Matthew 16 vs. Matthew 14

[OmegaPraetor]

Hello, everyone!

I posted the following question on a subreddit for priests, but I didn’t get a response from them so I’m hoping knowledgeable people here could help. So, here goes:

On Matthew 16, we see St. Peter’s famous declaration that Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (verse 16). Impressed, the Lord says, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. "

However, just a few (presumably) weeks/months ago in Chapter 14, the Apostles encountered the Lord walking on water. After St. Peter’s little foray into the water, the Lord and St. Peter returned to the boat. "And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’ " (verse 33)

I’m rather confused. If the Apostles/those in the boat openly worshiped the Lord, declaring Him as the Son of God, then what makes St. Peter’s declaration later on so special? The Lord said that flesh and blood had not revealed this to St. Peter, but a bunch of people openly declared it earlier. I’m just not sure what to make of this and I have a feeling I’m missing something. Also, while I do appreciate the value in private interpretations, I would strongly prefer to learn what the Church’s official teaching on the matter is. I tried Google-ing the answer, but I came up with nothing.

Thank you for taking the time to read my post and for any help you can offer.

 

[FiveLinden]

‘Messiah’ and ‘Son of God’ are different concepts. So there is no need to reconcile these verses. In the absence of a specific time reference there is also no reason to think that Nt stories are presented in chronological order, especially as there are variations in this between Gospels.

 

[OmegaPraetor]

‘Messiah’ and ‘Son of God’ are different concepts.

Wasn’t the Keys of the Kingdom given to St. Peter specifically because he declared that Jesus is the Son of God? If not, I find this rather odd since declaring someone to be the Son of God would (presumably) be a bigger deal than being a Messiah. After all, even Muslims believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah even as they reject that He is the Son of God.

there is also no reason to think that Nt stories are presented in chronological order.

I may be misreading the Gospel of St. Matthew, but throughout what I’ve read so far there are numerous time markers that strongly suggest the events were being presented in a chronological manner. From my understanding, this seems to be particularly the case with the events from Chapter 14 to Chapter 16. More specifically, it traced the path the Lord took from the Sea of Galilee (a lake in the northern parts of Judea) to Ceasarea Philippi (a city/pagan temple area that’s at the most northern tip of the Judean province). From there, we continue to trace the path the Lord took since He descended (quite symbolic, I might add) from the northern tip of Judea all the way down to Jerusalem where He is ultimately executed. So it just doesn’t make sense that the overarching movement of the Gospel of St. Matthew would be chronological in essence, but somehow this or that story was told out of order. And if the latter were indeed the case, how do we know which events were told out of order (and why)? I feel this latter reasoning falls quickly to a slippery slope of “explaining away” some seeming contradictions by stating that they weren’t told chronologically. Basically, from a skeptic’s point of view, that explanation seems rather convenient.

 

[FiveLinden]

Wasn’t the Keys of the Kingdom given to St. Peter specifically because he declared that Jesus is the Son of God? If not, I find this rather odd since declaring someone to be the Son of God would (presumably) be a bigger deal than being a Messiah. After all, even Muslims believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah even as they reject that He is the Son of God.

Do you have any reason to say the term ‘Son of God’ means ‘God’ or ‘a person of the Godhead’?

 

[Bruce_Killian]

Wasn’t the Keys of the Kingdom given to St. Peter specifically because he declared that Jesus is the Son of God?

Matt 16 is about a year after the start of Jesus’ ministry. In the first few days Nathanael said
John 1:49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”
Caesar was called the son of god, Dr Sri notes Peter said son of the “living” God.
Grace and peace, Bruce

 

[BartholomewB]

Basically, from a skeptic’s point of view, that explanation seems rather convenient.

Nevertheless, it has long been accepted by NT specialists. Back in the twenties of the last century, Fr. Marie-Joseph Lagrange published his Synopsis Evangelica, the full Greek text of all four Gospels rearranged in what he judged to be the closest possible approximation to chronological order. In the case of these two episodes, Lagrange agrees with Matthew, placing 14:22-32 (walking on the water) earlier than 16:13-20 (Caesarea Philippi).

