The Spiritual Dimension of Mindfulness in Matthew 14:22-33
Introduction
Peculiar perhaps to the gospel accounts is the idea of mindfulness or faith. In Matthew 14:22-33 the story of Jesus walking on the water is used as a foil to introduce the character of Peter and his faith. While in appearance it seems that Jesus is demeaning Peter, it will be made clear that he is in fact praising him. Peter was able to participate in an epiphany that predates the cultures of the Greco-Roman world. Its imagery and narrative elements exist in most religions of the Ancient Near East. It is especially interesting to note the use of words in describing this incident. They belie an important spiritual dimension of character, namely faith. However, the word faith in this context may be more appropriately phrased as mindfulness, a concept found also in many eastern religions. By walking on the water Peter displayed his mindfulness, and even in his failure the power and applicability of mindfulness is apparent both in the context of the passage and in the lives of clients today.
Genre of the Gospels
The gospels are primarily accounts of the life of Jesus and the important points of his ministry. They combine the formulaic rabbinical teaching that Jesus employed, namely parables, with the larger Greco-Roman biography. Since these two modalities are interwoven they have become known as the genre of the gospels. However, I intend to treat only the larger Greco-Roman biography elements of the Gospel genre.
The Synoptic gospels show evidence of a common source of sayings or teachings given the name Q by scholars. Since there is a common source for the synoptic accounts, particular attention is paid to differences that occur within each account. Luke is a demonstration of true Greco-Roman biography, being written by a greek for a greek. Mark belies a less educated and also much earlier version of the gospel story. Matthew is a particular consideration because it contains semeticisms reflecting the intended audience of Jews. However, its late date – 90-110 C.E. (Freed, 2001) – coupled with more developed theological wording makes its interpretation particularly involved.
Most likely written by a Jewish author (Freed, 1991), the Matthew account is intended to restore and give evidence for the Authority of Peter and the Jerusalem church. As such it contains a number of particular Peter incidents, including Jesus naming him the rock upon which the church will be built. This peculiar regard for Peter results in a very interesting pericope, Jesus and Peter walking on the water. Not only does this account include a classic Jewish epiphany, it also includes primordial themes that can be traced back to the earliest near-eastern religions. Inserted among these epic events is a small story about a fisherman that was able to walk on water.
Historical Considerations
The metaphor of the storm coupled with that of the sea are two very powerful Jewish ideas. God is clothed in a storm in early appearances, that of Job and then again at Sinai. Historically God was a mountain/thunder God in the desert who then defeated the gods of other nations. This is especially seen during the conquests narrated in the book of Joshua. However, the metaphor for God’s power still rests in the idea of the storm, thus he spoke to Job out of the whirlwind. In the Job account there is not a theological hiding of God’s glory as with Moses, owing to the significantly earlier oral story of Job which the OT author is drawing upon. The idea of the kabod and panin (Eichrodt, 1967) were introduced later into Jewish theology (Albertz, 1994). Thus Jesus is coming to his disciples out of the storm, walking on the water just like the God whom revealed herself to Moses.
Water also carries a deep metaphoric power for a Jew. Hartley (1988) notes that below the sea are the springs of the deep, which also hold the gates of Sheol. Thus Hell was directly below the water. This is seen in many instances such as the pigs running into the sea after Jesus casts out the demon Legion. They are in a sense returning to their lair. Eichrodt (1967) details the possible outside influences of a demonology into the Hebrew religion, most likely from Semitic and Hellenistic origins. However, at the time of the gospels, especially among those living in the Galilee area, this belief was present. Linked also with water is the Leviathan, or the beast of chaos. Most likely referring to the crocodile (Hartley, 1988) this same beast is used more figuratively in Samaritan and Babylonian myths to represent the great enemy creature of Baal. Owing to the obvious influences of Baal upon Yahweh, the syncretism is not unexpected. Even in Revelation, the final triumph over evil is pictured as God’s defeat of the ancient Leviathan.
