Jude 1:9

Jud_1:9-10

Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil.

Archangel versus devil

We can hardly suppose that the interview between Michael and Satan was communicated to St. Jude by the Holy Ghost, because such a novel revelation would have rather startled his readers than illustrate the truth he was setting before them. To treat it as a fable without foundation in fact would have weakened the argument of the apostle. Some think that the reference is to Zec_3:1.

And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan, etc. But there was no reference then made to the burial of Moses, and the similarity in the expression is too slender a foundation to connect the two. Origen mentions an apocryphal book called Ἀναληψις τοῦ Μωσέως, which was extant in his time. That the apostle quoted from that book is not improbable, although there is nothing in the narrative before us to warrant the belief. Then there is the other supposition that among the traditions held by the Jews there was one relative to a controversy between the two chiefs of the opposing angels about the burial of Moses. As these traditions were largely taught in those days, it may be that the apostle simply reads a lesson to the false teachers from their own teaching. They brought railing accusations against the apostles, which even an archangel dared not, as the higher and final judgment awaits all. The apostle therefore conveys but one lesson by his reference to the dispute about the body of Moses, viz., that the final judgment is reserved in Gods own keeping.

1. The text teaches that there are two orders of spirits in conflict concerning matters affecting the human race. Not only angels are ministering to the necessities of the saints, and devils using influence to destroy them, but the corner of the veil is lifted up in the text, that we may mentally see the battlefield on which these powerful spirits meet to contend for their side. The fact administers to the strength of our faith.

2. The text teaches that controversy must be confined to its proper limits. Michael was right, but he did not go further than controversy. However certain one may feel that he is contending for the truth, he must not utter imprecations on the head of his adversary.

3. The text teaches that judgment belongs to the Lord alone. The term rebuke implies far more than correction or admonition: it means to censure. Here we take it to indicate that God only has the power of final decision. Omniscience, impartiality, and power belong to Him.

4. The text teaches also another valuable lesson, viz., that the strongest side of controversy is an appeal to God. Bring your adversary into the presence of his Maker and leave him in the Divine balance. (T. Davies, M. A.)

Aversion to religion and its source

The sentence immediately preceding represents the persons described in it as defiled with gross immoralities, as despising the dominion that would have restrained them, and treating in contemptuous language the most dignified of the powers which had been set up in defence of purity and good order. The text is meant to apply, more or less directly, to all these views. But you will not fail to notice that it begins with what in the previous statement is last mentioned, and exposes the crime of evil-speaking, when the malignancy of its revilings is turned against the sacred institutions of moral authority. And surely it may be allowed that this end is answered with a peculiar degree of force, owing to the extreme case of forbearance which the text sets before us. It represents two spirits of high order, but of opposite character, engaged in controversy. The one, in his designs, ever actuated by a base and malevolent principle. The other, the special messenger and servant of God, ever employed in advancing the purposes of truth and righteousness. Wrong is altogether on the one side. Right, without a sinister motive to tarnish it, is altogether on the other. And in setting these before us, the apostle would lead us to mark the quality of that resistance alone, which, even in these circumstances, the pure spirit felt himself justified in making. Was it distinguished by violence, by the opprobrious and furious language of rage? Was the accusation (so justly to be brought by the archangel) a railing accusation? The reverse in every respect. In accusing, he mixed not abuse with his just condemnation. His reverence for God and his regard to the solemnity and holiness of truth kept him back from it. His cause was good and required not adventitious support. His own nature was pure, and would have been essentially defiled had the evil passions in another been resisted by the indulging of similar passions in himself. Above all--God is the Judge unto whom vengeance belongeth--and therefore to God the appeal must be made. Hence, by every motive, the archangel abstained from bringing the railing accusation against his adversary. Now the apostles peculiar argument, as introduced in application to the persons whom he had such cause for reprehending, stands thus:--If no boisterous or reviling language was employed in controversy even with a fallen and perverse spirit--the acknowledged foe of God and goodness--it was said simply, yet still with dignity, The Lord rebuke thee--if thus the archangel committed himself to God and left the final decision to be passed by the supreme authority; in such a cause, and with such an adversary, if Michael thus proceeded, say how aggravated must be the guilt which rails against sacred things themselves and vilifies all whose influence is employed for their support? It has been found, in the greater number of instances, that where men carrying on any controversy are fully possessed of their subject, and have the clearest knowledge of its nature, they will have a collectedness proportioned to their knowledge. This remark may form the tie by which we may associate the tenth with the ninth verse. The persons who are there rebuked were speaking evil of those things which they knew not. Having their understandings darkened they saw not the beauties of righteousness. Becoming, through their immoral lives, obdurate to the sense of what was pure, they brought themselves to contemplate iniquity without aversion. Having their inclinations turned in a direction the opposite of what the law required them to follow, they gathered hostility to the curb of the commandment. By persisting in criminal courses they formed in themselves an utter disrelish of the habits of godliness. In this state they spoke evil against its sanctions. The dominion of civil power they stigmatised as tyranny. The dominion of the religious principle as the trick of priesthood. The dominion of conscience as prolonging the sway of superstition and perpetuating the influence of childish terrors. But they spoke evil of those things which they knew not. How otherwise, except in a state of the grossest ignorance, could they have ventured to deduce from the blessed doctrines of grace the occasions, the incentives, or the cloak for immorality? Is there one portion of the Christian plan of salvation that does not bear, with the mightiest influence of moral power, against the love and practice of iniquity? Can there be a purer law than what the gospel reveals for enforcing righteousness? Above all, what motives to righteousness are derived from the Cross of Christ! I ask, then, if in these circumstances it proceeds not from ignorance the most culpable, that any should venture to draw from the doctrine of Divine grace an inference which is even in the slightest measure favourable to sin?--And yet the persons whom St. Jude was confuting did so. Surely, therefore, they were speaking evil of things they knew not, or of things the nature and tendency of which they refused to acknowledge. But still, I must bring you back once more and in doing so I would connect the last clause of Jud_1:10 with all that precedes it to the real source of this perverseness. The origin of the whole, we must repeat, was moral pollution. The speaking evil of the sacred things, of which these men refused to acknowledge the sanction and the use, arose from their corruption in those very things with which they were familiarly and fully conversant. They knew (led as the inferior creatures are by instinctive propensities) the use of the appetites. The natural man, according to the language of St. Paul, is thoroughly qualified to discern that. But among all who are unrenewed in the spirit of their minds, and to whom consequently a spiritual discernment belongs not, how is it that the objects of this natural knowledge are most frequently employed? Are they not oftener abused than rightly employed? The desires and propensities of nature are wilfully corrupted. The lawful desire of personal good degenerates into selfishness. The allowable desire of human esteem swells into the insatiable longing after the praise of men. The sensualities of the world are chosen as the chief good. The vitiated heart grows impatient under restraint. By a thousand acts of hostility does the carnal mind show itself to be enmity to God, till the foe of the Cross of Christ chooses the lowest desires as his ruling divinities, glories in his shame, and is at last altogether sunk in earthly things. Thus it took place with the persons whom the apostle was called to withstand. Having corrupted themselves in what they knew the use of, by means of their natural senses, they were soon led to oppose those things of which they had no spiritual discernment, or for which, at least, they had no relish--and hence they were prepared to despise the dominion of righteousness and to speak evil with railing accusations of the supporters of that dominion however dignified their office and venerable their authority. Would that the condemnation which the Epistle conveys were considered by the multitudes who still labour to bring contempt upon religion and morality, whose hatred to the Christian truth is even greater than their opposition, and whose invective is as coarse as their arguments are weak! Mark the bearings of their character their likings and their aversions--in order that you may be convinced how utterly unworthy of reception are the objections which they utter against the purity and the majesty and the usefulness of Christian truth. Fix in your minds this principle--that aversion to so precious a system of moral dominion as Christianity is, arises, and must arise chiefly from corruptions of the heart. (W. Muir, D. D.)

But these speak evil of those things which they know not.--

Ignorant speech

1. None are so ready to speak as the ignorant.

2. Ignorance is the cause of opposing the ways of God. Did men either see the deformity of sin or the beauty of holiness, they would neither delight in the former nor dislike the latter.

3. How great is the sin of speaking evil of those things the worth whereof we do know! All sin against light borders on the sin against the Holy Ghost.

