The argument deserves to be stated in its strongest form, because it exposes a real weakness in a common anti-incarnational proof text. Christians who defend the incarnation do not normally claim that Numbers 23:19 is false. They claim that it is being asked to do more than the verse itself does. The verse says:

God is not a man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

On the Christian reading, the point is not that God is metaphysically incapable of assuming human nature. The point is that God is unlike human beings in truthfulness, constancy, and covenant reliability. Balaam cannot curse Israel because God has determined to bless Israel. Human patrons may be bribed, manipulated, or persuaded to reverse course; Israel's God is not like that. Therefore, the argument goes, Numbers 23:19 cannot simply be turned into the slogan "God cannot become man."

The proponent then adds Exodus 15:3:

The LORD is a man of war; the LORD is his name.

If Scripture itself can call Yahweh "a man of war," then, it is argued, the words "God is not a man" cannot be an absolute prohibition on every use of "man" language for God. The Bible is not contradicting itself; it is using related language in different ways. In Numbers 23:19, the contrast is with human unreliability and changeability. In Exodus 15:3, "man of war" is an idiom for a warrior. So the incarnation is not excluded merely by quoting the phrase "God is not a man," though Exodus 15:3 by itself does not prove incarnation.

The context of Numbers 23:19

This is the strongest part of the argument. Numbers 23 is not a philosophical discussion of divine ontology. It is part of the Balaam narrative. Balak wants Balaam to curse Israel, but Balaam insists that he can only speak what God gives him. The oracle explains why Balak's plan cannot succeed: God has blessed Israel, and God will not reverse his word.

The Hebrew wording reinforces this contextual reading. Numbers 23:19 contrasts El with ish ("man") and ben-adam ("son of Adam/human being"): "God is not a man, that he should lie, or a son of Adam, that he should change his mind." The purpose clauses are not incidental. They specify the respect in which God is being contrasted with humanity: lying and relenting in a way that would make his spoken blessing unreliable. The verse does not say, "God is not a man, and therefore he cannot appear, act, speak, descend, wrestle, or take on any human mode of presence." It says that God is not like human beings whose promises may prove false or reversible.

The same pattern appears in 1 Samuel 15:29:

And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.

Again, the issue is divine reliability. The verse is especially interesting because the same chapter also says that the LORD "regretted" making Saul king. Christian and Jewish interpreters have long recognized that the text is not using "regret" in a flat, univocal way. God can be described as responding judicially within history, yet he is not unstable, deceived, or morally fickle as human rulers are. The contrast is ethical and covenantal before it is abstractly metaphysical.

Hosea 11:9 provides a further parallel:

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.

Here "not a man" means that God does not act with the kind of retaliatory wrath one might expect from human anger or human kingship. The contrast is not framed in later doctrinal vocabulary as "divine nature" versus "human nature"; it is a contrast between God's holy mercy and ordinary human patterns of vengeance.

What Exodus 15:3 contributes

Exodus 15:3 is a genuine text and should not be dismissed. The Hebrew phrase is YHWH ish milhamah, commonly rendered "The LORD is a man of war" or more idiomatically "The LORD is a warrior." It occurs in the Song of the Sea, where Yahweh has defeated Pharaoh's army. The surrounding poetry is full of vivid bodily and martial imagery: God's right hand shatters the enemy; the blast of his nostrils piles up the waters; he throws horse and rider into the sea.

That matters. Exodus 15 does not hesitate to speak of God in anthropomorphic and warrior terms. It shows the weakness of any overly wooden claim that biblical language can never predicate human-like descriptions of God. The Bible can call God a rock, a shepherd, a king, a father, a husband, and here a warrior. The fact that Numbers 23:19 says "God is not a man" does not prevent Exodus 15:3 from using "man" language in a poetic title.

Still, this is also where the argument can overstate its case. Exodus 15:3 does not mean that Yahweh is literally a human male combatant. Many English translations render the phrase "warrior" precisely because "man of war" is an idiom. The Hebrew word ish often means a man or male person, but in construct expressions like "man of X" it can function more broadly for someone characterized by a quality, belonging to a class, or performing a role. In Exodus 15:3, the point is Yahweh's martial victory, not biological maleness or humanity.

So Exodus 15:3 is not a direct anticipation of the incarnation. It does not say that God assumes flesh, is born, suffers, dies, or possesses a complete human nature. It says, poetically and triumphantly, that Yahweh fights for Israel. The verse is useful against a simplistic reading of Numbers 23:19, but it is not itself a proof of the incarnation.

