In the span of just six verses (Matthew 16:13-28), Peter goes from receiving the highest praise from Jesus to getting a harsh rebuke. One moment he’s blessed as the “rock” upon which Christ will build His church, the next he’s called “Satan” and told to get behind Jesus. The jarring transition has puzzled readers for centuries and raises profound questions about discipleship, human nature, and God’s redemptive plan.

From rock to Satan in six verses. What went wrong? How does the blessed confessor become a satanic stumbling block so quickly? The answer reveals interesting truths.

 

THE GREAT CONFESSION AND ITS AFTERMATH

In Matthew 16, Jesus asks His disciples who people say He is, then presses for their personal conviction: “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answers, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16).

Jesus’ reply is equally stunning: “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:17-18).

But then comes verse 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.”

Peter’s response? “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you!” (Matthew 16:22).

And Jesus’ shocking reply: “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man” (Matthew 16:23).

 

“SATAN” IN CONTEXT

Before we can grasp why Jesus called Peter Satan, we need to understand what He meant. The Hebrew word satan simply means “adversary” or “opponent.” While it can refer to the devil, it doesn’t always. In Numbers 22:22, an angel of the Lord acts as a satan (adversary) to Balaam. In 1 Kings 11:14, God raises up human enemies as satan against Solomon.

The term describes function, not necessarily identity. Jesus isn’t saying Peter is literally the devil, but that he’s functioning as an adversary to God’s will. This makes the rebuke both more understandable and more sobering—even sincere, well-meaning disciples can become instruments of opposition to God’s purposes.

 

THE ECHO OF AN EARLIER TEMPTATION

Peter’s words echo the temptation Jesus had already faced. In Matthew 4, Satan offered Jesus the kingdoms of the world without the cross: “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me” (Matthew 4:9). Jesus refused, knowing God’s path to glory led through suffering.

Now Peter, motivated by love and loyalty, offers Jesus the same shortcut: avoid the cross, skip the suffering, find another way. Peter’s intentions are noble, but his counsel is satanic because it opposes God’s redemptive plan.

John Calvin observed Peter’s “carnal wisdom” sought to spare Christ from suffering, thereby undermining the very purpose of His incarnation. The road to redemption couldn’t bypass Calvary, and any attempt to divert Jesus from the cross—however well-intentioned—aligned with Satan’s agenda.

 

THE STUMBLING BLOCK EXPLAINED

Jesus calls Peter not just “Satan” but “a stumbling block” (skandalon in Greek). This isn’t merely an obstacle in the path; it’s an active trap or snare. Peter’s human reasoning had become a spiritual trap, threatening to derail God’s mission.

Here we see total depravity in action. Even Peter—the recipient of divine revelation, the confessor of Christ’s deity—remains capable of opposing God when his human emotions and reasoning take precedence over divine truth. His love for Jesus, unchecked by submission to God’s will, becomes a hindrance to God’s work.

This reveals a sobering truth: our natural inclination, even as believers, is to resist God’s ways when they conflict with our preferences. We want Jesus as Saviour but struggle to accept the necessity of His suffering. We desire God’s blessings but tend to recoil from His methods.

 

THINGS OF GOD VS THINGS OF MAN

Jesus identifies the core issue: “You are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.” This distinction is crucial for understanding the passage and its application to our lives.

From a human perspective, Peter’s response makes perfect sense. Who wants to see their beloved teacher suffer and die? Any loyal friend would object to such a fate. But God’s perspective is radically different. The cross isn’t a tragic accident to be avoided; it’s the necessary means of redemption, planned from eternity.

This tension between divine and human thinking runs throughout Scripture. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9).

Paul later wrote, “For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18). Human wisdom sees the cross as defeat; divine wisdom reveals it as victory.

 

WHY JESUS DIDN’T DISMISS PETER

Notice Jesus doesn’t reject Peter. He corrects him with a sharp rebuke designed for restoration, not destruction. “Get behind me” doesn’t mean “get away from me” but “return to your proper place as a follower.”

