Matthew 16:21-23 and Satan's Role in the Crucifixion of Jesus

[Alan Gross]

I would appreciate your not using this kind of unnecessarily antagonistic language ("organ grinder," "monkey") toward anyone in this thread. Such words do not serve any edifying purpose.

I did in fact delete the offending words almost as soon as I had written them. I apologize for messing up your thread.

Just be glad that you weren't Jesus calling Peter, "Satan".

Scripture More Accurately wouldn't appreciate it.

Not only would it be said that Jesus' words, "do not serve any edifying purpose", as "unnecessarily antagonistic language", but they would make an "organ grinder," and a "monkey", responsible for influencing the words you were responding to.

The monkey made him do it.

I am in the process of determining what I believe about that subject based on what Scripture actually says. I am not presently at the point where I am ready to set forth any settled position.

Have you determined whether Satan is in Matthew 16:21-23?

Are you sure?

You are wrong because you present the Devil as not seeking Christ's death.

People have discussed that they don't see Satan in the only verses that you allow to be discussed.

This is my thread. I get to decide what I am going to talk about. You have your threads to discuss that subject that you want to discuss the way that you want to discuss it.

It is not fair for you to come to my thread and try to make my thread a discussion of what you want to discuss instead of what I want to discuss.

Satan is not in the verses you want to discuss, any more than an "organ grinder," or "monkey", and if he was, he'd be against Jesus' death, so your thread is only about what you want to discuss that doesn't exist, or that is entirely backward.

Either way.

It's a forced non-existent, or groundless discussion.

Stop.

Now, you don't get to control the thread or who responds. My question is on topic to the thread (Satan's role in the crucifixion).

You are free to believe what you want to believe.

We are all free to believe what we want to believe. And we are all free to argue our beliefs on these threads. I am asking what you believe.

There are many passages and questions that are important to the topic. It is not fair for you to try to force a discussion on someone else's thread that they do not want to discuss the way that you want to discuss it.

Jesus used the Hebrew word for being an adversary for Peter because Peter "savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

That looks like the Bible's meaning from within the very permitted verses themselves, 37.

Good show.

Nailed it.

"Point, 37".

The OP is about the Devil's role in the Crucifixion and Matthew 16:21-23.

 

[JonC]

Just be glad that you weren't Jesus calling Peter, "Satan".

Lol...yep. Jesus called one Disciple the Devil. Interestingly enough, Scripture even tells us Satan entered him.

But with Peter we see something entirely different (actually, the opposite of what Judas did).

Peter expressed Jesus will as a man, to let that cup pass. But it was the Father's will that mattered.

Jesus clarified what He meant, so this OP really wasn't needed. Peter was speaking out of a mind set on man's interest, not God's. He was speaking of Peter as an adversary, not influenced by the Devil but an adversary to what Jesus had come to do.

How often are we "Satan" to others, even with well meaning words? How often do we set our minds on man's interest rather than God's?


@Scripture More Accurately made a common error. He wanted to prove a point and went to the Bible to look for support. This meant he had to deny all Scripture negating his point and remove the verses he used from its own context.

But I think we are all tempted to do that sometimes - to use the Bible as a type of reference book to support our ideas. And like the OP, every such attempt falls short of biblical truth.

That is why it is so important to read Scripture open to what God has revealed in its text. We have to derive doctrine from God's Word rather than use the Bible to try and prop up our ideas.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

@Scripture More Accurately made a common error. He wanted to prove a point and went to the Bible to look for support. This meant he had to deny all Scripture negating his point and remove the verses he used from its own context.

These are false and patronizing remarks by someone who has an overinflated opinion of his own handling of Scripture.

I did not make a common error. I did not go to Scripture to look for support because I wanted to prove a point.

I have not denied any Scripture, and I have not taken anything out of context. These are nothing more than your baseless opinions.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

@Scripture More Accurately,
regarding Matthew 16:21-23, ". . . But 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." Jesus used the Hebrew word for being an adversary for Peter bcause Peter "savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." Compare Numbers 22:22, Moses' use of the term regarding the LORD God opposing Balaam.

That Hebrew word is used repeatedly in the OT to speak of the devil (1 Chr. 21:1; Job 1:6, 7, 8, 9, 12; 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7; Zech. 3:1, 2). The NT was not written in Hebrew. The Greek word refers to Satan in every other passage in the NT.

