Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 16:23
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
23. Get thee behind me, Satan ] Peter takes the place of the tempter, and argues for the false kingdom instead of for the true. If the words of the tempter are in Peter’s mouth he is addressed as the tempter; when he speaks the words of truth he is the foundation-stone of the Church.
an offence unto me ] Literally, my stumblingblock; by suggesting visions of earthly pride.
thou savourest not the things that be of God ] The Greek word, literally, to think, is often used of political partisanship, “to take a side,” “thou art not on God’s side but on man’s.” The English “savourest” is connected with Lat. sapere through the French savoir.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Mat 16:21; Mat 16:23
From that time forth began Jesus to show unto His disciples, how that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer.
Christ foretelling His death
I. Let us observe the state of mind with which Christ looked forward to his approaching sufferings. Jesus was not ignorant of the serious sufferings which were coming upon Him. It is no small part of our happiness that future calamity is partly hidden.
1. A state of unshaken constancy. We must be firm in the way of duty, having counted the cost.
2. The principle by which He was supported-faith. For we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen.
II. What was His conduct, in these circumstances, towards his disciples?
1. His conduct towards them showed great compassion for their infirmities.
2. His displeasure on account of the earthly mind which the apostles betrayed.
Learn:
1. How insufficient is our own wisdom or strength to preserve us in the ways of godliness.
2. How secure are they who trust entirely in the power and grace of the Lord Jesus. (J. Jowett.)
A recommendation of readiness for suffering
I. Peters unwillingness to meet Gods will in a course of suffering, evinced by his rebuke of Christ.
1. There was intimacy-Then Peter took him.
2. There was disappointment. Peter was disappointed that his Lord should not have the glory he expected.
3. There was ignorance. Peter ought to have known the Scriptures were full of Christs sufferings.
4. There was presumption.
II. Christs willingness to fulfil all Gods pleasure, evinced in his rebuke of Peter.
1. The indignation of our Lord.
2. He exposed the carnality of his views.
3. Christs love for sinners was persevering. (A. T. Burroughs.)
The suffering Saviour
I. A suffering saviour
1. The suffering was not only great, but peculiar.
2. And all this the text says was necessary. The word must is prefixed to all these clauses. We may interpret the word in three ways.
(1) There is the must of destiny-what is to be shall be, it is vain to fight against it.
(2) There is the must of prediction.
(3) There is the must of propriety and suitableness-moral fitness, for atonement trembles in the balance-Without shedding of blood, etc.
3. It is a very peculiar feature of the Saviours suffering that He had the foreknowledge of it in every detail. In this respect He stands alone among the heroes of faith. They had no foresight of the time, place, or circumstances of their sufferings. Our Lord alone lived His life under the shadow of the cross. The majesty of the character which could endure the weight of so terrible a prospect, remain calm, self-forgetting, etc., and even say in the fore-view of death by crucifixion: I have a baptism, etc.
II. The repugnance of human nature to pain and death. Human nature shrinks for itself from the touch of pain, and doubly for its loved ones. The words do not imply any want of love or reverence-it was their ver), motive. Love and reverence spoke; but ignorance and presumption spoke too. Human nature shrinks with special sensitiveness, till it is taught of God, from the idea of a suffering Saviour. The revelation of atonement by sacrifice was kept veiled from Peter. A veil is upon the heart still of multitudes-they see not why a Father should not forgive without the intervention of a Mediator, etc.
III. The reply of jesus to the rebuke of his servant. This shows the Saviour feeling this repugnance to suffering as a severe temptation, repelling the suggestion of the self-sparing as a cruel aggravation of His great life trial, and making the acceptance of suffering the very point of difference between the carnal mind and the spiritual. We have to accept Christs suffering, and we have to accept our own. (Dean Vaughan.)
St. Peters rebuke of Christ
I. How serious was the Apostles offence. In reference to religion the seeming generosity of an error is no excuse for it.
II. The causes which led to the Apostles error and sin.
1. He had misunderstood some part of what he had heard. St. Peter should have looked at the fact of Christs suffering in the light of His previous communications.
2. There was a second part of what Jesus had said which the apostle ignored altogether. He had said that He would rise from the dead on the third day.
3. The third cause of St. Peters error was his assuming that his own ideas of what was best must needs be true, or at least were actually true. St. Peter was in reality desiring the worst thing possible; our redemption could not have been accomplished without the cross.
III. Similar mistakes occur with ourselves.
1. In reference to the dispensations belonging to our personal history and fortunes. How often a part is misunderstood and left out. In the gloom of trial we overlook the resurrection.
2. In reference to the government of the world rod the course of providence generally.
3. In reference to the claims of Divine revelation generally, and especially the claims of Jesus the Christ as the sum and centre of it. Learn:
1. Be resolute in all humbleness when you think of Gods ways.
2. Loyalty to the personal Christ.
3. Accept Christs word as He gives it. (W. S. Chapman, M. A.)
The temptation arising from human
love:-How are we to explain the severity of our Lords rebuke?
I. When it was this rebuke was given. Our Lord had just entered upon the delicate task of Teacher, the bringing ,,f the minds of His disciples into familiarity with the deeper things in His life and work. In passing from ignorance to knowledge there must he a little contention. This the crucial time-I must speak of My sufferings. He enters upon the process. St. Peter spoils it. His rashness would not let him learn. Christian progress meets hindrances from two sources:
(1) From the wickedness of the wicked;
(2) from the immature goodness of the good.
