My pastor asked a question concerning why there was no account of Peter leading someone to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ in the 4 gospels account.
This was an interesting question as I reflected on it. I thought the answer could be found in the gospel of John where he told us that the apostles only believed in Jesus concerning his suffering and resurrection when they saw the resurrected Lord.
This meant that Peter and the disciples only formulated their faith that Jesus is Christ and Lord after his resurrection and appearance to them.
This led to another interesting question which was, what did Peter understand when he confessed that Jesus is the Christ. Did he think that Jesus was the Lord, equal with God, the Son of God, and not merely Christ and the Son of Man? The more important question to be answered was what did these terms mean to the disciples and the Jewish people of the 1st century? Only then, can we give an appropriate exposition of what the gospel was describing.
The answer concerning what Peter thought about the Christ could be found in the following verses, in the incident where he rebuked the Lord and in return was rebuked by him. Peter's reaction to the plain statement from Jesus that the Christ, Son of Man, would be crucified and raised on the 3rd day could tell us how he understood the meaning of the word 'Christ'. He rebuked the Lord Jesus for saying he would die and be resurrected because he thought like everyone else at that time that the Christ would become the king of Israel and free the Jewish people from pagan rule. That was why Jesus warned him not to tell this to anyone because that was not what God wanted Jesus to do. (That was what the people expected of the Christ and would have forced him to become king if they could, but that was not the way God wanted Jesus to become king and Lord. That was not the way that the kingdom of Christ would be established.)
This question raised by the pastor has led to other more interesting question of what did the Jewish people in Jesus' time think of the titles such as 'Christ', 'Son of Man', 'Son of God' and 'Lord'? I believe that the understanding of the word 'Christ' by the Jewish people (Peter's reaction was a fine representative) was that he was a man sent from God and not necessarily the Son of God or Lord, the ruler of the world and God himself. That was why it was fine for the Jews to think that Jesus was the Christ, but they could not accept it if this was associated with titles e.g. Lord and Son of God, that referred him, the Christ, as God. Saying himself as the Christ would not have gotten Jesus killed, but it was his admission that he is both the Christ and Lord which the chief high priest thought as blasphemous. I think there are verses to support this e.g. John 10:33, Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62, Luke 22:69-70, John 6:62, Acts 7:56.
This was an interesting question as I reflected on it. I thought the answer could be found in the gospel of John where he told us that the apostles only believed in Jesus concerning his suffering and resurrection when they saw the resurrected Lord.
This meant that Peter and the disciples only formulated their faith that Jesus is Christ and Lord after his resurrection and appearance to them.
This led to another interesting question which was, what did Peter understand when he confessed that Jesus is the Christ. Did he think that Jesus was the Lord, equal with God, the Son of God, and not merely Christ and the Son of Man? The more important question to be answered was what did these terms mean to the disciples and the Jewish people of the 1st century? Only then, can we give an appropriate exposition of what the gospel was describing.
The answer concerning what Peter thought about the Christ could be found in the following verses, in the incident where he rebuked the Lord and in return was rebuked by him. Peter's reaction to the plain statement from Jesus that the Christ, Son of Man, would be crucified and raised on the 3rd day could tell us how he understood the meaning of the word 'Christ'. He rebuked the Lord Jesus for saying he would die and be resurrected because he thought like everyone else at that time that the Christ would become the king of Israel and free the Jewish people from pagan rule. That was why Jesus warned him not to tell this to anyone because that was not what God wanted Jesus to do. (That was what the people expected of the Christ and would have forced him to become king if they could, but that was not the way God wanted Jesus to become king and Lord. That was not the way that the kingdom of Christ would be established.)
This question raised by the pastor has led to other more interesting question of what did the Jewish people in Jesus' time think of the titles such as 'Christ', 'Son of Man', 'Son of God' and 'Lord'? I believe that the understanding of the word 'Christ' by the Jewish people (Peter's reaction was a fine representative) was that he was a man sent from God and not necessarily the Son of God or Lord, the ruler of the world and God himself. That was why it was fine for the Jews to think that Jesus was the Christ, but they could not accept it if this was associated with titles e.g. Lord and Son of God, that referred him, the Christ, as God. Saying himself as the Christ would not have gotten Jesus killed, but it was his admission that he is both the Christ and Lord which the chief high priest thought as blasphemous. I think there are verses to support this e.g. John 10:33, Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62, Luke 22:69-70, John 6:62, Acts 7:56.
Comments
It is a very interesting study for me personally because understanding these titles recently has allowed me to comprehend the concept trinity which I have been struggling with. The breakthrough for me, and in my own perception, is that I can now understand what the Jewish people understood as the Son of God which, I believe through my readings, is more related to being the person at the right hand of God, and thus is God's equal, rather the common understanding of the word, son, which is related to pro-creation and biological birth, which is a big issue for my Muslim friends.
Now I could see that the Jewish people in Jesus' time would have no problem understanding the title of Son of God when it is understood as being the right hand man of God, exercising God's authority and power, and equal with God in this sense. I think what they could not accept is seeing Jesus as a man claiming himself to be the Son of God, coming from the bosom of God, enthroned at the right hand of God and coming back from there to judge the living and the dead as the true Lord designated by God himself.
Jesus Christ, Messiah and Son of Man, is Lord, the Son of God!
What a wonderful description of the meaning of the Trinity and the Jewish concept of the Son of God and the Son of Man .
Blessings