> My point with those other verses is that it's one or the other. Either God ave Jesus authority or Jesus has authority in himself.

Jesus says He works in perfect unity with the Father. There's no reason or basis to separate the two into distinct and separate working entities. The text leads us to believe they work as one, not as two. If you know anything about car engines, this is like claiming that camshaft does its work in a different sense than the pistons do. Sure, they are separate pieces, but they work in perfectly integrated harmony; it's the *only* way they work. You can't separate one from the other.

>> Faith
> That's great. What do you want to straighten up?

The first definition of faith is loyalty to God. Jesus certainly had that. The second is that Jesus would have to make an assumption of truth based on the evidence. Jesus didn't need that because He was omniscient. The third is a system beliefs. Jesus didn't need that; He was the *object* of belief.

> Is it the trust kind of faith that you think Jesus didn't have? So your view is that when Jesus prayed "all things are possible for you" he wasn't actually trusting in God?

Correct. He wasn't trusting in God. He was affirming truth. If I say to you, "You're a competent writer," it's not a statement of trust, but an affirmation of what is obvious. He’s not trusting God (as if He doesn’t know what’s completely going on), He is worshipping.

> I'm applying what the author of Hebrews has been talking about with all the heroes of the Old Testament to Jesus.

The point of Hebrews is that Jesus is NOT just one in a sequence or "one like others." Hebrews is explicit that Jesus is in a category by Himself.

> Jesus offered prayers [for salvation] to the one who could save his life and those prayers were heard (Hebrews 5:7-10). Jesus was vindicated by resurrection.

Correct.

> It's faith, trust, what have you.

It's Jesus surrendering His will to the Father. It's an expression of obedience, not faith.

> You've somehow concluded that since Jesus is God he can therefore not have faith.

Correct. That's exactly what I've concluded from the textual evidence.

> Virtually no Trinitarians believe that.

I don't believe this for a minute.

> What you cannot responsibly ignore is the OTHER side, which I have given you as well.

I'm not trying to ignore anything. What are some of the texts where Jesus' authority and power is innate rather than given him by the father. My point with those other verses is that it's one or the other. Either God ave Jesus authority or Jesus has authority in himself. Since we both cannot escape the conclusion that God gave Jesus authority, that authority must not rest innately in Jesus.

> "Faith" is used in a couple of different ways in the Bible.

That's great. What do you want to straighten up?

Is it the trust kind of faith that you think Jesus didn't have? So your view is that when Jesus prayed "all things are possible for you" he wasn't actually trusting in God? He was just stating a fact because he is omniscient? But you also claim faith is "knowing."

> The text doesn't say Jesus believed it was there and acted accordingly. You are imposing this illegitimately on the text. It isn't there. Jesus did not act by faith.

Listen, I agree it's not explicitly there. I'm not seeing words in my mind that don't exist. I'm applying what the author of Hebrews has been talking about with all the heroes of the Old Testament to Jesus. Like them, he had something unseen (the joy set before him) for which he endured suffering.

Jesus offered prayers [for salvation] to the one who could save his life and those prayers were heard (Hebrews 5:7-10). Jesus was vindicated by resurrection. If anyone else "offered prayers to the one who could save him from death" you'd know what was going on. It's faith, trust, what have you.

The point the author of Hebrews is trying to make is that Jesus is the ultimate example of faith

> This is absolutely and provably untrue.

You've somehow concluded that since Jesus is God he can therefore not have faith. Virtually no Trinitarians believe that. One can have faith in Jesus and Jesus can have faith in God simultaneously.

> That's what faith is. See Psalm 37. Faith is the belief that God will act in a certain way. Jesus believed his God would vindicate him.

I'm glad this surfaced, because it gives us a chance to straighten out what is probably a fundamental misunderstanding you have.

"Faith" is used in a couple of different ways in the Bible.

• Loyalty to God. Faith is our allegiance. We "trust" God.
• An active response to spiritual knowledge. Faith is making an assumption of truth because we have enough evidence to make that assumption reasonable. I "believe" in the afterlife. I "know" I am saved from sin.
• A system of beliefs (the tenets of Christianity): "The faith."

> All authority Jesus has is given him by God. "All things have been handed over to me by my Father" (Matthew 11:27). Jesus has no authority "within himself." The father "has given [the son] authority to judge" (John 5:27).

