Get Thee Behind Me, Satan - Matt 16:21-28; Mark 8:31-38; Luke 9:22-27

The next event is recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke and with the JST of these sections we can see that the content of all the recordings are almost identical, but there is enough variation in the wording and speech pattern that we can tell that these were written by different authors. Peter has boldly testified that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, but now the Savior prepares his disciples for his upcoming appointment with death. Jesus speaks plainly about how it will go down, “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.” The IM quotes Elder Robert D. Hales as teaching, “Jesus knew who He was- the Son of God. He knew His purpose- to carry out the will of the Father through the Atonement. His vision was eternal- ‘to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.’” Jesus was very clear on what his mission was, he learned it through study of the scriptures and personal revelation from the Holy Ghost. But this mission he was embarking on, the Atonement, was something that could only have been taught by the Spirit because no one at that time was talking or teaching about an atonement to be made. Clearly the need for an atonement and the promise that it would come was spelled out in the scriptures because Jesus repeated asked those whom he taught or those who antagonized him, “have you not read the scriptures?” before expounding on them. Despite this information that literally was in the book, most people at that time had no concept of what an atonement was, who needed it, or who would provide it. The concept of the Messiah at the time of Christ was a misinterpretation of the scriptures, the Jews commonly believed that the Messiah would come down from heaven in a chariot of fire and save the people of Israel and no one else, that they would be a political powerhouse again and be free from the slavery that constantly plagued them. This is the Messiah that they were looking for, so when a carpenter from an obscure town shows up with an intention to save all mankind, of course they didn’t believe him. People see what they are looking for, not necessarily what is really there.

Knowing this perspective makes Peter’s reaction understandable as he “took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.” It’s like that moment when you realize your whole life has been a lie, it’s devastating and almost incomprehensible. I would imagine that this would be a comparable moment to Peter, the moment when he realizes his whole life, his whole understanding of a “Savior”, has been a lie. This makes me wonder if Peter, and all the disciples for that matter, were wondering the whole time Jesus taught, when he was going to turn militant and over thrown the Romans. There must have been much confusion, with these men trying to reconcile everything they had been taught there whole life, and then the teachings of this man who they clearly believed to be the Messiah. The IM comments, “Because of the popular Jewish expectations of a conquering Messiah, it was difficult for Peter, as well as for many Jews of that time, to understand and accept the idea of a Messiah who would suffer and die. Paul wrote that the preaching of ‘Christ crucified’_ that is, a Messiah who suffered and died- was ‘unto the Jews a stumbling block. Many Old Testament passages that we now clearly recognize as prophecies about the Savior’s Atonement were not as clearly understood prior to the Resurrection…By focusing only on the Savior’s coming death, Peter failed to understand Jesus Christ’s true mission- the redemption of all mankind.”

Jesus’ response is severe, turning to Peter he says, “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.” It seems like a completely different exchange than the one recorded just previously with Peter boldly declaring Jesus as the Christ and in turn being strengthened by the Savior’s lessons. The IM says, “It may seem surprising that Peter, the senior Apostle, would ever rebuke the Savior, especially so soon after testifying ‘Thou art the Christ”… Peter probably meant well when he objected to the teaching that Jesus Christ would have to suffer and be killed.” Peter simply did not understand the Lord’s mission at that time, it didn’t make sense to him, he was probably thinking, “How will you overthrow Rome if you are dead?” JTC comments, “Peter saw mainly as men see, understanding but imperfectly the deeper purposes of God. Though deserved, the rebuke he received was severe. The adjuration, ‘Get thee behind me, Satan,’ was identical with that used against the arch-tempter himself, who had sought to beguile Jesus from the path upon which He had entered, and the provocation in the two instances was in some respect similar- the temptation to evade sacrifice and suffering, though such was the world’s ransom, and to follow a more comfortable way… In addressing Peter as ‘Satan,’ Jesus was obviously using a forceful figure of speech, and not a literal designation; for Satan is a distinct personage, Lucifer, that fallen, unembodied son of the morning; and certainly Peter was not he.”

