Posted by “Satan is one of us; so much more so than Adam or Eve.”
– Michael Chabon, “On Daemons & Dust”
The character of the Devil in the Bible uses rhetoric successfully in his battle against God and against mankind. What he lacks in virtue, ethics, and morality he makes up for with his use of reasoned arguments, persuasion, and manipulation. To some, the Devil is simply an idea, a personification of the many outside forces of evil that surround us. To others, he is a fictional character, a metaphor for the darkest desires and potential for sin within all people. “The Devil is the hypostasis, the apotheosis, the objectification of a hostile force … perceived as external to our consciousness. These forces, over which we appear to have no conscious control, inspire the religious feelings of awe, dread, fear, and horror” (Kelly 34). He exists in opposition to God as an agent of great rhetorical power. The origins of the Hebrew devil have been described as such: Satan is the personification of the dark side of the God, that element within Yahweh which obstructs the good” (Kelly 176-77). The following analysis will show his incredible ability to persuade humankind, God himself, and Jesus in the Old and New Testaments. It will also demonstrate the rhetoric character of Satan in literature, focusing on Milton’s Paradise Lost and the 2013 film Horns. The Devil uses rhetoric that is more persuasive and powerful than the rhetoric used by humans. This essay looks at how Satan uses rhetoric in the aforementioned texts, using the definition of rhetoric as simply “intentional communication.” While this essay offers a comprehensive overview of Satanic rhetoric, it does not discuss the rhetoric of the Old Testament or the original authors’ intentions, but rather takes for granted the concept of the Devil as a “real” character. There are also numerous other mentions of Satan in the Bible as well as in literature and film, so the selections here do not by any means offer a comprehensive picture of the character of the Devil in literature or film; rather, this analysis is a snapshot of some of the most distinctive aspects of the rhetorical devices employed by the Devil.
Two scenes in the Old Testament are particularly enlightening when studying Satan’s rhetoric as it appears in the Bible. Satan’s first appearance in the Old Testament is in the third chapter of Genesis as a Serpent, which is commonly interpreted in Christian theology to be one of the Devil’s forms. His character is described as “crafty.” His strategy is threefold: first he incorrectly repeats God’s mandate to the woman; after she corrects him, he makes a misleading claim, saying “You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of [the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil] your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition Gen. 3:4-5). The beginning of this statement is true only in the sense that they will not immediately die, but it is misleading with devastating consequences, because the act of eating the fruit directly leads to the man and woman’s, and ultimately humanity’s, loss of immortality; after this first “sin,” all humans will eventually die. However, the rest of his statement seems to be fully true. The woman’s eyes were indeed open, and the phrase “And the woman saw” is interpreted in Rashi’s commentary on the Torah: “She understood the words of the serpent and they appealed to her; so she believed him” (Rashi). As the Devil said, they did in fact gain the knowledge of good and evil, so he spoke the truth in that aspect. In understanding the Devil’s rhetoric in this story, it is impossible to know what his intent was. However, the Midrash commentary provides a possible explanation: “[The Serpent] intended that the man should die when he would eat first, and [the Serpent] would marry Eve, and… came to Eve first only because women are easily enticed, and they know how to entice their husbands” (Rashi Genesis 3:15). This shows that the Serpent’s rhetoric lacked ethos. He intended to trick the woman and man into sinning, and hoped that the man would die so that he could marry the woman, so his motivation appears to be jealousy. In summary, the Devil uses some truth and visual evidence to support his claim with harmful intent; he lacks ethical support but succeeds in terms of persuasive ability.
The second scene in which Satan makes a significant appearance in the Old Testament is in the beginning of the book of Job. In the first chapter, God willingly enters into conversation with the Devil by boasting about his servant Job who he describes as blameless and upright. Just like in Genesis, Satan begins by asking questions. “Does Job fear God for nothing?” (Job 1:9) Satan describes how God has provided for Job and claims that this is the only reason for Job’s obedience to God. Just like he did with Eve, Satan predicts what will happen if his suggestion is acted upon. He tells God that if Job were to lose all of his material blessings, he would no longer worship God: “Stretch out your hand now, and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face” (Job 1:11). However, in contrast to the Genesis story, this claim ends up being completely false. At the end of the book, Job continues to praise God even after he has lost his wealth, children, and health. Something interesting to note is the power that Satan seems to have over God. He may not have foreseen Job’s faithfulness, but he was able to convince God to kill Job’s sheep, servants, and children. Why does his rhetoric have such power? Satan, when considered as a literary character, serves as a foil to the character of God; the presence of an evil, dishonest force like Satan shows in contrast the loving and just nature of God. The irony of this is that it shows a less loving side of God – in order to prove his servant’s loyalty, he is willing to inflict terrible things upon him and even give him up to his worst enemy, saying “Very well, he is in your power; only spare his life” (Job 2:6). In contrast to God, Satan is cast in a better light in this story due to his persuasive rhetoric and God’s defensiveness in response.
