Had Satan Entered Peter?

[Pariah]

Matthew 16: 21From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. 22Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. 24Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. 26For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? 27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

A contention for pause has been given to consider that Jesus was not really addressing Satan, but signifying to Peter just how far off he was in regards to God's will. Jesus went on to teach all His disciples about the cost of following Him.

If that was true, why the necessity of addressing Peter as Satan? Couldn't the point be made without calling Peter, Satan?

What other examples do we have of the Lord not actually calling the person the devil but just referring to what they are relating to by their words and their actions.?

John 8: 42Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

So this is why I have a hard time seeing that the Lord was making a reference to Peter by how far he was in regards to God's will by calling him Satan. The Lord was "nicer" to the Pharisees and the likes by stating whom their "father" was in regards to their actions and words, but here, Jesus called Peter directly, Satan.

Now since this had previously occurred:

Matthew 16: 15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 20Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

I doubt very much that after Simon Barjona received his new name of Peter, that it was changed to the name of Satan just because Peter was rebuking the Lord. I have to believe that because Peter has not been bought with a price and sealed as His yet by Jesus Christ, that Satan had entered Peter right then and there for Jesus to command Satan to get behind Him.

Judas Iscariot was empowered by the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 10:1-8 and shared in God ministering through him: Matthew 10:18-20 but this was not the permanent indwelling of the Holy Ghost, but a temporary one until Jesus had ascended to the right hand of God the Father to assume the role as Our Mediator when the disciples had received that promise on the Day of Pentecost as all those that believe in Jesus Christ from that point on, had been and will continue to receive the promise of the permanant indwelling Holy Spirit upon salvation... and only upon salvation.

This is why in the latter days many have departed from faith in giving heed to seducing spirits and dcotrines of devils because they are believing the lie that they can receive the Holy Spirit again and with the visible evidence of speaking in tongues. Such an event is happening, but God is permitting the strong delusion to occur for the believers in believing the lie that there is another spirit to receive even if they called that spirit, the Holy Spirit: it is still preaching another Jesus.. another spirit to recieve which they had not received. This is called suffering a thief to break through.

So if believers nowadays can be defiled in having their houses broken through when they seek in error another spirit to receive and thus bearing false witness because there is only one hope of our calling as in one baptism of the Holy Spirit ( Ephesians 4:4-6) as there is only one drink of the One Spirit ( 1 Corinthians 12:13 ) then how can anyone say that Satan could not have entered Peter back then, especially when he had not been bought nor sealed as His yet?

Satan had entered Judas Iscariot in Luke 22:2-4 in spite of the previous empowerment in Matthew 10th chapter, and so there really isn't anything to say that Satan had not entered Peter that the Lord had necessity to command Satan to get behind Him out of Peter. I cannot see Peter walking around to get behind Jesus, and since Jesus is God and His word will not return void, I have to believe it was Satan that was actually being rebuked right out of Peter.

[Jay Dub]

I doubt very much that after Simon Barjona received his new name of Peter, that it was changed to the name of Satan just because Peter was rebuking the Lord. I have to believe that because Peter has not been bought with a price and sealed as His yet by Jesus Christ, that Satan had entered Peter right then and there for Jesus to command Satan to get behind Him.

Jhn 17:12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.

While Jesus was with them he kept them safe. Could Satan then have entered Peter? Was there a moment that Peter was not safe. Was there a moment that the protection of Jesus was not on these disciples?

Even Judas enjoyed the protection of Jesus, and Satan did not enter him until Jesus pulled his protection

Jhn 13:26 Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon.


Jhn 13:27 As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. "What you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him,

It was not until it was time, did Jesus pull his protection from Judas

Luk 22:31 "Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat.

Luk 22:32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."

Here it would seem that Satan needed Jesus permission to test Peter.

Every once in awhile you will hear someone called Einstein, not because there name was changed, but because they did something very smart, you might hear someone say good job Einstein. It just means that they did something that was found to be very intelligent

That is how I see Jesus rebuke of Peter. Peter wanted to stop Jesus death, if that would have happened no one would be saved. That what Satan wants and why Jesus called peter Satan. It was not because Satan entered Peter, but because Peters will, would have kept all men in their sin

[Pariah]

Hi Jay Dub,

Thanks for finally replying with those verses to edify me or at least attempt to. It is on God to cause the increase.

Jhn 17:12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.

While Jesus was with them he kept them safe. Could Satan then have entered Peter? Was there a moment that Peter was not safe. Was there a moment that the protection of Jesus was not on these disciples?

But the one that has been lost was dued to suicide as in doomed to destruction. One could apply that verses in saying that Peter had not committed suicide after deserting and denying Jesus three times. Surely Peter felt like it but I am sure the Lord kept him in his turbulent time from self destrcution.

Even Judas enjoyed the protection of Jesus, and Satan did not enter him until Jesus pulled his protection

Jhn 13:26 Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon.

