אֶת־מִ֤י נוֹעָץ֙ וַיְבִינֵ֔הוּ וַֽיְלַמְּדֵ֖הוּ בְּאֹ֣רַח מִשְׁפָּ֑ט וַיְלַמְּדֵ֣הוּ דַ֔עַת וְדֶ֥רֶךְ תְּבוּנ֖וֹת יוֹדִיעֶֽנּוּ׃
Dengan siapakah Ia berunding, sehingga orang itu memberi-Nya pengertian dan mengajari-Nya jalan keadilan, mengajari-Nya pengetahuan, dan memberitahukan kepada-Nya jalan pengertian?
Radak
הבה, we already explained this expression on verse 3. The entire verse is to be understood as a metaphor, seeing that the Creator does not mingle with the creature He has created. A similar expression in Isaiah 40,14 את מי נועץ ויבינהו, “who did He consult with, who made Him understand?” This is also to be understood metaphorically. G’d did not literally contemplate if there was someone He could consult with. Here too, when speaking to His angels who are His agents, He did not actually consult them.
Ramban
COME AND I WILL COUNSEL THEE. Since Balaam wanted to tell [Balak] about the punishment [that would befall] his people, as it is written, and he shall smite through the corners of Moab,227Further Verse 17. therefore he told him, I will counsel thee, that is to say: “I will tell you ‘on the side’ an advice, so that others should not hear it.” “Come and I will counsel thee what you have to do [to revenge yourself upon Israel]. And what was the advice [that he gave him]? [He told him]: ‘The G-d of these [Israelites] hates immorality, etc., [therefore I advise you to seduce Israel into sin by means of the lure of the Moabite women],’ as is narrated in the Chapter Cheilek.228Literally: “Portion” — “All Israel have ‘a portion’ in the World to Come.” Sanhedrin 106a. The story of the Israelites committing immorality with the Moabite women is related in the following chapter of the Torah, and tradition has it that this plan was suggested by Balaam in his parting words to Balak. This, as Rashi explains, is the reason why he used the phrase “I will ‘counsel thee’ what this people shall do”, meaning: “I will counsel thee how to lead the people astray, and I will tell you what this people shall do …” Ramban explains the phrase “I will counsel thee” differently. You may know that it was Balaam who gave them this counsel [to lead Israel astray] through immorality, for it is said, Behold, these [women] caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, [to revolt so as to break faith with the Eternal].229Further, 31:16. WHAT THIS PEOPLE SHALL DO TO THY PEOPLE. This is an elliptical verse [which means as follows]: ‘I will counsel thee how to corrupt them, and I will [also] tell you what evil they are destined to do to Moab in the end of days.’” This is Rashi’s language.
The correct interpretation [of the word i’atzcha, normally translated: I will counsel thee] seems to me to be that Balaam told Balak: “I will tell you the purpose that G-d has planned that this people shall do to thy people in the end of days,” this being similar to the expressions: This is the ‘eitzah’ (purpose) that is ‘y’utzah’ (purposed) upon the whole earth;230Isaiah 14:26. Hear ye the ‘atzath’ (design) of the Eternal, that He hath ‘ya’atz’ (purposed) against Edom.231Jeremiah 49:20. Balaam said i’atzcha [which literally means “I will give you counsel”], because one who hears counsel, [as Balaam heard G-d’s counsel], is called a no’atz [he with whom counsel is taken].232See Isaiah 40:14: ‘Eth mi no’atz’ (with whom took He counsel).
And this prophecy [in the following verses], refers to Messianic times, for all of Balaam’s prophecies added [to the previous ones] in [speaking of more] distant events. Thus at first233Above, 23:7-10. he said that Israel is [now] the portion of the Eternal and His inheritance;234Deuteronomy 32:9. in the second prophecy235Above, Chapter 23, Verses 18-24. he added that they would [later on] conquer the Land and kill its kings. In the third [prophecy]236Above, Verses 3-9. he saw them dwelling in the Land and increasing and multiplying therein, and that they would appoint a king [Saul] who would defeat Agag, and that the kingdom [of Israel] would be further exalted; for he saw David [whose kingdom] was exalted exceedingly,237I Chronicles 14:2. as it is said, And David perceived that the Eternal had established him king over Israel, and that He hath exalted his kingdom for His people Israel’s sake,238II Samuel 5:12. that is to say, because He had promised them that their kingdom would be exalted. And now in this fourth prophecy Balaam continued [on the future] and saw the Messianic era; therefore he spoke of it as a very distant event, saying, I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not nigh,227Further Verse 17. [a phrase] which he did not use in his first [three] prophecies. He stated that this is the purpose of G-d which He had planned, to come to pass in the end of days.239Verse 14.
The correct interpretation [of the word i’atzcha, normally translated: I will counsel thee] seems to me to be that Balaam told Balak: “I will tell you the purpose that G-d has planned that this people shall do to thy people in the end of days,” this being similar to the expressions: This is the ‘eitzah’ (purpose) that is ‘y’utzah’ (purposed) upon the whole earth;230Isaiah 14:26. Hear ye the ‘atzath’ (design) of the Eternal, that He hath ‘ya’atz’ (purposed) against Edom.231Jeremiah 49:20. Balaam said i’atzcha [which literally means “I will give you counsel”], because one who hears counsel, [as Balaam heard G-d’s counsel], is called a no’atz [he with whom counsel is taken].232See Isaiah 40:14: ‘Eth mi no’atz’ (with whom took He counsel).
