How do Christians cope with the fact that there are two (upon a multitude) of clear and direct statements in the TNK that God is not a man (nor a son of man)?

Straight from the Torah these are two (upon many) sources;

17 And when he came to him, behold, he stood by his burnt offering, and the princes of Moab with him. And Balak said unto him, What hath the Lord spoken?

18 And he took up his parable, and said, Rise up, Balak, and hear; hearken unto me, thou son of Zippor:

19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent. Has he said, and shall he not do it? Or has he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

20 Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and he hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it.

21 He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel: the Lord his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them.Numbers 23:19 (NSV)

and;

29 And also the Strength[a] of Israel will not lie, and will not repent[b]: for he is not a man, that he should repent[b].1 Samuel 15:29 (NSV)

The Christian understanding follows a slippery slope into blindness. It begins with the primary statement;

0. It means what it says because “the word became flesh”

This answer (CARM's answer for example) capitulates that no, god is NOT a man, but this only applied at the time of Numbers 23. This is an attempt to shifts the onus on to us to now disprove that God could not become a man vs. the subject of the verse (that god is not a man) which has been capitulated in a sort of bait and switch attack.

The simple answer is to point out the other half of the statement; “that he would lie” or “that he would change his mind”… regarding the subject of the verse – god's prophecy, his covenant, and his law. Therefore no, God will not “become” a man. The word will not “eventually” and “become” flesh. It's as stated in Numbers 23 – then… now… and forever.

1. It cannot mean that God is not a man because “we know” God is a man.

There is no proof for this statement. Arguing it is a rabbithole. When this is discovered, the interpretation of “this passage” in particular becomes ever more important because it serves as a final line of defense; It doesn't say that God is a Man, but does it really say that God is not a man? As such, it becomes of paramount importance to “understand” this passage to mean that God actually is a man.

2. It cannot mean that God is not a man because it qualifies in what sense God is not a man – solely in the matter that he cannot or will not lie.

This argument is, borderline, the tacit statement that all English translations have made a mistake. We will analyze this in depth in the Grammar Argument in 3. (below).

This plays into the context, acknowledging the passage is about God and that he will not relent from his prophecy; however it represents a poor understanding of the text. If we wanted to say “God is not a liar, like a man who would lie,” or “God is not a liar;” a liar meaning a man, it becomes very difficult to say that God does not tell lies without assigning him anthromorphic qualities by comparing him to a human. In this case our only option is to look at how the Hebrew bible is written. We can ask; is there any similar passage anywhere in the TNK which would illustrate this passage? Is there any passage in the light that can illuminate this passage, apparently in the dark? (This is the doctrine of the pespicuity of scripture; the plain reading etc.)

First if we may understand the direct intent of the author we can examine any other statement over whether or not God is a man. We are led immediately to 1 Samuel 15:29 where it is written that God will not lie or relent because he is not a man that he should relent.

In what manner is the word lə-hin-nā-ḥêm (“that he should repent”) in 1 Samuel? In what manner is wî-ḵaz-zêḇ (“that he should relent”) or wə-yiṯ-ne-ḥām (in Numbers 23:19) applied? We will now examine several passages which use these same words to understand precisely what is meant here; does it mean God is not a man solely in the sense that he would not lie, or that he is not a man (period, full stop) in order that he cannot lie?

• 15 Thus says the Lord: “A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more.”

This passage uses lə-hin-nā-ḥêm in the same manner as Samuel. In this passage lə-hin-nā-ḥêm does not mean “in the sense” i.e. “Rachel refuses in the sense comforted” or possibly “Rachel refuses, in the sense (that she comforted) or somesuch. The passage clearly means and can only be interpreted as Rachel is refusing something directly– that she would allow herself to be comforted. In this type of reading, Samuel reads “God is not a man.. that he could be comforted”, indicating that the fact God cannot be comforted (relent, etc.) is because he is not a man in any sense.

hin-nā-ḥêm ”…and without ceasing, my soul refused to be comforted“ The omission of le is the omission of a preposition which refers to God in this sense; as the soul is directly a part of the gramatical construct in Psalm 77:2 we can still examine in what sense the root word “hin-nā-ḥêm” applies to the object in question.

Here, we read again “to be” in the sense that “it will not be” i.e. it is not that the soul is not able to be comforted because of some special hidden variable that is not mentioned; rather the “hin-nā-ḥêm” is applied directly as something the soul is refusing to do. In this reading we see it means “my soul refuses to be comforted” and not “my soul in the sense of comforted”, which makes no sense. In this sense Samuel reads “God is not a man such that he could change his mind” (because changing his mind is a quality of man, which God is not).

