Mark 8:31-38

[mindlight]

31He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. 32He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.

33But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

34Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? 37Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? 38If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."

1) Jesus spoke plainly but the disciples and Peter did not understand- why did they not understand?

2) Was Peter actually the voice of Satan on this occasion or just saying things that were more in tune with the devil than with Jesus?

3) Why was it necessary for Jesus to suffer and die. Why would the devil be so anxious to prevent this path being chosen. Did the devil realise the potential in Jesus strategy and understand it to some extent or was he just trying to get Jesus to act in a sinful manner because that would mean that Jesus was then acting like him.

4) What do you think Peter said to Jesus - did his words echo the temptations of the devil in the wilderness e.g I will give you the kingdoms of the world if you bow down and worship me.

5) Why would be ashamed to speak and act in the way that Jesus spoke plainly he would be doing? How can we overcome these feelings and reservations?

6) The Jesus of the second coming - with the Fathers glory and coming with the holy angels seems so much stronger than the Jesus who must suffer and die. Yet the path to glory was through pain and sacrifice. Why must glory be purchased with sacrifices and suffering?

 

[mindlight]

No reply for this one.

I believe the passage is about the cost of what it means to be the Messiah. Peter had missed the point , mouthed the words that the devil had used in the wilderness to try and distract Jesus from his mission.

Jesus knew that suffering and death were essential parts of what he had been called to do.

Jesus is usually more gentle but really rips into Peter for this one.

Peter needed to understand his masters mission cause one day he would be called to walk the same costly path. Maybe he was afraid at this point and in a kind of denial about the implications of Jesus' words.

 

[Nazaroo]

2) Was Peter actually the voice of Satan on this occasion or just saying things that were more in tune with the devil than with Jesus?

"satan" is not a Greek word but a common Hebrew noun, meaning "adversary".

Although mistaken for a name at various points in Old and New Testaments, its is just another case of "translation-Greek", or rather (as with other bits of Hebrew and Aramaic in the Gospels) "transliteration-Greek".

Jesus naturally spoke in Hebrew/Palestinian Aramaic to his fellow Galileans and Jews (see for instance Paul addressing the Jews in the Temple in Acts).

This is a case of transliteration by the translator who did not know how to handle this word (similar steps were taken in English translations with the Greek word "baptismo" meaning to 'ritually wash [yourself]' - the English translators of the Authorized Version did not want to enter a controversy over what English word best translated "baptism" so they just transliterated the word, and gave us a 'universal' English NT that all denominations could accept).

The word 'satan' appears first in the O.T. during the speech by the Angel of the Lord to Balaam. Remarkably, the Angel doesn't call Balaam "satan", but rather calls HIMSELF "satan" (adversary).

The translators wisely decided not to render "satan" in this passage with a transliteration, which would imply that the Angel of the Lord was really 'satan'.

Similarly, Peter was not Satan, but rather "satan" (an adversary) to Jesus' purpose.

I hope this helps you to understand both the speech by Jesus to Peter and also the problems translators face with various words in the Bible.

peace,
Nazaroo

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

"satan" is not a Greek word but a common Hebrew noun, meaning "adversary".

Although mistaken for a name at various points in Old and New Testaments, its is just another case of "translation-Greek", or rather (as with other bits of Hebrew and Aramaic in the Gospels) "transliteration-Greek".

Jesus naturally spoke in Hebrew/Palestinian Aramaic to his fellow Galileans and Jews (see for instance Paul addressing the Jews in the Temple in Acts).

This is a case of transliteration by the translator who did not know how to handle this word (similar steps were taken in English translations with the Greek word "baptismo" meaning to 'ritually wash [yourself]' - the English translators of the Authorized Version did not want to enter a controversy over what English word best translated "baptism" so they just transliterated the word, and gave us a 'universal' English NT that all denominations could accept).

The word 'satan' appears first in the O.T. during the speech by the Angel of the Lord to Balaam. Remarkably, the Angel doesn't call Balaam "satan", but rather calls HIMSELF "satan" (adversary).

The translators wisely decided not to render "satan" in this passage with a transliteration, which would imply that the Angel of the Lord was really 'satan'.

Similarly, Peter was not Satan, but rather "satan" (an adversary) to Jesus' purpose.

I hope this helps you to understand both the speech by Jesus to Peter and also the problems translators face with various words in the Bible.

peace,
Nazaroo

Couldn't have worded this better myself.

1) Jesus spoke plainly but the disciples and Peter did not understand- why did they not understand?

This is a question that many people pose and all too often the answer is that the apostles were just stupid. However, when we put ourselves in there place, we realise just how rational their misunderstanding really was.