II. The kingdom of God is very often hindered by that which it has itself produced. In society to-day there is a softness, a consideration for ease of life, which has grown up under Christianity, and which is its product. In old days life was hard, there was endurance and great effort. Passive duties have their opportunity in these days. We talk of Peace on earth. Our idea of peace is quietude. But war is often essential to peace; peace means labour-the sword turned into the ploughshare-that is Gods idea of peace. Religious life may become sentimental. Our Lords rebuke of Peter was severe because Peters plea was affection throwing itself across the path of duty. Have you never felt how terrible it is to have pleading affection try to hinder some great sacrifice? How much harder that form of opposition than any other. Satan now tries to hinder Christ through the blind love of Peter. Is not the Church of Christ often hindered now by pleadings of love, by those who say: This be far from thee. Save thyself. It exhibits a friendly consideration for our happiness; save thy money, health, effects. (R. Thomas.)
The temptations of love to be rejected
If the Pilgrim Fathers had yielded to home sickness and not let that vessel return empty, though she lay so long in the offing, tempting their return, there might have been an America, but it would not have been this America. If Livingstone had listened to the voices of those who thought him mad, Africa to-day would have been still a terra incognita. If prudence had prevailed over zeal seventy years ago, there would have been no foreign missions afoot to-day. But all these men who went to do the pioneer work had mothers and sisters and brothers tugging at their heart-strings, and tempting them not to go. And it is ever so. It is not always as in the case of the Rev. Dr. Norman MLeod, whom I once heard relate how his son had just gone into the ministry, and had accepted a very poor church in the highlands of Scotland, refusing several splendid offers which would have made him wealthy. But, said Dr. MLeod, I thank God for the lad; I would rather see him where he is with his 150 a year, than in the palace with 10,000 a year. It is very hard to say it; but, oh, it is necessary-be on your guard against the temptations of your friends, of your relatives, of your lovers, whose affection is precious to you. Remember that Satan now is wiser than of yore, and tempts by making rich-not making poor. Remember, specially, our Redeemers own words, He that sayeth his life shall lose it, and he that loseth his life for My sake, the same shall save it. (R. Thomas.)
Different Effects of Afflictions
Afflictions are unavoidable. To be a man, as a man to live upon earth, to stand in connection with other men, and yet to be out of reach of afflictions, that is absolutely impossible. How differently did our Lord think of them from his weak, still worldly-minded disciple, Peter!
1. The dissipated and thoughtless man looks upon the afflictions that befall him and others as the effects of chance, as inevitable misfortunes.
2. The proud man entertains such an opinion of himself, that he thinks no afflictions ought to befall him.
3. The superstitious man looks on all afflictions as punishments of sin.
4. The moralist regards them as necessary results of the original constitution of things.
5. The Christian sees them as the visitations of a wise and benign providence. (Zollikofer.)
Peter took Him.
Peters heart indeed was agitated. Strange surgings swelled within him at the mention of the gloomy ideas which had been mooted. The spray of these surgings lashed upon the picture which his imagination had been busily drawing. That picture was still fresh and madid. It was overlaid with brilliant colouring, which exhibited to the good mans fancy a bewitching minglement of glories, material and spiritual. As the broken surgings dashed upon it, there was anguish in the painters spirit. There was anger too. He was displeased. He was chagrined. He said impetuously, and unreflectingly, within himself: What! This will never do. It must not be! (J. Morrison, D. D.)
Began to rebuke Him
He began impulsively, vehemently, inconsiderately, as was too often his wont. He began, but the gracious Lord rose up in majesty and interrupted him, not allowing him to proceed far in the improper freedom he was using, and the improper feeling he was nursing. (J. Morrison, D. D.)
Satan
Christ looked for the moment through Peter, and saw behind him His old enemy, cunningly making use of the prejudices and impulsive honesty of the undeveloped apostle. It was the old temptation back again, that was now presented through Peter-the temptation to avoid suffering, persecution, bitter hate, scorn and murder; and instead, to erect a secular throne that would in pomp surmount all other thrones upon the earth. The Saviours spirit was roused when He met His old foe in such circumstances, looking from behind the battlements of the loving but disconcerted heart of the chief of the apostles. Hence He spoke decidedly and strongly. (J. Morrison, D. D.)
Satan:
Good men often do the devils work, though they know it not. (R. Baxter.)
I. Peters conduct. Characterized by.
1. Arrogant presumption.
2. Ignorance of the end of Christs sufferings.
3. Mistimed sympathy.
II. Christs rebuke. Prompt, severe, instructive. (W. H. Booth.)
The salt our of earthliness
1. Some make reason the standard.
2. The life and conversation of too many nominal disciples, as well as their errors in belief, show their savour of earthliness. (J. Gaston.)
Noble purposes to be encouraged
When your boy says to you suddenly some day, Father, I think I shall be a missionary and go abroad, and preach to the heathen, dont you put your hand upon the lads ambition, and put it down; dont throw any impediment in his way. Hear him on another occasion, encourage him to think still further of the scheme; and though the announcement of the lads idea tear your very heart-strings, because you have said, This son shall comfort me in my old age and feebleness, yet give him time to think about it, and show him the whole case as far as it reveals itself to your own mind, and rather stimulate than discourage him when his mind is set in a philanthropic and noble direction. And so when your husband proposes to give some large sum to this good institution or that, dont tell him that the half of it will do, because he will probably believe you,-it is so easy to go down, and so difficult to get up. (J. Parker, D. D.)
