Peter walking on the water


Recommended Posts

Why is it that almost everything talk that references Peter walking on the water focusses on the lack of faith he showed by not continuing with his walk rather than the great faith he showed by starting his walk? Even Christ seemed to rebuke Peter for his lack of faith even though He praised others for showing a lesser amount of faith than what Peter showed, eg, by asking to be healed when they already knew that Christ could heal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. If I could walk on water for a while before my doubts overcame me, what an event that would be. But Peter is not alone; Thomas has always been vilified, or at least criticized harshly, for being "doubting" -- yet which of us would not have said Exactly The Same Thing in Thomas' place? The lesson is, I guess, that it's easy to find fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of commentaries refer to Peter's "impetuous" nature.  There's a difference between true faith and spiritual "me-too-ism", and I presume Peter's initial desire to walk with the Lord on the water was more the latter than the former.  Peter, though he subsequently rose magnificently to his calling, quite simply hadn't "counted the cost" at the outset of his discipleship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience, most discussions about Peter speak to his great faith, and then typically talk about losing focus on the Savior. Which is a fine message.

 

What, exactly, do you think we should be learning from this story, if not the above?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of commentaries refer to Peter's "impetuous" nature.  There's a difference between true faith and spiritual "me-too-ism", and I presume Peter's initial desire to walk with the Lord on the water was more the latter than the former.  Peter, though he subsequently rose magnificently to his calling, quite simply hadn't "counted the cost" at the outset of his discipleship.

 

I'm not sure me-too-ism would give one the qualifying power to actually walk on water for a bit. I'm quite sure not, actually. Which is part of the question methinks. Moreover, I'm not sure there's any indication of this in the scripture. Although possible, could you be reading something into it that may not be there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although possible, could you be reading something into it that may not be there?

 

Quite possibly.  :) 

 

I think an immature faith can still yield great--even miraculous--blessings, though.  Look at what the three witnesses, or the twelve apostles who were called in 1835, were able to accomplish before many of them apostatized.  Heck, even Peter and the rest of the apostles apparently did some pretty amazing things before before the Crucifixion (see Mark 6).

 

Whatever motivated Peter to step out of that boat, it was not faith unto salvation.  I'm inclined to think that each of us is similar:  At some point, my initial (though potentially very powerful) childlike faith will either mature, or that I will sink. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if the incident, and the way it has been reported, and subsequently discussed suggests that we learn more from the failure of others than we do about their successes.Does someone's failure mean more to us, or have a greater impact on our behaviour, than their successes? 

Edited by askandanswer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At some point, my initial (though potentially very powerful) childlike faith will either mature, or that I will sink. 

 

Hmmm. As faith matures, does it become more, or less, childlike?

 

17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

 

Luke 18:17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Savior knows each of us better than we know ourselves.  For us, it may seem like it would take tremendous faith to walk on water, but no one knows how difficult or easy it was for Peter.  It might have been really easy for Peter, making Christ's humbling phrase to Peter very appropriate.  

 

Peter had enough faith to walk on water, but might not had enough faith to walk across the plains to Utah.  We just don't know, but the Savior does.  That is why Jesus gives such personal and powerful counsel. 

Edited by Str8Shooter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience, most discussions about Peter speak to his great faith, and then typically talk about losing focus on the Savior. Which is a fine message.

 

What, exactly, do you think we should be learning from this story, if not the above?

 

Yes, there have been many discussions like that, and in most of them, Peter comes out as looking a bit silly, or as a man of weak faith, when I think that by walking on the water he has shown great faith. In Ether 12, Moroni teaches about the role and power of faith, and the relationship between faith and Christ, in part by expounding on the great things that have been brought to pass by the power of faith, eg, Alma and Amulek causing the prison to fall and Ammon and his brethren bringing about such a mighty change in the Lamanites. Moroni speaks positively of those who have brought about those great things through the power of their faith. Peter, who did a great thing through the power of his faith, is spoken of in what seems to be a slightly disparaging manner. The same teaching technique that Moroni used - using real life examples to show what can happen through the exercise of faith - could be applied to the story of Peter, and that is something we could learn from this story, but instead we focus more on his failure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it that almost everything talk that references Peter walking on the water focusses on the lack of faith he showed by not continuing with his walk rather than the great faith he showed by starting his walk? Even Christ seemed to rebuke Peter for his lack of faith even though He praised others for showing a lesser amount of faith than what Peter showed, eg, by asking to be healed when they already knew that Christ could heal.

