Why Is Jesus Called the "Son of Man"?

Theology
1
Why Is Jesus Called the 'Son of Man'?

Summary: This discussion explores why Jesus frequently called Himself the “Son of Man,” a title that appears throughout the Gospels and raises questions about its significance. The term is understood to reflect both Jesus’ deep connection to humanity and possible ties to prophecies that speak to His divine authority and role in redemption.

#JesusSonOfMan #Christology #BiblicalTitles #FaithAndScripture #UnderstandingJesus

5482-jesus-walk-on-water-sandals-gettyimages-krist
5482-jesus-walk-on-water-sandals-gettyimages-krist950×496 13.2 KB

Photo Credit: ©GettyImages/KristiLinton

In the Gospels, we often see Jesus referring to Himself as the “Son of Man,” a title that sparks curiosity and invites deeper reflection. This term appears numerous times, especially in the books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and is unique because Jesus alone uses it to describe Himself. But what does “Son of Man” truly mean, and why would Jesus choose this phrase rather than titles like “Messiah” or “Son of God”?

The Bible presents multiple layers of meaning for the phrase. Some suggest it highlights Jesus’ connection to humanity, while others see links to ancient prophecies, such as those in the book of Daniel, where a “Son of Man” appears with authority and glory. This duality—relating to both His human experience and His divine role—adds depth to Jesus’ mission and message.

As we reflect on this title, it raises a compelling question: What do you believe Jesus intended to reveal by calling Himself the “Son of Man”? You can delve further into this topic with insights from this article:

2

There is little scholarly doubt that “Son of Man” in the Gospels arises out of the vision in Daniel 7 (“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.”). This seems to mean “one who looked human but came in a heavenly manner and was led into the presence of God.”

The question is, was Jesus referring to himself? There is no scholarly consensus on this. Bert Ehrman (boo! hiss!), for example, believes he was not: At Last. Jesus and the Son of Man. - The Bart Ehrman Blog Ehrman is far from alone in this belief.

The Son of Man in Daniel was clearly a heavenly figure and not the earthly Jesus. If Jesus was, or thought he was, someone who would eventually fill the heavenly role described in Daniel, then he may well have referred to himself as the Son of Man - but would it have made sense to his listeners for the earthly Jesus to be equating himself to the heavenly figure of Daniel 7? (Ehrman thinks this would have been “actually quite contrary” to Jesus’ view of himself.)

Oddly, when the angel explains to Daniel the meaning of his vision, the angel never refers at all to “the one like a son of man” but instead refers repeatedly to “the holy people of the Most High,” as though perhaps the son of man were not an individual at all.

Why didn’t Jesus just say Son of God - was he just being coy? Would his listeners really have made the connection suggested in the article - i.e., that he was emphasizing both his humanity and his role as the heavenly figure of Daniel 7? Why is the phrase Son of Man so prevalent in the Gospels but nowhere in Paul’s epistles? Indeed, it appears nowhere else in the entire NT except Acts 7:26 (Stephen’s vision as he’s being stoned) and Hebrews 2:6 (speaking not of Jesus but of humans in general).

All very curious.

3

Why are you booing Bart Ehrman?

4

To save the fundies the trouble.

1 Like
5

Don’t worry-- Bingo is a big Bart fan-boy.

6

Foot in mouth disease strikes @MrE again.

@Historyprof asked because she has made clear in the past that she respects Ehrman’s work, as do I. He happens to be a first-rate NT scholar.

1 Like
7

She was concerned you were being critical of him and I assured her you would not!

Try to keep up.

8

If I’m not mistaken, correct me if wrong, Bart denies the Triune God.

9

Son of Man is Born Due to The Sins of Man.

  • Prophet Ezekiel is referenced as son of man by God.
  • Prophet Ezekiel was instructed to give prophecy concerning the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple.
  • Jesus prophesied the destruction of the Temple. (Mark 13)
  • 37 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection, Emperor Titus destroyed the Temple.

For God to have destroyed the Temple again, many of the conditions that were present in Ezekiel’s time, they were present in Jesus’ time. About 100 years before Jesus, Romans were Lamenting the loss of Roman virtue. Did the world become wicked? God so loved The World that he gave his only begotten son. God could have destroyed the world again with Fire. Instead he gave the world Jesus Christ, and a baptism by fire.

