Deuteronomy 32:27 Were it not that I feared the wrath of the enemy, lest their adversaries should behave themselves strangely, and lest they should say, Our hand is high, and the Lord hath not done all this.

This morning I was doing a severe self-examination. I turned to Numbers and the telling tale of Balaam whom some have labeled the mercenary prophet. His reputation was one who could bless and curse. In that capacity and that capacity alone did King Balak seek to hire Balaam. Yet in all that Balaam did in Numbers 22 thru 25, Balaam did not curse Israel according to Balak’s wishes.

Balaam’s Character:

This may furnish us a clue to his character. It, indeed, remains “instructively composite.” A soothsayer who might have become a prophet of the Lord; a man who loved the wages of unrighteousness, and yet a man who in one supreme moment of his life surrendered himself to God’s holy Spirit; a person cumbered with superstition, covetousness and even wickedness, and yet capable of performing the highest service in the kingdom of God: such is the character of Balaam, the remarkable Old Testament type and, in a sense, the prototype of Judas Iscariot. (Quote from William Baur)

That is a pretty harsh comparison to say Balaam betrayed the Lord like Judas did. I found no link between Balaam’s actions and betrayal. He did not disobey God in his service to Balak. So why did the children of Israel kill Balaam with the sword? I could only find one line that hinted why.

Numbers 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.

They blamed Balaam for their own behavior. We cannot find personal accountability to the Lord in the behavior of others.

Matthew 21:28-30 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.

There is a comparison of behaviors within this telling. Much is made of the behaviors and some rush to judgment over behaviors. That is all they can see. The accusations against the Sadducees and the Pharisees was drawn it direct opposition to the acceptance of publicans and harlots. The connection for so many people is over behavior and behavior alone.

Where in this telling, anywhere in the surrounding verses does Jesus say or imply that one son was saved because of his behavior and that the other was lost? Nothing contained in the telling bears any relationship to sonship, yet those who are quick to judge make an unwarranted connection between behavior and loss of sonship. Nowhere does Jesus make any comparison of behavior and sonship.

One issue that is used often in comparison is the tree which is cut down and burned because it did not bare any fruit. Man is like a tree, Psa. 1:3 and Jer. 17:8. It is indicative of personal behavior and therefore subject to examination.

Luke 13:6 He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.

The tree planted in the vineyard had no connection to the Vine. Just as the lack of fruit is not connected to Vine, so also is the behavior not connected to sonship. It is one of those things we do as people, to draw unjust conclusions about behavior and salvation.

We are not the vine dresser and it is not our responsibility to judge another’s salvation.