 

[JonC]

These are false and patronizing remarks by someone who has an overinflated opinion of his own handling of Scripture.

I did not make a common error. I did not go to Scripture to look for support because I wanted to prove a point.

I have not denied any Scripture, and I have not taken anything out of context. These are nothing more than your baseless opinions.

We all have opinions that influence our posts.

Mine here is not baseless (it looks s bad d on the fact that you refuse to deal with passages directly referencing the Devil's role in the crucifixion and how those verses apply to our understanding of Matthew 16:21-23). My opinion might be wrong, but it is not baseless.

Christians should be able to give an account of their faith and willing to work through Scripture as a whole when addressing topics.

That is the common error you made. You chose 3 verses to determine the role the f the Devil in the crucifixion, but the 3 verses you chose was dealing with Peter's words tempting Jesus (a stumbling block) whether Peter was being Satan or Satan was using Peter, or the words themself.

You ignored that Jesus also desired that the cup pass. You ignored passages directly dealing with the Devil's role in the crucifixion.

So yes, Satan was a stumbling block to Jesus in the verse.

We also have to look to other passages directly dealing with the role of the Devil to actually address the OP.

"But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. You are doing the deeds of your father.”

"You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. “


Do you believe that those men seeking to kill Jesus were doing the deeds of their father the Devil?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

One thing is absolutely certain: whoever it was who 'murdered' the Lord Jesus, it was not the people mentioned in John 8:31-59. 'Then they took up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.' His time had not yet come.
So who were these people? They were those who had, briefly, 'believed in Him' (John 8:30-31). There are no other people mentioned. Herod was not there; nor were Pilate, the Gentiles, nor the huge majority of the Jewish people, who are described in Acts of the Apostles 4:27f as being 'gathered together to do' God's will and purpose. Most of the Jews would be shouting, "Hosanna! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord" (John 12:13), until they were 'stirred up' not by Satan, but by the chief priests to bray for His death (Mark 15:11). Nor is there any reason to suppose that these folk were possessed by the devil. Satan is well able to deceive unbelievers into doing his will without the necessity of indwelling them (Ephesians 2:1-3). Bob Dylan may not have been any sort of theologian, but he had it right at this point:

There is in John 8, no direct statement that Satan wanted Jesus dead. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Christ's atoning death on the cross would take all Satan's power away from him. That is why in his temptation of our Lord, in the words of Peter in Mark 8:32-33, at Gethsemane, in the words at the cross of every group without exception (Mark 15:29-32; Luke 23:36-37), he is urging Him to disobey the Father and not to die upon the cross. That Satan was a murderer from the beginning means that he is responsible for all deaths from the very first one. That he is the father of lies means that he told the very first one (Genesis 3:4). if he wanted Christ dead at the time of John 8 (and there is no firm reason to think he did), it was because if our Lord died in any other way than on the cross, He would not have taken away the curse on mankind (Galatians 3:10-14).

So who 'murdered' Jesus? No one. Just believe the words He says: "No one takes My life from Me." How much clearer do we want Him to be? "But I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.'

But if that is not enough; if some here are not prepared to take the words of our Lord at face value, here are some corroborating words from the Holy Spirit. '[He] Does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people's, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself' (Hebrews 7:27). '... But now, at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin, by the sacrifice of Himself' Hebrews 9:26: cf. also v.14). 'But this Man, when He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God ...' (Hebrews 10:12).

It was Christ Himself, at the command of God the Father, who offered Himself willingly for the salvation of mankind and the utter defeat of Satan. That wicked men condemned Him and nailed Him to the tree is not at issue, but were they doing the will of Satan? No! They were fulfilling 'the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God' (Acts 2:23). Nor was it done secretly by the powers of darkness; 'this thing was not done in a corner' Acts 26:26).

