But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me... -- Matt. 16:23

A double standard and imbalanced distinction exists in fundamentalism, regarding the written word of God and the incarnate Word. The incarnate, holy Word of life, which was "made flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:1,14), which John "heard," had "seen," had looked upon, and was "handled" (1 John 1:1) is usually regarded as pure, true, without error, and holy. The written word, which dwells among us, which has been heard, seen, looked upon, and handled is regarded much differently. The written word is often regarded as an impure, errant, and unholy thing.

Such distinctively different treatment, of the two living Words, is sin. Consider how the incarnate word of God is correctly regarded as the same yesterday, today, and for ever more. (Imagine someone referring to the "original" Jesus, as opposed to the Jesus, who we have today). The written word, although "settled" in heaven (Psalm 119:89), is not thought to be the same yesterday, today, and forever more.

Other striking parallels may and should be found between the two living Words. The incarnate Word is the Name above every name (Phil. 2:9), but God has also magnified His written word above all His Name (Psalm 138:2). Nevertheless, how does all this relate to Peter's offense, and what was that offense?

Peter Linked to the Garden

... Get thee behind me, Satan... -- Matt 16:23

Bible students have found the link between modern Bible correcting and the account of Satanic questioning, adding, subtracting, and blatant denial that occurred in the garden of Eden. However, have they found the link between that account and this New Testament Bible Corrector, who needed converted from that sin? It is Satan, both in the garden and here, who is behind both those denials of God's word and the so called "better renderings" of God's Word. Peter was called "blessed" not more than five verses ago. Here, he is called "Satan." Satan uses Bible Correctors, whether saved or no! Whether blessed or no! They are an offence to Christ and the brethren.

Peter's Offense

From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that he must... be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. -- Matt 16:21,22

When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death. -- Luke 22:32-33

...thou shalt deny me thrice. But he spake the more vehemently, If I should die with thee, I will not deny thee in any wise. -- Mark 14:30,31

On no less than three occasions, Peter forcefully and aggressively in some way gainsays the incarnate Word of God. He even "took" the Word and "rebuked" the Word. Finally, he felt that he must militantly prove the supposed truth of his contradiction by using carnal courage. Peter must prove the Word wrong, so he cuts off Christ's would be captor's ear (John 18:10). Yet Christ had not instructed nor sanctioned him to take to the sword and cut off the man's ear. In fact, Jesus rebukes, counteracts, and corrects Peter's fleshly act.

No excuse can be found for Peter's actions. You do not question the "Word." You do not rebuke the "Word." You do not correct the "Word." You do not contradict the "Word." You do not disagree with the "Word." You do not deny the "Word." You do not better render the "Word." There are no excuses and not even good reasons, for such an offense. Why Do the Saved Correct the Word?

The proud have digged pits for me, which are not after thy law. --Ps. 119:85

The wicked have waited for me to destroy me: but I will consider thy testimonies.
--Ps. 119:95

The wicked have laid a snare for me: yet I erred not from thy precepts. -- Ps. 119:110

... thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. -- Matt. 16:21-23

Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: -- Luke 22:31

Can correctors of God's Word really be saved? Of course they can. Even Bible believers deny God's word daily by their lives and testimonies, if not with their mouths. Still, why and how can Bible correcting by believers happen to such a great degree? Believers must be blind or ignorant or must forget as did Peter, how true (Ps. 119:160), how pure (Ps. 119:140), and how magnified the Word of God really is (Ps. 138:2). Peter also is blind or forgets Satan's snares, which are set for those doing something for the Lord or against Satan (Satan's hit list).

Peter allows worldly motives and appetites to take over. Peter seeks the leeks, onions, and garlic (Egyptian soul food) rather than the heavenly bread. Although he has tasted and seen that the Lord is good (Ps. 34:8), he savors the things of men. Either one or both of two things are usually involved, when saved folks correct the Word - a buck or prestige! The lust of the eyes or the pride of life!

Was Peter Really Saved?

But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. -- Luke 22:32

Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; -- James 5:19

Yes! Peter erred, but he was saved! One, he had faith! Two, he had faith that had not yet failed! Three, Satan desired to have Peter; he didn't have him yet. Four, Jesus prayed for his faith. Five, The Lord said that he had lost nothing that the Father had given Him (which excluded Judas - John 18:9). Six, he was not later rebaptized. Seven, he had saved "brethren."

