Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Mark

[Kata Plasma]

Jesus "wanted to pass by" his swamped disciples because he expected them to calm the storm themselves

In the context of Jesus' sea-crossing Mark 6:47-48 reads: "[Jesus] saw [his disciples] straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. As the night was ending, he came to them walking on the sea, for he wanted to pass by them."

The simplest explanation for Jesus' desire to pass by his disciples is that he expected them to take care of their own problems. Such an expectation is expressed time and again in Mark.

1. Jesus tells his followers that "whatever" they ask God for in prayer it will be awarded to them if they believe, even mountains being thrown into the sea (Mark 11:22-24, cf. John 14:12). The Markan Jesus likewise prizes faith as effective for healing (2:5, 5:34, 7:29, 10:52).

2. When Jesus' disciples fail to cast out a demon from a boy, Jesus scolds them harshly saying "You faithless generation, how much longer must I be among you? How much longer must I put up with you?" (Mark 9:19, cf. Matthew 17:20). Like an impatient teacher, Jesus is here sorely disappointed in his students for their lack of faith. Now Jesus must finish what his disciples failed to do.

3. In the first feeding episode Jesus commands his disciples to give the people food themselves: "You give them something to eat" (Mark 6:37). Jesus apparently expects his disciples to relieve their hunger with a deed of power.

4. In the first rescue-at-sea account the recently-awakened Jesus asks his disciples why they are afraid of the storm and demeans their faith as little (ὀλιγόπιστος) (Mark 4:40). Given Jesus' insistence that his disciples replicate their master's works by faith, Jesus appears to be upset that his disciples woke him up instead of calming the storm themselves.

Matthew uses ὀλιγόπιστος three others times with similar effect: when Peter fails to walk on the water like his master (Matthew 14:31), and when the disciples are worried they will not have sufficient clothing or food (Matthew 6:30, 16:8).

Based on these statements it is quite clear that the Markan Jesus believes his disciples can perform deeds of power, and, in fact, expects them to, if only they would have faith.

The only other reasonable explanation for Jesus' desire to pass by his disciples in my view is the one put forward by Christopher Hays in his book Reading Backwards. He believes Jesus desired to pass them by in order to disclose himself as YHWH, the God who passed by Moses and Elijah. Jesus thus intended this to be a theophany.

The problems with this view are insurmountable.

1. The use of παρῆλθον, "pass by," in aquatic context more decisively invokes Israel's crossing of the Red Sea than it does YHWH's mountainous manifestations in the presence of Moses and Elijah (cf. Joshua 4:23, Psalm 66:6, Nehemiah 9:11, 1 Corinthians 10:1). The fact that both the Markan and Johannine traditions place the sea crossing immediately after a wilderness feeding also suggests that this is a Mosaic miracle and not a theophany (cf. Mark 6:30-52, John 6:1-21).

2. Hays appeals to LXX Job 9:8-11 where we have YHWH walking on water and passing someone by. But while LXX Job 9:8-11 does have YHWH walking on water (v. 8) and YHWH passing someone by (v. 11), it does not have YHWH pass by while walking on water. Verses 9 and 10 shift the context away from the chaotic sea and onto the awesome and inscrutable heavens. Moreover this "passing by" of YHWH in verse 11 is not a theophany at all. There is no manifestation of blinding glory; what occurs is totally unseen.

3. Hays also argues that Jesus ascribes to himself the divine name by saying ἐγώ εἰμι in Mark 6:50. The identification of ἐγώ εἰμι as the Greek rendering of YHWH's name in Exodus 3:14 is less than convincing,however. In the Hebrew text the name appears twice, once as אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה, "I am who I am," and once as just אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה, "I am." The LXX opts for a non-literal translation of both portions. "I am who I am" becomes ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, "I am the one who is," and "I am" becomes ὁ ὤν, "the one who is." Thus Moses is told to tell the Hebrews that ὁ ὤν, "the one who is," sent him, not that ἐγώ εἰμι, "I am," sent him (Exodus 3:14b). In the Greek, "I am" appears to merely introduce the divine name, ὁ ὤν, rather than be part of the name itself (cf. Revelation 1:8, 4:8, 11:17). So since the link between ἐγώ εἰμι and the divine name cannot be secured, the translation "It is I" in Mark 6:50 remains the most probable rendering.

4. Mark's first interpreter, Matthew, omits the phrase "he intended to pass them by." Is Matthew opposed to the theophanic reference or has he not recognized it? Had Matthew not recognized Mark's supposed purpose, as is likely, he may very well have omitted the embarrassing note that Jesus was not initially interested in helping his disciples. Matthew has a habit of deleting or changing Mark's embarrassing and enigmatic texts (cf. Mark 1:41, 3:21, 6:5, 8:22-26, 14:52, 16:8).

[jimwalton]

OK, I disagree with you ("The simplest explanation for Jesus' desire to pass by his disciples is that he expected them to take care of their own problems"), so let's talk.

1. First, the feeding of the 5,000 and Jesus's walking on the water are connected events. The feeding of the 5,000 was distinctly to declare Jesus as the Messiah, the incarnation of God on Earth. Mark specifically ties the two events together (6.52).