 

[JonC]

One thing is absolutely certain: whoever it was who 'murdered' the Lord Jesus, it was not the people mentioned in John 8:31-59. 'Then they took up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.' His time had not yet come.
So who were these people? They were those who had, briefly, 'believed in Him' (John 8:30-31). There are no other people mentioned. Herod was not there; nor were Pilate, the Gentiles, nor the huge majority of the Jewish people, who are described in Acts of the Apostles 4:27f as being 'gathered together to do' God's will and purpose. Most of the Jews would be shouting, "Hosanna! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord" (John 12:13), until they were 'stirred up' not by Satan, but by the chief priests to bray for His death (Mark 15:11). Nor is there any reason to suppose that these folk were possessed by the devil. Satan is well able to deceive unbelievers into doing his will without the necessity of indwelling them (Ephesians 2:1-3). Bob Dylan may not have been any sort of theologian, but he had it right at this point:

There is in John 8, no direct statement that Satan wanted Jesus dead. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Christ's atoning death on the cross would take all Satan's power away from him. That is why in his temptation of our Lord, in the words of Peter in Mark 8:32-33, at Gethsemane, in the words at the cross of every group without exception (Mark 15:29-32; Luke 23:36-37), he is urging Him to disobey the Father and not to die upon the cross. That Satan was a murderer from the beginning means that he is responsible for all deaths from the very first one. That he is the father of lies means that he told the very first one (Genesis 3:4). if he wanted Christ dead at the time of John 8 (and there is no firm reason to think he did), it was because if our Lord died in any other way than on the cross, He would not have taken away the curse on mankind (Galatians 3:10-14).

So who 'murdered' Jesus? No one. Just believe the words He says: "No one takes My life from Me." How much clearer do we want Him to be? "But I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.'

But if that is not enough; if some here are not prepared to take the words of our Lord at face value, here are some corroborating words from the Holy Spirit. '[He] Does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people's, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself' (Hebrews 7:27). '... But now, at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin, by the sacrifice of Himself' Hebrews 9:26: cf. also v.14). 'But this Man, when He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God ...' (Hebrews 10:12).

It was Christ Himself, at the command of God the Father, who offered Himself willingly for the salvation of mankind and the utter defeat of Satan. That wicked men condemned Him and nailed Him to the tree is not at issue, but were they doing the will of Satan? No! They were fulfilling 'the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God' (Acts 2:23). Nor was it done secretly by the powers of darkness; 'this thing was not done in a corner' Acts 26:26).

I like that Dylan album (Saved, if I remember).

But no, you are wrong.

Scripture is clear that Jews nailed Jesus to a cross and put Him to death. Scripture is clear that Satan was behind handing Jesus over to those men who nailed Jesus to a cross and put Him to death. To deny those facts is to deny God's Word.

What you cannot do is reconcile Satan entering Judas to hand Jesus over to the Jewish authorities who would nail Jesus to a cross and put Him to death with Jesus laying down His own life, nobody robbing His life from Him.

But that is a problem with you. Many (probably most) Christians do not have that problem.

One issue you have us you elevate Satan to the level of God. Satan is the Adversary. But Satan is not all powerful. Satan knows his time is short (even demons believe). What you see on the cross is Satan's "fierce wrath" as he knows his time is short.

There are no passages that indicate the Devil believes he can win against God. Instead Scripture indicates the Devil is pouring out His wrath, knowing his end will come.

 

[Alan Gross]

regarding Matthew 16:21-23, ". . . But 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." Jesus used the Hebrew word for being an adversary for Peter bcause Peter "savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." Compare Numbers 22:22, Moses' use of the term regarding the LORD God opposing Balaam.

That Hebrew word is used repeatedly in the OT to speak of the devil (1 Chr. 21:1; Job 1:6, 7, 8, 9, 12; 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7; Zech. 3:1, 2). The NT was not written in Hebrew. The Greek word refers to Satan in every other passage in the NT.

Right here, we may have a resolution.

"Ha" added to the word, "satan", means that it is not a proper noun.

Hebrew;

We see here, the reading of, "the satan";
23. wayiphen wayo’mer l’Phet’ros sur me`alay hasatan...

“Get away from Me, the satan!


https://ancient-hebrew.org/names/Satan.htm;
The Hebrew for Satan is הסטן (hasatan).

The prefix ה (ha) means "the" which identifies the noun סטן (satan) is a noun and not a proper name and should therefore be translated as "the adversary."

http://www.bayithamashiyach.com/Matthew.html;
The biblical Hebrew noun satan (sah-TAN) means “adversary” or “opponent.”

