If Jesus was physically human, does that mean God is physical? The question sounds simple, but it depends on a distinction Christians have made from the beginning: the eternal Son of God truly became human without the divine nature becoming material, limited, or contained in a body. The incarnation is not the claim that God turned into a creature. It is the claim that the Son took a real human nature to Himself for our salvation.
SOLA VERITAS Library ID: #SOLAVERITAS0045
What question are we actually asking?
This article responds to the theological question discussed in the video above, published on Nicky Verster’s public YouTube channel. Its purpose is not to make personal claims about Mr Verster or to settle every issue raised in a short exchange. It is to test one specific inference: if Jesus had a physical body, does that prove that God Himself is physical?
That inference moves too quickly. It assumes that everything true of Jesus in His humanity must therefore be true of the divine nature. Historic Christianity asks two related but different questions: Who is Jesus? and what natures does He have? The answer is that Jesus Christ is one Person, the eternal Son, who is fully God and who in the incarnation became fully human.
Why this question needs a clear answer
An archived Gods Medium book-promotion page says that Jesus the Christ was never a physical human being and denies a physical crucifixion. It promotes The Secret to Gods Light and Secrets of the Unknown God as special spiritual teaching.
The public channel links to the Godsmedium domain, and an archived contact page identifies Nick Verster. That is meaningful supporting evidence of a connection, but the archived book-promotion page does not separately print an author byline. This distinction is kept clear here so that the evidence is not overstated.
If Jesus was never physically human and there was no physical crucifixion, then the central events proclaimed by the New Testament are not history but spiritual symbols. That conflicts with the apostolic witness: the Word became flesh (John 1:14), Christ died for sins and was buried (1 Corinthians 15:3-4), and the risen Jesus invited His disciples to see and touch His body (Luke 24:39-43).
The Word became flesh
John begins his Gospel by identifying the Word as both with God and God (John 1:1). A few verses later he says that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14, ESV). Christians have rightly treated this as a breathtaking claim: the Son did not merely visit humanity or appear to be human. He entered our history, was born, grew, ate, became tired, suffered, died, and rose again.
But John does not say that the divine nature changed into flesh. Rather, the Word who was already God became flesh. The subject is the eternal Son; the humanity is what He assumed. This is why the New Testament can speak truthfully of Jesus as hungry and weary (Matthew 4:2; John 4:6), while also speaking of Him as the one through whom all things were created (John 1:3; Colossians 1:15-17). Neither strand cancels the other.
The distinction protects the reality of the incarnation. If Christ only looked human, then He could not truly represent us in our suffering and death. Hebrews says that He shared in flesh and blood so that through death He might destroy the one who has the power of death (Hebrews 2:14-18). His humanity was not a costume. It was real.
God is spirit, not a material being
Jesus says plainly, “God is spirit” (John 4:24). In context He is teaching that true worship is not limited to a mountain, a temple, or a particular physical location. God is not one more object within the universe. He is the Creator, not a creature; He is not made from matter, bounded by space, or dependent on a physical body.
That does not mean God is vague, unreal, or less personal. Scripture presents God as living, knowing, willing, loving, judging, and acting. The point is that His mode of existence is not creaturely. Solomon expressed the same truth when he prayed that heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain God (1 Kings 8:27, NIV). God is present to all creation, yet He is not contained by it.
Scripture sometimes uses bodily language for God: His hand, eyes, face, or arm. These expressions communicate His power, knowledge, presence, or favour in ways human beings can understand. They should not be read as proof that the Father has a material body. The Bible also says that God is invisible (1 Timothy 1:17) and that no one has seen the Father in His divine essence (John 1:18).
One Person, two natures
The church eventually summarised the biblical witness by saying that Jesus Christ is one Person in two natures: truly God and truly man. The formula is not an attempt to make the Bible more complicated. It is a safeguard against two opposite errors. One error makes Jesus less than God; the other makes His humanity less than real.
As man, Jesus could be born, learn, hunger, sleep, suffer, and die. As God, the Son is eternal, worthy of worship, and shares the divine glory of the Father. Philippians 2:5-11 holds these truths together. Christ, who existed in the form of God, took the form of a servant and humbled Himself to death. His humiliation was genuine, but it did not erase who He eternally is.
