Another contribution to the endless controversy

[Donald_Kirchner]

The kenosis that I was taught was that Jesus did not at all times fully use His divine attributes and abilities, but they were always there and that He did use them at times and in ways that was appropriate to His mission. Jesus did miracles and claimed divine authority to forgive sins. How did He do that if His divine attributes were entirely gone?

He did it the same way that the prophets and disciples did miracles and even we are able to forgive sins: by the power of the Father. One does not have to be God in order to perform miracles or to offer divine forgiveness.

When Paul spoke in Philippians 2:7 of Jesus emptying Himself, must that mean an absolute, complete emptying Himself so that no divinity remained? Kenoo can mean a depletion as in a sparse diet as compared to a plentiful diet, or the waning of the moon. So Jesus rather than appearing in full divinity, took the humble road of that of servant.

Yes, κενόω can mean such emptying as a depletion or emptying of something. It could only refer to the "form" - Jesus did not have the "form" of God, but that of a human. However, I think it goes beyond that. The μορφὴ δούλου is in contrast to μορφὴ θεοῦ. While μορφή (and related terms) generally refer to outward appearance, they can also refer to an inner nature, e.g., "My little children, for whom I am again in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you." (Gal 4:19) Here, the word is more about the "nature" of people than what they look like. As such, we could translate the phrases as "the nature of God" in contrast to "the nature of a slave."


I would interpret the contrast as becoming one who is under the authority of another (the nature of a slave) vs. the one who is the authority (the nature of God). Jesus lived his life under the authority of his Father. He could ask that the cup be taken away from him, but he will do the will of his Father rather than follow his own will. In essence, he modeled what it means "to die to self," putting his desires under the authority of the Father. We could also look at refusing to turn stones into bread when he was hungry because it was not God's will for him at that time.

Traditional Orthodox Christology considers the communication of attributes whereby Jesus as God and man can as the one person with two natures utilize aspects and attributes of both natures as useful for the occasion.

I would argue that what is useful for the incarnation or the becoming human aspect of Jesus' life on earth meant not making use of the divine nature. If he did, he would not have lived as truly a human, but would been something other; i.e., the superman model.   

Brian, you appear to have a tendency towards literalism, whereby you fixate on certain passages and words, insisting that a particular meaning of the words must be applied literally in all cases. That in itself is a form of fundamentalism. So if Paul in Philippians 2:7 said that Jesus emptied Himself, it must mean a complete emptying Himself of all divine attributes throughout His entire earthly life, and all the stories of Jesus told in the Gospels must be interpreted according to that understanding of what Paul wrote. I, and many others, find that to be too simplistic and literalistic an understanding of Paul's point. In emptying Himself Jesus lowered Himself, set aside the honor and dignity that was due Him as God to take human form and the station of a servant and did not always fully use His divine abilities. That also meant that He usually subjected Himself to normal human limitations, but not that He always and only operated simply as a normal human.

I have never said it was a complete emptying of himself. I've said that it's not making use of what Jesus had. It's like the disciples going on their journey having emptied themselves of food, bags, money, extra clothing on their missionary journey. It didn't mean that they didn't have those things; but they were not to make use of them as they were sent out to bring the gospel to others.


I believe that if we are to see Jesus as truly human, he must always and only operated simply as a normal human being during his time on earth. I believe that this is affirmed by the fact that the disciples (who were not divine,) were able to do everything that the human Jesus did: healed the sick, cast out demons, raised the dead, announce forgiveness. It wasn't Jesus' divine nature that was behind such miracles; but the human Jesus' complete trust (as a slave) of God his Father; a trust that we can aspire to attain. Should we reach that level, actually even the level of a mustard seed, we could move mountains and trees by faith. We aren't Jesus. Not because we are not divine, like he was; but because we continually fail at trusting the Father as he did.

More Brianism. Yup, when with Jesus and catching the great number of fish, Peter responded, Oh, look! Jesus must be a prophet! I could do that if I wanted."    Luke 5:8, Isaiah 6:5.

Dan correctly articulates the Lutheran position: Christ in His state of humiliation did not always and fully use the divine properties communicated to His human nature by virtue of the personal union.

BTW, the ELCA confesses the Formula of Concord, Article VIII, which expands upon this statement And rejects and condemns Brianism.