The failure of high spiritual mood
What a different figure is Peter now from that which he presented a few verses before. Jesus said to him, we read in the seventeenth verse, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona. At that moment Simon was lifted above the sons of men. He was the mountain peak that caught the first glance of the morning. And there he stood, king of men, first of disciples, most honoured of the sons of earth; for through him the Father had revealed the Son. What a figure does he present in the twenty-third verse! Get thee behind Me, Satan. The same man, but not the same character. The mountain is crushed, the great mountain become a plain, become a valley; the chief of the sons of men called a devil and ordered off behind. These are the experiences of some of us. We are to-day the most blessed among men, we seem to see almost into heaven. To-morrow we shall go and say some blundering thing, and we shall be found among the lowest and the vulgarest of our kind. One hour we shall speak music, and another hour our voice shall be hoarse, because we are saying offensive things against God and against man. Do not let us condemn one another because of these changes in our experience. The longer I live the more I feel this, how difficult it is to keep up a continuity of the highest spiritual life. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 23. Get thee behind me, Satan] . Get behind me, thou adversary. This is the proper translation of the Hebrew word Satan, from which the Greek word is taken. Our blessed Lord certainly never designed that men should believe he called Peter, DEVIL, because he, through erring affection, had wished him to avoid that death which he predicted to himself. This translation, which is literal, takes away that harshness which before appeared in our Lord’s words.
Thou art an offence unto me] Thou art a stumbling-block in my way, to impede me in the accomplishment of the great design.
Thou savourest not] That is, dost not relish, , or, thou dost not understand or discern the things of God – thou art wholly taken up with the vain thought that my kingdom is of this world. He who opposes the doctrine of the atonement is an adversary and offence to Christ, though he be as sincere in his profession as Peter himself was. Let us beware of false friendships. Carnal relatives, when listened to, may prove the ruin of those whom, through their mistaken tenderness, they wish to save. When a man is intent on saving his own soul, his adversaries are often those of his own household.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Peter, thou thinkest that by this discourse thou showest some kindness unto me, like a friend, but thou art in this an adversary to me; for so the word Satan doth signify, and is therefore ordinarily applied to the devil, who is the grand adversary of mankind.
Get thee behind me, I abominate such advice. I told thee I must suffer. It was the determinate counsel of God; it is my Fathers will. He is mine enemy that dissuades me from a free and cheerful obedience to it. I will hear no more such discourse.
For thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. The word is , and, it may be, were better translated, Thou thinkest not of, or thou understandest not, the things that be of God, that is, the counsels of God in this matter, as to the redemption of mankind: thou considerest me only as thy Master and thy Friend, and wouldst have no harm come to me; thou dost not mind or think of me as the Saviour of the world, or the Redeemer of mankind, which cannot be redeemed otherwise than by my death. Though by thy intemperate affection to me thou wouldst hinder the redemption of mankind, this is not in this thing to mind, think on, or savour the things of God, but to suffer thyself to be seduced by thy carnal affection. It is a mistaken kindness to our friends, to persuade them, for our personal advantage, to do what they cannot do in consistency with their obedience to the will of God.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
23. But he turned, and saidinthe hearing of the rest; for Mark (Mr8:33) expressly says, “When He had turned about and lookedon His disciples, He rebuked Peter”; perceiving that he had butboldly uttered what others felt, and that the check was needed bythem also.
Get thee behind me, Satanthesame words as He had addressed to the Tempter (Lu4:8); for He felt in it a satanic lure, a whisper from hell, tomove Him from His purpose to suffer. So He shook off the Serpent,then coiling around Him, and “felt no harm” (Ac28:5). How quickly has the “rock” turned to a devil!The fruit of divine teaching the Lord delighted to honor in Peter;but the mouthpiece of hell, which he had in a moment of forgetfulnessbecome, the Lord shook off with horror.
thou art an offenceastumbling-block.
unto me“Thouplayest the Tempter, casting a stumbling-block in My way to theCross. Could it succeed, where wert thou? and how should theSerpent’s head be bruised?”
for thou savourest notthouthinkest not.
the things that be of God,but those that be of men“Thou art carried away by humanviews of the way of setting up Messiah’s kingdom, quite contrary tothose of God.” This was kindly said, not to take off the sharpedge of the rebuke, but to explain and justify it, as it was evidentPeter knew not what was in the bosom of his rash speech.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But he turned,…. Either to Peter, changing his countenance, and looking sternly upon him, or rather to the disciples; for Mark says, “when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter”: Peter had took him aside, and was arguing the case privately with him; but what he said was so offensive to him, that he chose to reprove him publicly before the disciples; and therefore turned himself from him to them, in a way of resentment,
and said unto Peter; in their hearing, and before them all,
get thee behind me, Satan. The Persic version renders it, O infidel! as he was at present, with respect to the sufferings, death, and resurrection of Christ: some take the word Satan, to be a general name for an adversary, or enemy, as it is used in 2Sa 19:22 and think that Christ calls Peter by this name, because he was against him, and opposed him in this point; which sense abates the harshness of this expression. But it seems rather to mean the devil, who took the advantage of Peter’s weakness and ignorance; and put him upon dissuading Christ from suffering, for the salvation of his people: though it should be known, that the word Satan, is used by the, Jews w, to signify the vitiosity and corruption of nature; of which they say, , this is Satan; so the messenger, or angel Satan, 2Co 12:7 may be thought to be the same;
[See comments on 2Co 12:7] And then our Lord’s sense is, be gone from me, I cannot bear the sight of thee; thou art under the influence of the corruption of thy heart, and nature; thou talkest like a carnal, and not like a spiritual man; and therefore Christ denominates him from his carnality, Satan, one of the names of the vitiosity of nature, whom a little before he had pronounced blessed; being then under the influence of another spirit, as appeared from the noble confession of his faith in Christ: this change shows the weakness of human nature, the strength of corruption, the inconstancy and fickleness of frames, and the imperfection of grace in the best of saints.
Thou art an offence unto me; or a stumbling block to me, a cause of stumbling and failing; not that he really was, but he endeavoured to be, and was as much as in him lay; and had he given heed unto him, would have been so. It may be observed, that nothing was more offensive to Christ, than to endeavour to divert him from the work his farther called him to; he had agreed to do; what he came into this world for, and his heart was so much set upon; namely, to suffer and die in the room of his people, in order to obtain salvation for them: never were such words uttered by him, and such resentment shown to any, but to the devil himself, when he tempted him to worship him.
