Matthew ch 16, verse 23, Jesus says to Peter “Get behind me, Satan!” . . . Did Jesus later give Peter an apology?

[Multicolored Lemur]

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 16 - Revised Standard Version

The Demand for a Sign - And the Pharisees and Sad′ducees came, and to test him they asked him to show them a sign from heaven. He answered them, “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather; for the sky is red.’ And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and...

www.biblegateway.com

.

.

.

.

21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.

22 And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, “God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you.”

23 But he turned and said to Peter, ”Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance [stumbling block] to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men.”

————————

Peter was trying to stand up on Jesus’s behalf! Yes, I think Jesus should have later given Peter an apology.

Maybe Jesus is kind of a rock star character. And if someone dares to treat him as a regular guy and yell at him, Jesus is going to yell right back ? ??

——————

Jesus was probably a real person, upon which a lot of legend was built.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

Mark, chapter 8 — did Jesus later apologize to Peter for saying “Get away from me, Satan!” ? ??​

This is the same part in a different Gospel.

And I think the same lack of an apology.

 

[Scooter]

Jesus did not apologize because He did nothing to apologize for. Jesus lived a perfectly sinless life.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

23 But he turned and said to Peter, ”Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance [stumbling block] to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men.”

————————

Peter was trying to stand up on Jesus’s behalf! Yes, I think Jesus should have later given Peter an apology.

Whether or not an apology was needed, would depend on why Jesus said what he did. Was Satan possessing Peter in some way? Or was this just how Jesus referred to someone or some comment as being evil, by calling someone a name?

I think the 1st scenario is possible. If it's the last scenario, then I think that is disrespectful. Not sure if it rises to the level of a sin, but I would've still apologized.

 

[Scooter]

Whether or not an apology was needed, would depend on why Jesus said what he did. Was Satan possessing Peter in some way? Or was this just how Jesus referred to someone or some comment as being evil, by calling someone a name?

I think the 1st scenario is possible. If it's the last scenario, then I think that is disrespectful. Not sure if it rises to the level of a sin, but I would've still apologized.

The word "Satan" means "adversary". Here is Strong's definition:

STRONGS G4567:
σαταν indeclinable (2 Corinthians 12:7 R G (Tdf. in 1 Kings 11:14 accents σαταν (Lagarde leaves it unaccented))), ὁ, and ὁ σατανᾶς (i. e. with the article (except in Mark 3:23; Luke 22:3)), σατανᾶ (cf. Buttmann, 20 (18); Winer's Grammar, § 8, 1) ((Aram. סָטָנָא, stative emphatic of סָטָן.) Hebrew שָׂטָן), adversary (one who opposes another in purpose or act); the appellation is given to:
1. the prince of evil spirits, the inveterate adversary of God and of Christ

Peter was not possessed by Satan. Peter was opposed to Jesus being crucified. However, that was the reason Jesus came to this earth; to die for man's sins. Peter was opposing God's plan of salvation. Anyone who opposes God's will becomes an adversary, and therefore, a satan. Notice Adam Clarke's commentary on this verse:

Get thee behind me, Satan - Υπαγε οπισω μου σατανα . Get behind me, thou adversary. This is the proper translation of the Hebrew word שטן Satan, from which the Greek word is taken. Our blessed Lord certainly never designed that men should believe he called Peter, Devil, because he, through erring affection, had wished him to avoid that death which he predicted to himself. This translation, which is literal, takes away that harshness which before appeared in our Lord's words.

So Jesus did not apologize because He did nothing wrong.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

Whether or not an apology was needed, would depend on why Jesus said what he did. Was Satan possessing Peter in some way?

My mother was raised in the Catholic Church way back in the 1940’s and early 50’s. And after a sermon [called a ”homily” by Catholics], they were back home in their kitchen. My Mom as a girl said something about the sermon.

And her mother said in a quick aside, “I think the devil is a dangerous idea.”

———

meaning, my Grandmother liked the Catholic Church just fine, but some of the teachings she discounted and took with a big grain of salt!

* Yes, I really am this old. I’m in my early 60s!

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

If it's the last scenario, then I think that is disrespectful. Not sure if it rises to the level of a sin, but I would've still apologized.

This is because you’re viewing Jesus and Peter as near-equals. Or as equal enough that it matters how Jesus treats Peter.

There’s this guy who writes about dysfunctional families who writes about the “poisonous” mindset. And when of these poisonous beliefs is “The child is responsible for the adult’s anger.”

Not that the adult gets mad when the child does the same thing yet again, when you thought he or she was onto a better pattern of behavior.

But the belief that the degree of anger is some kind of great barometer of how wrong the act is. But anger’s just too sloppy. And a lot has to do with what kind of day you’re having. And whether the child can “intuit” that, well, that’s pretty sloppy and imprecise, too.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

This is the psychology writer I’m remembering, from a long time ago.