Matthew 16 vs. Matthew 14

[OmegaPraetor]

I appreciate your insight on the matter, but I guess given my background and experience I can’t be satisfied with an answer that seems to boil down to “Value faith above your God-given intellect”. I value both, as you seem to also suggest. I was taught that faith is not sub-rational, but supra-rational – it is the part that is beyond the very limits of reasoning. However, my current problem regarding Matthew 14 vs. Matthew 16 hasn’t even reached anywhere near the limits of reasoning. I firmly believe this can still be resolved in a rational manner through intellectual discourse and research.

Hence, I fully entrust myself into the hands of God and the guidance of His Holy Spirit. And with that, I will use the intellect He had given me to pursue the answer relentlessly until I encounter it. If I die without getting the answer, I suppose I can try to ask Him when I die if I should have the chance.

 

[OmegaPraetor]

Thank you for sharing this. As @Gorgias noticed, yes I’ve already asked the same question on Dr. Pitre’s video before I saw this on here. Still, I deeply appreciate you sharing this resource with me.

 

[OmegaPraetor]

But not the Church He gave you?

I do trust the Church He gave me, which is why I’m asking around here for official teaching on the matter. Encyclicals, writings by the Church Fathers, anything. Besides the video from Dr. Pitre that was shared (which only brushes on my issue since the video itself is more about the office of the papacy rather than the nature of the declaration), I have yet to receive official Church teaching on this particular matter (or at least a bunch of opinions from noted Catholic scholars/theologians). That’s all I’m asking for on here. Resources, answers (if available), anything. I would think the very fact I turned here for help should be sign enough that I trust the Church He gave me.

Perhaps you might consider trusting the teaching that the Church has on the matter, in its take on Mt 16…?

I trust the Church’s teaching on the matter – but I want to know why. I was never simply satisfied with believing this or that because that’s what I’m told. This drive to know more and to understand the Faith more deeply has gotten me to where I am today (by the grace of God) and I’d say I’m a better Catholic now than I was before. I see no reason to stop on this issue, especially since it seems like such a “simple” enough of a matter that a bunch of intelligent theologians would have addressed the issue.

I’m not seeing how the answer “in Mt 14, their declarations were in the context of a stress-induced, disbelieving moment” is circular…?

Perhaps circular is not the right word. But I certainly feel like I’m being led in circles. I was hoping that by asking on this forum, I would get a straight-forward answer. To date, all I’ve gotten are “just have faith” and people questioning whether I trust God or the Church. I mean, if you guys have the answer, then please share it. If not, then say so. I see no reason why these pseudo-gaslighting comments are necessary.

Are you wondering why those who exclaimed “son of God!” in a moment of stress and disbelief aren’t credited with knowledge?

I guess in that question we may disagree. I don’t see their “Son of God” declaration on the boat as being a fruit of stress and disbelief. Indeed, they bowed down and worshiped Him which shows they understood (at least to some extent) and believed (again, at least to some extent) that He truly is the Son of God. Reading and rereading the passage, I fail to see where the disbelief is there. And stress is rarely enough to push one into what would be blasphemy in the eyes of first century Jews. Something more credible needs to happen before faithful Jews consider “the impossible option” that this man standing before them truly is the Son of God.

 

[OmegaPraetor]

they really didn’t get it. In the parallel account in Mark, the apostles reaction was that they were ‘astounded’, and they “had not understood” and “their hearts were hardened.” That’s hardly a ringing endorsement for the claim “they really knew it and believed it a full two chapters before Peter exclaimed it!”

Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. I’m still making my way through Matthew. Could you please share the general chapter for Mark? Thank you.

they really didn’t say it, either. In Mt 16, when Jesus asks, you don’t see the other apostles responding, “oh, you’re the Son of God! Remember, we told you that in the boat a while back?”. It’s Peter alone who answers.

The text on Matthew 14 is clear that those in the boat declare and worship Him as the Son of God. Even if they didn’t point out this fact in Matthew 16, it doesn’t mean that the other Apostles didn’t make this declaration earlier on. The absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence and all that.

As for St. Peter alone who answers, there are a bunch of ways that could be explained. The first way is it could be that he just “raised his hand first” and so he “got the prize”. However, I’m not convinced that the Lord would entrust the leadership of His Church just because St. Peter had the fastest arm on that side of the Red Sea. The second way (which I personally favour) is that the Holy Spirit granted St. Peter the courage to answer and prompted Him to do so (because I imagine even if all the Apostles knew the answer, one would be scared enough to give the wrong answer during such an important moment; also, maybe they didn’t believe in the answer as strongly and as well as St. Peter did – kinda reminds me of high school when I knew the right answer but had like 30% confidence that I was right). In this latter way of explaining things, it would show that God Himself chose St. Peter first and because of St. Peter’s participation in the grace given by God, Jesus Himself “ratifies the choice”, so to speak, by giving St. Peter the Keys.