Yes, this is part of the picture. Yes, God gave Jesus his authority. Yes, the verses say that. What you are ignoring is the other part of the picture: Jesus has the authority of God in and of Himself. I can give you hundreds of verses to that regard. They are BOTH true: God gave Jesus (in His incarnated state) His authority; Jesus (as one in essence with God the Father) has divine authority in and of Himself. Both pictures are true. You can stop quoting verses on the one side; I agree with that side. What you cannot responsibly ignore is the OTHER side, which I have given you as well.

> Faith is a conviction for things unseen.

Correct. Faith is knowing, based on evidence, what still lies ahead. It's a secure and confident knowledge.

> The joy set before Jesus through the cross was unseen but Jesus believed it was there and acted accordingly.

We've already been though this. The text doesn't say Jesus believed it was there and acted accordingly. You are imposing this illegitimately on the text. It isn't there. Jesus did not act by faith.

> The point the author of Hebrews is trying to make is that Jesus is the ultimate example of faith

This is absolutely and provably untrue.

• Jesus is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being (1.3). In other words, the point of Hebrews is that Jesus is divine.
• Jesus is the one who sustains all things (1.3). The point of Hebrews is that Jesus is divine.
• Jesus is the one who provided for the true forgiveness from sins (1.3; 2.15). The point of Hebrews is that Jesus has freed us from our sins.
• Jesus is no mere angel (1.4-14; 2.5). The point of Hebrews is that Jesus is the sinless Son of God, worthy of worship and the one whom the angels worship (1.6; 4.14)
• Jesus is the divine king (1.8). The point of Hebrews is that Jesus is divine.
• Jesus is the Creator God (1.10). The point of Hebrews is that Jesus is divine.
• Jesus is the sovereign Lord (1.13; 2.8). The point of Hebrews is that Jesus is divine.
• Jesus is the author of salvation (2.10, 15). The point of Hebrews is that Jesus has freed us from our sin.
• Fix your thoughts on Jesus (3.1; 12.3). He is our true high priest, the Messiah whom God sent (4.15; 7.11-8.13; 9.11-15)—not as an example, but as intercessor and mediator (4.16-5.10).
• Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 7 & 8; 9.11-28). The point of Hebrews is that Jesus started a new order of salvation and relationship to God.
• Jesus is the final and sufficient sacrifice for sins (Heb. 10). The point of Hebrews is that Jesus has freed us from our sins.

THEREFORE, WE should live by faith in Jesus (Heb. 10.19-12.3). Let US draw near to God in full assurance of faith (10.22) because of who Jesus is and what He has done. You'll notice that "by faith" is not used to Jesus in chapter 12 (or anywhere).

> he voluntarily died trusting fully in his heavenly reward.

The text doesn't say this. You can't just make it up.

> He was not being a person of faith, but instead that God would vindicate His work on the cross.

That's what faith is. See Psalm 37. Faith is the belief that God will act in a certain way. Jesus believed his God would vindicate him.

> And this is just the Gospel of Matthew.

All authority Jesus has is given him by God. "All things have been handed over to me by my Father" (Matthew 11:27). Jesus has no authority "within himself." The father "has given [the son] authority to judge" (John 5:27).

> The "conviction for things unseen" is the cloud of witnesses in chapter 11.

You must have mistyped this. Faith is a conviction for things unseen. The joy set before Jesus through the cross was unseen but Jesus believed it was there and acted accordingly. The point the author of Hebrews is trying to make is that Jesus is the ultimate example of faith—he voluntarily died trusting fully in his heavenly reward.

There's a growing portion of scholarship that interprets "the faith of Christ" as "Christ's faith." This is actually the view of Chris Hays, the guy who came up with the theophany interpretation of the sea-crossing. And I think virtually all evangelicals would disagree with you in your insistence that Jesus had no faith.

> 1 Peter 2.23

Nice try, but you were saying that Christ had to live by faith and that He had to trust God. What you've identified here is that Christ didn't retaliate because He knew the Father would judge His oppressors. The word used is παρεδίδου. He knew that God would judge justly. He was not being a person of faith, but instead that God would vindicate His work on the cross.

> I don't see how you can say that when he is called a prophet and acts as a prophet.