23. wayiphen wayo’mer l’Phet’ros sur me`alay hasatan mik’shol ‘atah li
ki lib’ak l’dib’rey b’ney-‘adam w’lo’ l’dib’rey ‘Elohim.

Matt16:23 But He turned around and said to Phetros (Kepha),

“Get away from Me, the satan! You are a stumbling block to Me,
because your heart is set on the things of sons of men and not on the things of Elohim.”
...

Greek;

‹23› ὁ δὲ στραφεὶς εἶπεν τῷ Πέτρῳ, Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω µου, Σατανᾶ·
σκάνδαλον εἶ ἐµοῦ, ὅτι οὐ φρονεῖς τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλλὰ τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων.

23 ho de strapheis eipen tŸ PetrŸ,
But he having turned around said to Peter,

Hypage opis mou, Satana; skandalon ei emou,
“Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me;

hoti ou phroneis ta tou theou alla ta tn anthrpn.
for you are not thinking the things of Elohim but the things of men.”

https://biblehub.com/greek/4567.htm;
Satanas: the adversary, Satan, i.e. the devil
Original Word: Σατανᾶς, ᾶ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: Satanas
Phonetic Spelling: (sat-an-as')
Definition: the adversary, Satan, the devil
Usage: an adversary, Satan.


And, may we call Σατανᾶς, vocative?; (vɒkətɪv ) Word forms: vocatives plural. countable noun.

A vocative is a word such as `darling' or ` sir' that is used to address someone or attract their attention.

4567 [e]
Satana
Σατανᾶ !
Satan
N-VMS, i.e., 'V', for vocative.
...

II Samuel 19:22;

King James Bible
"And David said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah, that ye should this day be adversaries unto me? shall there any man be put to death this day in Israel? for do not I know that I am this day king over Israel?" II Samuel 19:22.

Pulpit Commentary
Verse 22. - Ye sons of Zeruiah... adversaries unto me; literally, that ye be to me for a Satan; rendered "adversary" in Numbers 22:22, but by Ewald in this place "tempter." It probably means "one who would do me harm."

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament;
What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah (cf. 2 Samuel 16:10), for ye become opponents to me to-day?" שׂטן, an opponent, who places obstacles in the way (Numbers 22:22)

adversaries
לְשָׂטָ֑ן (lə·śā·ṭān)
Preposition-l | Noun - masculine singular
Strong's 7854: An opponent -- Satan, the arch-enemy of good
see: Strong's Hebrew: 7854. שָׂטָן (satan) -- 27 Occurrences

In the LXX, II Samuel is II Kings (of IV) 19:22;
"that ye as it were lie in wait against me this day?"

Gill; that ye should this day be adversaries unto me? or a Satan unto me, as the word is, by advising him to do what would be prejudicial to his interest;
see Matthew 16:22.

 

[JonC]

This goes back to an earlier used illustration:

A man has two sons. The man falls seriously ill.
One son prays to God that his father recovers.
The other son hopes his father died so he can get his inheritance.
The Father dies. It was God's will that the Father die.

So who was the good son? Which son did God's will?

By @Martin Marprelate 's logic the greedy son who hoped for his father's death so he could get an inheritance did God's will as evidenced by it being God's will that his father die.

But biblically, the son who prayed for his father's recovery did God's will even though it was God's will that his father die. He, not the greedy son, was the good son in this illustration.


We cannot ignore that Jesus lay down His own life, had authority over His own life, and it was not robbed of Him. We can't ignore that God sent His Son for this purpose, it was God's will and predetermined plan.

BUT we also cannot ignore that Satan entered Judas to hand Jesus over to the Jewish Authorities that nailed Him to a cross and put Him to death.

Those passages are not contradictions.

 

[Alan Gross]

One thing is absolutely certain: whoever it was who 'murdered' the Lord Jesus,

I like where you put murdered in quotes.

Murdered, by itself, has a little too much 'hands-on' personal responsibility to it, especially the more permanent sounding finality of it.

Christ's atoning death on the cross would take all Satan's power away from him. That is why in his temptation of our Lord, in the words of Peter in Mark 8:32-33, at Gethsemane, in the words at the cross of every group without exception (Mark 15:29-32; Luke 23:36-37), he is urging Him to disobey the Father and not to die upon the cross.

