Matthew 16:23

While Christ was yet speaking the beginnings of the things which He was shewing unto them, Peter considered them unworthy of the Son of the living God. And forgetting that the Son of the living God does nothing, and acts in no way worthy of blame, he began to rebuke Him; and this is what is said, "And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him."

We have often said that Peter had too hot a zeal, and a very great affection towards the Lord the Saviour. Therefore after that his confession, and the reward of which he had heard from the Saviour, he would not have that his confession destroyed, and thought it impossible that the Son of God could be put to death, but takes Him to him affectionately, or takes Him aside that he may not seem to be rebuking his Master in the presence of his fellow disciples, and begins to chide Him with the feeling of one that loved Him, and to contradict Him, and say, "Be it far from thee, Lord;" or as it is better in the Greek, ιλεως σοι Κυριε, ου μη εσται σοι τουτο, that is, Be propitious to Thyself, Lord, this shall not be unto Thee.

As though Christ Himself had needed a propitiation. His affection Christ allows, but charges him with ignorance; as it follows, "He turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence unto me."

The Lord, knowing the suggestion of the craft of the devil, says to Peter, "Get thee behind me;" that is, that he should follow the example of His passion; but to him by whom this expression was suggested, He turns and says, "Satan, thou art an offence unto me." For we cannot suppose that the name of Satan, and the sin of being an offence, would be imputed to Peter after those so great declarations of blessedness and power that had been granted him.

But to me this error of the Apostle, proceeding from the warmth of his affection, will never seem a suggestion of the devil. Let the thoughtful reader consider that that blessedness of power was promised to Peter in time to come, not given him at the time present; had it been conveyed to him immediately, the error of a false confession would never have found place in him.

For what wonder is it that this should befal Peter, who had never received a revelation concerning these things? For that you may learn that confession which he made concerning Christ was not spoken of himself, observe how in these things which had not been revealed to him, he is at a loss. Estimating the things of Christ by human and earthly principles, he judged it mean and unworthy of Him that He should suffer. Therefore the Lord added, "For thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men."

As much as to say; It is of My will, and of the Father's will, that I should die for the salvation of men; you considering only your own will would not that the grain of wheat should fall into the ground, that it may bring forth much fruit; therefore as you speak what is opposed to My will, you ought to be called My adversary. For Satan is interpreted "adverse" or "contrary."

Yet the words in which Peter and those in which Satan are rebuked, are not, as is commonly thought, the same; to Peter it is said, "Get thee behind me, Satan;" that is, follow me, thou that art contrary to my will; to the Devil it is said, "Go thy way, Satan," understanding not "behind me," but "into everlasting fire." He said therefore to Peter, "Get thee behind me," as to one who through ignorance was ceasing to walk after Christ. And He called him Satan, as one, who through ignorance had somewhat contrary to God. But he is blessed to whom Christ turns, even though He turn in order to rebuke him. But why said He to Peter, "Thou art an offence unto me, when in the Psalm it is said, Great peace have they that love thy law, and there is no offence to them?" [Ps 119:165] It must be answered, that not only is Jesus not offended, but neither is any man who is perfect in the love of God; and yet he who does or speaks any thing of the nature of an offence, may be an offence even to one who is incapable of being offended. Or he may hold every disciple that sinneth as an offence, as Paul speaks, "Who is offended, and I burn not?" [2 Cor 11:29]

“ And Peter took Him and began to rebuke Him, saying, God be propitious to Thee. Lord, this shall never be unto thee. ” To whom He said, “ Get thee behind Me, Satan; thou art a stumbling-block unto Me; for thou mindest not the things of God but the things of men. ” Since Jesus had begun to show unto His disciples that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things, Peter up to this point learned the beginnings of those things which were shown. But since he thought that the sufferings were unworthy of Christ the Son of the living God, and below the dignity of the Father who had revealed to him so great things about Christ, for the things that concerned His coming suffering had not been revealed to him, on this account he took Him, and as one forgetful of the honour due to the Christ, and that the Son of the living God neither does nor says anything worthy of rebuke, he began to rebuke …

But you will compare together His saying to Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan,” with that said to the devil (who said to Him, “All these things will I give Thee if Thou wilt fall down and worship me”), “get thee hence,” without the addition, “behind Me;” for to be behind Jesus is a good thing. Wherefore it was said, “Come ye behind Me and I will make you fishers of men.” And to the same effect is the saying, “He that doth not take his cross and follow behind Me is not worthy of Me.” And as a general principle observe the expression “behind”; because it is a good thing when any one goes behind the Lord God and is behind the Christ; but it is the opposite when any one casts the words of God behind him, or when he transgresses the commandment which says, “Do not walk behind thy lusts.” And Elijah also, in the third Book of Kings, says to the people, “How long halt ye on both your knees? If …

Next we must inquire how He said to Peter, “Thou art a stumbling-block unto Me,” especially when David says, “Great peace have they that love Thy law, and there is no stumbling-block to them.” For some one will say, if this is said in the prophet, because of the steadfastness of those who have love, and are incapable of being offended, for “love beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things, love never faileth,” how did the Lord Himself, “who upholdeth all that fall, and raiseth up all that be bowed down,” say to Peter, “Thou art a stumbling-block unto Me”? But it must be said that not only the Saviour, but also he who is perfected in love, cannot be offended. …

