Can Numbers 23:19 refute the incarnation?

[guacamole]

In a recent thread several people have posited Numbers 23:19 as a proof text to deny the incarnation and divinity of Christ. The verse as usually cited runs like this (NIV):

"God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act, does he promise and not fulfill?"

At first glance the condemnation seems obvious. It can't get any more straightforward than "God is not a man", now can it? There are two distinct problems with this straightforward interpretation, and which ultimately make it impossible to stand as the proof text for this issue.

The first problem, and perhaps the simplest is that the verb tense of the verse does not support the argument. The problem is defined according to what you think the definition of is is. Specifically, the passage does not say "God cannot be a man...", which is what some want to read it as, it simply says "God is not a man...". So what's the difference? Don't they mean the same thing?

The problem comes in when we talk ourselves back to the period of the writing of the text. At that time God had not been incarnate as a man. He had not come to earth to be born of the virgin Mary. As it is written, the statement is a simple reflection of the fact that, at that time it was written, God is not a man. The passage doesn't necessarily have to be a declaration of God's specific mode of existence. On the contrary, if we put ourselves into the shoes of the audience we would affirm the truth of the statement that, at that time, God is not a man. That, in fact, leaves open a future possibility that God can be a man if he so chooses.

On the other hand, the passage cannot support the weight of the interpretation of the passage as "God cannot be a man". There is no further extrapolation, because the passage comes in a narrative passage as a declaration of God through the prophet Balaam, not in a doctrinal passage expounding the nature of God. This isn't like the passages of Job where God pours out the truth of his nature to mortals. No this declaration is something else entirely.

That leads us to the second point about the verse. The verse isn't necessarily intended as a doctrinal statement at all. Rather it seems more likely, based on the rest of the content of the verse, that God is contrasting himself with the fickly and capricious ways of mankind. The point of the verse is not that "God is not a man" (however you deem to interpret that), but that God is not like man in his conduct. Even the statements of the rest of the passage are problematic if we want to read them at face value. No, God does not lie. But does he change his mind? On at least one occassion God relents of his destruction of the Israelites on account of the intercession of Moses. Does that make God a liar if he claims to not change his mind?

See, it gets more and more problematic if we want to assert that the verse has doctrinal authority on the nature of God as oppossed to serving as a contrast between God's conduct and mankind's conduct. The rhetorical questions underscore the answer. God's conduct is not like mankind's conduct. His ways are not like our ways.

In short the passage isn't a declaration on God's mode of existence, it isn't a declaration against the incarnation at all. It is an argument meant to show that the ways of God are not like the ways of man. It is useless, imo, to try and shoehorn this passage into a declaration because of the other problems that it creates for the passage and for the text of scripture as a whole.

fwiw
guac.

[Ron Macy]

guac,


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?



The verse isn't necessarily intended as a doctrinal statement at all. Rather it seems more likely, based on the rest of the content of the verse, that God is contrasting himself with the fickly and capricious ways of mankind. The point of the verse is not that "God is not a man" (however you deem to interpret that), but that God is not like man in his conduct. Even the statements of the rest of the passage are problematic if we want to read them at face value.


I agree with you, this verse is not necessarily a doctrinal statement. It is about the contrast between the ways of God and the ways of man. However, the fact God is contrasting Himself with man does not give you the right to say God is a man or that God became a man. You still need specific statements to support your claim.


http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=716405&postcount=61


You need clear, specific statements that God became a man to prove the theory.

I think John 1:1 for starters.



In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


What word in this verse do you interpret as “became?” This verse definitely does not say God became a man.

I believe the word, logos, in this chapter refers to the “plan” of God for the salvation of mankind. Logos is personified, but it is not a person in this chapter. Verse 14 says the “plan became flesh” which is an metaphor telling us Jesus was the fulfillment of God’s plan to provide a sacrifice for the salvation of mankind.




I have never seen any New Testament scripture which says God became a man. Would you find the ones you believe have been posted which say He has and post them again?

Nope. You can read the thread for yourself. I don't feel the need to replicate anyone else's work.


That is fine. If you don’t know any verses which tell us God became a man, I understand.


It is interesting to read your writings on what would be "impossible" for God as if he lacked the ability to control such power. Could not God prevent his holiness from destroying the sinful? Is God powerless to wrap himself to keep his holiness from destroying all men? Is the God in which you profess your faith really so limited?