For thou savourest not the things that be of God; meaning his sufferings and death, which were the appointment of God, the counsel of his will, the provision of his covenant; what he foretold in the prophecies of the Old Testament, and what he had an hand in, and in which the glory of his grace, power, and justice, was concerned, and were the end of the mission of his Son into this world; which things were out of sight and mind, and were not regarded by the apostle at this time;
but those that be of men: he thought of nothing but worldly grandeur in the kingdom of the Messiah, as a temporal prince and Saviour; and of the continuance of Christ’s natural life, for his own carnal and worldly advantage; which showed him to be, at this time, greatly under the influence of corrupt nature. So, though the blood, righteousness, sacrifice, and death of Christ, are savoury things, things to be savoured, minded, and regarded by believers, and accounted precious; and they do mind them, so the word signifies, Ro 8:5 when being blessed with a spiritual and experimental knowledge, and application of them to themselves, they exercise faith, hope, and love upon Christ, with respect unto them; when they remember them aright in the ordinance of the supper, the love from whence they spring, and the benefits that come hereby; and when they discern the Lord’s body in it, a crucified Jesus, and the blessings of grace which come by him, and ascribe their whole salvation to his sufferings and death, and taste the sweetness there is in these things, eating his flesh and drinking his blood by faith; yet being left to themselves, they do not savour, mind, and regard these things, but carnal things, and human schemes; as when they are dilatory to profess a crucified Christ, and submit to those ordinances of his, which set forth his sufferings and death; or are negligent in their attendance on them, their place being often empty at supper time; or if they do attend, their hearts go after other things.
w T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 16. 1. Tzeror Hammor, fol. 6. 2, 3. & passim.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
But he turned ( ). Second aorist passive participle, quick ingressive action, away from Peter in revulsion, and toward the other disciples (Mr 8:33 has and ).
Get thee behind me, Satan (H , ). Just before Peter played the part of a rock in the noble confession and was given a place of leadership. Now he is playing the part of Satan and is ordered to the rear. Peter was tempting Jesus not to go on to the cross as Satan had done in the wilderness. “None are more formidable instruments of temptation than well-meaning friends, who care more for our comfort than for our character” (Bruce). “In Peter the banished Satan had once more returned” (Plummer).
A stumbling-block unto me ( ). Objective genitive. Peter was acting as Satan’s catspaw, in ignorance, surely, but none the less really. He had set a trap for Christ that would undo all his mission to earth. “Thou art not, as before, a noble block, lying in its right position as a massive foundation stone. On the contrary, thou art like a stone quite out of its proper place, and lying right across the road in which I must go–lying as a stone of stumbling” (Morison).
Thou mindest not ( ). “Your outlook is not God’s, but man’s” (Moffatt). You do not think God’s thoughts. Clearly the consciousness of the coming cross is not a new idea with Jesus. We do not know when he first foresaw this outcome any more than we know when first the Messianic consciousness appeared in Jesus. He had the glimmerings of it as a boy of twelve, when he spoke of “My Father’s house.” He knows now that he must die on the cross.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Turned [] . Not toward Peter, but away from him.
Get thee behind me. See Mt 4:10.
Offense [] . Rev., better, stumbling – block. See on 5 29. Not, thou art offensive, but thou art in my way. Dr. Morison, “Thou art not, as before, a noble block, lying in its right position as a massive foundation – stone. On the contrary, thou art like a stone quite out of its proper place, and lying right across the road in which I must go – lying as a stone of stumbling.”
Savorest not [ ] . Rev., better, mindest not. Thy thoughts and intents are not of God, but of men. Savorest follows the Vulgate sapis, from sapere, which means 1st, to have a taste or flavor of : 2nd, to have sense or discernment. Hence used here as the rendering of fronein, to be minded. Thus Wyc., 1Co 13:11, “When I was a child I savored [] as a child.” The idea is, strictly, to partake of the quality or nature of.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
23. Get thee behind me, Satan. It is idle to speculate, as some have done, about the word ( ὀπίσω) behind; as if Peter were ordered to follow, and not to go before; for, in a passage which we have already considered, Luke ( Luk 4:8) informs us that our Lord used those very words in repelling the attacks of Satan, and the verb ὕπαγε (from which the Latin word Apage is derived) signifies to withdraw (460) Christ therefore throws his disciple to a distance from him, because, in his inconsiderate zeal, he acted the part of Satan; for he does not simply call him adversary, but gives him the name of the devil, as an expression of the greatest abhorrence.
Thou art an offense to me; for thou relishest not those things which are of God, but those which are of men. We must attend to this as the reason assigned by our Lord for sending Peter away from him. Peter was an offense to Christ, so long as he opposed his calling; for, when Peter attempted to stop the course of his Master, it was not owing to him that he did not deprive himself and all mankind of eternal salvation. This single word, therefore, shows with what care we ought to avoid every thing that withdraws us from obedience to God. And Christ opens up the original source of the whole evil, when he says that Peter relishes those things which are of men. (461) Lest we and our intentions should be sent away by our heavenly Judge to the devil, (462) let us learn not to be too much attached to our own views, but submissively to embrace whatever the Lord approves. Let the Papists now go and extol their notions to the skies. They will one day learn, when they appear before the judgment-seat of God, what is the value of their boasting, which Christ declares to be from Satan And with regard to ourselves, if we do not, of our own accord, resolve to shut ourselves out from the way of salvation by deadly obstacles, let us not desire to be wise in any other manner than from the mouth of God.
(460) “ Le mot Grec signifie simplement se reculer et s’en aller;” — “the Greek word simply means to withdraw and go away. ”
(461) “ Que Pierre s’arreste a la sagesse de l’homme;” — “that Peter rests satisfied with the wisdom of man.”
