Jesus stills the storm in Luke 8

The Sunday gospel lectionary reading for the Second Sunday before Lent in Year C is Luke 8.22–25, the concise account by Luke of Jesus stilling the storm. (It is worth noting that the ecumenical lectionary has a different set of readings; apparently for the Church of England it was thought that there was not enough focus on Creation, so the readings for Sexagesima were restored, though without using that name.)

The place of the story in Luke largely follows its place in Mark 4.35–41; in both it follows Jesus’ parable about parables, the parable of the sower scattering the seed on four different kinds of ground, together with its interpretation, and in both it is followed by the deliverance of the man possessed by ‘Legion’, and the healing of the woman with the issue of blood with the raising of Jairus’ daughter. The discussion of Jesus’ true relatives came before the parable of the sower in Mark 3.31–35, but Luke locates it, in shortened form, immediately before the storm.

The parallel in Matt 8.24–27 is located in Matthew’s section of ministry and discipleship stories in chapters 8 to 9, so is followed by the deliverance in the Gadarenes, but the parable of the sower is now found in Matthew’s ‘kingdom parables’ in chapter 13. The question about Jesus’ true relatives comes in chapter 12.

As usual, it is a good exercise to put the three Synoptic accounts together, so that we can see the differences in wording and emphasis.

Matt 8.23–27Mark 4.35–41Luke 8.22–25
On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, “Let us go across to the other side.” One day he got into a boat with his disciples, and he said to them, “Let us go across to the other side of the lake.”
And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.And leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. And other boats were with him.So they set out, and as they sailed he fell asleep.
And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he was asleep. And a great storm of wind arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat was already filling. And a storm of wind came down on the lake, and they were filling with water, and were in danger.
And they went and woke him, saying, “Save, Lord; we are perishing.” And he said to them, “Why are you afraid, O men of little faith?” But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke him and said to him, “Teacher, do you not care if we perish?” And they went and woke him, saying, “Master, Master, we are perishing!”
Then he rose and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm. And he awoke and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, “Peace! Be still!” And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. And he awoke and rebuked the wind and the raging waves; and they ceased, and there was a calm.
He said to them, “Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?” He said to them, “Where is your faith?”
And the men marvelled, saying, “What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea obey him?”And they were filled with awe, and said to one another, “Who then is this, that even wind and sea obey him?”And they were afraid, and they marvelled, saying to one another, “Who then is this, that he commands even wind and water, and they obey him?”

We can see straight away that Matthew’s account is quite abbreviated; he has removed the introductory context-setting in order to put it into his sequence of stories; and he has changed the order of events, so that Jesus’ rebuke comes before the calming of the storm, where in Mark and Luke it comes after.

  • Luke’s account is much closer to Mark’s, retaining the key elements of the shape, though simplifying and ‘streamlining’ the story at every point.
  • Where Mark ties this story to Jesus’ parable teaching (‘on that day’), Luke makes the time reference quite general.
  • Mark tells us the time of day, evening, which heightens the drama, something that Luke omits.
  • ‘The other side’ has an important function in Mark, since Jesus ministers in both Jewish and Gentile territory. For Luke, this becomes a merely geographic reference, and he consistently describes the body of water as a ‘lake’ not a ‘sea’.
  • Luke omits all Mark’s detail about the crowd, Jesus’ apparel, and the other boats.
  • Mark postpones the detail that Jesus is asleep, creating narrative tension and drama, but Luke brings this detail forward.
  • The storm in Luke is not described as ‘great’, and there is no mention of waves beating; instead, ‘danger’ is specified. This is slightly more ‘tell’ than ‘show’.
  • Luke makes no mention of Jesus being in the stern, or the cushion, and we already know he is asleep.
  • The most striking difference is the repeated term of address by the disciples—’Master’ ἐπιστάτης—which only occurs in Luke, but reminds us of Peter’s response to the miraculous catch of fish.
  • In Mark, the disciples have ‘no faith’; in Matthew ‘little faith’; in Luke, they seem to have mislaid what faith they had!
  • The response of the disciples is much more developed; they are full of fear and wonder, and reflect on his command as well as the obedience of the ‘wind and water’, again avoiding the mention of ‘sea’.

All this might make us feel we are short-changed, in that Mark offers us some compelling narrative detail. But the effect in Luke is to focus less on the details of the incident, and more on its wider application—not least shifting the emphasis onto the response of the disciples.

Despite Luke’s characteristic brevity in describing the events, he actually brings out a number of things of significance in telling the story.

