For better or worse, a few years back I signed up to Quora and on occasion their emails pique my interest; usually, however, I find myself chuckling at the strutting confidence of the self-proclaimed experts answering remarkably complex, not to mention robustly contested, questions. Last week I experienced both, as I read Dale Cliford’s answer to the question: did Peter believe Jesus was God? “No,” he confidently asserts. “Peter did not believe any such thing.” Now, we could simply dismiss this pontificating on the basis that the position has been roundly rejected, almost unanimously so, throughout church history. But the answer has over 1000 upvotes—or thumbs up, I don’t exactly know how Quora works. So perhaps it deserves something more considered, and critical.

For a “student and teacher of the Bible for over 50 years,” Dale’s response to this question— did Peter believe Jesus was God?—is startlingly reductive, indicative of his Unitarian presuppositions rather than careful theological argumentation. Now, he does make an argument, of sorts. Essentially it turns on two points. The first is Peter’s confession, in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The second, a flourish, really, cites 1 Peter 1:3. “Peter knew who God was,” Dale observes, “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Apparently, that seals it. But let’s consider each of those points in turn.

Peter’s Confession in the Gospels

Towards the end of his ministry, Jesus asks his disciples who they think he is (Matthew 16:13; Luke 9:18). In both accounts Peter recognises and calls Jesus the Messiah, or Christ (Matthew 16:16; Luke 9:20). Though Matthew’s account appends Peter calling Jesus “the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16), such a designation isn’t necessarily proof of his divinity. In fact, Dale considers it proof of the opposite, which it isn’t, being ambiguous at best. But we’ll come back to “the Son of God” below. In answer to the question about who Jesus is, Peter answers: the Christ or Messiah.

What Dale singles out as especially noteworthy is an additional detail in Matthew’s account. “Blessed are you,” Jesus tells Peter. “For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.” Commenting on this verse, Dale picks out two points that when combined are supposedly incontrovertible. These are that:

1. “If Jesus was God, this would have been the time to explain this to Peter. But he did not”
2. The Father revealed these things to Peter.

Taking those together, so goes the argument, “this revelation by the heavenly Father did not reveal to Peter that Jesus was God, but that he was the ‘Son of the living God’” (Matthew 16:16).

To be frank, engaging this first point is challenging because, well, it isn’t really an argument. Put differently, Dale’s case depends on this being not just the most but the only suitable moment in Jesus’ or the apostles’ ministry to reveal the Son’s divine identity. “This would have been the perfect time,” for either Jesus or the Father in heaven, “to explain this to Peter,” but no such revelation was issued. Were the development of progressive revelation up to Dale, this would’ve been the momentous juncture. But it isn’t; that is, it isn’t up to him, nor was it the moment that God decided to make Jesus’ divinity explicit clear to the apostles.

What’s so striking to anyone who’s engaged in New Testament studies is that, despite the onslaught of 20th century liberalism and higher criticism, most scholars agree that the early church affirmed Jesus’ divinity—albeit in muted ways. If we ignore the recent influence of writers such as Dan Brown and talking heads on YouTube, the wide consensus is that the early church insisted that Jesus was God in the flesh (see John 1:1-18), long before the Constantine backed Council of Nicaea. What makes the New Testament’s position on Jesus’ divine identity even more remarkable is that the early church was predominantly Jewish, including Peter, which brings us to Dale’s second point.

Peter’s Christology in His Epistles

After putting forward the rather rickety argument above, Dale writes: “Peter knew who God was,” that is, not God and Father but only the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:3). This point interested me far more than the first, not because it’s any more compelling but because by appealing to Peter’s writings Dale must allow us to consider his epistles in their entirety. Admittedly, outside of Hebrews, the Catholic Epistles aren’t an area I’m particularly well versed in. But after little more than a cursory glance at 1 and 2 Peter, I realised that a marked competence wouldn’t be necessary for dismissing Dale’s case.

Let’s start at the end. The last verse in Peter’s writings reads, “To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen” (2 Peter 3:18b). This is not dissimilar from the doxology in his first epistle, “To him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen” (1 Peter 5:11). The problem for Dale is that it’s very difficult to conclude that the referent of “him” (1 Peter 2:18b), is anyone other than “our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18a). As Richard Bauckham notes, doxologies to Christ are rare in early Christian literature, but not lacking; and another of Jesus’ disciples has, “To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen” (Revelation 1:5-6).

Like some of the lame attempts to dismiss Thomas’ exclamatory identification in John 20:28—”My Lord and my God”—it’s nothing other than special pleading to suggest that Peter has two people in view in 2 Peter 3:18. This becomes especially apparent when we consider how freely Peter attributes the title of Lord to Jesus, throughout his writing (1 Peter 3:15; 2 Peter 1:8, 14, 16; 3:2). I don’t have the space here to develop this point, but a friend recently gave four outstanding talks explaining how theologically loaded the title of Lord would have been for a 1st century Jewish believer, such as Peter. Thus the apostle pens a doxology—traditionally reserved for God—to Jesus, using the title of Lord, which has profound Old Testament connotations.

“The Spirit of Christ” of 1 Peter

Though I need to do more thinking about it, there’s one last point I’d like to offer, on the Holy Spirit. In each of his epistles, Peter lays out a nascent doctrine of inspiration (1 Peter 1:10-12; 2 Peter 1:19-21). On both occasions he refers to prophetic promises concerning Christ’s coming, which at the very least entail Old Testament figures such as Isaiah and Hosea. Either way, he’s referring to the Spirit’s work prior to the coming of Jesus Christ. “It was revealed to them,” he writes “that they were serving not themselves but you” (1 Peter 1:12; see also, possibly, 2 Peter 3:1-2).

This would have no bearing whatsoever on the purpose of this article, if it weren’t for 1 Peter 1:11. There Peter refers to the Holy Spirit as “the Spirit of Christ.” In other words, those “men spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:21), and predicted the sufferings of Christ (1 Peter 2:11), were inspired by none other than the Spirit of Christ. As I said, this observation needs further exploration on my part. But at the very least it’s a glaring, discomfiting fly in the ointment for anyone who confidently asserts Peter didn’t believe Jesus was God. For if we’re hesitant to affirm the Son’s divinity, how do we explain the fact this his Spirit was at work before Jesus’ earthy ministry? I simply don’t think one can.

Yes. Peter Did Believe Such a Thing

In conclusion, it seems far more likely that Peter did believe Jesus was God. That, indeed, he still is God (2 Peter 3:18). However intellectually frustrating—even seemingly illogical—one finds the doctrine of the Trinity, you do need to account for the overwhelming evidence that the New Testament writers considered Jesus to be God. Lazy dismissals won’t do. Not here. And certainly not in matters of such weighty theological importance as the person and work of Jesus.