(462) “ Et pourtant de peur que le Iuge celeste ne nous renvoye au diable avec nos bonnes affections et intentions;” — “and then lest our heavenly Judge should send us away to the devil with our good feelings and intentions.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(23) He turned, and said to Peter.St. Mark adds, significantly, when He had turned about and looked on His disciples. They, we may believe, stood behind, watching the effect of the remonstrance which Peter had uttered as their spokesman, and therefore, the Lord reading their thoughts, the rebuke, though addressed to him, was spoken so that they too might hear.
Get thee behind me, Satan.The sharpness of the words indicates a strong and intense emotion. The chief of the Apostles was addressed in the self-same terms as those which had been spoken to the Tempter (see Note on Mat. 4:10). It was, indeed, nothing less than a renewal of the same temptation. In this suggestion, that He might gain the crown without the cross, and attain a kingdom of this world as the princes of the world obtain their kingdoms, the Christ saw the recurrence of the temptation which had offered Him the glory of those kingdoms on condition of His drawing back from the path which the Father had appointed for Him, with the associations that had gathered round its original.
Thou art an offence unto me.The Greek word is, of course, to be taken as meaning a stumbling block, an impediment. So taken, it presents a suggestive contrast to the previous promise. Peter is still a stone, but it is as a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence (Isa. 8:14; 1Pe. 2:8). He is hindering, not forwarding his Masters work. For one who loved his Lord as Peter didhis very love in this instance prompting the rash wordsthis was at once the sharpest and yet the tenderest, and therefore the most effective, rebuke that could have been uttered.
Thou savourest not the things that be of God.The verb, though found in all English versions from Wiclif downwards, and suggested by the sapis of the Vulgate, was never a very happy one, and is now so archaic as to be misleading. It may help us to understand it, to remember that our savour and the French savoir are both forms derived from the Latin sapere, and that the translators were so far justified in using it to describe a mental state, or rather act. Elsewhere the word is rendered mind, or set affection on, as, e.g., mind the things of the flesh, or of the spirit (Rom. 8:5), and set your affection on things above (Col. 3:2); and this is obviously a more satisfactory rendering. Peters sin lay in the fact that his mind was set on the things of earth, its outward pomp and pageantry, measuring the future by a human not a divine standard.
It is hardly a needless divergence from the work of mere interpretation to suggest that the weakness of Peter has been again and again reproduced in the history of Christendom at large, most conspicuously in the history of the Church which rests its claims on the greatness of the Apostles name. The annals of the Papacy, from the colossal sovereignty, which formed the ideal of Hildebrand, down to the last struggle for temporal power, is but the record of the zeal not according to knowledge of those who savoured not the things that be of God, but those that be of man. So far as this was so, they were working, though they knew it not, for evil and not for good, even as the chief of the Apostles when he thus became of one mind with the spirit of the world, which is also the spirit of the Tempter, placed himself for the moment on a level with the disciple whom our Lord had hinted at as a devil, because the seeds of treachery and greed of gain were already working in his soul (Joh. 6:70).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
23. Get thee behind me, Satan Our Lord seems to call Peter Satan. Not quite so. But he recognizes a Satan speaking in the words that Peter utters. His own human nature would say, like Peter, “Far be the terrible suffering from thee.” The same Satan had once tempted him in his own person to fall down and worship him, in order to gain the whole world; and that same Satan seems now to speak in Peter’s voice. As he repelled Satan then, so he repels the same devil now that seconds Peter’s words. An offence A snare. See note on Mat 18:7. Those that be of men Is there not something prophetic in these words? The Church of Rome has claimed that her supremacy was predicted in the rock and the keys. But is it not the ambitious Peter who would have the kingdom without the cross, and who spake the things of man and not of God, which is the type of ambitious Rome?
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But he turned, and said to Peter, “Get you behind me, Satan, You are a snare to me, for you do not mind the things of God, but the things of men.” ’
So He turned to Peter, and naming Him as Satan ‘the adversary’ (satanas), bade him get behind Him, pointing out that he was becoming a snare or stumblingblock to Him (literally the trigger (skandalon) that makes the trap work) in seeking to turn Him aside from His destiny as the Servant of the Lord. He pointed out that what he was saying was not minding what God wanted, it was simply thinking like men did who had no part in the things of God.
Note here how quickly Peter the rock-like man had rather become a rock of stumbling through failing to mind the things of God, and how the one blessed of the Father with enlightenment was now listening to Satan in the darkness. It was a reminder that he could not effectively use his keys, nor his power to bind and loose, until he had learned to discover the mind of God. And at present that was not so. He was behaving like Satan who had also tempted Him to take the easy way (Mat 4:1-11). Jesus was ever aware that Satan still sought to divert Him from God’s chosen path, and He saw him at work through Peter.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 16:23. Get thee behind me, Satan! See Luk 4:8. The word Satan, which is originally Hebrew, and has thence been taken into several languages, is often used in the Old Testament, as we have had occasion to observe, to signify an adversary; and the expression has appeared so harsh to some, as coming from the mouth of Christ to one of his Apostles, that they have rather chosen to translate it, O mine adversary. The version of 1729, reads the verse, But he frowned upon Peter, and said, Out of my sight, pernicious obstacle to my designs! your views are all worldly, regardless of what is divine. But as the Evangelists have made use of the word , which must be owned to have a found as harsh in the Greek, as it has now with us; we may conclude that it was used by Christ, or his rebuke to Peter would have been otherwise expressed by some Greek word signifying an adversary. Nor can the word appear at all too harsh, when we consider that the tendency of Peter’s saying, though it might be spoken out of a singular affection to his Master, was to obstruct the great design for which he came into the world; and none but Satan could desire to prevent what he was ready to submit to for the salvation of lost sinners. Dr. Young, in his sermons, vol. 2: p. 137 rendering the phrase , favour thyself, supposes that our Lord calls Peter, Satan, because he now fell on that advice, which Satan uses the most successfully of all his artifices to undo men,that of self-indulgence, and so makes this Scripture an introduction to his discourse on self-denial. See Rom 8:5. Php 3:19 and Col 3:2. It is remarkable, that our Lord, immediately after conferring upon St. Peter the high dignity before mentioned, openly, in the hearing of all his disciples, calls him Satan, or adversary; and declares that he had then no particular relish for the divine appointments, but was influenced merely by human views and expectations of worldly interest. If the papists rightly attended to this passage of the Sacred History, they would see their fancies of the primacy of St. Peter, which they built upon it, in a better light than they seem to do. See Macknight, Doddridge, and Beausobre and Lenfant.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 16:23 . ] He turned away , by way of indicating His horror.
