[Who Do You Say I Am? by Edward E. Stevens]
Introduction
Who Do You Say “I AM”?
[Jesus] said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matt. 16:15-16 NASV emphasis mine, ees)
Jesus doesn’t ask unimportant questions. So it is easy to understand why the answer to His question here involves doctrines of the highest significance. In Peter’s confession resides the truth about who Jesus really is. The Messiahship and Sonship of Jesus are the rock on which the Church is built, and the foundation on which our salvation rests. Understanding what this Messiahship and Sonship is, and believing it with every fiber of our being, is obviously essential to making a “good confession.” How foolish it is when someone says the nature of Christ is not an essential issue, and that it does not matter what we mean when we say Jesus is “the Son of God.” It DOES matter who Jesus is. It is absolutely essential for us to know what the terms “Christ” and “Son of God” mean, and believe it and confess it. In the Gospel of John we see a similar expression of the essential elements of the “good confession”:
Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31 NASV emphasis mine, ees)
Notice that having “life in His name” is conditioned on believing that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” It doesn’t sound like belief in the Messiahship and Sonship of Jesus is optional. Eternal life cannot be had without it. Just look at all the miracles recorded in the Gospels that Jesus performed to convince humanity that He is “the Christ, the Son of God.” There is obviously something very important about who Jesus is. What if we believe the term “Son of God” only means an angel or created being (like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Unitarians and the followers of Arius)? Others say “Son of God” only means a prophet (like some believe about Joseph Smith, Mohammed or Rev. Sun Myung Moon) or a mere human being who happened to live an extremely righteous life (like a saint). Is there really freedom to understand this term in such radically different ways? Does it really matter what we believe the term “Son of God” means? Or can we just say the magical words that we believe Jesus is the “Son of God” and understand it to mean whatever we want it to mean? Does the term really have a very specific meaning when used in reference to Jesus?
It is easy enough to understand what the term “Messiah” means (anointed king). But what did the term “Son of God” mean? The confession of Jesus as being the Son of God is fundamental to becoming a Christian. It stands at the doorway into the Faith. Who can be so careless in handling this confession as to affirm that it is merely an incantation that we recite without understanding it? Surely the confession means nothing and accomplishes nothing if it is not both understood and sincerely believed. If what we believe about the phrase “Son of God” in reference to Jesus was not essential, then we would have to consider as fellow Christians all those heretical cult groups which deny the Deity of Christ (the Moonies, the JW’s, the New Agers, the Mormons, The Way International, the Children of God, etc.). They believe Jesus is “the son of God,” but what they mean by it is radically different than what true Christians believe. So, if what we believe about Christ’s nature is not an essential issue, then it shouldn’t matter what the cult groups believe about the phrase “Son of God” as long as they agree that Jesus is the “Son of God” in some sense. None of them understand it to mean Jesus is Deity. We cannot accept these folks as fellow Christians. They are not making the same confession about Jesus that we are. They make Him out to be something quite different than what we as Christians confess Him to be. If eternal life is necessarily and vitally connected with who we believe Jesus is, and those folks are wrong about who they believe Him to be, then they do not have eternal life. They are outside the Christian faith. Surely it is necessary to both understand and intend the words of the confession. This is why the Deity of Christ is an essential issue. If the phrase “Son of God” means Deity, then we are obligated to believe that and confess it. To believe otherwise voids the confession. We can’t believe wrongly and confess rightly. The two are inseparably connected. So, if it can be proven that the term “Son of God” is a reference to the Deity of Christ, the Deity would thereby most certainly be proven to be an essential for salvation as well as essential for fellowship.
When we make the good confession, we state our belief that Jesus is the “Son of God.” If we mean that he is only a created being, when in fact He is God, then we rob Him of the glory and honor He is worthy of. That is blasphemy. But if he is not God, and we give Him the same kind of glory that only God is worthy of, then we have worshipped someone other than God, and that is idolatry or polytheism. Both blasphemy and idolatry are essential issues, and both were punishable by death in the OT era. All of this is simply to reinforce in our minds the seriousness of the issue we are dealing with here. The Nature of Christ is not an optional area of our faith. It cuts right to the very heart of our religion and our salvation. It matters to our eternal life what we believe and confess about Christ, and since it does, we need to spend some time finding out just what the phrase “Son of God” means so we can believe it and confess it and live it correctly. So, in this article we will do just that. We will present evidence to not only demonstrate that Jesus is one of the Three Divine Persons of the Triune God, but also show that believing this idea is essential to our justification and fellowship in the Body of Christ. We must know Who Christ is, and confess Him rightly.