Jesus is prophet, priest, and king. Jesus is the divine Son of God. He and the Father share the same essence, and so Jesus is God. Jesus certainly had a prophetic role to play, but all four Gospels as well as the book of Hebrews show that He was no mere prophet but far more: He was God in the flesh.

> The texts I presented say that God worked in Jesus to perform deeds.

But you didn't show these texts:

* In Matthew 5, repeatedly mentioning what the Law says, but setting Himself up the authority over the law: "But I say to you..."
* Jesus had the authority within Himself to forgive sins (Mt. 9.6).
* Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath (Mt. 12.8)—Jesus is the one who holds the authority that gave the Law, i.e., He was divine in and of Himself.
* Jesus is the judge of all humanity—a position reserved for God (Mt. 16.27). He has authority in Himself.
* Jesus is the King who sits on the throne (Mt. 19.28; 25.31)
* Jesus is equal to God (Mt. 22.41-46).

And this is just the Gospel of Matthew. If I kept going through the entire NT, I would max out the word limit of the forum, especially when I got to John and the writings of Paul.

Sure there are all those texts you quoted where God is the authority. But there's more to the picture. There are just as many texts where Jesus is the authority. The whole NT links Jesus and the Father as one God, working in tandem and each one glorifying the other.

> Jesus is the final example in the Hebrews' hall of faith

No, the hall of faith ends at the end of chapter 11. That's what chapter 12 starts with "Therefore." Chapter 11 is the cloud of witnesses; chapter 12 is the focal point to which they all converge and speak: JESUS. In chapter 12 we are looking beyond the cloud of witnesses, standing with them watching the one True Hero: Jesus, the one who sits at the right hand of the throne of God.

> He had "conviction for things unseen" when he endured the cross for the sake of the "joy set before him."

Nope. The "conviction for things unseen" is the cloud of witnesses in chapter 11. Jesus has been the focus of the book since Heb. 1.2 as being God Himself: not a human prophet, not an angel, not a human priest, not Moses, and not a typical sacrifice. Jesus is more than an angel: He is the Son. But He is more than that: He is the display of God's very being (Heb. 1.3). He is more than a prophet, He is the incarnated God. He is more than the Temple, He is the builder of it. He is more than a sacrifice; His sacrifice is perfect and it is once for all. He is not a person of faith, He is the OBJECT of faith.

> I'm sure you know what a pioneer is here; someone who does something first.

The term is ἀρχηγὸν. Arche means beginning. Jesus is the author. He wrote the book on life. He initiated salvation, He initiated the covenant, and He initiated relationship with us. He is the giver of grace, the granter of forgiveness, and object of hope and faith. He is the one who makes it all possible. He is the King, the author, the initiator.

I guess I'll start with where I see factual errors.

>> He entrusted himself to God
> You won't find this either.

"When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly (1 Peter 2:23).

> The early Christians didn't identify Jesus as a prophet, but as deity.

I don't see how you can say that when he is called a prophet and acts as a prophet.

> The Father and the Son work in tandem; it's not possible to separated whose power is whose.

I don't really understand how you can read it that way. The texts I presented say that God worked in Jesus to perform deeds. "All things from God, all things through Christ." The son can do nothing on his own; only what he sees the father [already] doing. The father can work on his own, the son cannot. The deeds Jesus does are not his own. It's not Jesus' power, it's the power of God's spirit.

> He is the pioneer and perfecter of our faith because he endured the cross. (End of sentence; no "in faith.")

Jesus is the final example in the Hebrews' hall of faith. He had "conviction for things unseen" when he endured the cross for the sake of the "joy set before him." Although that joy was at the time unseen, he still endured. In this way he is the pioneer and perfecter of our faith. I'm sure you know what a pioneer is here; someone who does something first.

> The Markan Jesus claims that if a disciple asks God in faith, it will be granted.

Correct, but there's always a context and an understanding. Suppose one of the disciples asked God in faith if he could fly like a sparrow? I'll guarantee that would not be granted.

That teaching comes in Mark 11.12-33. Jesus spoke in a context. People get into interpretive trouble when they ignore the context. Here in Mark this saying is couched in the story of the fig tree and the cleansing of the Temple—an indictment of religious people on false expectations and false practices. It's true that people want the easy path and the one where they get what they want, but Jesus is not talking about getting whatever you want. Instead, he is talking about a bona fide relationship with God that results in spiritual harmony, and He is at the same time decrying religious practices for the benefit of self. That's an important point to catch. It's only in that context, then, that people mislead themselves with false hopes based on selfish requests, luring themselves into deceit.

