Few left to the light of nature seem to have conceived the necessity of repentance, in order to obtain the divine favor. For their sins, they must somehow, make atonement, and they would then be forgiven, though they continued to commit them! Mankind have entertained different ideas of what was necessary to make atonement. The more common idea hath been, that it was to be done by sacrifice; however they came by that idea. It probably derived by tradition from the first family of our race. But there seems to have been a general mistake respecting the design of sacrifice. By those devoid of revelation, it hath not been considered as pointing to a divine sacrifice, but as having in itself an atoning virtue. So it seems to have been viewed by this Moabitish prince.
Another mistake respecting sacrifices, which hath been common in the world, is this—That their value depends on their cost to the offerer. This was a mistake of Balak. If common offerings, and the usual number of victims would not procure the divine favor and atone for his sins, he would offer more, and more costly ones—thousands of rams, and ten thousands of rivers of oil! Such a profusion of sacrifices, of the same kind, or partly so, with those offered by Israel, so many more they were able, coming out of the wilderness, to offer, he hoped would prevail to detach from them their God, and buy him so to be his friend!
But if not, if these were too little, he would sacrifice his offspring! Give his first born for his transgression—the fruit of his body for the sin of his soul! A sacrifice much more costly, much more painful, than that of all earthly treasure! Surely such an offering must prevail!
Similar conclusions have not been very uncommon! The homage offered up to God hath been estimated by its cost to the offerer! A circumstance which adds nothing to its value. The value of what is done for God depends on its conformity to his orders. That its cost to the offerer enhances its value, in the divine estimation, supposes him to be pleased with the sufferings of his creatures, and delighted with their sorrows, than which, nothing is farther from truth. "God grieveth not willingly—Judgment is his strange work." Were it otherwise, the more reluctant the offerer, the more acceptable would be the offering: But God loves a cheerful giver; yea, he is so pleased with this disposition, that he accepts and rewards it, where ability is wanting to carry it into action. "If there be first a willing mind, it is accepted." [66]
The sacrifices of old derived all their value from the sacrifice of Christ, to which they pointed. God had determined, when and how they would be offered. Additions to the number, or cost, added nothing to their value, but had a contrary effect, spoiled and rendered them unavailing. Human victims, the most costly, and therefore supposed by the heathen, to be the most efficacious, were so far from having power with God to draw down his blessing, that they most certainly drew his curse on all who offered them. This was one of the sins of the Canaanites, which above all others, availed to bring the divine judgments upon them. And when Israel fell into the same sin, it kindled the wrath of God against them to their destruction. This was the sin of Manasseh, "which God would not pardon."
Balak first proposed other sacrifices—a profusion of them; but if they were not sufficient to atone for his sins and procure the friendship of Jehovah, seems to have thought that the sacrifice of his first born must avail!
Such were his blunders respecting the nature of that religion which would render him acceptable to the true God. He seems not once to have thought of repentance; or if he did, he made no offer of it—did not once propose "crucifying the flesh with its affections and lusts." He chose rather to sacrifice all the treasures of his kingdom, and all the members of his family, than part with his sins and become holy in heart and life.
Such is the temper of depravity. The servants of sin are sooner persuaded to make any other sacrifice than that of their lusts and corruptions. And many foolishly flatter themselves that other sacrifices will avail to procure the divine favor—that holiness of heart and life are not indispensibly requisite, but that something beside may be substituted in its stead. Countless examples of this folly meet us in history, and even in the history only catholic church of Christ!
Thus did Balak mistake the nature of true religion, and consider it as consisting in that which was foreign, yea, repugnant to its nature. Such were his proposals which he spread before Balaam, and of which he required his opinion. Let us hear then the answer of the Sage.
Balaam was better instructed: He appears to have understood the nature of true religion, and clearly points it out to Balak, though he neglected himself to conform to it. He hath shewed thee, 0 man, what is good: And what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly, with thy God?