Martin Marprelate says,

1.) "Christ's atoning death on the cross would take all Satan's power away from him."

2.) "That is why in his temptation of our Lord, in the words of Peter in Mark 8:32-33, at Gethsemane."

3.) "In the words at the cross of every group without exception (Mark 15:29-32; Luke 23:36-37), he is urging Him to disobey the Father and not to die upon the cross."

Let's grant Scripture More Accurately what he is saying is that the Devil didn't want Jesus to die.

Let's say this was a follow-up on Satan telling Jesus to bow at his feet and to just skip going to the cross, being buried, and being raised again on the third day.

Let's skip everything about what the 'Satan' here is.

Let's just say Jesus was quick on the draw and at the same time decided to respond to Peter and let Satan know that He knew that Satan was influencing Peter, directly, and trying to pull off another, "I want you to live and bow down to me", when Peter said, "be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee."

That leaves Jesus alive, with no crucifixion.

So again, from Matthew 16:21-23, the O.P. is about Satan's Role in the Crucifixion of Jesus, while Matthew 16:21-23, would teach that then, Satan's Role in the Crucifixion, at that time, was to get the crucifixion canceled, and for Jesus to continue just living right on along.

We sure didn't see that trick title, if we grant all that.

Matthew 16:21-23, as an O.P.
is about Satan's Role in the Crucifixion of Jesus.

However, there is an assumption made there, that Matthew 16:21-23 has some content about Satan and his Role in the Crucifixion of Jesus,

when the content of, Matthew 16:21-23, would be describing,
How Satan Attempted to Prevent the Crucifixion of Jesus.

There would be no Crucifixion and Satan, therefore, would have had no role in it, apart from being able to prevent it.

Is that trying to make any sense out of this mess?

Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23 But 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.

Shockingly, Jesus responded to Peter's statement by addressing Peter as Satan! Saying this, Jesus undeniably communicated that what Peter said was not of God, but rather was what Satan wanted. Peter's statements thus were an expression of the desires of both men and Satan that Jesus would not suffer at the hands of the Jewish authorities and be killed and be raised again the third day.

Again, undeniably in this passage, Jesus taught that Peter's not wanting Jesus to suffer at the hands of the Jewish authorities and be killed and be raised again on the third day was of Satan and men and not of God.

A biblical understanding about what Scripture reveals about Satan's role in the crucifixion of Jesus

So, we just get thrown, by Satan's Role in the Crucifixion of Jesus being to prevent Jesus' Crucifixion.

Scripture reveals about Satan's role in the crucifixion of Jesus must account for what Jesus explicitly said

Jesus explicitly said something about,
"Satan's role in the crucifixion of Jesus"?

"Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

So, Jesus undeniably communicated that what Peter said, about not wanting Jesus to die, was not of God. That says that for Jesus to die was God's will.

My post brought out truth from what Jesus said in a specific passage that reveals important truth about a specific subject.

"My post brought out truth from what Jesus said about,
"Satan's role in the crucifixion of Jesus"?

Have you said what you believe that was?

From what I understand the word 'explicit' to mean, Jesus here makes some statements about the roles "the elders and chief priests and scribes" were to have in His crucifixion, while Jesus doesn't explicitly mention Satan, or his role.

Jesus here explicitly calls Peter, "Satan", but does not say anything about Satan, explicitly.

Jesus explicitly states, in verse 23, that Peter, "savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

Jesus does not "undeniably communicate", or state explicitly, a word about what Satan wanted, or what Satan didn't want.

Rather than, "Matthew 16:21-23 and Satan's Role in the Crucifixion of Jesus", as the Title of the O.P., it now should be indicating, instead that in, "Matthew 16:21-23 Satan had no role he was to play and Satan never wanted to have any role in the Crucifixion of Jesus".

While nothing in the entire O.P., cites any words of Jesus explicitly saying anything about "Satan's role in the crucifixion of Jesus", the O.P., does make the argument that Satan desired no role in the Crucifixion of Jesus.

By preventing it.

This is said by Scripture More Accurately to be, "A biblical understanding about what Scripture reveals", as an "account for what Jesus explicitly said on this occasion that directly pertains to that subject", of "Satan's role in the crucifixion of Jesus" and/or I suppose, now, Satan's lack of desire to have a role in the crucifixion of Jesus.

