Mt 16:23 ‘He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but on man’s.”’

Mk 8:32f ‘Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. 8:33 But after turning and looking at his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan. You are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but on man’s.”’

The actual words of Peter’s rebuke are recorded in Mt 16:22 – “God forbid, Lord! This must not happen to you!”

According to Mk 8:33 although Peter’s rebuke was in private, Jesus uttered this response while looking at the disciples.  A fascinating detail, ignored by most commentators.  It may be that Peter’s comment reflected the thoughts of them all.  Or, it may be that the others had overheard Peter’s comment, and Jesus wanted to make sure that his sharp rebuke was heard by them all.  Matthew Henry suggests that Jesus did this

‘to see if the rest of them were of the same mind, and concurred with Peter in this, that, if they did, they might take the reproof to themselves, which he was now about to give to Peter.’

Get out of my way?

As to the meaning of Jesus’ words, we live with the legacy of the AV – ‘Get thee behind me, Satan!’.  This suggests that Jesus meant: ‘Get out of my way!’

Indeed, Cole assumes that the sense of Jesus’ rebuke is, “Get out of my sight!”  Cole comments:

‘No sterner rebuke ever fell on any Pharisee than on this disciple of Christ, this first Christian. In so speaking, he was now voicing, not the mind of God revealed by his Spirit, but the mind of the enemy: and so Peter could be addressed directly as Satan. The avoidance of the cross had been a temptation faced and overcome by the Lord in the wilderness: and for Peter to suggest it here was to think in human terms, and not in divine terms.’

According to Mt 4:10, Jesus rebuked Satan himself with exactly the same words.

‘Satan’ means ‘adversary’.  But Satan has repeatedly been referred to as a personal entity and opponent of Jesus (Mk 1:13; 3:23, 26; 4:15), and this is likely the meaning here.

This does not mean, of course, that Jesus regarded Peter as Satan himself, or even that he had become demonised.  What is meant is that on this occasion, Peter has unwittingly taken the side of Satan in opposing God’s plan, and must be resisted accordingly.

Fall back in line?

A gentler understanding of our Lord’s words to Peter is possible: in saying, “Get behind me,” he is seeking ‘to reassert the normal relationship between disciples and teacher’ (Faithlife Study Bible); cf. Mk 1:17.  He means, in effect, ‘Fall back in line’.

Ian Paul thinks that:

‘Jesus is here using the language (opiso mou, “after me”) of discipleship, and he picks up the identical phrase in the following saying to the crowds,”‘If anyone would come after me…”‘

But this approach does not seem to do justice to the strong appellation, ‘Satan’.

A real temptation by well-meaning friends?

As Hurtado and others suggest, Peter’s words may well have constituted a genuine and powerful temptation to Jesus to avoid the path of suffering.  Lane says:

‘The suggestion that he should refuse the passion may be construed as a temptation coming from Satan himself who desires to thwart the divine plan of salvation, Mk 1:12f; 3:23ff.’

The use of Satana (rather than the synonymous Greek diabolos) suggests that we have here another example of a verbatim Aramaic saying of Jesus.

Murray Harris (Navigating Tough Texts) comments:

‘This temptation of Jesus to relinquish his divine vocation revived his wilderness temptation to embrace alternative ways of pleasing God and winning human praise (Matt 4:1–10). At that time he dismissed Satan with similar words, “Away from me, Satan!” (Matt 4:10). It was a temptation that would recur in different ways throughout his public ministry, only to resurface during his final hours: “Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him” (Matt 27:42).’

Harris concludes:

‘It is sadly possible for any one of Jesus’ followers to be God’s mouthpiece one moment (Mark 8:29) and Satan’s mouthpiece the next (Mark 8:32–33).’

William Barclay:

‘It is a strange thing, and sometimes a terrible thing, that the tempter sometimes speaks to us in the voice of a well-meaning friend. We may have decided on a course which is the right course but which will inevitably bring trouble, loss, unpopularity, sacrifice. And some well-meaning friend tries with the best intentions in the world, to stop us.’ (DSB)

J.C. Ryle:

‘We have here a humbling proof that the best of saints is a poor fallible creature. Here was ignorance in Simon Peter. He did not understand the necessity of our Lords death, and would have actually prevented his sacrifice on the cross. Here was self-conceit in Simon Peter. He thought he knew what was right and fitting for his Master better than his Master himself, and actually undertook to show the Messiah a more excellent way. And last, but not least, Simon Peter did it all with the best intentions! He meant well. His motives were pure. But zeal and earnestness are no excuse for error. A man may mean well and yet fall into tremendous mistakes.’

And again, from the same writer:

‘Let us learn charity towards others from the facts here recorded. Let us not be in a hurry to cast off our brother as graceless because of errors and mistakes. Let us remember that his heart may be right in the sight of God, like Peters, though like Peter he may for a time turn aside. Rather let us call to mind Paul’s advice, and act upon it. “If a man be overtaken in a fault, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness; considering yourself, lest you also be tempted.”‘ (Gal 6:1)