DID PETER REALLY WALK ON THE WATER OR WAS IT SYMBOLIC ?

[HollyRock]

My Mom seems to think that Peter walking on the water was symbolic for how we are to walk by faith and not by sight and the consequences of each. I however, believe that Peter literally walked on the water just as it was written. What do you guys think ?

[-SEEKING-]

I believe he literally walked on water. Don't see why I'd take it as symbolic.

[Saved7]

Yes it was literal. However God uses literal events to teach us spiritual lessons.

[Old man]

I would agree that Peter literally walked on water, as least as long as he kept his eyes on Jesus, when he took his eyes off Jesus then he literally began to sink.

[glad4mercy]

Yes it was literal. However God uses literal events to teach us spiritual lessons.

Yes, I agree with this. Peter did walk on water, but the life application and lesson for him, the other disciples, and us is that Jesus is Lord of all, ( including the elements), and when we walk by faith God will show Himself mighty on our behalf.
With God, nothing is impossible

[HollyRock]

What about Jonah and the whale...was that literal too ? I must admit that I am puzzled by that one.

[awestruckchild]

Oh boy. Here goes.
I believe it literally happened just as it says it does. If you insist that even one miracle did not happen, you have just given yourself terrible problems, because surely, raising a body dead in the grave for three days was the most "difficult" miracle. If even one miracle "did not happen", how would we know that ANY of them happened, or that the one it all rests on happened?

AND in addition TO this, your mother is right that it DOES show us the consequences of walking by what our eyes see over walking in trust and belief....it is both.

[-SEEKING-]

What about Jonah and the whale...was that literal too ? I must admit that I am puzzled by that one.

Why puzzled?

[Dani H]

Peter literally walked on water. As did Jesus. Jonah literally was eaten by a ginormous fish. There was a donkey that literally talked. I do believe all those things actually happened.

I see no reason that events would be portrayed as literal by Biblical authors, that weren't. What's the point?

When Jesus told a parable, He announced it as such. He talked about Jonah and the fish as fact and reality. So ... I've no reason to believe otherwise.

[jeffweeder]

I would agree that Peter literally walked on water, as least as long as he kept his eyes on Jesus, when he took his eyes off Jesus then he literally began to sink.

Exactly. Jesus said come, and all was well until he focused on the storm.

Peter said to Him, "Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water."
29 And He said, "Come!" And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus.

30 But seeing the wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, "Lord, save me!"
31 Immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and took hold of him, and said to him, "You of little faith, why did you doubt?"

[Jemand]

My Mom seems to think that Peter walking on the water was symbolic for how we are to walk by faith and not by sight and the consequences of each. I however, believe that Peter literally walked on the water just as it was written. What do you guys think ?

I do not find anything in the Gospel According to Matthew, the only gospel in which this event is spoken of (14:28-32), that suggests that Matthew did not intend for the event to be understood as a real event. However, both Mark and John write of the context (Mark 6:45-52; John 6:15-21) of the event, but make no mention of Peter at all—but only of the disciples of Jesus collectively. If such a notable event actually occurred, we certainly would not expect Mark and Luke to tell the story and leave out such an important part of it! Luke omits the story all together even though he tells the related story of the feeding of the five thousand, an event that, according to Matthew, Mark, and John immediately preceded Jesus walking on the water—and according to Matthew alone, Peter also walking on the water.

Unless a man has the quality of faith that causes him to die to himself and live for Christ, his faith is useless. If a man has that quality of faith, whether he believes in the historicity of Peter walking on the water does not really matter. I have known many Christians who would bet their very lives that Peter really walked on the water, but who have taken their eyes off Jesus and are helplessly splashing around in the stormy waters of sin and debauchery.

[Youssarian]

I'm just gonna be a simple little believer and say Peter literally walked on water.

[Old man]

What about Jonah and the whale...was that literal too ? I must admit that I am puzzled by that one.

Yup that was literal too. Although probably not a whale but as Dani H said a "ginormous fish." There are quite a few fish that get big enough to swallow a person whole. It is amazing how God's grace and mercy was extended to Jonah to allow him to survive and get a second chance at obeying God's command. There are hundreds of miracles that God performed that we often have a hard time grasping but then it is God who does the miracle not us. Nothing is impossible for Him.

[jesse]

If Peter did not literally walk on water.... why would anyone think the figurative aspect would work?

I vote it is literal with a spiritual application.

[divaD]

If Peter did not literally walk on water.... why would anyone think the figurative aspect would work?

I vote it is literal with a spiritual application.

Here's my thoughts on the matter. If Peter didn't literally walk on the water, then neither did Jesus. It makes no sense that one of them would be literally walking on water, while the other one walking on water is to be understood as non literal. Either both literally walked on the water, or neither literally walked on the water. I vote for the former myself.