Does God have bodily form?

[cw_theology]

My question is, is it proper to say "God has bodily form" on the one hand
1. Jesus is God
2. Jesus has bodily form
3. Therefore God has bodily form

On the other we know the divine essence is spirit, and thus does not have a bodily form. I think the answer is similar to the answer to the question "did God die on the cross" in some sense yes and in some sense no, it depends on what you mean. What do you guys think?

 

[Recipient of Grace]

In my limited understanding, I would say that God, that is, the essence of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, does not have a bodily form, but in Christ Jesus the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily.

 

[Charles Johnson]

My question is, is it proper to say "God has bodily form" on the one hand
1. Jesus is God
2. Jesus has bodily form
3. Therefore God has bodily form

On the other we know the divine essence is spirit, and thus does not have a bodily form. I think the answer is similar to the answer to the question "did God die on the cross" in some sense yes and in some sense no, it depends on what you mean. What do you guys think?

You could say that improperly, via the communicatio idiomatum. Properly speaking, no.
But it would be very misleading, and unlikely to be correctly understood.
It would be much better to say "In Christ, God has a body," or even better, "the Son of God has a body."

 

[MW]

My question is, is it proper to say "God has bodily form"

Properly, no. Improperly, yes. The purpose of using the words proper and improper is in order to qualify whether or not you need to add more information.

 

[pastorgrumbles]

Others have answered this appropriately. All I will add is that a clear way to articulate "Jesus is God" is to say that the person of the eternal Son of God, the Word, added to his divine nature a human nature made of body and soul. One person (the Son of God), two natures (divine and human).

 

[jwright82]

Athanasian Creed

Here's the Athanasian Creed on this, start at 29 on the incarnation of our Lord.

The Athanasian Creed by R.C. Sproul

Quicumque vult—this phrase is the title attributed to what is popularly known as the Athanasian Creed. It was often called the Athanasian Creed because for cent

www.ligonier.org

Here's good old Dr Sproul on it.

 

[Physeter]

Prior to the incarnation, no. The second person of the Trinity, Christ now has a body. God the Father and God the Holy Spirit still do not have a physical form.

 

[TylerRay]

My question is, is it proper to say "God has bodily form" on the one hand
1. Jesus is God
2. Jesus has bodily form
3. Therefore God has bodily form

On the other we know the divine essence is spirit, and thus does not have a bodily form. I think the answer is similar to the answer to the question "did God die on the cross" in some sense yes and in some sense no, it depends on what you mean. What do you guys think?

It depends on how you qualify it.

It's proper to say that the second person of the godhead has a bodily form, though he has it as man, not as God.

It is not proper to say that God simpliciter has a bodily form, or that all that is God has a bodily form.

 

[ReformedChristian]

Yes via the incarnation, but in another sense no, otherwise its falling into Mormon theology.

 

[michael_topple]

The only point I'd add is that Ephesians 5. 29-30 shows us how a/the (I can't work out which) proper way to think of Christ's body since His ascension is to see His body as the Church/Kirk. Although I realise you're talking more about a physical/corporeal body, so recognise this is a little off topic.