As Jesus along these lines uncovers His main goal - to endure because of the religious and political specialists, to kick the bucket, and to be reestablished following three days (v. 31)- - Peter is unequipped for fathoming such an aloof Messianic part. Stamp reports that "Diminish took him, and started to censure him" (v. 32). Just in Matthew do we have some thought of the shape this "reprimand" took: "God restrict, Lord! This should never transpire" (Mt 16:22). The moment answer of Jesus is: "Get behind me Satan! For you are not in favor of God, but rather of men" (Mk 8:33). Who is this Satan? Or, then again, more relevantly, what is this Satan?
It is immediately obvious that Peter's comprehension of Jesus as the Messiah does not compare to Jesus' cognizance of his natural part. The appellation coordinated against Satan must not be viewed as an individual assault on Peter, albeit numerous observers, for example, Myers, delineate it in that design. Rather, we should see Satan as the ever-introduce hindrance that he tries to be as we progressively dedicate ourselves to the administration of Christ. Here, Peter is rationally (physically) arranged to admit the Messiahship of Jesus, however, Jesus perceives that mental readiness alone is a long way from the otherworldly duty He requires. Similarly, as Jesus was rationally and physically arranged for His arrival from the forty days of fasting in the wild, along these lines, as well, was He profoundly arranged for the service He was going to start. At the point when drawn nearer by Satan by then, there was a union of mental and otherworldly planning, and Jesus couldn't respect the allurement to leave His celestial post.
Be that as it may, for Peter, in v. 33, there is not yet a blend of mental and profound. In our everyday lives, we battle, as did Peter, to mix our comprehension of the physical world which encompasses us with that of the otherworldly domain we craving to catch. Satan takes a full favorable position of our mental-otherworldly battle and persistently introduces himself as hindrances in our way toward a more full association with God.
Jesus could have withdrawn from Peter's representation of Satan- - "Gosh, Peter, I think you have something there! Perhaps this agony and demise stuff is somewhat extreme." That would have coincided all the more intimately with a Jewish idea of the Messiah in light of the Roman occupation and mastery of first century Palestine, a Messiah who might accompany incredible power and reestablish the kingdom of Israel without a moment's delay, for all. Yet, Israel was neither rationally or profoundly arranged for the arrival of simply such a Messiah at, to the point that point in time, as we, as well, are not yet completely arranged today.
In our twentieth century "shrewdness," would we say we are proceeding to substitute our will for that of God's the point at which we look to reveal the riddles of Scripture? Absolutely, our English interpretations of Scripture could not hope to compare to the nuances of Greek and Hebrew punctuation contained in the old original copies. As we look to reveal the recorded Jesus, would we say we are not piling the uncovered soil upon our journey for the otherworldly, and in this way smothering it? Crossan puts it rather obtusely: "Recorded Jesus research is getting to be something of an academic awful joke. . . . contemporary Jesus research is as yet included in printed plundering." We pick and pick bits of sacred text as verification writings, exegete sections of Scripture absolutely outside the realm of relevance with their more extensive setting.
Anderson and Moore accurately state that understudies fall into the trap of convention when moving toward Scripture in bits, seizing "joyfully on inconsistencies among the four Gospels." And Bryan's postulation is that Mark was planned to be perused completely at one sitting- - freely - which would likely have taken upwards of two hours or more! It is safe to say that we are to enable Satan to place his impediments in the method for our interpretation by proceeding to look at just goodies of Scripture instead of endeavoring to comprehend the entire of it?