5. DISCUSIÓN
5.5. Contexto molecular y su concordancia con la expresión de PD-L1 y el microambiente
(Numbers 22:36-41)
36. And when Balak heard that Balaam was come, he went out to meet him unto a city of Moab, which is in the border of Arnon, which is in the utmost coast.
37. And Balak said unto Balaam, Did I not earnestly send unto thee to call thee?
wherefore camest thou not unto me? am I not able indeed to promote thee to honour?
38. And Balaam said unto Balak, Lo, I am come unto thee: have I now any power at all to say any thing? the word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak.
39. And Balaam went with Balak, and they came unto Kirjathhuzoth.
40. And Balak offered oxen and sheep, and sent to Balaam, and to the princes that were with him.
41. And it came to pass on the morrow, that Balak took Balaam, and brought him up into the high places of Baal, that thence he might see the utmost part of the people. (Numbers 22:36-41)
King Balak went out eagerly to meet Balaam. In fact, he hurried to meet him at Ar of Moab, a border city. From there he took Balaam to Kirjath-huzoth, meaning “city of streets,” close to a point from which Israel’s vast encampment could be surveyed. Balak expressed his disapproval of Balaam’s delay in coming.
Balaam’s answer is very interesting. We will examine it carefully, because it tells us much about Balaam: “Lo, I am come unto thee: have I now any power at all to say anything? The word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak” (v. 38). Balaam stated the matter clearly, that he was bound by God to speak the truth. He was, however, planning to milk the situation as much as possible for his own advantage. We see, therefore, first of all, that Balaam made no reference to Jehovah, to the living God. He used a word, God, Elohim, which could be applied to any number of false gods. He thereby avoided citing the fact that the Lord God was Lord over Israel.
This was an evasive tactic. Balaam was avoiding obedience either to God or to King Balak.
Second, Balak offered sacrifices immediately. This was a practice common to kings in antiquity, and it is evidence of the fact that religion was a department of state. A Roman emperor, for example, was Pontifex Maximus, the high priest over the realm. Religious freedom was thus nonexistent. The state was man’s true church, and man’s mediator with whatever powers existed.
Obedience to the state was thus an urgent “fact” of life. Christianity was therefore everywhere the most intense threat to the life of the state.
Third, for this reason, it was difficult for a pagan ruler to grasp the implications of Balaam’s statement that he could only say what God permitted him to say. Control over heaven and earth belonged to the state. The other world was a kind of shadow-land, potentially dangerous but controllable. State control over religion was seen as a necessary exercise of jurisdiction over a realm which could be threatening. In many forms of paganism, the spirits of the dead resented the supposedly better life of men on earth, and so they had to be placated.
Fourth, because of the ostensible superiority of this world, to bless or to curse required meeting this world’s standards, i.e., the person cursing or blessing had to see the objects or persons involved. If the malediction could be in their very presence, all the better. As a result, “Balak took Balaam, and brought him up into the high places of Baal, that thence he might see the utmost part of the people” (v. 41). Only from a high mountain site, viewing the entire encampment of Israel, would the curse be truly effective.
Fifth, this was a high place to Baal, or Bal, or Bel, in feminine form Baalat, Beela, or Beltu. The word means master, owner, or possessor. The word applied to supernatural forces and to the ruler. Baal-Malki means “Baal my king.” This usage calls attention to a very important fact. It was believed almost in all forms of paganism that a continuity existed between all kings or rulers and whatever natural and supernatural powers existed. Although at times this link could be weakened or endangered, continuity to some degree was an essential fact. Another ruler’s continuity and power might be greater, and it was important to strengthen the link. This was a naturalistic faith: all things were developments of a cosmic process, and it was necessary to help that process by good communications with natural and supernatural forces.
Sixth, implicit in everything Balak said and did was the presupposition that money could buy whatever he wanted. At all times in history, the cynical proverb, “Money talks,” has in some form been known. In antiquity, however, rulers with an arbitrary power of life and death over people regarded contradiction as an insulting attempt to demand more money. This may have been Balak’s attitude. He certainly was displeased with Balaam for his delay in coming.
Seventh, as we shall see later, Balaam had in his heart a desire somewhat to correct God’s plan and to gain an advantage for himself. This is a common failing among men. God’s ways are irksome to fallen man, and he tries in various ways to set God straight. Despite his outward conformity to God, Balaam nursed a desire to correct God. He had no connection with Israel, and he had nothing to gain by their success. Balak’s offer seemed to him entirely reasonable, and God’s purposes were alien to Balaam. Newman wrote of this episode:
The following reflections are suggested by the history of Balaam: (1) We see how little we can depend in judging of right and wrong on the apparent excellence and high character of individuals. (2) We can sin without being aware of it, yet wrath is abroad and in our paths. (3) When we have begun an evil course, we cannot retrace our steps. (4) God gives us warnings now and then, but does not repeat them. Balaam’s sin consisted in not acting on what was told him once for all.143
Eighth, in spite of himself, Balaam set forth the right doctrine of prophecy, preaching, and all Christian activity: “...have I now any power at all to say any thing? the word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak” (v. 38). Man, however, wants to speak a creative word, to improve on or bring up to current or modern standards God’s word. Whenever and wherever the church and churchmen depart from God’s word, they drift into impotence and irrelevance. Balaam is a good representative of all too many churchmen.
Jesus Christ, God incarnate, had this to say to the tempter: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). Men, however, are not content with that “every word”: they want to add their word to it, or to correct God’s word with their ostensible wisdom.
Cornelius Van Til, in describing Paul’s reception at Athens, described the fallacy which undergirded the Greek mind and also the modern mind:
By the time Paul came to Athens, Greek speculation had virtually run its course. It consisted now of a balanced combination of abstract rationalism and abstract irrationalism. The Parmenidean assumption, that only that can exist which can be logically penetrated by the intellect of man, was still the accepted principle. But then Aristotle worked out the principles of formal logic. He insisted that first principles of reasoning, such as the law of contradiction, cannot themselves be proved. He warned his followers against the definition-mongers. We must then have the Parmenidean principle of logical penetration as the measure of what is knowable to man, but we must have this principle as correlative to an equally ultimate principle of pure matter. Pure contingency must have a place. Unless contingency is given a place, the laws of logic will be entirely separate from the facts of space and time. So runs the argument of Aristotle.144
Hegel gives us the logical conclusion of this: the rational is the real, so that existentialism followed logically. The rational man’s thinking replaces God’s creation as the reality.
As Van Til said further:
Man’s autonomy is assumed to be the sole presupposition in terms of which any revelation that might come from any god would be intelligible. Yet it is this very supposition of the autonomous self-understanding of man that acts as the primary representation of what Paul speaks of when he says that “knowing God” men have not kept him in remembrance (Rom. 1:21). Calvin clearly urges Paul’s view upon us. Man has no pre-understanding of himself apart from and prior to his confrontation with the revelation of God in Christ. It is from this Calvinistic point of view that we shall finally need to evaluate the new hermeneutic as well as every other form of modern theology, philosophy and science.145
The “Christian” who seeks to drop any part of God’s word or to correct or supplement it, is replaying the part of Balaam and is lower than Balaam’s ass.
God’s every word stands, and men either stand or fall in terms of it.