![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Peter Walking on the Water
I just came across a book on Amazon with a really compelling title by John Ortberg: “If You Want to Walk on Water, You’ve Got to Get Out of the Boat.” The book is pitched as being about “going outside your comfort zone” to meet Christ on the stormy seas, just as Peter did in the Gospel of Matthew, 14:25-34.
An excerpt from that:
28 “Lord, if it’s you,” Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the water.”
29 “Come,” he said.
Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!”
31 Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?”
What’s interesting here though, is that the image of a boat later became symbolic of the Church itself - though it’s only rarely used as such today. One site explains:
The boat itself is a symbol for the church, the bark of Peter. The boat holds the apostles, and symbolically all of Christ’s disciples. “‘The world is a sea in which the Church, like a ship, is beaten by the waves, but not submerged,’ a simile of St. Hippolytus, [which] may have inspire this image [of the church as a boat]. The image lingers in calling the central portion of the church the ‘nave’… It also appears in the catacombs, as a symbol for the Church, which could survive any disaster.”
And yet, I’ve never seen anybody connect that symbol to this story of Jesus and Peter walking on the waves. If you do that simple allegorical substitution, Jesus tells Peter to come and meet him outside of the body of the Church But Peter essentially doesn’t trust Jesus and fails once he leaves the safety of the Church/boat. Jesus, on the other hand, is at home out there on the wild sea - which only makes sense, since his symbol was the fish, the ICHTHYS. So it seems that encoded right into a completely canonical Christian story, we have this admonition that if we really want to meet Jesus we have to “get outside the boat” - not just outside our comfort zone as Ortberg’s book suggests, but maybe outside the Church altogether. (See also the Gospel of Thomas, 77: “Split a piece of wood, I am there. Lift up a rock, you will find me there.”)
At Peter’s failure to walk on water and come meet Jesus on the open sea, perhaps Jesus realizes that Peter will never be able to do so, and prepares other plans for him. It is after all, later in the Gospel of Matthew that Jesus calls Peter a “rock” and gives him the Keys to Heaven. Viewed in light of the above water-walking passage, maybe Jesus was taking another jab at Peter here, and basically calling him a “sinker,” one who without the boat will drown on his own as he lacks faith (doesn’t Peter also deny Jesus three times after His death? No wonder). Oddly enough, both these stories about Peter only appear in Matthew’s rendition of the Gospel. Many Christians reject the authority of Peter and the resultant Doctrine of Petrine Supremacy. But few - if any - take the next step to seeking Jesus outside of the boat of the Church (no matter the denomination) on the wild open seas.
- Seattle Miracle Spring Water
- Call No Man Your Father
- Subway & Satellite Dreams
- Peter Carroll Books?
- The Robin Hood - Peter Pan Connection
- Prev: Is Christianity Elitist?
- Next: Everyday Gnosis
January 18th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
Another good nautical symbol for Jesus, at home in the wild sea is the dolphin:
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=542
January 18th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
I never new that but if you look at my post youll see i wrote about how after my experiences i moved 200 miles just because id had a very supportive card with a dolphin on it and the house i viewed was named dolphin lodge. When i felt i was in hell and around the time i had the christ thing going on the only relief i was given was by a robin that would sit on the fence, ever since then ive always smiled when i have seen one. I tell people about this and speak of the water and its nature . I was taken aback a couple of nights ago when i read in celtic and christian folkelore what it meant, it feels like a journey or am i just barmy?
January 18th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Haha. I don’t think you’re “barmy” at all, though I’m not really sure what that means.
According to a quiz on BeliefNet, the robin in legend is said to have received its red color by removing the bloody thorns from Christ’s head.
http://www.beliefnet.com/section/quiz/...esults.asp?sectionID=&surveyID=72
January 18th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
I read that 2 nights ago but ive recently found out i have celtic roots and my original family name means “servent of the church”, my ancestors where bishops which may explain the monk(i know this is trippy) but in celtic folkelore the robin recieves his read breast by bringing water to the poor souls in hell. Id had a difficult life but around that time i was litterally dead but said i didnt want to die because id never had a family as such and id not had a christmas or birthday card for 10 years and so my wish was for me to have a family and safe home with lots of love, i was led to the monks dwelling then out of body we go. Its then i saw the symbols and because i was lost i followed them and moved to the south of england from the north next to the sea. I did a councelling course and met my now fiance, she had a rose with no thorns tatoo on her right shoulder so me being me i thought it was destiny and now i have a lovely home and family,trippy,strange but beautifull all the same
January 18th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
Two fishies swimmin n difrent directions go n circles
January 18th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
Hey Tim, if you want some more interesting connections, check out the mythos of the Dogons again. In their mythology, the Syrians (from the planet that orbits Sirius C), or Nommos as they were called, came first in the form of a half-dolphin, half-man, and said that one day they (or just one Nommo) would return in the form of a full man. Kinda interesting, eh?