The strongest Christian reply

The best Christian reply is not, "Exodus 15:3 says God is a man, therefore God can become incarnate." That would be too quick. The stronger reply has two parts.

First, the "God is not a man" texts are contextual contrasts between God and sinful, unstable, mortal humanity. Numbers 23:19 contrasts God's truthfulness with human lying. 1 Samuel 15:29 contrasts God's royal determination with human vacillation. Hosea 11:9 contrasts God's holy mercy with human anger. These texts are not addressing the later Christian claim that the eternal Word can assume a human nature while remaining divine.

Second, classical Christian doctrine does not say that God ceases to be God and turns into a man. The Chalcedonian formulation says that the one Christ is acknowledged "in two natures," without confusion or change, without division or separation. However one evaluates that doctrine, it is important to state it accurately. The claim is not that the divine nature is converted into a human nature. It is that the Son, while remaining what he eternally is, assumes what he was not: a real human life.

That distinction is why Christian theologians such as Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Cyril of Alexandria, and later Chalcedonian writers did not think Numbers 23:19 refuted the incarnation. For them, the incarnation is not a denial of divine constancy. It is the saving action of the constant God. They would read John 1:14, "the Word became flesh," not as God becoming unreliable or ceasing to be transcendent, but as the divine Word taking human existence into personal union with himself.

The strongest counterpoint

At the same time, an internal critique should acknowledge what the "God is not a man" texts do contribute. They establish a strong biblical instinct: God is not to be collapsed into humanity. The Creator is not one more human actor within the world. He is not subject to human deception, moral weakness, ignorance, or instability. In the Hebrew Bible, even when God appears, speaks, descends, or is described in bodily imagery, the distinction between God and human beings remains basic.

This means that Numbers 23:19 may not by itself disprove the incarnation, but it does place a burden on incarnational claims. If Christians say that Jesus is truly God and truly man, they must explain how this does not make God the sort of being Numbers 23:19 denies: a liar, a vacillator, a morally limited mortal. The classical answer is the two-natures distinction. Whether one finds that answer persuasive depends on broader judgments about the New Testament witness, not on Exodus 15:3 alone.

There is also a linguistic caution. It is not enough to say, "The Bible calls God a man in Exodus 15:3." More precisely, Exodus 15:3 uses a Hebrew idiom that can be translated "man of war" or "warrior." The verse shows that "man" language can be applied to God metaphorically or functionally. It does not show that every statement denying that God is "man" is non-ontological in every possible sense. Nor does it show that God becoming incarnate is already taught in the Song of the Sea.

What the argument establishes

The argument establishes something modest but important: Numbers 23:19 should not be used as a simple one-verse refutation of the incarnation. In context, "God is not a man" means that God is not false, fickle, or manipulable like human beings. Exodus 15:3 confirms that biblical language about God is flexible, analogical, and often anthropomorphic. Scripture can deny that God is "a man" in one sense while calling him "a man of war" in another.

But the argument does not establish the incarnation. Exodus 15:3 is about Yahweh as divine warrior, not about the Word becoming flesh. It weakens a careless objection; it does not prove the Christian doctrine. The incarnation must be argued, if at all, from texts that actually speak to Christ's identity and embodiment: John 1:1 and 1:14, Philippians 2:6-11, Colossians 1:15-20, Hebrews 1, and related passages. A fair internal critique should admit that several New Testament texts are genuinely strong evidence for high Christology: Thomas's confession to Jesus, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28); the Son addressed as "God" in Hebrews 1:8; and, on many mainstream readings, Titus 2:13's reference to "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." Romans 9:5 is grammatically and punctuationally debated, but it is also a serious text in the discussion. Those passages still raise further questions about how the Son relates to "his God" and Father, but they cannot be answered merely by citing Numbers 23:19 or Exodus 15:3.

So the fairest conclusion is this: "God is not a man" is a serious biblical affirmation of divine otherness and reliability, but in its immediate contexts it is not a metaphysical ban on incarnation. Exodus 15:3 helps prevent an over-literal use of Numbers 23:19, yet it should not be pressed as though it were itself an incarnational text. The debate must move beyond slogans and ask whether the New Testament actually warrants the later Christian claim that the one who shares God's identity also truly shares human nature.