Matthew 16 vs. Matthew 14

[OmegaPraetor]

I suspect part of the issue is Peter was informed directly by the Father (flesh and blood has not revealed this to you)

But this is where I’m stuck. I would have been able to accept this if no one had previously made this declaration before. Maybe Nathanael made the declaration when no one was within earshot so only Jesus heard it (so it’s easier to imagine that St. Peter would have received the revelation from the Father). However, St. Peter was on the boat in Matthew 14 (he had just walked back on water with the Lord, after all) so he would have been privy to the declaration of all others on the boat. Right now, to me, it seems like St. Peter only echoed in Caesarea Philippi what had already been said on the boat.

I’m sorry if it seems if I’m grueling you; that’s not my intent. I know you don’t have the answers, but I’m only expounding my point in the hopes that someone who might have the answer would read my comments and help enlighten me.

 

[OmegaPraetor]

With all due respect, this unfortunately doesn’t help my confusion. I’m well aware of the difference between natural faith and supernatural grace (which is a gift). I know all that.

My problem lies in the events in the passages themselves. How do we know/can be sure that St. Peter received supernatural grace to know the Lord intimately (i.e., as revealed by the Father) if just a few chapters ago he was on the same boat as all the Apostles that were also present in Caesarea Philippi? As far as I can tell, St. Peter just seems to be echoing what had already been said and established on the boat in Matthew 14. A skeptic might even say that St. Peter just had his “hand up first” in Matthew 16, but anyone could have made the same declaration he did because they were all on the boat and worshiped the Lord as the Son of God.

Put on a slightly different way, how can we know/be sure that St. Peter’s declaration was indeed a supernatural grace from the Father rather than just a fruit of his natural faith as attained in Matthew 14? I know some people say that I “should just have faith”, but this is something that I can’t “just have faith in” forever because we cite Matthew 16 as the basis for the special office of the Bishop of Rome. To me, it’s too important of an issue to leave unresolved.

 

[fide]

We can know that Peter’s insight was a supernatural gift because that is exactly what Jesus saw and declared it to be:

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Jesus and His Father, with the Holy Spirit, are one - ONE - Jesus is God and can see into man:

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did;
John 2:24 but Jesus did not trust himself to them,
John 2:25 because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man.

I don’t understand what “certitude” you are looking for. If you doubt the veracity of Scripture - thus doubting the veracity of the Church as well - you have only your own judgments to rely on. I hope that is not your foundation! But tell me - is it?

 

[otjm]

I don’t understand how they could argue (or even tell) that the events are not written in a chronological matter.

It is our general understanding that events occur as we experience them - one after another. And we normally tell a story of events one after another as we are showing start, middle and finish, as if what we start with is tied chronologically to another.

The Gospel writers in general were telling a story chronologically, but one does not have to presume that everything is in chronological order; they are providing kyrigma, not a story, and the events they speak of may or may not have appeared exactly in the order in which they are told. That is not to say there is no historical order; but we are looking at basically three years Of Christ’s public life and what he taught them - the point being that the teaching has priority of importance.

None of which is to say that matters were not all chronological; only to say that if we had the opportunity to speak with one of the writers and ask if everything was in chronological order, we most likely would get a really strange look.

 

[Mmarco]

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).

You are wrong; Jesus praises the deep understanding that Peter has of the truth he has declared. In fact Jesus says that flesh and blood has not revealed that truth to Peter, which means that Peter has reached a deeper understanding of that truth.
The Canaanite never sayed to Jesus that He was the Son of God; she believed that Jesus had the power to heal her daugther, and Jesus praised that faith. This is however completely different.
Consider that during the last supper, one of the apostoles (Philip) had not yet understood that Jesus was God:
John 14:8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?

It is reasonable to assume that Philip was on the boat together with the other apostoles, nevertheless, he had not yet understood what the expression “Son of God” really meant.

 

[fide]

With all due respect, this unfortunately doesn’t help my confusion. I’m well aware of the difference between natural faith and supernatural grace (which is a gift). I know all that.

I’m not sure that you are aware of the difference. The examples/objections you cite or explain, in discussing your difficulty with the teaching, don’t reflect a real understanding of the difference. I apologize in advance, if this sounds insulting to you - I have no desire to be rude or insulting or condescending or in any way depreciating you. I realize very well that many people presume they understand - but they do not. There is only one way to understand, and that is to come into, somehow, to have awakened within, somehow (by an act of God) the gift of supernatural faith. Then, the difference becomes plain. And the reality of the gift can be appreciated.