[George Rahn]

The faith of the four men who let the paralytic down before Jesus represents the faith of the Church which is the Body of  Christ.  Jesus saw their faith.  But the paralytic's sins were forgiven by Jesus without any sign of repentance from him.

boldface added


I always wonder what it was that Jesus saw. What is faith that can be seen? Or do we just assume Jesus had supernatural knowledge and could see into their hearts?


While you may have seen the chart in my "notes," I've attached a chart with the miracles in Mark and faith. Most of the time faith is not mentioned with any of the miracles.

Do you assume that Jesus did not have supernatural knowledge and so could not see into their hearts? If so, have you considered the implications that has for your Christology?


Most of us (or at least most of the pastors that I am around, ymmv) do assume that Jesus had supernatural knowledge of what people thought and intended.

In other words, you don't believe that Jesus really emptied (κενόω) himself of his divinity. He exploited (ἁρπαγμός) his equality with God with supernatural knowledge and abilities. His life on earth was more like that of a strange visitor from another place with powers and abilities far beyond that of mortal humans. You can turn Jesus into some kind of superman, but I'm pretty sure that's poor Christology. We confess ἐνανθρωπέω in the Nicene Creed. "He became a human being." He did not just appear to be human with powers and abilities far beyond those of the rest of us. God became one of us. He became human with all its limitations, e.g., a beginning with a birth. An ending with a death. Growing in size and knowledge. If he was born with all the knowledge included in the divine nature, that was put aside (or emptied from his life) during his earthly sojourn.

It may be important to state that though God was incarnate, and like one of us, God was incarnate in Jesus though like unto us but also entirely different from us as the unique and only-begotten Son of God.  The kenosis or emptying of himself was to be in the form of a servant.  Though his divine power not exercised apparently (like humans would like to view his divine power to be) Jesus' servanthood is wrapped up in his divine nature.  And conversely and contra-distinctively his divine nature is wrapped up fully in his servanthood.  This may help preserve the orthodox position that Jesus is 100% God and 100% human all at the same time.

[Brian Stoffregen]

The kenosis that I was taught was that Jesus did not at all times fully use His divine attributes and abilities, but they were always there and that He did use them at times and in ways that was appropriate to His mission. Jesus did miracles and claimed divine authority to forgive sins. How did He do that if His divine attributes were entirely gone?

He did it the same way that the prophets and disciples did miracles and even we are able to forgive sins: by the power of the Father. One does not have to be God in order to perform miracles or to offer divine forgiveness.

When Paul spoke in Philippians 2:7 of Jesus emptying Himself, must that mean an absolute, complete emptying Himself so that no divinity remained? Kenoo can mean a depletion as in a sparse diet as compared to a plentiful diet, or the waning of the moon. So Jesus rather than appearing in full divinity, took the humble road of that of servant.

Yes, κενόω can mean such emptying as a depletion or emptying of something. It could only refer to the "form" - Jesus did not have the "form" of God, but that of a human. However, I think it goes beyond that. The μορφὴ δούλου is in contrast to μορφὴ θεοῦ. While μορφή (and related terms) generally refer to outward appearance, they can also refer to an inner nature, e.g., "My little children, for whom I am again in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you." (Gal 4:19) Here, the word is more about the "nature" of people than what they look like. As such, we could translate the phrases as "the nature of God" in contrast to "the nature of a slave."


I would interpret the contrast as becoming one who is under the authority of another (the nature of a slave) vs. the one who is the authority (the nature of God). Jesus lived his life under the authority of his Father. He could ask that the cup be taken away from him, but he will do the will of his Father rather than follow his own will. In essence, he modeled what it means "to die to self," putting his desires under the authority of the Father. We could also look at refusing to turn stones into bread when he was hungry because it was not God's will for him at that time.

Traditional Orthodox Christology considers the communication of attributes whereby Jesus as God and man can as the one person with two natures utilize aspects and attributes of both natures as useful for the occasion.

I would argue that what is useful for the incarnation or the becoming human aspect of Jesus' life on earth meant not making use of the divine nature. If he did, he would not have lived as truly a human, but would been something other; i.e., the superman model.   