First, at every point he emphasises the seriousness of the storm and the seriousness of the situation of the disciples. Rather than simply describing the danger, he names it, and almost gives a sense of the intent of the storm in destroying the boat by mentioning the ‘raging waves’ in v 24. (Interestingly, the term is used in James 1.6 as a metaphor for doubts that assail and undermine faith…) In Mark, the disciples complain to Jesus about his apparent lack of concern that they might perish; in Luke (with Matthew following), they are perishing!

Secondly, Luke depicts not merely a storm on the lake, but a malevolent attack on Jesus and the disciples. The whirlwind (λαῖλαψ) does not merely ‘arise’ but ‘comes down’ on them; it is just such a whirlwind that, in the sovereignty of God, brings disaster on the nations (Jer 32.32), but it is also ‘out of the whirlwind’ that God speaks to Job (Job 38.1). Jesus not only ‘rebukes’ the wind, but in the recollection of the disciples he ‘commands’ them as though they were personal agencies.

Joel Green (NICNT, p 331) highlights the connections between this story in Luke and the one that follows—the exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac:

  • The opening reference to crossing the lake;
  • Dramatic detail of the calamity that Jesus must face;
  • Jesus issues commands to the forces of chaos;
  • The sense of serenity that arises from Jesus’ intervention.

Depicting the raging sea as a metaphor for the forces of evil and chaos arising at three important points of the OT narrative. Firstly, it is over the dark and chaotic deep that the Spirit of God hovers and brings order and light out of chaos and darkness. Secondly, this idea is revisited within the narrative, sometimes in reference to God’s continuing acts in history as he rescues and protects his people (see for example Ps 74.12–18 and Ps 89.8–10 ‘Who is like you, Lord God Almighty? You rule over the surging sea; when its wave mount up, you still them…’). Thirdly, in apocalyptic texts, the raging nations are depicted as stormy seas, out of which arise the beasts who defy the power of God (see Daniel 7). God’s coming in eschatological judgement involves calming of those seas, and ultimately eliminating them (Rev 21.1) so that, not only is evil dealt with, but the possibility of evil is itself done away with.

Jesus’ calming of the sea is a demonstration of his divine power and a foreshadowing of the world to come (Mikeal Parsons, Paideia, p 138).

Thirdly, then, Jesus’ calming of the storm becomes both a Christological and eschatological demonstration of his authority and power. (Although the term ‘power’ is not mentioned in this narrative, it is a particular interest of Luke’s in other places.) Where Mark postpones mention of Jesus being asleep till later in his account, in order to create a sense of narrative tension, Luke mentions this up front to create a contrast between Jesus and the forces of chaos.

The detail of Jesus asleep in the boat is an important element in Luke’s portrayal of Jesus exercising his divine sovereignty over the forces of evil and chaos (Parsons, loc cit).

Jesus is appealed to as ‘Master’, ἐπιστάτης, by the disciples, a person of high status who is leader or commander over an organisation or one who leads and teaches others. Unique to Luke, it is the title given to Jesus by the disciples (Luke 5.5, 8.24, 45, 9.33, 49, 17.13) but has a particular poignancy here. Jesus is not only the true commander of the boat, but the commander over the forces that threaten it. It is his word of rebuke and command that brings peace and order to the chaos and threat.

Jesus is not a simply manipulating the elements into a more favourable weather pattern; he is engaging demonic powers and demonstrating his authority over them (Parsons, loc cit).

The final theme, which Luke emphasises, is the response of the disciples. The setting and language here create a parallel with the earlier call narrative in Luke with the miraculous catch of fish (Green, NICNT p 332). Once again the disciples are with Jesus in a boat on a lake; once again the disciples are unable to do what is required; once again Jesus demonstrates his power; once again his addressed as ‘Master’; and once again the disciples are overcome with awe. It is striking that, though the disciples have woken him, Jesus more or less ignores their pleas and instead deals with the causes of their distress rather than their complaint itself. Once they see his authority, their response changes.

Jesus’ companions in the boat react as they would to a theophany, with fear; but their amazement, followed by their uncertainty about Jesus’s identity, indicates that they do not yet fathom what they have seen. They have had their first test (Luke 8.13) and have not performed well (Green, p 334)

Those who have been called to be his disciples are now revealed to be clueless regarding the true identity of Jesus. He is sovereign over wind and sea; he is Lord over evil and chaos (Parsons loc cit).

