Brant Pitre on the epiphany miracles: the stilling of the storm

Chapter two of Jesus and Divine Christology is about the “epiphany miracles.” Brant Pitre states the main purpose of the chapter quite bluntly: it is to “demolish the modern scholarly myth… that Jesus is not depicted as divine in the Synoptic Gospels” (40).

There are three such miracles: the stilling of the storm, the walking on the sea, and the transfiguration. It is Pitre’s view that

when each of these episodes is interpreted in a first-century Jewish context, a strong case can be made that in all three, Jesus is acting and speaking as if he is not just any kind of deity or heavenly being, but in some sense equal with the one God of Israel. (45)

It is YHWH who calms the sea

In the Old Testament it is clearly YHWH who has the power to rebuke the elements and calm stormy seas. Pitre is quite right here. I’ve added Psalm 105:9-11 to his list.

He circumscribed a decree on the face of the waters, as far as the limit of light with darkness. The pillars of heaven were spread wide and were astonished from his rebuke (epitimēseōs). By force he calmed the sea, and by knowledge he struck down the sea-monster, and heaven’s bars fear him, and by decree he put to death the rebellious dragon. (Job 26:10-13 LXX)

The deep like a garment is his clothing; above the mountains the waters will stand. At your rebuke (epitimēseōs) they will flee; at a voice of your thunder they will cower with fright. (Ps. 103:6-7 LXX)

And he rebuked (epitimēsen) the Red Sea, and it became dry, and he guided them in the deep as in a wilderness. And he saved them from the hand of people that hate and redeemed them from an enemy’s hand. And water covered those that afflicted them; not one of them was left. (Ps. 105:9-11 LXX)

He spoke and the tempest’s blast stood, and its waves were raised on high. They mount up as far as the heavens, and they go down as far as the depths; their soul would melt away in calamity; they were troubled; they staggered like the drunkard, and all their wisdom was gulped down. And they cried to the Lord when they were being afflicted, and out of their anguish he brought them, and he ordered the tempest, and it subsided to a breeze, and its waves became silent. (Ps. 106:25-29 LXX)

Pitre writes: “In light of such passages from Jewish Scripture, studies of the historical Jesus recognize that when Jesus commands both the winds and the waves to be still, he is acting as if he is divine” (52). Importantly, he quotes the assertion of Davies and Allison that unlike other Jewish figures who find themselves in distress at sea (Jonah is the obvious one), “Jesus does not pray to God but directly addresses the storm” (52).

So, Pitre says that whereas Jonah must submit to divine judgment before the storm subsides, “Jesus acts as if he has immediate and direct authority over some of the most powerful elements in creation—the wind and the waves—which Jewish Scripture explicitly and repeatedly places under the creative and salvific power of the creator God” (53).

Not that sort of theophany

There must be a sense in which the episode is a theophany. The power of the creator God is revealed in the stilling of the storm. The question is whether this entails the identification of Jesus with YHWH. Is it the case that the disciples’ question about his identity (“What sort of man is this?” “Who then is this?”) is “implicitly a question about his divinity” (54). I don’t think so.

1. Pitre says that Jesus “acts as if he has immediate and direct authority.” There is no mention of Jesus’ authority in the story of the calming of the storm, but the point is made on several occasions in the Synoptic Gospels that he speaks and acts with authority. We would not say, however, that YHWH “acts with authority” because that would imply a superior. Jesus is arguably like the centurion who speaks with authority but is also a “man under authority.” He is the Son of Man who has received authority on earth to forgive sins; and the chief priests and elders will later ask quite properly who gave him this authority—is it from heaven or from humans (Mk. 11:28-32)?

2. That the disciples “marvelled” and “were afraid” is not evidence that this was an epiphany, that they thought that YHWH had been revealed to them in person. People naturally marvel at the miraculous in the Gospels and experience fear when confronted with the extraordinary.

People in the Decapolis “were afraid” (ephobēthēsan) when they saw the man who had the legion “sitting there, clothed and on his right mind” (Mk. 5:15). Then they all “marvelled” (ethaumazon) when he proclaimed what Jesus had done for him.

