Post #23 addresses the op-relevant content. The following is digressive. I'm open to discussing any of the aspects posted below in a different thread.
They are scriptural terms used in various contexts to describe different dimensions of human life, whether bodily existence, or inner life, or relational openness to God, or what have you. As such, I see these as aspects of the one human person, not separable substances—but aspects in the vein of Berkouwer, not Hoekema.
Now this might be where I say, "
Sorta," again. To begin with, I enjoy participating in a Reform-oriented forum, but I find there is an over-attachment to the Reformed thinkers at the expense of scripture. I've read Berkouwer and Hoekema but I would not use either to prove or support my viewpoint. I'll use scripture and scripture alone as best I can. I try not to appeal to extra-biblical sources unless the discussion is specifically about those sources. Were we to be having a discussion about those two's viewpoint(s) versus some other theologian (whether also Reformed or not) I'd entertain what the theologians said.
When I read ANY mention of the word "body" in the Bible I do so understanding scripture is using that word for a specific purpose in the context of the unified viewpoint it teaches from beginning to end. I do the same thing anytime I read the word, "soul," or the word, "spirit." I do not read the mention of those words with a dualism or a tripartism in mind. Neither do I read those words with a specific theologian in mind (or I might consider and then compare what all the theologians I can recall have said, measuring the many views with the speed of thought in contrast or comparison to what scripture as a whole teaches.
At the risk of causing
another digression, an obvious comparative example would be the word "
Israel." That word should
never be read without understanding the word means "
God prevails," or "
those in whom God perseveres." That is what the word means whether it is applied to Jacob, the Hebrews, those living in a nation-state, or those in Christ. Just as the failure to be consistent with the unified body/soul/spirit teaching causes a variety of debate, so too does the failure to be consistent with "
those in whom God prevails" causes debate (and division).
Were you or I living before Berkouwer or Hoekema we might say they agree with us

, but the larger, more important, more truthful reality is
we all agree with scripture. Scripture teaches the human is unified and body, soul, and spirit are inseparable.
With respect to your comments on the divine nature, I would offer a caution. The incarnation entails that one person of the Trinity assumed a human nature, including a true human body, but it doesn't follow that God qua God is embodied or possesses physical properties.
Start an op. I'll have that discussion with you. For now, I will say that early theologians held God to be noncorporeal, to be Spirit and not Body. I believe that is due to a failure on their part to understand what we now know: mass and energy are simply variations of a common theme and God is the Creator of that condition. Distinctions between the physical and the non-physical are, therefore, always and everywhere incorrect. A false dichotomy. Does this apply to the externally existing Creator? Maybe not, but we do know God manifests Himself in real physical manner, with real physicality. We tend to think of matter as something finite and, therefore, it is impossible for God to have mass but there's no longer any logical reason to think God cannot be infinitely corporeal. I find that to be much more consistent with the whole of scripture than to deny Him all physicality.
Keep in mind scripture states no one can see Him and live. That is a meaningless statement if He cannot be seen at all and if He can be seen then He does, by definition, have mass.
To infer a form of divine physicality from Christophanies, the incarnation, or the post-resurrection bodily life of Christ risks collapsing the Creator–creature distinction and undermining the doctrine of divine immutability.
I did not infer physicality from the incarnation. I asserted the incarnation as an example of eternal, inherent, already existing physicality. If God
now has a body (that of Jesus') but did not have one prior to the incarnation, then God is not immutable. The body does not have to be identical, but some corporeality must exist.
The Son's human nature is not intrinsic to the divine essence; it was assumed in the flow of history for the purpose of redemption.
"
Human nature"? I do not believe I mentioned Jesus' human nature or limited the incarnation to human flesh. What I said was, "
Jesus has a body." I do not assume Jesus' body was
merely human and I encourage you not to do so, either. Physiologically, Jesus had abilities you and I do not possess. Those faculties may be the result of his sinlessness (was the pre-disobedient Adam have those same faculties?

). Maybe. We know Adam had the ability to command aspects of creation prior to his fall. Is that all Jesus was doing? I think not. If Jesus was merely human and, therefore, bound and limited to all the limitations of human physicality then some explanation how he could manifest the kind of power he exhibited is necessary. 0.2 amps of electricity is sufficient to kill a person. The energy, or power, it takes to stop wind, or walk on water, is enormous. The power it takes to transcend the subatomic boundaries of time and space are equally exponentially greater than that required to stop wind. I know we do not normally consider these aspects of Jesus' existence or bother to frame our understanding of the gospel in terms of what we know about the physical world but maybe we should.
Everything we learn about this world in which we live has theological significance. I listen to Lawrence Krauss' infamous (or is it notorious?) lecture on "
A Universe from Nothing," and think, "
You fool. God said all of that thousands of years ago. Update your thinking." I don't assume the temporal pregnancy precludes an inherent, eternal physicality and I trust you do not, either. Jesus existed in the form of God (Php. 2:6) and took on the form of a bondservant (Php. 2:7), and the bondservant form happened to be made in the likeness of men (Php. 2:7). In other words, form pre-existed the incarnation. We can discuss whether the "form" was corporeal or not (a bondservant is not a distinct physicality, but human likeness is) but that's fodder for a separate thread.
My position relevant to this op is that humans are body, soul, and spirit, and none of the three can be separated from the human and the human still exist. The rest is digressive.