2. The plot conflict in the story is man vs. nature, yes, but the deeper meaning is one of faith: spiritual conflict, too much straining against the forces, too much struggle. "Their hearts were hard." Jesus was like no one they had ever met, and certainly not what they were expecting (no one expected the incarnation). They didn't understand him (Mk. 2.12; 4.38; 6.37).

3. The proper framework for understanding the episode is provided in the OT. God is sovereign over seas and rivers, storms and wind. But God subdues it and treads upon the waves in demonstration of his sovereignty and majesty. Jesus's appearance walking on the water is a sign of His deity. The disciples must struggle against their shallow understanding of who Jesus is against the real version of who Jesus truly is.

4. Mark is fond of patterns of three. Three boat scenes through his Gospel (4.35-41; 6.45-52; 8.14-21) illustrate the disciples' lack of faith and comprehension. This is the point of the pericope.

5. Therefore the point of the story is Jesus revealing himself as the Christ, the Son of God, which is Mark's agenda.

6. There are numerous parallels between this story and the resurrection accounts: (a) epiphany of Jesus, who appears unexpectedly after a brief period of separation, (b) they think he's a ghost, (c) they show their fear and are troubled, (d) Jesus tells them not to be afraid, (e) He reassures them by saying "I am here," (f) the disciples are astonished, (g) there's a reference to food, (h) mention of hard hearts, and (i) stress that Jesus is not a ghost but is real. This story is a type of resurrection story, a sign of Jesus's deity. His walking on the water (the Sea of Galilee is a symbol of forces of spiritual darkness in Mark) as a symbol of his conquest of death.

7. His walking on the water is an epiphany of deity. The verb tenses shift from aorist (went out) to historic present: "He comes to them." It has commonalities with the Exodus story: (a) the Israelites passing through the sea in the morning watch, (b) the Passover, crossing the sea, and the Mt. Sinai declaration of "I am," (c) a declaration of deity: in the context (i) It is God who provided the manna, (ii) it is God who spoke on the mountain, (iii) it is God who walks on the water, (iv) it is God who "passes by" (reveals His glory), (v), it is God who is the great "I AM."

So, the text is specifically about Jesus revealing Himself as God, the Messiah of God, who shares God's power and identity. It has absolutely nothing to do with the disciples solving their own problems.

Now let's look at the "He was about to pass by them." καὶ ἤθελεν παρελθεῖν αὐτούς

ἤθελεν = “Wish.” Imperfect active indicative of θέλω.
παρελθεῖν = “Pass.” Aorist active infinitive of παρέρχομαι.

We are left to interpret, but our interpretation must be consistent with the context. "Pass by" has been used in the OT of a theophany (Ex. 33.22; 1 Ki. 19.11). Since the text and event are theophanic, this is a reasonable interpretation. His intent was to reveal His glory to disciples who had hard hearts and a lack of faith. This is possibly confirm by a reference to Job 9.8 & 11, which uses the same language.

Now let's analyze your case.

> Jesus tells his followers that "whatever" they ask God for in prayer it will be awarded to them if they believe, even mountains being thrown into the sea (Mark 11:22-24, cf. John 14:12).

This event comes after the walking on water episode. We can't expect that the disciples were thinking of this since it hadn't yet been said.

> When Jesus' disciples fail to cast out a demon from a boy, Jesus scolds them harshly saying "You faithless generation, how much longer must I be among you? How much longer must I put up with you?" (Mark 9:19

This is also after the walking on water episode.

> In the first feeding episode Jesus commands his disciples to give the people food themselves: "You give them something to eat" (Mark 6:37). Jesus apparently expects his disciples to relieve their hunger with a deed of power.

Correct. He wanted them to respond in faith—to DO something. They had just returned from a ministry tour where they were expected to DO things exhibiting the power of God. He was expecting them to turn to him and "We can feed them. Tell us what to do." That's very different from Jesus walking on the water. The disciples weren't expected to DO anything, but instead to RECOGNIZE something.

> In the first rescue-at-sea account the recently-awakened Jesus asks his disciples why they are afraid of the storm and demeans their faith as little (ὀλιγόπιστος) (Mark 4:40).

This is incorrect. Mark does not use the term ὀλιγόπιστος.

Christopher Hayes is correct in his interpretation

> The use of παρῆλθον, "pass by," in aquatic context more decisively invokes Israel's crossing of the Red Sea than it does YHWH's mountainous manifestations in the presence of Moses and Elijah

"Pass by" is in both Exodus and 1 Kings, as I have shown. The "aquatic context" is a red herring.

> Hays appeals to LXX Job 9:8-11 where we have YHWH walking on water and passing someone by. But while LXX Job 9:8-11 does have YHWH walking on water (v. 8) and YHWH passing someone by (v. 11), it does not have YHWH pass by while walking on water.

Oh my. An allusion to a text doesn't have to be an exact replica. You think this makes it "insurmountable"? I strongly disagree.