Instead of calling Peter the actual person’s name (Satan), he was instead showing Peter that, as the IM says, “Christ recognized that at that moment Peter had put himself in an adversarial role, in opposition to the Savior’s ultimate saving mission… If Jesus had accommodated Peter’s wishes by avoiding the suffering of the Atonement, there would have no redemption from sins and no Resurrection conquering death. All mankind would unavoidably have perished, and God’s work of bringing to pass ‘the immortality and eternal life of man’ would not have been fulfilled. All this would have served the destructive aims of Satan. In the moment of his impulsive protest, Peter was unwittingly siding with the adversary.” This has always been a very difficult verse for me to understand because I always thought that Peter was telling his friend he didn’t want him to die, and the friend answered telling him to get away from him. That was always how I imagined the scenario playing out, which put Peter in the role as good guy and Jesus in the role of bad guy. Another way that this interaction could have sounded might have been, J: “I’m going to suffer and die soon.” P: “No, I’m not going to let that happen.” J: “I must do this to save all mankind. It is Satan’s will, not God’s, that I shrink away now.” The IM explains, “Seen in this light, the Savior’s rebuke can serve as a reminder to us that we cannot alter God’s plan to fit our own wishes; we must ‘reconcile (ourselves) to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil.’”

The JST of these next few verses provides much insight so I’m going to use that part for now. Jesus continues teaching his disciples, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me.” It is at this moment that I realize that Jesus was the ultimate example of suffering in this life with hopes of an eternal life to come. He had nothing, he suffered, not just the atonement, but his whole life, Joseph died, he had to care for his family, he was mocked, plotted on, hated, homeless, he really had nothing and gave everything. Every he did was for the good of someone else, and he didn’t receive any compensation in this life at all, not even a little bit. He was kind, and patient, and humble, and compassionate, and he looked forward to the rest and reward in the next life just as much as the rest of us do. That’s really interesting, I had never made that connection before. I always thought that Jesus had this eternal perspective because somehow he was living both a mortal existence here on earth, and an immortal existence in heaven at the same time. I don’t know why that made sense but I always thought that when he was speaking of rewards in the next life, he was speaking from personal experience, that he had somehow already received those rewards and basically lived a dual existence. He spoke with such authority that I could have only assumed that he was speaking from experience, not from a place of profound faith. This changes my whole perspective on a lot Jesus’ life. He was suffering like the rest of us, he hadn’t been secretly rewarded with anything, he did have Heavenly Father come down every night and “show” him what he was getting, he believed and he hoped, just like the rest of us. This changes everything.

When Jesus references the cross, as in “take up his cross and follow me,” the IM says, “Even before the Savior’s Crucifixion, the image of ‘taking up one’s cross’ would have been a familiar and perhaps troubling one for the disciples. Crucifixion was a common means of execution in the Roman Empire, and its victims were made to carry their own crossbeams to the place of execution. By using this imagery, the Savior vividly taught His disciples what they must be ready for and called upon them to follow His example by submitting to the will of the Father in the lives. Luke 9:23 adds that we should be willing to take up our cross daily and follow Jesus.. Following Jesus Christ may not require us to literally lose our lives as martyrs like Peter, Paul, or the Prophet Joseph Smith, but we can demonstrate that willingness by giving our lives in service to the Lord.” I think in some ways, it’s easier to die for a cause than it is to live for it. We can only die once, everyone does it and if you’re relatively comfortable with the idea of dying, then you don’t have to change anything about you or your lifestyle or sacrifice or make any other commitment, you just have to be ready to make your journey to the next life earlier than you would have otherwise had to. But to live for a cause, that is to change who you are, what you do, how you act, and how you live to be in concordance with your cause. People say so often, “I love my kids, I would die for them.” That does indicate love, that you’d be willing to sacrifice your own life for theirs, but that situation doesn’t really come up as much as we think it does. That’s like saying, “If the chips are ever really down, then yes I will allow my life to be ended prematurely to protect my offspring.” But really, what are you giving up if you ever do have to die for your children? You are giving up on theoretical time, experiences that hadn’t happened yet, and you don’t know how much time either, but many times, by saying that we think that that excuses us from any other responsibility. When I hear people say this, I want to ask, “yes, you’d die for them, but would you live for them?” It’s one thing to make a single grand gesture to demonstrate love, but it is so much more difficult to make little, incremental changes in your life so that you are dedicated to you cause.

