No, it is true. However you are divorcing the verse from context to broaden its import to enable you to slip in your presupposition that God is absolutely immutable.
Balaam wanted to curse Israel. God made him bless Israel. Balak wanted Balaam to change God's decree. Balaam said that, in this case, God would not change His mind and God is not like men who can be pressured to change their minds on their decrees and make their previous decree untrue.
So, what Balaam is saying is.
"God is not a man (who can be bribed) for to lie, or a son of man (who can be bribed) for to change His mind. (Yahweh does accept gold or silver as offerings to manipulate His behaviour, as your Baals do. )"
And yes, that is true, without the verse being forced to infer that God is unable to ever change His mind, as the platonic doctrine of immutability presupposes and Christians who hold to that doctrine impose onto the verse..
OK- So I said I was out of the conversation, but then you posted a rebuttal. It is with this reply that I shall once again to state my position, and leave it at that.
What you get right:
1. Immediate narrative context
You are correct that Book of Numbers 23 occurs in a specific historical situation:
• Balak is attempting to coerce or bribe Balaam into cursing Israel.
• Balaam insists that Yahweh’s declared blessing cannot be reversed by political pressure, money, or ritual manipulation.
• The contrast is explicitly between Yahweh and pagan gods who were believed to be manipulable through offerings.
That is solid exegesis. The passage is polemical against divination-for-hire and bribery.
2. The verse does not explicitly define a metaphysical doctrine
Also correct:
• Numbers 23:19 is not written as a philosophical treatise on divine immutability.
• It does not use abstract ontological language (Greek-style being/essence categories).
• The verse’s primary force is ethical and covenantal: God keeps His word.
So the reply is right to resist reading the verse as “God can never respond, relent, or act differently in any circumstance whatsoever.”
Where your reply overreaches:
1. False dilemma: context vs. broader theology
The argument implies:
If the verse is contextual, it cannot support a broader theological truth.
That
does not follow.
Biblical theology regularly works this way:
• A statement made in a concrete situation
• Reveals a general attribute of God’s character
Example:
• “God is not a man, that He should lie”
→ This does function universally across Scripture, not only in Balaam’s moment.
The reply acknowledges this partially (“No, it is true”), but then restricts the second clause more tightly than the text itself does.
⸻
2. Overstating the “bribery” gloss
The paraphrase:
“God is not a man (who can be bribed) …”
This idea is theologically true, but:
• The Hebrew text does not explicitly mention bribery
• The verb nacham (“relent/change”) is broader than “change due to bribery”
The bribery angle is implied by the narrative, not embedded in the grammar of the verse itself. That makes it a legitimate inference, but not the only valid reading.
⸻
3. Mischaracterizing classical immutability
The strongest inaccuracy is
here:
“the platonic doctrine of immutability presupposes … God is unable to ever change His mind”
That is not what classical Jewish or Christian immutability teaches.
Historically:
• Immutability refers to God’s nature, character, and purposes
• It does not deny responsive action within time
• Classical theology has always allowed for:
• God relenting from announced judgment
• God responding to repentance
•
Anthropopathic language
In fact, Numbers 23:19 itself:
• Grounds God’s “unchanging” action in faithfulness, not rigidity
• “Has He spoken, and will He not fulfill it?”
So the reply sets up a straw version of immutability that few orthodox theologians actually hold.