The character of Satan makes an appearance in the New Testament as well. The story of the temptation of Christ is described in both the books of Matthew and Luke. In the story, Jesus is “led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil” (Matthew 4:1). There are some interesting parallels between this story and that of Job. In both, God knowingly allows his child to be surrendered to the whim of the Devil. Satan tests both Job and Jesus in hopes that they will turn against God. Further, both Job and Jesus refuse to give in to the tests of the Devil and remain faithful to God. Satan attempts to trick Jesus into sinning in the book of Matthew using a couple of different strategies. He questions Jesus’ identity and authority as the Son of God in an attempt to get Jesus to turn rocks into bread to eat, which is often interpreted as the sin of gluttony or as an abuse of power. Next, the Devil quotes from Scripture, saying that God will save Jesus from harm even if he jumps off the top of the temple. In doing this, some say Jesus would be committing the sin of pride in assuming that angels would come to his rescue. Lastly, Satan makes a tempting offer–he takes Jesus “to a very high mountain and [shows] him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor” (Matthew 4:8), promising him ownership of it all if he only worships Satan. This temptation represents the sin of greed. Throughout all three temptations, Jesus does not give in; because he is human, he can be tempted by worldly desires and possessions, but because he is also God, he cannot sin. Satan’s goal in this scene is different from the book of Job, where he is trying to get one of God’s children to turn against him. In Matthew, like in Genesis, the Devil wants to bring about the downfall of mankind. He did this in Genesis by convincing Adam and Eve to disobey God and was successful. In Matthew, Satan wants Jesus to sin and turn away from God because then, he would not be worthy for sacrifice for the salvation of mankind. The Devil uses worldly appeals as well as a quote from the Old Testament as rhetorical devices in one last desperate effort to take down Jesus and, by extension, the promise of salvation and eternal life for humanity. On Satan’s use of Biblical rhetoric, Matthew Henry’s exegesis says that the Devil is “so well versed in Scripture as to be able to quote it readily” (Henry), and this is one of the Devil’s means of persuasion that takes into account the audience. If any appeal to Jesus would succeed in tempting him, it would likely be scriptural.
The 2013 film Horns features a main character named Ig who begins to take on some characteristics that are reminiscent of the Devil. His transformation happens because his girlfriend was brutally murdered and the entire community believes that he committed the crime; he comments, “For whatever reason, I was being punished. When they looked at me, they saw a devil. And maybe I did too. And now I had to look the part” (Horns). This paper does not go into detail on visual rhetoric that takes place in the film, but there are a couple of key clues that indicate the distinctly “Satanic” power and nature possessed by the main character. The first sign of Ig’s newfound power is the development of a pair of horns growing out of his head; throughout the history of the devil, he is often depicted with horns. According to Joseph Kelly’s book titled Who Is Satan?, “The horns of the Devil are thus basically a mark of his power, but they also have a specifically negative character. The horns of the Devil signify… his associations with death and the underworld” (70). The visual imagery in the film also includes a significant amount of symbolism, including snakes, fire, and pitchforks, all of which suggest popular ideas of the Devil, both biblically and in contemporary media and culture. The last significant allusion to a Biblical account of the Devil is the diner where several scenes take place: it is called Eve’s Diner and has a neon sign of an apple next to the name of the restaurant. This obviously alludes to the story in Genesis of Eve’s temptation and the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (which has been commonly imagined as an apple ever since Milton’s Paradise Lost gained popularity). In comparison to the Devil of the Bible, Ig uses rhetoric ethically because his intent is to find the truth and to bring justice, whereas Satan’s rhetoric is intended to bring harm and destruction as well as to spread lies and misunderstanding. Ig’s power is also limited. He doesn’t have the power to convince anyone of the truth that he didn’t kill his girlfriend, but he does have the ability to get people to tell the truth. He possesses the power of “suggestibility;” he convinces people to act out their subconscious desires, things they already want to do but are afraid to. People ask him for permission to do terrible things, reveal their innermost thoughts and secrets, and expose the worst versions of themselves.