But you say, "He was prophesied to be converted." Yes, he needed to be and was converted... but not to salvation. We know that from Matthew 16:16,17. He needed converted from his questioning, correcting, contradicting, disagreeing, denying, and rebuking the Word. Peter was in the process of weakening the brethren, by "erring from the truth." Still, when converted, Peter would strengthen the brethren as we shall soon see.

The Way Back, Peter's Conversion

Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly. -- Matt. 26:75

And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And Peter went out, and wept bitterly. -- Luke 22:61, 62

Oh! Anything but that "look!" That was too much for Peter. It caused him to remember the "Word of God," the Word that he had questioned, contradicted, corrected, disagreed with, rebuked, and finally Denied Him three times. Lord! I'm coming home! Peter remembered the Word. You have to do that first; that is the way back. Then Peter wept bitterly. He sorrowed to repentance. Peter realized that he had sinned.

Peter's Ordination

So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. -- John 21:15-17

Well, Peter went back to fishing, although he had repented of his sin. The devil, somehow, convinced him that after what he did, he could not and would not ever be used again. But, Oh, the love and grace of God! Jesus knew of Peter's bitter tears but still needed to impress on Peter the seriousness of the job that He was about to give Peter, the ministry of pastoring or shepherding or feeding the sheep of the First Baptist church of Jerusalem. Still, no room, in the ministry for correcting the Word of God!

Now, it is Christ's turn to question Peter. Lovest thou me? Three times! Instead of trying to make something of history, scholarship, or of the Greek, i.e., "AGAPE" love versus "PHILEO" love, one should try to make something of Bible English instead of Greek stylistic variance. (Sam Gipp has an interesting little test for smarty pants, who think they must find significance in AGAPE versus PHILEO in this passage.) Listen to what a Presbyterian professor and linguist, no friend to KJVO's nor the King James Bible, admits in this regard:

"Some schools also use outdated materials in teaching Greek, many of these dependent on 19th century "static" views of language. Pastors also often depend on older commentaries, some of them very nice theologically (depending on one's point of view), but often using arguments from the original languages based on these sorts of linguistic theories, which they then pass on. A very popular book in some circles here in the States is Kenneth Wuest's *The Practical Use of the Greek NT* (Moody Press), which, on page 77 supports the fallacy on the difference between *agapao* and *phileo* (that's the earliest I've seen it actually in print, though the argument is probably older). Interesting enough, the ancient church fathers, many of whom spoke Greek like we speak English, never mention the supposed distinction between the two verbs in their commentaries." -- Professor Barry Hofstetter

I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts. -- Ps. 119:99-100

Peter knew that the significance was not with AGAPE nor PHILEO but with the three times that the Lord asks him the same thing, thus paralleling Peter's three fold denial and even his three fold correction, of the Word. That is why Peter was grieved. The point was well taken. Peter responds, now, with, "Lord, thou knowest ALL things." You are right, Lord. What you say is true, despite how hard or how personal it is. The Word, as always, was quick and powerful and sharper than any two edged sword and discerned Peter's heart (Heb. 4:12).

After Peter's Conversion

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. -- 2 Pet. 3:16

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth for ever. -- 1 Pet. 1:23

And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. -- 2 Pet. 1:18-21

Never again will Peter question, correct, disagree with, rebuke, or deny the Word. Even when caught playing the hypocrite, Peter would not go against the Word. In fact, he praises the Word from the one who caught him in hypocrisy. Peter puts Paul's epistles, whether originals, copies, or translations in the same category with the "other Scriptures." He strengthens the brethren in the very same area (threefold) that he once weakened them. No longer is Peter an offence and a denier. Now, he feeds and strengthens the faith of the sheep the Word. What about you... Bible Corrector? What are you doing?

-- by Herb Evans

Bible Believer's Bulletin - April 1992, p. 3

Flaming Torch - July - September 2001, p. 21 (as Fool's Gold)

(Preached at the International Baptist Fellowship in Columbus, Ohio)