Still, these are just my musings and I would love to hear what the Church officially teaches on the matter of Matthew 14 vs. Matthew 16.

 

[OmegaPraetor]

Thank you for sharing this commentary! This is the sort of stuff I’m looking for! So if I understand this correctly, this means that the disciples may have had some inkling that the Lord is the Son of God, but they didn’t fully comprehend (or believe) this to be the case. They had a spark of an understanding, but not the full bright picture. Would this be correct?

(Sorry, the commentary you shared was a bit non-committal on the matter.)

 

[OmegaPraetor]

two persons can say exactly the same words and make the same statement of faith, but this does not mean that both of them understand the deep meaning of such statement in the same way and believe in such meaning with the same strength.

I completely agree with you on this statement. I am in no way denying that this could be the case. However, I would need the official deliberation of the Church on this matter because thinking it could be this way and affirming that this is indeed the case are two different things. I am seeking the sure guidance of the Church on the matter, hence why I’m asking on this forum for resources, which some people have provided.

This is in no way to denigrate your insight on the matter, but I’ve heard a million “personal takes” on the issue and would really just like the clear instruction of the Church at this point.

 

[OmegaPraetor]

Okay, to recap, this is where I’m at right now based on the comments here, resources shared, as well as lots of prayer on the matter.

It could be that the declaration of the disciples on the boat on Matthew 14 wasn’t a full/deep knowledge/understanding of the declaration, but merely a spark of it. A hint of an understanding. Something amazing had been happening after all and so they were beginning to be ready to entertain the idea that maybe this Jesus of Nazareth really is the Son of God.

Then, on Matthew 16, St. Peter makes his famous declaration. It could be that all the Apostles at Caesarea Philippi knew the answer (i.e., that Jesus is the Son of the living God), but they all had varying degrees of confidence/faith in the answer. It was St. Peter, by the prompting and help of the Holy Spirit, who was most sure and so he spoke up first. Our Lord, seeing St. Peter participate in the prompting of the Holy Spirit (because he could still have held his tongue even if he were 100% sure of his answer), “ratified” both the faith of St. Peter as well as the “choice” (not sure if that’s the right word) of the Holy Spirit among the Apostles.

Moreover, Matthew 16 isn’t merely a declaration that Jesus is the Son of God, but that He is also the Messiah. This double confession reveals an important aspect of the heart of God. God so loved the world and so desired to restore the ruined relationship, that He didn’t want to entrust it to some second rate prophet, king, or general (which is what the Jews of the time thought the Messiah would be like). He wanted our salvation to be done right and so He did it Himself. This shows that not only does God care deeply about humanity as a whole and us as individuals, but it demonstrates that He isn’t a passive observer. He is an active participant in His Creation. (For who can say they truly love something and do so passively?)

And this level of understanding of the heart of God could only have come from God Himself for who knows God better than God Himself? This might be what the Lord meant by “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in Heaven.”

Anyway, these are just my musings so any official documents/teachings/writings from the Church Fathers that would affirm or correct my musings would be greatly appreciated.

 

[fide]

Okay, to recap, this is where I’m at right now based on the comments here, resources shared, as well as lots of prayer on the matter.

Let me try to say again what I tried to say in my first response to the dilemma you are trying to resolve. First, I note that in the analyses of the professions of faith, you use terms that are telling, and reveal something crucial to the issue:
the Mt 14 professions: you wonder, were they not " full/deep knowledge/understanding(s) of the declaration, but merely a spark of it"?

the Mt 16 profession: you ask was it that Peter “by the prompting and help of the Holy Spirit”, was “most sure and so he spoke up first”?

These wonderings begin to point to the answer, but I believe you are closest to the truth of it when you write,

And this level of understanding of the heart of God could only have come from God Himself for who knows God better than God Himself? This might be what the Lord meant by “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in Heaven.”

This is close, but still it lacks a truth that is essential to the answer!! The difference between a naturally derived faith, and a supernaturally infused faith, is not merely a difference in degree, or in intensity, or in depth, or in ‘level of understanding’, or in ‘sureness.’ The difference is not a matter of degree, but of kind. The difference between “natural” and “supernatural” is not a difference of degree! A supernatural reality is not merely a very high natural reality - not merely very much deeper, or very much higher, or very much more sincere or intense or strong or whatever measure you can imagine. The supernatural is not “more” natural - it is not natural at all. It is supernatural - a different dimension from the natural, a different “world” alltogether, indeed not of or from this world, but of and from heaven.

Well, I hope I’m not seeming to merely multiply words. I’m trying to stress that fact that the faith that Peter proclaimed in Mt 16 was literally “the word of God” being spoken by Peter, not merely more words/thoughts of Peter that he humanly concluded by all the natural means that he and the other disciples had been applying to their experiences with Jesus as disciples and learners and followers.