January 18th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
Book of symbols ….pieces. Tyt
January 18th, 2006 at 11:53 pm
Can eye have a master crafted surfboard,ty
January 19th, 2006 at 12:03 am
eyensane, IQ = less than a guppy
January 19th, 2006 at 2:07 am
Not to beat a dead horse and I certainly don’t have stock in Tom Robbins but one of his books, Half-asleep in Frog Pajamas touches on the Nommos and Sirius C. Makes a good point about how some primitive cultures knew about unseeable heavenly bodies in the lurking in the vincinity of Sirius way before the telescope.
As far as christianity and it’s bible goes - it’s like trying to follow the liberetto while sitting in the wrong opera. It is neither the oldest, most interesting, most compelling, most popular or most powerful religon in the world. I don’t get the fascination. Seems to me like a cult of victimhood that became a religion.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:56 am
Here is a little tidbit but not from Half-Asleep:
‘Religion is nothing but institutionalised mysticism. The catch is, mysticism does not lend itself to institutionalisation. The moment we attempt to organise mysticism, we destroy its essence. Religion, then, is mysticism in which the mystical has been killed. Or, at least diminished… not only is religion divisive and oppressive, it is also a denial of all that is divine in people; it is a suffocation of the soul.’
–Tom Robbins, in Skinny legs and All
January 19th, 2006 at 3:10 am
Actually, Gary, Christianity was very new and different in its time. Before the government came along and screwed everything up,* it was beautiful- open to everyone, any age, status, or gender. It cost no money and taught that selflessness and compassion wre more important than propitiating gods. Worship was dinner, fellowship, singing and dancing. Salvation was for everyone, the whole world would be redeemed. The problem is, it didn’t take very long for it to be swallowed by the same institution it rebelled against.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:13 am
Oddly, that about sums it up. It’s like putting a candle in a jar.
January 19th, 2006 at 4:12 am
Ok, Tom Robbins… Umm, he wishes he was Kurt Vonnegut or something, but he can only accept the fact that he’s a watered down version… Umm, he wishes he was black sometimes, but has to live with his small dick inadequacies… He uses his puedo-intellect to say religion is something like a small fish tank where the water gets stale, but real spirituality is like an ocean.. Umm Tom Robbins, he’s liked by a legion of internet forum twerps who use google… Umm he likes to hang out at some place in seattle called Lake Champion and pretend like he’s some kind of a writer.. Yeah umm, Deception Trail, he’s like half-asleep all the time and his writings reflect that. Religion is mysticism in which the mystical has been killed. Somehow this preschool philosophy crap sells copies… Umm.. Diminished, skinny legs, hey guys I wish I was the cool Athiest that Kurt Vonnegut was… Umm Peter walks on water, sure why not, that seems to be the rave of all the psuedo intellects who find occultistism as an opt out from faith… Yeah lets join that hate christian bandwagon, it looks pretty safe and we can have some cool squeamish thoughts behind a computer screen. LoL…
January 19th, 2006 at 9:07 am
The marriage of the sun and the moon.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:32 am
Disparaging IQ’s? Vonnegut-disses? Dick references? “LoL”s? I knew it was you, Dakota! I love it when you change clothes like that!
Yeah, Vonnegut: what a crappy atheist! Tom Robbins–he’s not only like a forum of twerps who use google, I bet HE uses google too! Jerkus! Grrrrrr!
Let’s tear him a new one, Moshpit (Grrrr!)! By the way, I’m on Chapter 5 of Left Behind Book One, now. Have you read it? We could totally IM about it–away from all these jerkusses! Or we could do it in person! Hey, my jerkus brother gave me a copy of Breakfast of Champions we could spit on or burn, even. That might be fun.
Seriously, just “holla back” (oooh! I sound like Tom Robbins! LoL!) I’ve got all this Yoohoo and Red Vine and I’d love to share it with you. My hand +your hand=holding hands against wannabe jerkusses!