In this whole discussion regarding Who Christ is, there are some issues which are more important than others. Some of the most crucial questions we need to address are:
• What does “Son of God” mean? – What it means and why it is a reference to Deity
• Did Christ exist before His human birth? Was that previous existence eternal or did it have a beginning point just prior to the rest of creation? What was the nature of Christ in that pre-existent state? Did He have a personal pre-existence, impersonal or just foreknown? This is to prove Jesus is not just a man (created being) but just as eternal as His Father.
• What do the terms “begotten” and “only begotten” mean? – Jesus always existed, so He was always the Son, and therefore was always the only begotten Son. This makes Jesus “eternally begotten.”
• What does “subordination” of Christ to the Father mean? – Sonship implies subordination to the Father – This is an argument for the Deity of Christ, not against it. And it explains how there can be a Trinity of Persons manifesting the nature and accomplishing the will of the One Divine Being.
• Why did God have to take human form? If it was not necessary for God Himself to take human form and save us directly, then surely He would not have taken human form. We can only be sure that God took human form (incarnation) if it can be established from Scripture that redemption was impossible otherwise.
• What does the virgin birth imply about Jesus’ nature? Does it tell us who his real father was? Does he share the same nature as his real father? Does it explain how he could be sinless? If our atonement and redemption could be accomplished without God taking human form, then what is the purpose behind the virgin birth?
• Other related questions: The impeccability of Christ. Worship of created beings allowed? Would God send someone else to do His work for Him?
Some Definitions and Presuppositions
Before we address these issues, we need to have clearly in mind what we mean when we use certain terms, because the Jehovah’s Witnesses and other anti-trinitarian groups do define some of these terms quite differently. What presuppositions are we starting with, and how do we define the terms that we are using?• There is only One Real and True God (self-existent one). There can only be one eternity, one omniscience, one omnipotence, etc. There cannot be two of those things. And this One True God is the only creator. All other beings were created by Him.
• There are only two kinds of beings, God and His creatures. There is not some third kind of being that is neither God nor created. All beings that exist fit into one of those two classifications, either God or His creation.
• Monotheism is the correct Biblical religion (not henotheism or polytheism). Henotheism believes in multiple gods, but only worships and serves one of them. Polytheism believes in multiple gods and worships more than one of them. Monotheism does not believe in the existence of any other gods except the One they worship. All other beings are simply creations of that one true God. To say there are other gods besides Yahweh that are not created beings is to depart from the monotheistic faith of the Bible. There is no other God like Yahweh, nor are there any lesser gods (demi-gods) besides Yahweh. All other beings which exist are creations of the Only God.
• The words “being” and “person” are not necessarily synonymous in reference to God. As humans individually we are only one being and one person. But God is not limited in the same way. He is by His own definition and revelation only One Being, but that does not rule out the possibility of three different personal manifestations of Him. God is not limited to manifesting Himself in only one personal way. He is omnipresent, everywhere at the same time. There is no reason He could not take a personal human form at the same time He fills the universe or indwells His people. God can and has manifested Himself in several different ways throughout Biblical history. So, just because there is only One Being who is God, does not mean that the One Being cannot manifest Himself in three different personal forms simultaneously. And we believe that is exactly what has happened. One thing that is necessary to point out is that if the One Being manifests Himself in three different personal ways, two of the three Persons would by necessity have to be subordinate to the First Person representing the One Being. They are all three equal in sharing the same nature of “God” in a generic sense, but subordinate in their relations to each other as separate personal manifestations of the One True God. So, subordination of persons is not antithetical to the Doctrine of the Trinity, but rather a corollary to it. If subordination of persons was not true, then we would have three equal gods (tritheism), who are equal not only in sharing the attributes of Divine Nature, but also in the exercise of their functions both in their personal relations with one another and in their manifestations to the created universe. We are talking here about subordination of persons, not subordinate in Being. We have as one of our presuppositions that there is only One Being manifested in three persons, with two of the three persons (the Son and the Spirit) subordinate to the One Person who represents the One Divine Being (the Father).
• The word “God” is used in the Bible in both a generic sense and a personal sense. The general sense is basically what we would call Deity, Divinity, God-ness, or God-hood – being God. “God” generally is a reference to the (self-existent) Being we call Yahweh (the “I Am”) in the Bible. The specific usage of the term “God” is seen in the personal references to God and the way He manifests and reveals Himself and relates to His creation. A good example of this is when God is referred to as “the Father,” or as the Holy Spirit.