If Andrew + Nathaniel = Peter, then why Mt 16:16 so important?

[jdemelo]

Question:
Peter’s confession: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:16)
had previously been made in toto by Andrew and Nathaniel in John 1.
John 1: 41 Andrew: we have found the Messiah
John 1:49 Nathaniel: You are the Son of God (notice Son = capitalized)

Hence Andrew + Nathaniel = Peter. But they made their confession on the first encounter or day that they met Jesus. Nathaniel said it moments after meeting Jesus.

So why was it so special when Peter said it in Matthew (some 3 years into the ministry), and why would Our Lord say: For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven?

Thank your for any help.

 

[jmm08]

All scripture is important.

Matthew 16:16-19 (with Peter being given the Keys to the Kingdom). And I understand if you don’t see it that way. I didn’t either for a very long time.

But look at Isaiah 22:20-23. The “Key of the House of David” is an Old Testament type for the Keys to the Kingdom given to St. Peter.

The scripture from Isaiah was key for me to see that the Roman Catholic understanding of Matthew 16:16-19 was the only correct interpretation.

Otherwise, as a Baptist I felt that the Key of the Kingdom was to see that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. And just as you say, if that were true then Jesus could have told Andrew and Nathaniel. So your question actually helps to convince me even more.

Thank you for your question. It helped me to grow.

I am Baptist (and Catholics are really Baptist as well since they have Water Baptism). But I am signed up for RCIA / RCIC class this fall.

 

[jdemelo]

Thanks for comment. I am very devout Catholic, so I have NO problem with the primacy of Cephas. Just curious why John would attribute to Andrew and Nathaniel that which Matthew would record as a big deal many years later. God Bless.

 

[jdemelo]

Actually the more I think of your post, the more I appreciate your nuance.

If the keys represent the ‘revelation’ that Jesus is the Christ, then Nathaniel would have the keys as would Andrew,… and I suppose Thomas would get the keys when he said “My Lord and My God.”

Yet only Peter was given the keys, hence Jesus must have been picking a “person” to give the keys to rule as in Isaiah 22:22 and not simply equating the keys to those who hold the revelation of faith.

Thank u again jmm08. Most helpful reply!!

 

[jmm08]

jdemelo:

Actually the more I think of your post, the more I appreciate your nuance.

If the keys represent the ‘revelation’ that Jesus is the Christ, then Nathaniel would have the keys as would Andrew,… and I suppose Thomas would get the keys when he said “My Lord and My God.”

Yet only Peter was given the keys, hence Jesus must have been picking a “person” to give the keys to rule as in Isaiah 22:22 and not simply equating the keys to those who hold the revelation of faith.

Thank u again jmm08. Most helpful reply!!

Thank you because you asked the question and the exercise of answering it taught me a lot. The keys were indeed an issue I had to resolve, and this helped to deepen my understanding. I think you are right about Thomas too.

Thank you for letting me know it helped you, because that really helps me (to know I helped).

Praise God from whom all blessings flow.

 

[DaveBj]

It is one thing to be told something by another person; maybe you accept it, maybe you don’t. It is quite another thing to have God, through the Holy Spirit, target a cruise missile on your heart (your center of belief, if you will), and fire the message in there that way. It was the latter that Jesus was talking about.

DaveBj

 

[aridite]

Take this for what it’s worth . . .

In Matthew, when Jesus asks his disciples who he is, initially no one answers. Finally Peter does. If Nathanial and Andrew really were convinced at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, they seem to have become more hesitant.

Also, I don’t think that we should look at the gift of the keys as a reward for Peter’s confession. I agree with jdemelo that Christ was making a special choice, and it is not given to everybody who confesses faith to thereby be given the authority of the keys. I think this is how protestants tend to interpret the passage. (I’m not suggesting anybody was putting forward this protestant interpretation; it just occurred to me that this is how it could be taken).

Thanks for the thought provoking question.

 

[e-catholic]

jmm08:

as a Baptist I felt that the Key of the Kingdom was to see that Jesus Christ was the Son of God.

As a cradle Catholic I am always interested in knowing how protestant denominations interpret scripture. I always wondered how they took this part of scripture

jmm08:

Thank you for your question. It helped me to grow.

I am Baptist (and Catholics are really Baptist as well since they have Water Baptism). But I am signed up for RCIA / RCIC class this fall.

Welcome Jmm every time I hear that someone has made that step all of the debate that I have with protestants seems worth it.

When we open our eyes, and look for the truth, God will show it to us.