Why did Mark not include Peter walking on the water like Matthew did in his report on this miracle?
Matthew includes the account of Peter walking on the water. Why is there a difference in these two accounts of the same event?
Mark 6:45 - 52
ESV - 45 Immediately he made his disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. 46 And after he had taken leave of them, he went up on the mountain to pray.
Clarify
•
Share
•
Report
•
Asked October 17 2015
•
Larry Wiseman
For follow-up discussion and general commentary on the topic. Comments are sorted chronologically.
Larry Wiseman
I think there may be something more to consider. Mark's gospel is known to be based on the recollections of Peter who had a profound impact on Mark's life, probably leading him to the Lord. Being Peter's report under guidance of the Holy Spirit, I believe Peter chose not to report on his miraculous event of walking on the water because he did not want to share in the glory of God walking on the water to save the disciples from destruction. Remember, history tells us Peter was crucified upside down so as not to die the same way Jesus did as he did not feel worthy to do so. It may all be a throwback to his denial of knowing Jesus 3X at Jesus' arrest and the broken heart he suffered for failing the Lord in this manner. Normally such a miracle of Peter walking on the water, had the Lord not been part of the story, would have been recorded by Mark but so as not to share in God's glory he did not want that included in Mark's gospel record. Matthew did report on it because he was an eye witness.