"God is not a man..."

[Kait]

Numbers 23:19: "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?"

Can someone explain to me how Jesus can possibly be God incarnate if this verse explicitly states that God is not a man, NOR a Son of Man (which Jesus himself said he was). Aaaand, GO!

[John Chrysostom]

I think the context of this verse is helpful. Numbers 23:18 "And he took up his parable, and said, Rise up, Balak, and hear; hearken unto me, thou son of Zippor:" In the context of being a parable I think verse 19 is saying that God neither lies nor commits actions that need repenting, not that He is no longer Christ man and God incarnate.

[Kait]

I think the context of this verse is helpful. Numbers 23:18 "And he took up his parable, and said, Rise up, Balak, and hear; hearken unto me, thou son of Zippor:" In the context of being a parable I think verse 19 is saying that God neither lies nor commits actions that need repenting, not that He is no longer Christ man and God incarnate.

I think perhaps, based on the other translations and other uses of the Strong's number, as well as the context of the chapter, a better translation of that word is not "parable," but rather "discourse" or "oracle. God was using Balaam to speak his word, he was speaking THROUGH Balaam, so I think "oracle" is a pretty accurate word to use. Parable doesn't fit the context.

[John Chrysostom]

So this is interesting I went to my Septuagint translation and verse 19 says this "God is not like a man, to be deceived. Nor like a son of man, to be threatened."

Also a chapter later in 24:7 when speaking of Israel Balaam says "A Man shall come forth from his seed. And He shall rule many nations." And in 24:17 "I will show Him, but not now; I bless Him but He is not now; A Star shall rise out of Jacob; And a Man shall rise out of Israel,"

I think if we look at the context Balaam is talking about Christ being a Man.

[Kait]

Well those are two separate "oracles", so their message and meaning would be different based on who Balaam was talking to. I'm not sure that the verses in Chapter 24 are related to the oracle in Chapter 23 as far as their content is concerned. And even if it is, I'm still not sure how that explains the verse saying God is not a man or the son of man...

[John Chrysostom]

If you look at the context all of the prophecies are Balaam speaking to Israel. He was summoned by Balak son of Zippor to curse Israel but instead after encountering an Angel of God along the way he blesses Israel. Chapter 23 & 24 are a series of oracles or prophecies or parables by Balaam in the same context and to the same audience. Also the verse does not say God is not a man but that God is not like a man, to be deceived.

[snubs]

I believe it to be saying God is not like a man. He can't lie (like a man), he doesn't change His mind (like a human). He speaks, and then he acts. He makes a promise, and then he keeps it...unlike a man.

[Kait]

But there is absolutely no indication in the original Hebrew that this says "like a man" in a comparative fashion. It says, rather definitively, that God IS NOT a man. The Hebrew word that is commonly used for comparisons in the old testament ("Kemo") is not present. It simply says "not." So that explanation just doesn't work for me.

And yes, Balaam was blessing Israel instead of cursing, so the audience was the same but each oracle took place in a different location. And in a slightly different context. I think it's a pretty big stretch to say "Oh that verse is just talking about Jesus" because there is absolutely nothing to indicate that. There are several oracles, only one of which (the one you pointed out) could be interpreted as speaking about Jesus. To include all of them in that is trying to hard, I think.

And even if I'm wrong and it IS talking about Jesus, it still makes no sense as I mentioned above.

[Astronomer]

The Trinity is confusing. Jesus was man, but God. God was not human, but he was part of Jesus who was human.
I think the simplest situation was that God is not (at their time) human. He never became human, it was his son who became human. Therefore, God is not human, while Jesus was. Yet, Jesus was man and God.

[John Chrysostom]

Kait: I'm using the Greek Septuagint translation and the verse says God is not like man.

I'm not sure I understand why the context was different even if the locations were slightly different, what was the different context? Who do you think the oracle's are about?

Astronomer: I have to disagree with you, Christ was fully God and fully man. And you also can't say that God wasn't man at that time in history because in the beginning was the Word (i.e. Christ) and the Word was with God.

[Astronomer]

I also believe Christ was fully God and fully man. Jesus is also fully God, but also his son. And Jesus was with God in the beginning, but was he a man then (from an earthly viewpoint)? I don't really know, it's just something to speculate about...

[John Chrysostom]

I think you're veering dangerously close to making the Trinity out to be three different Gods. Also you're viewing God's time as linear the same as ours which I don't really think is accurate.

[Astronomer]

God's time is not linear. God is beyond time. Still, to the people God was speaking too, Jesus would not be human yet.

Still, this is mostly speculation on my part. I don't really have any proof if that was what God meant.

[Mimi]

Numbers 23:19: "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?"

Can someone explain to me how Jesus can possibly be God incarnate if this verse explicitly states that God is not a man, NOR a Son of Man (which Jesus himself said he was). Aaaand, GO!

Kait, God is not a man.
But Jesus (God) became a man when he came to earth. What doesn't make sense?

[Kait]

Numbers 23:19: "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?"

Can someone explain to me how Jesus can possibly be God incarnate if this verse explicitly states that God is not a man, NOR a Son of Man (which Jesus himself said he was). Aaaand, GO!

Kait, God is not a man.
But Jesus (God) became a man when he came to earth. What doesn't make sense?

Nope. God either is or isn't something. He exists outside of time so there is no "He wasn't a man and then he was a man." Because he exists outside the realm of linear time... he is or he isn't.

[jelly]

Kait speaks truth.

And the trinity is an unsolvable paradox, you can't make sense of it. You either accept it by faith, or you don't.

[Christian A.]

John 1:14: "The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us..." Why does it destroy the Trinity to say that the Son of God became a man? The Son was not a man before His incarnation, and now He will forever be a man. Jesus added humanity to His deity. He did not lose anything about His divinity, therefore it didn't change anything about God. This has been the overwhelming majority view of Christian theology for thousands of years... I don't understand why this is being questioned.

[John Chrysostom]

As Kait said God exists outside of time, He is both God and man through out time. The moment of His incarnation is a specific time but His nature is timeless.

[snubs]

But if God is not a man, then I guess Kait doesn't believe in the Messiah...or rather, the coming Messiah (the Christ).

[John Chrysostom]

She's made it abundantly clear in other threads that she doesn't believe in Christ.