Wednesday, January 27, 2021

Finn Damgaard on Jesus Calling Peter "Satan" (σατανα) being the External Supernatural Devil and not merely an Adversary

  

But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying Get thee behind me, Satan (σατανα), for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men. (Mark 8:33)

 

But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan (σατανα): thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. (Matt 16:23)

 

Some commentators believe that when Jesus calls Peter “Satan,” he simply means “adversary” and is not associating Peter with “the” Satan (i.e., the external, supernatural evil being “Satan”). However, this does not seem to be a satisfactory reading of the term when Jesus applies it to Peter in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 16:23/Mark 8:33/Luke 4:8). Instead, it appears Jesus is invoking the Satan when he calls Peter σατανα:

 

The so-called negative aspect of Peter’s portrait is a standard element in the portrayal of apocalyptic seers, who were invariably portrayed positively. The negative thrust of the transfiguration scene comes, however, not only from Peter’s fear, but also from his odd comment about the tabernacles (Matt 17:4), and from the fact that Jesus touches his disciples (Matt 17:7) in the same way as in the healing narratives (Matt 8:3, 15; 9:29; 20:34), which seems to emphasize a type of deficiency interpreting Peter positively when he claims that Peter’s rebuke of Jesus is an expression of his “cognitive humanity” and therefore “normal” when viewed in light of the generic portrayal of apocalyptic seers. Symptomatically, Markley therefore also translates σατανα (Matt 16:23) with “adversary” (John R. Markley, Peter – Apocalyptic Seer [2013]:203). The fact that Matthew uses the word elsewhere as a proper name for the devil (Matt 4:10; 12:26) makes it more likely, however, that it should be translated as a proper name here also. If Matthew had wanted to portray Peter’s rebuke of Jesus as an expression of cognitive humanity, he would probably have avoided the term. But Matthew retains Mark’s term most likely because he wants his readers to believe that Peter’s rebuke reflects a Satanic point of view. Peter’s scandal here is not just that he displays a cognitive humanity as a recipient of revelation. The scandal is much more serious because Peter has, in contrast to Jesus (cf. Matt 4:10), been led astray by deception and a demonic spirit (cf. the use of υπαγη σατανα in both Matt 4:10 and 16:23). (Finn Damgaard, Rewriting Peter as an Intertextual Character in the Canonical Gospels [London: Routledge, 2016, 2019], 38-39, emphasis in bold added)

 

Such has many implications, including it serving as evidence that the authors of the Synoptic Gospels (as well as Jesus) believed in an external, supernatural Satan, contra Christadelphians and others.