And this prophecy [in the following verses], refers to Messianic times, for all of Balaam’s prophecies added [to the previous ones] in [speaking of more] distant events. Thus at first233Above, 23:7-10. he said that Israel is [now] the portion of the Eternal and His inheritance;234Deuteronomy 32:9. in the second prophecy235Above, Chapter 23, Verses 18-24. he added that they would [later on] conquer the Land and kill its kings. In the third [prophecy]236Above, Verses 3-9. he saw them dwelling in the Land and increasing and multiplying therein, and that they would appoint a king [Saul] who would defeat Agag, and that the kingdom [of Israel] would be further exalted; for he saw David [whose kingdom] was exalted exceedingly,237I Chronicles 14:2. as it is said, And David perceived that the Eternal had established him king over Israel, and that He hath exalted his kingdom for His people Israel’s sake,238II Samuel 5:12. that is to say, because He had promised them that their kingdom would be exalted. And now in this fourth prophecy Balaam continued [on the future] and saw the Messianic era; therefore he spoke of it as a very distant event, saying, I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not nigh,227Further Verse 17. [a phrase] which he did not use in his first [three] prophecies. He stated that this is the purpose of G-d which He had planned, to come to pass in the end of days.239Verse 14.
Malbim
As regards Job's complaint that God has hidden wisdom from mankind and has not endowed the human race with the ability to ascertain what is beyond nature,36שאחר הטבע - beyond nature: metaphysical. that which the senses cannot attain, he [Elihu] replies that in this matter too, God has not forsaken man. For He has planted these concepts in man's soul by means of the innate ideas set in the human soul from the moment of its formation. These are the truths to be found in every soul, bestowed upon it by God. For every man has stamped on his soul that there is a Creator who is absolutely perfect, a faithful God, devoid of injustice (Deuteronomy 32:4), who rewards and punishes; that he has freedom of choice; and [thirdly] that his soul lives on after separating from the body. These ideas are fundamentals, stamped on each soul; they are its inheritance from God.37These theological truths, no matter how widely they are held, are not what Plato intended by his concept of Ideas or Forms. A different example of Malbim's understanding of this philosophical concept is found in his commentary on Isaiah 40:14, where he states that the 'principle of contradiction', viz., the principle that it is impossible that a quality should both belong and not belong to a given class of things, which Aristotle described as the fundamental axiom of all philosophy, is one of the 'primary intelligences planted by God in man's nature'. Just as man builds his understanding of Nature upon his senses and experience, so he builds his understanding of the metaphysical upon the Ideas implanted in his soul.38Kant denied the possibility of a metaphysics and consequently of the validity of any of the traditional proofs—ontological, cosmological or teleological—of the existence of God. The existence of God is not denied, indeed He is a necessary condition in Kant's system, but He is not an object of demonstrative knowledge.
Using the science of formal symbolic logic that he had invented, Boole showed that without the assertion that 'whatsoever is absolutely necessary at all is absolutely necessary in every part of space, and in every point of duration', no ontological proof of the existence of God is possible. Boole wrote:
Probably this principle will be found to lie at the basis of every attempt to demonstrate, a priori, the existence of an Infinite Being...It is not possible, I think, to rise from a perusal of the arguments of Clarke and Spinoza without a deep conviction of the futility of all endeavors to establish, entirely a priori, the existence of an Infinite Being, His attributes, and His relation to the universe. The fundamental principle of all such speculations, viz., that whatever we can clearly conceive, must exist, fails to accomplish its end, even when its truth is admitted. For how shall the finite comprehend the infinite? Yet must the possibility of such conception be granted, and in something more than the sense of a mere withdrawal of the limits of phenomenal existence, before any solid ground can be established for the knowledge, a priori, of things infinite and eternal (Boole, p.217).
Using the science of formal symbolic logic that he had invented, Boole showed that without the assertion that 'whatsoever is absolutely necessary at all is absolutely necessary in every part of space, and in every point of duration', no ontological proof of the existence of God is possible. Boole wrote:
Probably this principle will be found to lie at the basis of every attempt to demonstrate, a priori, the existence of an Infinite Being...It is not possible, I think, to rise from a perusal of the arguments of Clarke and Spinoza without a deep conviction of the futility of all endeavors to establish, entirely a priori, the existence of an Infinite Being, His attributes, and His relation to the universe. The fundamental principle of all such speculations, viz., that whatever we can clearly conceive, must exist, fails to accomplish its end, even when its truth is admitted. For how shall the finite comprehend the infinite? Yet must the possibility of such conception be granted, and in something more than the sense of a mere withdrawal of the limits of phenomenal existence, before any solid ground can be established for the knowledge, a priori, of things infinite and eternal (Boole, p.217).