Jesus did not merely reward Peter for his faith. Jesus acknowledged and revealed that God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - chose Peter to head the Church. The supernatural gift of supernatural faith revealed this to all (including to Peter!).

 

[JGD]

…when St. Peter (along with all the others with him on the boat) came to this rational conclusion through “a work of ‘flesh and blood’”?

I hope I’m getting my confusion across.

I’m not sure it should be called a “rational” conclusion, at least not in the sense that they calmly took time to think, examine, reason, etc… Between the strong gales of wind battering them and then seeing what they thought was a “ghost” walking towards them, they were all probably in a highly tense/fearful state. And then to top it off Peter gets out of the boat and starts to sink! It seems to me their statement might well have been more of an instinctive exclamation. Kind of the way we might instinctively blurt out “You’re an angel” or “You’re a Godsend” if saved in a moment of panic.

Of course subsequently they probably gave a lot of serious thought to everything that occurred.

Apologies if all this has already been posted here; decided 68 was too many posts to read through.

 

[bob4]

Thank you for sharing this commentary! This is the sort of stuff I’m looking for! So if I understand this correctly, this means that the disciples may have had some inkling that the Lord is the Son of God, but they didn’t fully comprehend (or believe) this to be the case. They had a spark of an understanding, but not the full bright picture. Would this be correct?

Here is what the same source says regarding Mt. 16; “The popular conception of the Messiah was indissolubly tied to political liberation; Jesus’ activity had not shown that he fulfilled this expectation, so he could be no more than the precursor. It is Peter’s role, in a flash of revelation, to break through, beyond these political preoccupations.”

The following is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
441 In the Old Testament, “son of God” is a title given to the angels, the Chosen People, the children of Israel, and their kings. It signifies an adoptive sonship that establishes a relationship of particular intimacy between God and his creature. When the promised Messiah-King is called “son of God”, it does not necessarily imply that he was more than human, according to the literal meaning of these texts. Those who called Jesus “son of God”, as the Messiah of Israel, perhaps meant nothing more than this.

442 Such is not the case for Simon Peter when he confesses Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God”, for Jesus responds solemnly: “Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” Similarly Paul will write, regarding his conversion on the road to Damascus, “When he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles…” “and in the synagogues immediately [Paul] proclaimed Jesus, saying, ‘He is the Son of God.’” From the beginning this acknowledgment of Christ’s divine sonship will be the centre of the apostolic faith, first professed by Peter as the Church’s foundation.

 

[Gorgias]

To date, all I’ve gotten are “just have faith” and people questioning whether I trust God or the Church.

No, you haven’t. At the very least, I know that this hasn’t been my response.

I guess in that question we may disagree.

OK. So, it’s not “I haven’t gotten anything”, but rather “I disagree with what I’ve gotten.” Fair enough.

Indeed, they bowed down and worshiped Him which shows they understood (at least to some extent) and believed (again, at least to some extent) that He truly is the Son of God.

On the other hand, if you were on the Titanic and were saved from certain death by a miracle, wouldn’t you fall to your knees at the feet of the person who saved you? Wouldn’t you – in your state of mind at that moment – make exclamations that you would later reconsider?

Reading and rereading the passage, I fail to see where the disbelief is there.

“When the disciples saw him walking on the sea they were terrified. ‘It is a ghost,’ they said, and they cried out in fear.”

The only thing that makes them say or do any different is the miracle. That’s it. It’s not faith in Jesus … it’s the miracle that saved their lives that they’re reacting to.

And stress is rarely enough to push one into what would be blasphemy in the eyes of first century Jews.

“Son of God” isn’t blasphemy. “You’re actually God Himself”, on the other hand, is. They expressed the former, not the latter.

Today, we might understand that phrase to mean “The Second Person of the Triune God.” That’s not what they would have understood it to mean, at that point. If I understand your point, then I think you’re being anachronistic.

Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. I’m still making my way through Matthew. Could you please share the general chapter for Mark?

Mark 6.

In your Bible, there are footnotes (marked by asterisks) and cross-references (marked by letters). When you see them in the text, it’s often helpful to follow the cross-refs.

Even if they didn’t point out this fact in Matthew 16, it doesn’t mean that the other Apostles didn’t make this declaration earlier on. The absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence and all that.

Fair enough, but neither does the claim “well, they could have…!!!” work as evidence!

OmegaPraetor:

the disciples may have had some inkling that the Lord is the Son of God, but they didn’t fully comprehend (or believe) this to be the case.

The whole point of the Synoptic Gospels is that it’s impossible to understand who Jesus truly is, until you know His passion, death and resurrection. They literally point this out, time and again, in the context of those who – if anyone could have known – would have actually known: the apostles. And the Gospels keep pointing out: “yeah; they had no clue.”