Jesus talks about Son of Man in the third person.

Son of Man could be translated to Son of Adam. Able was a Son of Adam, born due to the sins of man. Able was the first murder. Able was a shepherd. The Lord is a shepherd. (Psalms 23)

For the son of man to return, there had to be a falling away.

Jesus was Messiah, and Son of God. Jesus Christ was a lot of things. Son of Man may have been a specific spiritual title or function.

11

Why is Jesus called the Son of Man?

Ah, the “Son of Man” title—often whispered in pulpits with a shrug, as if it’s Jesus’ humble little nickname. But this isn’t some meek moniker. No, friend—this is power cloaked in mystery, divinity wrapped in flesh, and judgment coming with clouds. If you think “Son of Man” just means “Jesus is human,” you’re about to get steamrolled by some Daniel 7 fire.

Let’s tear the ribbon off this thing.

What Scripture Actually Teaches

Jesus didn’t pull “Son of Man” out of a first-century hat. He yanked it straight from Daniel 7:13-14—a prophetic mic drop if there ever was one. There, “one like a son of man” approaches the Ancient of Days and is given dominion, glory, and a kingdom that shall not pass away. That’s not just humanity. That’s heavenly authority. That’s King of kings energy.

When Jesus calls Himself the “Son of Man,” He’s not saying “Look how human I am.” He’s saying, “That guy in Daniel? Yeah. That’s Me. And I’m coming on the clouds.”

Which, by the way, He explicitly ties to His second coming in Matthew 24:30 and Mark 13:26. When He stood before the high priest in Mark 14:62, He said, “You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” And they knew exactly what He meant—that’s why they tore their robes and screamed blasphemy. Not because He was being poetic. Because He was claiming divine status.

Three Biblical Truths About “Son of Man”

  1. It Affirms His Humanity – Yes, Jesus became flesh (John 1:14). But don’t stop there, because…

  2. It Declares His Divinity – The Son of Man in Daniel isn’t just a man. He’s worshiped. He reigns. He judges the nations. Only God does that.

  3. It Establishes His Authority to Judge – John 5:27 says the Father gave Him authority to judge “because He is the Son of Man.” Let that sink in: the title is His legal claim to sit on the judgment seat.

So if you’re still picturing “Son of Man” like a soft human badge—wake up and smell the apocalypse. This isn’t about weakness. It’s about fulfillment, dominion, and cosmic courtrooms.

False Doctrine in Focus

Some want to make “Son of Man” a lowly contrast to “Son of God,” like Jesus was switching hats depending on the mood. That’s not scriptural nuance—that’s theological amnesia. The Son of Man is exalted, enthroned, and returning in power. You can’t divorce it from deity just because it sounds humble.

And if your theology turns “Son of Man” into just another term for “ordinary guy,” you’ve neutered the very title Christ used to declare who He really is.

So let’s quit trying to sand down the sharp edges of Scripture. The Son of Man isn’t just Jesus being relatable—it’s Jesus being revealed.

Next: Why the humanity of Christ doesn’t diminish His divinity—and how heresies are born when we try to split what God joined together.

—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.

12

I’m not sure how one can look at some of the places Jesus uses the phrase “Son of Man” and think it refers to someone other than Himself. In Matthew ch. 11 Jesus in talking about the hypocrisy of the religious elite notes that John the Baptist came “neither eating nor drinking” and he was accused of “having a demon”, and then says “the Son of Man came both eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax-collectors and sinners!’”

Both scholars and ordinary readers of the Gospels can pretty clearly see that “Son of Man” is a self-reference that Jesus uses. Jesus is talking about Himself, not someone else. And it very clearly is intended as messianic language.

One could speculate that the Evangelists are wrong, and therefore the Gospel texts do not reflect a truthful account of Jesus’ words in this regard–but that’d merely be non-substantive speculation.

“Son of Man” almost exclusively is used by Jesus, the Gospels do not portray any of Jesus’ disciples using this phrase. The Acts of the Apostles, as noted already, does place this phrase in St. Stephen’s mouth just before he dies as he beholds a vision of the glorified Jesus.