] See note on Mat 4:10 .
] Satan ! A term of reproach, springing out of the intense displeasure with which He now saw Peter striving, like Satan, against that purpose of God of which he was so profoundly conscious. Not “moral vexation ” (Keim), but moral displeasure . Comp. Joh 6:70 . Seeing that Peter’s feelings have changed, it was proper that the testimony of Jesus regarding him should undergo a corresponding change (Augustine), although without prejudice to the high position just promised to him by Jesus; for this distinction neither excludes the idea of there being still a strong carnal element in Peter’s character, nor does it imply that he was beyond the need of correction; consequently, the evasive interpretation of Catholic expositors who, in this instance, take as an appellative ( adversarius; so Maldonatus, Jansen, Arnoldi), is utterly groundless.
. ] , , Euth. Zigabenus.
] thou, hast in thy mind; indicating the direction of his aims, the bent of the practical reason. Comp. note on Rom 8:5 .
] matters of divine interest; because God is to be understood as having ordained the sufferings of Jesus for the purpose of carrying out the plan of redemption.
] who are concerned about having as their Messiah a mere earthly hero and prince.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Ver. 23. Get thee behind me, Satan ] Come behind as a disciple, go not before me as a teacher; understand thy distance, and hold thee to thy duty, by moving in thine own sphere; that thou be not thus odiously eccentric, another Satan, who sets thee to work thus to tempt me, as he once did Eve to seduce Adam: here Maldonatus is hard put to it to save Peter blameless, and saith that “Get thee behind me” is a Hebrew phrase, and imports no more than “Follow me.” But when he comes to consider that Christ calls him Satan, and that it would not be seemly that Christ should bid Satan follow him, he is forced to confess that it is the speech of one that bids another be packing out of his presence with indignation, like that of Christ to the tempter, Mat 4:1-11 “Get thee hence, Satan.” Prosit tibi sternutatio tun. (Maldonatus.) When the executioner wished Polycarp to be merciful to himself, he bade him hold his peace; he was his tormentor, not his counsellor.
Thou art an offence unto me ] Thou doest thy good will to hinder me in the course of my calling, as Mediator, wherein, say some, he sinned more grievously than afterwards he did in denying his Master, and was therefore so sharply rebuked. So when Socrates was solicited by Criton to break out of prison, and save his life by flight; Friend Criton, said he, thine earnestness herein were much worth, if it were consistent with uprightness; but being not so, the greater it is, the more troublesome. a I know not (said that Scotish martyr) by what reason they so called them my friends, which so greatly laboured to convert (pervert) me. Neither will I more esteem them than the Midianites, which in times past called the children of Israel to do sacrifice to their idols.
But the things that be of men ] Formerly it was of Satan, now of men. How easy is it to find a devil in our best friends sometimes, as Rebezies the French martyr did in his parents! Satan seduces such as may do much with us, and works in them effectually for our harm, as a smith doth in his forge, Eph 2:2 ; “They were tempted,” and thereby “tormented,” saith the apostle of those worthies ( ), Heb 11:37 . Satan speaks to us sometimes by our friends, as through trunks and canes.
a , , , .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
23. ] As it was Peter’s spiritual discernment , given from above, which made him a foundation-stone of the Church, so is it his carnality , proceeding from want of unity with the divine will, which makes him an adversary now. Compare ch. Mat 4:10 , also Eph 6:12 .
] Thou art my stumbling-block (not merely a stumbling-block to me; the definite article is omitted before a noun thrust forward for emphasis, but in English it must be supplied), my (in Peter’s own remarkable words, 1Pe 2:7-8 , joined too with the very expression, , which, as above noticed, occurs in this passage in Mark and Luke). Wordsw.’s note here, “our blessed Lord keeps up the metaphor of , or a stone: thou who wert just now, by thy faith in confessing Me, a lively stone , art now by thy carnal weakness a stumbling stone to Christ,” seems to shew that his strong repudiation of any allusion to in the of Mat 16:18 has not carried full conviction to its writer. Before this rebuke St. Mark inserts , that the reproof might be before them all.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 16:23 . . . .: tremendous crushing reply of the Master, showing how much He felt the temptation; calm on the surface, deep down in the soul a very real struggle. Some of the Fathers (Origen, Jerome) strive to soften the severity of the utterance by taking Satanas as an appellative = , adversarius, contrarius , and pointing out that in the Temptation in the wilderness Jesus says to Satan simply = depart, but to Peter . = take thy place behind me and be follower, not leader. But these refinements only weaken the effect of a word which shows that Jesus recognises here His old enemy in a new and even more dangerous form. For none are more formidable instruments of temptation than well-meaning friends, who care more for our comfort than for our character. : not “offensive to me,” but “a temptation to me to offend,” to do wrong; a virtual apology for using the strong word . , etc., indicates the point of temptation = non stas a Dei partibus (Wolf), or , etc. = studere rebus , etc. (Kypke), to be on God’s side, or to study the Divine interest instead of the human. The important question is: What precisely are the two interests? They must be so conceived as not entirely to cancel the eulogium on Peter’s faith, which was declared to be not of man but of God. Meyer’s comment on . . concerned about having for Messiah a mere earthly hero and prince (so Weiss also) is too wide. We must restrict the phrase to the instinct of self-preservation = save your life at all hazards. From Christ’s point of view that was the import of Peter’s suggestion; preference of natural life to duty = God’s interest. Peter himself did not see that these were the alternatives; he thought the two opposite interests compatible, and both attainable.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Get thee . . . Satan. The Lord saw in this a direct assault of Satan himself through Peter.