But let us next see what was the thought of Peter when he answered and said to Jesus, “ Lord, it is good for us to be here; let us make three tabernacles, ” etc. And on this account these words call for very special examination, because Mark, in his own person, has added, “For he wist not what to answer,” but Luke, “not knowing,” he says, “what he spake.” You will consider, therefore, if he spake these things as in a trance, being filled with the spirit which moved him to say these things, which could not be a Holy Spirit; for John taught in the Gospel that, before the resurrection of the Saviour, no one had the Holy Spirit, saying, “For the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” But if the Spirit was not yet, and he, not knowing what he said, spoke under the influence of some spirit, the spirit which caused these things to be said was some one of the spirits which had …

“ In that day came the disciples unto Jesus saying, Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven? ” In order that we might be taught what it was that the disciples came to Jesus and asked to learn of Him, and how He answered to their inquiry, Matthew, though he might have given an account of this very thing only, has added, according to some manuscripts, “In that hour the disciples came unto Jesus,” but, according to others, “In that day;” and it is necessary that we should not leave the meaning of the evangelist without examination. …

Sometimes, however, a man in the goodness of his will desires something that God does not desire, even though God’s will is also good, nay, much more fully and more surely good (for His will never can be evil): for example, if a good son is anxious that his father should live, when it is God’s good will that he should die. Again, it is possible for a man with evil will to desire what God wills in His goodness: for example, if a bad son wishes his father to die, when this is also the will of God. It is plain that the former wishes what God does not wish, and that the latter wishes what God does wish; and yet the filial love of the former is more in harmony with the good will of God, though its desire is different from God’s, than the want of filial affection of the latter, though its desire is the same as God’s. …

2. Augustin replied: We have already shown sufficiently why and how we maintain the authority of the Old Testament, not for the imitation of Jewish bondage, but for the confirmation of Christian liberty. It is not I, but the apostle, who says, "All these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the world are come." We do not therefore, as bondmen, observe what was enjoined as predictive of us; but as free, we read what was written to confirm us. So any one may see that the apostle remonstrates with the Galatians not for devoutly reading what Scripture says of circumcision, but for superstitiously desiring to be circumcised. We do not put a new cloth to an old garment, but we are instructed in the kingdom of heaven, like the householder, whom the Lord describes as bringing out of his treasure things new and old. …

17. We often find in the symbolical passages of Scripture, that the same person appears in different characters on different occasions. So, on this occasion, Moses represents and prefigures the Jewish people as placed under the law. As, then, Moses, when he struck the rock with his rod, doubted the power of God, so the people who were under the law given by Moses, when they nailed Christ to the cross, did not believe Him to be the power of God. And as water flowed from the smitten rock for those that were athirst, so life comes to believers from the stroke of the Lord’s passion. The testimony of the apostle is clear and decisive on this point, when he says, "This rock was Christ." In the command of God, that the death of the flesh of Moses should take place on the mountain, we see the divine appointment that the carnal doubt of the divinity of Christ should die on Christ’s exaltation. …

65. The impiety, therefore, of Faustus’ attacks on Scripture can injure no one but himself; for what he thus assails is now deservedly the object of universal reverence. As has been said already, the sacred record, like a faithful mirror, has no flattery in its portraits, and either itself passes sentence upon human actions as worthy of approval or disapproval, or leaves the reader to do so. And not only does it distinguish men as blameworthy or praiseworthy, but it also takes notice of cases where the blameworthy deserve praise, and the praiseworthy blame. Thus, although Saul was blameworthy, it was not the less praiseworthy in him to examine so carefully who had eaten food during the curse, and to pronounce the stern sentence in obedience to the commandment of God. So, too, he was right in banishing those that had familiar spirits and wizards out of the land. …

8. Faustus calls upon us to believe him, and says, The truth is, if you will believe it, that the Hebrews were in a mistake regarding both the death of Jesus and the immortality of Elias. And a little after he adds, As from the outset of His taking the likeness of man He underwent in appearance all the experiences of humanity, it was quite consistent that He should seal the dispensation by appearing to die. How can this infamous liar, who declares that Christ feigned death, expect to be believed? Did Christ utter falsehood when He said, "It behoves the Son of man to be killed, and to rise the third day?" And do you tell us to believe what you say, as if you utter no falsehoods? In that case, Peter was more truthful than Christ when he said to Him, "Be it far from Thee, Lord; this shall not be unto Thee;" for which it was said to him, "Get thee behind me, Satan." This rebuke was not lost …

110. Matthew proceeds in the following strain: “Then charged He His disciples that they should tell no man that He was Jesus the Christ. From that time forth began Jesus to show unto His disciples how that He must go into Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders, and chief priests, and scribes;” and so on, down to where we read, “Thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” Mark and Luke add these passages in the same order. Only Luke says nothing about the opposition which Peter expressed to the passion of Christ.

30. That they who have separated from the Church have not this Spirit, the Apostle Jude has declared most plainly, saying, “Who separate themselves, natural, having not the Spirit.” Whence the Apostle Paul reproving those even in the Church itself, who by the names of men, though having a place in her unity, were raising a kind of schism, says amongst other things, “But the natural man perceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” This shows his meaning, “doth not perceive,” that is doth not receive the word of knowledge. These as having a place in the Church, he speaks of as babes, not yet spiritual, but still carnal, and such as are to be fed with milk, not with meat. …