> Hays also argues that Jesus ascribes to himself the divine name by saying ἐγώ εἰμι in Mark 6:50. The identification of ἐγώ εἰμι as the Greek rendering of YHWH's name in Exodus 3:14 is less than convincing,however. In the Hebrew text the name appears twice, once as אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה, "I am who I am," and once as just אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה, "I am."

Mark is not referring to the exact statement of Ex. 3.14, and neither does John in his multiple "I AM" statements of Jesus. The NT never uses "I am who I am" in its references to the Tetragrammaton, but always simply and consistently "I AM."

> Mark's first interpreter, Matthew, omits the phrase "he intended to pass them by." Is Matthew opposed to the theophanic reference or has he not recognized it?

Matthew is not an interpreter of Mark. He writes his own version of the deeds and words of Jesus.

I feel very strongly that your case fails. Wherever you got this stuff, it doesn't hold water that Mark's point was that Jesus merely wanted them to take care of their own problems.

[Kata Plasma]

Thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure how all of this is relevant but I'll respond to what I believe are the pertinent points.

> The proper framework for understanding the episode is provided in the OT. God is sovereign over seas and rivers, storms and wind.

Yes to the OT. But as I said in OP, sea crossing more strongly invokes Israel's journey through the sea than it does anything else. Jesus (and his disciples) stands in for Israel passing over the chaotic sea.

> Therefore the point of the story is Jesus revealing himself as the Christ, the Son of God, which is Mark's agenda.

I think I can agree that this is Mark's intention with the story. But that isn't necessarily Jesus' intention in the story.

> This story is a type of resurrection story, a sign of Jesus's deity. His walking on the water (the Sea of Galilee is a symbol of forces of spiritual darkness in Mark) as a symbol of his conquest of death.

That's really quite clever and something I'll have to think about more. Of course, I don't think it's relevant to my argument and Jesus' resurrection has nothing to do with his deity.

>and the Mt. Sinai declaration of "I am,"

God does not reveal himself as "I am" at Sinai.

> This is incorrect. Mark does not use the term ὀλιγόπιστος.

Thanks for the correction. It's actually worse. Jesus implies they have no faith at all.

> "Pass by" is in both Exodus and 1 Kings, as I have shown. The "aquatic context" is a red herring.

As I wrote in the post, "pass by" is far more commonly used in reference to Israel's sea crossing than to theophany in the Bible. The fact that Jesus "passes by" on the sea is really the clincher.

> Matthew is not an interpreter of Mark. He writes his own version of the deeds and words of Jesus.

Matthew does provide his own material, but a very large percentage of his gospel is taken word for word from Mark. He is in part an editor of Mark.

[jimwalton]

> But as I said in OP, sea crossing more strongly invokes Israel's journey through the sea than it does anything else. Jesus (and his disciples) stands in for Israel passing over the chaotic sea.

The episode has multiple points of connection, as I mentioned. We are remiss to perceive it as only a single layer. As is common in Mark, there are multiple layers to everything Jesus said and did. The story does invoke the Israelites crossing the sea. I did say this explicitly: "It has commonalities with the Exodus story: (a) the Israelites passing through the sea in the morning watch, (b) the Passover, crossing the sea..." But that's not its only OT point of reference. So I agree with you, but it's more than that.

> I think I can agree that this is Mark's intention with the story. But that isn't necessarily Jesus' intention in the story.

You have absolutely no evidence of this. It's pure speculation without foundation.

> God does not reveal himself as "I am" at Sinai.

First of all, I was speaking generally of the theophanies and God's self-identification in the Passover/Exodus account. Second, his self-revelation as "I am who I am" starts in Ex. 3.14. We see it in 6.2-8 & 29, chapter 7, 14, 15, 16 and continues through the book. In Exodus 20.2, God at Sinai gives the familiar declaration "I AM the LORD your God." This formation of His Name links Sinai to Moses's calling and God's declaration of His Name.

But you should also know that YHWH is never again called this exact name in the entire OT, so you can't hang on that.

In addition, the name of God in Ex. 3.14 cannot necessarily be strictly translated "I am who I am" ('ehyeh 'asher 'ehyeh). The whole phrase may mean "I will be whom I will be." It has also been translated "He causes to be what He causes to be." Others claim it is a statement about God's creative power: "I am the one who calls into being."

You simply cannot hang your hat on that exact expression.

> It's actually worse. Jesus implies they have no faith at all.

First of all, remember that Mark 4.40 is a different story. Secondly, in the book of Mark, the disciples never do anything right, say anything right, or understand anything rightly. Mark treats the disciples most harshly. They are negative, dull, blind, and devoid of understanding. The solitary exception is when Peter declares Jesus as the Messiah (Mk. 8.29). These two stories are down the same line as one of Mark's themes: the lack of understanding on the part of the disciples. You're right that he chides them for zero understanding and faith (Mk. 4.40).

> As I wrote in the post, "pass by" is far more commonly used in reference to Israel's sea crossing than to theophany in the Bible. The fact that Jesus "passes by" on the sea is really the clincher.

Yeah, I disagree with you. It's no "clincher." "Pass by" is used of the Exodus in Ex. 15.16 (referred to in Josh. 3.17). It is used of theophany in Ex. 33.22 & 1 Ki. 19.11. So what makes that "far more commonly used"? You'll need to prove that to me. It's not more commonly used, let alone "far" more commonly used, and it's no clincher, for sure.