Thus the storm and the water carried a powerful meaning for Peter as he stepped out of the boat. in essence he was triumphing over evil [more specifically chaos, Ma’at in the Egyptian worldview (Frankfurt, 1975) and sharing in the power of Jesus, and by association God.
Word Study
Within the account of Peter’s little walk, there are a few key words that will help to develop a better basis upon which to do competent exegesis. In v. 28 Peter says “if it is you”, Lenski (1961) describes this as an idiomatic phrase called a condition of reality. Thus Peter was not so much asking if it was Jesus, but instead declaring that is was him. There is an implied “if it is you, as indeed it is.” We should not therefore take Peter to be expressing doubt, rather he is asserting his certainty at Jesus’ formulaic announcement “It is me.” Later redactors translated this phrase into greek in the same manner as YHWH is translated in the Septuagint. Thus Jesus is presented as declaring himself God in this epiphany account. Regardless of the cultural inaccuracy of this translation, Peter’s response is particularly important in that he is certain that Jesus speaks the truth.
A pivotal moment comes when Peter “sees” the wind. The greek word here is blepon, which can carry the meaning of seeing in a literal optical sense. Yet Thayer (1997) would give this particular passage the nuanced meaning of perceiving through the senses. Thus it is not so much a matter of sight, as it is feel. This is important in two ways; First the Matthew account is quite particular that the storm continues in all its glory until Jesus and Peter get back into the boat. Second, many an exegete has wrongly interpreted the cause of Peter’s failure to be lost eye contact with Jesus. Namely that he lost trust in Jesus and therefore looked away. This theological theme is introduced much later in church history and should not be anachronistically inserted into this passage. Peter was overcome by the sheer power of the storm in a psychological way. The waves were pounding him and the ship, the wind was howling. Lightning and thunder were deafening, and all the while he needed to maintain focus in order to stay aloft.
Key to the contextual understanding of the passage is Jesus’ statement “You of little faith” in v. 31. Gaebelein & Douglas (1984) term this a rhetorical question of realization, while Lenski (1961) points to the use of the aorist to indicate a momentary doubt, not one that continues to the future. Both would agree that it is a gentle statement of reality and not the great rebuke that other exegetes have attempted to assign to it. Jesus is not intending to shame Peter but as Davies & Allison (1991) frame it, he is instead calling Peter and the other disciples to a greater faith in the future.
The former is then coupled with the intriguing question, “Why did you doubt?” Hagner (1995) defines the greek word for doubt (distazien) as meaning to be of a divided mind. The term doubt has been injected with theological significance in Christian antiquity. Yet in this instance it does not carry the same weight as is normally attributed to it. Instead it can be seen as; Why did you lose your focus? Thus faith in the previous question becomes synonymous with mindfulness through the context of the second question. Small faith here means weak mindfulness, or that Peter was not able to complete his walk because he was overcome by the moment and allowed his mind to be divided between the task and the unreality of the situation. It may be appropriate to interject the eastern idea of non-duality, or that Peter was unable to hold the paradox of his miraculous feat and his utter helplessness together. Jesus fully understands the paradox that Peter is experiencing, and therefore tries to encourage him, even though the words no longer carry that meaning for a modern audience.
Exegesis
The intent of the passage is to display the lordship of Jesus through his ability to mimic the God of Job, who walked on the deeps and calmed the whirlwind. In addition the faith and foolishness of Peter is laid bare in the Matthew account so that his later role as leader of the church may be defended.
In short Jesus is not criticizing the disciples so much as leading them to a different understanding. When he speaks to them and says “You of little faith”, the purpose is to show that they could have more. It is not so much a quantitative issue. Nor should it be a qualitative issue either. There is a larger non-dualistic synthesis of these two concepts that Jesus is speaking to.
The obvious power that Jesus displays is not even mentioned in a direct fashion. In fact the verb phrase emphasizes merely that he came to the disciples and happens to mention the methods, via the water. Thus the emphasis even in the other accounts is upon the reception of the disciples and their response. Eventually, the end of the pericope shows that Jesus is worshiped for his Theophany.