Brian, you appear to have a tendency towards literalism, whereby you fixate on certain passages and words, insisting that a particular meaning of the words must be applied literally in all cases. That in itself is a form of fundamentalism. So if Paul in Philippians 2:7 said that Jesus emptied Himself, it must mean a complete emptying Himself of all divine attributes throughout His entire earthly life, and all the stories of Jesus told in the Gospels must be interpreted according to that understanding of what Paul wrote. I, and many others, find that to be too simplistic and literalistic an understanding of Paul's point. In emptying Himself Jesus lowered Himself, set aside the honor and dignity that was due Him as God to take human form and the station of a servant and did not always fully use His divine abilities. That also meant that He usually subjected Himself to normal human limitations, but not that He always and only operated simply as a normal human.

I have never said it was a complete emptying of himself. I've said that it's not making use of what Jesus had. It's like the disciples going on their journey having emptied themselves of food, bags, money, extra clothing on their missionary journey. It didn't mean that they didn't have those things; but they were not to make use of them as they were sent out to bring the gospel to others.


I believe that if we are to see Jesus as truly human, he must always and only operated simply as a normal human being during his time on earth. I believe that this is affirmed by the fact that the disciples (who were not divine,) were able to do everything that the human Jesus did: healed the sick, cast out demons, raised the dead, announce forgiveness. It wasn't Jesus' divine nature that was behind such miracles; but the human Jesus' complete trust (as a slave) of God his Father; a trust that we can aspire to attain. Should we reach that level, actually even the level of a mustard seed, we could move mountains and trees by faith. We aren't Jesus. Not because we are not divine, like he was; but because we continually fail at trusting the Father as he did.

More Brianism. Yup, when with Jesus and catching the great number of fish, Peter responded, Oh, look! Jesus must be a prophet! I could do that if I wanted."    Luke 5:8, Isaiah 6:5.

Peter recognized how sinful he was. He didn't have the trust in God that he should have had. Remember also that Peter was able to walk on water like Jesus did; until he wavered in his faith.

Dan correctly articulates the Lutheran position: Christ in His state of humiliation did not always and fully use the divine properties communicated to His human nature by virtue of the personal union.

BTW, the ELCA confesses the Formula of Concord, Article VIII, which expands upon this statement And rejects and condemns Brianism.

I've read and reread that article. I completely agree with it. I don't believe I'm saying anything different than this quote:

11. According to the personal union he always possessed this majesty, and yet dispensed with it in the state of his humiliation. For this reason he grew in stature, wisdom, and grace before God and other people [Luke 2:52*]. Therefore, he did not reveal his majesty at all times but only when it pleased him, until he completely laid aside the form of a servant [Phil. 2:7*] (but not his human nature) after his resurrection. Then he was again invested with the full use, revelation, and demonstration of his divine majesty and entered into his glory, in such a way that he knows everything, is able to do everything, is present for all his creatures, and has under his feet and in his hands all that is in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, not only as God but also as human creature, as he himself testifies, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" [Matt. 28:18*], and St. Paul writes: He ascended "above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things" [Eph. 4:10*]. As present everywhere he can exercise this power of his, he can do everything, and he knows all things.


While he could reveal his majesty at times, and did on the Mount of Transfiguration, I don't see the miracles as revealing his divine majesty; but as revelations of his complete trust in his Father's power to work through him. I believe that it did not serve Jesus' purpose to be truly human, nor would it please him, for him to use supernatural knowledge. To do so would mean that he would be something other than truly human.


As I've said before, if one has to be divine in order to work miracles, how did the prophets and disciples perform their miracles without having a divine nature? In addition, why did Jesus tell us that would could do great (but pretty useless miracles) if we only had faith the size of a mustard seed? If it requires a divine nature, like Jesus had, in order to forgive sins; why do we bother to proclaim absolutions?


In one of our absolutions, we state:


As a called and ordained minister of the church of Christ, and by his authority,
I therefore declare to you the entire forgiveness of all your sins,
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. (ELW p. 96)


In our "Individual Confession and Forgiveness" rite, we can say:


Cling to this promise: the word of forgiveness I speak to you comes from God.

Name, in obedience to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ,
I forgive you all your sins
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. (ELW p. 244)

[Donald_Kirchner]

While he could reveal his majesty at times, and did on the Mount of Transfiguration, I don't see the miracles as revealing his divine majesty; but as revelations of his complete trust in his Father's power to work through him. I believe that it did not serve Jesus' purpose to be truly human, nor would it please him, for him to use supernatural knowledge. To do so would mean that he would be something other than truly human. [emphasis added]

Congratulations, Brian. Not only are you denying the hypostatic union. At least twice you've denied Christ's divinity, that He is true God.