> but a very large percentage of his gospel is taken word for word from Mark.

This is untrue. 88% of Matthew is unique from Mark. Matthew has 1071 verses in it. Mark has 687 verses in it; 665 if we discount the last 12 verses in the book, which should be discounted.)

I couldn't get a reliable figure of how much of Matthew was from Mark off the Internet. I started reading through, comparing the two. Eighteen verses of Mark 1 (out of 45) are in Matthew. Twenty-four (of 28) verses of Mark 2 are in Matthew. Twenty-five (of 35) of Mark 3. The two accounts are quite different, though, I noticed when I read them in parallel. Though it was the same thought, it was rarely the same words. Sometimes I had a hard time figuring out if the verse from Mark was actually in Matthew, they were worded so differently. I had to make some judgment calls.

I would say that though much of Mark is in Matthew (Internet sources said in the vicinity of 90%), it's untrue that a large percentage of Matthew is from Mark. If it's true that 600 verses of Mark are in Matthew (I have my doubts, but let's just go with that), that means 56% of Matthew is also in Mark, leaving 44% of Matthew unique from Mark. I would not consider that "a very large percentage...taken word for word." It's not even close to word for word, and 44% of Matthew is unique from Mark.

You try it, just for a few chapters. I'm confident you won't be so cavalier about believing what you've read on the Internet about "a very large percentage of his gospel is taken word for word from Mark."

> He is in part an editor of Mark.

I disagree with this. Matthew has a completely different point of view and a very different thesis. Matthew is creating a book where Jesus is the Son of David, the fulfillment of the Law, who is here to save the whole world from sin. In Matthew Jesus is the Moses Moses never was, the David David never was, the Abraham Abraham never was, and the Temple the Temple never was. He has written, through and through, a book of Jewish history and theology.

Mark, by contrast, is about covenant jeopardy: everything goes wrong. Satan is out to disrupt the plan of salvation, opposition is relentless, and the disciples are dim as can be. Through it all, God shows that He is sovereign to push His plan through to completion.

I'm confident if you read them for yourself you won't be writing the things you are.

To conclude, the story of Jesus walking on water is a significant story about Jesus's identity with multiple reference points: theophany, Exodus, resurrection, and the disciples' lack of faith and understanding. It's just reductionistic to see it as "Jesus wants the disciples to learn to help themselves."

[Kata Plasma]

> So what makes that "far more commonly used"?

Parelthon is used in reference to the Exodus far more than it is used in reference to Theopany in the Bible. There are two instances in which it refers to Theophany and at least four instances in which it refers to Israel's sea crossing. I listed those uses in the OP. That this is a "passing by" on water should invoke the sea crossing all the more.

I don't think the Markan composition of Matthew is very relevant to my argument. Suffice it to say that Matthew omitted Mark's note, "he intended to pass them by," from his gospel. If Matthew understood this Markan text as a reference to Theophany, he would have had no reason based on his purposes (as defined by you) to delete it. It seems most likely to me that Matthew omitted it either because he found it irrelevant or because he found it embarassing.

[jimwalton]

> There are two instances in which it refers to Theophany and at least four instances in which it refers to Israel's sea crossing.

So you think 4 uses vs. 2 qualifies for a major point here to substantiate your case? That doesn't take me very far, frankly. In your original post, you mentioned this was "decisive." That's an overstatement. 4 uses vs. 2 is not "decisive" by anyone's imagination—especially since only 1 of those 4 uses is in the NT. The other three are in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the OT, and not in the Hebrew itself. Let's look at them.

• Joshua 4.23. The Hebrew word is עָבְרְכֶם, (ovrekhem from the root ovrak) meaning "crossed over," talking about the Israelites. The Septuagint has διέβησαν ("to go through") for the first occurrence of "crossed over" in the verse and παρήλθομεν (from parelthon: "to pass by") for the second.
• Psalm 66:6: Same verb, ovrak, also talking about the Israelites. The Septuagint has διελεύσονται, from dielthon, meaning "to pass through." It's a different verb.
• Nehemiah 9:11: Same verb, ovrak, talking about the Israelites. The Septuagint has παρήλθοσαν, from parelthon.
• 1 Corinthians 10:1: The Greek verb is διῆλθον (dielthon), meaning "To pass through." It's a different verb than parelthon, which means "to pass by."

This case of yours is leaking like a sinking ship. It simply does not hold water. And it most certainly doesn't qualify as "decisive" and "far more."

> I don't think the Markan composition of Matthew is very relevant to my argument.

You're the one who brought it up, so I was just pursuing it in the interest of accuracy and truth.

> Suffice it to say that Matthew omitted Mark's note, "he intended to pass them by," from his gospel.

That is correct. Matthew does include, however, the "IT IS I" (the I AM statement). The wording in Matthew (ἐγώ εἰμι, "I am") is identical to the wording of the "I AM" statements in the Gospel of John. This could be a strong clue that Matthew understood the event as a theophany.

I think your case fails completely.

