"Who Do You Say That I Am?"

Question: If the Divinity of Christ is so important to Christian Faith, why is he not stating His divinity overtly?

Before we begin to attempt to answer this question, we must first understand something: we have to view the socio-political context wherein Christ was living in. Christ was born a Jew and lived in a Jewish land. We would then have to understand the Jewish mindset. To the Jews, the Laws were very important, and so was the Torah. Jews were monotheistic, believing that there is only one God, as written in Deuteronomy 6:4. To them, there was only Yahweh. At that time, in their context, they do not possess the understanding of the Trinity as we do today.

Now, let us put our imaginative powers into gear. Imagine what would have happened if Jesus had overtly stated His divinity? Imagine what would happen if Jesus had said "Hey, people of Israel! I am God". In a simple phrase: His ministry would have ended before it even started. To the Jews, as aforementioned, they believe that there is only one God, and that is Yahweh. If Jesus had overtly claimed to be God, to the Jews, is suggesting polytheism, which is not in accordance to Deut. 6:4! They would have charged Him for blasphemy and the penalty for blasphemy was stoning (Lev 24:16). Wouldn't that cut short His ministry?

Does that mean that Jesus did not imply that He was divine? On the contrary, He actually did, not explicitly but implicitly implied that He was divine. He claimed authorities and prerogatives that are inappropriate if claimed by someone less than God. He claimed the prerogative to forgive sin (which the Jews understood as claiming divinity as shown by the reaction of the Pharisees, i.e. in Mark 2:5-7), claimed authority over the Sabbath, and even claimed unusual relationships with the Father, like being one with the Father. While some verses in the Bible might seem vague to us, the Jews certainly understood that Christ was implicitly claiming divinity, and thus, the premise for them to want to stone Jesus for blasphemy.

In conclusion, Jesus was wise and knew that the time was not yet to overtly claim His divinity (or even claim to be God, for that matter) as He was clear of what His purpose on earth was. He needed to show His divinity to prove that He had the power and authority to fulfill His work on earth yet at the same time, it could not threaten His fulfilling of His purpose on earth. To me, that pretty much sums up my opinion on why didn't Jesus overtly claim His divinity yet in small, little ways, show that He was divine.

Is there an importance and relevance of the Historical Jesus to the Divinity of Christ?

Yes and no. "HUH? What do you mean?" you may ask. Before I go on to explain what i meant, let me first establish a basic premise in which I will answer this question. Christianity is Christocentric - which means Christianity revolves around Christ. You remove Christ away from Christianity, you basically strip Christianity from every thing it believes in. As an Evangelical, we believe that all Scripture is inspired by the God (2 Tim 3:16). We believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, which according to Erikson means the Bible is truly truthful in all of its teachings. In a basic sense, it means the Scripture does not err in fulfilling its purpose, which includes the revelation of God to us, God's visions, God's purposes and God's good news to us. With this premise erected, we can then proceed to answering why I answered yes and no.

The Bible gives us a sketch of Jesus. In it is written who Jesus was, His ministry, His words, His teaching, His deeds, His miracles, His resurrection and His death. The Bible also attests to the divinity of Christ and also His humanity. If the Bible is to be inerrant, then, the historic Jesus would be able to prove the humanity of Christ, thus showing that the Bible is inerrant in that respect. The question is, did Jesus actually walk the earth? Answer is yes. Historians affirm and do not deny the fact that Jesus did walk the earth. People like Tacitus and Josephus testify that Jesus did walk the earth. If so, then the historic Jesus would prove the Bible to be true in this sense. If the Bible is to be inerrant, it cannot be that half of it is inerrant while the other half is a mythical story. If it really is so, the Bible is not inerrant. What is the point in believing something that is only half true. Therefore, the premise here is that the Bible is inerrant.  Does the Historical Jesus have an importance and relevance to the divinity of Christ? Yes, in the sense that it proves the Bible inerrant, that Jesus walked the earth therefore, this inerrancy attests also to the divinity of Christ.

In what sense do I answer no? The investigation for the historical Jesus has a problem. It cannot investigate matters like miracles and Christ divinity, matters of faith, and strikes them off as untrue. But is that necessarily the case? Does the limitation of historical investigation and the limitation and science mean that matters of faith like miracles and Christ divinity is untrue? In fact, they wouldn't be able to test or investigate matters of faith like such. Let me give an example of the limitation of science and its investigative methods. Can science really prove the wind? The wind is something we cannot see, even at a molecular level. Science cannot see the wind. But does the wind exist? Yes it does! Just because Science cannot bring in concrete evidence on the substance of the wind does not mean is not there. Just like dreams. Can science and any form of investigation prove the existence of dreams? The most they can prove is that there is activities of the brain during sleep but they can't prove that dreams exist. Does that mean dreams do not happen? Does the limitation of science prove that dreams do not happen? Place what I have said into miracles and Christ's divinity, it is the same way. The investigation for the historical Jesus does not prove the divinity of Christ wrong, no matter what the claim. In fact, in my opinion, religion should not be able to be tested fully by men. If so, then, the religion we believe in is not that great after all. In fact, for us to fully comprehend our religion and our god, he musn't be too great. But God, being god, we can never fully understand and comprehend Him and His ways. Likewise with the divinity of Christ and miracles as well. All these requires one element vital for religion - faith.

In conclusion, the historical Jesus gives us an assurance that Jesus really did exist and that He once walked the earth. This then attests to the inerrancy of the Bible. If the Bible is inerrant, then the divinity of Christ must be real. From an internal evidence or external evidence, the divinity of Christ is attested for. That, it the link between the historical Jesus and the Divinity of Christ, in my opinion.