Satan. See note on Mat 4:10.
an offence = a snare: i.e. an occasion of stumbling.
savourest = regardest.
be of = belong to.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
23.] As it was Peters spiritual discernment, given from above, which made him a foundation-stone of the Church, so is it his carnality, proceeding from want of unity with the divine will, which makes him an adversary now. Compare ch. Mat 4:10, also Eph 6:12.
] Thou art my stumbling-block (not merely a stumbling-block to me; the definite article is omitted before a noun thrust forward for emphasis, but in English it must be supplied), my (in Peters own remarkable words, 1Pe 2:7-8,-joined too with the very expression, , which, as above noticed, occurs in this passage in Mark and Luke). Wordsw.s note here, our blessed Lord keeps up the metaphor of , or a stone: thou who wert just now, by thy faith in confessing Me, a lively stone, art now by thy carnal weakness a stumbling stone to Christ, seems to shew that his strong repudiation of any allusion to in the of Mat 16:18 has not carried full conviction to its writer. Before this rebuke St. Mark inserts , that the reproof might be before them all.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 16:23. , depart) It is not your place to take hold of and rebuke Me. By how much the more He had declared Peter blessed, by so much the more does He now reprove him who was previously prepared by faith to digest the reproof, in order that He may both correct him and preserve the other disciples; see Mat 16:24.- , behind Me[761]) out of My sight. He had commanded Satan to do the same; see ch. Mat 4:10.-, Satan) an appellative. Cf. Joh 6:70, where our Lord says, concerning Judas Iscariot, , and one of you is a devil.-But cf. Gnomon on Rev 12:9.-Peter thought himself very kind when he said , …, but yet he is called Satan for so doing. Cf. 2Sa 19:22, where signifies one who puts himself in the way as a hinderance.[762]- , My stumbling-block[763]) i.e. thou dost not only stumble or take offence at My words, but, if it were possible, thou wouldst furnish Me with a hurtful stumbling-block by thy words. This is said with the utmost force, and declares the reason of our Lords swift severity towards Peter.[764] If anything could have been able to touch the soul of Jesus, the words of the disciple would have been more dangerous than the assaults of the tempter, mentioned in the fourth chapter of this Gospel. Cf. Gnomon on Heb 4:15.-Rock and stumbling-block (LAPIS offensionis, lit. stumbling STONE) are put antithetically. Our Lord sends away behind Him the stumbling-block placed before His feet.- , the things of God) sc. the precious word of the Cross. The perception of Jesus is always divine.[765]- of men) the same as flesh and blood in Mat 16:17.
[761] It becomes thee not to be My adviser, but My follower [ ].-V. g.
[762] Where David so calls the sons of Zeruiah.-(I. B.)
[763] E. V. An offence unto Me.-(I. B.)
[764] In this way the Saviour repelled, at the very moment of their approach, all things whatever might have been a stumbling-block or offence, just as fire repels water which approaches very close to it, but which cannot possibly mix with it.-V. g.
[765] The Cross is a stumbling-block to the world: the things which are opposed to the Cross were a stumbling-block (offence) to Christ. This feeling and perception concerning the suffering of Christ, and of those who belong to Christ, and concerning the glory which follows thereupon [1Pe 1:11], Peter cherished at a subsequent time, as his own first Epistle abundantly testifies.-V. g.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Get: Mat 4:10, Gen 3:1-6, Gen 3:17, Mar 8:33, Luk 4:8, 2Co 11:14, 2Co 11:15
Satan: 2Sa 19:22, 1Ch 21:1, Zec 3:1, Zec 3:2, Joh 6:70
thou art: Mat 18:7, Isa 8:14, Rom 14:13, Rom 14:21
thou savourest: Mar 8:33, Rom 8:5-8, 1Co 2:14, 1Co 2:15, Phi 3:19, Col 3:2
Reciprocal: 2Sa 16:10 – What have 1Ki 13:16 – General Job 2:10 – Thou speakest Psa 119:25 – soul Mat 5:30 – offend Luk 9:55 – and rebuked Luk 17:1 – It is Rom 7:14 – carnal 1Co 3:1 – as unto carnal Gal 2:11 – because Gal 5:17 – the flesh Phi 1:10 – without
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
6:23
The primary meaning of Satan is “adversary,” and when Peter intimated that he would try to prevent the thing that Jesus declared would be done he became an adversary to him. Savourest means to be thinking about some subject of personal interest, and in this case it was the idea of an earthly kingdom that occupied the mind of Peter. He wanted such a kingdom to be set up because of what it would mean to him, and certainly such an event would require the living presence of the king. A part of Thayer’s definition of the original for offence is, “an impediment placed in the way.” Were Peter to have his wishes carried out in this matter it would have been an impediment to the great plan that Jesus had in view.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 16:23. But he turned. Not turned from Peter, but turned round.
Said unto Peter. In the presence of all the disciples (Mar 8:33), whom Peter again represented to a certain extent.
Get thee behind me, avaunt, begone. Comp. chap. Mat 4:10, where the same words are addressed to Satan himself.
Satan. The meaning adversary is too weak. There was a Satanic influence at work in Peter, though he was not conscious of it. Has Satan come again? The Apostle himself was no doubt startled.
