Just before embarking on his final journey to Jerusalem, Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them what would happen to him after they arrived at Jerusalem (Luke 18:31-33). In very plain language he told them that he would be delivered over to the Romans who would seek to demoralize him; they would scourge him and kill him, but he would rise again on the third day. On at least two other occasions, this being the third (Luke 18:31-33; Matthew 20:17-19), Jesus had discussed these very matters with his Apostles (cf. Luke 9:22; Matthew 16:21 and Luke 9:44; Matthew 17:22).
I believe Jesus began to tell his disciples about his death and resurrection (Matthew 16:21) immediately following Peter’s confession that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16), because this was the first time his Apostles had shown evidence of their inner spiritual life. Jesus testified that Peter had not spoken this because he figured it out on his own, but it was revealed to him by God. In other words, Peter spoke out and testified what had been revealed to him in his heart (Matthew 16:17).
At first, the Apostles responded to Jesus’ prediction of suffering, death and resurrection with disbelief (Matthew 16:21-22). Peter even thought it necessary to correct the Lord’s understanding of his mission, because the then current universal Jewish understanding of this matter was that Christ lives forever (cf. John 12:32-34)! In other words, Jesus’ teaching of the Messiah’s fate stood in sharp contrast to what all Jews believed at that time in the first century AD.
Peter, who had been listening to the voice of God speaking in his heart, suddenly began arguing with Jesus about his ultimate fate (Matthew 16:22). One has to ask, why Peter? He had just been singled out by Jesus to say he had been listening to God and repeating what he had heard in his heart (Matthew 16:17). Why would Peter suddenly begin parroting teaching that contradicted what Jesus taught?
I don’t believe Peter spoke of things he figured out by himself in Matthew 16:16. Rather, he spoke of things he heard from God and were contemplated in his heart (cf. Matthew 16:17). Similarly, Peter’s argument with Jesus didn’t stem from things he figured out by himself. He parroted what he had heard taught by others. Peter’s confession occurred in Caesarea Philippi (cf. Matthew 16:13-16), but his argument occurred while on the way to Jerusalem.[1] Understanding this, allows us to bring discussion with the other Apostles into the mix (cf. Mark 8:16; 9:33-34).
Once we allow the Twelve to have a part of Peter’s argument with Jesus, we are able to understand Judas’ input which slandered the way of Christ (cf. John 6:69-71). Judas was a zealot, who championed the popular Messianic worldview of an outer Kingdom of God that would make war upon the gentiles and make the Jewish nation great. This is what Peter had in mind in Matthew 16:22, but I think he was expressing the attitude of the entire group.
The translator has Jesus call Peter Satan (Matthew 16:23), but I believe this is too harsh and doesn’t reflect either the Lord’s heart (cf. 1Peter 3:9; 2Peter 2:11; Mark 15:29) or the fact that the word can be used to point to an ordinary person as an enemy (G4567 = Satan = enemy or adversary). While Peter argues against the Lord, using a popular understanding of the coming of the Messiah, the translators of the New Testament use a popular understanding of the word Satan to cause Jesus to refer to Peter as an evil being rather than simply making a statement about Peter’s remarks. Jesus turned around to look at the Twelve, and then to Peter, to say “get behind him” i.e. follow him, because what Peter was saying was no longer an expression of the inspiration of God (Matthew 16:17). Rather, he was parroting the teachings of an enemy or, in other words, the teachings of men (Mark 8:33).
_____________________________________
[1] See my studies: Jesus at Caesarea Philippi and Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles.
Smoodock's Blog 