God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? Or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? (Num 23:19)
I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: or I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city. (Hos 11:9)
I have addressed Num 23:19 a few times previously on this blog, including:
Review of Thomas Jay Oord, Creation Made Free: Open Theology Engaging Science (cf. An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology
Fellow LDS apologist D. Charles Pyle, while addressing Hos 11:9, offered the following astute comments:
Generally, the focus will be made on the first part of the verse, but the full context shows something about the interpretation that also modifies or clarifies the actual sense of the intended meaning underlying this passage. "Man" and "son of man" in this text are in a parallelism which refers to the same thing. The Hebrew of the phrase "son of man" also literally can be rendered "son of Adam." God is not a son of Adam—if we take it at its most literal meaning. This is very true. But then there is the other side of this Hebrew parallelism to examine. . . . The word that is translated “man” in the phrase in verse 9, is the Hebrew word אִישׁ. Many scholars believe that this word is a contracted form of the word אֱנוֹשׁ, which properly means “mortal man,” and that is derived from a verb which indicates “weakness” or means “to be made weak.” Evidence substantiating this is the fact that the plural absolute form of the overwhelming majority of times (with an occurrence of 110 times in the Old Testament text) is אנָשִׁים (the logical plural for אֱנוֹשׁ), and not אישִׁים (which would be the logical plural for אִישׁ, which occurs only three times in the entire Old Testament). Both the singular and true logical plural may be seen together in the Hebrew text of Isaiah 53:3. The fact that the rare plural form אישִׁים even is used at all seems to indicate that there may be two roots and/or derivative words involved, one of which simply indicates a “male individual,” and the other indicating a weak or “mortal man.” So, which one is which, when and how do we determine it? Looks like won’t any longer be so easy for the critics to force some among the Latter-day Saints into a corner over this passage, now that this fact is known.
However, in the Hosea passage now under question (and Numbers 23:19, since it also uses the same words about to be examined) the author believes it must be the contracted form of אֱנוֹשׁ. The author’s reason for believing so is the fact that the word אֵל (meaning “God” or “El”) also carries underlying this word the concept of might and strength, which is why it sometimes is translated in some passages as “mighty” in the Bible (as at Psalms 50:1 and 82:1 in the King James Version of the Bible). In this text of Hosea 11:9, as also in Numbers 23:19, this particular word here is antithetically paralleled against אִישׁ (“man”). Curiously, it turns out that some occurrences of the word אֵל actually may be contractions of the Hebrew word אֵיִל and אוּל! Both of these Hebrew words express the idea of strength as opposed to weakness. But even if we were to reject this information, it still poses no problem. Since אֵל itself is a word that qualitatively expresses “power” or “might,” and the two words אֵל and אִישׁ are intended to be contrasted with one another in this antithetical parallelism, the author believes that the underlying, real, intended meaning must indicate weakness as opposed to strength.
Thus here, just as at Numbers 23:19, אִישׁ is rightly to be understood as an equivalent to אֱנוֹשׁ. What this passage then expresses, when so understood, is the contrast between the strength of God and the weakness of mortal man. Additional information manifesting the intent of the contrast is found in both verses 8 and 9 of Hosea 11, together. In reading verses 8-9 together we also find that God does not desire utterly to destroy Ephraim, as he did Admah and Zeboim (cities of the plain wiped out in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah [see Deuteronomy 29:23 for listing of those four cities God destroyed]), because of his promise to Israel, and further promises that he will not come in anger and completely destroy Ephraim.
Reminding hearers of his ability to keep that promise, he afterward declares, “For I am God, and not man; . . .” Thus, in these passages this strength of the LORD contrasted with the weakness of mortal man lies within the pale of his ability to make promises and also to keep them, whereas mortals, many a time treacherous, often do not. In other words, God would not break this his promise (as a moral man might do) that he would annihilate Ephraim. He was and is a God who can be counted on to keep his promises! That is the central meaning and thought underlying this passage. Therefore this scripture, rather than being a metaphysical description of Deity, is more merely a description of the perfection of this attribute of God compared to that of weak, moral man, rather than addressing what he is or is not metaphysically. If we were to ignore the underlying meaning and simply take the words as they are, the simple answer of course would be, God is no mortal man. No Latter-day Saint holds such a view that God is a mortal man or is as weak as one. Thus, both Numbers 23:19 and Hosea 11:9 neither condemn nor refute LDS doctrine. We see they don’t even address the doctrine when we look under the surface. (D. Charles Pyle, I Have Said Ye Are Gods: Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testament (revised and supplemented) [CreateSpace, 2018], 205, 207-9, emphasis in original)
I have plugged Pyle’s book a few times already on this blog, but I will happily do it again as it is a resource every LDS apologist should have. One can purchase it on Amazon here. He also answers LDS-related questions on Quora.com.