Prayer, according to Jesus, is not putting oneself in charge and getting whatever you ask for. Instead, Jesus is talking about a harmony with God that puts one in a position of being a participant with what God is doing, which makes the impossible possible. The necessary condition of His teaching is a relationship with God, not just religious practice. What makes prayer vital is its harmony with God, not just wishful optimism.

> The Markan Jesus is at least a prophet.

The Markan Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God (Mk. 1.1). That's his agenda for writing, and that's where he's presenting his case.

> "Prophet" was an appropriate designation for Jesus among early Christians, specifically "the prophet like Moses" (Acts 3:22).

The early Christians didn't identify Jesus as a prophet, but as deity.

* "My Lord and my God" (Jn. 20.28)
* The Messiah (Jn. 20.31; Acts 2.36; 3.20; 5.42 — and HUNDREDS of times as Jesus "Christ")
* The Son of God (Jn. 20.31; Acts 9.20, and 18 more times)
* Lord; Lord of all (Acts 2.36; 7.59; 9.13, 35;10.36 — and HUNDREDS of times)
* The Holy One (Acts 2.27; 3.14, and 6 more times)
* The Righteous One (Acts 3.14; 7.52; 22.14; 1 Jn. 2.1)
* The Son of Man standing at the right hand of God the Father (Acts 7.56)
* Savior (Acts 5.31 — and 23 more times)
* God (Phil. 2.6-11; 1 Cor. 12.4-6; Rom. 9.5). In dozens of places Paul puts the Father and the Son in equal space.
* Creator (Jn. 1.3; Col. 1.16; Heb. 1.3; 1 Cor. 8.6)
* Prince (Acts 5.31) — this once.
* The Prophet prophesied by Moses in Deuteronomy (Acts 3.22)— this once.

Jesus certainly acted with prophetic power and voice (he is even referred to that once [and only that once] as the prophet who was the fulfillment of Moses's prophecy, but that's not what he was known as by the early Church. To the early Church is most often known as "Lord" and "Christ."

> The most sufficient appellation for Jesus in Mark (and the Gospels in general) though is Son of God

Mark uses it only three times. Generally "son of God" is a way of describing His exalted status in a unique relationship with the Father ("beloved son," and son in a way that no one else was a son).

> Matthew believes the revelation of this son-of-god designation is the primary point of the sea-rescues narratives; the disciples declare "surely this is God's son." So based on Matthew's treatment of the event we can automatically rule out a theophany interpretation of the sea-crossing: the Jewish disciples correctly interpret the event as evidence that Jesus is God's son, not God himself.

At this point (before His crucifixion and resurrection), the disciples are not perceiving Jesus as God. They see him as the messiah. ("Son of God" is a messianic term in 2 Sam. 7.14; Ps. 2.7; 89.26-27).

> "Son of God" was a common title for the Davidic king.

In the OT, yes. The Church used the title, however, to describe His unique relationship with the Father, tantamount to a declaration of His divinity.

> Non-Christian Jews in the NT use the term interchangeably with terms like Messiah (Mark 14:61, Luke 4:41,cf. Matthew 16:16) and king of Israel (John 1:49).

Every passage you cite is from the Gospels—before ANYONE was called a Christian. At this point, they were just Jews.

> Jesus trusted and obeyed his father.

Trusted??? You won't find that in the text. Nor faith to describe Jesus. Nope.

> He entrusted himself to God

You won't find this either.

> Jesus is the "pioneer and perfecter of our faith" because he endured the cross in faith

Uh, no again. He is the pioneer and perfecter of our faith because he endured the cross. (End of sentence; no "in faith.") The text says he scorned its shame (He didn't shrink from it; He did His Father's will; He suffered the disgrace and indignity of it) and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God (a status and dignity of equality with God). Then verse 3 tells us that He serves as an example to all of us, as you said. But "in faith" has nothing to do with it; you can't add that.

> I think the larger problem here is that you believe Jesus performed wonders by his own power and authority. This is roundly refuted by scripture.