One example of the power of Ig’s rhetoric is when he gets the real murderer to confess his guilt. Before analyzing the scene, it is important to note that Ig’s persuasive power does not come from the words he says, but something deeper. It is as if his mere existence is a source of rhetorical force or energy. The scene goes as follows:
IG: Now you have to tell me the truth.
LEE: Why should I tell you anything?
IG: You’re not going to be able to help it.
LEE: (pause) I never meant to kill her.
The film Horns is based on a novel of the same name by Joe Hill. The book version of the story is similar but offers some further detail in regards to the function of rhetoric as used by the character Ig. Towards the end of the novel, Ig gives what he calls his “fire sermon” in which he compares the Devil and God. Only the Devil, he says, “loves humans for what they are and rejoices in their cunning schemes against themselves, their shameless curiosity, their lack of self-control” (Hill 218). He goes on to criticize the morality of God with the following example: “If you were in a boat and did not save a drowning man, you would burn in Hell for certain; yet God, in His wisdom, feels no need to use His power to save anyone from a single moment of suffering” (218). In comparison, the Devil is anything but indifferent. “The devil is always there to help those who are ready to sin” (218). Ig uses a comparison to strengthen his argument for the superiority of the Devil. The hypothetical situation of the drowning man that he describes is a powerful and simple example that supports his argument. Through the use of relatable parable and comparison, Ig makes an alluring case for the Devil’s side.
Stanley Fish’s essay from his book Surprised by Sin discusses Satan’s rhetoric in John Milton’s Paradise Lost. The poem tells the story from Genesis about the fall of man from a slightly different perspective, and the way it is written commands a strange empathy for the Devil. “It is not enough to analyse… the speciousness of Satan’s rhetoric. It is the nature of sophistry to lull the reasoning process; logic is a safeguard against a rhetorical effect only after the effect has been noted” (Fish 197). The risk present in Satan’s argument is not its persuasive ability but its complexity that fully captures the attention of the reader, and may “lead him into an error of omission” (199). Fish goes on to describe the Devil as a sort of magician whose rhetorical skill distracts from his evil intentions: “Satan is the arch-conjurer here, calling his audience’s attention to one hand, doing his real work with the other (‘Into the heart of Eve his words made way’)” (200). In summary, Fish demonstrates how the danger in the appeal of Satan’s rhetoric is that it threatens a reenactment of the fall of mankind; to be deceived by the Devil’s rhetoric is to fall into sin just as Adam did. “The reader who falls before the lures of Satanic rhetoric displays again the weakness of Adam” (209). If Satan continues to deceive and tempt mankind, it calls into question the authenticity of Jesus’ sacrifice—what good was it for Him to die if we are still vulnerable to the Devil’s persuasions? The Devil’s rhetoric is clearly effective and persuasive in Paradise Lost and it forces the reader to empathize with him as well as to understand why Adam and Eve were so susceptible to temptation by the Serpent.
An incredibly successful rhetorical device that the character of Satan uses in Paradise Lost is what Richard Lanham refers to as a bargaining pattern in the form of a chiastic structure. It is used throughout literature, even being found in the New Testament with phrases like “He who finds his life will lose it; and he who loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matthew 10:39). Milton’s Satan uses this pattern when he is speaking to his Legions, encouraging and comforting them after they have fallen into hell: “The mind is its own place, and in itself / Can make a heav’n of hell, a hell of heav’n” (Rorty 254-255). A similar one is found a few lines later: “Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav’n” (Rorty 263). Tacit persuasion patterns like these are so effective because it seems logical: “the second half of the assertion seems to follow inevitably from the first because the shape of the phrasing says so” (Lanham 181). These persuasive tactics only work because they sound nice, and are pleasing to the ear (or eye, if reading the text silently). The essay titled “Tacit Persuasion Patterns” shows how the rhetoric in Paradise Lost is more eloquent and persuasive than it is logical.