Again, if we say that God is not a man solely in the sense that he could not lie (Numbers; Samuel) then Psalm 77 has to read that the soul solely refuses to be comforted – solely in reference to what? So we see once again that the qualitative interpretation breaks the text in many other places, and in multiple ways.

Since hin-nā-ḥêm occurrs over 100 times in the TNK, let us choose one of the best examples for last. Jeremiah 15:6 states:

• You have rejected me, declares the Lord; you keep going backward, so I have stretched out my hand against you and destroyed you— I am weary of relenting. (Jeremiah 15:6 ESV)

If we take the qualitative view, then the final phrase “nil-’ê-ṯî hin-nā-ḥêm” must mean “I am tired, in the sense that I will relent” (!!) this at best an opposite meaning: If God is stretching out his hand against them he is certainly not relenting. The passage clearly means, and can only be understood as, God is tired (full stop) and therefore will no longer relent (meaning, and will raise his hand against them; as written).

Therefore, the phrase “kî lō ’ā-ḏām hū lə-hin-nā-ḥêm” in 1 Samuel 15:29 can only be understood as “He is not a man (full stop) [that he could/that it is possible for him] to relent.”

The direct doctrine we draw out of this is that God will not relent. However the secondary doctrine is very clearly that God is not a man.

This is borderline a gramattical argument because it is precluded by a non-understanding of the conjuctive wav. See other notes on this primarily below in “the grammar argument”, (3.) below.

The first word we need to analyze here is “wî-ḵaz-zêḇ” (that he [should] lie). Now we understand what is meant above “That all English translations are wrong…” because the underlying Hebrew states “God is not a man, and he will not lie” – thus all English translations either soften it by saying “That he should lie,” implying in some sense the Qualification Argument; but in those rare cases (there are a few such as the ERV and ICB and so forth. Any differing translations also hinge upon “could” or “should”. Therefore the meaning is that he is not a man, because if he was a man he should lie. The demarcation line here is whether or not he is a man – even if you assume that the demarcation line is whether or not God is sinful because only man has fallen – but it is stated “God is not a man;”.

Therefore if this reading is truly not plain to you, we may examine other instances of “wî-ḵaz-zêḇ” to show how this passage should be interpreted. And we see an immediate problem; this tense does not appear anywhere else in the bible, so we must look very closely at the word. The word is “wî-ḵaz-zêḇ” – similar words are “’ă-ḵaz-zêḇ.” (I lie) or “tə·ḵaz·zêḇ” (do not lie) or “kō-zêḇ” (meaning 'liars'). So what we need to see here is what the initial conjugation “wî” means. It means “Conjunctive waw”. From wikipedia:

A conjunctive waw or vav conjunctive (Hebrew: ו' החיבור vav hakhivur) is the use of Hebrew vav (letter) as a conjunction to join two parts of speech. It is distinct from waw-consecutive which is a verb construction.

Conjunction of two nouns
Primarily two nouns may be joined by conjunctive vav without equation, for example Moshe v-Aron (“Moses and Aaron”). Conjunctive vav may however indicate hendiadys where two nouns are equated. An example is found in two examples from Leviticus 25 where the nouns ger “stranger,” and toshav “sojourner,” are joined by conjunctive waw and usually construed as a hendiadys. However, in Numbers 35:15, each noun is accompanied by the repeated prepositional prefix lo- “to,” as in “to-the stranger and (vav) to-the sojourner,” which indicates two distinct concepts.[1]

Conjunction of two verbs
Waw-conjunctive may also be used or omitted between two verbs. In imperative sentences such as “sit and wait” the use of the waw between the two verbs is particularly common in maskilic literature, but there are no clear cut semantic considerations regulating the use of vav conjunctive.[2]

Thus we see that similar to “Moses w-Aron” the meaning of “wî-ḵaz-zêḇ” is precisely “God is not a man and liar” meaning God is not a man, that, contingent on being a man, he could (or should or would) lie. Or that God is not a man, and (therefore) not a liar.

The second and possibly last line of defense over the direct statement is “wə-yiṯ-ne-ḥām;” – that he should repent. We immediately see conjunctive waw again; in the same sense as above; in the same sense as “way-ḏab-bêr” (And he spoke; Exodus 20:1) or “way-yō-mə-rū” (And they said 20:19) etc.

The meaning of this word “ni-ḥām” means to be sorry, to change the mind, relent or repent. Therefore the meaning is the same because the tense is exactly the same (i.e. conjunctive waw).

