Get thee behind me Satan

[Skeuos Eleos]

Mat 16:22 Then Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23 But he turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou saverest not the things that be of God, but those of men.

What did our Lord mean by this? Why did He call Peter, one of the Elect, Satan? Are there circumstances where it is appropriate for a believer to say this to someone? I would be interested in your views on this.

Martin

[disciple]

i don't know that jesus was actually calling peter satan (as if they were one and the same or as if peter was indwelt by satan). i think the issue is that peter was opposing the work of God in the ministry of Christ, and any opposition to God is ultimately the work of Satan (especially in terms of the atonement). jesus' whole reason for coming was the cross. and this was what peter was opposing. he was trying to obstruct the very thing that Christ came to do. here is what a.t. robertson says:

Get thee behind me, Satan (Hupage opisw mou, Satana).
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 (skandalon ei emou).
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).

perhaps what is going on here is that Satan himself is trying to prevent Christ from going to the cross through His closest disciple and most ardent follower. i do not think it is beyond reason to assume that even the elect can be harassed (though not ultimately deceived) by Satan. after all, we are told to resist him, etc.

Eph 6:11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil.

1 Pe 5:8 Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.

James 4:7 Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.

therefore, while peter himself is not satan, because he failed to resist him, he ended up being a pawn of satan in that situation (in a sense, he was playing the part of satan who opposes the work of God).

[Ivor Thomas]

Yes and it is interesting that in matt ch 4v10 Jesus told Satan to go away after the offer of the Kindoms of the world He did not tell satan to get behind him.But in matt ch 16 Jesus Did not tell Peter to go away but to get behind me, if one got behind Jesus and stayed their it would be to follow Him,following on in chapter 16; Jesus speaks about gaining the whole world and yet losing ones soul which ties it in to matt 4. Peter was speaking as a satan like man. Ivor Thomas.:cool:

[wildboar]

Calvin writes:




23. Get thee behind me, Satan. It is idle to speculate, as some have done, about the word (ojpi>sw) behind; as if Peter were ordered to follow, and not to go before; for, in a passage which we have already considered, Luke (4:8) informs us that our Lord used those very words in repelling the attacks of Satan, and the verb u[page (from which the Latin word Apage is derived) signifies to withdraw. 10 (http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol32/htm/liv.htm#_fnf10) 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. 11 (http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol32/htm/liv.htm#_fnf11) Lest we and our intentions should be sent away by our heavenly Judge to the devil, 12 (http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol32/htm/liv.htm#_fnf12) 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.

[Ivor Thomas]

Now I say get thee behind me satan is not there it is error in KJV [luke 4 v8;] Ivor Thomas.:cool:

[GraceAmbassador]

perhaps what is going on here is that Satan himself is trying to prevent Christ from going to the cross through His closest disciple and most ardent follower. i do not think it is beyond reason to assume that even the elect can be harassed (though not ultimately deceived) by Satan. after all, we are told to resist him, etc.

That's my opinion also. In the temptation in the desert we see the same pattern: The devil offers Jesus opportunities not to go to the cross whereas still receiving the benefits of a "glorification".

Luke 4:
Lk 4:6, (KJV), And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
7, If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.


The devil offers Jesus re-possession of the "kingdoms of this world". (vs. 5). They will be yours without the cross. No sacrifice needed

Lk 4:9-11, (KJV) 9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone








The Devil offers Jesus an opportunity of public glory, a premature glorification without sacrifice. You will be recognized and glorified without the cross. No sacrifice needed

The Lord could recognized devilish speech from the mouth of anyone from either his closes followers or his enemies. All that would even in the slightest manner suggest that He could avoid and would not need to suffer to receive what the Father had promised Him were joining the summons of the devil to avoid that which became Jesus eternal glorification and the means of our Salvation.


Heb 12:1-2, (KJV)
1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.



Jesus rejected any notion, even one small breath or word from someone who would prevent Him (if ever possible) from this Glory producing joy, and the fulfillment of our Salvation.