If Ehrman’s point is merely to question the authenticity of the Evangelists’ account in the Synoptics, well okay. Fair I suppose–but if taking the material substance of the text as it exists one can read statements like Matthew 11:19 or Luke 9:58 and think this isn’t a self-designation by Jesus then, well, I simply don’t know what else to say to that.

In Jesus’ words I think what we are actually seeing is this: the Son of Man of the Daniel 7 vision is being identified with Jesus Himself; not to present Himself as a heavenly super-person; but rather in keeping with Jesus’ own messianic language of the Messiah as the one who suffers. The consistency of Jesus’ own messianic language is one in which the Christ comes not as a heavenly superman to raise a divine army (or earthly army) and conquer Israel’s enemies and inagurate Israel into some golden age over the nations; but as the one who comes to suffer, and fulfill ancient promises to bring Israel and the nations together under the universal fatherhood of God.

When we look at the ancient prophets of Israel we see a multitude of statements about not only Israel’s restoration and healing, but also the healing of nations, of the nations coming to Zion to worship Israel’s God. Isaiah, for example, speaks of when Assyria and Egypt will be united with Israel as God’s people (not insignificant given Assyria and Egypt’s historical animosity with Israel and vice versa)–it is the language of reconciliation, of the uniting of peoples who were at enmity toward one another, and brought together under God. We see the language of prophets speaking of justice flowing like a river, and even the hostility of nature ending as lions eat straw like oxen, wolves and lambs relaxing, and children having no reason to fear a viper’s nest.

For Jesus the messianic mission is not one of glory and conquest; but one of being servant and sacrifice. And the Gospels consistently present this messianic vision, such as John the Baptist declaring “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”; not only is this obvious paschal language to identify Jesus with the paschal lamb of Exodus and the Passover, but it is language of victory through a victim. And that is the common thread (one of many) that runs through the Gospels, through the Acts, through the letters of Paul, and even in John’s Apocalypse (where it is a Lamb that is seated on the throne, and the Lamb who reigns forever in the renewal of all things when heaven and earth are made whole).

Perhaps the early Jesus movement just totally and fundamentally dropped the ball. That’s an opinion one can have. It’s not an opinion I subscribe to, I think the texts which make up the New Testament are not only an authentic expression of the earliest Jesus-followers in the Jesus movement, but that these texts present an authentic witness to the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus is the Christ, the Divine Logos made incarnate, virgin-born, sinless, suffered and died under Pontius Pilate, and did, in fact, rise from the dead. And the Christian religion has faithfully (though frequently imperfectly) continued to insist on this truth: Jesus of Nazareth is Lord and Christ.