So the disciples are afraid and marvel on their way to the country of the Gerasenes, and then the people of that country are afraid and marvel when Jesus immediately steps out of the boat and casts out the unclean spirit. This must restrict the epiphanic force of the storm episode.

3. The disciples wonder about Jesus’ identity, to be sure; but nothing in their response suggests that they thought he might be something more than human. There is nothing exceptional about the questions “Who is this?” or “What sort of man is this?” When later Jesus directly asks them how they identify him, the most elevated answer (he is not John the Baptist or Elijah) is only that he is “the Christ” (Mk. 8:28-29). Why is there no allusive, riddling identification of Jesus with YHWH here?

4. There is an important parallel between this story and the failure of the disciples to heal the boy with epilepsy after the transfiguration.

In the first story, the disciples fail to do what they ought to be able to do, Jesus accuses them of being “of little faith” (oligopistoi), “rebukes the winds and the sea (Matt. 8:26), and the disciples marvel (ethaumasan).

In the second story—conflating the accounts somewhat—the disciples fail to do what they ought to be able to do, Jesus accuses them of being of little faith, rebukes (epetimēsen) the unclean spirit (Mk. 9:25), and then tells them that should be able to say to a mountain, “Move from here to there” (Matt. 17:20). Luke concludes: “And all were astonished at the majesty of God. But while they were all marveling (thaumazontōn) at everything he was doing…” (Lk. 9:43).

We could reasonably infer from this that the faithlessness of the disciples was demonstrated by their failure to rebuke the wind and say to the sea, ”Peace! Be still!” (Mk. 4:39).

5. And while we are talking about the transfiguration, in the most dramatically epiphanic incident in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is revealed not as YHWH but explicitly as the “beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 17:5). Pitre thinks otherwise, so we will come back to this.

6. The parable of the tenants in the vineyard makes a distinction between the servants/prophets and the son (Mk. 12:1-10). The prophets may be thought of as constituting that class of wonder-workers who perform miracles by calling on YHWH. The Son is sent out from the same place but he differs from the prophets in that he has an exceptional relation to the master of the vineyard and will receive an inheritance. That is, the son is the Son of Man who will suffer at the hands of unrighteous Israel and their Roman overlords but will receive dominion, glory, kingdom, etc., from the Ancient of Days.

The Son is more than the prophets, he is something greater than Jonah (Matt. 12:41; Lk. 11:32), he has and will have an authority to act in the place of YHWH, but this does not make him identical with or equivalent to YHWH. He occupies a throne at the right hand of the Father. It is in that regard that he is “not just any kind of deity or heavenly being.” The action in the boat anticipates or foreshadows this unprecedented status—above all other powers, etc. (cf. Eph. 1:21-22, but distinct from YHWH.

I suspect that Pitre’s language at times betrays the recognition that critical distinctions of this nature need to be maintained: “acting and speaking as if… in some sense equal with the one God of Israel” (45). Well, yes, exactly: within the narrow boundaries of this story of kingdom, Jesus has indeed been authorised to act as if he were YHWH with respect to Israel, as judge and king, and has been granted a status in some sense equal with YHWH—at least until the end when he will give back the authority to rule to God the Father. It’s an outrageous claim, to be sure, but not as outrageous as the assertion of divine identity.

7. Although the calming of the storm is a nature miracle, it is meaningful in the context of the mission of Jesus and the disciples to Israel. They are not sent out to perform general nature miracles. They are sent out to proclaim—first to Israel, then among the nations—the imminence of the intervention of YHWH to judge and restore his people.

The exceptional authority that Jesus has as the Son of Man to act on YHWH’s behalf has been granted for this limited “kingdom” purpose. It is, moreover, an authority that he will share with his disciples. They will have the same faith to overcome opposition, to rebuke their enemies, to remove obstacles to their mission; and they will sit on twelve thrones alongside Jesus, who is alongside YHWH, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28; Lk. 22:30).