I don’t know if you even realize what you have just suggested. You are saying Jesus didn’t need to die for your sins, because God is powerful enough to not to need Jesus’ sacrifice. God is powerful enough to supress His own holiness to prevent the death of sinful men. What you are suggesting does not match the presentation of the scriptures at all.




That is the ultimate argument for trinity. The Bible doesn’t say it doesn’t exist. That is arguing from the negative. There are a million illogical conclusions which can be reached by the same logic. “Jesus was the son of an alien space traveler.” The Bible doesn’t say He wasn’t, but it is still patently ridiculous.

Fortunately we have many scriptures and thousands of years of tradition that provide the origin for the belief. So it's not so easy to dismiss, try as you might. That you feel the need to argue from the absurd illustrates to me exactly how weakly thought through your argument is.


“ Fortunately we have many scriptures…” Which I have asked you to produce and you declined.

“.. and thousands of years of tradition…” I think this argument is an example of a Fallacious Appeal to Authority http://www.tektonics.org/fallacies.html#150
At the least it is an Appeal to Popularity http://www.tektonics.org/fallacies.html#650

I agree the trinity is not easy to dismiss, because there are so many people who prefer to believe in something not taught in the scripture simply because it seems mystical.

“ That you feel the need to argue from the absurd illustrates to me exactly how weakly thought through your argument is.”
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. You are not the first person to believe I am absurd. You should talk to my daughters. However, you didn’t explain why you thought my idea was absurd. Without such an explanation, your assertion is simply an ad hominem attack. http://www.tektonics.org/fallacies.html#100

I was discussing the fact you were arguing from the negative. “ Does the verse specifically argue that God cannot chose to be incarnate? You were arguing for the trinity simply because the Bible does not say God could become a man. Yet, you refuse to provide scriptures which say God can and did become a man. You refuse to state the positive.



What you need to present is solid statements, specifically saying the incarnation of God is a fact. Without such specific statements, that God became a man, I could just as easily believe Jesus is the son of an alien space traveler.

Utter nonsense. Try something else.


Without an explanation of why my statement is nonsense, you have just given another ad hominem. Don’t attack. Provide your reasons.

Thanks,
Ron

[guacamole]

Hey Ron,

Do me a favor. Delete that post, or copy it back to the other thread so that we can keep this one specifically about numbers 23:10. I intend on getting over there and giving you a reply when I get a chance. I didn't mean to abandon that thread.

Thanks,
guac.

[Ron Macy]

guacamole,

Hey Ron,

Do me a favor. Delete that post, or copy it back to the other thread so that we can keep this one specifically about numbers 23:10. I intend on getting over there and giving you a reply when I get a chance. I didn't mean to abandon that thread.

Thanks,
guac.

I don't see the point of where things are discussed, but, as you wish.

Ron

[guacamole]

guacamole,



I don't see the point of where things are discussed, but, as you wish.

Ron

Thanks!


I agree with you, this verse is not necessarily a doctrinal statement. It is about the contrast between the ways of God and the ways of man.


Good. At least we agree on that much. If the statement isn't doctrinal then it is nonsensical to try and draw a doctrinal meaning out of it. End of story. The verse doesn't refute the incarnation if it isn't doctrinal.


However, the fact God is contrasting Himself with man does not give you the right to say God is a man or that God became a man. You still need specific statements to support your claim.

Right now my only claim is that the verse does not refute the doctrine of the incarnation. I don't need to present any further evidence for that. Since the verse doesn't refute the incarnation, then it stands to reason that the incarnation is still a possibility even with that verse.

fwiw
guac.

[guacamole]

A cutnpaste of Shunyadragon's comments on this thread in another thread:

Sounds like a snow job.

I took a second look at the other thread.


Taken in the fuller context I believe it still represents a contradiction of the traditional Christian Biblical view of Jesus Christ.

Christ did change his mind in the least of these offenses. He said, "He came only for the Jews and not for gentiles," and then . . .

God of course cannot be both God and the 'Son of man'.

I am sure others can add to this.

Talk about a snow job. In the wider context (you don know the wider context don't you?) Balaam is providing the oracle from God that is answer to the reason why he doesn't curse the Israelites like Balak wants him to. He's not expounding a theological treatise on his nature. The point is to compare God's conduct with mankind's.

You also haven't dealt with the other reasoning. If the passage is doctrinal, then the passage makes God to be a liar because he changes his mind even though he says he doesn't. I don't have problems with Christ changing his mind because I don't see the passage in Numbers as doctrinal. You do. Hence logically, you also have to believe God to be a liar.

I would rather believe the passage is not doctrinal than believe God to be a liar but that's just me.