 

[fide]

In Matthew 16, we see St. Peter’s famous declaration that Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (verse 16). Impressed, the Lord says, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. "

However, just a few (presumably) weeks/months ago in Chapter 14, the Apostles encountered the Lord walking on water. After St. Peter’s little foray into the water, the Lord and St. Peter returned to the boat. "And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’ " (verse 33)

Jesus gives the radical difference in His explanation: “For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, [Simon] but my Father in heaven.”. In the earlier verse, the Apostles came to a rational conclusion from what they saw: a miracle, Jesus walking on water. The difference is between on the one hand a rational conclusion, a work of “flesh and blood”, a work possible in the natural gifts of God to men, and on the other hand, a supernatural work of God acting directly in the human soul of Simon - an understanding given immediately in the light of God Himself.

This crucial distinction is stressed in John’s Gospel:

John 1:12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God;
John 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

and again, to Nicodemus - who could see (at the time) only with his eyes of flesh:

John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

This experience did not mean (obviously) that Simon would remain in this supernatural light! We see almost immediately after “hearing” this from God in his soul, “Peter” reverted to his old self:

Mat 16:21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.
Mat 16:22 And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, “God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you.”
Mat 16:23 But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men.”

 

[Gorgias]

Jesus gives the radical difference in His explanation: “ For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, [Simon] but my Father in heaven. ”. In the earlier verse, the Apostles came to a rational conclusion from what they saw: a miracle, Jesus walking on water.

This makes sense. Moreover, the “walking on water” episode is all about lack of faith, whereas Peter’s assertion in Mt 16 is all about a declaration that’s filled with faith.

 

[fide]

This makes sense. Moreover, the “walking on water” episode is all about lack of faith , whereas Peter’s assertion in Mt 16 is all about a declaration that’s filled with faith.

The important thing about this thread/issue, is the distinction between natural virtues (faith, hope and love) and infused, supernatural virtues (supernatural faith and hope, and holy divine charity). One can have natural faith from logical conclusions, from observing things in nature, from a powerful charismatic speaker - all human, natural responses from which one can draw out conclusions about God. Such can be called faith, but it is a belief about God or Jesus. The faith that is required to enter the Kingdom, is not a conclusion about, it is a gift from, which calls forth faith in, God and/or Jesus Christ.

Thus St. Paul writes, “By grace are you saved, through faith, not because of works, lest any man should boast.” Drawing reasonable conclusions from observations and concluding some understandings about God, or Jesus, is a human work. It can be toward what is better - true, saving faith - but it is not there. The grace to believe is a gift from God. We cannot “do” a gift, we can only receive, and respond with the obedience of faith.

 

[OmegaPraetor]

Thank you for the explanation and I guess that sort of makes sense. My hang-up though is that I find it hard to reconcile that St. Peter received supernatural insight on the godhood of the Lord when just a few chapters earlier he was literally part of the group who bowed down and worshiped Him. How could the Lord say that “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you” 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.

 

[OmegaPraetor]

I’m not sure I follow the question. Care to expound?

 

[OmegaPraetor]

Thank you for that insight, Bruce. This just raises a few more questions for me then. If Nathanael made this declaration before St. Peter, then how come he didn’t get the Keys instead? Moreover, how do we know that St. Peter meant something different from the “caesar” definition of son of god? To play the devil’s advocate here, maybe St. Peter was just repeating what everyone else was saying and yet somehow his declaration was singled-out as being important.

I don’t know. I’m really stuck on this. Right now, I’m just surrendering to God and trusting that these passages mean as the Church teaches, but I wouldn’t say no to any clarity on the matter if He wills it.

 

[OmegaPraetor]

Yes, I’m aware that a lot of NT experts hold this view, but I guess from my ignorant point of view I don’t understand how they could argue (or even tell) that the events are not written in a chronological matter. I’m sure they’ve also offered explanations as to why they would be out of order, but I haven’t heard them.