4. We should speak against known evils, and for what we know to be good.

5. Corrupt affections blear and darken the judgment. He who will be disobedient in heart shall soon have a dull head.

6. It is our duty to forbear speaking against anything which we understand not. (W. Jenkyn, M. A.)

Scepticism corrupting itself

There are few who are not desirous of arriving at an accurate conception of their personal appearance generally, and more specially of the lineaments which distinguish the face or countenance. When such a view as this is presented to our thoughts we may very appropriately note it as a matter of regret that there is not more anxiety to reach the means of forming correct notions of the true characteristics and condition of our immortal part, or imperishable souls. Beauty or deformity affecting the person or body is a very small matter compared with what beautifies or deforms the never-dying spirit. What special medium ought to be used for obtaining such portraiture is a problem easily solved, for Jehovah hath provided a looking-glass for the purpose; and that looking-glass is His own imperishable Word.

I. The charge as here preferred against the system lies in the two statements, that it leads men to speak evil of things which they know not; and to corrupt themselves in what they know in common, or naturally, with brute beasts. These were at least conjoined in the parties herein condemned; and we are safe in holding it as all but universally true that wherever there is a thorough spirit of infidelity there will be found in combination less or more of the evil speaking and the evil acting thus denounced. Many begin with indulgence in wild infidel speculations, and then proceed to the indulgence of wild infidel practices. Or, reversing this order, they give themselves up to less or more profligacy, and then systematically adopt atheistic theories, for the sake of helping to quiet the remonstrances of their own conscience. In the one case the mind is made the instrument of corrupting the body, not less than itself; and in the other the body, through its appetites and passions, is made the instrument of aiding to corrupt the mind. If the intellectual and moral faculties get debauched by the adoption of infidel sentiments, these may soon lend their aid, to a ruinous extent, in promoting the strength of the animal passions; and then the miserable victims may fully realise the striking sentiment of the text, in corrupting themselves in what they know naturally as brute beasts. On the other hand, if the gross animal or brutish passions take the lead, every faculty of the soul may be reduced to a state of utter degradation. It is said of the Lord Rochester, who was so well known for a time as a prominent sceptic and libertine, that as a prodigal son, after he had come to himself, he laid his hand upon the Bible and emphatically remarked, The only grand objection to this book is a bad life. A bad life is, indeed, blasphemy reduced to practice; but, as already intimated, a bad life is sure of conducting to the acceptance of more and more theoretical and systematic infidelity; and therefore, as a natural consequence, must lead its victims to speak more and more evil of those things which they know not. Hence in seeking to put you on your guard against the encroachments of anything like religious scepticism, we are more than justified in bidding you, were it for this reason alone, avoid all kinds of sinful indulgence--all whereby you may thus corrupt yourselves.

II. Although it is admitted that there have been false teachers--teachers of very erroneous doctrines--and very wild speculators otherwise, against whom no heavy charge could be made as to immorality; it is nevertheless true of rejectors and impugners generally of Revelation, that, going the length of speaking evil of those things they know not, they do not stop there, but proceed to corrupt themselves in what they know naturally as brute beasts. Let it be noted as a very striking proof of this that in the Middle Ages, as they are called, and towards the beginning of the Reformation, the morals of the popish clergy themselves were in the most corrupt state, when their false and ruinous teaching was as then the least unchecked. At the time when they took full and unlimited scope in teaching the Scripturally denounced devil-doctrine of forbidding to marry, they were never more than then given up to licentiousness; so that whilst in setting themselves in opposition to Gods Word, they were speaking evil of things they knew not, they were in what they knew naturally as brute beasts corrupting themselves, and to a fearful extent. By little short of daring challenges to high Heaven even, they profanely advocated, as a cover for their libertinism, that in priests or any other ecclesiastics concubinage was holier than marriage! It is often for the express purpose of reaching such acting, and seeming to have an excuse for it, that false or infidel sentiments are adopted, just as Mahomet--the false prophet--added an additional chapter to the Koran, when be meant to sin farther by adding another wife to those he already had. Much in this style Scriptureless speculators try to make a new sceptical chapter to themselves, that it may be used as a ladder whereby they may reach some forbidden fruit. Conscience, they find, requires some little bribing to quiet its remonstrances, in respect of the sensual course they wish to pursue; and thus far they prepare the way by putting a new chapter or a new verse into their self-revealed speculative Bible, or infidel chapter. We thus discern one of the causes leading to the ignorant speaking about the truths of God referred to in the text: and another, which is as fruitful of mischief, lies directly in pride of intellect, or the supreme conceit men are apt to have of their own supposed superior wisdom and discernment. The principle so much acted on through this species of intellectual conceit, that nothing can well be accepted or believed save it be thoroughly understood, if pushed to its full logical consequences, would leave little to be accepted at all, since there is less or more of mystery in everything, and which no human being can reach and comprehend. To the atheistic materialist matter is his god, but yet he does not understand this his own god. No wonder then, since that which he daily sees, and handles, and lives upon, gets after all so much beyond his comprehension, he should find something greatly transcending all his powers, in attempting to comprehend the nature of the uncreated and eternal existence of the Supreme. But what is more specially noticeable and worthy of our serious consideration is the fact that very often the loudest and most persistent declaimers against Revelation are not merely in much ignorance with regard to its general spirit, but even of the very letter of its contents. Sometimes what they seem to know of these has not been acquired by closely examining the sacred page itself, but from their taking up and retailing what infidel writers before them had stated in order to condemn and ridicule. It is of the highest importance to notice that the Scriptures very frequently allude in one form or another to mans tendency to fall into error and consequent danger, through the conceit he may have of himself or mental powers, and hence justly says, He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool. Nor is any one more liable to exemplify this than the mere sciolist, or superficially learned. It is even very frequently obtrusively illustrated by parties who may be said to have scarcely any learning or knowledge at all--for oft they pretend to be oracles of wisdom--and truly may the Spirit say of any such an one, as in speaking by Paul, If a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. Mere natural or unassisted human reason will not, as thus so clearly stated, lead any one to receive the things of God. Left simply to its own resources, and without any superior controlling or guiding power, it is certain to proceed in speaking evil of them, but neither to intelligently or spiritually discern their true character, or receive them as principles of action. If, instead of Divine Revelation, or the things of God, men take as their text-books such wretched infidel productions as Paines Age of Reason, we must look for the reproduction of Paines ribaldry and profligacies; and hence the sad realisation of the black picture furnished in our text--speaking evil of those things which they know not, and whist they know naturally as brute beasts, in those things corrupting themselves. (J. Allan.)

Abuse of natural knowledge

There be three kinds of knowledge incident unto the creature.

1. Natural knowledge, arising from the instinct of nature common to man and beast, and consisting in the senses of sight, taste, touching, etc., by the benefit whereof the beast itself can discern what is food fit for itself, and what is not; what is profitable, and what is hurtful for it; unto which is joined a natural appetite, by the benefit of which the creature can choose or refuse his food and meat in season.

2. The second is reasonable knowledge, proper to man, and is nothing else but the light of understanding, whereby he reacheth far higher, and discerneth meat, drink, apparel, and rest, to be Gods good gifts, and knoweth the civil use of them; with the which is joined election of will, whereby he can choose or refuse the civil or uncivil, honest or dishonest use of them.

