Is Christ More Than A Prophet?

The transfiguration of Christ was one of the most spectacular events in his life, at least, from a human viewpoint. Our Lord took Peter, James and John to a very high mountain. He "was transfigured before them: and his face shone as the sun, and his raiment was white as light. And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elijah talking with him. Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah. While he was speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear him" (Mt. 17:1-5).

A brief examination of this passage may be helpful. The word "transfigured" (from the Greek metamorphoomai) means to transform or to change the very essence of Christ's appearance. The Greek word comes into English in our word "metamorphosis"— the radical change that occurs in creatures such as butterflies. Paul used the Greek verb when he urged his Roman brothers and sisters: "Be not conformed to this world; but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God" (Rom. 12:2). Paul used the same Greek verb when he reminded the Corinthians of their conversion to Christ. "But we all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord" (2 Cor. 3:18).

On the mount of transfiguration, Moses represented the law of Moses. Elijah represented the prophets. This incident proves conclusively that Christians do not live under the Mosaic covenant, or under "Moses and the prophets." We live under the new covenant that Jesus Christ came to inaugurate. That is also the message the book of Hebrews teaches. Then Jesus Christ said, "Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He takes away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ once for all" (Heb. 10:9-10). Jesus Christ established the new covenant and is God's prophet to the Christian dispensation. Is that not what God meant when he said concerning his Son: "Hear him?"

The inspired author of Hebrews introduces his magnificent book with these familiar words: "God, who in sundry times and in divers manners spoke in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken unto us by his Son" (Heb. 1:1-2). Throughout the rest of Hebrews 1, the inspired author contrasts Jesus with angels. What was his purpose in listing the contrasts between Jesus and angels? Surely every thinking person would know that the Son of God is greater than angels. The author's purpose was not to show that Christ is greater than angels, but to prove that the gospel of Christ is greater than the law of Moses. The law of Moses was given to Moses by angels (Gal. 3:19). As Christ is greater than angels, so the gospel of Christ is greater than the Mosaic covenant that was given by angels. Our study today will be devoted to the question: "Is Christ More Than a Prophet?"

I am not for one moment denying or downplaying Christ's role as God's prophet to the Christian era. In fact, the apostle Peter told some Jews on Solomon's porch of the Jewish temple: "It shall come to pass, that every soul, that will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people" (Acts 3:23). But if Jesus Christ is no more than a prophet, he is not worthy of our respect and obedience. Why would anyone make such a statement? Because Jesus claimed and his apostles claimed for him that he was much more than a prophet or a messenger or an apostle. You cannot fail to reach that conclusion if you read the scriptures with an open and honest heart.

Do you remember Isaiah's prophecy of the virgin birth of Christ? "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isa. 7:14). When God's angel announced the birth of Jesus, he told Joseph, Mary's husband: "She shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all of this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us" (Mt. 1:21-23).

Several observations on this passage are in order. The prophecy of the virgin birth was written approximately 750 years before Christ was born. The very earliest manuscripts of Isaiah—those discovered among the Dead Sea scrolls—read exactly like our current versions of the Bible. There was no corruption of the sacred text, as some critics like to argue. Isaiah affirmed that the Son to be born to a virgin would be called Immanuel. The Holy Spirit interpreted the word Immanuel to mean "God with us." Is there any doubt in your mind that both Isaiah and Matthew believed the virgin-born Son would be God—not God the Father, but God the Son? In addition, the angel who announced the birth of Christ to Joseph said his name would be Jesus because he would save his people from their sin (Mt. 1:21). The word "Jesus" (Iesous in the Greek) means savior. No ordinary prophet—not Isaiah or Jeremiah or Daniel—was virgin-born, deserved to be called Immanuel and could save men from their sins. Does that not mean that Jesus was more than a prophet?

While we are in the book of Matthew, let us take notice of Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi. "When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, Who do men say that I the Son of man am?" Some of Christ's contemporaries thought he was John the Baptist or Elijah or Jeremiah or one of the other prophets. Christ was concerned about what the people in general thought of him, but his main interest was what his disciples believed. He asked them: "Who do you say I am?" The apostle Peter answered: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Mt. 16:13-16). Do you believe Jesus Christ was an honest and honorable man? If he were not the Christ, the Son of the living God, how can you explain his endorsement of Peter's confession? He said to the apostle Peter: "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah: for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Mt. 16:17). If Peter's confession were wrong, why did not our Lord correct him? Should not our Lord have said, "Peter, I know you are sincere in your beliefs, but I am not the Son of God? I am a son of God—-just as you are—but I am not the Son of God." Was Christ seeking the praise of men or is he really the Son of the living God?

Is it significant that Luke, a Greek physician, accepted the truth of the virgin birth of Christ? Luke records an angel's appearance to Mary. He announced the birth of Jesus. "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David." Mary was perplexed at the angel's announcement because she had never been with a man in a sexual relationship. The angel explained: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God" (Lk. 1:32, 35).

There is much more about the nature of Christ in Matthew, Mark and Luke, but I shall turn now to the gospel according to John. There are theologians, such as, John Shelby Spong, who vigorously disagree with the thrust of John's gospel, but they cannot deny what he taught. I invite you to listen carefully to these powerful words from John. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men" (John 1:1-4).

John identifies the Word. "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth" (John 1:14). This is one of the most exalted and challenging thoughts the human mind can entertain. "The Word was with God, and the Word was God....The Word became flesh." You may or may not accept this truth, but you would have difficulty denying that John teaches it. Paul completely agreed with John. "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh" (1 Tim. 3:16).