Around the turn of the century (from B.C. to A.D.) many Jews were very fed up with their lot in life. They knew that they were the chosen people of God and yet nothing had been going their way. One empire after another had dicimated them. Their Temple had been destroyed and rebuilt only to have the pagans come in and sacrifice a pig on the Altar to the pagan god Zeus! Now they were controlled by the foreign Roman Empire that demonstrated how little they cared about them by allowing people like the evil Archelaus to rule who massacred many Jews and then Pilate to rule who was still pretty bad. They had pretty much had enough and wanted to put an end to it. Fortunately, God had promised them in their scriptures that one day, a descendent of David would come and take the throne and restore Israel to its former glory, no, restore Israel to even more glory than it had ever had!

Many people had stepped up to the plate believing that they were this person, this messiah or savior but they had all been killed by the enemy, failing to fulfill the dream and failing to usher in the time of the Jews. The apostles were confident that their candidate was the real deal. This Jesus had all the ear markings of the messiah. He was a descendant of David, he had cured the sick (like was prophesied) etc. They believed he was the one. But, dying was not part of their conception of what it meant to be the messiah. The conquering hero does not die, he... well... conquers (see below). So when Jesus reveals to them that he is actually going to die, instead of raise an army and march on Rome, they do not, can not understand. This idea is foreign to them.

2) Was Peter actually the voice of Satan on this occasion or just saying things that were more in tune with the devil than with Jesus?

I think that Nazaroo explains this very nicely.

3) Why was it necessary for Jesus to suffer and die. Why would the devil be so anxious to prevent this path being chosen. Did the devil realise the potential in Jesus strategy and understand it to some extent or was he just trying to get Jesus to act in a sinful manner because that would mean that Jesus was then acting like him.

Remember how I said that the Jews were expecting their messiah to conquer? Well, they were not completely wrong. They simply did not understand what he was meant to conquer (neither would we had we been their). While they believed that he was going to conquer their mortal enemies, Jesus was actually going to conquer our immortal enemy. Death. By sacrificing himself, and then, rising from the dead, Jesus conquered death. I do not mean death, as in black cloak and a sickle, but death, the ever present reality of being human. In Genesis (and throughout the Bible, especially in Paul) we learn that the penalty of sinning is death. So, when Adam and Eve committed that first sin, they started a cycle that could only end in death for all people, but with the death and resurrection of Jesus, he beat; he conquered that age old enemy.

4) What do you think Peter said to Jesus - did his words echo the temptations of the devil in the wilderness e.g I will give you the kingdoms of the world if you bow down and worship me.

We cannot be certain what it was that Peter said. However, I believe it unlikely that he was actively trying to tempt Jesus. After all, as Nazaroo put it so well above, Peter is not being identified with the Devil, Jesus is simply saying that he is being an adversary to him. What he said was probably something along the lines of "how can you suffer and die when we are expecting you to defeat our enemies?"

5) Why would be ashamed to speak and act in the way that Jesus spoke plainly he would be doing? How can we overcome these feelings and reservations?

I am not entirely sure that I understand this question.

6) The Jesus of the second coming - with the Fathers glory and coming with the holy angels seems so much stronger than the Jesus who must suffer and die. Yet the path to glory was through pain and sacrifice. Why must glory be purchased with sacrifices and suffering?

I am not trying to downplay the suffering that Jesus experienced. I don't even want to imagine what horrors he went through. But, remember, Jesus came back to life. He conquered death and in a full ressurection destroyed death forever (i.e. because even when we die, we have another life). It doesn't get more powerful than that

Maybe he was afraid at this point

You are certainly right. Jesus and his followers had been borderlining on treason against the Roman government for quite some time now. I dare say that the only reason that the desciples had the courage to follow him was because they believed that the messiah would raise a spiritual army and destroy their enemies. Now, Jesus was saying that he was going to die. I am sure that Peter (and the others) were now quite sure that they would share his same fate, and probably very soon.

 

[mindlight]

I think one implication of this passage on the personal level to me is the way in which Jesus conquers. Indeed not even Romans or Rome is his enemy. He will conquer both with methods that would have not occurred to Romans. His path of love involved suffering, death and then restoration by resurrection. By dying to the old world order built on force of arms and wealth he allows God to bring in the new order and the new Kingdom.

So also we when faced with someone who is opposing our purpose could oppose them with a punch or verbal put down and lose them as our allies. Or we could take on their pain , understand it and bear it with them. Then show them a new way and a higher law.

My wife may offer a strong word to me and the temptation is to simply take her head on and argue with her. But that might not be the best approach. It might be better to listen , understand , make her coffee take the screaming child from her and put an arm around her. Then discuss the best way forward.

Jesus apposes Peter cause in effect he expects Jesus to behave like the powerful of his own world order - to crush his enemies rather than to convert them, to march on Rome rather than see his people die there and establish a church with the blood of their sacrifice. Like the husband that slaps his wife down and does not allow her to think or speak and is not interested in her pain.