"A biblical understanding about what Scripture reveals", as an "account for what Jesus explicitly said on this occasion that directly pertains to that subject", of "Satan's role in the crucifixion of Jesus"

What was Satan's Role, there?

I have not rejected any passages.

Could it be that you have rejected Matthew 16:21-23, which doesn't say anything about Satan's Role in the Crucifixion of Jesus?

...scratching my head wondering what prompted you to start this thread to begin with...

I don't think he would allow us to wonder who inspired it.

Unfortunately @Scripture More Accurately does not desire to examine Scripture more accurately.

I have not denied any Scripture, and I have not taken anything out of context.

If we try to grant you that, there was still quite a Byzantine Title given to it.

 

[JonC]

If we try to grant you that, there was still quite a Byzantine Title given to it.

Yep.

I am amazed that @Scripture More Accurately would insist no other passages except the three verses he provides be allowed on the thread examining the Devil's role in the crucifixion as there are many passages dealing with the topic.

That fact alone is all the proof we need to determine this thread was agenda driven without any regard for God's Word.

When considering a topic it is important not only to trust Scripture but also to examine all the passages we can that deal with the topic at hand. Scripture interprets Scripture. By insisting no other passages dealing with the role of the Devil in the crucifixion be discussed @Scripture More Accurately is effectively placing himself rather than God as the arbitrator of doctrine. That is wrong.

Do we need to consider Peter's words and Jesus' response? Sure, why not. Better to have more Scripture than less. BUT those three verses have to be considered in light of the plethora of passages actually dealing with the role of the Devil in the crucifixion (especially since Peter's words do not actually address the topic).

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

Yep.

I am amazed that @Scripture More Accurately would insist on other passages except the three verses he provides be allowed on the thread examining the Devil's role in the crucifixion as there are many passages dealing with the topic.

That fact alone is all the proof we need to determine this thread was agenda driven without any regard for God's Word.

When considering a topic it is important not only to trust Scripture but also to examine all the passages we can that deal with the topic at hand. Scripture interprets Scripture. By insisting no other passages dealing with the role of the Devil in the crucifixion be discussed @Scripture More Accurately is effectively placing himself rather than God as the arbitrator of doctrine. That is wrong.

Do we need to consider Peter's words and Jesus' response? Sure, why not. Better to have more Scripture than less. BUT those three verses have to be considered in light of the plethora of passages actually dealing with the role of the Devil in the crucifixion (especially since Peter's words do not actually address the topic).

You keep making false claims about me. I have not insisted that no other passages be discussed. I am not going to discuss the passages that you want to force to be discussed that I have already addressed in your thread. I am going to discuss what I believe should be discussed in this thread.

 

[JonC]

You keep making false claims about me. I have not insisted that no other passages be discussed. I am not going to discuss the passages that you want to force to be discussed that I have already addressed in your thread. I am going to discuss what I believe should be discussed in this thread.

I believe that verses specifically dealing with the Devil's involvement (the Jews seeking to kill Jesus doing Satan's work, Satan entering Judas to hand Jesus over to the Jewish leadership who would nail Him to a cross and put Him to death....at a minimum) must be included because of the topic of the OP.

You specifically rejected discussing those passages.

Here is the proof -

Do you believe that Satan entered Judas to hand Jesus over to the Jewish authorities who nailed Jesus to a cross and put Jesus to death?

Do you believe that those Jewish authorities seeking to kill Jesus were doing the work of Satan?

You refused to answer before, and whined that this was "your thread" and you didn't want to talk about those verses.

And that's fine. We can all read. You don't have to answer.

BUT you will NOT chastise others for discussing those passages on this thread. This is not your thread, it is a BB thread.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

Matthew 16:21 From 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. 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23 But 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.

Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32 And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. 33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

The Holy Spirit chose to inspire two Gospel writers to record this incident. The repeated recording in Scripture of Jesus' addressing Peter as Satan stresses the importance of His doing so.

 

[JonC]

Matthew 16:21 From 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. 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23 But 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.

Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32 And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. 33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

The Holy Spirit chose to inspire two Gospel writers to record this incident. The repeated recording in Scripture of Jesus' addressing Peter as Satan stresses the importance of His doing so.