> It seems most likely to me that Matthew omitted it either because he found it irrelevant or because he found it embarassing.

You can easily see at this point that this conclusion is misguided.

[Kata Plasma]

It's the same verb in every case. Greek verbs change their form based on a number of variables.

The decisiveness of the reference is not just the number but that this "passing" occurs on water. No theophany is said to happen on water in the OT. Theophany happens on mountains 2 out of 2 times.

Another thing I think is relevant is that Jesus is not theophanic while on the water; he does not emit a blinding glory as YHWH does in the archetypal theophany on Sinai and as YHWH presumably does with Elijah (Elijah covers his face). Jesus looks like a ghost, not like YHWH. (And also Jesus never actually passes them by since he gets in the boat--whatever theophany we were supposed to witness never occurs).

Ego eimi is the most ready way to indicate "it's me." And whatever ego eimi means here, it is meant to calm the disciples' fear. Jesus telling his disciples "it's me, not a ghost" would accomplish this.

In my OP I described why I think the connection to Exodus 3:14 is dubious. (I would even question whether the Gospel of John upholds the connection. Lots of characters in the Gospel tradition make absolute ego eimi statements without claiming to be God--the blind man in John 9:9, the disciples in Matthew 26:22, 25, etc.).

Matthew interprets the event on the lips of the disciples. They say "surely this is God's son." They do not say "surely this is Israel's God." So the disciples themselves have not understood this as a theophany. Luke omits the scene altogether, probably because he did not understand it to be a theophany, but rather another version of the storm calming (Luke also deletes the second feeding and reduces Jesus' waking up of the disciples at Gethsemane from 3 to 1--he wants to streamline his gospel).

[jimwalton]

> It's the same verb in every case. Greek verbs change their form based on a number of variables.

Either you're not paying attention or you don't know Greek. They are two different verbs: παρέρχομαι ("To pass by." It's the root έρχομαι with the attached prefix para, and hence the meaning "to pass by") and διέρχομαι ("to pass through." It's the root έρχομαι with the attached prefix dia, and hence the meaning is "to pass through"). You're so set on defending your perspective you're blind to what's really happening in these texts.

It would be like saying "reduce" and "deduce" are really the same term, or that "heterosexual" and "homosexual" are the same thing because they share a common root. The argument doesn't fly.

> The decisiveness of the reference is not just the number but that this "passing" occurs on water. No theophany is said to happen on water in the OT. Theophany happens on mountains 2 out of 2 times.

So you have 2 OT references where "passing" occurs on water. That's not a strong case, especially since theophany happens on mountains also 2 times. You seem to think it's significant that there is no water theophany in the OT, but the Israelites are not a sea people. They started out in the hill country in Canaan, took the whole land under David, and survived a few centuries in the land. They were never a sea people. There are no OT stories about them being on the Mediterranean or on Galilee. They were never on the water. Culturally and economically they imported goods on Mediterranean ports, but were not an exporting culture. They fished.

What you are ignoring is the OT texts that talk about God walking on water.

• Ps. 77.19-20, where God is revealing Himself when Israel passes through the water.
• Hab. 3.15, where God rides on the sea, trampling the forces of chaos to bring order to creation. The reference is probably to the political and military forces of Babylon (v. 14). God is revealing Himself as the divine warrior who will crush his enemies.
• Job 9.8, where God alone walks on the water. Here God is sovereign and judges His enemies.

Mark uses the same motifs. In Mark, "the sea" symbolizes the realm of death and therefore Satan's domain—his chaotic kingdom. Almost every mention of the sea by Mark has layers of meaning. It's a literary tool Mark uses to show Jesus's authority and power over Satan. We see how Mark portrays Jesus in his relation to the sea (there are 49 such occasions; I'll mention a few).

[*] 1.15-20: Jesus recruits his followers "by the sea," as if recruiting them from the enemy's own camp. Satan may have stolen all of humanity, but Jesus is going to walk right alongside his ranks and pull people out. “By the lake” is also where he gets Levi. Jesus recruits at will.
[*] In chapter 4, crowds are swarming to him from everywhere, even as opposition against him is mounting. In a symbolic gesture of authority, Jesus gets in a boat and teaches the crowds while sitting on the lake. You know that sitting is the gesture of a king, and Mark is symbolizing for us what Ps. 29 says, that God sits in royal majesty on the waters to proclaim his name. He has put Satan under his feet.
[*] It was there on the sea in Mark that he told his parables of the kingdom of God invading the world, taking root, and slowly growing to a majestic kingdom.
[*] You’ll notice that the parables are followed by Jesus’s calming the storm, a symbol of Satan fighting back to no avail. Jesus slept—the sea holds no fear for him. Jesus's powerful word is all that is required to bring the sea into submission and calm. "Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?"
[*] The pigs of Legion of the Gerasenes rush into the sea filled with demons and drown, but Jesus calmly gets in a boat and returns to the other side.
[*] Jesus walks on the water, a theophany. He is able to stand on the sea without a boat, walked on it at will, and displayed his glory. And when he spoke to his disciples, he used for himself the name of God as he said, "Take courage. I AM. Don’t be afraid."
[*] In Mark 9 we learn that if you're going to cause a little one to sin it would be better if a large millstone were hung around your neck and you be thrown into the sea—the domain of Satan.
[*] And in Mark 11.23, Jesus says that in faith we can say to a mountain to throw itself into the sea. It's a parable. In your faith the sea has no power over you.[/list]

You're getting the idea, I hope.