Perhaps rather enigmatic is the three verses that deal with Peter and his walk on the water. Peter does not question Jesus’ identity, rather his formulaic phrase is an acknowledgment both of Jesus and his authority. However, he does not ask for the power to walk on the water from Jesus, rather he knows that he will be able to. He is saying, since it is you, tell me to come out to you and I will. Theologically this has been interpreted to mean a commissioning of power to do so. I intend to discuss the issue from the aspect of mindfulness, meaning that Peter had a glimpse here of enlightenment, and lost focus during the exchange. Thus Jesus speaks to him in two ways. The first is to say he is a man of little faith, as if he were a small child of little strength trying to lift a heavy load. The second is a reproach, “Why did you doubt”. This has many theological meanings, however, the division of his mind was from within himself. Feeling the wind he became overpowered. It was an internal focus change, he lost his mindfulness and became trapped again unto the dualism of the world. Where he had previously transcended the dualism of the world through mindfulness based on his witness of this epiphany. The threat of physical harm caused him to fall.
In the end, Jesus rescues him from the water, however, it is unclear what exactly happens. It could be theologically interpreted that Peter was only able to return to the boat under the divine power of Jesus. Such an event would be a good conclusion to a story about Jesus’ power. Yet Matthew simply says, once they reached the boat, the storm stilled. It could be just as likely that Peter was again able to walk on the water. The presence of Jesus acted as a focus for his own mindfulness, just as teachings to others have resulted in greater mindfulness of their own accord. The story of Peter’s walk on water highlights a number of important concepts that are rooted in the idea of mindfulness or focus.
The obvious intention to show Jesus’ power over nature is successful through his ability to walk on the back of the water. However, Peter does as well, and not in a seemingly easy portion of the sea. Thus Peter got out of the boat and walked on the back of the water, when it was at its most powerful, and thereby shared in Jesus’ dominion. This would be similar to the acts of Ezekiel in raising people from the dead. It is theologically troublesome to have shared dominion at this point, and the obvious solution is to see the presence of Jesus as paramount to the performance of this miracle. However, the miracles performed by the Apostles in Acts contradict that conjecture. Jesus’ presence is quite important, but not simply in the aspect of power to perform the miracle. Rather it is his example that Peter follows, his mindfulness to perform the miracle that creates Peter’s success. It is Peter’s divided mind that causes his failure.
It would not make sense that Jesus’ power fails in the face of doubt. In fact the presence of faith as the responsible agent in Jesus’ miracles abounds throughout the NT. Thus the individuals mindfulness is more important than Jesus’ power in the Gospels. However, he is also able to conduct miracles even for those that doubt. Ultimately the ability and failure lie not in Jesus, but in Peter. Whether this would be set in a Christian context or otherwise, the necessity for Jesus to maintain his own power is not supported by the limiting doubts of others. Thus the fault must lie outside of Jesus, if he is to be regarded as the divine, either as mal’ak YHWH (Eichrodt, 1967) or son.
Instead the more powerful narrative is that of Jesus helping to create in his disciple the mindfulness necessary to participate in the epiphany of walking on the sea. The whole story is then set in an Epiphany/Sea rescue genre (Heil, 1981), which is informative to show how it was regarded by the early church.
Clinical Applications
Mindfulness is an important spiritual and psychological virtue in almost any context. The idea of Peter is wonderful for a number of possible situations. First the ability to perform miracles can give freedom to many who may be otherwise stuck in a place from which they feel powerless to escape. That Peter himself could do something so wonderful and still fall means that any client can look back not to see failure, but a growing mindfulness or faith, that will one day allow them to again walk on water. The metaphor of the storm and the water, or deep chaos, can be related to depression or any other condition that feels utterly overwhelming. That Peter was able through mindfulness to walk on the water and overcome this chaos means that clients can as well. Even in the instance of falling, the client who is Christian can look to God for rescue, or the non-christian client can look to Jesus’ statement and work toward becoming a person of great faith/mindfulness, perhaps even asking themselves why they doubted.