Regardless, as you said, Matthew 14 is generally seen as preceeding Matthew 16. If that’s the case, my confusion/question stands.

 

[fide]

I don’t have time to answer this now - maybe later today. I’ll try to get back then…

 

[Mmarco]

I think that the point is that two persons can say exactly the same words and make the same statement of faith, but this does not mean that both of them believe in their heart with the same strength in what they are saying or that they understand the deep meaning of such statement in the same way. We may think we have a strong faith, but when some difficulties come, our faith may begin to waver and we understand that it was weaker than we thought (think about Peter walking on the sea or denying Jesus).
So, even if other apostoles may have made the same declaration of faith, Jesus, who knows our hearts, found a stronger faith in Peter when he made that declaration and that he undertood more deeply the meaning of such declaration.

 

[fide]

I am able to get back to this much sooner than I thought.
First, many people can come to the rational conclusion, though these of God-given gifts of reason, the ability to observe and assimilate through memory, and apply logic to come to rational conclusions and generalizations. ALL of that is “human work”, and the rational conclusions one can draw about God, and/or about Jesus, can form an understanding that can be called a [natural] faith in God and Jesus. This is not what Scripture means in speaking of the God-given gift of grace (itself a supernatural reality) which can unfold, so to speak, into supernatural and salvific faith, as in:

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God —
Eph 2:9 not because of works, lest any man should boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Works which flow from the virtue of [supernatural] faith are required of us, intended by God from us, as Paul wrote: “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” Such works are beautiful - and meritorious - and glorify the Lord, and form the fruitfulness and witness that God desires.

Commonly, if and once a person has received supernatural faith, he then has within him two distinct “foundations” upon which to make human decisions and choices for action: (1) the natural human beliefs and sources he had before God gave him or awakened to him the gift of supernatural faith, and (2) this new or newly awakened “knowledge” of Truth, of God, of Christ Himself. If and when this awakening happens, a new journey in Christ has begun - or can begin.

The journey, if one perseveres, includes a dying to the one “foundation”, and a living and growing in the other, in the time remaining on this earth.

The dialog between Jesus and Nicodemus in John 3 (especially verses 2-8) might illuminate this for you, too.

Maybe an article in Homiletic & Pastoral Review could help clarify this whole issue:
Natural and Supernatural Faith

Let me know if this helps, please.

 

[FiveLinden]

Your view depends on the meaning of the terms translated as ‘Son of God’ being ‘God’. That is, that a Son of God is himself God. I’m asking why you think that.

 

[Bruce_Killian]

This just raises a few more questions for me then. If Nathanael made this declaration before St. Peter, then how come he didn’t get the Keys instead?

I don’t have all the answers. There are three great statements about Jesus the two we have looked at by Nathanael and Peter and also by Thomas John 20:28 “My Lord and my God” Peter’s name had already previously been changed when Jesus first met him to Cephas in John 1:42 that is the Aramaic for Peter. I suspect part of the issue is Peter was informed directly by the Father (flesh and blood has not revealed this to you) also there are three times where Jesus adds “bar Jonas” to Simon’s name giving me the hint of the conversion power of Jonah at Nineveh where the whole great city instantly converted and on Pentecost Peter leads 3000 to convert.

 

[OmegaPraetor]

If it’s a matter of the strength of one’s faith, then how come the Lord didn’t just say that as the basis of giving St. Peter the keys? There’s no indication at all in the passage that the Lord is praising St. Peter’s faith (especially since the Lord has praised the faith of others in the past – the Canaanite woman comes to mind). As far as I can tell, the Lord praises St. Peter for his declaration which, as far as I can tell, would have been made with as much faith/assurance as when the Apostles/disciples worshiped Him on the boat.

 

[OmegaPraetor]

Because it’s in the word. I’m sorry, but this question is rather odd to me. It’s like asking me, “Why do you think the term ‘coffee table’ means ‘table’?” I’m really not getting what you’re trying to put across. If you have a point to make, please make it.