> Another thing I think is relevant is that Jesus is not theophanic while on the water

One of Mark's motifs is the dense blindness of the disciples. Despite that Jesus WALKED ON WATER (let's not minimize this astounding action) and declared Himself as "I AM," their hearts were hard.

The motifs of doubt and hardness of heart appear frequently in resurrection narratives (Mt. 28.17; Lk. 24.11; Jn. 20.24-29; Mk. 16.11-14), even here in Mark. Mark l likely intends that the walking-on-the-sea story be perceived as a resurrection narrative, where Jesus conquers the final enemy (death, as portrayed by the sea).

You know, there's just NO WAY this story is about telling the disciples "Ah, do it yourself."

> Jesus looks like a ghost, not like YHWH.

Yes, the disciples are dense. That's Mark's point all through the Gospel. Are you aware of the Messianic secret motif in Mark? But don't forget that even here the disciples are "completely amazed" (v. 51).

> Jesus never actually passes them by since he gets in the boat--whatever theophany we were supposed to witness never occurs).

Don't miss the Greek and get caught up in the English. The Greek reads, καὶ ἤθελεν παρελθεῖν αὐτούς. "And he continuously wished (imperfect active, denoting continuous action) to pass by (aorist tense: timeless)." The point is that it was Jesus's continuous will to be a theophany; but the dense disciples only saw a ghost. The theophany occurred, but the disciples failed to see it.

> Ego eimi is the most ready way to indicate "it's me."

Or course it is, but remember that Jesus never speaks without layers of meaning. And since Mark ties in the walking on water with the feeding of the 5,000 (6.52), we can consider that there's more meaning than just, "Hey, calm down. It'll be OK." The disciples were as churned up as the sea. Their inner struggle, their human nature, stands in direct incongruity with what is being taught to them about spiritual realities. Jesus wants them to have understanding rather than hardness and dullness (52), and courage rather than fear.

Read the Greek the way it is written (both verbs in present imperative): "Be persistently courageous. I AM. Stop being persistently afraid."

> In my OP I described why I think the connection to Exodus 3:14 is dubious.

Yes you did, and I told why that perspective was weak. Exodus 3.14 is the ONLY time in the ENTIRE Bible that "I am who I am" appears as a phrase. We can't make too much of its non-use in Mark. Secondly, I showed that there are disagreements about how ‘ehyeh ‘asher ‘ehyeh should even be translated. Third, the NT consistently uses *ego eimi* when it alludes to the Tetragrammaton Name of God. There's more, as I have already written. I don't buy your case, along with Hays, Blomberg, and other scholars.

> I would even question whether the Gospel of John upholds the connection.

You're free to do this, but the *ego eimi* statements of Jesus in John are widely recognized as definitive identity markers used by Jesus in His teaching. If you don't buy it, that's your business.

> I think the connection to Exodus 3:14 is dubious.

If we take the whole case that I have been presenting together, the weight of evidence is strongly in favor of the walking on water as being theophanic rather than "he expected them to calm the storm themselves."

> Matthew interprets the event on the lips of the disciples.

That's correct, or possibly Matthew includes some events (Peter's walking on the water also) and some dialogue (the confession) that are not part of Mark's purpose.

Matthew's point is different. Matthew is showing how Jesus is the Abraham Abe never was, the Moses Moe never was, the David Dave never was, etc., as I've mentioned. Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha had all done water miracles—parting the sea or the river, but the only one in the OT said to walk on water was God Himself. Matthew isn't alluding to the sea as a chaos "creature" as Mark does, but instead portraying Jesus as the divine Son of God who is here to save (Mt. 14.30-31, 33). It's the same thought as John 16.33: "You have trouble swirling all around you. But take heart, I have overcome all of that." Jesus accepts their worship (rather than rebukes it, rejects it, or repudiates it).

Mark's "their hearts were hardened" is very different from Matthew's "[they] worshiped him." Most human beings would have a mixture of the two reactions, so the two accounts can exist together. How could they not have had awe, amazement, and adoration and at the same time be confused and had a lack of understanding? Matthew emphasizes the positive and Mark the negative, both in accordance with their purpose in writing.

> They do not say "surely this is Israel's God."

You are correct. Matthew's point all through his Gospel is that Jesus is more than just Israel's God; He is the God of all the world. This emphasis starts very early in Matthew (Matt. 2 and the visit of the Gentile magi who worship Jesus) and the book ends with it (Mt. 28.19-20).

> So the disciples themselves have not understood this as a theophany.

Obviously, I disagree quite strongly with this.

> Luke omits the scene altogether, probably because he did not understand it to be a theophany, but rather another version of the storm calming (Luke also deletes the second feeding and reduces Jesus' waking up of the disciples at Gethsemane from 3 to 1--he wants to streamline his gospel).

