One of the points I made in the first post was that a defining characteristic of false teachers is that they disrespect Satan and his horde of celestial beings. At the time, I referred to the idea as counterintuitive, which got me thinking. Why is it that contrabiblical teachers also tend to be anti-Satan?

I think we can find part of the answer in Iran. If you have the courage and bad fortune to attend a state-supported public rally there or in several other Muslim countries, you’re very likely to hear the leaders exhorting the crowd in chants of “Death to America” or “Death to the Great Satan” (same thing). For a while, George W. Bush was the face of the Great Satan, and Barack Obama came to office hoping to change the satanic perception of America. Some may have been surprised when two weeks before his inauguration, Obama had become the newest incarnation of the ever-threatening Great Satan. As Mark Steyn observed, “Meet the new Great Satan, the same as the Old…”

Here was a diplomacy-loving, Muslim-raised new leader who had promised to remake our relationship with the Muslim world. Why, then, was Obama Satanized?

It’s simply because the leaders of countries like Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and North Korea need an all-powerful enemy to blame for the basketcases that they’ve turned their countries into. Iran, one of the world’s most important suppliers of oil, would be crippled if we cut off petroleum imports, such is the country’s economic disrepair. To prevent the public from turning on the mullahs and “elected” leaders for causing the problems that they live with every day, it’s more convenient to blame the Great Satan. If it were ever known that the United States was not a threat and was, very often, a source of important humanitarian aid, leaders would lose the ability to rally public anger against the imaginary foreign devil.

Here’s the key point: enemies create unity and passion that is independent of a leader.

George Orwell understood the point as well, and illustrated it in 1984 with his description of the Two Minutes Hate.

As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed on to the screen. There were hisses here and there among the audience. Goldstein was the renegade and backslider who once, long ago (how long ago nobody quite remembered), had been one of the leading figures of the Party, almost on a level with Big Brother himself, and then had engaged in counter-revolutionary activities, had been condemned to death and had mysteriously escaped and disappeared.

The programmes of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure. He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party’s purity. All subsequent crimes against the Party, all treacheries, acts of sabotage, heresies, deviations, sprang directly out of his teaching. Somewhere or other he was still alive and hatching his conspiracies: perhaps somewhere beyond the sea, under the protection of his foreign paymasters, perhaps even – so it was occasionally rumoured – in some hiding-place in Oceania itself…

In its second minute the Hate rose to a frenzy. People were leaping up and down in their places and shouting at the tops of their voices in an effort to drown the maddening bleating voice that came from the screen…

The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic…

At those moments his secret loathing of Big Brother changed into adoration.

And that’s the key. If I can get you to hate an enemy I rage against, perhaps I can get you to love me without having to offer you any good reason to do so. That’s why false teachers need a Great Satan.

If you can focus my attention on fighting an enemy who doesn’t need to be fought, you can distract me from worrying about the veracity of your teaching.

If you can make me join you in facing down what appears to be a common enemy, I might not ever wonder if you might also be my enemy.

And if you make a habit of denouncing every other church in town, I might conclude that yours is the only source of truth and salvation.

In what I imagine will be the third and final installment on this topic, let’s look at why the whole concept of picking a fight with Satan is such a bad idea.

1. He is more powerful than us. When God gives Satan permission to attack Job, with one caveat, look at the destruction Satan wreaks. In short order, his ten children are killed, a large number of servants are killed, and all of his wealth is destroyed. God restricted the scope of Satan’s attack so that he could not kill Job, but the fact that God made the rule suggests that Satan could have done that as well (as he did to his family and servants). Satan has immense–though not absolute–power, and we stir him up against us at our peril (and probably the peril of those closest to us).
2. It suggests an imperfection in God’s design. Drawing again on Job 1, notice Satan’s answer when God asked him what he was doing: Satan was “roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it.” (Job 1:7). God isn’t outraged or surprised; he doesn’t tell him to stop, even though he could have. In fact, God draws Satan’s attention to Job, who becomes a target for the big test.  Elsewhere, we see the devil referred to as the “prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2) and as the “ruler of the world” (John 12:31). These are positions of influence that God, in his infinite wisdom, has allowed Satan to occupy, albeit temporarily. The concept of defeating Satan in an offensive battle suggests that God made a mistake in letting him stick around.
3. Victory is impossible and absurd. Assuming we could kick in the devil’s head, or skubala his face, what would we achieve? Would we get a week where we would be free from temptation? Would we be able to live without sinning? If I defeat the devil, would others get the same benefits? How many others? How long would it last?
4. Jesus didn’t do it. Ah hah, you say, but the Bible does tell us to resist the devil and he will flee from us (James 4:7). Indeed it does, but resistance is not quite the same as chasing the defeating the devil as if he were our quarry. When Jesus resisted the devil’s temptations in the desert, Satan came right back with a new challenge. After the third temptation, Jesus told Satan to leave him, which he did, though we see throughout the remainder of the Gospels that Satan kept testing and trying to defeat Christ. We are specifically told that Satan was at work in Judas when he betrayed Christ (Luke 22:3). Satan doesn’t go away for long, so aggressive actions against him have no useful effect, which is why Ephesians 6 is much more practically focused on preparing us for defense.
5. It attempts to pre-empt the work of Christ. Having established in point #2 that God has given Satan an influential role to play in human affairs, we also know that his defeat is assured, but it is not at our hands. Throughout the book of Revelation we see that it is God alone who has the power, and who promises to, defeat the devil and make all things new (Revelation 12:9-10, 21:4-5).
6. God told us not to. See here for the beginning of this whole discussion, or for the primary sources, see Jude 8, 2 Peter 2:10-12, and Ephesians 6:13.

