Sympathy for the Devil?

Nevertheless, these dreamers likewise defile their flesh, despise authority, and blaspheme glorious beings. Yet Michael the archangel, when he was disputing with the devil in a debate about the body of Moses, did not dare bring an abusive condemnation against him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” – Jude 8-9

Respect, let alone sympathy, for the devil would seem to be an odd attitude to have, especially for a mighty archangel. However, reading the whole book of Jude, or the very similar book of Second Peter, I realize that post-modernism is hardly modern, that deconstructionists and relativists were hanging around outside the gates of Eden.

The denigration of authority is founded upon the rejection of absolute truth. When the American colonies rebelled, they, conversely, did so on the basis of absolute truth. As our friend Van has pointed out, this is a difference between the nature of the American Revolution and the French Revolution and goes a long way in explaining the different outcomes. The Declaration of Independence does not reject authority as much as it appeals to the Highest Authority, to Truth itself.

What Jude points out is that it is better, in the absence of complete knowledge, to give at least a nod to limited authority and leave the “rebuking” up to God. Michael knew what his job was, and he intended to do it. The devil opposed him. The archangel, not knowing what the devil’s job might be, respected the fact that Satan is sometimes given a limited amount of power to accomplish the Lord’s hidden purposes – I almost said ‘occult purposes’, which is, I think, technically correct but kind of scary.

In the second chapter of Second Thessalonians, Paul describes what many interpret as an anti-christ figure. The Apostle calls him “the man of lawlessness”. By definition the one who rejects the Law – that is, the revelation of God’s absolute nature as Truth, sets himself up as god. But then who decides who decides? Thus we have lawlessness, anarchy, and chaos.

Walt accused me yesterday of sounding like a revolutionary, and I am often accused of being revolting. But my rebellion should be only against the denial of the Absolute by the relative. Even in this, I must emulate Michael for I do not know but what the adversary’s hindrance serves God’s greater good. Consider the experience of Paul in the book of Acts:

They went through the regions of Phrygia and Galatia and were prevented by the Holy Spirit from speaking the message in the province of Asia. When they came to Mysia, they tried to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them. So, bypassing Mysia, they came down to Troas. During the night a vision appeared to Paul: a Macedonian man was standing and pleading with him, “Cross over to Macedonia and help us!” (Acts 16:6-9)

And so, the gospel came to Europe.

Though Luke writes that the Spirit hindered Paul from going one place or another, it is quite likely that the missionaries encountered obstructions and difficulties that led them to conclude that God was sending them in a different direction.

There are times when we encounter obstacles we must overcome. Sometimes God calls us to struggle against apparent failures and break through dead ends. Yet, wisdom suggests we remain respectful or at least circumspect toward what opposes us if we are to truly walk in God’s will. A locked door may need to be kicked in, but it should be the Lord’s boot.