Matthew 16 vs. Matthew 14

[fide]

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.

One must trust God above trusting one’s intellect when one’s intellect is being guided not by divine revelation but by human observation, influences of other men, rational presumptions, and logical conclusions. Abraham shows us a powerful example of this when - after giving him a son Isaac, against all human odds and natural human physical limitations - God later told Abraham that he was to do something against every natural understanding he possessed:

Gen 22:2 He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”

Abraham immediately set out to obey God. At the crucial moment, knife in hand, God held back Abraham’s hand, and Isaac was not to be sacrificed, but a ram caught in the bushes, which God provided. God said,

Gen 22:16 and said, “By myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son,
Gen 22:17 I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies,
Gen 22:18 and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.”

Abraham did not obey his reason; he obeyed God first. In the light of faithful obedience, his reason later became enlightened to understand God, when his reason alone could not! Hebrews explains:

Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer his only son,
18 of whom it was said, “Through Isaac descendants shall bear your name.”
19 He reasoned that God was able to raise even from the dead, and he received Isaac back as a symbol.

If you are baptized, you have in you the supernatural gift of infused, supernatural faith. You also have a natural faith that turns not to God first, but to natural human resources. The challenge that God has seen fit to offer you here, it seems, is the choice of which faith to embrace over the other. True, supernatural faith does not conflict with reason! Faith enlightens reason. Reason must wait, sometimes, to be satisfied - as was the case with Abram, called “the father of faith.”

 

[Gorgias]

Joseph’s brothers did him homage. Did they believe he was God?

He was a political leader; they bowed to him as a powerful figure in Egypt. Did they call him “Lord” and ask him to perform a supernatural miracle?

I trust God and I also trust the intellect that He gave me.

But not the Church He gave you?

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.

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

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.

“A few chapters earlier”, you mean, right?

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

To put it another way, your way of communication and my way of understanding are not meshing. The messaged isn’t being received.

Right. What is the difficulty, then? What is it you’re looking for? I’m with you that Mt 16 talks about divinely-inspired knowledge. Are you wondering why those who exclaimed “son of God!” in a moment of stress and disbelief aren’t credited with knowledge?

I would point to a couple of reasons:

• 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!”
• 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.

So, I think we’re being given some pretty clear evidence that talk is cheap in a moment of stress, but divine inspiration is special.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

He was a political leader; they bowed to him as a powerful figure in Egypt. Did they call him “Lord” and ask him to perform a supernatural miracle?

Prophets like Elisha and Moses performed miracles. Does this make them God?

 

[Gorgias]

Prophets like Elisha and Moses performed miracles. Does this make them God?

Prophets like Elisha and Moses didn’t claim that they were the source of the miracles, but that God was. “Father, I thank you” and “the Father and I are one” are whole different set of claims, when applied to the notion of the miracles Jesus performs, don’t you think?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Prophets like Elisha and Moses didn’t claim that they were the source of the miracles, but that God was. “Father, I thank you” and “the Father and I are one” are whole different set of claims, when applied to the notion of the miracles Jesus performs, don’t you think?

But we are discussing the Canaanite woman and what she believed about Jesus. And it doesn’t follow that she believed or even knew these things.

 

[SeekSalvation]

Dr Pitre explains the answer to your questions:

 

[Gorgias]

But we are discussing the Canaanite woman and what she believed about Jesus. And it doesn’t follow that she believed or even knew these things.

Right… 'Cause, after all, a pagan woman comes from pagan territory to find healing from a man whom the crowds were proclaiming for a whole host of reasons… and she wouldn’t have known anything about Jesus?

 

[Gorgias]

Dr Pitre explains the answer to your questions:

Looking at the comments to that video, I see that eight hours ago, someone asked @OmegaPraetor’s precise question.

 

[Mmarco]

Julius_Caesar:

But we are discussing the Canaanite woman and what she believed about Jesus. And it doesn’t follow that she believed or even knew these things.

Right… 'Cause, after all, a pagan woman comes from pagan territory to find healing from a man whom the crowds were proclaiming for a whole host of reasons… and she wouldn’t have known anything about Jesus?

Mark 8 27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?”
They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.”

People didn’t think Jesus was the Son of God

 

[Julius_Caesar]

“Oh there’s a healer who can help you daughter. Some say He’s Messiah of the Jews.”

Yeah. Doesn’t necessarily mean she knew or believed He was God.

 

[Gorgias]

“Oh there’s a healer who can help you daughter. Some say He’s Messiah of the Jews.”

Yeah. Doesn’t necessarily mean she knew or believed He was God.

And she falls at his feet and worships Him. Nah… that’s not what you do in the presence of the divine, right?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

And she falls at his feet and worships Him

She falls at His feet and does Him homage. People do kings homage. An action generally done to superiors to acknowledge your inferiority.

Your argument is a post hoc.

 

[Gorgias]

She falls at His feet and does Him homage. People do kings homage.

Did she call him a ‘king’, though?

At whose feet do people fall in the Gospel?

How about in the OT? (Hint: angels, who were seen as being equivalent in honor to the living God whose messengers they were.)

Your argument is a post hoc.

Are you sure that word means what you think it means? After all, did the Evangelist believe Jesus to be God? What would have been in his mind for someone who paid homage to Jesus, when he was writing his account?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Did she call him a ‘king’, though?

At whose feet do people fall in the Gospel?

How about in the OT?

She called Him the Son of David, i.e., Messiah and acknowledged her inferiority to Him. Messiah is King is He not?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

After all, did the Evangelist believe Jesus to be God? What would have been in his mind for someone who paid homage to Jesus, when he was writing his account?

The evangelist had the Holy Ghost. The woman did not.

 

[Gorgias]

The evangelist had the Holy Ghost. The woman did not.

I’m dealing with your claim that my argument is “post hoc”. If the evangelist had this idea in mind as he wrote the Gospel, then it’s there from the point he writes, and I’m not making it up afterward.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Your argument is that woman calls Jesus son of David and kneels before Him. Therefore woman thinks He’s God.

You’re assuming that the woman kneeling to Jesus is her acknowledging his divinity.

 

[bob4]

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)

Regarding the expression “Son of God”: From A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture - Mt. 14:33 “The disciples’ profession of faith does not necessarily imply recognition of Christ’s divinity at this stage, though the title can bear this meaning.” Section 726b
And again: Section 711b1 Christology - Matthew uses freely the title ‘Son of God’ which at least hints at, though it does not necessarily demand on the part of the speaker, recognition of his divinity."

 

[Dan_Defender]

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

Yes, and I would add that we read what is in the gospels, but God knows the heart. Jesus foreknew that Peter was better for the leadership of the community than Nathaniel.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Yes, and I would add that we read what is in the gospels, but God knows the heart. Jesus foreknew that Peter was better for the leadership of the community than Nathaniel.

Nathanael is called guileless. Peter is not. I think Peter was chosen primarily because of his weakness.