The disciples’ journey of faith started well enough, with a decisive break and a commitment to follow Jesus. But this episode tells us that the journey has a long way to go…

You can find conversation about and reflection on this post in our discussion video here:

If you are preaching on Genesis 2 or Revelation 4, rather than the gospel reading, you might be interested in my post on those passages from three years ago.

(Genesis 2) Given that Yahweh is greater than his people, might this suggest the woman’s superiority over the man? Is she greater than him? This is where attention to the other part of the phrase is important. The woman is a helper ‘suitable for him.’ ‘Suitable’ renders a unique term in the Old Testament that is made up of two prepositions; the first most commonly means ‘like,’ whilst the second means something like ‘opposite’ or ‘in front of.’ The compound here suggests that the woman is different from the adam and yet goes with him. She is not greater than him but in some way complements and completes him, much as two banks of a river are equal and opposite. Thus the NET version of the Bible translates this phrase: ‘I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him.’ In creation, neither is greater than the other, but where Genesis 1 emphasizes their equal regency over creation, Genesis 2 emphasizes their distinctiveness. Together, both chapters point to equality in creation…

(Revelation 4) John here offers a dazzling vision of God which pushes the boundaries of human imagination in its metaphorical description. John’s own language reflects this; in contrast with what has come before, he now repeatedly reaches for ‘as’ and ‘was like’ and ‘had the appearance of.’ As elsewhere in Scripture, literal description of God is not possible; God is unknowable even though he has graciously revealed himself to us. Even John’s grammar appears to reflect this; the throne itself is described without using finite verbs, and all in the nominative case, but when John turns to the things around the throne, he moves into the accusative case. Even if some features of this heavenly scene can be described as objects that John can see and apprehend, the throne and the one seated there are not objects to be perceived and analysed.

Signup to get email updates of new posts
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.

Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:

For other ways to support this ministry, visit my Support page.

Comments policy: Do engage with the subject. Please don't turn this into a private discussion board. Do challenge others in the debate; please don't attack them personally. I no longer allow anonymous comments; if there are very good reasons, you may publish under a pseudonym; otherwise please include your full name, both first and surnames.

11 thoughts on “Jesus stills the storm in Luke 8”

  1. “Who then is this, that he commands even wind and water, and they obey him?”
    The answer is, the one through whom all things were created. Creation was a process in which the elements obeyed him, the Son of God, not the laws of nature inherent in themselves.

  2. In a discussion of this passage, I would have expected some indication of what Jesus meant when he rebuked them saying, `where is your faith?’

    After all, as I understand it, they had all willingly undergone the baptism of John the Baptist of repentance – which people do when various miracles occur in their life (1) accepting that I am a sinner and that this is my main difficulty of life (rather than that I am the innocent victim of rampant vicissitudes imposed by a nasty cruel world), (2) wanting to repent (which is always a miracle when it occurs in somebody’s heart and mind) and (3) actually repenting (which is a miracle involving the Holy Spirit). As I understand it, this had happened in the lives of all of them, except Judas Iscariot – and, as I understand it, this is faith.

    They did wake Jesus up – and presumably for the reason that they were not entirely without hope that he would do something about the storm and the perilous situation.

    So it is an interesting question as to what Jesus meant when he asked them `where is your faith?’ and in what sense their faith, at that point, was deficient.

    I can’t see how it could be understood as lack of faith concerning their ultimate salvation, since repentance unto remission of sins is already present in the Old Testament – so I wonder if it is lack-of-faith that Jesus is the Messiah (and that they shouldn’t be looking for someone else).

    • Is he not rebuking their fear, which is the opposite of faith? Their lack of trust in him in that particular situation? It seems he was so undisturbed by the storm that he was asleep (if there’s one thing I cannot do if im anxious or worried is to sleep!), and so he expected his disciples to see that and therefore they should not have been so full of fear, even if that is a natural human reaction to a severe storm.

      I suffer from fears and I recognise them as a lack of trust in him.

      Anyway, that’s how I see it.

      • PC1 – well, yes – you’re right about this.

        One important feature of this (and other similar passages) for me is that – at the point at which Jesus trashes the faith of his disciples, he is trashing my own faith in greater measure.

        If the disciples still had a long way to go, then I have even further to go.

        I have come to understand that I really am a sinner (opening my eyes to this is a miracle) and that I need to repent and I have come to trust in Him for the ultimate thing – repentance and eternal life. In short – I am saved – and I consider this whole process in my own life to be miraculous.

        I’m doing my God-given best to live a good life, knowing full well that I could be doing an awful lot better with what God has given me – and that when I eventually reach the other side, this will be pointed out.

