucking does not agree with the notion of a star.
c) Albert Schultens has thus: “From ‘wall’ I should rather render ‘to build a wall’ than ‘to destroy a wall’.... I think, therefore, that it is to build, to edify, to found.” What is read in Isaias he interprets thus: there is one who repairs the wall; there is one who cries: Seek the mountains. Not ill. Yet two things tell against Schultens: one is, that, though we easily understand what it is to build or edify the Church, that is, the assembly of Christians, this being an obvious and clear metaphor, it is not equally clear what it is to build, or edify, all the sons of Seth, though these be all the faithful; the other, that the building, or edification, would be ascribed to the star.
d) There are those who have observed that this word is the very name by which the Arabs call the borders and quarters of an open region. This signification, says Patrizi, answers prettily by antithesis to the name of the former hemistich, and is entirely suitable to the plain of Moab. Wherefore, for those who suppose that the sons of Seth are not the sons of Seth, but either the Moabites themselves or a neighbouring people, this explanation would be most opportune: in this one thing it would fail, that thus
18. AND HE SHALL POSSESS IDUMEA.—Balaam here makes mention of Idumea as to be subjected to Christ, rather than of other nations, both because he regards and alludes to the Israelitic people, to whom the Idumeans were most hostile, as Esau their parent was once most bitter against his brother Israel, or Jacob; and because he alludes to David, who was the parent it would be hidden what the star does here, or why the metaphor is taken from a star.
e) Patrizi, loc. cit. p. 140: “That word must signify something which the star was to accomplish, and that to all men, or at least to all the upright: for these, as is far more probable, are called sons of Seth; and which may show a reason why the figure is made from the word star rather than another. Now in all the Semitic languages the root qr has as its proper and primary notion cold, and hence also refreshment, recreation, rest. Wherefore I do not hesitate to explain the words of Balaam thus: and he shall refresh, and shall give rest to, all the sons of Seth..... The metaphor thus approves itself as most fitting to everyone; for it was the custom to call great princes by the names of stars, not only among the Orientals but also among other nations (Ovid.
or by comets they were portended, and a happy vicissitude of affairs under them was believed (Matthew 2:2; Virgil, Eclogue 9:47;
Finally the place of Isaias is rightly and easily explained, either according to the opinion of Schultens; or in this way: there is one who offers rest, that is, who defends the wall; there is one who cries, etc.
f) The word ‘shall waste,’ which the Vulgate has, is warlike; but it is commonly rendered by the same interpreter for Hebrew verbs of which the common notion is to take in war, for example Ezechiel 26:12; 36:5: and therefore it does not mean to inflict slaughter or calamity, but only to take in war and to possess. Wherefore ‘shall waste’ agrees well with the verb which the Alexandrians use. Since, moreover, the Messias is from time to time brought in by the sacred writers making war on men to subject them to himself (Psalm 2:8, 9; 44:4, 6; Isaias 42:8 ff.), the verb ‘shall waste’ taken in the sense we have said, that is, ‘shall take in war,’ in order to assert them afterward into liberty, is plainly very opportunely used in this oracle.
The sons of Seth. We shall report only the chief interpretations of this expression (at least twelve will be found recounted in Patrizi, ibid., p. 142). Maurer: all the sons of tumult, uproar, from...: cf. Jeremias 48:45. For those who in our place are called “sons of ...” are in that place called the same. The context of the discourse, however, seems to require a proper name, not a common noun. To Patrizi, therefore, the name Seth is nothing but Seth, the son of Adam himself, so called. So most of the ancient versions, the clearer of the Jews, and the Fathers with one voice. The sons of Seth (by opposition to the sons of Cain, who bear the figure of the wicked) are all just and upright men, whom Christ, spoiling principalities and powers, which are signified by the Moabites in this prophecy, and openly triumphing ... in himself (Colossians 2:15), was to refresh and to render quiet.