13

@SincereSeeker
i was waiting for this topic, my brother, this is what I feel.
The term "Son of Man@ (huios tou anthropou in greek and ben adam in hebrew) is linguistically polyvalent, oscillating between human and divine connotations. In hebrew usage, ben adam denotes a human being, as seen in God’s address to Ezekiel 2:1, emphasising mortality and creatureliness. However, its apocalyptic inflection in Daniel 7:13-14- where “one like a son of man” receives eternal dominion, imbues it with theophanic significance. In Catholic and Orthodox hermeneutics, this duality is not dichotomous but synergistic, reflecting the Chalcedonian definition of Christ’s two natures (divine and human) united without confusion or separation. Patrisitic theoloigan like St. Cyril of Alexandria interpret “Son of Man” as kenotic self-designation, whereby the Logos veils His divine glory in human flesh, yet retains thearchich perogatives (like authority to forgive sins). The terms flexibility allowed Jesus to reveal His identity progressively, inviting faith while subverting messianic expectations of political triumphalism prevalent in first-century Judaism.
The Sciptural underpinning of "Son of Man@ is rooted in Daniel 7:13-14 where a human-like figure approaches the Ancient of Days, receiving “dominion, glory and kingdom” that is everlasting. Jesus appropriates this title to assert His messianic identity.
Mark 2:10 we see
“The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”
SHowing revealing divine perogative, as only God forgives sins (Psalms 130:4)
Mark 8:31
“The Son of Man must suffer many things… and be killed, and after three days rise again”
linking the title to the suffering servant of Isaiah 53:3-12 fulfilled in Christ’s passion.
Mark 14:62:
“You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” directly showing Daniel 7 to affirm His eschatological return and divine authority.
John 5:27
“He has given Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man”
grounding His judicial role in His incarnate nature.
In apostolic exegesis, these texts underscore Christ;s hypostatic union, his divine and human nature in one person. The “Son of Man” title integrates His kenotic condescension (Philippians 2:7-8) with His eschatological exaltation (Acts 1:11). The Church Father, such as St. Athanasius saw this as affirming the theandric nature of Christ’s actions, where His human suffering and divine power cohere in the economy of salvation.
Lets talk abt Hypostatic Union and Communicatio Idiomatum
THe “Son of Man” title reveals CHrist’s hypostatic union, where divine and human natures are united in the single hypostasis of the Logos (Chalcedonian Definition 451AD). Unlike Oneness-pentecostal, which posits Jesus as the singular God without distinct persons, catholic/orthodox theology affirms the Logos as the Second Person of the Trinity, who assumes humanity without compromising divine immutability. St.Cyril of Alexandria articules this as the unio personalis, where the Son fo Man is the theos anthropos (God-man) whose human nature is the instrument of divine action (took me one day to learn about this segment before, believe me, its worth it)
The communicatio idioatum allows attributes of one nature to be predicated of the other in the person of Christ. Thus the Son of Man forgives sins (divine act, Mark 2:10) and suffers (human act, Mark 8:31), manifesting the indivisible unity of His natures. This counters Nestorianism.
Soteriological Mediation and Theandric atonement is another part I want to talk about.
THe Son of Man’s humanity is soteriologically constitutive, enablign Him to serve as the mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5). His kenotic incarnation (Philippians 2:7) allows Him to offer Himself as the hilasterion (propitiatory sacrifice, Romans 3:25) satisfying divine justice and reconciling humanity to Go (2 Corinthians 5:19). St Anselm’s satisfaction theory and St.Greogory Palamas’ emphasis on theosis converge here: Christ’s human obidence as the Son of Man merits salvation for humanity, while his divine anture divinizes believers through sacremental participation.
In Apostolic Theology, the sacrement particularly Baptism and Eucharist are theandric extensions of the Son of Man’s work. Baptism unites believers with Christ’s death and resurrection (Romans 6:3-4), while the Eucharist actualizes His sacrifical presence (1 Corinthians 11:24-25). Unlike Oneness emphasis on baptism in Jesus’s name as a salvific necessity, Catholic/Orthodox theology views these as grace-conferring mysteries, not meritorious works, aligning with synergistic grace (meaning God’s initiative-human response).
Then coming to Eschatological Teleology, we need to talk about recapitulation and parousia. The Son of Man’s eschatological role, rooted in Daniel 7 positions Him as the eschaton’s arbiter, exercisign krisis (judgement, John 5:27) and inaugraiting the parousia (second coming, Matthew 24:30). St Irenaeus’s concept of recapitulation is pivotal, as the Son of Man, Christ sums up all humanity restoring creation’s telos by uniting it to God (Ephesians 1:10). His human nature ensures a just judgement for He has experienced human frailty as in Hebrews 4:15.
In Catholic/Orthodox eschatolog, the Son of Man’s return consummates the apokatastasis panton (meaning restoration of all things, as in acts 3:21) transforming creation into the new heavens and earth (Revelation 21:1).
THen at last we gonna talk about Theanthropic recapitulation and perichoresis (my favourite topic, especially every Christian needs to know about perichoresis)
The Son of Man embodies theanthropic recapitulation, where Christ, as the Second Adam ( 2 Corinthians 15:45-47) restores humanity’s vocation through His obedience and victory over sin. This integrates St.Irenaeus’ recapitulo with St.Maximus the Confessor’s perichoresis (now perichoresis means mutual indwelling) of Christ’s natures, where human and divine operations interpenetration without confusion (goosebumps coming, this is the beautiful meaning of Periochoresis, Lets cry together, Lets Praise God togother, along with the Angels and Archangels, we praise God, we raise up a hymm of praise to him who creates and gives breath of life, He who crushed the head of the serpent, we praise him, so immense is your glory O God, its a marvel, we are unable to grasp it, O Adonai, hearken to our prayers.)
The Son of Man’s life i.e. born, sufering, dying, rising recpaitulates human existence divinizing it thorugh His divine energeia ( I talked more about this on Oneness vs Trinity debate, divine energeia is a whole another topic, energeia means activity)
Apostolically, this grounds the sacramental economy, i.e. baptism and Eucharist are perichoretic encounters with the Son of Man, enabling believers to participate in His divine life (2 Peter 1:4). This is the point i was waiting to make, isnt it amazing my brothers, O MAN, im going to faint, its too much for me to grasp.
@SincereSeeker, im waiting to learn more from you.