It's both by His own power and by the power of the Father. Mark's persistent identification is of Jesus as one having authority. We see in Jesus the power to forgive sins, to heal the sick, to drive out demons. The Father and the Son work in tandem; it's not possible to separated whose power is whose.

> You weren't talking about the disciples, by faith, accessing the power of God. From your original post: "The simplest explanation for Jesus' desire to pass by his disciples is that he expected them to take care of their own problems." That's a VERY different thing, so there is quite a distinction.

Well then you've misunderstood me. Of course human beings cannot calm storms on their own. They rely on God's power and will. The Markan Jesus claims that if a disciple asks God in faith, it will be granted.

> The expectation was not that they recognized Jesus as a prophet like Moses. In Mark 8.27-29, he asks them what people say about him, and the word on the street is that He is a prophet. But he neither acknowledges or accepts that answer. He is in a different category than prophet, and even different from Moses.

The Markan Jesus is at least a prophet. "Prophet" was an appropriate designation for Jesus among early Christians, specifically "the prophet like Moses" (Acts 3:22). Jesus calls himself a prophet in Mark 6:4. And of course Jesus consistently behaves like a prophet in the Gospels—revealing God's word and works, rather than his own word and works.

The most sufficient appellation for Jesus in Mark (and the Gospels in general) though is Son of God. Mark's Gospel is the gospel of the Son of God (1:1). Peter declares him as such at the gospel's midpoint and the centurion at the end.

Matthew believes the revelation of this son-of-god designation is the primary point of the sea-rescues narratives; the disciples declare "surely this is God's son." So based on Matthew's treatment of the event we can automatically rule out a theophany interpretation of the sea-crossing: the Jewish disciples correctly interpret the event as evidence that Jesus is God's son, not God himself.

> In the Jewish mindset, it was impossible for God to have a son and to appear in human form, so I’m sure they still didn’t grasp who Jesus truly was.

Maybe I'm misreading you here. "Son of God" was a common title for the Davidic king. He is a human figure that rules on God's behalf (Psalm 2, 89, 2 Sam 7). Non-Christian Jews in the NT use the term interchangeably with terms like Messiah (Mark 14:61, Luke 4:41,cf. Matthew 16:16) and king of Israel (John 1:49).

> The point of these stories is never Jesus's faith, but instead His divine power and authority. There is NEVER a place in the Bible where Jesus is said to believe, or ANYTHING about faith on His part. NEVER. It's always what Jesus knew and what He did.

Jesus trusted and obeyed his father. He entrusted himself to God, believing his father could save him from death. Jesus is the "pioneer and perfecter of our faith" because he endured the cross in faith. He did not "lose heart" and neither should his followers.

I think the larger problem here is that you believe Jesus performed wonders by his own power and authority. This is roundly refuted by scripture. Jesus did and said only what the father gave him to do and say (John 5:36). Jesus cast out demons "by the spirit of God" (Matthew 12:28). Jesus went about doing good because "God was with him" (Acts 10:38, John 3:2). God "did works through him" (Acts 2:22, John 9:3). The Father "has placed all things in the son's hand" (John 3:35, Matthew 11:27).

So we have a couple metaphors going on: 1) God gave Jesus authority to act as God acts because he is the son, and 2) God gave Jesus his spirit/power to perform wonders as only God can perform them. (Despite Jesus' insistence on the disciples having faith to perform wonders, it is a good observation that Jesus doesn't explicitly act "by faith").

In the case of the sea-rescues, the storm was calmed by God's son through the power and authority given him by God. God gave to him a spirit "of might" by which he could overcome the demonic sea (Isaiah 11:2). (It seems to me that the sea and sicknesses are not categorically different from a demon. Jesus tells it to shut up as he does demons). Jesus believed that same sea-calming power was available to his disciples through faith. They were equipped to work as their master worked (Mark 6:7).

> I don't see the distinction. All deeds of power originate in God and his power. By faith people can access that power.

You weren't talking about the disciples, by faith, accessing the power of God. From your original post: "The simplest explanation for Jesus' desire to pass by his disciples is that he expected them to take care of their own problems." That's a VERY different thing, so there is quite a distinction.

> Jesus is the Messiah and the prophet like Moses who has been given authority over the sea by God

The expectation was not that they recognized Jesus as a prophet like Moses. In Mark 8.27-29, he asks them what people say about him, and the word on the street is that He is a prophet. But he neither acknowledges or accepts that answer. He is in a different category than prophet, and even different from Moses.

