Numbers 22:2

"And Balak the son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites. And Moab was sore afraid of the people, because they were many: and Moab was distressed because of the children of Israel. And Moab said unto the elders of Midian, Now will this multitude lick up all that is round about us, as the ox licketh up the grass of the field. And Balak the son of Zippor was king of Moab at that time. And he sent messengers unto Balaam the son of Beor, to Pethor, which is by the River, to the land of the children of his people, to call him, saying, Behold, there is a people come out from Egypt: behold, they cover the face of the earth, and they abide over against me. Come now therefore, I pray thee, curse me this people; for they are too mighty for me: peradventure I shall prevail, that we may smite them, and that I may drive them out of the land; for I know that he whom thou blessest is blessed, and he whom thou cursest is cursed."

"Moab was sore afraid ..." The Israelites had just defeated Sihon and the Amorites who had wrested much of the Moabite territory away from them during the reign of a king preceding Balak, the king of Moab at the time of the mission of Balaam. This change in the monarchy of Moab was explained by the words, "And Balak ... was king of Moab at that time (Numbers 22:4)." This reference, therefore, is not at all "an indication of later origin" of this passage. Some, of course, import such a meaning into this place; but it is absolutely on a parity with what the apostle John said in his account of the trials of Jesus that, "Caiaphas was high priest that year" (John 18:13); and this was added merely to indicate that a different king was then reigning over Moab.

"Unto the elders of Midian ..." (Numbers 22:15). "Balak here acted for Midian as well as for Moab. The Midianites were a weak people and had probably placed themselves under the protection of Balak."[4] It is a gross error to view the narrative here as a post-Mosaic addition, as alleged by Smick: "It reflects the fact that this line is a post-Mosaic sentence, or that the whole account was added in post-Mosaic times."[5] There is not a single phrase in any of these chapters that justifies such a conclusion.

"To Pethor, which is by the river, to the land of the children of his people ..." Based upon the literal reading in the Hebrew here, which is, "The land of the children of Ammo," that is, "the children of Amaw," a place which has been identified as a city west of the Euphrates. Emar, the capital of Amaw is less than fifty miles from Pethor, and is identified in the Idrimi Inscription and also in the tomb of the Quen-amun of Egypt in the second half of the fifteenth century B.C.,"[6] a date corresponding exactly with the time of the writing of the Pentateuch of Moses. The assertion of Gray that the two places listed as the place of Balaam's residence, "One on the Euphrates, and the other in the place of `the children of Ammo,' is an inconsistency,"[7] is typical of such criticisms. Of course, Ammo was virtually on the banks of the Euphrates!

"They abide over against me ..." (Numbers 22:5). This would not be exactly the case at the time when Israel was encamped before Jericho east of Jordan, and this indicates that, "The embassies to Balaam must have occupied some time, and that at the sending of the first of these Israel had not yet arrived before Jericho."[8] After all, the distance to Balaam's residence near the Euphrates would have required a great deal of time.