"We, therefore, hold and teach, in conformity with the ancient orthodox Church, as it has explained this doctrine from the Scriptures, that the human nature in Christ has received this majesty according to the manner of the personal union, namely, because the entire fulness of the divinity dwells in Christ, not as in other holy men or angels, but bodily, as in its own body, so that it shines forth with all its majesty, power, glory, and efficacy in the assumed human nature, voluntarily when and as He [Christ] wills, and in, with, and through the same manifests, exercises, and executes His divine power, glory, and efficacy, as the soul does in the body and fire in glowing iron (for by means of these illustrations, as was also mentioned above, the entire ancient Church has explained this doctrine)." [FC, SD, 64]

Mark 2:1-12 was quoted above and embraced by Brian. In TLSB, a footnote to verse 8 states:

Jesus' knowledge of his opponents' inner thoughts reveals His supernatural perception and shows His divinity. Ironically, that is the very thing being called into question (v. 7.)

A footnote to verses 11-12 includes:

Jesus' miracles were live illustrations that He was the Messiah.

Not only is Brianism not Lutheran. You've shown us that it's not even Christian.

This is a waste of time. I'm done.

[Brian Stoffregen]

While he could reveal his majesty at times, and did on the Mount of Transfiguration, I don't see the miracles as revealing his divine majesty; but as revelations of his complete trust in his Father's power to work through him. I believe that it did not serve Jesus' purpose to be truly human, nor would it please him, for him to use supernatural knowledge. To do so would mean that he would be something other than truly human. [emphasis added]

Congratulations, Brian. Not only are you denying the hypostatic union. At least twice you've denied Christ's divinity, that He is true God.

"We, therefore, hold and teach, in conformity with the ancient orthodox Church, as it has explained this doctrine from the Scriptures, that the human nature in Christ has received this majesty according to the manner of the personal union, namely, because the entire fulness of the divinity dwells in Christ, not as in other holy men or angels, but bodily, as in its own body, so that it shines forth with all its majesty, power, glory, and efficacy in the assumed human nature, voluntarily when and as He [Christ] wills, and in, with, and through the same manifests, exercises, and executes His divine power, glory, and efficacy, as the soul does in the body and fire in glowing iron (for by means of these illustrations, as was also mentioned above, the entire ancient Church has explained this doctrine)." [FC, SD, 64]

Mark 2:1-12 was quoted above and embraced by Brian. In TLSB, a footnote to verse 8 states:

Jesus' knowledge of his opponents' inner thoughts reveals His supernatural perception and shows His divinity. Ironically, that is the very thing being called into question (v. 7.)

A footnote to verses 11-12 includes:

Jesus' miracles were live illustrations that He was the Messiah.

Not only is Brianism not Lutheran. You've shown us that it's not even Christian.

This is a waste of time. I'm done.

I have never said that Jesus is not divine. I have never said that Jesus is not God. I have been careful to talk about Jesus, the Son, as a different person than the Father. That is orthodoxy.


TLSB is not scriptures. Just because they interpret something one way, doesn't make it the only way; nor necessarily the right way.


Consider the translation of Mark 2:6-8 from CEB:


Some legal experts were sitting there, muttering among themselves, "Why does he speak this way? He's insulting God. Only the one God can forgive sins."


Jesus immediately recognized what they were discussing, and he said to them, "Why do you fill your minds with these questions?"


Nothing supernatural is required in the way they translate the words. Jesus overheard them talking among themselves.


In contrast, the NIV's translation would require supernatural knowledge by Jesus. (See also ESV's translation.)


Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"


Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things?"


Both are ways the words can be understood and translated.


Greek:ἦσαν δέ τινες τῶν γραμματέων ἐκεῖ καθήμενοι καὶ διαλογιζόμενοι ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν,
Τί οὗτος οὕτως λαλεῖ; βλασφημεῖ: τίς δύναται ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός;
καὶ εὐθὺς ἐπιγνοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς τῷ πνεύματι αὐτοῦ
ὅτι οὕτως διαλογίζονται ἐν ἑαυτοῖς
λέγει αὐτοῖς, Τί ταῦτα διαλογίζεσθε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν;




Let's suppose that you are correct, when the prophets and disciples performed miracles, were they illustrations that they are also messiahs? (I also note that there is nothing in the Old Testament that would lead people to believe that the Messiah was to be divine. Cyrus is called "messiah" (translated "anointed one"). He was not divine. Priests are called messiah (anointed ones). They are not divine. Illustrating that Jesus is the "Messiah," is not a statement that he is divine.