14

Christian understanding of the title “Son of Man” – responding to Samuel_23’s deep dive

Brother Samuel_23… you didn’t bring a post—you brought a full-blown theological revival with footnotes on fire. I see that perichoresis got you praising like a monk on Pentecost and typing like a Nicene council stenographer after espresso. Respect. But since you tagged me, let’s sharpen the sword and carry this holy freight together.

The Son of Man: More Than a Title, It’s a Theological Tectonic Plate

You’re absolutely right—the term “Son of Man” isn’t just semantically rich, it’s scripturally seismic. This isn’t theological window dressing. This is Christ pulling back the curtain on both who He is and how He saves.

Daniel 7 Wasn’t a Foreshadow—It Was a Flashlight

Daniel 7:13-14 is ground zero for “Son of Man.” Jesus didn’t borrow that phrase because it sounded humble—He wielded it like a key to heaven’s courtroom. When He stood before the Sanhedrin in Mark 14:62 and said, “You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven,” He wasn’t just claiming a title—He was announcing the verdict. And the court tore their robes because they knew the charge: blasphemy… unless it was true.

Hypostatic Union: Not a Theory—It’s the Engine of the Gospel

Yes, Chalcedon wasn’t just a creed conference—it was a theological firewall. One Person, two natures, without confusion, change, division, or separation. That’s the bedrock that crushes Nestorianism and Oneness Pentecostal modalism with one swing. Jesus isn’t a split personality or a divine mask. He is the Theanthropos, God and man united in one hypostasis.

And this isn’t academic trivia—this is salvific necessity. Only a man could die for men, and only God could conquer death. No hypostatic union? No salvation. No divine blood? No remission (Hebrews 9:22). If Christ is not fully God and fully man, we are fully lost.

Communicatio Idiomatum: Holy Grammar, Eternal Impact

You nailed it. Jesus suffers as man and forgives as God—and He does it all as one undivided Person. He sleeps in the boat (Mark 4:38), then rebukes the storm like its Creator (Mark 4:39). That’s not contradiction—that’s incarnation.

Soteriology, Sacraments, and the Son of Man’s Sacred Spine

Romans 3:25 calls Him the hilasterion—our mercy seat. And Hebrews 4:15 reminds us He sympathizes with our weakness, because He bore it. His suffering wasn’t just symbolic—it was substitutional. His resurrection wasn’t a metaphor—it was a military victory.

And yes, the sacraments? They’re not rituals. They’re realities. Baptism isn’t your spiritual bath time—it’s your burial and resurrection (Romans 6:4). The Eucharist isn’t a memorial snack—it’s a communion with the crucified and risen Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16). Through the Son of Man, divine energeia doesn’t stay in heaven—it invades bread and water and raises the dead.

Eschatology: The Son of Man Returns Not in Theory, But in Thunder

Jesus will come again, not as a suffering servant but as the Judge of the living and the dead (Acts 17:31). You’re spot-on: Daniel 7, Matthew 24, and Revelation 1 converge to show the Son of Man isn’t done yet—He’s just getting started. And that “recapitulation” you dropped from Irenaeus? Chef’s kiss. The second Adam finishes what the first one failed.

Perichoresis: Yes, Let’s Cry and Shout Amen

I feel that goosebump theology. When you grasp that the divine and human are so perfectly indwelling in Christ, and by grace we’re invited into that dance (2 Peter 1:4)? Oh brother—it’s not just doctrine. It’s doxology. That’s shoutin’ truth right there. As St. Maximus taught, Christ doesn’t just reveal God—He invites us to partake in Him.