Jesus tells us that to take up our cross “is to deny himself all ungodliness, and every worldly lust, and keep my commandments. Break not my commandments for to save your lives; for whosoever will save his life in this world, shall lose it in the world to come. And whosoever will lose his life in this world, for my sake, shall find it in the world to come.” The italicized portions are the JST and they add so much value to the Savior’s words. These verses go from being abstract counter-intuitive statements to an empowering description of the eternal perspective. Reading these and thinking about this topic is what really helped me put together Jesus’ eternal perspective and the feeling that he looked forward to rest and reward as much as anyone else. Because really, the original verse reads, “for whosoever will save his life shall lose it. And whosoever will lose his life, for my sake, shall find it.” This statement makes no sense, who doesn’t want to save their own life, we aren’t supposed to commit suicide so we apparently are supposed to value our existence, but how do we save our own lives? What about those who perform life saving services? Are they going to lose their lives? It makes it sound like salvation is a very tricky achievement, instead of the conscious decision that it is. The original also makes it sound like those who die for Christ’s sake will have salvation, but that’s all. So if I’m not martyred I won’t be saved? Do I have to dedicate my life to the church then in order to be saved? Must I become a nun and swear off other aspects of life so that I can live in the streets and administer to the poor? Is that the only way to salvation? Satan was very clever when he cut these parts out.

Finally, Jesus finishes, “Therefore, forsake the world, and save your souls; for what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lost his own soul? Or what shall a  man give in exchange for his soul?” There is a fantastic October 2012 general conference address entitled “What shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” by Elder Robert C. Gay. He relates a story about when he would go to the movies as an eleven year old boy with 50 cents, he would use 25 cents to buy a child’s movie ticket and then the other 25 cents to buy 5 candy bars for 5 cents a piece. He says, “All was well until I turned 12. Standing in line one afternoon, I realized that the ticket price for a 12-year-old was 35 cents, and that meant two less candy bars. Not quite prepared to make that sacrifice, I reasoned to myself, ‘You look the same as you did a week ago.’ I then stepped up and asked for the 25-cent ticket. The cashier did not blink, and I bought my regular five candy bars instead of three. Elated by my accomplishment, I later rushed home to tell my dad about my big coup. As I poured out the details, he said nothing. When I finished, he simply looked at me and said, ‘Son, would you sell you soul for a nickel?’” When he grew older he asked a similar question to a “Melchizedek Priesthood holder” who wsan’t active, and spent most Sundays taking his son to championship sports games. He recalled, “As we met, I reminded him that, as a priesthood holder, he was promised that if he magnified his oath and covenant, he would receive ‘all that (our) Father hath.’ Then I asked him, ‘is a national championship work more than all the Father has?’” He continues, “Someone recently asked me, ‘Does one drink really matter?’ Can you see that this is the adversary’s question? Cain asked, ‘who is the Lord that I should know him?’ and then lost his soul. With self-justification of petty sins, Satan triumphs. For a bottle of milk, a misspelled name, a mess of pottage, birthrights and inheritances have been traded. As we consider the nickel or national-championship exchanges in our lives, we can either self-justify our actions, like Cain, or look to submit to the will of God… To the question, ‘what will a man give in exchange for his soul?’ Satan would have us sell our lives for the candy bars and championships of this world. The Savior, however, calls us, without price, to exchange our sins, to take upon us His countenance, and to take that into the hearts of those within our reach. For this we may receive all that God has, which we are told is greater than all the combined treasures of this earth. Can you even imagine? On a recent trip to Nicaragua, I noticed a plaque in the modest home of a family we visited. It read, ‘My Testimony is my most precious possession.’ So it is with me. My testimony is my soul’s treasure, and in the integrity of my heart, I leave you my witness that this church is God’s true church, that our Savior stands at its head and directs it through His chosen prophet.”