Your negativity (and I would say, bias) is simply staggering. Look at Luke's sequence:

• Lk. 8.40-56: Jesus raises a girl from the dead, an action of divinity showing He is God's messiah.
• Lk. 9.10-17: The feeding of the 5,000, to reveal Himself as God's messiah
• Lk. 9.18-27: Peter's confession of Jesus as "You are the Christ," God's messiah.
• Lk. 9.28-56: The Transfiguration, showing Jesus in God's glory, complete with a theophany and an affirmation of Jesus as God's anointed.

Oh, Luke was very much into portraying Jesus in divine terms. Every one of the Gospel writers picks and chooses what they want to include. We have no idea why Luke didn't include this, just as we have no idea why the Synoptics didn't talk about the raising of Lazarus, but that shows it's pretty wild to GUESS that Luke didn't understand it as a theophany. That's pure guesswork—an opinion with no weight. You or I have no idea why Luke chose not to include it.

> and reduces Jesus' waking up of the disciples at Gethsemane from 3 to 1--he wants to streamline his gospel).

Luke is the longest of the 4 Gospels. I'm confident that streamlining wasn't one of his objectives.

[Kata Plasma]

Interesting discussion. Thanks for hanging in there. I made a big mistake with my citations so I'm sorry. Parelthon is used in Exodus 15:16, Joshua 4:23, Deuteronomy 2:29, and Nehemiah 9:11. I think your examples from Habakkuk and Psalm 79 are strong. Jesus walking on water may have invoked YHWH treading the sea. One may have thought that this Jesus was YHWH, or that YHWH had given him authority to control the sea as YHWH does.

> In Mark, "the sea" symbolizes the realm of death and therefore Satan's domain—his chaotic kingdom. Almost every mention of the sea by Mark has layers of meaning. It's a literary tool Mark uses to show Jesus's authority and power over Satan.

Yes, the sea is symbolic in Mark. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with this information. There is a cosmic battle going on between YHWH and Satan/chaos? Ok, but YHWH acts through his authorized Messiah. That doesn't mean the Messiah is YHWH.

> There's just NO WAY this story is about telling the disciples "Ah, do it yourself."

Could you at least admit that this idea is relevant in other Markan stories? Perhaps in the one where he tells them "you feed them"?

My point with Jesus looking like a ghost was that Jesus didn't look like a manifestation of YHWH, i.e., blinding glory. It seems you admit that the disciples didn't interpret the event as a theophany (hard hearts) but you also don't want to admit that, as you say later. Maybe you could explain that further? I would say that in Mark they conclude very little about Jesus' identity here, in Matthew they conclude that he is God's son.

> You're free to do this, but the ego eimi statements of Jesus in John are widely recognized as definitive identity markers used by Jesus in His teaching. If you don't buy it, that's your business.

I accept that the ego eimi statements in John are "definitive identity markers." Ego eimi statements are how we tell people about our identity. Should we consider the blind man's and the disciples' absolute ego eimi statements as claims to being YHWH? Why not?

> If we take the whole case that I have been presenting together, the weight of evidence is strongly in favor of the walking on water as being theophanic rather than "he expected them to calm the storm themselves."

I would say the actual reason Jesus walks on water is to cross the lake. He was going to pass them by because he knew their faith could save them if only they believed.

> Matthew's point all through his Gospel is that Jesus is more than just Israel's God; He is the God of all the world.

Israel's God is the God of the whole world.

> Oh, Luke was very much into portraying Jesus in divine terms.

I never commented on this. (You seem to be very confused regarding the difference between God and God's Messiah. Or at least your'e being sloppy).

My point about Luke is that he seems to omit material that could be considered redundant. Why two feedings? Why two sea miracles? Why three wake-ups? Why two healings of blind men? Luke reduces all these Markan doubles to singles. The most obvious reason for why he did that is because it was redundant.

[jimwalton]

> Parelthon is used in Exodus 15:16, Joshua 4:23, Deuteronomy 2:29, and Nehemiah 9:11

The analysis:

• Exodus 15.16 is the Hebrew word יַעֲבֹר ('abor). It means "to cross over." Septuagint is παρέλθῃ (parelthon). Different Hebrew word, same Greek word. The meaning is to cross over, not to pass by.
• Joshua 4.23. We've already covered this. The Hebrew word is עָבְרְכֶם, (ovrekhem from the root ovrak) meaning "crossed over." The Septuagint has διέβησαν ("to go through") for the first occurrence of "crossed over" in the verse and παρήλθομεν (from parelthon: "to pass by") for the second.
• Dt. 2.29: the term is 'abor. Greek is parelthon.
• Nehemiah 9:11 we've already talked about: Same verb, ovrak, talking about the Israelites. The Septuagint has παρήλθοσαν, from parelthon.

Two different Hebrew words, in all four cases translated as parelthon by the Septuagint. Your case is still underwhelming to me.

> Yes, the sea is symbolic in Mark. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with this information

I'm trying to show you that Mark's thrust is Jesus's authority and identity, not that he wanted the disciples to do it themselves.

> Could you at least admit that this idea is relevant in other Markan stories? Perhaps in the one where he tells them "you feed them"?