Jhn 13:27 As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. "What you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him,

It was not until it was time, did Jesus pull his protection from Judas

How many times did Satan entered Judas? Here is another account here: Luke 22:1-6

It does make me wonder if none of His disciples were bought with a orice and sealed as His yet, then they are what? Of the devil? Is it not true that they are either of God or of the devil? And yet all has been concluded under sin as all is in need of the Saviour.

Luk 22:31 "Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat.

Luk 22:32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."

Here it would seem that Satan needed Jesus permission to test Peter.

Agreed that all save Judas was under that protection from destruction, but I would think that Satan asking for permission was only because Jesus had casted him out of Peter, and being given that permission, shows the fiery trial that was trying Peter meant Satan had accessed to Peter before.

Every once in awhile you will hear someone called Einstein, not because there name was changed, but because they did something very smart, you might hear someone say good job Einstein. It just means that they did something that was found to be very intelligent

I understand that application, but failing to see that application as being done by Jesus is key. The lack of it and only occurring at the incident with Peter so forthrightly, I can understand why Satan had to ask permission for sifting Peter like wheat simply because Jesus had casted Satan out of Peter to get behind Jesus so that Peter could never be in His way again:

That is how I see Jesus rebuke of Peter. Peter wanted to stop Jesus death, if that would have happened no one would be saved. That what Satan wants and why Jesus called peter Satan. It was not because Satan entered Peter, but because Peters will, would have kept all men in their sin

Yet, by His grace, I see Jesus' rebuke at Peter was to keep Satan from using Peter to get in His way.

[Jay Dub]

Originally Posted by Jay Dub
Jhn 17:12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.

While Jesus was with them he kept them safe. Could Satan then have entered Peter? Was there a moment that Peter was not safe. Was there a moment that the protection of Jesus was not on these disciples

?But the one that has been lost was dued to suicide as in doomed to destruction. One could apply that verses in saying that Peter had not committed suicide after deserting and denying Jesus three times. Surely Peter felt like it but I am sure the Lord kept him in his turbulent time from self destrcution.

Yes but I don't see this as the meaning of the verse. I don't see it as physical protection

John 17:15
I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
Jhn 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Jesus protection was not physical, it was to keep them from evil, this was his protection. If his protection was physical then his prayer failed because all the disciples except john were killed for their beliefs To me Jesus protection and his prayer was to protect them from evil not physical harm

Agreed that all save Judas was under that protection from destruction, but I would think that Satan asking for permission was only because Jesus had casted him out of Peter, and being given that permission, shows the fiery trial that was trying Peter meant Satan had accessed to Peter before.

We see in Job that Satan could not touch Job until God gave him permission

Job 1:11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.

Job 1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath [is] in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

Why would we think the protection Jesus gave his disciples was different from the protection that Job had

[Pariah]

Yes but I don't see this as the meaning of the verse. I don't see it as physical protection

Being how that the one that was lost was to destruction: and that the others fled when Jesus was arrested including the denial of Peter's three times of ever knowing Jesus, the rest of the twelve returned to Jesus. In that, Jesus kept them.

John 17:15
I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
Jhn 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Jesus protection was not physical, it was to keep them from evil, this was his protection. If his protection was physical then his prayer failed because all the disciples except john were killed for their beliefs To me Jesus protection and his prayer was to protect them from evil not physical harm

I understand what you are saying but do note that the prayer was not against Satan as per se, but against evil as per your reference which is in regards to the world,

We see in Job that Satan could not touch Job until God gave him permission

Job 1:11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.

Job 1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath [is] in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

Why would we think the protection Jesus gave his disciples was different from the protection that Job had

Because of the difference between how Job was presenting himself righteous to how Simon turned Peter was under the deeds of the law to obtain that righteousness until His crucifixion.

God was showing off Job and declaring Job to be His as in the sons of God: Satan had to ask permission.

Simon turned Peter was not a child of God yet.

One thing to point out is in the latter days there will be many departing from faith in giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils: 1 Timothy 4:1-2 so here are actual believers that had faith in Jesus, but had moved away from their resting place into believing the doctrine of another spirit or another Jesus to receive. By doing so, God permitted them that believed this lie to suffer a strong delusion which is without a doubt applicable to those that preach another baptism of the Holy Spirit that comes with evidence of tongues as if there isn't one baptism of the Holy Spirit and that believers can't rest in Jesus Christ when they came to Him because they are not quite "complete" yet...which si a lie also.

If believers that have been bought with a price and sealed as His can suffer a thief to break through and great is the fall of that house, then Peter whom was not bought with a price and sealed as His yet was plenty opened to Satan to such a point that Jesus had to rebuke Satan out of Peter. By doing so: Satan was bound not to use Peter again to get in His way and thus Satan had to ask for permission to sift Peter like wheat later on.

