In Matt 16:22-23, Jesus said Peter was satan?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lunarknight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lunarknight

Guest
How could it be possible for the Apostle Peter to be the first Pope if Jesus said that he (Peter) was satan in Matt 16:22-23?

In Matt 16:18 Jesus announced that by Peter, He would build His Church.

But then later on Jesus said that Peter was an offense and was Satan.

This has been conflicting me and bothering me ever since I’ve read that passage. Could you clarify me on that?
Thank you for your time.
 
lunarknight said:
How could it be possible for the Apostle Peter to be the first Pope if Jesus said that he (Peter) was satan in Matt 16:22-23?

In Matt 16:18 Jesus announced that by Peter, He would build His Church.

But then later on Jesus said that Peter was an offense and was Satan.

This has been conflicting me and bothering me ever since I’ve read that passage. Could you clarify me on that?
Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...
Just because someone refers by the name of another doesn’t mean that first person is *literally *that second person. Just because I call my cousin “Don Juan” doesn’t mean he is literally that character – it just means he is acting like him. That was the point Jesus was making when he called Peter “Satan” – that Peter was acting like Satan by trying to divert Jesus from his Cross, as Satan was doing in the wilderness when he tried to tempt Jesus.

As for Peter’s weakness and folly in the instance having anything with being the first Pope, it is a non-issue. The Church does not teach that Popes are perfect in wisdom, intellect and morals, only that the Holy Spirit prevents them from teaching error as official Church doctrine.

This article may help you see the difference:

catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
 
Fidelis said:
Just because someone refers by the name of another doesn’t mean that first person is *literally *that second person. Just because I call my cousin “Don Juan” doesn’t mean he is literally that character – it just means he is acting like him. That was the point Jesus was making when he called Peter “Satan” – that Peter was acting like Satan by trying to divert Jesus from his Cross, as Satan was doing in the wilderness when he tried to tempt Jesus.

As for Peter’s weakness and folly in the instance having anything with being the first Pope, it is a non-issue. The Church does not teach that Popes are perfect in wisdom, intellect and morals, only that the Holy Spirit prevents them from teaching error as official Church doctrine.

This article may help you see the difference:

catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
Click to expand...
Thank You so much!!!🙂
 
lunarknight said:
How could it be possible for the Apostle Peter to be the first Pope if Jesus said that he (Peter) was satan in Matt 16:22-23?

In Matt 16:18 Jesus announced that by Peter, He would build His Church.

But then later on Jesus said that Peter was an offense and was Satan.

This has been conflicting me and bothering me ever since I’ve read that passage. Could you clarify me on that?
Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...

What Peter said amounted to a temptation to avoid the Cross - but the obedience of Jesus to His Father included the Cross; His obedience did not stop short of it. Peter, with the best of intentions no doubt, was saying that He should take the easy way out - & this is what the temptations of satan in the wilderness (chapter 4) also amounted to.​

Jesus is the Messianic King - but his kingship is not of this world: it is not a kingship gained by bringing death to others. It is a kingship attained only by way of the Cross - the temptations of satan are all ways of coming to the Kingship of Jesus which cut out the Cross. And the words of Peter put before Jesus the very same temptation.

This incident also shows that temptation can come even from those who are a man’s friends - even without their intending any harm. They can have good intentions, yet still be doing the devil’s work.

The incident is therefore important for later on in the Gospel, where Jesus alone goes to the Cross, & is failed by his own friends - Peter included. Jesus allows nothing, not even the prospect of His death, to divert him from obeying His Father; He does so totally, without the slightest reservation.

This incident has a wider application - it is not a mere record of who said what. It applies to all of us, now, just as it would have applied to all those who heard it or read it for the first time. The Gospel is not mere news - it is also personal address: who do *we *think the Messiah is ? How are we going to react to what is said in this episode ? IOW - the Gospel calls for a reaction from those who hear it or read it; and it tests & judges its hearers & readers:
 
lunarknight said:
How could it be possible for the Apostle Peter to be the first Pope if Jesus said that he (Peter) was satan in Matt 16:22-23?

In Matt 16:18 Jesus announced that by Peter, He would build His Church.

But then later on Jesus said that Peter was an offense and was Satan.

This has been conflicting me and bothering me ever since I’ve read that passage. Could you clarify me on that?
Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...
It is (in part) a wonderful lesson on the humanness of Peter. On one hand he was capable of great insight and on the other great error. Who better to build the Church on?
 
lunarknight said:
How could it be possible for the Apostle Peter to be the first Pope if Jesus said that he (Peter) was satan in Matt 16:22-23?

In Matt 16:18 Jesus announced that by Peter, He would build His Church.

But then later on Jesus said that Peter was an offense and was Satan.

This has been conflicting me and bothering me ever since I’ve read that passage. Could you clarify me on that?
Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...
There is some misunderstanding of the usage of early Aramaic. My undestanding is that Satan, (stn) is used commonly as a personification of error, and that the command to get behind, could be interpreted as a command to follow.
Thus I would understand the rebuke to be more of the form:
“You’ve got it wrong, Peter! Follow me”.
This seems to be a better following of context. The extreme language of the rebuke as translated could be expected to be fatal to the relationship.
 
Someone may have more information on this, but I have always heard that the word “satan” has a meaning…it isn’t just a name. The meaning of the word is something along the lines of “one who opposes God”. When the angel fell, he became one who opposes God and so was then called Satan among other names. So when Jesus rebuked Peter he was saying: get behind me, you are opposing God’s will!

If we carefully reread the previous passage you see that Peter was actually rebuking Our Lord and saying ‘God forbid that you should die’. He was opposing God’s plan for salvation (though as a small defense of Peter, I don’t think he fully understood it at that moment in time). So, Jesus reacted quite firmly to tell Peter ‘stop opposing the will of God, this is something that has to happen for the salvation of man.’ Jesus also went so far as to say Peter was not on the side of God, but on the side of men. Poor Peter, he really got the smackdown, didn’t he?🙂
 
Satan simply means “adversary” or “opponent” in Hebrew. Jesus wasn’t calling Peter a devil or anything like that, rather, he was telling Peter to stop being an obstacle or stumbling block (“a satan”) to him.
 
Yes, Prayer Warrior and Porthos have the right idea. “Satan” is the one who “opposes” God. Therefore Jesus may have been speaking in the sense that Peter was “opposing” him. At the same time, Jesus may have also been speaking to Satan who was tempting Peter. This may be similar to how He drove demons from a person. Perhaps it was also Satan who tempted Peter to doubt when Jesus called him to walk on the water and to later deny Jesus.

Peter was being an obstacle to Jesus’ salvation of the human race. Is there any wonder Jesus strongly reprimanded him?

Importatly, we can consider how much love Jesus has for us! He corrected someone who wanted to prevent Him from terrible suffering! He loves us so much that he was determined to suffer for us!
 
Thank you all so much!!!😃 this has certainly helped me and this “obstacle” has cleared so much now.
 
In Matthew 16:17-19, Jesus promises that one day He will build His Church on Peter and give Peter the keys of His Kingdom, i.e., entrust His Church into Peter’s care. Matthew 16:22-23 indicates that Peter had a few more things to learn before that entrustment could take place. In fact, Jesus didn’t actually get around to entrusting His Church into Peter’s care until after His Resurrection when, in John 21:15-17, He told Peter to feed His lambs, tend His sheep, and feed His sheep.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top