 

[Gorgias]

The Canaanite never sayed to Jesus that He was the Son of God; she believed that Jesus had the power to heal her daugther, and Jesus praised that faith.

I would disagree. She calls Jesus “Lord” and “Son of David”, and she “did him homage.” This isn’t a mere belief in healing power; she sees who He is (to the extent that she is able, which is more than just as ‘miracle-worker’). In fact, Jesus and the Canaanite woman seem to be acting out the prophecy that we heard in the reading from Isaiah today: “The foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, ministering to him, loving the name of the LORD, and becoming his servants … them I will bring to my holy mountain and make joyful”…!

This isn’t merely “faith in healing power” – it’s faith in Jesus!

 

[Mmarco]

This isn’t merely “faith in healing power” – it’s faith in Jesus!

Probably I did not express myself clearly. Also jewish prophets performed some miracles and the canaanite woman certainly believed in Jesus as a true jewish prophet, a man chosen by the true God. It is however wrong to say that the canaanite woman believed that Jesus was God.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

I would disagree. She calls Jesus “Lord” and “Son of David”, and she “did him homage.” This isn’t a mere belief in healing power; she sees who He is (to the extent that she is able, which is more than just as ‘miracle-worker’)

But no, “Son of the Living God” there right? Peter wasn’t just confessing Jesus’s identity as Messiah, but His divinity as well.

 

[Gorgias]

the canaanite woman certainly believed in Jesus as a true jewish prophet , a man chosen by the true God. It is however wrong to say that the canaanite woman believed that Jesus was God.

Sure, but that wasn’t your claim. You merely claimed that she believed in His ability to heal, and it was that faith – one that only believed in the miracle – that Jesus praised. Perhaps that’s not what you meant?

But no, “Son of the Living God” there right?

How would you interpret “she did him homage”? Mark adds that she falls to her knees. But no… no explicit expression of divinity.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

How would you interpret “she did him homage”?

People kowtow before Kings, do they not?

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

How would you interpret “she did him homage”?

People kowtow before Kings, do they not?

Perhaps. Yet, they do appropriate homage to God.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

And there are Kings like David and Solomon who didn’t do this and people still kowtowed before them. Joseph’s brothers did him homage. Did they believe he was God?

 

[OmegaPraetor]

I understand that. What I meant by the statement you quoted is how do scholars figure out that this or that passage was told out of chronological order. What markers would be there? Are there historical proofs of the Church Fathers arguing for this or that passage as being told out of order? And so on.

 

[OmegaPraetor]

That’s a rather loaded question. I trust God and I also trust the intellect that He gave me. And right now, my intellect is telling me that there’s this discrepancy between Matthew 14 and Matthew 16 which no one here has thus far satisfactorily reconciled.

 

[otjm]

how do scholars figure out that this or that passage was told out of chronological order.

A) I don;'t know if scholars even have that issue on their radar: B) if they do, I am not aware of the discussions, and C) as far as I am concerned, other issues, such as whether or not Jonah was a real person don’t impact my faith; and I doubt a lack of chronological order on some matters would not impact it either.

 

[OmegaPraetor]

In fact Jesus says that flesh and blood has not revealed that truth to Peter, which means that Peter has reached a deeper understanding of that truth.

And that is the crux of my dilemma. I don’t know how many times I need to repeat myself before people understood where I’m coming from. Jesus said that flesh and blood has not revealed that truth to Peter, but literally a few chapters down Peter was around a bunch of fleshes and blood who declared Jesus as the Son of God. Everyone keeps giving me circular answers and right now it’s getting very frustrating.

The Canaanite never sayed to Jesus that He was the Son of God;

This is not what I said. I said that Jesus praised people’s faith directly by saying something akin to “Great is your faith!”. If, as you stated earlier, that the Lord is praising Peter’s faith, then why not just point that out? Right now, it seems that He is praising Peter’s knowledge. Faith isn’t revealed; it is a gift given by God. What is revealed is knowledge; information; an understanding. So when the Lord says that “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father in heaven”, I’m strongly inclined to understand this as a revelation of understanding or knowledge. If this isn’t the traditional understanding of the Church, then I would really love to be referred to it. A writing by a Church Father. A document from an ecumenical council. A pontifical letter. Something.

Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

Here, it could be argued that St. Philip did understand Jesus to be God but he didn’t understand the oneness of the triune God (And who can blame him? It’s a tough cookie to crack.) This has, as far as I can tell, nothing to do with St. Philip’s incomprehension that the Lord is God. Heck, even St. Thomas the Doubter made the famous declaration after seeing the Risen Lord. I find it nearly impossible for St. Philip to not understand that Jesus is God at that point.

It is reasonable to assume that Philip was on the boat together with the other apostoles, nevertheless, he had not yet understood what the expression “Son of God” really meant.

This we can agree on. If that is the case, what then could they have meant by Son of God? If it’s a Herculean figure, wouldn’t that fall under blasphemy (which the Pharisees declared as such)? However, the Lord Himself said that He had not come to abolish the law and the prophets so clearly it couldn’t be that somehow God the Father sired the Son à la Zeus’ escapades. Again, any encyclicals or writings from the Church Fathers regarding this point would be appreciated.

 

[OmegaPraetor]

There is only one way to understand, and that is to come into, somehow, to have awakened within, somehow (by an act of God) the gift of supernatural faith.

That’s nice and all, but that doesn’t help me one bit. I really hoped people here could provide some writing by the Church Fathers that discusses the matter or some encyclical from a pope. Instead, I’m essentially being told that I must have supernatural faith. I’m sorry, but that’s not a satisfactory answer in the slightest. I’m sorry if I’m being curt, but this whole thread has been a frustrating exercise of repeating myself and getting non-answers.

The examples/objections you cite or explain, in discussing your difficulty with the teaching, don’t reflect a real understanding of the difference.

And again, I’m sorry that this comes across as rude, but since we’re being direct I might as well go for it. But it could just very well be that people aren’t explaining themselves very well. To put it another way, your way of communication and my way of understanding are not meshing. The messaged isn’t being received. Either because I’m not understanding what you’re saying as you intend it, or what you’re saying is not coming across to me in the right way, or some combination of both. There is, as Captain in Cool Hand Luke coined, “a failure to communicate.”

 

[OmegaPraetor]

I’m not discussing matters in the other books of the Bible which are from different genres. I’m discussing specifically the events within the Gospels which are told as actual historical events. Now, as you and others have pointed out, it may be that the events told in the Gospels aren’t always chronological in order. If they’re not, it would be nice to know how a scholar could determine which one is out of order (because I certainly can’t tell). Anyway, as you’ve said, you’re not aware of such discussions among scholars. I’ll just have to keep searching (although this little tidbit is derailing from my main concern in this post).

 

[Mmarco]

And that is the crux of my dilemma. I don’t know how many times I need to repeat myself before people understood where I’m coming from. Jesus said that flesh and blood has not revealed that truth to Peter, but literally a few chapters down Peter was around a bunch of fleshes and blood who declared Jesus as the Son of God. Everyone keeps giving me circular answers and right now it’s getting very frustrating.

As I told you, 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. Jesus knows our heart and He does not judge only the words people say. This is the point you go on neglecting, because you take into consideration only the words and you assume that if the words pronounced are the same, then people believe exacly the same things in the same way. This point is very clear to me and I do not know how to explain it better. Anyway, I was just giving you my opinion; of course, you are free to disagree.

I said that Jesus praised people’s faith directly by saying something akin to “Great is your faith!”. If, as you stated earlier, that the Lord is praising Peter’s faith, then why not just point that out?

I think Jesus pointed it out, even if He used different words; Jesus is certainly not obligated to say always exactly the same words.

Right now, it seems that He is praising Peter’s knowledge. Faith isn’t revealed; it is a gift given by God.

I disagree; faith is both a gift from God and a revelation and the result of our free responce to God.

What is revealed is knowledge; information; an understanding. So when the Lord says that “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father in heaven”, I’m strongly inclined to understand this as a revelation of understanding or knowledge.

The point is that we must also accept the truth that God reveals to us; God’s grace is not irresistible. For example. atheists reject the truth of God’s existence; I do not think that God has not revealed this truth to them as He revealed it to us; but they do not accept such truth. Of course, this is again my opinion.