In the following section of this essay, we will examine the rhetoric of the Devil using different theories about what rhetoric is and how it should be. The first text on rhetoric is a book titled The Ethos of Rhetoric which includes several essays, the first of which is a hermeneutic reading of Aristotle’s take on ethos by Craig R. Smith. A speaker’s ethos, he writes, involves practical wisdom, virtue, and goodwill (3). According to Smith, “Aristotle defines virtue as the ability to produce and preserve the good. For Aristotle, the ultimate good is happiness” (7). Evaluating the Biblical character Satan as well as his character in Paradise Lost, it is clear that neither Smith nor Aristotle would consider the Devil to possess ethos in his use of rhetoric. While he does have some degree of practical wisdom, or phronesis (he knows what to say and how to say it in different situations), he most certainly does not possess either virtue or goodwill. His intentions are malicious. Steven Mailloux in his book Disciplinary Identities would argue that the Devil does not even practice phronesis, which “involves deliberations over what is the good for people in particular situations” (45). The rest of his definition of practical wisdom would fit Satan’s rhetoric if it only replaced the word “good” with “bad.” Satan’s main concern is what is the worst for mankind rather than the best. Perhaps Ig’s use of rhetoric in Horns is effective because he does actually possess ethos; his character is innocent, and he never intends to hurt anyone, but to reveal the truth. In another chapter from The Ethos of Rhetoric, ethos is defined as “the quality of personhood that calls humanity to care for itself, its world, and its others” (Kenny 36). In comparison to the Devil of both the Bible and of Milton’s Paradise Lost, Ig possesses true ethos because his character has practical wisdom, virtue, and goodwill.
Next, the Devil’s use of logos will be brought into question. Logos involves reasoned, rational, logical arguments that are, according to the Greek philosophers, used to find truth and knowledge. The Devil in Genesis uses logos; his argument is not fallacious and is made to convince its audience to find knowledge of good and evil. Whatever his intentions were, the Devil used reason in the New Testament in trying to tempt Jesus. He makes true statements about the fact that God would save Jesus if he were to fall from a great height and that Jesus could turn stones into bread if he wanted to eat. Even Satan’s argument in Job, though it turns out to be false, makes sense: If Job were not blessed with wealth and material possessions, it makes sense that he would not be grateful to God, and Job does struggle with his faith after he loses all of his belongings. Ig’s argument in his “fire sermon” appears quite logical, making accurate statements and logical conclusions about the morality of both God and the Devil.
Aristotle’s idea of rhetoric involves the use of pathos along with ethos and logos. Pathos is, according to Kennedy’s interpretation of Aristotle, “the emotion of the hearers aroused by a speech that moved them to accept what the speaker said” (223). In comparison to ethos and logos, pathos is a more culturally defined method of persuasion; it depends on the attitudes, experiences, and identity of the intended audience. In Genesis, Adam and Eve as the intended audience for Satan’s rhetoric were naïve and unaware of the possibility of deception; thus, the serpent’s persuasion was effective in appealing to their curiosity and desire. The rhetoric Satan uses in Job is interesting because the recipient is God, who one would assume would be resistant to emotional appeals. However, when the loyalty of one of God’s servants is brought into question, Satan is able to manipulate God into giving him what he wants. This is a successful use of pathos—Satan appeals to God’s sense of pride, which is an important aspect of his identity. In the story of chapter 4 of Matthew, Satan is able to use pathos so effectively because of Jesus’ human nature and capability for committing sin. In comparison to the Biblical character, the “devil-ish” character in the movie Horns has no use for pathos. Ig’s various audiences are already convinced by his mere presence; it is not pathos, but some deeper kind of rhetorical power of persuasion with which Ig has been blessed (or perhaps cursed).
Rhetoric has had different definitions throughout history. Aristotle viewed it as the ability to find the available means of persuasion. An article titled “Understanding Rhetoric” from Purdue University’s Online Writing Lab explains how rhetoric at its worst and most simplified has “led people to assume that rhetoric is merely something that manipulative people use to get what they want (usually regardless of moral or ethical concerns)” (2012). This quote in many ways describes Satan’s use of rhetoric: he is manipulative and has a complete lack of moral and ethical concerns, and yet he is persuasive, convincing, and often successful in getting what he wants. He uses rhetoric, or “intentional communication,” with great skill in the process of working towards his goal—the destruction of mankind.
Prose & Cons 