3. The third is spiritual knowledge, not proceeding either from natural instinct or reason itself, but from the enlightenment of the spirit of God, and it hath sundry fruits. First, it enableth men to know these things in their right causes, as that these gifts of meats, drinks, and such like proceed from God, not as He is God of nature only, but as by grace in Christ, so they become pledges of His special mercies. Secondly, this knowledge causeth men to know them in the due measure of their goodness and excellency, rightly discerning them from spiritual blessings, so as the heart shall not be set upon them in the first place, but upon the other as of far higher esteem. Thirdly, it instructeth men in the right use of them, namely, when it worketh this persuasion in their hearts, that till their persons please God, they can never use them well. What is the thing, then, condemned in these seducers? The sin condemned is, that in the use of the creatures of God they are not guided by reasonable, much less this spiritual knowledge; but only by nature, sense, and appetite, as the beast is. Secondly, from the reprehension we are taught to labour for spiritual knowledge, whereby we might be led into the right use of these temporal things; for then and not before shall we use them as pledges of Gods mercy in Christ. Thirdly, in that they are said to be guided only as the beast which is without reason, that is, by nature, sense, and appetite; note the practice of the devil which is to keep men in their natural knowledge, and will not suffer them to attain to that which is spiritual; yea, and which is more, he corrupteth also that natural knowledge which men have. The second point is the sin itself, and property of it--In those things they corrupt themselves. This sin of intemperance causeth men in the abuse of meat, drink, and apparel, to corrupt themselves; here, then, are two things to be spoken of, wherein the whole nature of intemperance is sufficiently comprised. First, of the abuse of the creatures; secondly, of his corruption that thus abuseth them. Concerning the former, the abuse of the creatures is four ways: first in excess, when men use them beyond their calling, or that which nature requireth. Secondly, in curiosity, when men are not content with ordinary meat, drink, apparel, but devise new fashions of apparel, and new kinds of ways of stirring up and whetting of appetite. Thirdly, in affection, when men so addict themselves to meats and drinks, as they cannot be without them. Fourthly, in time, when these good creatures are used unreasonably (Ecc_10:16; Isa_5:11). The second point is, how intemperate persons in these things corrupt themselves; namely, four ways: first, in regard of their bodies, upon which by their sin of intemperance they call sundry sicknesses, yea, and hasten their death. Secondly, they deface Gods image, making themselves worse than the beasts themselves. Thirdly, they destroy their souls; for no drunkard or riotous person shall inherit heaven (1Co_3:1-23). Fourthly, they overthrow their families in wasting their substance to the maintaining of their intemperance, and so bring ruin to the places where they live. (W. Perkins.)

The sin of ignorant railing

As fire lieth not long in the stubble or in the flax, but the flame breaketh out, so hatred lieth not long in these mens hearts, but breaketh out in evil speeches, and many times. They will speak evil of things they know not. As an image is not seen in water that is troubled, no more is truth in a mind that is malicious, but it sendeth forth with violence all manner of evil speakings. Yet the world is as full of evil speakers as Nilus of crocodiles, as Sodom of sulphur, and Egypt of lice. Can the wound be cured, so long as the iron remain in it? Can the iron be cold, so long as it is in the smiths forge? Can the river cease running so long as the fountain floweth? And can the tongue refrain from evil speaking so long as hatred boileth in the heart? And as the water turneth the wheel, so the heart the tongue. They rail in their ignorance on things which they know not. The birds have no such enemy as the owl; nor the mariner no such enemy as the mermaid; so the learned no such enemy as the ignorant. Saint Peter, speaking of the epicures and atheists of the world, saith, They knew not, and that willingly. And Paul said of the Gentiles, that they walked in the vanity of their mind, having their cogitation darkened, and being strangers from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them. As there be degrees in sin, so is there a gradation in ignorance. It is a sin to be ignorant in that we should know, but a greater to be ignorant in that we are bound to know. A man without knowledge is as a workman without his hands, as a painter without his eyes. Only the wise man is a right man; and the man of understanding is only wise. But to proceed, if it be a sin to rail in ignorance, how execrable is it when it is in knowledge! Then it is a double sin. But pride planted it, and envy watered it; they sinned in knowledge, not in ignorance; they said that they knew God as well as God knew Himself. But, to return; most men rail in ignorance; they are like unto Herpasta Socrates, the fool, that having lost her eyes did not believe that she was blind, but thought the house to be dark. So we are blind, and yet will not see it; it is nothing to name the Ten Commandments, the Lords Prayer, the twelve Articles of Faith, the two sacraments, but to understand them. Men are not ignorant for want of teaching, but for want of learning; we will not learn. Nay, Jude chargeth them further, that they abused themselves, in that they knew not. Like the Doctors of Ephesus, of whom Paul reporteth thus: They would be doctors of the law, and yet understand not what they speak, neither whereof they affirm. And also in that they knew; for, saith Jude, Whatsoever things they know naturally, as beasts, which are without reason, in those things they corrupt themselves; so that every way they are vile and miserable, as Rev_3:17. Some things they knew naturally, as beasts that know sweet from sour, good from evil, meat from poison. Where let me distinguish of knowledge, that there is a natural knowledge and a spiritual knowledge; the first of these the apostle calleth the wisdom of the flesh; the second, the wisdom of the spirit. Lastly, he compareth them to beasts; for in many things the wicked are as beasts, if not worse; by creation little inferior to the angels; by conversation much inferior to brute beasts. Let us then no longer live beastly, lest we perish with the beast, but live Christianly, that so we may see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living. (S. Otes.)

The condemnations of ignorance

I. Truth is usually slandered out of ignorance; because men do not understand the ways and things of God, therefore they do condemn them. It is the devils cunning to keep us at a distance from truths, and therefore burdeneth them with prejudices, that we may suspect rather than search, and condemn that out of ignorance which upon knowledge we could not choose but love and profess; and it is mans perverseness and pride to speak evil of things above his reach, and to disprove that which he has not attained unto or cannot understand.

II. Blockish and stupid men are most bold in reproaching. A fools wrath falleth very heavy, because it falleth with all its weight, there being nothing to restrain and stop it (Pro_27:3). What ado have we in the ministry with young heady professors, that have more heat than light!

III. Men of corrupt minds are usually sensual, and sensual men are usually men of corrupt minds; an unsound heart is best sheltered under unsound doctrine, and carnal delights blunt and weaken the edge and intension of the mind, so that they are very liable to mistakes. Therefore, on the one side, we should labour to keep the mind right and sound in the faith; fish stink first at the head; when the judgment is poisoned, the taint is soon conveyed to the affections. On the other side, add to your knowledge temperance (2Pe_1:6). That is the best knowledge that endeth in temperance, or begets a holy moderation in the use of sensual pleasure; if we cannot govern our affections, we know nothing as we ought to know; nay, otherwise, your knowledge will be corrupted by your affections; many errors take their rise and beginning from evil manners and filthy lusts.

IV. Wicked men, left to themselves, do but abuse and corrupt that natural goodness and knowledge which they have in them. Natural abilities are soon depraved with evil habits.

V. Sin where it reigneth turneth a man into a brute beast (Psa_49:12). If we had the head of a horse, or the face of a swine, or the hoofs of an ass, how should we be looked upon as monsters; but to have the hearts of the beasts is worse; to be like them in the inward man is more monstrous in the sight of God. The beasts know their stint and measure; a horse or a dog will not be drunk, etc. Sin doth not only make a beast of you, but a devil of you (Joh_6:70).

VI. It is a sign of a man turned beast to follow the passions and lusts of corrupt nature. Why? For then the government of reason is renounced, and all is yielded up into the hands of lust and appetite. In men reason should have the chief governance, and exercise a coercion and restraint over our affections. I shall take occasion here to show you how many ways a man turneth beast.

1. By an addictedness to sensual pleasures and delights.

2. When, in the use of these delights, we keep neither modesty nor measure, this is but like swine to wallow in our own filthiness; a beast can do no more.

3. When men live by appetite rather than reason and conscience, feeding without fear, and nourishing the body, but taking no care to refresh the soul.

