Commenting on Mark 8:33 and Jesus calling Peter “Satan” (σατανας), Julie M. Smith wrote:
“Satan” is the appropriate and necessary label for someone who rebukes Jesus, the Christ, for announcing God’s will; for Peter to rebuke Jesus for this teaching is to rebuke God’s plan. It is Satan who rebukes God’s plan; hence, it is appropriate for Jesus to call Peter “Satan” since that is the role that Peter assumes in this exchange. Ultimately, this dialogue between Jesus and Peter boils down to an issue of authority: is it Jesus or is it Peter who has the authority to determine God’s will for Jesus’ life? Calling Peter “Satan” is harsh, but it needs to be read in the context of the invitation to Peter to resume the path of discipleship. Thus, identifying Peter with Satan does not disqualify him from discipleship; rather, he is specifically invited to return to acting as a disciple. Jesus’ further teachings on what it means to be a disciple (8:34) also makes the point that Jesus’ response to Peter is not rejection but correction and invitation.
The use of the term “Satan” extends the exorcism motif of the passage by clarifying that Peter is on Satan’s side. Since names are frequently used in exorcisms as an effort to gain control over the other party, it is possible that Peter thinks that his “naming” of Jesus as the Christ gave him some measure of control over Jesus, which he then exercises by removing Jesus from his path and attempting to correct him via rebuke. Jesus’ calling Peter “Satan” thus makes clear that it is Jesus who is in control in this encounter and Jesus will succeed in this (symbolic) exorcism. This is not the first time that Jesus has renamed Peter, who was first called Simon, and thus shows his authority over Peter.
The reference to Satan also forges a link to the story of Jesus’ temptation: the initial proclamation of Jesus as the Son of God at his baptism was immediately followed by temptation from Satan; the proclamation Jesus as the Christ is immediately followed by the temptation to avoid the path of suffering, from one who takes on the role of Satan. At the inauguration of both halves of his ministry, Jesus is tested by the satanic temptation to depart from the mission that has been set for him. Calling Peter “Satan” may also have suggested a link to Jesus’ efforts to silence the demons when they inappropriately tried to name Jesus (1:25, 34). (Julie M. Smith, The Gospel of Mark [Brigham Young University New Testament Commentary; Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Studies, 2018], 501-2)
Elsewhere, while commenting on Mark 14:72 and Jesus saying to Peter that:
. . . the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice . . . (Mark 14:72)
Smith writes that:
In the ancient world, cocks “primarily epitomized virile aggression” due to their association with cockfighting. Their crow was “not a cry of submission or an empty vaunt of superiority, rather it is affirmation of the cock’s readiness to right on to its death,” so when Jesus’ prophecy links Peter’s denial to the cock crow, Jesus has suggested that Peter will behave spinelessly at precisely the moment when courage to the death is expected. Because “value was also placed upon cocks which might lose but fight to the death anyway,” Peter’s unwillingness to stand up for Jesus is emphasized by way of contrast. It would have been considered honorable for Peter to die while defending Jesus, but this is not what happens. Jesus’ linking of Peter’s denial to the crowing of the cock is a profound example of Markan irony. Cocks that lost their fights were “thought to lose free status and are referred to as slaves,” so there is another layer of irony in the fact that it is a female slave who bests Peter here. It is also ironic that cocks were thought to be “vigilantly wakeful,” which the disciples were supposed to be but were not. It is as if with the crowing of the cock, Peter finally awakes up to that is happening, as the next line suggests. (Ibid., 772)
