Exodus 15 (the Song of the Sea) describes God with a series of body parts — 'arm,' 'hand,' 'finger,' 'eye,' 'nostrils' — used to accomplish the Exodus deliverance, which reads as a physically embodied warrior-deity, not an incorporeal being.

The concession first: the Song of the Sea (Exodus 15:1–18) is widely regarded by scholars across the theological spectrum, including conservative ones like Walter Kaiser, as among the very oldest poetic material in the Torah, and its idiom is genuinely cognate with Late Bronze/Iron Age Canaanite divine-warrior poetry — the 'right hand,' the 'blast of your nostrils,' the sea piling up like 'a wall' are stock combat-theophany images with real parallels in Ugaritic literature. Benjamin Sommer and others are right that this is the poetic register in which the earliest Israelite tradition speaks of its God, and it is not obviously less embodied-sounding than language used of Baal defeating Yam. But notice what the fallacy in the objection actually is: it commits something like a fallacy of composition/division applied to metaphor — reasoning from 'the poem attributes a coordinated set of body-part-shaped actions to God' to 'therefore the poem's authors held a doctrine that God has a literal, composite anatomical body.' That inference does not follow, and the text itself supplies the reason it does not follow: each 'body part' in Exodus 15 names a distinct causal/functional capacity, not an anatomical inventory meant to add up to a humanlike physique. 'Hand/arm' (yad/zeroa) is the single most common biblical idiom for effective power and agency — it appears constantly in contexts with zero embodiment implication whatever (e.g., 'the hand of the LORD was against them,' meaning simply 'his active power was against them'; nations are said to fall 'by the hand' of an army, meaning by its military power, without anyone thinking armies are literal hands). 'Nostrils'/breath (ruach appah) ties directly to the ordinary Hebrew association of breath/wind with life-giving and destructive divine power (the same root underlies 'spirit,' ruach) — the poem is saying the sea was driven back by God's effective power, imaged as a mighty exhalation, not reporting a literal breathing apparatus. This is exactly the analogical structure Aquinas formalizes in ST I q.13: 'hand' predicated of God signifies not the organ but the effect the organ produces in a human agent — grasping, striking, building, giving — tracking a genuine likeness of causal power without requiring literal fingers, precisely because act and effect can be really similar even when the underlying nature (infinite, simple, spiritual vs. finite, composite, physical) is utterly dissimilar. What distinguishes Yahweh's 'anatomy' language from a true ANE embodied-deity theology is what surrounds it and what is absent from it. Genuinely embodied ANE deities were represented by cult statues that were ritually fed, clothed, and housed as the deity's literal residence and body-substitute — a real theological commitment with real cultic practice attached. The Song of the Sea, by contrast, culminates (v.17-18) not in installing Yahweh's image in a temple to be served, but in Yahweh planting Israel on 'the mountain of your own possession' where he will 'reign forever' — kingship and covenant language, not cult-statue installation. And this same Exodus tradition contains the second commandment (Exodus 20:4), a blanket prohibition on making any image of Yahweh at all — a move that makes no sense as the theology of a people who thought their God had a literal, representable body the way Baal or Marduk did, and is very hard to reconcile with a straightforwardly corporealist reading of the same book's fifteenth chapter.

The pattern across Exodus — vivid combat-body language in the poetry, flat prohibition on divine images in the law — is best explained by a deliberate theological move unique among the deities of the ancient Near East: Yahweh is described in the most powerful available human idiom (a warrior's hand, arm, breath) precisely because he acts as decisively and personally as a warrior, while being simultaneously de-imaged, unrepresentable, and not fed or housed as ANE deities literally were (cf. Psalm 50:12-13, 'if I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world and all that is in it is mine' — an explicit polemic against the very cultic-feeding theology the 'embodied deity' reading assumes). That combination — maximal agential language, minimal/prohibited physical representation — is exactly what accommodated analogical God-language predicts and exactly what a genuinely corporeal-deity theology, on the ANE model, would not produce.