E
EphelDuath
Guest
So Jesus’ disciples were calling him the Messiah and the Son of God before Peter. Why was Peter’s confession to Jesus in Matthew 16 special, then?
- Status
S
StCsDavid
Guest
That’s a good question for even John the Baptist proclaimed, “Behold the lamb of God!”
I like what the early Church Father, Origen has to say on the matter:
Peter denied that Jesus was any of those things which the Jews supposed, by his confession, “Thou art the Christ,” which the Jews were ignorant of; but he added what was more, “the Son of the living God,” who had said by his Prophets, “I live, saith the Lord.” (Eze 33:11) And therefore was He called the living Lord, but in a more especial manner as being eminent above all that had life; for He alone has immortality, and is the fount of life, wherefore He is rightly called God the Father; for He is life as it were flowing out of a fountain, who said, “I am the life.” (Jn 14,6)
D
diggerdomer
Guest
When/Where did someone call Jesus the Messiah in Matthew’s Gospel before Peter did in Matt 16? I mean, besides the author/evangelist.
Thanks for any help.
L
lopezby
Guest
**John 8
58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”59 So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.**
I actually wondered about this myself a few weeks back, and I thought of the above passage as an example. Didn’t Jesus take things to the ‘ultimate level’ with this statement? If the Apostles didn’t abandon Our Lord after saying this, hadn’t they essentially accepted it? If He referred to Himself as ‘I Am’, isn’t that a stronger statement (in a sense) than claiming to be the Christ?
E
EphelDuath
Guest
In the passage I posted, Nathaniel called Jesus the “Son of God and King of Israel,” which is actually more than the Jews expected of the Messiah.
J
juliamajor
Guest
Each of the gospels have an individual point of view and a different way of stating what happened. What Matthew says and what Mark says, Luke and John are all perspectives of the writer geared to his specific audience. We have to discuss what and where peter’s confession is said in Matthew by staying in Matthew.John is particularly difficult to compare with the other Synoptic gospels. Not being a synoptic and really a almost completely theological in it’s nature it is unique. every word in John has a theological point. The Passion , Jesus’ sacrifice is the crux of the Gospel. From beginning to end Jesus’s Passion is pointed to in theological terms.The question should be
'Why did John write this way and what is he trying to say?
A real useful tool for Bible students is a book of Gospel parallels. Gospels are put side by side and show where the Gospels agree and when they don’t when somebody says something or Jesus does something and it’s position in the text and compare it to where the other gospels put it. It will really make clearer what each gospel writer was trying to say by arranging their gospels the way they did.
'Why did John write this way and what is he trying to say?
A real useful tool for Bible students is a book of Gospel parallels. Gospels are put side by side and show where the Gospels agree and when they don’t when somebody says something or Jesus does something and it’s position in the text and compare it to where the other gospels put it. It will really make clearer what each gospel writer was trying to say by arranging their gospels the way they did.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
I understand that the Gospels each had intended purposes, but this isn’t so much a matter of scripture as it is the chronology of the life of Jesus. Sorry if this is the wrong forum for this question.
J
juliamajor
Guest
This is the right forum- no doubt! again though chronology was used by each evangelist for a purpose or as OT Chronology is not as important as the message.I believe that chronology in the NT has theological import- again Gospel parallels may able to bring it into perspective. For Lent i did a comparison among the gospel accounts of each individual Passions. In studying I discovered that nothing is written by accident that even chronology has a purpose.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Oh, ok, but that’s not calling him “Messiah.”
By the way, in the Old Testament, there are numerous references to humans being called “Son of God” (e.g. kings were sometimes called this, or the whole people of Israel could be called sons/children of God)—so that title may or may not have been understood as more than the Messiah. In fact, given that, I’d think “Messiah” would be the more prominent or radical title, in some respects…which is why I questioned where in the Gospel someone calls Jesus “Messiah” in the narrative before Peter does.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Indeed no one did call Jesus the Messiah Matthews Gospel before St. Peter did. And the following verses especially 16:20 would be a key indicator that St. Peter was the first to address Jesus as the Messiah.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
That’s what I think too. Thanks. If anyone knows differently I hope they will “chime in.”
- Status