VII. Sensuality doth but make way for corruption; you may counterpoise the temptation to the sin with the punishment; usually secret sins and sweet sins meet with a heavy punishment; secret sins, that do not betray us to shame, may yet beget horror when we think of what will ensue: and sweet sins, that entice our affections, to prevent them we may counterbalance one affection with another, delight with fear. (T. Manton.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jdg 1:9. Yet Michael, &c. — It does not appear whether St. Jude learned this by any revelation, or from an ancient tradition. It suffices that these things were not only true, but acknowledged to be so by them to whom he wrote. Michael is mentioned Dan 10:13; Dan 10:21; Dan 12:1, as standing up in defence of Daniel’s people. “Because the book of Daniel is the first sacred writing in which proper names are given to particular angels, some have fancied that, during the Babylonish captivity, the Jews invented these names, or learned them from the Chaldeans. But this seems an unfounded conjecture. For the angel who appeared to Zacharias, (Luk 1:19,) called himself Gabriel, which shows that that name was not of Chaldean invention.” The archangel — This word occurs but once more in the sacred writings, namely, 1Th 4:16. So that, whether there be one archangel only, or more, it is not possible for us to determine. Michael is called one of the chief princes, Dan 10:13, and the great prince, Dan 12:1; (on which passages see the notes.) And, because it is said, (Rev 12:7,) that Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and his angels, Estius conjectures that Michael is the chief or prince of all the angels. But this argument is not conclusive. When contending with the devil, he disputed (at what time we know not) concerning the body of Moses — Beza, Estius, Tillotson, and other good writers, think this passage is illustrated by Deu 34:6, where it is said the Lord buried Moses in a valley, in the land of Moab, and that no one knew of his sepulchre. They suppose that, had the devil been able to discover to the Jews the place where Moses was interred, they would afterward have paid an idolatrous honour to his remains; and it would have gratified his malice exceedingly, to have made him an occasion of idolatry, after his death, who had been so great an enemy to it in his life. To prevent this, he thinks, Michael buried his body secretly. This proves, by the way, that good angels are sometimes concerned in limiting the power of the devils, which must, no doubt, be a great vexation to those malignant spirits. But Mr. Baxter suggests it as a doubt, whether it were about the dead body of Moses, or Moses exposed on the water, when an infant, that there was this contention. Baxter suggests also another interpretation, in his note on this verse. Because the apostle here seems to allude to Zec 3:1, where we read of Joshua the high-priest, (representing the Jewish people,) standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him; and the Lord, namely, by his angel, saying unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem, rebuke thee: and inasmuch as the subject of that contention, between the angel and Satan, was the restoration of the Jewish Church and state, Baxter thinks that by the body of Moses here may be meant the Jewish constitution, civil and religious, which Moses had established. An interpretation which Macknight seems to countenance; “Michael is spoken of as one of the chief angels, who took care of the Israelites as a nation. He may therefore have been the angel of the Lord, before whom Joshua, the high-priest, is said, (Zec 3:1) to have stood, Satan being at his right hand to resist him, namely, in his design of restoring the Jewish Church and state, called by Jude, the body of Moses, just as the Christian Church is called by Paul, the body of Christ.” And this interpretation, however apparently improbable, receives some countenance from the consideration, that, among the Hebrews, the body of a thing is often used for the thing itself. Thus, Rom 7:24, the body of sin signifies sin itself. So the body of Moses may signify Moses himself, who is sometimes put in the New Testament for his law, as 2Co 3:15, When Moses is read, &c.; Act 15:21, Moses hath in every city them that preach him.

Durst not bring against him a railing accusation — But so revered the divine presence as to speak with moderation and gentleness, even to that great enemy of God and men. Michael’s duty, says Archbishop Tillotson, “restrained him, and probably his discretion too. As he durst not offend God in doing a thing so much beneath the dignity and perfection of his nature, so he could not but think that the devil would have been too hard for him at railing; a thing to which, as the angels have no disposition, so I believe they have no talent, no faculty at it; the cool consideration whereof should make all men, particularly those who call themselves divines, and especially in controversies about religion, ashamed and afraid of this manner of disputing.” But simply said — So great was his modesty! The Lord rebuke thee — I leave thee to the Judge of all. The argument of the apostle certainly does not lie in any regard shown by the angel to the devil, as a dignitary, and one who exercises dominion over subordinate evil spirits; for to be the leader of a band of such inexcusable rebels could entitle him to no respect; but it arises from the detestable character of the devil; as if the apostle had said, If the angel did not rail even against the devil, how much less ought we against men in authority, even supposing them in some things to behave amiss? To do it, therefore, when they behave well, must be a wickedness yet much more aggravated. — Doddridge.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1:9 Michael, one of the mightiest of the angels: In Jewish tradition, “archangel” was the highest rank of angel (see also 1 Thes 4:16). Michael is mentioned several other times in Scripture (Dan 10:13, 21; 12:1; Rev 12:7); the story about him fighting with the devil about Moses’ body is not in the Old Testament but is preserved in Jewish tradition (see Assumption of Moses).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Jud 1:9. Ὁ δὲ Μιχαὴλ, but Michael) It matters not whether the apostle received the knowledge of this contention from revelation only, or from the tradition of the elders: it is sufficient that he writes true things, and even admitted to be true by the brethren. Comp. Jud 1:14, note. Δὲ answers to μέντοι.—ὁ ἀρχάγγελος, the archangel) Mention is made of the archangel in this place only, and 1Th 4:16 (where also a most important subject is treated of, the resurrection of the dead): there is no mention of it elsewhere; so that we cannot determine whether there is one archangel only, or more.—ὅτε, when) When this dispute arose, and on what day, is not expressed: it certainly happened after the death of Moses.—τῷ διαβόλῳ, with the devil) against whom it is especially befitting for Michael to contend, Revelation 12—διακρινόμενος διελέγετο, disputing he contended) It was therefore a judicial contest.—περὶ τοῦ Μωσέως σώματος, concerning the body of Moses) He is plainly speaking of the identical body of Moses, now lifeless. In a matter full of mystery, we ought not to alter that part of the language which is plain, according to our own convenience. The devil, who had the power of death, and therefore perhaps claimed the right of hindering the resurrection of Moses, made some attempt, whatever it was, against the body of Moses.[3]—ΟὐΚ ἘΤΌΛΜΗΣΕ, did not dare) Modesty is an angelic virtue. The greater was the victory at length given to Michael: Rev 12:7.—The Synopsis of Sohar, p. 92, n. 6. It is not permitted man ignominiously to rail at a race opposed to him; that is, evil spirits.—Schœtt-genius. οὐκ—ἀλλʼ ὡς, Rom 9:32.—ΒΛΑΣΦΗΜΊΑς, of railing) that is, βλάσφημον, railing, 2Pe 2:11.—ἘΠΙΤΙΜΉΣΑΙ ΣΟΙ, punish thee) An instance of the Divine reserve.—Κύριος, the Lord) and none but He. To His judgment the angel assents beforehand [in advance].

[3] For a full discussion of the subject, see Michaelis’ Introduction, by Bishop Marsh, vol. 6.—T.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jud_1:9 places in a strong light the wickedness of this blasphemy (comp. 2Pe_2:11). They do something against the δόξαι, which even Michael the archangel did not venture to do against the devil.

ὁ δὲ Μιχαὴλ ὁ ἀρχάγγελος] Michael, in the doctrine of the angels, as it was developed during and after the captivity by the Jews, belonged to the seven highest angels, and was regarded as the guardian of the nation of Israel: Dan_12:1, הַשַּׂר הַגָּדוֹל הָעֹמֵד עַל־בְּנֵי עַמֶּךָ; comp. Dan_10:13; Dan_10:21; in the N. T. he is only mentioned in Rev_12:7. In the Book of Enoch, chap. 20:5, he is described as one of the holy angels set over the best part of the human race, over the people.

ἀρχάγγελος only here and in 1Th_4:16 (Dan_12:1, LXX., ὁ ἄρχων ὁ μέγας); see Winers bibl. Reallex.: Angel, Michael.

ὅτε τῷ διαβόλῳ κ.τ.λ.] This legend is found neither in the O. T. nor in the Rabbinical writings, nor in the Book of Enoch; Jude, however, supposes it well known. Oecumenius thus explains the circumstance: λέγεται τὸν Μιχαὴλ … τῇ τοῦ Μωσέως ταφῇ δεδιηκονηκέναι· τοῦ γὰρ διαβόλου τοῦτο μὴ καταδεχομένου, ἀλλʼ ἐπιφέροντος ἔγκλημα διὰ τὸν τοῦ Αἰγυπτίου φονον, ὡς αὐτοῦ ὄντος τοῦ Μωσέως, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μὴ συγχωρεῖσθαι αὐτῷ τυχεῖν τῆς ἐντίμου ταφῆς. According to Jonathan on Deu_34:6, the grave of Moses was given to the special custody of Michael. This legend, with reference to the manslaughter committed by Moses, might easily have been formed, as Oecumenius states it, out of Jewish tradition, extant in writing alongside of the Scriptures (Stier).[28] According to Origen (περὶ ἀρχῶν, iii. 2), Jude derived his account from a writing known in his age: ἈΝΆΒΑΣΙς ΤΟῦ ΜΩΣΈΩς.[29] Calvin and others regard oral tradition as the source; Nicolas de Lyra and others, a special revelation of the Holy Ghost; and F. Philippi, a direct instruction of the disciples by Christ, occasioned by the appearance of Moses on the mount of transfiguration. De Wette has correctly observed that the explanation is neither to be derived from the Zendavesta (Herder), nor is the contest to be interpreted allegorically (σῶμα Μωσέως = the people of Israel, or the Mosaic law).

ΔΙΑΚΡΙΝΌΜΕΝΟς ΔΙΕΛΈΓΕΤΟ] The juxtaposition of these synonymous words serves for the strengthening of the idea; by ΔΙΕΛΈΓΕΤΟ the conflict is indicated as a verbal altercation.