        At the same time – in any situation where the disciples are fearful, I know full well that I would be even more fearful. I don’t necessarily see this as a lack of trust in terms of the ultimate thing. I know that in terms of the ultimate objective (seeing life in the eternal kingdom) I am saved, but would I really like to pass from this life to the next somewhat prematurely by getting drowned at sea?

        • I dont think Id use the word ‘trashes’. He rebuked their lack of trust in him in that situation, hoping their faith would increase. I think God tries to move us in a positive direction, rather than simply ‘trashing’ what we already have. There are plenty of humans around to do that. Or indeed ourselves.

          And no, noone wishes death unless they are suffering terribly physically or mentally. I would imagine any prolonged death is frightening, and with all the anxiety and fear building up whilst on a sinking boat, I darent think.


  3. This particular contribution to our studies in Luke’s Gospel illuminates very clearly, not only the authority and power that Jesus exercises over the elements, but provides a dynamic precursor of His ultimate victory over the powers of evil.
    It also links in with Luke 11: 29f – *The Sign of Jonah*; the warning of the judgement to come and the call to repentance: ” From inside the the fish, Jonah prayed to the Lord his God —‘In my distress I called to the Lord and he answered me. From the depths of the grave I called for help you listened to my cry. You hurled me into the deep, into the very heart of the seas —-[ Jonah 2:1-6]”.
    But the sign of Jonah is also the heart cry of Jesus Christ from the cross; the cry of dereliction “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me”! And yet —–
    As Jonah, almost in the same breath as he bemoans “I have been banished from your sight! , he exclaims” But you brought my life up from the pit O Lord my God”! The prophet is now ready to minister to Nineveh. But unlike Jonah who faced death as a result of his disobedience, Jesus enters the throes of death to save his people from sin, judgement and death, and in full obedience to the will of his Father!And as with Jonah, He too can exult in praise “You have brought my life up from the pit O Lord my God”. But this is also the supreme outpouring of His divine uniqueness: “Jesus Christ has been raised from the dead the firstfruits of those who sleep”.

  4. Thirdly, then, Jesus’ calming of the storm becomes both a Christological and eschatological demonstration of his authority and power.

    Indeed. This seems to me a rather vital point: if Jesus, or more to the point the one who sent him, was incapable of doing something so simple as stilling a storm — if His authority didn’t extend over merely the movements of the air — then there’s absolutely no reason to believe that He could raise Jesus, or any of the rest of us, from the dead, is there?

    Which is why it disturbed me to discover that apparently the Church of England teaches that the story was made up, cf :

    ‘Was there an event when Jesus was in a boat with his disciples? Yes, it’s highly likely given that some were fishers, and that boats and trains and planes didn’t exist. Was there a storm? Highly likely. Did it die down? Storms generally do. Is that the significance of the story? No it isn’t. Is it a significant story that gives us some information about relationships between the disciples and Jesus and his future followers? Yes, as I have explained before, it is significant. Do I believe in Jesus because he can perform signs and wonders? No, I don’t. I believe in Jesus because he enables me – and you – to have a relationship with the father. Even in the midst of storms.’

    Might I suggest that anyone preaching on this passage remembers to break ranks with the Church of England and mention — even if only in passing — that it does in fact matter, vitally, that this event actually happened as described, and that it’s not just a story made up to illustrate some trite platitude about how ‘Jesus […] enables me – and you – to have a relationship with the father [e]ven in the midst of storms.’

      • but Andrew G’s wild claims about ‘what the Church of England teaches’ is the thing that is made up!

        I would like to believe that — but nobody seems willing to come out and say so officially!

    • S – I suppose that `Christological and eschatological demonstration of his authority and power’ is one way of saying that the sign miracles he performed established that he was who he claimed to be; the Messiah, the Son of God, the Redeemer. Just as, when the disciples of John the Baptist come to him in Matthew asking if he is the one – and he responds by pointing to the signs and wonders that he has been doing.

      Yes – these miracles were events which actually happened, where the accounts we read in the gospel are accurate and faithful. They are essential for establishing that He does have the power and authority to redeem and save sinners like us. Without these miracles, there is no gospel!

      • I suppose that `Christological and eschatological demonstration of his authority and power’ is one way of saying that the sign miracles he performed established that he was who he claimed to be

        Yes, I’d say that was a reasonable translation from jargon into plain English.

        Without these miracles, there is no gospel!

        As Paul spelt out for the hard-of-thinking Corinthians, yes.


Leave a comment