[Dan Fienen]

Brian, I think I can understand how your interpretation and reasoning works on this topic. I still do not agree with your interpretation, do not agree that it is a more reasonable and natural a way to understand the various relevant texts than is the more traditional understanding that I hold. Perhaps your interpretation does not totally distort your Christology into denying the true divinity as well as the true humanity of the incarnate Jesus. And I definitely do not agree that my understanding of kenosis denies the true humanity of Jesus. In all I find your interpretation forced and literalistic.


If we begin with the premise that the emptying that Paul spoke of in Philippians 2 must mean an absolute and complete emptying with no use of Jesus' divine power allowed, and that any use of Jesus' divine power would negate Him also being truly human, your argument makes a kind of sense. You've made a decent case for your premise being possibly true, but I do not find your case convincing that it is necessary. It seems to me that your interpretation raises more interpretive problems than it solves. In my understanding that leaves you with the unenviable task of interpreting every example of Jesus exhibiting more than standard human power or authority as Jesus the human requesting the Father to do those things, something that is not typically mentioned in the text. Thus I find your interpretation here forced and unconvincing.


You also make a distinction between Jesus emptying Himself of divine power and authority but not also always emptying Himself of divine majesty, specifically the transfiguration. Why His divine majesty is not included in your understanding of the kenosis seems to be an especially forced interpretation and special pleading.


In all, I am not convinced that your understanding of the kenosis renders your Christology heretical, but it does mean that you must tread very carefully lest you in the end leave Jesus as less than truly divine as well as truly human. And I am not convinced that your understanding is necessary to preserve Jesus' humanity. So, I'm not buying it.

[Steven W Bohler]

Except that even the crowds recognized that Jesus Himself possessed divine authority, unlike John the Baptist and the OT prophets.  And, unlike the prophets who had to pray for miracles, Jesus does them on that personal authority.  And He says to the dead girl in today's Gospel lesson: "I say to you, arise!" etc.

[Juan Jeanniton]

Except that even the crowds recognized that Jesus Himself possessed divine authority, unlike John the Baptist and the OT prophets.  And, unlike the prophets who had to pray for miracles, Jesus does them on that personal authority.  And He says to the dead girl in today's Gospel lesson: "I say to you, arise!" etc.

I like your reply. See https://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7860.msg503397#msg503397 for my reply.

[Donald_Kirchner]

Except that even the crowds recognized that Jesus Himself possessed divine authority, unlike John the Baptist and the OT prophets.  And, unlike the prophets who had to pray for miracles, Jesus does them on that personal authority.  And He says to the dead girl in today's Gospel lesson: "I say to you, arise!" etc.

Brian writes: "II have never said that Jesus is not divine. I have never said that Jesus is not God. I have been careful to talk about Jesus, the Son, as a different person than the Father. "

And in talking about Jesus as a different person than the Father, he denies Jesus' divinity through a rejection of the hypostatic union. Example:

"I don't see the miracles as revealing his divine majesty; but as revelations of his complete trust in his Father's power to work through him."

That's the example of the prophets as you articulate, Steve, praying as they have "complete trust in [the] Father's power to work through [them]."

That's a confession of Jesus as a prophet, not God. He can't perform miracles on His own. He needs the Father's power, working through Him.

Then Brian concludes,

" I believe that it did not serve Jesus' purpose to be truly human, nor would it please him, for him to use supernatural knowledge. To do so would mean that he would be something other than truly human."

There, you have it. Jesus WAS something other than truly human. He was true man and true God as Christianity confesses.  Brian denies this by the above statements.

Sorry, Dan. You try to look at both sides and come up with the " kind of see your point." I don't. What Brianism espouses is heresy.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Except that even the crowds recognized that Jesus Himself possessed divine authority, unlike John the Baptist and the OT prophets.  And, unlike the prophets who had to pray for miracles, Jesus does them on that personal authority.  And He says to the dead girl in today's Gospel lesson: "I say to you, arise!" etc.

Brian writes: "II have never said that Jesus is not divine. I have never said that Jesus is not God. I have been careful to talk about Jesus, the Son, as a different person than the Father. "

And in talking about Jesus as a different person than the Father, he denies Jesus' divinity through a rejection of the hypostatic union. Example:

"I don't see the miracles as revealing his divine majesty; but as revelations of his complete trust in his Father's power to work through him."