So yes, @Samuel_23, I hear you. Loud and blessed. The Son of Man isn’t just a phrase—it’s the hinge of history, the blueprint of redemption, the thunder in the clouds, and the glory of the Gospel.

Keep dropping fire, brother. Theology this rich shouldn’t be left in seminary halls—it belongs in the pulpit, the pew, and every redeemed tongue.

Next: The difference between kenosis and compromise—why Christ emptied Himself without ceasing to be God.

—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.

1 Like
15

Genesis 3:15 may offer a clue.

New International Version

15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush[b] your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

A son in ancient tradition was below his father and was considered property as were all women and children.

Christ would never have called Himself the Son of God because He did not come to exalt Himself. He came in obedience to the Father, always doing the Father’s Will.

All cult leaders, and those in the pursuit of power and glory, exalt themselves above others, their followers. Even above God.

Instead, Christ lowers Himself below us as a servant. He washes our feet. He serves us as our High Priest before God in the Holiest of Holies.

As the Bible says, the First will be last and the Last will be first. God shows us this by flipping the inheritance rule 3 times in Genesis. Unheard of, but persistant. The older shall serve the younger. We do this by being our brother’s keeper, serving as a guardian, keeping him safe. A true leader does not serve himself. He serves all.

A true leader leads because they have the capacity, not because they want to be the leader. A cult leader, who aspires to be the greatest of all, cannot lower himself because that would make him appear weak. His hunger for Dominance makes him unfit to lead. At least by God’s standards. A person never chases after what they already have. And a man who is actually better than others, above or higher than others, never needs to prove it in order for it to be true. You either walk it, or don’t.

Christ is a King without an earthly throne. He walked this earth with authority that no one, no nation, gave him. It came directly from the Father and required no human for it to be real or true.

There is nothing new under the sun. But everything is made new in the Son.

