Before coming in the flesh as a human being, Jesus Christ existed as the Word who was God along with God the Father (John 1:1-3; John 1:14). Therefore, Jesus was God before He became the Son of God. He was not actually the Son of God until He was conceived by God the Father through the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary. This was at the moment of His “incarnation,” His becoming flesh.

In the New Testament, the name “God” usually refers to God the Father, but Jesus is referred to as God in several New Testament passages (Matthew 1:23; John 20:26-28; Romans 9:5; 1 Timothy 3:16; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8-12; 2 Peter 1:1). He even revealed Himself as the “I AM” who spoke to Moses, the God of Israel (John 8:58; compare Exodus 3:6; Exodus 3:13-14). So Jesus was definitely God—along with God the Father.

Of course, Jesus was also the Son of God, as He is repeatedly called throughout the New Testament—that is, the Son of God the Father. When Jesus asked His disciples whom they understood Him to be, Peter answered, “You are the Christ [the Messiah], the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). Jesus responded, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 16:17).

So the Father had revealed to Peter the identity of Jesus as the Messiah and Son of the living God. Yet, we should ask, was Peter in this revelation given a complete and exhaustive understanding of Jesus’ identity? We should consider that Peter and the other apostles did not as yet have a thorough understanding of Jesus’ role—of the fact that He had come to die for the sins of mankind, that He would be resurrected and that He would not come to rule the world until far in the future.

While the Father had given Peter a true and important revelation about Jesus’ identity and role, Peter did not have a full and complete understanding until later. It seems clear that Peter and the other apostles did not yet fully comprehend that Jesus was the One the Israelites knew as God in the Old Testament. That understanding would evidently come later, though they perhaps had some insight into this before really comprehending it.

The disciples surely noted how unusual it was that, unlike the Jewish people commonly referring to God as “our Father,” Jesus spoke of God personally as “My Father.” John 5:18 states that the Jews sought to kill Him because He “said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.” Thus, even the Jews did not see in His confirming that He was the Son of God that Jesus was somehow distancing Himself from being God. Just the opposite, they saw the claim of being the Son of God as a claim to being God—and they wanted to kill Him for blasphemy. Moreover, over the course of Jesus’ ministry the disciples witnessed Him making some very bold claims pointing to His divinity, such as referring to Himself as “I AM” in John 8:58. Perhaps Peter would have said more about Jesus’ identity if asked at this point the same question asked in Matthew 16:15 about just who Jesus was.

It was not until after Jesus died and was resurrected that we see understanding of His divine identity explicitly evident among His disciples. It was then that “He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures” (Luke 24:45).

Recall that the apostle Thomas did not initially see the risen Christ as other disciples did, and he had trouble believing Jesus was truly alive again. Yet when he did see Him a week later, Thomas exclaimed, “My Lord and My God” (John 20:28). Some will contend that this was an outburst of surprise, as we see today with people saying “Oh my God” while not really thinking about God. Yet first-century Jews, especially the disciples of a devout rabbi, were not so cavalier in speaking God’s name—taking God’s name in vain. And would John have recorded such a thing? That is just not plausible. Thus, Thomas was clearly calling Jesus God. So how had Thomas now come to this understanding?

Besides certain statements Jesus Himself had earlier made, we should consider that on the day following His resurrection, He appeared as a stranger to two disciples on the road to Emmaus, teaching them a great deal: “And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself” (Luke 24:27). This was no doubt the greatest Bible study ever. And by the description here, Jesus’ teaching surely must have included His identity as the God of Israel.

Jesus also appeared to and gave further insight to other disciples. So by the time Thomas encountered Jesus a week later, this fuller understanding would have been circulating among the disciples. Thomas would have known of it despite having trouble accepting the truth of it all. But when He at last saw the resurrected Jesus with his own eyes, he believed, declaring, “My Lord and My God.” This is exactly who Jesus was—to Thomas and to all of us.

Yet even then there was probably much that was still not understood about this. No doubt more was revealed to the Church over the course of the New Testament period.

Still, there are those who argue that Jesus being the Son of God means, by the technical distinction in wording, that He is not God. Yet does Jesus repeatedly referring to Himself as the Son of Man mean He was not man? Clearly not. Or today, does a boy being the son of a certain man with the surname Williams mean this boy cannot also be Williams? Of course not, as he would likely also bear the name Williams and could properly be called so.

Some go still further and strangely argue that Peter’s inspired declaration that Jesus is the Son of the living God means that the term “Living God” must exclusively apply to the Father and cannot apply to Jesus. Yet we should note that Paul mentions “the church of the living God” in 1 Timothy 3:15 and then in verse 16 says that “God was manifested in the flesh . . . [and] received up in glory.” So accepting that the “living God” in verse 15 is the Father, how should we designate the God who became flesh in the next verse? Is this God the “dead God”? It’s true that Jesus was dead for three days and nights, but for all the rest of eternity He has been alive and will be alive forevermore. Jesus is not the dead God. He is the living God—along with the Father. As Jesus says: "I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore" (Revelation 1:18).

The “living God” is a description used in both the Old Testament and New Testament to distinguish the true God, who is real and alive, from the false gods of human imagination or demonic trickery. Just as the Father, Jesus is not a false god like those of the pagans. He is real and alive along with the Father.

So we see that Jesus being the Son of God does not mean He is not God. His being declared as the Son of the living God does not mean He is not Himself also the Living God. He and the Father are both God. They are both the Living God. Jesus is the Son of God through being begotten by the Father. But this does not take away from Jesus having preexisted as God along with the Father—and of His still being God, as He surely is.