The problem is that you have made this the point, when in actuality you're missing the point of it.

If we dig into the meaning (at least a little bit of it, since there is SOOO much) of the feeding of the 5,000, we come up with a short list something like this:

• The event mirrors the Exodus: their leader miraculously providing abundantly in the wilderness, manifesting God's blessing in His care and provision as they enter His "rest." (Mk. 6.31)
• Jesus is a better Moses than Moses was.
• It is a prophetic event signaling that Jesus is their king. (Kings in the ancient world were responsible to provide for their people.) It equates Jesus with God the Father.
• Jesus invites people to His banqueting table (spiritually, the eschatological feast of God). This equates Jesus with God their Father.
• In John 6 Jesus says that He Himself is their bread; He is their spiritual food who has come to them from the Father.
• This event happened near the time of Passover. Jesus is setting Himself up as the God figure giving them bread, and He Himself is their bread.
• Mark sets it in contrast with Herod's banquet, which by contrast was selfish, destructive, and life-taking. Jesus is portrayed as the rightful king.

It is the pinnacle central event of all four Gospels.

• It was a miracle loaded full with spiritual symbolism
• it was the peak of His popular favor with the people. After this we see decline as He heads towards Jerusalem.
• Jesus's motive for the miracle is to test the character of those who followed Him. This becomes explicit in John; it is abbreviated in Mark (as is everything).
• It was an occasion of testing and learning for His disciples.

We notice the disciples' failures here, as outlined by Mark:

• Failure to offer even limited resources
• Failure to realize Jesus’s power and subsequent blessing on anything he touches
• Failure to look beyond the superficial
• Failure to reach out
• Failure to interpret needs correctly
• Failure to serve the people where they are
• Failure to recognize their own vulnerability in potential embarrassment
• Failure to remember what Jesus was like

They have just returned from a ministry tour where they did miracles of healing the sick and casting out demons. This is intended to be the next step in their training, and the power of God in them and through them will continue.

Jesus never asked anything of his disciples that they could not do. This is not a "trick" to make them feel stupid or inadequate, nor encouragement that they learn to do things themselves, but a challenge to their faith for them to rise and meet. He wants them to make the mental and spiritual shift to understand the power of God that is in them and to think and live that way.

Really, what does he expect from them? Are they expected to think through a plan ("Oh, what if we multiply the food by God’s power and feed everyone with it!"—because, frankly, God is able to do more than we can imagine), or are the plan and the possibilities beyond them, and they are expected to use the power of God?

This is a new situation for them—one that has never been in the world before. We get in those situations all the time: brand new things that there is no precedent for and we don't have a clue what to do or even what is expected of us.

So what does He expect from them? To live by faith and not by sight. ("O you of little faith." Mt. 8.26 = Mk. 4.40; Mt. 9.29.) They have seen much, and should know by now that nothing is impossible. But should they have come up with the idea of multiplying the lunch? No, but they could have turned to the Lord, in faith, and said, "We can feed them. Tell us what to do."

As soon as he says, "You give them something to eat," it was in the range of the possible. He was holding out to them the possibility of participating with him in his work and of doing a miracle. See also Mt. 14.29 when Jesus said, "Come."

> My point with Jesus looking like a ghost was that Jesus didn't look like a manifestation of YHWH, i.e., blinding glory. It seems you admit that the disciples didn't interpret the event as a theophany (hard hearts) but you also don't want to admit that, as you say later. Maybe you could explain that further?

Others Gospels show not so dire a portrait of the disciples. But it wasn't an event where Jesus glowed, just as the feeding of the 5,000 was not, but it was still a theophany.

> Should we consider the blind man's and the disciples' absolute ego eimi statements as claims to being YHWH? Why not?

We should not because of the way and the context in which they were expressed.

> I would say the actual reason Jesus walks on water is to cross the lake.

You mean a "Why did the chicken cross the road" scenario? Mere transportation? That can't be, because Mark equates it with hard hearts and not understanding about the loaves. It definitely has a deeper meaning.

> Israel's God is the God of the whole world.

Not according to the Jews. The Jews thought he was their God, and the Gentiles were barbarians outside of the covenant.

> Luke: The most obvious reason for why he did that is because it was redundant.

Luke's agenda is different, that's all. When it suits his purposes, Luke includes, for instance, the sending out of the 12 (Lk. 9.1-9) and the sending out of the 72 (Lk. 10); the Rich Young Ruler and the parable of the rich fool; the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector and the story of Zacchaeus, the tax collector. Luke doesn't include the sea miracles at all, let alone two. He included the three denials but not three wake-ups.

He's not reducing Markan doubles to singles; he's ignoring the events he doesn't choose to include. None of the Gospel writers try to tell the whole story.

By way of comparison, neither Philo nor Josephus (arguably the most prominent Jewish writers of the first century) mention Emperor Claudius's expulsion of all Jews from Rome in AD 49-50. It was a HUGE historical event for the Jews.

For a modern example, in Ronald Reagan's autobiography, he wrote only two sentences about his first marriage during which his first two children were born!

Writers are selective. Luke is trying to build a particular case, as was Mark. They tell the same story in two different ways.