3. It doesn't mean God is not a man and he should not lie, because it really means Man is not God, and he will lie.

At this point the claimant has broken the grammar of the bible; there are too many examples of why this reading is wrong; it begins by assuming “lō ’ā-ḏām hū” in 1 Samuel, “lō ’îš ’êl” in Numbers 23 and that the phrase “ū-ḇen- ’ā-ḏām” are all mistranslated in every English bible as follows:

• “lō ’îš ’êl” (not man (is) god) means (neither man (is) god). Similar other.

Secondly

• “ū-ḇen- ’ā-ḏām” is the start of a new context.

Dealing with these claims is extremely simple in the manner of the previous analysis and pulling verses will be left as an exercise for later. For now it will be sufficient to point out copious examples exist by giving one random example ex. Isaiah 56:2 (for “ū-ḇen- ’ā-ḏām”) and one for “lō ’îš ’êl” – Exodus 19:13 “lō- ṯig-ga‘ bōw yāḏ” (no hand touch him) meaning “No hand shall touch him” not “Neither hand shall touch him” for example.

Christians will often claim that some passage infers that God must be a man. Such as;

• Thus says the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel and his Holy One, … (Isaiah 49:7)

The claim will be made for example that “redeemer” means kinship, and therefore God is a man. This of course ignores the idea of being created inthe image of God, or that Israel is defined as God's Son (ex. Hosea 11 and a multitude of others)… or

• Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD. Wake up as in days past, as in generations of old. Was it not You who cut Rahab to pieces, who pierced through the dragon? (Isaiah 52:9 Berean Study Bible–for kicks)

The argument will (actually!!) be made that because anthropomorphic qualities are applied to God that God must be a man. This will be seen in every case to fall apart ex. the meaning of the arm of the lord is defined by Exodus 6:6.

There are far more direct statements than Numbers and Samuel. What, we ask, is the intent of the author (God) or the author (Prophet of God) in these statements? Given that these statements have God's ecumenical authority and we must accept them as doctrine?

I will not execute my burning anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath.Hosea 11:9 ESV

This passage is a clear and present statement that God is not a man, with no qualifiers, and cannot be subject to a reinterpretation as it is plain. I would go so far as to say that the reason why Christians attack Numbers 23 is precisely because they cannot attack Hosea 11.

For he is not a man, as I am, that I might answer him, that we should come to trial together.Job 9:32 ESV

From the Christians we also see “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:24 ESV). It is not often to find a supporting passage in the Christian Scriptures, but we are not interested in an apologetic for a verse in the Christian Testament, despite whether or not one can be offered, so we will tend to not present this as a credible argument.

Regarding the idea that God is a man, we know certain qualities and statements of god that by implication would mean certain things. Such as Jeremiah 17:

• Thus says the Lord: “Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the Lord.” (Jeremiah 17:5 ESV)

Clearly this means God is not a man. In the same manner we have Psalm 118 (twice!):

• It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man. (Psalm 118:8)
• It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in princes. (Psalm 118:9)

The above counters the notion that God is a Man (ex. Jesus) very well. If King David could not be more clear, he writes again Psalm 146:

• Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation. (Psalm 146:3 ESV).

This term, Son of Man, is repeated everywhere in scripture ex. Ezekiel – God called the prophet Ezekiel “son of man” 93 times. Jesus is referred to as the “Son of Man” 88 times in the New Testament (ex. in the gospels, 32 times in Matthew; 14 times in Mark; 26 times in Luke; and 10 times in a qualitatively different way from the Synoptic Gospels in John). In fact, Son of Man is the primary title Jesus used when referring to Himself (e.g., Matthew 12:32; 13:37; Luke 12:8; John 1:51). The only use of Son of Man in a clear reference to Jesus, spoken by someone other than Jesus, came from the lips of Stephen as he was being martyred (Acts 7:56). Again, Christians will probably find an easy defense of this in their greek – and, again, we are not interested in apologizing for the Christian's scripture – nevertheless the meaning is quite clear and consistent with the Hebrew.

Furthermore; any passage such as Job 34:10 “far be it from God that he should do wickedness, and from the Almighty that he should do wrong.” – if Christianity is true then the demarcation line is purely the sinless aspect of God and Jesus is reduced to human sacrifice. God is not a man.

This is a long page and there are many specious claims against the passages we have brought; therefore we will close with just one more passage, and there are many others…

15 “Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire,

16 beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female…Deuteronomy 4:15-16 ESV