Peter M. Head on the High Christology of Matthew's Account of Jesus' Walking on the Water

Immediately he made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. And after he had dismissed the crowds, he went up the mountain by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone, but by this time the boat, battered by the waves, was far from the land, for the wind was against them. And early in the morning he came walking toward them on the sea. But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, saying, "It is a ghost!" And they cried out in fear. But immediately Jesus spoke to them and said, "Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid." Peter answered him, "Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water." He said, "Come." So Peter got out of the boat, started walking on the water, and came toward Jesus. But when he noticed the strong wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, "Lord, save me!" Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, "You of little faith, why did you doubt?" When they got into the boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God." (Matt 14:22-33 NRSV; cf. Mark 6:45-52)

Commenting on the differences between Matthew’s account and that of Mark, and how such differences show Matthew had a high Christology, Peter Head wrote:

The storm and epiphany of Jesus (vv. 24-27)

In v. 24 Matthew emphasises the distance of the boat from the land: ἤδη σταδίους πολλοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ἀπεῖχεν (v. 24a). This involves an alternation of Mark 6.47 (‘in the midst of the sea’) which does not use characteristically Matthean vocabulary: ‘Neither σταδιον nor απο τησ γης is attested elsewhere in the First Gospel, and απεχω is not otherwise redactional’ (Davies and Allison, Matthew, vol. II, p. 503, n. 26). For this reason Davies and Allison prefer the variant reading μεσον της θαλασσης ην (with א C L W f¹ it Maj etc., also read by Greeven, Synopsis). This view, however, takes insufficient account of the possibility of scribal harmonisation to the parallel text in Mark and the strength of the external support for the reading of NA27 given above (B (θ 700) f¹³ syr cop).

Matthew also omits a few words from Mark and adds a new clause resulting in βασανιζομενον υπο των κυματων. This addition is the first of several which increase the parallelism between this account and the stilling of the storm (Matt 8.23-27); in this case, υπο των κυματων is also found in 8.24, where the boat was being swamped by the waves. Matthew’s account focusses attention on the boat throughout v. 24 – as the object of the passive verb βασανιζομενον and the referent of εναντιος – and tends to increase the severity of the problem, which in Mark is effectively limited to difficulty in rowing. These alternation align Matthew more closely to the ‘distress at sea’ motif discussed by Heil and prepare for the christological point which Matthew will press: God alone can rescue from the sea and ‘distress at sea implies rescue by God’ (Heil, Jesus Walking on the Sea, p. 36. He discusses Exod. 14.10-15.21; Ps. 107.23-32; John 1.1-16; Wis. 14.2-4; IQH 3.6, 12-18; 6.22-5; 7.4f; T. Naph. 6.1-10 [pp. 17-37]).

The report of Jesus’ coming, walking on the sea, is very similar to that of Mark. This plays a important role in the christological focus of the whole pericope, particularly in light of the OT background concerning Yahweh walking on seas (Job 9.8; Hab. 3.15; Ps. 77.19; cf. Isa. 43.16; 51.9f; Frg. Tg. Exod. 15.11). Matthew omits the enigmatic statement of Mark 6.48: και ηθελεν παρελθειν αυτους. Although some argue that Matthew omitted this phrase because it seemed to imply that Jesus was not able to do what he wanted (Davies and Allison, Matthew, vol. Ii, p. 505), a simpler and more obvious reason is that for Matthew, unlike Mark, παρελθειν normally means ‘to pass away’ (5.18; 24.34f; 26.39, 42) (Gundry, Matthew, p. 298).

Matthew slightly rearranges Mark’s description disciples’ response (v. 26): inserting μαθηται, shifting εταραχθησαν from a later phrase in Mark 6.50, changing Mark’s εδοξαν to λεγοντες, and adding απο του φοβου; resulting in οι δε μαθηται ιδοντες αυτον επι της θαλασσης περιπατουντα εταραχθησαν λεγοντες οτι Φαντασμα εστιν, και απο του φοβου εκραξαν. This combination of fear and being troubled echoes Psalm 76.16LXX: εἴδοσάν σε ὕδατα ὁ θεός εἴδοσάν σε ὕδατα καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν καὶ ἐταράχθησαν ἄβυσσοι πλῆθος ἤχους ὑδάτων (‘When the waters saw thee, O God, when the waters saw thee, they were afraid, yea, the deep trembled’). This it might be said that Matthew revises Mark in light of the OT background (as also in vv. 30f). In v. 27 in response to the disciples’ cry Jesus identifies himself in words identical to Mark: Θαρειτε, εγω ειμι μη φοβεισθε. In view of Matthew’s interest in the OT it is probably right to take this not only as an identification formula (a in Luke 1.19; 24.39; Acts 9.5; 22.8; 26.15) but also as revelatory, theophanic statement, echoing the εγω ειμι language of Exodus 3.14; Isaiah 41.4; 43.10; 47.8, 10; and the μη φοβεισθε language of Genesis 15.1; 26.14; 28.13; 46.3; Isaiah 41.13; 43.1-3; Revelation 1.7 (cf. Apoc. Abr. 9.2f; 2 Enoch 1.8). (Peter M. Head, Christology and the Synoptic Problem: An Argument for Markan Priority [Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 94; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997], 88-89)

With respect to Peter walking on the water (Matt 14:28-31) and how it presents Jesus as being divine, Head writes:

Matthew’s long addition its well into this context, with a parallel between Jesus’ coming to the boat (v. 25) and Peter’s later coming to Jesus (v. 29). As already noted, many of the terms used in this account echo Matthean preferences (particularly phrases in the stilling of the storm of Matt. 8.23-7): Peter’s use of the vocative Κυριε (vv. 2a, 30b; cf. 8.25b), particularly Κυριε, σωσον με (v. 30b; cf. 8.25b: Κυριε σωσον); Jesus use of ολιγοπιστος (v. 31b; cf. 8.26); and the use of κελευω (14.28 cf. 8.18). As for the story itself we cannot attempt a complete analysis. It is noteworthy that Peter’s dilemma (v. 30) is provoked by the wind (linking with vv. 24 and 32), and is expressed in terms reminiscent of Psalm 69.1-3 (Ps 68 LXX):

Save me (σωσον με), O God! For the waters (υδατα) have
come up to my neck.
I sink in deep mire, where there is no foothold;
I have come into deep waters (θαλασσης),
and the flood sweeps over me (κατεποντισεν με).
I am weary with my crying (κραζων); my throat is parched.
My eyes grow di with waiting for my God. (Heil, Jesus Walking on the Sea, p. 61)

It is also noteworthy that Jesus’ saving action involves stretching out his hand (cf. also 8.3; 12.49; 26.51), which is allusive of OT rescue passages such as Psalm 18.17f; 144.7f: ‘Stretch forth thy hand from on high, rescue me and deliver me from the many waters . . .’ Therefore, although the insertion readily provides teaching about discipleship (cf. Peter’s role elsewhere in Matt.), it is also of a piece with the overall christological impact of the passage (Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. II. pp. 497-8). (Ibid., 90, emphasis in bold added)

So we see that in this incident, Matthew presents a high Christology. Furthermore, this should not be taken to mean that Mark’s Christology is “low” as is commonly believed by many, including many errant commentators. On the High Christology in the Gospel of Mark, see:

Julie M. Smith on Mark's Christology and Jesus as God in the Garden of Eden and

High Christology and the Baptism of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels