A short video featuring Nicky Verster raises a question that is not a side issue: did Jesus Christ truly become human? The answer affects how Christians read the Gospels, understand the cross and confess the good news. It also calls for care when speaking about a church family in evident tension.
What the video says
The video opens with a call to pray for the Old Apostolic Church, describing a concern that internal disagreement could become a defining moment for the church. At approximately 0:18, Nicky Verster speaks about conversations he says he has had with officers and apostles connected with the OAC. He says that some officers are trying to restore evangelistic teaching and renewed spiritual life.
Verster then makes a more serious claim: that certain OAC leaders have decided to teach that Jesus was a “physical being” born of a virgin, and that members may be expected to accept that position because of apostolic authority. He recounts alleged private conversations and says that members should not remain part of a divided body when leaders and local officers are saying different things.
These are the speaker’s claims and recollections in the video. This article does not independently verify the reported conversations, the stated decision, or the position of every OAC congregation, officer or apostle. Nor should a church-wide conclusion be drawn from one person’s testimony alone. The Old Apostolic Church should have a fair opportunity to state its own present teaching in its own words.
Why the question matters
Even with that necessary caution, the theological question is clear. Was Jesus truly human in history, or was His humanity only apparent, symbolic or spiritual? The New Testament does not leave Christians free to treat this as a minor preference. John writes, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). The eternal Word did not merely visit humanity from a distance or appear to have a body. He became flesh.
That conviction runs throughout the New Testament. Jesus was conceived and born (Luke 1:31–35; 2:6–7). He grew (Luke 2:52), became tired (John 4:6), felt hunger (Matthew 4:2), wept (John 11:35), suffered, bled and died. After His resurrection, He invited His disciples to see and touch Him: “a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have” (Luke 24:39). He even ate in their presence (Luke 24:41–43).
None of this makes Jesus merely human. The same Gospel that says the Word became flesh also says, “the Word was God” (John 1:1). Historic Christianity therefore confesses that the eternal Son is fully God and truly human. His divine nature did not turn into matter; rather, the Son took to Himself a real human nature. Scripture gives the foundations for that confession, even though later theological terms are not themselves Bible verses.
“Physical” needs careful definition
The word physical can cause confusion if it is used without explanation. If it means that Jesus had a genuine human body, then the New Testament strongly affirms it. He was not a phantom. His incarnation, death and resurrection were real.
If, however, the word is being used to say that God’s divine nature is material, bounded by a body, or no longer spirit, that is a different claim. Jesus says, “God is spirit” (John 4:24), and Solomon recognised that even heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain God (1 Kings 8:27). The incarnation does not reduce God to a physical object. It is God the Son entering our human condition without ceasing to be who He eternally is.
That distinction protects both truths. We must not make Jesus’ humanity unreal in order to safeguard His deity. But neither should we confuse what belongs to His humanity with a claim that the divine nature is physical. The Christian confession is not “Jesus only looked human,” nor “God became a creature.” It is that the eternal Son truly became human for us and for our salvation.
Authority must serve the truth
The video also raises a pastoral issue: what happens when people believe a leader’s teaching cannot be questioned? Christian leadership is valuable, and churches need order, teachers and shepherds. But the New Testament does not make any human office the final measure of truth. The Bereans were commended because they examined the Scriptures to see whether Paul’s teaching was so (Acts 17:11). Paul himself warns that even an angelic messenger must not be accepted if he brings a gospel contrary to the one already received (Galatians 1:8).
This is not a licence for endless suspicion or individualism. It is a call to test teaching seriously, humbly and together. A leader should be able to show where a doctrine comes from in Scripture. A member should be able to ask a sincere question without being treated as disloyal. And a church should never settle a central claim about Christ simply by saying that a leader has decided it.
The apostle John gives a particularly searching test: “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God” (1 John 4:2). In its context, John is not offering a slogan for winning an argument. He is guarding the church against teaching that detaches the Son of God from the real human life, suffering and saving work revealed in the Gospel.
Pray, listen and test all things
The opening appeal of the video is the right place to end: pray. Pray for OAC members, officers and leaders; for honesty in conversation; for protection from pride and fear; and for a renewed love for the Christ revealed in the Scriptures. Pray also that public discussion will be truthful and restrained, rather than built on rumour.
For Christians watching from outside the dispute, the central confession remains straightforward: Jesus Christ is not an abstract idea. The Word became flesh. He truly entered history, bore our humanity, died for sinners and rose bodily from the grave. That is why the question matters, and why it deserves an answer shaped by Scripture rather than pressure, personality or institutional loyalty.
Read in Scripture
Source note: This article reflects the content of the YouTube video “Dividing Moment: Was Jesus a Physical Being? | Nicky Verster”, uploaded on Arend Botha’s channel. The claims concerning conversations, OAC leadership and current internal teaching are attributed to Nicky Verster in that video and have not been independently verified here.