ΟὐΚ ἘΤΌΛΜΗΣΕ] he ventured not.

κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν βλασφημίας] Calovius incorrectly explains it by: ultionem de blasphemia sumere; the words refer not to a blasphemy uttered by the devil, but to a blasphemy against the devil, from which Michael restrained himself.

ΚΡΊΣΙΝ ἘΠΙΦΈΡΕΙΝ] denotes a judgment pronounced against any one (comp. Act_25:18 : ΑἸΤΊΑΝ ἘΠΙΦΈΡΕΙΝ).

ΚΡΊΣΙΝ ΒΛΑΣΦΗΜΊΑς] is a judgment containing in itself a blasphemy. By ΒΛΑΣΦ. that sayingnamely, an invectiveis to be understood by which the dignity belonging to another is injured. Michael restrained himself from such an invective against the devil, because he feared to injure his original dignity; instead of pronouncing a judgment himself, he left this to God. Herder: And Michael dared not to pronounce an abusive sentence.

ἈΛΛʼ ΕἾΠΕΝ· ἘΠΙΤΙΜΉΣΑΙ ΣΟΙ ΚΎΡΙΟς] the Lord rebuke thee: comp. Mat_17:18; Mat_19:13, etc. According to Zec_3:1-3, the angel of the Lord spoke the same words to the devil, who in the vision of Zechariah stood at his right hand as an adversary of the high priest Joshua (LXX.: ἐπιτιμήσαι κύριος ἐν σοὶ διάβολε).

[28] Schmid (bibl. Theol. II. p. 149), Luthardt, Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, I. p. 340), Schott, Wiesinger (less definitely) think that the conflict consisted in Michael not permitting the devil to exercise his power over the dead body of Moses, but withdrawing it from corruption; for which an appeal is made to the fact that God had honoured Moses to see in the body a vision of His entire nature (Hofmann), and also that Moses was to be a type of the Mediator conquering death (Schott), and that Moses appeared with Christ on the mount of transfiguration. In his explanation of this Epistle, Hofmann expresses himself to this effect, that Satan wished to prevent Moses, who shared in the impurity of death, and who had been a sinful man, from being miraculously buried by the holy hand of God (through Michael).

[29] See on this apocryphal writing, F. Philippi (das Buch Henoch, p. 166191), who ascribes the composition of it to a Christian in the second century, and assumes that he was induced to it by this 9th verse in the Epistle of Jude; this at all events is highly improbable.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jud 1:9 . ὁ δὲ Μιχαὴλ ὁ ἀρχάγγελος . The term ἀρχ . occurs in the N.T. only here and in 1Th 4:16 . The names of seven archangels are given in Enoch. The story here narrated is taken from the apocryphal Assumptio Mosis , as we learn from Clem. Adumbr. in Ep. Judae , and Orig. De Princ. iii. 2, 1. Didymus ( In Epist. Judae Enarratio ) says that some doubted the canonicity of the Epistle because of this quotation from an apocryphal book. In Cramer’s Catena on this passage (p. 163) we read τελευτήσαντος ἐν τῷ ὄρει Μωυσέως , ὁ Μιχαὴλ ἀποστέλλεται μεταθήσων τὸ σῶμα , εἶτα τοῦ διαβόλου κατὰ τοῦ Μωυσέως βλασφημοῦντος καὶ φονέα ἀναγορεύοντος διὰ τὸ πατάξαι τὸν Αἰγύπτιον , οὐκ ἐνεγκὼν τὴν κατʼ αὐτοῦ βλασφημίαν ὁ ἄγγελος , Ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι ὁ Θεὸς , πρὸς τὸν διάβολον ἔφη . Charles in his edition of the Assumption thus summarises the fragments dealing with the funeral of Moses: (1) Michael is commissioned to bury Moses, (2) Satan opposes his burial on two grounds: ( a ) he claims to be the lord of matter (hence the body should be handed over to him). To this claim Michael rejoins, “The Lord rebuke thee, for it was God’s spirit which created the world and all mankind”. ( b ) He brings the charge of murder against Moses (the answer to this is wanting). The story is based upon Deu 34:6 (R.V.), “he buried him ( mg. he was buried) in the valley … but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day”. Compare the vain search for Elijah (2Ki 2:16-17 ). Further details in Josephus ( Ant. 4:8, 48), νέφους αἰφνίδιον ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ στάντος ἀφανίζεται κατά τινος φάραγγος . γέγραφε δὲ αὐτὸν ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς βίβλοις τεθνεῶτα , δείσας μὴ διʼ ὑπερβολὴν τῆς περὶ αὐτὸν ἀρετῆς πρὸς τὸ θεῖον αὐτὸν ἀναχωρῆσαι τολμήσωσιν εἰπεῖν , Philo i. p. 165, and Clem. Al. (Str. vi. § 132, p. 807) where it is said that Caleb and Joshua witnessed the assumption of Moses to heaven, while his body was buried in the clefts of the mountain. See comment in the larger edition, pp. 74 76.

διακρινόμενος . Here used in the sense of “disputing,” as in Jer 15:10 , ἄνδρα διακρινόμενον πάσῃ τῇ γῇ , Joe 3:2 , Act 11:2 . See my note on Jas 1:6 and below Jud 1:22 .

διελέγετο . Cf. Mar 9:34 , πρὸς ἀλλήλους διελέχθησαν , τίς μείζων .

οὐκ ἐτόλμησεν κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν βλασφημίας . I take βλασφημίας to be gen. qualitatis , expressed by the adjective βλάσφημον in 2 Peter: see below on Jud 1:18 , Jas 1:25 , ἀκροατὴς ἐπιλησμονῆς , 2Pe 2:4 κριταὶ διαλογισμῶν πονηρῶν , 2Pe 3:6 , ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας , also 2Pe 2:1 , αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας , 2Pe 2:10 , ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασμοῦ . For ἐπενεγκεῖν see Plat. Legg. ix. 856 προδόσεως αἰτίαν ἐπιφέρων , ib. 943, τιμωρίαν ἐπιφ . The word occurs elsewhere in N.T. only in Rom 3:5 . Field ( On Translation of N.T. p. 244) compares Act 25:18 οἱ κατήγοροι οὐδεμίαν αἰτίαν ἔφερον ὧν ἐγὼ ὑπενόουν , Diod. xvi. 29, δίκην ἐπήνεγκαν κατὰ τῶν Σπαρτιατῶν , ib. xx. 10, κρίσεις ἀδίκους ἐπιφέροντες , xx. 62, φοβηθεὶς τὰς ἐπιφερομένας κρίσεις , tom. x. p. 171 ed. Bip. ἐπήνεγκαν κρίσιν περὶ ὕβρεως , and translates “durst not bring against him an accusation of blasphemy”; but surely that is just what he does in appealing to God. Besides such a statement would be altogether beside the point. The verse is introduced to show the guilt attached to speaking evil of dignities, i.e. of angels. If Michael abstained from speaking evil even of a fallen angel, this is appropriate; not so, if he simply abstained from charging the devil with speaking evil of Moses.

κρίσις , like κρίνω , has the two meanings of judgment and of accusation, cf. Lycurg. 31 where οἱ συκοφαντοῦντες are distinguished from τῶν δικαίως τὰς κρίσεις ἐνισταμένων .

ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι Κύριος . These words occur in the vision of Zechariah (2Pe 3:1-10 ) where the angel of the Lord replies to the charges of Satan against the high priest Joshua with the words ἐπιτιμήσαι Κύριος ἐν σοὶ , διάβολε , καὶ ἐπιτιμήσαι Κύριος ἐν σοί , ὁ ἐκλεξάμενος τὴν Ἱερουσαλήμ . They were no doubt inserted as appropriate by the author of the Ass. Mos. in his account of the controversy at the grave of Moses. We may compare Mat 17:18 , ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς .

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Michael the archangel. Here we strike a peculiarity of this epistle which caused its authority to be impugned in very early times, viz., the apparent citations of apocryphal writings. The passages are vv. 9, 14, 15. This reference to Michael was said by Origen to be founded on a Jewish work called "The Assumption of Moses," the first part of which was lately found in an old Latin translation at Milan; and this is the view of Davidson, so far at least as the words "the Lord rebuke thee" are concerned. Others refer it to Zec 3:1; but there is nothing there about Moses ' body, or Michael, or a dispute about the body. Others, again, to a rabbinical comment on Deu 34:6, where Michael is said to have been made guardian of Moses ' grave. Doubtless Jude was referring to some accepted story or tradition, probably based on Deu 34:6. For a similar reference to tradition compare 2Ti 3:8; Act 7:22. Michael. Angels are described in scripture as forming a society with different orders and dignities. This conception is developed in the books written during and after the exile, especially Daniel and Zechariah. Michael (Who is like God ?) is one of the seven archangels, and was regarded as the special protector of the Hebrew nation. He is mentioned three times in the Old Testament (Dan 10:13, 21; Dan 12:1), and twice in the New Testament (Jude 1:9; Rev 12:7). He is adored as a saint in the Romish Church. For legends, see Mrs. Jameson, "Sacred and Legendary Art," 1, 94 sq.

A railing accusation (krisin blasfhmiav). Lit., a judgment of railing; a sentence savoring of impugning his dignity. Michael remembered the high estate from which he fell, and left his sentence to God.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

An argument of comparison, Michael one of the chiefest Angels, was content to deliver Satan, although as most cursed enemy, to the judgment of God to be punished: and these perverse men are not ashamed to speak evil of the powers which are ordained of God.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Michael, the archangel--Nowhere in Scripture is the plural used, "archangels"; but only ONE, "archangel." The only other passage in the New Testament where it occurs, is Th1 4:16, where Christ is distinguished from the archangel, with whose voice He shall descend to raise the dead; they therefore err who confound Christ with Michael. The name means, Who is like God? In Dan 10:13 he is called "One ('the first,' Margin) of the chief princes." He is the champion angel of Israel. In Rev 12:7 the conflict between Michael and Satan is again alluded to.

about the body of Moses--his literal body. Satan, as having the power of death, opposed the raising of it again, on the ground of Moses' sin at Meribah, and his murder of the Egyptian. That Moses' body was raised, appears from his presence with Elijah and Jesus (who were in the body) at the Transfiguration: the sample and earnest of the coming resurrection kingdom, to be ushered in by Michael's standing up for God's people. Thus in each dispensation a sample and pledge of the future resurrection was given: Enoch in the patriarchal dispensation, Moses in the Levitical, Elijah in the prophetical. It is noteworthy that the same rebuke is recorded here as was used by the Angel of the Lord, or Jehovah the Second Person, in pleading for Joshua, the representative of the Jewish Church, against Satan, in Zac 3:2; whence some have thought that also here "the body of Moses" means the Jewish Church accused by Satan, before God, for its filthiness, on which ground he demands that divine justice should take its course against Israel, but is rebuked by the Lord who has "chosen Jerusalem": thus, as "the body of Christ" is the Christian Church, so "the body of Moses" is the Jewish Church. But the literal body is evidently here meant (though, secondarily, the Jewish Church is typified by Moses' body, as it was there represented by Joshua the high priest); and Michael, whose connection seems to be so close with Jehovah-Messiah on the one hand, and with Israel on the other, naturally uses the same language as his Lord. As Satan (adversary in court) or the devil (accuser) accuses alike the Church collectively and "the brethren" individually, so Christ pleads for us as our Advocate. Israel's, and all believers' full justification, and the accuser's being rebuked finally, is yet future. JOSEPHUS [Antiquities,4.8], states that God hid Moses' body, lest, if it had been exposed to view, it would have been made an idol of. Jude, in this account, either adopts it from the apocryphal "assumption of Moses" (as ORIGEN [Concerning Principalities, 3.2] thinks), or else from the ancient tradition on which that work was founded. Jude, as inspired, could distinguish how much of the tradition was true, how much false. We have no such means of distinguishing, and therefore can be sure of no tradition, save that which is in the written word.

durst not--from reverence for Satan's former dignity (Jde 1:8).

railing accusation--Greek, "judgment of blasphemy," or evil-speaking. Peter said, Angels do not, in order to avenge themselves, rail at dignities, though ungodly, when they have to contend with them: Jude says that the archangel Michael himself did not rail even at the time when he fought with the devil, the prince of evil spirits--not from fear of him, but from reverence of God, whose delegated power in this world Satan once had, and even in some degree still has. From the word "disputed," or debated in controversy, it is plain it was a judicial contest.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 9. Yet Michael the archangel] Of this personage many things are spoken in the Jewish writings "Rabbi Judah Hakkodesh says: Wherever Michael is said to appear, the glory of the Divine Majesty is always to be understood." Shemoth Rabba, sec. ii., fol. 104, 3. So that it seems as if they considered Michael in some sort as we do the Messiah manifested in the flesh.

Let it be observed that the word archangel is never found in the plural number in the sacred writings. There can be properly only one archangel, one chief or head of all the angelic host. Nor is the word devil, as applied to the great enemy of mankind, ever found in the plural; there can be but one monarch of all fallen spirits. Michael is this archangel, and head of all the angelic orders; the devil, great dragon, or Satan, is head of all the diabolic orders. When these two hosts are opposed to each other they are said to act under these two chiefs, as leaders; hence in Re 12:7, it is said: MICHAEL and his angels fought against the DRAGON and his angels. The word Michael מיכאל, seems to be compounded of מי mi, who, כ ke, like, and אל El, God; he who is like God; hence by this personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus.

Disputed about the body of Moses] What this means I cannot tell; or from what source St. Jude drew it, unless from some tradition among his countrymen. There is something very like it in Debarim Rabba, sec. ii., fol. 263, 1: "Samael, that wicked one, the prince of the satans, carefully kept the soul of Moses, saying: When the time comes in which Michael shall lament, I shall have my mouth filled with laughter. Michael said to him: Wretch, I weep, and thou laughest. Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy, because I have fallen; for I shall rise again: when I sit in darkness, the Lord is my light; Mic 7:8. By the words, because I have fallen, we must understand the death of Moses; by the words, I shall rise again, the government of Joshua, c." See the preface.

Another contention of Michael with Satan is mentioned in Yalcut Rubeni, fol. 43, 3: "At the time in which Isaac was bound there was a contention between Michael and Satan. Michael brought a ram, that Isaac might be liberated but Satan endeavoured to carry off the ram, that Isaac might be slain."

The contention mentioned by Jude is not about the sacrifice of Isaac, nor the soul of Moses, but about the BODY of Moses; but why or wherefore we know not. Some think the devil wished to show the Israelites where Moses was buried, knowing that they would then adore his body; and that Michael was sent to resist this discovery.

Durst not bring against him a railing accusation] It was a Jewish maxim, as may be seen in Synopsis Sohar, page 92, note 6: "It is not lawful for man to prefer ignominious reproaches, even against wicked spirits." See Schoettgen.

Dr. Macknight says: "In Dan 10:13; Dan 10:21; Dan 12:1, Michael is spoken of as one of the chief angels who took care of the Israelites as a nation; he may therefore have been the angel of the Lord before whom Joshua the high priest is said, Zec 3:1, to have stood, Satan being at his right hand to resist him, namely, in his design of restoring the Jewish Church and state, called by Jude the body of Moses, just as the Christian Church is called by Paul the body of Christ. Zechariah adds, And the Lord, that is, the angel of the Lord, as is plain from Zec 3:1-2, said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan! even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem, rebuke thee!" This is the most likely interpretation which I have seen; and it will appear the more probable when it is considered that, among the Hebrews, גוף guph, BODY, is often used for a thing itself. So, in Ro 7:24, σωματης αμαρτιας, the body of sin, signifies sin itself; so the body of Moses, גוף של משה guph shel Mosheh, may signify Moses himself; or that in which he was particularly concerned, viz., his institutes, religion, c.

It may be added, that the Jews consider Michael and Samael, one as the friend, the other as the enemy, of Israel. Samael is their accuser, Michael their advocate. "Michael and Samael stand before the Lord Satan accuses, but Michael shows the merits of Israel. Satan endeavours to speak, but Michael silences him: Hold thy tongue, says he, and let us hear what the Judge determines; for it is written, He will speak peace to his people, and to his saints; Ps 85:8." Shemoth Rabba, sec. xviii. fol. 117, 3.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

9. Yet Michael the archangel. Peter gives this argument shorter, and states generally, that angels, far more excellent than men, dare not bring forward a railing judgment. [2 Peter 2:11.]