I think it is because Peter was walking on the water because Christ held him up...he did not lose faith in walking on water, so much as he lost faith in Christ's ability to sustain him. The point of the entire story is that focal point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have also asked the same question as the original poster. Why do we focus on Peter's lack of faith? The man walked on water!

A beautiful short story by Leo Tolstoy entitled "The Three Hermits" brings this into perspective. Here is a summary by his friend Nicholas Roerich:

 

On an Island there lived three old hermits. They were so simple that the only prayer they used was: "We are three; Thou art Three - have mercy on us!" Great miracles were manifested during this naive prayer.

 

The local bishop came to hear about the three hermits and their inadmissible prayer, and decided to visit them in order to teach them the canonical invocations. He arrived on the island, told the hermits that their heavenly petition was undignified, and taught them many of the customary prayers. The bishop then left on a boat.

 

He saw, following the ship, a radiant light. As it approached he discerned the three hermits, who were holding hands and running upon the waves in an effort to overtake the vessel. "We have forgotten the prayers you taught us," they cried as they reached the bishop, "and have hastened to ask you to repeat them." The awed bishop shook his head. "Dear ones," he replied humbly, "continue to live with your old prayer!"

Sometimes I feel we are like this bishop, correcting Peter, pointing to perceived faults when the very evidence of his faith is right in front of us and by and large ours pales in comparison. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard to take the suggested alteration on our view of this story too seriously when, as had been pointed out, Christ Himself even "rebuked Peter for his lack of faith".

Are we now counseling Christ too?

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard to take the suggested alteration on our view of this story too seriously when, as had been pointed out, Christ Himself even "rebuked Peter for his lack of faith".

Are we now counseling Christ too?

 

Hi The Folk Prophet!

 

Your question is nonsense and unfair.

 

-Finrock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi The Folk Prophet!

 

Your question is nonsense and unfair.

 

-Finrock

 

 Even Christ seemed to rebuke Peter for his lack of faith even though He praised others for showing a lesser amount of faith than what Peter showed, eg, by asking to be healed when they already knew that Christ could heal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi The Folk Prophet!

 

Your question is nonsense and unfair.

 

-Finrock

I think it very apropos.

There is a vocal subculture within (for now) the Church that is *far* more interested in the outward manifestations of power that faith can produce, than in the constancy of the faith itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard to take the suggested alteration on our view of this story too seriously when, as had been pointed out, Christ Himself even "rebuked Peter for his lack of faith".

Are we now counseling Christ too?

 

I'm not seeking to counsel Christ, I'm seeking for understanding. One way of getting understanding is by asking questions because the questions often lead to a search for answers and explanations, and then understanding can often arise from those answers and explanations. As a general rule, in my posts, I try to state facts and occasionally my own ideas and beliefs, without offering any kind of judgements. I think that in these posts about Peter, I have followed that rule. It seems to be a fact that Christ rebuked Peter when he showed great faith and praised others for showing a lesser amount of faith. Asking why, and finding the right answer, is likely to lead to greater understanding. I'm not saying or suggesting that Christ did anything wrong, I'm simply asking why. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard to take the suggested alteration on our view of this story too seriously when, as had been pointed out, Christ Himself even "rebuked Peter for his lack of faith".

Are we now counseling Christ too?

Clearly the Lord felt Peter could use some correction but "rebuke" is too strong a word. Christ was simply teaching him not to doubt or fear. 

 

Let me say this again, the man walked on water! I would wager that none of us have ever walked on water. For some reason we almost ignore the fact that Peter did so. And there was not some earth shattering purpose for doing so. He simply asked if he could and Jesus said, "come". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it very apropos.

There is a vocal subculture within (for now) the Church that is *far* more interested in the outward manifestations of power that faith can produce, than in the constancy of the faith itself.