My humble opinion only

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

GA:
Jesus rejected any notion, even one small breath or word from someone who would prevent Him (if ever possible) from this Glory producing joy, and the fulfillment of our Salvation.

Amen! This also means that the temptations were external only; not the slightest impulse within Christ wanted to conform to any of them. So his temptations, though being real, did not include the internal impulse of a desire to conform that we often have.

SE:
Are there circumstances where it is appropriate for a believer to say this to someone? ("Get thee behind me Satan")

Good question! I have often said it in reference to false teaching that I heard proclaimed or even the lies of Christ-hating media personalities and politicians! My view is that Jesus was reacting to the words and not the soul of Peter; he was rebuking the devil working in and through what Peter was saying.

I would never say this to someone's face, however! :)

[Skeuos Eleos]

Thanks, BT, for picking up on the last question. I have never heard the phrase "Get thee behind me Satan" directed at another person but I am vaguely familiar with some writings where it was directed at the opposition that they were receiving which may have come from many different people and circumstances. What is behind my questioning is a realisation that, since I came to understand the absolute sovereignty of God, I have given no further thought to the activities of the evil one and I am wondering if I have gone too far. I view every trial as sent from God and therefore try to accept it, ask the Lord for forgiveness if I feel he is chastening me, ask the Lord for wisdom, pray for deliverance, etc, etc but I never think of it as an attack or opposition from Satan and that I should be resisting him and/or rebuking him. But there are these verses which speak of resisting him and he will flee, etc and so I am wondering if I have not got my 'practical theology' quite right?? So, are there circumstances and events where it is right to react this way, to rebuke the devil (actually to ask that the Lord may rebuke Him) i.e. not to accept the trial as a trial that we have to suffer? (Of course, that just leads on to questions about how we would be able to tell the difference in order to determine which way it is appropriate to respond in any given situation, etc! :) )

Martin

[disciple]

But there are these verses which speak of resisting him and he will flee, etc and so I am wondering if I have not got my 'practical theology' quite right?? So, are there circumstances and events where it is right to react this way, to rebuke the devil (actually to ask that the Lord may rebuke Him) i.e. not to accept the trial as a trial that we have to suffer? (Of course, that just leads on to questions about how we would be able to tell the difference in order to determine which way it is appropriate to respond in any given situation, etc! :) )i think we see two wrong extremes:


no credence whatsoever given to the fact that we are being attacked by the devil/satan and the very forces of evil on a daily basis
inordinate focus on the work of the devil/satan where this becomes all we talk about


IMHO, the truth is somewhere in between. i would say that within reformed circles especially, that there is a greater tendency to fall into the first extreme. charismatics are generally guilty of the second. overall i think we need to be more aware of the spiritual forces at work that we generally are. i wonder if we often forget such texs as Eph 6:11ff

[wildboar]

Disciple:

I agree. We must avoid the fear that fills the minds of some in the charismatic movement where they spend all their time praying against the spirits of darkness or the JWs who see the devil in every bush they pass by. But we must be aware that he is a very real force and take us by surprise if we become spiritually lazy. The the alert he is a roaring lion who is easily avoided, to those who are not sober minded he will take them by surprise every time.

[Vantilian]

I view every trial as sent from God and therefore try to accept it, ask the Lord for forgiveness if I feel he is chastening me, ask the Lord for wisdom, pray for deliverance, etc, etc but I never think of it as an attack or opposition from Satan and that I should be resisting him and/or rebuking him.
I was wondering how we should treat this knowing in fact that God is sovereign? Can there be trials and chastening of the Lord in which He uses Satan? I believe so, and so do we rebuke Satan and yet at the same time ask the Lord for deliverance or even thank God for the trials that our character may be built up in Him? Would that be a good balance between the two extremes mentioned earlier? Still learning...