Thou art a stumbling-block unto me, or stone of stumbling. Perhaps a further allusion to Peters name. Comp, his own words (1Pe 2:7), in which the same contrast is found. Not without a caution for those claiming to be the successors of Peter.
Thou mindest not the things of God, i.e., as represented by Christ, not regarding Gods purpose in the foretold death.
The things of men, i.e., he had carnal views, expected the temporal exaltation of the Messiah. Human nature is here represented as opposed to God, and under the influence of Satan.A rebuke for all who have a sentimental admiration for Jesus of Nazareth, but stumble at the cross, which belongs to the things of God.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Christ looked upon Peter with anger and displeasure, Christ heard Satan speaking in Peter. It was Peter’s tongue, but Satan tuned it; therefore Christ calls Peter by Satan’s name. They that will do the devil’s work shall have the devil’s name too. He that would hinder the redemption of mankind, is Satan, an adversary to mankind.
From our Saviour’s smart reproof given to Peter, Learn, that no love or respect to men’s persons or piety must draw us to flatter them in their sins, or cause us to speak lightly of their sins.
From our Saviour’s resolution not to favour himself, notwithstanding Peter’s advice, Learn, That so intent was the heart of Christ upon the great work of man’s redemption, that he could not bear the least word that should obstruct it, or divert him from it.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Mat 16:23. But he turned and said unto Peter Mark reads, When he had turned about and looked on his disciples, (who by the air of their countenances, probably, seemed to approve what they had heard Peter say to him,) he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan That is, out of my sight. He looked at him, says Baxter, with displeasure, and said, I say to thee as I did to the devil when he tempted me, Get thee behind me, for thou doest the work of Satan, the adversary, in tempting me, for self-preservation, to violate my Fathers command, and my undertaking, and to forsake the work of mans redemption and salvation. As thy counsel savoureth not the things that be of God, (namely, his will, work, and glory,) but the things that be of men, (or the love of the body and this present life,) so it signifies what is in thy heart; take heed lest this carnality prevail. Our Lord is not recorded to have given so sharp a reproof to any other of his apostles, on any occasion. He saw it was needful for the pride of Peters heart, puffed up with the commendation lately given him. Perhaps the term Satan may not barely mean, Thou art my enemy, while thou fanciest thyself most my friend; but also, Thou art acting the very part of Satan, both by endeavouring to hinder the redemption of mankind, and by giving me the most deadly advice that can ever spring from the pit of hell. Thou savourest not Dost not relish or desire. We may learn from hence, 1st, that whosoever says to us in such a case, Favour thyself is acting the part of the devil: 2d, that the proper answer to such an adviser is, Get thee behind me: 3d, that otherwise he will be an offence to us, an occasion of our stumbling, if not falling: 4th, that this advice always proceeds from the not relishing the things of God, but the things of men. Yea, so far is this advice, Favour thyself, from being fit for a Christian either to give or take, that if any man will come after Christ, his very first step is, To deny or renounce himself: in the room of his own will, to substitute the will of God, as his one principle of action. We see in this example of Peter, how soon a person favoured with the peculiar approbation of the Lord Jesus may, through pride and self-confidence, fall under his heavy displeasure, and incur a severe rebuke from him. Our Lord, immediately after pronouncing Peter blessed, on account of his faith and the noble confession which he made of it, and after conferring on him the high dignity before mentioned, did openly, in the hearing of all the disciples, call him Satan, or adversary, and declare that he had then no relish for the divine appointments, but was influenced merely by human views and expectations of worldly interest. If the papists rightly attended to this passage of the history, they would see their fancies about the primacy of Peter, which they build upon it, in a better light than they now seem to do.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
16:23 {9} But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, {r} Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou {s} savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
(9) Against a preposterous zeal.
(r) The Hebrews call him Satan, that is to say an adversary, whom the Greeks call diabolos, that is to say, slanderer, or tempter: but it is spoken of them, that either of malice, as Judas, Joh 6:70 , or of lightness and pride resist the will of God.
(s) By this word we are taught that Peter sinned through a false persuasion of himself.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Evidently Jesus turned to confront Peter face to face. "Get behind me, Satan" probably means, Do not stand in my way as a stumbling block. Jesus had used similar language when rebuking Satan himself (Mat 4:10). "Satan" means "adversary." Jesus viewed Peter’s comment as coming from Satan ultimately.
"It does not matter how one interprets the rebuke to Peter. Jesus’ main point is one that demands a response from his audience. Whether he said, ’Get out of my sight!’ [NIV], ’Get behind me!’ [AV], or ’Follow after me!’ [Note: Footnote: Gundry, Matthew . . ., p. 338.] , he intended to focus his attention on the necessity of unconditional obedience in discipleship." [Note: Dennis C. Stoutenburg, "’Out of my sight!’, ’Get behind me!’, or ’Follow after me!’: There Is No Choice in God’s Kingdom," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:1 (March 1993):178.]
Jesus had recently called Peter a rock. Now He called him a different type of rock, a rock that causes someone to stumble (Gr. skandalon). Satan had offered Jesus messiahship without suffering (Mat 4:8-9), and now Peter was suggesting the same thing. These were both appeals to Jesus’ humanity. The idea of a suffering Messiah caused Peter to stumble here, and after Jesus’ resurrection the same concept caused many Jews to stumble (cf. 1Co 1:23).
Peter was not thinking God’s thoughts but man’s. When he confessed that Jesus was the Messiah earlier (Mat 16:16), he was thinking God’s thoughts. Now he was not only thinking without regard to revelation but in opposition to revelation, as Satan does. The contrast between Mat 16:13-20 and Mat 16:21-23 clearly shows that the disciples’ understanding was a matter of growth. As they accepted what they came to understand progressively by divine illumination, their faith also grew.