27 Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi, and on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” 28 And they answered him, “John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.” 29 He asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Messiah.” 30 And he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him.
31 Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes and be killed and after three days rise again. 32 He said all this quite openly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. 33 But turning and looking at his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.
There are strong similarities to a Davidic court tale scene here:
Abishai son of Zeruiah answered, “Shall not Shimei be put to death for this because he cursed the Lord’s anointed?” 22 But David said, “What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah, that you should today become an adversary to me? Shall anyone be put to death in Israel this day? For do I not know that I am this day king over Israel?”(2 Sam 19:21-22)
In this allusion to the Davidic court tales, we have Abishai referencing David as the Lord’s anointed. Literally “Christ of the Lord” or “χριστὸν κυρίου” (BLB, retrieved 10/18/25) in the LXX. Messiah or מְשִׁ֥יחַ (Biblehub) in the Hebrew. Aside from the title ‘anointed’, we also see that David references himself as ‘king of Israel’, a phrase used to mock Jesus on the cross in 15:32. These titles are what is being sorted out in Mark 8:27-30, as Peter tells Jesus who Peter thinks Jesus is.
We also have a potential death sentence hanging in the balance in both passages. Shimei may be killed for mocking and throwing rocks at David (a scene later used as people mocked Jesus enroute to the cross). In Mark, it is the anointed who will be killed soon. David decides against killing Shimei.
These verses also have the idea of the adversary, or in the original Hebrew “adversaries,” to match “sons.” The etymology of Satan, used in Mark 8:31, includes the Hebrew for adversary, ha satan. Wycliffe’s has the phrase: “Why be ye made to me today into Satan, that is, (an) adversary?” Of course Wycliffe’s interpretation is not helpful in establishing that Mark, in the first century AD, was basing his passage on 2 Samuel 19. This is unexpected. The Greek LXX uses “anti” or “against” to describe the conflict between Abishai’s proposition and David’s response.
So how does Mark get to Satan here? Does he recognize the original Hebrew? Or perhaps is he using a Greek interpretation that includes the word Satan in the Greek for 2 Samuel 19? Or was the concept of “adversary” being ha satan just so well known to a Judean author of that time period?
Hey Colin, thanks for the reply.
your reply demonstrates the problem. I would expect a diablos could be translated back into a Satan. But there is no diablos here, just ‘anti’ as in Abishai ‘s statement opposed David’s wishes, rather than a diablos which would describe a person opposing.
The Hebrew, as presented in the Blue letter Bible, presents the phrase as the ‘sons of thunder’ as a plural ‘adversaries.’
Since the LXX simply lays out this conflict with ‘anti’ (the opposing idea) rather than a ‘diablos’ (an opposer), where would Mark decide to call out Peter as a ‘ Satan’ or adversary?
Perhaps Mark had a Greek manuscript that we don’t have, that translated the Hebrew ha satan into the Greek name Satanas. At any rate, Mark, writing in Greek and using Greek LXX, knows the underlying Hebrew text here.
FocusMyView said
… your reply demonstrates the problem. …
The term ‘satan’ was in use by Hellenistic Jews in the second temple period so there’s no reason to assume dependence on the Hebrew. But, more fundamentally, the problem is entirely dependent upon the assumption that 8,27-33 is modelled after 2 Sam 19,21-22.
Just reading Collins on this one set of verses.
The location really strikes me as important. Caesaria Philippi, for one thing was where Herod had constructed a statue of Augustus, and the town was renamed after Nero for a while as well. So a lot of kingship to contend with, and Peter is calling Jesus ‘the messiah’ at this location.
The location is very near Mt. Herman, and many think the transfiguration occurs on Mt. Herman.
The location is in the opposite direction of heading for Jerusalem, which Jesus and the disciples are about to embark on.
The location of Mt. Herman is mentioned in the book of Jesus (Joshua) along with the towns that Absalom’s mother is from. Absalom was a refugee there after murdering Amnon for his attack on Tamar. Absalom eventually journeys from this same region to Jerusalem after Joab convinces David to send for him. Soon after gaining an audience with king David, Absalom attempts a coup.
Actually, comparing the two stories, Absalom demanded to come into the king’s presence, while Jesus of course demands secrecy.
Of course Absalom dies hanging on a tree and Jesus ends up hanging on a cross. Absalom was called the king of Israel, as was Jesus, mockingly.
Also at this location was worship of Baal, and oracles were expounded there. So Peter’s confession and then Jesus’s foreshadowing of his death could easily be considered oracles here.
Mark really is brilliant. But it is hard to make out just how much of this is coincidence, and how much he intended.
Also, after Peter’s confession, Jesus instructs the disciples not to tell anyone about him. Was Peter unwittingly following these orders when he denied Jesus 3 times? If so, it would demonstrate just how in control of events Jesus and/or YHWH is in this tale Mark is telling.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)