> You can't pass by a boat you get in.

The text never says he passed the boat and then turned around and got in: "Oh, on second thought, maybe I'll hitch a ride." The text says, καὶ ἤθελεν παρελθεῖν αὐτούς. If, as I have claimed, the "passing by" is a theophany, than what He wished was not to walk past them and keep going, but instead that they would see His deity. His purpose was recognition of His identity.

> In the first sea rescue

This is a different story, but we can swim in it if you want. This is also a story with layers of meaning, as they all are. The parables that precede the event describe God's power. Now Jesus is going to demonstrate it.

Remember, in Mark the sea symbolizes the realm of death and Satan's kingdom of spiritual chaos. The setting is evening (also the realm of evil). This story is not just an allegory or metaphor; I believe it actually happened. But it's bathing in symbolism.

A furious squall came up (in Mark 3.27, Jesus had likened Satan to a strong man). Jesus has metaphorically "entered his house" by crossing on the sea. Jesus, however, is sleeping without a concern. His authority here is unquestionable. While the sea rages, He sleeps. The forces of chaos are not a threat to Him. He can't be overcome by them (Jn. 1.5).

The disciples, as usual, are a mess of panic and fear, and they offer a rash interpretation of Jesus's behavior and posture. They, for all intents and purposes, rebuke Him. They're desperate.

Jesus stands and rebukes the wind and the sea, and then He rebukes His disciples also. Commanding the sea is a prerogative of God in the OT (Job 26.11-12; Ps. 104.7; Isa. 51.9-10; cf. also Ps. 89.25). See also Ps. 18.15; 46.2; 106.9; Isa. 50.2; Zech. 2.10-3.2.). For Jesus this is not an epic battle or any kind of contest. A simple word is all it takes. His sovereignty, authority, and power are unquestionable. That's the point.

Mike Yaconelli makes an interesting comment about this moment. "I have to believe the disciples were petrified. I’ll bet they didn’t move for 30 minutes until, finally, one of them leaned over to the others and said, 'Don’t make him mad.' I believe the disciples were more afraid after the storm was calmed than during it. The disciples experienced firsthand the dangerous wonder of being with Jesus."

It took so long to break down their mindset that he was more than a miracle-working prophet. In the Jewish mindset, it was impossible for God to have a son and to appear in human form, so I’m sure they still didn’t grasp who Jesus truly was. I’m sure they couldn’t cross that line of understanding. Despite all they seen in his healing miracles, this just shocked them. They are quite blind and full of misunderstanding. Their rebuke of "Don't you care?" is answered with "Don't you get it yet?"

> Jesus' sleep here parallels Jesus' desire to pass by the boat in the other sea rescue. They both represent Jesus' great faith.

This is WAAAAAY off the mark. The point of these stories is never Jesus's faith, but instead His divine power and authority. There is NEVER a place in the Bible where Jesus is said to believe, or ANYTHING about faith on His part. NEVER. It's always what Jesus knew and what He did.

> The point is that it wasn't about "do it yourself," but rather about exercising their faith and living in the power of God. It wasn't even just "pray to God and believe there would be sufficient food," but to "move mountains" so to speak.

I don't see the distinction. All deeds of power originate in God and his power. By faith people can access that power.

> The walking on water is a hybrid story of miracle and recognition.

I agree. Jesus is the Messiah and the prophet like Moses who has been given authority over the sea by God.

> Things went EXACTLY as Jesus intended.

You can't pass by a boat you get in. Jesus' intention to pass by is clearly aborted when Jesus hears their desperate cry for help.
​
In the first sea rescue Jesus rests unconcerned in the stern of the boat. Ridiculously, the disciples have to wake him up from his slumber during a storm. They interpret Jesus' strange and reckless behavior: "do you not care that we are perishing?" When woken up, Jesus questions their reason for concern and demeans their faith. The implication is relatively clear: Instead of waking up Jesus out of fear, they should have had faith in God's provision.

Jesus' sleep here parallels Jesus' desire to pass by the boat in the other sea rescue. They both represent Jesus' great faith. He trusts fully that God will protect those who believe. So he appears nonchalant and apathetic.