But as this history is thought to have been taken from an apocryphal book, it has hence happened that less weight has been attached to this Epistle. But since the Jews at that time had many things from the traditions of the fathers, I see nothing unreasonable in saying that Jude referred to what had already been handed down for many ages. I know indeed that many puerilities had obtained the name of tradition, as at this day the Papists relate as traditions many of the silly dotages of the monks; but this is no reason why they should not have had some historical facts not committed to writing.

It is beyond controversy that Moses was buried by the Lord, that is, that his grave was concealed according to the known purpose of God. And the reason for concealing his grave is evident to all, that is, that the Jews might not bring forth his body to promote superstition. What wonder then is it, when the body of the prophet was hidden by God, Satan should attempt to make it known; and that angels, who are ever ready to serve God, should on the other hand resist him? And doubtless we see that Satan almost in all ages has been endeavoring to make the bodies of God’s saints idols to foolish men. Therefore this Epistle ought not to be suspected on account of this testimony, though it is not found in Scripture.

That Michael is introduced alone as disputing against Satan is not new. We know that myriads of angels are ever ready to render service to God; but he chooses this or that to do his business as he pleases. What Jude relates as having been said by Michael, is found also in the book of Zechariah,

“Let God chide (or check) thee, Satan.” (Zechariah 3:2.)

And it is a comparison, as they say, between the greater and the less. Michael dared not to speak more severely against Satan (though a reprobate and condemned) than to deliver him to God to be restrained; but those men hesitated not to load with extreme reproaches the powers which God had adorned with peculiar honors.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

9. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil …] It is obvious, from the manner in which St Jude writes, that he assumes that the fact to which he refers was familiar to his readers. No tradition, however, precisely corresponding with this statement is found in any Rabbinic or apocryphal book now extant, not even in the Book of Enoch, from which he has drawn so largely in other instances (Jud_1:6; Jud_1:14). Œcumenius indeed, writing in the tenth century, reports a tradition that Michael was appointed to minister at the burial of Moses, and that the devil urged that his murder of the Egyptian (Exo_2:12) had deprived him of the right of sepulture, and Origen (de Princ. iii. 2) states that the record of the dispute was found in a lost apocryphal book known as the Assumption of Moses, but in both these instances it is possible that the traditions may have grown out of the words of St Jude instead of being the foundation on which they rested. Rabbinic legends, however, though they do not furnish the precise fact to which St Jude refers, shew that a whole cycle of strange fantastic stories had gathered round the brief mysterious report of the death of Moses in Deu_34:5-6, and it will be worth while to give some of these as shewing their general character. Thus, in the Targum, or Paraphrase, of Jonathan on Deuteronomy it is stated that the grave of Moses was given over to the special custody of the Archangel Michael. In the Debarim Rabba i.e. the Midrash on Deuteronomy (fol. 263), it is related that Sammael, the prince of the Evil Angels, was impatient for the death of Moses. “And he said, ‘When will the longed-for moment come when Michael shall weep and I shall laugh?’ And at last the time came when Michael said to Sammael, ‘Ah! cursed one! Shall I weep while thou laughest?’ and made answer in the words of Micah, ‘Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy: when I fall, I shall arise; when I sit in darkness, the Lord shall be a light unto me’ ” (Mic_7:8). A longer and wilder legend is given in the same book (fol. 246), which must be somewhat abridged. “Moses prayed that if he might not enter into the Promised Land, he might at least be allowed to live; but God told him that unless he died in this world he could have no life in the world to come, and commanded Gabriel to fetch his soul. Gabriel shrank from the task. Michael was next bidden to go, and he too shrank; and then the command was given to Sammael, who found him with his face shining as the light, and he was afraid and trembled. He told him why he was come, and Moses asked him who had sent him, and he made answer that he was sent by the Creator of the Universe. But Moses still held out, and Sammael returned with his task unfulfilled. And Moses prayed, ‘Lord of the World, give not my soul over to the Angel of Death.” And there came a voice from Heaven, ‘Fear not, Moses, I will provide for thy burial,’ and Moses stood up and sanctified himself as do the Seraphim, and the Most High came down from Heaven and the three chief angels with Him. Michael prepared the bier and Gabriel spread out the winding sheet.… And the Most High kissed him, and through that kiss took his soul to Himself” (Nork, Rabbinische Quellen). It is suggestive that the sin of the angels comes prominently forward in connexion with the legend. The soul of Moses pleads its reluctance to leave the body which was so holy: “Lord of the world! The angels Asa and Asael lusted after the daughters of men, but Moses, from the day Thou appearedst unto him in the bush, led a life of perpetual continence.”

It is clear from these extracts that there was something like a floating cycle of legendary traditions connected with the death of the great Lawgiver, and it is a natural inference that St Jude’s words refer to one of these then popularly received. It is scarcely within the limits of probability that anything in the nature of a really primitive tradition could have been handed down from generation to generation, through fifteen hundred years, without leaving the slightest trace in a single passage of the Old Testament; nor is it more probable to assume, as some have done, that the writer of the Epistle had received a special revelation disclosing the fact to him. His tone in speaking of the fact is plainly that of one who assumes that his readers are familiar with it. The question whether in thus mentioning it he stamps it with the character of an actual fact in the history of the unseen world, will depend, as has been said above, upon the conclusion we have formed as to the nature of the inspiration under which the writers of the New Testament thought and wrote. Most thoughtful students of Scripture are now agreed that that inspirationdid not necessarily convey an infallible power of criticising the materials of history and distinguishing popular belief from contemporary records; and there is nothing, therefore, irreverent in the thought that St Jude may have referred incidentally to a legend which he saw no reason to question, and which supplied an apposite illustration. In comparing this allusion with the parallel passage in 2Pe_2:11, the thought suggests itself that the Apostle may have deliberately avoided what appeared to him unauthorized additions to the Sacred Records, and so worded his exhortation as to make it refer to what he found in Zec_3:2.

a railing accusation] The Greek phrase, literally a judgment, or charge, of blasphemy, though not absolutely identical with that in 2Pe_2:11, has substantially the same meaning, not “an accusation of blasphemy,” but one characterised by reviling.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Yet Michael the archangel,.... By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ; as appears from his name Michael, which signifies, "who is as God": and who is as God, or like unto him, but the Son of God, who is equal with God? and from his character as the archangel, or Prince of angels, for Christ is the head of all principality and power; and from what is elsewhere said of Michael, as that he is the great Prince, and on the side of the people of God, and to have angels under him, and at his command, Dan 10:21. So Philo the Jew (o) calls the most ancient Word, firstborn of God, the archangel; Uriel is called the archangel in this passage from the Apocrypha:

"And unto these things Uriel the archangel gave them answer, and said, Even when the number of seeds is filled in you: for he hath weighed the world in the balance.'' (2 Esdras 4:36)