Before we get to the sword, let’s look at the stated purposes of the armor.

1. Stand Firm. Ephesians 6:11 introduces the armor by telling us that the purpose is to stand firm against the schemes of the devil.
2. Resist. Ephesians 6:13 tells us to wear the armor so we can resist the devil in the evil day.
3. Stand Firm. Having stood firm and resisted, we stand firm some more. The Greek usage is interesting; stand and firm are the same word, so Paul is using repetition to emphasize the necessity of creating a very strong defensive position. Not only is the word repeated, but the concept is repeated. You have, therefore, four commands to stand within just a few sentences that explain the armor’s purpose.

These commands serve as a preface to the detailed components that follow, and should be used to interpret how we use them. For each implement that Paul tells us to take up, their purpose is to stand-stand.

1. Loins girded with truth. A protective and defensive measure. It’s interesting that this first element applies most obviously to protect our legs and their ability to stand firm.
2. Breastplate of righteousness. Like a bulletproof vest, it will keep you alive, but won’t defeat the enemy.
3. Feed shod with preparation of the gospel of peace. Peaceful shoes probably aren’t intended as aggressive weapons, unless you take them off and throw them at someone, Iraqi style.
4. Shield of faith. Used defensively to extinguish the flaming arrows of the evil one.
5. Helmet of salvation. Again, defensive unless you intend to win the war with head butts.
6. Sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Now we get to the fun bit. A sword can be used offensively, but it seems fairly obvious to me that its place in this list is due to its defensive capabilities.

Just so we can use yet another numbered list, let’s break down exactly why I think the sword is intended defensively.

1. Immediate Context. A sword is obviously more effective as an offensive weapon than the other five items, but given the three purposes and the other five defensive items, the context of the passage surely demands us to treat the sword as a defensive device, otherwise it is the odd one out and would contradict the instructions for its use. Let the Bible interpret the Bible.
2. New Testament Context. The sword is the word of God, so where else to we see it used against the devil? The temptation of Christ in the desert (Matthew 4:1-11). Three times Satan tempted Jesus; three times Jesus resisted him by quoting Scripture to him. “It is written…” Jesus is clearly wielding the sword of the Spirit here. So what’s the result? After the third temptation, Jesus tells Satan to get away from him, quotes Scripture, and then it’s recorded that the devil left him. Jesus didn’t chase; he resisted and stood firm. In other words, Jesus clearly uses the sword of the Spirit defensively, even though he alone had the power to use it to completely defeat the devil.
3. Old Testament Context. When David volunteered to fight Goliath, he was initially outfitted in Saul’s armor. David was about to enter a contest where offense was clearly more important than defense (the Israelites had been in a defensive position for 40 days; now it was time to resolve the stalemate), so he ditched the armor and went with his shepherd’s tools. (This isn’t as strong an argument as #2, but it is an interesting parallel, especially if we let the Bible interpret itself.)
4. Historical Context. In an age of guns and missiles, killing is done at a great distance, so perhaps we have forgotten the dynamics of face-to-face battle that were much more familiar to the writers and readers in Bible times. Even so, we are probably familiar enough from Gladiator-type movies to understand that a good soldier can use a sword purely defensively.

What do we say, then, about the purpose of the sword? Although it can be used offensively, the preface of the armor passage, its grouping with other defensive items, and Jesus’ example in the desert demand that we interpret the sword of the Spirit as a weapon intended to help us resist the devil and stand our ground.

Not to sound bragish but the small group im in is about to skubala all over satans face when we get home, real talk.

This small group planned to use Satan’s face as their lavatory. (For an earlier discussion of skubala-related things, check this post on scatological theology.)

Think about that. Do they suppose that Satan would really mind that kind of treatment? That’s like saying I’m going to punish my dog by rubbing his tummy.

Besides the illogic of the statement, we should be careful about blaspheming the Devil. Here’s why:

1. God tells us to respect him. 2 Peter 2:10-12 tells us that not even the angels talk trash about Lucifer and other fallen angels.
   

   Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord. But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand.

   This is not to say that the Devil is good or deserves respect. He is God’s magnificent and powerful creation, and warrants our respect on that basis. It’s such an important point that God warns us twice to be careful about how we speak of Satan. Jude 8 uses almost identical language to describe similar disrespect:

   These dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings.

   We must treat the Devil cautiously, not because of any value inherent in him, but because God told us to.

2. Our fight is defensive, not offensive. Look at the language describing spiritual warefare in Ephesians 6. We don’t charge the Devil’s lines. We are to quench his attacks and stand our ground. Having stood our ground we … stand. The armor of God is not designed to defeat the Devil (in the sense of offensive victory), but to prevent the Devil from defeating us.
3. Bad people like to beat up on the Devil. Not only does Peter warn us against slandering Satan, he tells us something about the character of people who tend to do this. In 2 Peter these men are false prophets and teachers. In Jude, they are secret deceivers. Peter is giving us a clue. If you can’t discern anything else wrong with their visions and revelations from God, watch what they say about the Devil. It seems counterintuitive, but it’s what Peter said.