16

@SincereSeeker, I would like to discuss about the topic of Kenosis and compromise, an extension to the topic of why is Jesus called the “Son of Man”.
@KPuff, we were discussing kenosis and katabasis on oneness vs Trinity as well, here i have added more in context to “why is Jesus called the Son of Man”
Lets dive into it
Kenosis derives from the Greek verb kenoō, meaning to empty or to make void and is most prominently associated with Philippians 2:7 where Christ is described as having “emptied himself”. Theologically, kenosis refers to the self-emptying of the second Person of the Trinity in the Incarnation, whereby the divine Logos voluntarily assumed human nature, including its limitations, without diminishing His divine essence (ousia means essence, i will introduce such terms for better understanding). This act is central to the hypostatic union, the Chalcedonian doctrine that Christ is one Person (hypostasis) with two natures, i.e., fully human and fully divine, united without confusion, change, division, or separation.
Compromise, in contrast, implies a diminishment of essential attributes, often with a negative connotation of loss or dilution. In theological discussion, compromise could suggest an abandonment of divine perogatives, which would conflict with the immutable and impassible nature of God as articulated by classical theism. Unlike kenosis, which denotes voluntary self-limitation within the economy of salvation (oikonomia, i discussed abt it in-depth in the oneness vs Trinity debate, ig 4 pages were on this) compromise could imply an ontological deficiency or alteration in the divine nature.
The distinction hinges on the nature of Christ’s self-emptying, meaning kenosis is an act of divine freedom and love, preserving the intergrity of His divine ousia, while the compromise would entail a surrender of divine attributes which in turn undermines the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father (this concept in theology is called homoousious, very important part in Oneness vs Trinity debate)
The primary scripture we refer to for kenosis is Philippians 2:5-11, the Carmen Christi, which states:
“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though He was in the form of God (en morphē Theou), did not count equality with God (to einai isa Theō) a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself (heauton ekenōsen), taking the form of a servant (morphēn doulou), being born in the likeness of men”
The greek morphē denotes the outward expression of an inner essence, implying that Christ’s preexistent divine nature i.e. en morphē Theou is not abandoned but expressed differently in the incarnation (morphēn doulou). The phrase heauton ekenōsen doesn’t indicate a subtraction of divinity but a voluntary assumption of human limitations, a self-restriction of divine glory (doxa) in the oikonomia of redemption.
Supporting this is John 1:14 (“The Word became flesh and dwelt among us”) which shows the Logos assumption of human nature without ceasing to be divine and Hebrews 2:17 (“He had to be made like His brothers in every respect”, another very important verse, long before, I had a discussion on how Jesus had to assume complete human nature, to ensure the salvation is fulfilled in every aspect, for if the opposite, then it doesnt redeem humanity fully, but because Jesus took on human nature, his sacrifice redeems humanity.) enogasizing the full humanity he embraced in the Incarnation. These passages collectively affrim that Christ’s kenosis is an addition of human anture (anhypostasis and enhypostasis of the human nature in the divine hypostasis, another important part i brought in Oneness vs Trinity debate, rarely people talk abt it but its imp and crucial to our faith) rather than a subtraction of divine attributes. In contrast, compromise finds no direct scriptural support. The notion of God compromising His nature would contradict texts like Malachi 3:6 (“I the Lord do not change”) and John 10:30 (“I and the Father are one”), which affirm immutability and unity of the divine essence.
Now if we look at the Greek Kenoō, Used in Philippians 2:7, this verb suggests an act of self-emptying or self-humbling. In Hellenistic Greek, it can mean to render something void but in Christological context, it denotes voluntary self-limitation and not an ontological diminishment. The reflexive pronoun heauton emphasises the volitional nature of Christ’s act, showing divine agency.
If we look at Morphē, found in Philippians 2:6-7, morphē refers to the visible form or expression of an underlying reality. Christ’s morphē Theou (form of God) indicates His full deity, while morphē dolou (form of a servant) signifies His full humanity, both united in one hypostasis without confusion.
Going to next word, homoousious, a term from the Nicene Creed meaning “of the same substance,” it affirms that the Son shares the same divine essence as the Father. Kenosis doesn’t negate this consubstantiality, whereas compromise would imply heterodox alteration of divine ousia.
Theologically, kenosis is a paradox within the communicatio idiomatum (communication of properties) in the hypostatic union. The Council of Chalcedon defined Christ as possessing two natures (physeis)- divine and human in one Person, with each nature retaining its properties (idiomata). Kenosis doesn’t lead to divestment of divine attributes (this is historically a legendary debate that took, its called divestiture theory, rejected as heterodox, i invite all Christians to learn abt this deep debate on divestiture theory) but a voluntary non-use of divine perrogatives (krypsis or tapeinosis) in the state of humiliation called as status exinanitionis
Immutability and impassibility, the classical theism holds that God’s essence is unchanging (immutabilitas) and incapable of suffering (impassibilitas). Kenosis doesnt violate these, as the divine nature remains intact, only human nature experiences limitations and suffering. Compromise, however, would refer to a mutable or passible deity. contradicting divine simplicity (simplicitas Dei, another topic on Oneness vs Trinity)
The union of divine and human natures in Christ’s single person ensures that Kenosis is an act of the divine Logos assuming human nature (enhypostasia). not a relinquishment of divinity. The anhypostatic nature of CHrist’s humanity (lacking independent personhood) depends on the divine hypostasis, preserving divine integrity.
Kenosis operates within the oikonomia of salvation, distinct from theologia (immanent Trinity). The Son’s self-emptying is a temporal act of divine condescension (synkatabasis, we can talk abt katabasis too) for redemption, not an eternal change in the Godhead’s ousia.
Christ’s action in the Incarnation are theandric (divine-human), reflecting the unity of His Person. For eg- His miracles manifest divine power (dynamis), while his suffering reflects human limitation, yet both are acts of the one hypostasis. Compromise would imply a blending or loss of these distinct energeiai (there is a ligit books and books on this)
A sensitive topic I’m studying about is
The first sorrowful mystery is the Agony in the Garden
The second sorrowful mystery is the scourging at the pillar
The third sorrowful mystery is the crowning with Thorns
The fourth sorrowful mystery is the carrying og the Cross.
The fifth sorrowful mystery is the Crucifixion
It is interesting to learn abt it, you feel goosebumps, you feel sad, seeing the Lord suffer like an innocent passover lamb for the salvation of humanity, for once and for all he sacrificed himself by his will, today I am free of sins..it by beause of the Sacrifice of My Lord..Discover more about the five sorrowful mysteries, you will have a transformaiton, i feel like crying, i feel as if im worthless, for i am like Barabbas, i was freed from the shackels of sins by my Lord.
IM TELLING EVERYONE, THOSE WHO WANT TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE FIVE SORROWFUL MYSTERIES, AND THE PASSION OF CHRIST IN DEPTH, THE BEST WAY TO LEARN IS FROM THE VISIONS OF ANNE CATHERINE EMMERICH, U CAN SEARCH FOR THE COMPLETE VISIONS OF ANNE CATHERINE EMMERICH, WHEN I READ IT, MY HEART CHANGED, I DISCOVERED MORE, PRIASE BE TO GOD, I FEEL HEAVY, O LORD, LOOSEN THE BURDEN I HAVE ON ME, O LORD, MAY I FIND REST IN GREEN PASTURES, LEAD ME TO QUITE POOLS OF FRESH WATER, GUIDE ME BY YOUR FINGER, AS IF I AM A CHILD OF YOURS, LEARNING TO WALK
PRAISE BE TO GOD
PEACE
I RECOMMENED EVERYONE TO READ THE COMPLETE VISONS OF ANNE CATHERINE EMMERICH, RECORDED IN THE JOURNALS OF CLEMENS BRENTANO AND WILLIAM WESENER, I HAD A CHANGE OF HEART AFTER READING IT.

