So if the story in Mt. 14 precedes Mt. 16 chronologically, as you seem to think it does...June 10 2017 at 9:50 PM
|Tomas (Login TomasSedlacek)|
Response to Re: OK, you have a good point about why Jesus chose to say here he is the Son of a human.
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
What is your comment on v.13, on the matter that Jesus have to say and have to mention that he is the Son of man when he could just have asked "whom say ye that I am?" as he did in v.15?
And what do you see in Peter's response in v.16 in relation to that?
What do you see in v.17, on what Jesus said regarding Peter's answer?
Jesus had already told them earlier that he is the Son of a human. So here in verse 13 he repeated that. But he had not told them yet that he is the Christ, the Son of God. So he did not have to repeat again in verse 15, that he is the Son of a human.
In v. 16 Peter was inspired and announced that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. So then in verse 17 Jesus confirmed it that it was revealed to Peter by the Father, and not by a flesh and blood person, like Christ or anyone else.
What do you think is the reason why Jesus have to say and have to mention that he is the Son of Man (Son of a human), when his question is simply with regards to whom people say who he is?
What do you think is why Peter have to say and mention, besides saying that Jesus is the Christ, that Jesus is the Son of God?
How did Peter knew that? Verse 17 tells us that Peter knew that because, as Jesus said, His Father have revealed that to Peter and not by flesh and blood. How do you think was that?
Do you see anything significant in the entire passage?
No, Jesus did not have to say again that he is the Son of a human. But he chose to say it, in verse 13, he must have thought it is good for him to say it. He did not say why.
The Father revealed to Peter that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, so then naturally Peter wanted to say both of these revelations, so as to give enough information about who Jesus is. How do I think was that? The Father told him. How else?
What is significant in this passage? The new revelation to Peter, and so then from Peter to the other apostles, that Jesus is the Christ and also the Son of God. They did not know that before. They probably assumed, as did others, that he is a son of Joseph.
So, you don't see any significance as to why Jesus have to say that he is the son of a human/man, nor any significance that the Father did not only reveal to Peter that he is the Christ, but also that he is the Son of God. Well,...
You said Peter knew who Jesus is because the Father told him. But it seems even that Peter did not know that he knows so because the Father had told him that, in that Jesus have to tell that to him. And also, the rest of the disciples seems not to know not also. For, if the Father had told them so, would they have not told and ask Jesus concerning it? And would Peter have not, at the instance that the Father told him, asked Jesus about it and perhaps even went out shouting for joy and tell it to his brethren and friends? But we see even that it was Jesus at this instance who asked them who they say he is. And after blessing Peter because of having this knowledge of who He is, and so then too the other disciples knew, Jesus gave them commandment, to tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.
The passage apparently was the time that Jesus was revealed by the Father to Peter, that he is the Christ, the Son of God. Also, in this passage, we see that Jesus speaks of himself to be the son of a human/man. Now, the Father revealed to Peter that while Jesus is the son of a human/man, that Jesus is the son of God. There certainly is something significant in Jesus being the son of man (human) and the son of God (Deity).
It's good to look at some scriptures that speaks of the son of a human/man:
Matthew 9:6 But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins”—then He said to the paralytic, “Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.”
Matthew 18:11 For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.
John 5:27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man.
John 6:62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?
And let's look at some scriptures that speaks of the Son of God:
Matthew 8:29 And suddenly they cried out, saying, “What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?”
1 John 3:8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.
OK, you have a good point about why Jesus chose to say here he is the Son of a human, that he was contrasting this fact with the revelation that the Father would just at this point give to Peter, that Jesus is also the Son of God. So it became clear to Peter, that when Jesus is the Son of a human, as was revealed already for example in Mt. 9:6, that this did not mean he was the Son of Joseph, but that he was only the Son of Mary, she was the human of who he was son of, but his father was God himself. So Jesus was the son of not only a human, but also of God.
One interesting thing I noticed from your comment, is that you quote Mt. 8:29, and there the demons addressed Jesus as the Son of God, and yet 8:29 seems to precede 16:13-17 chronologically, since it is mentioned much earlier in the gospel of Matthew, so since Peter still did not know that Jesus is the Son of God, until the Father revealed it to him, that would indicate that Peter and the other apostles did not hear the shouting of the demons in 8:29. The Bible does not say why they did not hear what the demons were saying, but clearly they did not hear it. Or now I think another possibility is they heard it, but did not believe the demons.
But this explanation would not work with Mt. 14:33, where the apostles themselves declared that Jesus is the Son of God. So maybe 14:33 and previous verses, follow chronologically 16:13-17? Then I wonder why Matthew chose to mention it sooner, when he got already to chapter 14. Maybe not everything in Matthew is in chronological sequence. Like I have read the argument that not everything in John is in chronological sequence, since John chose to mention the cleaning out the temple from moneychangers so early. Of course there the counterargument is that maybe Jesus did it twice, once near the beginning of his ministry, and the second time near the end, after he entered Jerusalem on the donkey as the prophesied king. I wonder what is your opinion on these issues of chronology.
So, Jesus is the son of man (human) and the son of God (Deity).
With regards Mt. 8 And Mt. 14, until then Jesus did not disclose yet to no one that He is the Messiah, the Son of God. And neither did the Father revealed who Jesus was to them. Only until Mt.16 that this was revealed to them by the Father. And even while John the baptist have testified of Him to be the Christ, Jesus waited for His Father for Him to reveal that he is the Christ to them. Why is that?
33 You have sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. 34 Yet I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved.
It's really that Jesus do not receive testimony from man.
Look at whose testimony He points to about Himself:
36 But I have a greater witness than John’s; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish—the very works that I do—bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me. 37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. 38 But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. 39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.
The very works that I do.
John 15:26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.
The Holy Spirit.
So if the boat story in Mt. 14 precedes Mt. 16 chronologically, as you seem to think it does, then it would be interesting that the disciples would already believe that Jesus is the Son of God, even before the Father told Peter about it. And that would seem to imply that they also already knew Jesus is the Christ, since they must have known that only the Son of God is the Christ. So this would not have been really new information to them, what the Father revealed to Peter. And so that would have been puzzling. That is why I am speculating that some things in Matthew are not arranged chronologically. Though if the boat story in Mt. 14 follows, then they would have already known he is the Son of God, so I would be wondering about the exclamation on the boat, I guess they would take it as additional confirmation that Peter was really informed by the Father, as Jesus said. After all, they did not always believe everything Jesus said, he told them he would have to die, and then rise up, but they had trouble believing it. So that is what I am thinking.