If you can find an example of Jesus using the name of Satan in such a way that He was not really talking to Satan, feel free to post that verse. As it is, the Bible keyword search has turned up no examples of the Lord Jesus ever calling anyone else Satan when not referring to the actual devil himself.

We do see such direct commandment on Satan to obey Jesus so painting Jesus as metaphorically saying so would I believe, destroyed Simon when he was called Satan right after being renamed as Peter. I really believe that when Jesus addressed anyone: He means to be speaking to that person.

[Jay Dub]

I believe all the bible has to fit together kind of like a puzzle, it all must fit.
Can you please explain to me how your interpretation fits into this picture we have of the scriptures

Why would Satan enter Peter and try to stop the death of Jesus and then enter Judas and try to kill Jesus

Did Satan know his defeat would be at the cross? if so why enter Judas and try to kill Jesus. For me to believe that your interpretation of these scriptures are true, I need to know the answer of that question.

I hope you understand

[Lily]

I do miss Pariah.

[streetsinger]

I've had a read through, and thought I'd put in my three penn'orth. All Christians experience the enemy who tries to keep our minds on earthly things and attitudes. I don't believe Jesus was referring to Peter as Satan, he was talking directly to Satan because he knew that Peter had listened to Satan's apparent wisdom and because of his love for Jesus voiced it. With regard to Peters denial, I know that in my walk with the Lord I have no strength other than that which comes through the grace of God. If the grace is not there, neither is my strength. God often removes grace to try us. Peter had told Jesus that he would follow him to his death and I believe he would have done had Jesus not made the prediction that he would deny him, (after all it is believed that Peter willingly went to his death and asked if he could be crucified upside-down because he couldn't bare to, as he thought, dishonor Jesus by sharing his manner of death). Had he not stopped Peter, then there might well have been two on the cross and that would have defeated the object. So Satan sifting Peter may well have included Peters denial, it's interesting to note that Peter denied Jesus three times and Jesus asked him three times if he loved him after he had risen. We have to be careful because much of our thinking is from a worldly paradigm and we can only understand fully if we understand from a kingdom paradigm. Still, it's good to drink in the word.

[Jay Dub]

Very good to see you! streetsinger

I don't believe Jesus was referring to Peter as Satan, he was talking directly to Satan

Its an interesting thought, in all the times I have read it, I have never thought of it more then a rebuke towards Peter. I see it as Jesus saying, Peter this is 100% opposite the will of the Father.
I don't believe he was talking to Satan, I don't believe Satan knew his death would be our victory

They tried to kill Jesus many times all the Way back to his birth

Mat 2:16 When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.

If Satan wanted Jesus to live, he never would have entered Judas, before the betrayal. It seems to me that Satan wanted Jesus to die, for this reason I see Jesus rebuking peter and not talking to Satan

Peter had told Jesus that he would follow him to his death and I believe he would have done had Jesus not made the prediction that he would deny him, (after all it is believed that Peter willingly went to his death and asked if he could be crucified upside-down because he couldn't bare to, as he thought, dishonor Jesus by sharing his manner of death). Had he not stopped Peter, then there might well have been two on the cross and that would have defeated the object

First, Peter was not without sin so he could not of paid the price for our sins.

Here we go back to foreknowledge, Jesus prophesying what Peter would do, does not mean Jesus made it happen, only that he knew it would happen. He also predicted, that they would pierce him, give him vinegar to drink, cast lots for his clothes, bury him with the rich. Did he make all those things happen or did he just have foreknowledge.

[Galaen]

The death of Jesus was only the sacrifice for our sins it was not the victory, the victory comes with the resurrection of Jesus. Even if Peter had managed to get up on the cross with Jesus and die with Him it would not have made Jesus sacrifice for us invalid, it may have confused us a little and it may have taken some of the depth of meaning away because it could have led us to believe the two of them were needed. I can see that would have been somewhat detrimental to God's plan but it would not have removed the sacrifice of Jesus. It wasn't His death which gave us new life, it was His resurrection which gave us new life. His death gave us forgiveness, the blood had to be shed for forgiveness of sins. God the Father had foreknowledge of all that has and will happen but that does not mean he made them happen, it means He knew they would happen. Not only did the Father know but the Son knew as well - Father if this cup cannot be taken away from me etc. However whilst He was on the cross in agony I don't think His first thought would necessarily be about fulfilling scripture. I do not mean to bellitle what He did for us on the cross by this in any way at all but sometimes I think it is easy for us to forget Jesus, as well as being fully God, was also fully human. God the Father did leave Him for a short spell whilst He was on the cross, He had to leave Him because He could not stand the sight of our disgusting sin which hung there on our beautiful Saviour. We were the reason the Father left the Son alone on that cross. Because of God's love for us He suffered in a way none of us can fully appreciate. Maybe one day, but I doubt it.