17

That was his way of saying he’s the son of God. If one has to say that they’re the the son of man that’s saying a lot don’t you think?

18

You mean this @Samuel_23?

Johann.

1 Like
19

Peace to all,

Jesus is Son in two natures, God and Temple, to me.

Logiocally, Mary is Mother of God from the Holy Spirit and Mother of Son of Man from the Immancualte Conception through The Virgin Birth of Jesus, Son of Man in Jesis conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit Family One God in being becoming The Christ immortality from the flesh of The New Eve and Holy Spirit Incorruptibility from the Holy Spirit Family of God in the New Adam becoming The Christ through both natures, God and Temple, Spirit and Life. in One Body of The Christ in all mankind becoming again, One Holy Spirit Family One God in being, Logically.

As brothers and sisters of Christ we all become from the blood and water from the cross, "Ecce Mater Tua, “Behold your Mother, Disciples”, He called us by name before we were even born, we were there also.

Peace always,
Stephen

20

Brother Samuel_23—first off, bless you for bringing the theological heat like a seminary professor on revival night. Your passion is real, your depth is rich—but man of God, ease up on the all caps before someone thinks you’re preaching in thunderbolts. We’re not at Mount Sinai—yet.

Now—yes, yes, yes to diving deeper into kenosis as it relates to the “Son of Man” title. You just sketched out the anatomy of Incarnation with surgical precision. But here’s the cliffhanger I’m tossing on the table for all to chew on:

Does kenosis mean Christ withheld divine power—or simply veiled it for redemptive purposes? And how do we guard against calling that self-emptying a “compromise” without slipping into the divestiture ditch?

Let’s unpack that next.

Stay grounded. Stay sharp. Stay in the Word.

—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.

1 Like
21

The title “Son of Man” is one of the most profound and multifaceted names Jesus used for Himself, and it reveals both His humility and His heavenly authority. On one level, it emphasizes His full identification with humanity—Jesus was not distant or detached from the human condition, but entered into it fully, sharing in our weakness, temptation, and suffering (Hebrews 4:15). By calling Himself the “Son of Man,” He highlighted His solidarity with us, fulfilling prophecies like Isaiah 53, which spoke of the suffering servant. Yet this title is not merely about human connection—it also draws directly from Daniel 7:13–14, where “one like the Son of Man” comes with the clouds of heaven and is given dominion, glory, and a kingdom by the Ancient of Days. Jesus was claiming more than humanity; He was identifying Himself as the divine figure prophesied to reign eternally. This title allowed Him to reveal His identity gradually, unfolding both His suffering and His exaltation. In using “Son of Man,” Jesus masterfully bridged His role as the perfect human representative and the sovereign Lord of all—both approachable and exalted, servant and King.