Faith is often interpreted as belief without reason. Augustine says “Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand.” While such positions make good theological sense, especially when dealing with meta-ethical justification, it does not always give comfort in need. Thus updating our understanding of faith to the concept of mindfulness gives both hope and focus. Clients will always have problems containing issues of faith and doubt. It could be in the context a relationship, or even in a formal religious context. This matters little to the general principle at work. When marital therapists work with couples attempting to heal and reconnect, they usually employ techniques that change the couples focus. The intent is to get the couple to be present with one another, and to be mindful of the other. Taken to a larger level such mindfulness can permeate all of life.
Peter is a wonderful example for anyone who wishes to be different, to be more than a job or a role into which they were born or placed. The story contains themes of Chaos, Power, and Faith. Yet it also demonstrates failure, and does so in a way this is neither shaming nor cause for regret. When learning to walk on water it should be allowed that Peter might fall a few times. Clients can take this narrative as a model for learning to master the chaos in their own lives. To walk on the back of it, rather than let it divide their mind and leave them helpless and in need of rescue.
There is great power in Peter’s example, yet it is also able to escape the trap of greed or selfishness normally synonymous with power. In a truly eastern way mindfulness or faith gives to the client its power only when they have given up all trappings of it. Peter subjected himself to the storm in a very real way, and without any recourse. Both his success and his failure can be used in a narrative context to help redefine a clients experience of powerlessness and chaos.
There is a deep metaphor present within this epiphany. Out of the storm a lone figure comes to the troubled fisherman. Without removing the predicament nor joining with them, this figure says “Do not be afraid, It is me.” At once these poor fisherman realize that the figure is actually their master, their mentor. One of them stands up and says to him, “I believe it really is you. Command me to come out to you on the water.” The master simply says “Come.” The lightning outlines a sea thrashing the boat with swells large enough to swallow a man. Yet even in the face of such power, the fisherman steps out onto the water, and stands. His joy is without measure, he is actually walking on water. He knew that he could, and now here he is. He begins to close the distance to his master, but the sea swells in front of him. The footing is precarious at best. He knows he must choose his steps carefully. Just then a gust of wind nearly knocks him down. Now he begins to notice the sea, the rolling waves, and the howling wind. The sound is truly deafening. He looks down at the water and sees deep things moving beneath him. A flash of red, a dim aura of evil and foreboding. He falters, his foot sinks into the sea with his next step. Suddenly he is unsure, and with that thought he feels his body slipping into the maw. He is frightened beyond belief, and now he begins to fall faster still into the water. He can see nothing except for the impending doom of the sea. “Save me Lord” he cries into the black night.
Suddenly a hand has grasped his. He is no longer sinking. Looking up he makes eye contact with his master who speaks to him. “You are truly a man of small faith, Why did you let yourself become distracted?” At his words a new understanding is formed. The fisherman climbs back atop the waves and walks together with his master back to the boat. The master helps him up the side, and he in turn helps his master. Once inside the storm stills and the other fisherman look on with amazement, and in their eyes this fisherman sees that they do not understand.
References
Albertz, Rainer. (1994). A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period: Volume I. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press
Davies, W. D. & Allison Dale C. (1991). Commentary on Matthew VIII-XVIII: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew. Edinburgh: T&T Clark
Eichrodt, Walther. (1967). Theology of the Old Testament: Volume II. Philadelphia, PN: The Westminster Press
Frankfort, Henri. (1975) Anciet Egyptian Religion: An Interpretation. Mineola, NY: Dover
Freed, Edwin D. (2001). The New Testament: A Critical Introduction. United States: Wadsworth
Hagner, Donald A. (1995). Mathew 14-28. Dallas, TX: World Books
Hartley, John E. (1988). The Book of Job. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans
Heil, John P. (1981). Jesus Walking on the Sea: MEaning and Gospel Functions of Matt 14:22-33, Mark 6:45-52, and John 6:15b-21. Rome: Biblical Institute Press
Lenski, Richard C. H. (1961). The Interpretation of St. Matthew. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg
Thayer, Joseph H. (1997). Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Edinburgh: T&T Clark