This reveals the heart of biblical discipline. God corrects those He loves (Hebrews 12:6). Peter needed to learn discipleship means following Jesus. On His terms, not ours. The path to glory leads through the valley of suffering. And all attempts to avoid this reality—however well-intentioned—oppose God’s will.

 

THE BIGGER PICTURE: PETER’S TRANSFORMATION

Peter’s story doesn’t end with Jesus’ rebuke. The same disciple who opposed the cross would later write, “Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings” (1 Peter 4:12-13).

What changed? Peter learned to align his thinking with God’s revealed will. He discovered God’s grace transforms failures into triumphs, opposition into advocacy. The cross he once opposed became the centre of his preaching and the source of his hope.

Peter’s experience reveals the complexity of following Jesus. Discipleship involves more than good intentions and sincere love; it requires submission to God’s will even when that will conflicts with our natural desires and reasoning.

 

CONCLUSION: WHY JESUS CALLED PETER SATAN

Jesus’ sharp words to Peter ultimately demonstrate His grace. Rather than allowing Peter to continue in his opposition, Jesus corrects him immediately and decisively. The rebuke that seems harsh is actually merciful—it prevents Peter from becoming a greater hindrance to God’s work and sets him back on the path of faithful discipleship.

The same grace operates in our lives today. When we oppose God’s will through misguided love, misplaced loyalty, or simple human reasoning, He corrects us. Sometimes His corrections feel harsh, but they’re always aimed at restoration, not destruction.

The God who transformed Peter from a stumbling block back into a rock is the same God who works in us today. He takes our failures, our opposition, and even our well-intentioned mistakes and uses them to conform us to Christ’s image. In His hands, even our satanic moments become stepping stones to greater faithfulness.

 

WHY JESUS CALLED PETER SATAN: RELATED FAQs

Did Jesus actually believe Peter was possessed by Satan when He called him “Satan”? No, Reformed scholars like DA Carson emphasise Jesus was addressing Peter’s function as an adversary, not his identity. The rebuke “had to do with Peter inadvertently denying Christ’s purpose” rather than demonic possession. The functional use of “Satan” (adversary) in Hebrew thought supports this interpretation over literalistic readings.

• Why didn’t Jesus rebuke Peter privately instead of publicly calling him “Satan”? Contemporary Reformed scholars note Jesus’ public rebuke served multiple purposes: it immediately corrected dangerous thinking that could influence other disciples. It demonstrated no disciple is above correction, and it showed opposition to God’s will—however well-intentioned—must be addressed decisively. The public rebuke prevented Peter’s sentiment from spreading among the twelve.
• Some scholars argue Jesus was addressing Satan through Peter. Is this interpretation valid? While some charismatic interpretations suggest Jesus was rebuking Satan who was speaking through Peter, Reformed scholars find this view problematic because it diminishes human responsibility. The text indicates Jesus was addressing Peter directly (“you are not setting your mind on…”), holding him accountable for his human reasoning rather than treating him as a passive vessel for demonic influence.
• How does this passage relate to Jesus’ prediction that Peter would deny Him? Reformed theologians see a consistent pattern: Peter’s impulsive nature and tendency to rely on human wisdom rather than divine truth. Both the “Satan” incident and the denial show Peter operating from self-preservation and human understanding rather than submitting to God’s revealed will. This consistency supports the Reformed view of remaining sinfulness even in believers.

Did the early church fathers interpret this passage differently than modern Reformed scholars? Early fathers like Origen believed Jesus’ use of the “rock” metaphor was an allusion to Peter’s confession—rather than to Peter himself. This aligns with the Reformed emphasis on the fallibility of human leaders. The ‘Satan’ rebuke reinforced the early fathers’ concerns that even apostolic figures were fallible instruments of God’s grace.

 

WHY JESUS CALLED PETER SATAN:  OUR RELATED POSTS

• How Many Times Did the Rooster Crow at Peter’s Denial?
• Mountaintop Moments: The Transfiguration’s Timeless Truths