Yes, Peters words were a temptation to Jesus, a stumbling block and from a perspective centered on man's interest rather than God's interest. Jesus said "get behind me Satan" (whether to the Devil or to the idea as an adversary....doesn't matter).

Now that you have those three verses, how should they be interpreted in light of Satan entering Judas to hand Jesus over to the Jewish authorities to be nailed to a cross and put to death? How should they be viewed in light of Jesus telling the Jewish authorities that they were seeking to put Him to death because they were doing the work of Satan?

All of those verses, and more, go perfectly together.

But to understand this one must first be able to accept God's Word (all of God's Word).

We agree Jesus said "get behind me Satan".

We agree that Jesus' will was the same as Peter expressed (that the cup pass).

But do you believe that those men seeking to put Jesus to death were doing Satan's work?

Do you believe that Satan entered Judas and handed Jesus over to the Jewish Authorities who nailed Him to a cross and put Him to death?


Until you are willing to accept all of God's Word the OP is meaningless. Once you believe God, however, then the OP can be legitimately examined.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I like that Dylan album (Saved, if I remember).

I believe it's from 'Slow Train Coming.'

But no, you are wrong.

Scripture is clear that Jews nailed Jesus to a cross and put Him to death. Scripture is clear that Satan was behind handing Jesus over to those men who nailed Jesus to a cross and put Him to death. To deny those facts is to deny God's Word.

The Scripture is very clear who put Christ on the cross. We have had the text so many times, but here you are again: 'Both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles [i.e. the Roman soldiers] and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done' (Acts of the Apostles 4:27-28). Specifically, it was not the Jews who nailed our Lord to the to a cross - it was the Roman soldiers - but clearly they were involved. However, I have shown that the Jews spoken of in John 8 were a small and specific group who failed utterly to put our Lord to death.
But as for who put the Lord Jesus to death, Scripture is quite specific: no one. I have given John 10:18 and four texts from Hebrews to show that the Lord Jesus laid down His own life at the command of the Father, to take it up again

What you cannot do is reconcile Satan entering Judas to hand Jesus over to the Jewish authorities who would nail Jesus to a cross and put Him to death with Jesus laying down His own life, nobody robbing His life from Him.

No. It is actually you who cannot reconcile these things. I have previously explained how I reconcile them, but you don't read people's posts with much comprehension. But again, the Jewish authorities did NOT nail our Lord to the cross All four Gospels make that clear. Nor did they put Him to death.

But that is a problem with you. Many (probably most) Christians do not have that problem.

No problem at all for me. I can't speak for other Christians like you think you can..

One issue you have us you elevate Satan to the level of God. Satan is the Adversary. But Satan is not all powerful. Satan knows his time is short (even demons believe). What you see on the cross is Satan's "fierce wrath" as he knows his time is short.

This is a false and mendacious statement about me. I have reported you previously for libeling me in this way, but as I suspected, it was a waste of time and I didn't even receive the courtesy of a reply. It appears that you have the other mods in your pocket. Never mind. Proverbs 26:2 applies.
What you have is Satan exhibiting his "fierce wrath" by doing exactly what God wants to happen. How does that work? But Satan only 'knows that he has a short time' (Revelation 12:12) after he is cast out of heaven, which is after Christ is taken up to heaven (Revelation 12:5

There are no passages that indicate the Devil believes he can win against God. Instead Scripture indicates the Devil is pouring out His wrath, knowing his end will come.

Before the death and resurrection of Christ, Satan is able to enter right into the presence of God to accuse 'the brethren' before Him 'day and night' (Revelation 12:10). But with Christ's atoning death on the cross, the penalty has been paid, the sins of the brethren have already been forgiven and therefore Satan has nothing with which to accuse them (Romans 8:33-34).. Therefore he is cast down and cannot prevent the Gospel from going out and souls being saved (c.f. Mark 3:27 etc.). There is no question of Satan being in any way at the level of God; that is a stupid statement and you should be ashamed of yourself. If anyone is making out Satan to be at the level of God, it is you, since you are suggesting that Satan killed Christ who is God.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

Yes, Peters words were a temptation to Jesus, a stumbling block and from a perspective centered on man's interest rather than God's interest. Jesus said "get behind me Satan" (whether to the Devil or to the idea as an adversary....doesn't matter).