That's the example of the prophets as you articulate, Steve, praying as they have "complete trust in [the] Father's power to work through [them]."

That's a confession of Jesus as a prophet, not God. He can't perform miracles on His own. He needs the Father's power, working through Him.

Then Brian concludes,

" I believe that it did not serve Jesus' purpose to be truly human, nor would it please him, for him to use supernatural knowledge. To do so would mean that he would be something other than truly human."

There, you have it. Jesus WAS something other than truly human. He was true man and true God as Christianity confesses.  Brian denies this by the above statements.

Sorry, Dan. You try to look at both sides and come up with the " kind of see your point." I don't. What Brianism espouses is heresy.

I simply quote from the Athanasian Creed to show that my use of "Father" as a separate person from the "Son" is orthodoxy.


For the Father is one person,
the Son is another,
and the Spirit is still another.

Thus there is one Father, not three fathers;
one Son, not three sons;
one Holy Spirit, not three spirits.

[Our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son is] equal to the Father in divinity,
subordinate to the Father in humanity.


I don't claim to say anything beyond what we confess the creed. The Son is not the Father. Neither of them are the Spirit. The Son and the Father and the Spirit are God. The Son and the Father and the Spirit are Lord. The Son and the Father and the Spirit are eternal.


In addition, apparently you do not use the English Language Liturgical Consultation [ELLC] translation of the Nicene Creed, where we confess about Jesus:
and became truly human.

It is a translation of καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα.

A commentary on their translation is in Praying Together.

The Consultation faced great difficulty in adequately rendering enanthropesanta (literally "inhumaned," see Denzinger-Schönmetzer, editio XXXVI, no. 150 where a literal version from the original Greek is given as inhumanatus est). In the original sequence of participles this one has a pivotal place in making a link between our Lord's taking flesh and the reality of his suffering and death. It does not represent a further stage in time beyond the incarnation, but spells out clearly the meaning of the incarnation. In some old versions of the Creed (see, for instance, Denzinger-Schönmetzer, editio XXXVI, no 44) enanthropesanta was spelled out even more fully, "that is, taking on a complete human person, soul and body and mind and all things that belong to a human being apart from sin." The Consultation believed that the sense was best captured by "became truly human." It rejected a suggestion that the text should read "and became human," as this, in common speech, implies something quite different, a change from severity to kindness. Some would have preferred to keep "and became man" as showing the particularity of the incarnation in a male person, Jesus. The Consultation rejected this as misrepresenting what the Creed affirms at this point. Neither the Greek anthropos nor the Latin homo carry male overtones as "man" in contemporary English normally does. (pp. 26-27)

[Brian Stoffregen]

Except that even the crowds recognized that Jesus Himself possessed divine authority, unlike John the Baptist and the OT prophets.  And, unlike the prophets who had to pray for miracles, Jesus does them on that personal authority.  And He says to the dead girl in today's Gospel lesson: "I say to you, arise!" etc.

True about Jesus and this miracle. In most cases we are told that the disciples performed signs and wonders without details about what they said or did, e.g., Acts 2:43; 5:12; 6:8; 8:7, 13; 14:3; 28:9-10. However, in a few cases we have their words. Sometimes the name of Jesus is used. Sometimes it is not. I've color coded the verses.

Acts 3:6
Peter said, "I don't have any money, but I will give you what I do have. In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, rise up and walk!"

Acts 9:34
Peter said to him, "Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you! Get up and make your bed."

Acts 9:40
Peter sent everyone out of the room, then knelt and prayed. He turned to the body and said, "Tabitha, get up!"

Acts 14:10
Raising his voice, Paul said, "Stand up straight on your feet!" He jumped up and began to walk.

Acts 16:18
This annoyed Paul so much that he finally turned and said to the spirit, "In the name of Jesus Christ, I command you to leave her!" It left her at that very moment.

Healings without any words.
According to Acts 5:15-16, Peter's shadow brought healing to folks.
According to Acts 19:11-12, cloth that Paul had touched could be taken to the sick and bring healing to them.

These humans had power to heal and do signs and wonders without being divine. The Old Testament has stories of prophets performing miracles without being divine. Mark 13:22 tells us that false christs and false prophets will do signs and wonders. It seems clear to me that performing miracles, at least for first century people, did not prove that people were divine.