This is also why Christians do not say that the Father was born in Bethlehem or that the divine nature died on the cross. The Son, who is truly God, experienced birth and death in the human nature He assumed. The wording matters because it honours both the full reality of Christ’s humanity and the unchanging reality of God.
What about the risen Jesus?
The resurrection makes the issue even clearer, not less clear. After rising from the dead, Jesus invited His disciples to look at His hands and feet and to touch Him. “A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have,” He said (Luke 24:39). He also ate with them (Luke 24:41-43). Christianity therefore does not preach escape from bodily life; it proclaims the redemption of bodily life.
Yet the risen body belongs to Jesus’ human nature. It does not turn the divine nature into a physical substance. The Son is still fully God, and the incarnate Son is still truly human. The resurrection confirms that His humanity is permanent and glorified; it does not place a material limit on the Godhead.
Colossians 2:9 says that in Christ the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily (ESV). Paul is not teaching that deity is itself made of matter. He is declaring that the one who has a real body is not a lesser heavenly being. In Christ, the fullness of deity is truly present. The verse strengthens, rather than dissolves, the confession that Christ is fully God and fully man.
Why the distinction matters
It may feel like a technical distinction, but it shapes the gospel. If Jesus is not truly human, He cannot be the last Adam who represents humanity, obeys in our place, and dies for human sin (Romans 5:12-19). If Jesus is not truly God, then He cannot perfectly reveal the Father or bring the saving reconciliation Scripture attributes to Him.
The incarnation tells us that God has come near in the Son without becoming less than God. Jesus is not a bridge halfway between God and humanity. He is the eternal Son who has taken our humanity into union with Himself. That is why believers can look at Jesus and genuinely see the character of God revealed (John 14:9), while still refusing to reduce God to the dimensions of a human body.
It also guards Christian worship. We worship Jesus not because a human body is divine by nature, but because the Person who possesses that body is the eternal Son. And we honour His body because it is the real humanity through which He obeyed, suffered, rose, and will return.
A fair conclusion
“Jesus was physical; therefore God is physical” is not a conclusion the biblical text requires. It confuses what is true of Christ according to His humanity with what is true of God according to the divine nature. The stronger Christian claim is more profound: the eternal, invisible, unlimited God has made Himself known in the incarnate Son.
Jesus was truly physical. He had a real human body, died a real death, and rose bodily from the grave. But the incarnation does not mean that God is a material being or that the Father is confined to a body. It means that the Son, remaining fully God, freely took true humanity for us and for our salvation.
Sources for the claims discussed
- Nicky Verster / Gods Medium YouTube channel
- Archived Gods Medium book-promotion page (2014)
- Archived Gods Medium contact page (2013)
- Archived Gods Medium book sales page (2013)
Nicky Verster is not a member of The Old Apostolic Church and his books do not reflect the beliefs of the Church in any way. His beliefs of the Historical Jesus is not accurate and is in contradiction with the teachings of the Church. You are creating a strawman that enable you to criticise The OAC with false accusations.
Thanks for the clarification. My article does not state that Nicky Verster is a member of the Old Apostolic Church. If you believe it does, please quote the exact sentence and I’ll gladly correct it.
However, your comment doesn’t actually address the argument I made. Whether Nicky Verster is an OAC member or not has no bearing on whether the theological argument in the article is true or false.
If you believe I’ve attributed a belief to the OAC that it does not officially teach, please identify the specific claim and provide the official OAC source that contradicts it. I’m more than happy to compare sources publicly.
So rather than discussing who is or isn’t an OAC member, let’s discuss the actual argument. Which specific point in the article is false, and what evidence do you have that demonstrates it?
Melt.
For the benefit of readers, it is worth noting that Nicky Verster is not an unrelated outsider with no history connected to the Old Apostolic Church.
One of his published books, The Secret to God’s Light, lists Apostle van Nieuwenhuizen as its illustrator.
In addition, I have a video recording in which Nicky himself explains that he was formerly part of the Old Apostolic Church, enjoyed a good relationship with its Apostles, and eventually left because of theological differences.
I will update this comment with a link to that video once it has been published.
None of this proves that the Old Apostolic Church endorses everything Nicky later taught. However, it does demonstrate that he had a documented historical relationship with the Church, making him a relevant source when discussing its theology and history.