Xs and Os, my Cheerio:
MKPoZ (The PeaceBuck Starts Here)
January 19th, 2006 at 9:54 am
Another reason one might see a layer of ironic meaning in Jesus’ calling Peter the Rock…rocks sink in water. As does Peter. His denial of Christ after the arrest is just the second episode (is there a third? it’s been awhile, eye’ll admit, since eye’ve read the NT Gospels) in which he demonstrates a lack of faith…his denial of Christ represents a lack of faith in himself (just as, perhaps the boat episode does); for if he had faith in his ability to hold true to his place as an apostle, faith in the proposition that, despite whatever seemingly fearful and possibly unpleasant situation he might face when asked about his relationship to Jesus after the Master’s arrest, he could bear it, he may not have denied Christ. Also, it’s a bit of hypnotic suggestion on Jesus’ part, the whole–”You’re gonna deny me three times” thing. Peter believes this and fulfills it’s prediction, despite his denials to the Master, because he is at odds with himself–he does not acknowledge his fear and then transcend it. (Likewise, he’s fearful of Jesus’ on the water and needs assurances that it is Jesus–tell me to come across the water if it’s you, otherwise I’m not getting off this boat! I mean, I’ll do it if YOU tell me, too. But I won’t do it from my own strength and curiosity and thus transcend my fear by myself!) He requires outside help and in the end, he needs the shelter of a boat or a church. A rock sinks in water but floats inside the safety of a boat. And why shouldn’t there be boats for those who are still in a rock state (which is a lot of us a lot of the times)–not everyone can become a feather or a being of light and walk on water, though it’s a possibility for everyone (Lift up a rock, you will find me there–make a rock float? transform it?).
A rock may not float, but it weathers storms pretty well, even if it tends to stay in one place and change only very slowly (and that by the workings of outside influences–the elements acts upon it and eroding it). And it feels solid and easy to grasp (like a set of well-defined rules of behavior and dogma to believe in). In a way, maybe that’s what Peter as rock stands for and what his purpose was…to provide a solid structure, a place of safety, outside of, but yet still close to and supported by the ocean of the ineffable. That’s every bit as needed as anything else for all sorts of people at different stages of the journey from rock to feather/being of light (or wind). When the last rock has journeyed through fear (and thus MOVED of it’s own realized potential, love and will) into that other stage of being, then the boats will disappear. And if that never happens, that’s okay, too.
Just some rambly thoughts for what it’s worth.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:03 am
I enjoyed youre rambly thoughts, when i read my rambly thoughts the next day i reach for my medication…LOL.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:09 am
Hey Moshpit_zion someone in your equation is a “pudeo” intellectual but I don’t think it is who you claim. And the next time you to try to be a troll or to flame be more witty and original. Your post appears to mimic your actual personality: dull and bland.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:19 am
I like j.r. or who cares or dakota because whilst i realise i have so much to learn he reminds me from where im coming(shudder), its like looking in a mirror at my younger self and so whilst i may not be at the same place as most people im not there anymore and thats a blessing in itself.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Luv ya Robbins, but…
Religion is more like an old, sprawling, multi-generational house, and mysticism is the people who live in it. The house has changed a lot since it was first constructed by the Architect, but the ways it in which it has changed are nothing but the natural degradation the house undergoes through time and heavy usage. It gets repaired, walls are knocked out, rooms are added, redecorated. (c.f. “How Buildings Learn”)
All of this in one sense destroys the house by changing it to something unrecognizable, and in another sense is the very life of the house, the natural ongoing change that we recognize as a ‘house’. A house that does not change over time is unthinkable.
Remember, even in the most decrepit warehouse downtown, there are people living in there. (heh, I’m rather pleased with how far this metaphor held up…)
January 19th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Haeresis,
The honeymoon period you describe is sadly short lived. I’m not sure “government” ruined it. Some theologians suggest it was the “apostle” that never met Jesus, Saul. He did, conveniently, see the ghost of the anointed one during his holy spittle producing seizure along the road to Damascus.
Prunesquallori,
While I enjoyed your metaphor I don’t think it is apt for mysticism. Instead I think it better explains how Christianity grew from a cult and how it has survived and remains popular.
To use your metaphor: you can’t house mysticism. It’s not found in houses and it doesn’t thrive there.
This reworking and changing house of yours is sort of the opposite of the continuing stories of Islam and Judaism; theirs are houses that are practically immutable and would be easily recognizable by worshippers from any age and said worshipers would feel quickly at home. I think that Christians from 1011 A.D. would be hard pressed to quickly feel at home in the vast majority of the 2600 current flavors of the worship of the anointed one. Come to think of it, Christians from 600, 700 or 800 A.D. would feel uncomfortable in most any incarnation of Christianity other than their own.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
I have to respectfully disagree. It may appear this way from “inside” Xtianity looking out, but from their respective perspectives, things have changed quite a bit. The tradition of Rabbinical Judaism didn’t get going until hundreds of years after Abraham, there have been many Messianic cults, mystical offshoots like QBL, Hasidism, etc.