JAG, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Outward signs of faith are important and valuable. Even Christ says that we should believe on him because of his works. The problem with how this story is typically approached seems very backward to me. I think it may stem from a structure we have created around Peter. We treat Peter as if he was at first sort of foolish but earnest and then magically after he denies Christ three times he becomes the Prophet. This story does not fit that mold very well so we skip over what Peter did and instead talk about what he did not do. At some point we need to judge faith by it's fruits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not seeking to counsel Christ, I'm seeking for understanding. One way of getting understanding is by asking questions because the questions often lead to a search for answers and explanations, and then understanding can often arise from those answers and explanations. As a general rule, in my posts, I try to state facts and occasionally my own ideas and beliefs, without offering any kind of judgements. I think that in these posts about Peter, I have followed that rule. It seems to be a fact that Christ rebuked Peter when he showed great faith and praised others for showing a lesser amount of faith. Asking why, and finding the right answer, is likely to lead to greater understanding. I'm not saying or suggesting that Christ did anything wrong, I'm simply asking why. 

 

This an appropriate response to my question. An answer. Thank you.

 

My concern is not with the original question however (even though I did use it as part of my evidence that we may be "counseling Christ"). Some of the responses to the question are my concern. The, "yeah, we're wrong for thinking Peter didn't have faith", sort of responses, when Christ himself was the one who said Peter was of little faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JAG, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Outward signs of faith are important and valuable. Even Christ says that we should believe on him because of his works.

Sure; but only if that faith is enduring. King David liberated Israel. David Whitmer saw an angel. Judas Iscariot saw and--we presume--worked miracles in the course of his mission as one of the Twelve during Jesus' lifetime. Sidney Rigdon saw the Father and the Son. Denver Snuffer--if we believe him--had a miraculous vision as well. But in the end, how did these great signs secure the salvation of any of these individuals? David became a murderer, Judas the archetypal son of perdition, Whitmer and Rigdon became apostates, and Snuffer an excommunicated crank--every one of them a snare to the spiritually unwary.

The problem with how this story is typically approached seems very backward to me. I think it may stem from a structure we have created around Peter. We treat Peter as if he was at first sort of foolish but earnest and then magically after he denies Christ three times he becomes the Prophet. This story does not fit that mold very well so we skip over what Peter did and instead talk about what he did not do. At some point we need to judge faith by it's fruits.

But as TFP points out, these strictures were not created in a vacuum.

Over the long haul, the only fruit of faith that really matters is the salvation/exaltation of ourselves and our loved ones. Peter's early faith was apparently insufficient to bring that about; else he would not have denied knowing Jesus and he would not have initially gone back to a fisherman's life after Christ's resurrection.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me when I hear the story my take away is that no matter the spiritual "High" we might reach we need to be careful because we can always crash right after.  And doubly so if we stop doing the things that got us there in the first place.

 

Which is exactly what I see as happening to Peter.  When he focused on the Lord he had great faith, but when he allowed himself to be distracted by the waves and his surroundings he failed.  I think that is a very power lesson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure; but only if that faith is enduring. King David liberated Israel. David Whitmer saw an angel. Judas Iscariot saw and--we presume--worked miracles in the course of his mission as one of the Twelve during Jesus' lifetime. Sidney Rigdon saw the Father and the Son. Denver Snuffer--if we believe him--had a miraculous vision as well. But in the end, how did these great signs secure the salvation of any of these individuals? David became a murderer, Judas the archetypal son of perdition, Whitmer and Rigdon became apostates, and Snuffer an excommunicated crank--every one of them a snare to the spiritually unwary.

But as TFP points out, these strictures were not created in a vacuum.

Over the long haul, the only fruit of faith that really matters is the salvation/exaltation of ourselves and our loved ones. Peter's early faith was apparently insufficient to bring that about; else he would not have denied knowing Jesus and he would not have initially gone back to a fisherman's life after Christ's resurrection.

But perhaps our understanding of Peter's motives are incorrect. Our supposition that he had weak faith is largely based on his denial. Was he really the coward we presume he was when he denied Christ three times? The same Peter who cut off the soldiers ear, the one who said he would die with Christ, the one who gave up all to follow him. These questions, among many others, are brought up by Spencer W. Kimball in his talk Peter, My Brother. I tend to ask these same questions and find it difficult to believe he was so cowardly before and also so bold afterwards. 

 

Yes, Peter needed to grow in faith, but I think were he was at in his progression and what he needed to learn are largely misunderstood. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share