I'll cutnpaste this to the Christology thread... If you feel like discussing further why not just post there?

fwiw
guac.

[drmmjr]

Thanks!

Good. At least we agree on that much. If the statement isn't doctrinal then it is nonsensical to try and draw a doctrinal meaning out of it. End of story. The verse doesn't refute the incarnation if it isn't doctrinal.


Right now my only claim is that the verse does not refute the doctrine of the incarnation. I don't need to present any further evidence for that. Since the verse doesn't refute the incarnation, then it stands to reason that the incarnation is still a possibility even with that verse.

fwiw
guac.
And since it isn't doctrinal, it doesn't support the incarnation either. If it isn't doctrinal, then it can't support or refute.

[guacamole]

And since it isn't doctrinal, it doesn't support the incarnation either. If it isn't doctrinal, then it can't support or refute.

'zactly!

[drmmjr]

But perhaps a better verse to look at in regard to how God is different from man would be Isaiah 55:8.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
Since God's ways and thoughts are not man's ways and thoughts, and God can't change, God couldn't have been incarnated.

Let's look at the word "incarnation"
\In`car*na"tion\, n. [F. incarnation, LL. incarnatio.] 1. The act of clothing with flesh, or the state of being so clothed; the act of taking, or being manifested in, a human body and nature.
If God were incarnated, then he would have had to change in order to become human. But we know that Jesus was conceived, and born of Mary. God didn't place himself in Mary's womb, He caused the life process to start within Mary, of which Jesus was the end result. Just as God created Adam from the dust of the earth, He also created Jesus from the flesh of Mary. Nothing about incarnation here.

[guacamole]

But perhaps a better verse to look at in regard to how God is different from man would be Isaiah 55:8.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
Since God's ways and thoughts are not man's ways and thoughts, and God can't change, God couldn't have been incarnated.

Let's look at the word "incarnation"

If God were incarnated, then he would have had to change in order to become human. But we know that Jesus was conceived, and born of Mary. God didn't place himself in Mary's womb, He caused the life process to start within Mary, of which Jesus was the end result. Just as God created Adam from the dust of the earth, He also created Jesus from the flesh of Mary. Nothing about incarnation here.


Good post. Thanks for keeping this thread going with me.

First of all, we have to establish if this verse is incontrovertibly a doctrinal statement. The fact that this appears in a poetic, prophetic passage is a serious strike against it constituting a doctrinal statement, imo. Another strike against it is that it doesn't get around the "God doesn't change" dilemma from numbers, the dilemma is just inexplicit. If one wants to argue from any verse in the OT that God doesn't change, then they still have to work out the fact that God changed his mind when dealing with the Israelites on account of Moses' intercession. The disjunction is still there. Finding a different verse for "God doesn't change" still does resolve that problem.

I think this verse has to deal with the same modal problems that the verse in numbers has to deal with. Yes, at this time God's thoughts are not like man's thoughts and that would seem to be a blow against the incarnation. However, at this time God is not incarnate.

Finally, I don't think the passage can support the weight of the interpretation in the larger context. The context is still a comparision of the ways of God and the ways of Man. In the prior verses the prophet is calling the wicked to repent, and promising that if the wicked do repent that the Lord will forgive and have mercy: "Let him turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my ways your ways. " God forgiveness and mercy are being contrasted with the attitudes of mankind.

This passage cannot refute the incarnation.

fwiw
guac.

[Magdalenbrother]

There is no text in the whole Bible that clearly and unequivocally supports either the Trinitarian or the non Trinitarian theory because the Bile is not a theology book with definitions and rational arguments.

It is is an absurdity in the first place to build systems on such a basis. We shouldn't have a Christian theology, we should have poetry, music, liturgy, dance, sex and mysticism in its stead.

[guacamole]

There is no text in the whole Bible that clearly and unequivocally supports either the Trinitarian or the non Trinitarian theory because the Bile is not a theology book with definitions and rational arguments.

It is is an absurdity in the first place to build systems on such a basis. We shouldn't have a Christian theology, we should have poetry, music, liturgy, dance, sex and mysticism in its stead.

Shrug. Theology is a systematic description of religious knowledge. Where it comes from is irrelevant because the systematic description can at least help us figure out where we are wrong. If two beliefs are contradictory and cannot be reconciled, then we ought not to hold them, no? Systematic systems help us to make sure that we are at least consistent. All those things you listed have a place, but not necessarily at the exclusion of theology.

fwiw
guac.