[Skeuos Eleos]

I was wondering how we should treat this knowing in fact that God is sovereign? Can there be trials and chastening of the Lord in which He uses Satan? I believe so
Most definitely, and, if not all trials then certainly many of them. One of the best examples must surely be in Job 2: Satan is the one said to afflict Job with sores and yet Job is credited with not sinning when he admonishes his wife that they should be prepared to accept bad things from the hand of God:

What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.(Job 2:10b) What I was getting at in my previous post was that, though I knew both sides of these truths, there was no practical outworking of it in my walk. In practical terms then, my view was perhaps a little 'lop-sided'. So the comments from WB and Disciple are most welcome - that important word we are apt to forget so often - BALANCE.


and so do we rebuke Satan and yet at the same time ask the Lord for deliverance or even thank God for the trials that our character may be built up in Him? Would that be a good balance between the two extremes mentioned earlier? I think the following scriptures speak to these points:

Resist the devil, and he will flee from you (James 4:7)

"In everything give thanks" (1 Thes 5:18)

6 "For whom the LORD loves He chastens,
And scourges every son whom He receives."
7 If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons ... (Heb 12:6-7)

It is certainly the clear teaching of the NT (as well as in the OT) that God's people should accept the Lord's chastening with thanksgiving. However, since we are also exhorted to resist the devil this does raise some interesting questions:
How do we know whether in a particular situation we are to resist the devil or give thanks to God? Or, should we resist at the same time as giving thanks?

The first thing I wanted to say in response is that I am not sure that it is right for us to rebuke the devil but rather shouldn't we follow the example of the archangel Michael and say "The Lord rebuke you Satan!"?
Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" (Jude 9 NKJV)
That way we would be both recognising that Satan is responsible for our trial (2 Cor 2:11 - assuming we have reason to think this which I shall come on to later) whilst at the same time putting our hope firmly in God, not knowing whether or not it is the Lord's will to grant us temporal delivery in any given situation (Dan 3:17-18). So yes, it would seem at least to me to be a good balance to be thanking God in whatever trial we face and accepting our circumstances as being from the hand of the Sovereign, merciful ruler of all, and yet at the same time resisting the devil and looking to the Lord for delivery.

Since God rules sovereignly, even over the devil's works and, since we do not know the Lord's secret will, then this does give support to the view that resisting the devil and giving thanks in difficulties are not mutually exclusive but can and should be done at the same time, as you suggest. In fact, I think that in recognising that chastening is of the Lord and accepting it as ultimately from His hand (even though Satan may have been the wicked agent God uses) and in hoping upon the Lord for ultimate delivery and for grace to endure, we are resisting the devil by so doing even if we don't recognise that we are. I think that in whatever trial the Christian faces, God always grants some degree or other of grace, such that the Christian is never completely or permanently overcome.

However, I also think that resisting the devil and accepting chastening and trials will not always be referring to the same sort of thing; the former perhaps speaking more of resisting temptation to sin rather than seeking temporal delivery from some trial; the latter being more about God teaching and disciplining us than resisting temptation although it will certainly include that as well.

As regards how do we recognise that Satan is the wicked instrument who is afflicting us, I don't feel I have all the answers here but I think that verses such as 1 Pet. 5:8, Eph 6:11ff show that his involvement is more than just occasional. Looking at the context of the exhortation to resist the devil in James 4:7 which is talking about friendship with the world, the desires within us and the results of those desires I think it could well be argued that resisting the devil is referring back to these things. Hence I am inclined to think that Satan, the great deceiver, is behind more of the trials and temptations that we face than we realise (if not all certainly more than I have previously thought). WildBoar's amusing signature gives us an insight into how real and frequent an enemy Luther thought Satan to be. Neverthless, the Luther quote also shows what a contemptible enemy he thought him to be and we too should certainly not be walking in any fear of him. He cannot touch one hair more of our heads than the Lord grants him and, if the good Lord so grants it to one of His elect children, then we can be sure that it will ultimately work for good, his motives being both His glory and His love for us.

Doesn't James 4:7 sum this all up? We should both submit to God and resist the devil.


Still learning...Me too so I would definitely be interested in other's comments on this!

Martin