Now that you have those three verses, how should they be interpreted in light of Satan entering Judas to hand Jesus over to the Jewish authorities to be nailed to a cross and put to death? How should they be viewed in light of Jesus telling the Jewish authorities that they were seeking to put Him to death because they were doing the work of Satan?

All of those verses, and more, go perfectly together.

But to understand this one must first be able to accept God's Word (all of God's Word).

We agree Jesus said "get behind me Satan".

We agree that Jesus' will was the same as Peter expressed (that the cup pass).

But do you believe that those men seeking to put Jesus to death were doing Satan's work?

Do you believe that Satan entered Judas and handed Jesus over to the Jewish Authorities who nailed Him to a cross and put Him to death?


Until you are willing to accept all of God's Word the OP is meaningless. Once you believe God, however, then the OP can be legitimately examined.

No, you do not get to dictate to others what they are to believe about how all of God's Word is to be put together. You cannot handle that people who believe all of the Bible is true yet disagree with how you think it should be all understood together so you keep trying to force your beliefs on others. You are going far beyond the legitimate role of a moderator in doing so.

 

[JonC]

I believe it's from 'Slow Train Coming.'

The Scripture is very clear who put Christ on the cross. We have had the text so many times, but here you are again: 'Both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles [i.e. the Roman soldiers] and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done' (Acts of the Apostles 4:27-28). Specifically, it was not the Jews who nailed our Lord to the to a cross - it was the Roman soldiers - but clearly they were involved. However, I have shown that the specific Jews spoken of in John 8 were a small and specific group who failed utterly to put our Lord to death.
But as for who put the Lord Jesus to death, Scripture is quite specific: no one. I have given John 10:18 and four texts from Hebrews to show that the Lord Jesus laid down His own life at the command of the Father, to take it up again

No. It is actually you who cannot reconcile these things. I have previously explained how I reconcile them, but you don't read people's posts with much comprehension. But again, the Jewish authorities did NOT nail our Lord to the cross All four Gospels make that clear. Nor did they put Him to death.
No problem at all for me. I can't speak for other Christians like you think you can..

Yep. It is from Slow Train (I should have remembered as the title track is one of my favorites....Slow Train Coming is better than Saved).

I'm not sure why you said I can speak for other Christians. If you mean because I said probably most Christians believe Satan was the one who caused Christ's death then I was being kind with the "probably". We know most Christians believe that the Devil caused Christ's death (whether right or wrong, that is the majority view).

By saying that you do not believe the Jewish authorities nailed Jesus to a cross and put Him to death are you objecting to "Jewish authorities" as opposed to "men of Israel" (the Jews in Jerusalem)?

If so, then I can go with that. They pled for Jesus' death.

But my point is that those men nailed Jesus to a cross and put Him to death. And doing so was evil (a sin that could be forgiven).

Acts 2:22–24 Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. “But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.

 

[JonC]

No, you do not get to dictate to others what they are to believe about how all of God's Word is to be put together. You cannot handle that people who believe all of the Bible is true yet disagree with how you think it should be all understood together so you keep trying to force your beliefs on others.

I agree, and I don't do that. God gave us His Word. His words matter.

I am not dictating what you believe. I don't care what you believe.

I am saying that until you are able to accept God's Word you will never understand the topic of this thread.

I am not posting in the role of moderator. I am arguing against an outright denial of God's Word.

I'm not arguing what I think . I don't mind doing so, but only among those who accept Scripture (all of Scripture). Here the discussion would be the role of the Devil and how this falls within God's authority and will.

But so far all I have done is post a few passages and ask you if you believe them. You could not commit.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

I agree, and I don't do that. God gave us His Word. His words matter.

I am not dictating what you believe. I don't care what you believe.

I am saying that until you are able to accept God's Word you will never understand the topic of this thread.

I am not posting in the role of moderator. I am arguing against an outright denial of God's Word.

I accept all of God's Word. I reject what you claim certain passages show and how you use them to support what you assert to be true.

I do not owe it to you or anyone else to prove that I accept all of God's Word.

Someone is doing things to certain comments in this thread that only a moderator can do.