We often refer to what I have just read as the "incarnation," that is, God the Son became a man and dwelled among men. Even though I do not have the ability to describe the true significance of what God has done for fallen men in sending his Son into the world to die for our redemption and to set a perfect example for us to emulate, I have no doubt it occurred. If it did not happen, as many of the ancient Gnostics taught and as some modern liberal theologians believe, Christianity is a hoax. The author of Hebrews adds: "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, who has passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not a high priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need" (Heb. 4:14-16). The reason Christ can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities is because he experienced them. "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them who obey him" (Heb. 5:8-9).

After Christ was raised from the dead, he appeared to all the apostles, except Thomas. The apostles told Thomas they had seen the Lord. He probably wanted to believe but had difficulty doing so. He said to them: "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." A few days later all the disciples—including Thomas—were together. Christ entered the room even though the doors were shut. He stood in the midst of the apostles and said, "Peace be unto you." He then told Thomas: "Reach hither your finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither your hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing." With this indisputable evidence before him, the apostle Thomas exclaimed: "My Lord and my God" (John 20:24-28).

If Jesus were not God manifest in the flesh, he should have told Thomas. Jesus knew, as did all Jews, that claiming to be God when one is a mere mortal is blasphemy. Under the Jewish covenant, a person guilty of blasphemy was to be executed. Besides, just common honesty would have demanded that Jesus correct Thomas, that is, if Thomas were wrong. Oddly enough, even those who do not accept Christ as Lord and God generally would not accuse Christ of being dishonest. But if he were not what Thomas confessed him to be, he was dishonest. All of the gospel records teach that Christ is God—not God the Father and not God the Holy Spirit—but God the Son. John announces in his gospel the purpose for writing about Jesus Christ. "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, that are not written in his book. But these are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you might have life through his name" (John 20:30-31). Christ's mighty miracles prove him to be what he claimed to be—the Son of God.

Not only did Christ claim to be the Son of God, he also claimed to be a revelation or an explanation of God. In his powerful introduction to the book of John, the apostle John says concerning Christ: "No man has seen God at anytime; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him" (John 1:18). The word "declared" means to make known, to explain, to reveal. How can that language be used of anyone other than deity? Jesus told the apostle Thomas: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father but by me. If you had known me, you should have known my Father also: and from henceforth you know him, and have seen him." Philip said to Christ: "Lord, show us the Father, and it suffices us." If Jesus were not God manifest in the flesh, the next verse in this text would constitute blasphemy. Jesus says to Philip: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet you have not known me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; and how do you say then, Show us the Father" (John 14:6-9)? In his prayer to the Father, Jesus said: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also who shall believe in me through thy word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory that thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast loved me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me" (John 17:20-23).

There are world religions, liberal denominations and cultic groups that deny the universal sinfulness of human beings. In very simple language, they argue that we do not need a Savior. I remember making a statement on this broadcast to the effect that all people are sinners. I received a letter from a former classmate who said: "Speak for yourself. My mother is not a sinner." I responded by telling him: "If your mother is not a sinner, she does not need a Savior." I hope that all of us understand that there are two kinds of sinners: saved sinners and unsaved sinners. But "all have sinned (past tense) and come short (present tense) of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). The apostle John emphasized the same truth. "If we say we have no sin (present tense), we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned (past tense), we make him a liar, and his word is not in us" (17 John 1:8-l 0).

Since no sin can enter into the heavenly kingdom, how can we prepare ourselves to be forgiven and have the promise of eternal life? If we were not sinners, as I have just explained, we would not need a Savior. But we are sinners and in desperate need of a Savior. Has the God who created us and who loves us more than we love ourselves provided a Savior? Do you remember what I read to you a few minutes ago? The angel told Joseph, the husband of Mary: "She shall bring forth a Son, and you shall call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins" (Mt. 1:21). Luke tells of shepherds who were keeping watch over their flocks by night. "The angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord" (Lk. 2:8-11).

Luke 19 tells of Christ's meeting with Zacchaeus, a wealthy tax collector. Zacchaeus was eager to see Jesus but he had one difficulty: He was so short he could not see him above the crowd. So he climbed up in a sycamore tree to give him better access to Christ. Jesus saw Zacchaeus and urged him to come down. He said to Zacchaeus: "This day is salvation come to this house: forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man has come to seek and to save that which was lost" (Lk. 19:1-10). Is there any doubt in your mind that Jesus claimed to be the Savior Zacchaeus and all other sinners needed?

Acts 16 records the conversions of Lydia and her household and the Philippian jailer and his household. I do not have time today to go into detail about the conversion of the Philippian jailer. Suffice it to say that he recognized his need for a Savior. Otherwise he would not have asked Paul and Silas: "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" If Paul had believed the doctrine of the inherent goodness of man, he would have replied: "Why are you concerned about being saved? You simply are not aware of how good you are. You do not need a Savior." Instead, Paul commanded the jailer: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house." The Philippian jailer had no idea what to believe. So Paul and Silas taught him what he needed to know. "He took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his, immediately" (Acts 16:30-33).

Since the jailer believed, why was it necessary for him to be baptized? Did he have to be baptized to be saved? What did our Lord mean when he commanded the apostles: "Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who does not believe shall be condemned" (Mk. 16:15-16). The Bible requires that we believe, just as the people on Pentecost believed. Although the faith of the Jews on Pentecost was essential, it was not sufficient. That was the apostle Peter's reason for commanding the believing Jews: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). Do you believe you can be saved in some other way?

Winford Claiborne

The International Gospel Hour

P.O. Box 118

Fayetteville, TN 37334

Back to Home Page

Back to Transcripts Titles