Islam is more coherent, being newer and based on the hypostasis of the eternal Logos expressed through the Quran, which is more crucial to Islam than either the Torah or Bible is to their respective religions. (Just as Christ is the Word made flesh, the Quran is the Word made text, it is co-existent with God.) Nevertheless, look at Persian Islam in particular to see all sorts of wild variations.
Religious society can be very restrictive. Religious symbolism and cosmology is the language and touchstone of mystics: what was formerly understood only in a historical, moral, or allegorical sense comes to life and immediate relevance to the degree that this “deeper” hermeneutic is ultimately recognized as the ORIGIN of the religions which encapsulate it.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Neither, the chicken is inseperable from the egg, they are one organism which extends across generations. You can follow their history back until there is no longer a recognizable “chicken” or “egg” anymore, but the origin of the living chicken/egg phenomenon is outside the bounds of historicity.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Hebrides:
Absolutely! That’s totally where I was going with that. And I really like what you said about some people needing rocks and boats.
Gary:
Sure it does! If you can “lift a stone” and find it, you can also find it if you “lift a couch” or “move a tv”. Still there!
January 19th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Tim,
You are right. I retract the bit about it not being found there. Mystiicism knows no bounds. You can’t contain it though, no matter how elaborate or dynamic the house.
January 19th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
in a lot of the gnostic texts, peter is usually represented as kind of the thick-skulled one. like, he asks the dumbest questions. he’s not a bad guy, and is definitely in some kind of leadership position, but he’s always asking why everybody’s so keen on mary magdalene since she’s just a woman. like, check out this exchange from the gospel according to mary:
i tend to think that, to these particular gnostic christians, peter represented the *exoteric* teachings of the church, and mary & john the *esoteric.* like, peter’s less initiated because it’s basically his job to teach the less initiated and prepare them for admittance into the true universal church.
January 19th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Yeah its funny seeing an old character in (for me) a new light, like this. It really puts things in perspective. I think my tendency in the past would have been to sort of villify Peter for needing the boat/church, and being the sinking rock, etc. But even Jesus realized that different people need different things, and Peter’s character makes sense as a leader in that type of community. It’s not that he’s weak, it’s just that he has different strengths.
Also that whole thing about him being the gatekeeper makes a lot more sense in this light. He lets you in and then once you’re in, you’re free to wander as deeply as you want, or stick around by him.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
What I find interesting about the reviews of Tom Robbins books, is that I’ll check out the reviews to one of his books, for example… “Still Life with Woodpecker,” that’s supposedly one of his better books right?
Ok, so which of his writings is not average? Hmm.. Skinny Legs?
Ok, so I guess if you really want to read about plot, then Half Asleep with Frog Pajamas? That’s his most above average book right? Half Asleep In Frog Pajamas_ is my least favorite so far (the best being _Still LIfe With Woodpecker). Sooo, which one is above average? I’m guessing none, this is a writer who tries to fool you that all of his works are some kind of work of art, but in reality, quality difference varies little from one to the other. A writer for the elite of averages? Dull people who collectively conspire to make mediocrity into something better than pathetic mediocrity? Sounds pretty bland to me. I guess that’s why the fake writers live in Seattle, a city that celebrates blandness and mediocrity.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
JR:
I’ve been waiting and waiting for you to make a comment that doesn’t accuse somebody of being “queer” or “fake” or a “pseudo-intellectual” or something else that doesn’t quite meet your approval. I’d love very much to find out what does get you excited about life and living and people - rather than just the things you find it necessary to tear down and attack for whatever reason. What is it you actually stand for and love?
November 21st, 2006 at 6:08 pm
[…] Also related: Jesus spends a good portion of the Bible chastising Peter, calling him a hypocrite, unbeliever, betrayer and more. And yet, the Catholic Church is supposed to be founded on his lineage. Freaking crazy. People must just never read the Bible. That’s the only explanation. Read Similar Articles: […]
June 30th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
[…] I’ve been thinking a lot lately about that part in the Bible musical where Jesus walks on the water and it’s like all awesome or whatever. But then Peter tries to go out there and meet him and can’t do it, because he’s a whiny bitch: 28 “Lord, if it’s you,” Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the water.” […]