"Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?"
So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." Matthew 16:13-14
In response to all the miracles Jesus did, one would have to conclude as Nicodemus did that "no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with Him (John 3.2)." Of course, there were those Jews who made the accusation that Jesus did these things by "Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons (Matthew 12:24)." Jesus immediately pointed out the problem with such an accusation. So it was either God or satan working through Jesus.
Those who believe God was at work through Jesus considered that he must be a former prophet. And there was the Jewish expectation of a prophet, such as Elijah. But there was also an expectation of the one to be Messiah or Christ. If Jesus was identified by others as the Christ, and he did not dismiss such recognition as an error, then it must be true; otherwise, God would not have been at work through Jesus performing such signs.
I believe there were Jews (and maybe some Gentiles) who came to this conclusion.
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. Matthew 16.15-17
Peter said that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. I believe Peter (and he could be speaking for the majority of the apostles) came to this conclusion based on the signs and words of Jesus and Messianic expectations of the Jews based upon the Scriptures. The addition of "son of God" only appears here in Matthew (not in Luke and Mark), but to see the Christ as the Son of God must have been a common Jewish understanding, because when Nathanael meets Jesus, he calls him the Son of God (John 1.49). When Jesus stood before the High Priest, the Priest asked him if he was "the Christ, the son of the Blessed" (Mark 1.61)
Jesus said this was not revealed by flesh and blood but by the Father. 2 Peter 1.20 says that "no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation..." Scripture does not have its source in "flesh and blood," that is, in man, but it is from God. Coming to the conclusion that Jesus was the Christ--and to understand what that conclusion involves--would only be through special revelation. It is through special revelation that God draws to the Son: John 6:44-45. It is through the word of God that faith comes: Romans 10.17. As one responds positively or correctly to divine revelation, God will give more light: I believe this is the divine principle that explains why some can understand and believe certain divine truths, while others don't--it is the principle that Jesus gave concerning the parables, being, "whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance (Mat 13.12)."
The High Priest may have understood that the Christ would also be the Son of God, but there was something defective about his understanding about who the Christ would be, besides not believing, as also other Jews, that Jesus specifically was the Christ. I say this because I think that "saving faith" --as it is often called--was believing in the coming Christ as the "Savior of the world"--as the Samaritans understood in John 4.42. There were those Pharisees and Jews who "trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others" (Luke 18.9-14). And Paul said in Romans 9.30-10.4 that the Jews sought the "righteousness of God" through the Law, and therefore, did not attain it. So it seems to me that to believe in the Christ in a way that brings salvation is to believe he gives that salvation from the penalty of sin. Many of the Jews did not believe in the coming Christ that way, and the rejection of Jesus as the Christ was just a manifestation of that disbelief.
Peter did believe in the Christ that way. When Peter met Jesus, and saw his miracle of the great catch of fish, he fell down at Jesus' knees, crying, "depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord! (Luke 5.8)" Peter, unlike many Jews, was convinced of his depravity, and I believe he at some point came to a proper understanding and belief in the Christ, and not only that, but that Jesus was the Christ.
I think there has been a core "saving" truth throughout the ages, and that truth is that God saves from the penalty of sin those who believe in God for it, and it could have been from the beginning that God would do this through a coming "redeemer" or "savior" who would be the Son of God. Job spoke of a redeemer: ""For I know that my Redeemer lives, and he shall stand at last on the earth (Job 19.25" When Peter spoke to Cornelius and company, he said, "to Him all the prophets witness that, through his name, whoever believes in Him shall receive remission of sins (Acts 1043)" The Samaritans in John 4.42 understood that the Christ would be "the savior of the world." I think those who understood and believed in the Christ this way were already saved. The new revelation would be that that Christ was Jesus, and of course, his "work" on the cross was how that salvation would be possible.
To believe in the Christ in the way that brings salvation is to believe God saves from the eternal penalty of sin through believing in the Christ for it. The new revelation is that Jesus is the Christ, and as First John 5.1 says, "whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God."
Jesus accepted Peter's acknowledgment. Jesus could not have been any of those other things people thought. Obviously, God was with him, as Nicodemus said, because of the miraculous works he did. If he was only a prophet, would God have vindicated him by such signs and wonders, since Jesus didn't reject Peter's claim? Jesus accepted the claim that he was the Christ, and the works he did were divine vindication.