when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses; which some understand literally of the fleshly and natural body of Moses, buried by the Lord himself, partly out of respect to him; and partly, as some think, lest the Israelites should be tempted to an idolatrous worship of him; but rather it was to show that the law of Moses was to be abolished and buried by Christ, never to rise more: and they think that this dispute was either about the burying of his body, or the taking of it up again; Satan on the one hand insisting upon the taking of it up, in order to induce the Israelites to worship him, and Michael, on the other hand, opposing it, to prevent this idolatry; but then the difficulty is, where Jude should have this account, since the Scriptures are silent about it. Some have thought that he took it out of an apocryphal book, called "the Ascension of Moses", as Origen (p), which is not likely; others, that he had it by tradition, by which means the Apostle Paul came by the names of the Egyptian magicians Jannes and Jambres; and some passages are referred to in some of their writings (q), as having some traces of this dispute; but in them the discourse is not concerning the body, but the soul of Moses; not concerning burying or taking up of his body, when buried, but concerning the taking away of his soul, when he was alive; which none of the angels caring to undertake, at length Samael, the chief of devils, did, but without success, wherefore God took it away with a kiss himself: besides, the apostle produces this history as a thing well known; nor is it reasonable to suppose that such an altercation should be between Michael, and the devil, on such an account; or that it was in order to draw Israel into idolatry on the one hand, and on the other hand to prevent it; since never was the custom of the Israelites to worship their progenitors or heroes; nor did they seem so well disposed to Moses in his lifetime; nor was there any necessity of taking up his body, were they inclined to give him honour and worship; yea, the sight of his dead body would rather have prevented than have encouraged it: but this is to be understood figuratively; and reference is had to the history in Zac 3:1; as appears from the latter part of this verse: some think the priesthood of Christ is intended, which was the end, the sum and substance, of the law of Moses; and seeing that Joshua, the high priest, was a type of Christ, and the angel of the Lord contended with Satan about him, he might be said to dispute with him about the body of Moses; but this sense makes a type of a type, and Christ to contend about himself; besides, this should rather be called the body of Christ than of Moses, others think that the temple of the Jews is meant about the rebuilding of which the contention is thought to be; and which may be called the body of Moses, as the church is called the body of Christ; though it should be observed, that the temple is never so called, and that not the place where the church meets, but the church itself, is called the body of Christ: but it is best of all to understand it of the law of Moses, which is sometimes called Moses himself, Joh 5:45; and so the body of Moses, or the body of his laws, the system of them; just as we call a system of laws, and of divinity, such an one's body of laws, and such an one's body of divinity: and this agrees with the language of the Jews, who say (r), of statutes, service, purification, &c. that they are , "the bodies of the law"; and so of Misnic treatises, as those which concern the offerings of turtle doves, and the purification of menstruous women, that they are "the bodies" of the traditions (s), that is, the sum and substance of them: so the decalogue is said (t) to be "the body of the Shema", or "Hear, O Israel", Deu 6:4, so Clemens of Alexandria (u) says, that there are some who consider the body of the Scriptures, the words and names, as if they were, , "the body of Moses" (w). Now the law of Moses was restored in the time of Joshua the high priest, by Ezra and Nehemiah. Joshua breaks some of these laws, and is charged by Satan as guilty, who contended and insisted upon it that he should suffer for it; so that this dispute or contention might be said to be about the body of Moses, that is, the body of Moses's law, which Joshua had broken; in which dispute Michael, or the angel of the Lord, even the Lord Jesus Christ himself,

durst not bring against him a railing accusation; that is, not that he was afraid of the devil, but though he could have given harder words, or severer language, and which the other deserved, yet he chose not to do it, he would not do it; in which sense the word "durst", or "dare", is used in Rom 5:7,

but said, the Lord rebuke thee; for thy malice and insolence; see Zac 3:2; and this mild and gentle way of using even the devil himself agrees with Christ's conduct towards him, when tempted by him in the wilderness, and when in his agony with him in the garden, and amidst all his reproaches and sufferings on the cross. And now the argument is from the greater to the lesser, that if Christ, the Prince of angels, did not choose to give a railing word to the devil, who is so much inferior to him, and when there was so much reason and occasion for it; then how great is the insolence of these men, that speak evil of civil and ecclesiastical rulers, without any just cause at all?

(o) De Confus. Ling. p. 341. & quis. rer. divin. Haeres. p. 509. (p) , l. 3. c. 2. (q) Debarim Rabba, fol. 245. 3, 4. Abot R. Nathan, c. 12. fol. 4. 2, 3. Petirath Mosis, fol. 57. 1. &. c. (r) Misn. Chagiga, c. 1. sect. 8. (s) Pirke Abot, c. 3. sect. 18. (t) T. Hieros. Beracot, fol. 6. 2. (u) Stromat, l. 6. p. 680. (w) Vid. Chion. Disput. Theolog. par. 1. & 2. De Corpore Mosis, sub Praesidio Trigland. Lugd. Batav. 1697.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Yet Michael the archangel ... - This verse has given more perplexity to expositors than any other part of the Epistle; and in fact the difficulties in regard to it have been so great that some have been led to regard the Epistle as spurious. The difficulty has arisen from these two circumstances:

Ignorance of the origin of what is said here of Michael the archangel, nothing of this kind being found in the Old Testament; and,

(2)The improbability of the story itself, which looks like a mere Jewish fable.

Peter 2Pe 2:2 made a general reference to angels as not bringing railing accusations against others before the Lord; but Jude refers to a particular case - the case of Michael when contending about the body of Moses. The methods proposed of reconciling the passage with the proper ideas of inspiration have been various, though perhaps no one of them relieves it of all difficulty. It would be inconsistent with the design of these notes to go into an extended examination of this passage. Those who wish to see a full investigation of it may consult Michaelis’ Introduction to the New Testament, vol. iv. pp. 378-393; Lardner, vol. vi. p. 312ff; Hug, Introduction Section 183; Benson, in loc.; Rosenmuller’s Morgenland, iii. pp. 196, 197; and Wetstein, in loc. The principal methods of relieving the difficulty have been the following:

I. Some have supposed that the reference is to the passage in Zechariah, Zec 3:1, following “And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan,” etc. The opinion that Jude refers to this passage was held by Lardner. But the objections to this are very obvious:

There is no similarity between the two, except the expression, “the Lord rebuke thee.”

(2)The name Michael does not occur at all in the passage in Zechariah.

(3)There is no mention made of the “body of Moses” there, and no allusion to it whatever.

(4)There is no intimation that there was any such contention about his body. There is a mere mention that Satan resisted the angel of the Lord, as seen in the vision, but no intimation that the controversy had “any” reference to Moses in any way.

(5)The reason of the resistance which Satan offered to the angel in the vision as seen by Zechariah is stated. It was in regard to the consecration of Joshua to the office of high priest implying a return of prosperity to Jerusalem, and the restoration of the worship of God there in its purity; see Zec 3:2. To this Satan was of course opposed, and the vision represents him as resisting the angel in his purpose thus to set him apart to that office. These reasons seem to me to make it clear that Jude did not refer to the passage in Zechariah, nor is there any other place in the Old Testament to which it can be supposed he had reference.

II. Hug supposes that the reference here, as well as that in Jud 1:14, to the prophecy of Enoch, is derived from some apocryphal books existing in the time of Jude; and that though those books contained mere fables, the apostle appealed to them, not as conceding what was said to be true, but in order to refute and rebuke those against whom he wrote, out of books which they admitted to be of authority. Introduction Section 183. Arguments and confutations, he says, drawn from the sacred Scriptures, would have been of no avail in reasoning with them, for these they evaded 2Pe 3:16, and there were no surer means of influencing them than those writings which they themselves valued as the sources of their special views. According to this, the apostle did not mean to vouch for the truth of the story, but merely to make use of it in argument. The objection to this is, that the apostle does in fact seem to refer to the contest between Michael and the devil as true. He speaks of it in the same way in which he would have done if he had spoken of the death of Moses, or of his smiting the rock, or of his leading the children of Israel across the Red Sea, or of any other fact in history. If he regarded it as a mere fable, though it would have been honest and consistent with all proper views of inspiration for him to have said to those against whom he argued, that on their own principles such and such things were true, yet it would not be honest to speak of it as a fact which he admitted to be true. Besides, it should be remembered that he is not arguing with them, in which case it might be admissible reason in this way, but was making statements to others about them, and showing that they manifested a spirit entirely different from that which the angels evinced even when contending in a just cause against the prince of all evil.

III. It has been supposed that the apostle quotes an apocryphal book existing in his time, containing this account, and that he means to admit that the account is true. Origen mentions such a book, called “the Assumption of Moses,” (Αναληψις του Μωσεως Analēpsis tou Mōseōs,) as extant in his time, containing this very account of the contest between Michael and the devil about the body of Moses. That was a Jewish Greek book, and Origen supposed that this was the source of the account here. That book is now lost. There is still extant a book in Hebrew, called פטירת משׁה paTiyret Mosheh - “the Death of Moses,” which some have supposed to be the book referred to by Origen. “That” book contains many fabulous stories about the death of Moses, and is evidently the work of some Jew drawing wholly upon his imagination. An account of it may be seen in Michaelis, Introduction iv. p. 381ff. There is no reason to suppose that this is the same book referred to by Origen under the name of “the Assumption of Moses;” and there is a moral certainty that an inspired writer could not have quoted it as of authority. Further, there can be no reasonable doubt that such a book as Origen refers to, under the title of “the Assumption of Moses,” was extant in “his” time, but that does not prove by any means that it was extant in the time of Jude, or that he quoted it. There is, indeed, no positive proof that it was “not” extant in the time of Jude, but there is none that it was, and all the facts in the case will be met by the supposition that it was written afterward, and that the tradition on the subject here referred to by Jude was incorporated into it.

IV. The remaining supposition is, that Jude here refers to a prevalent “tradition” among the Jews, and that he has adopted it as containing an important truth, and one which bore on the subject under discussion. In support of this, it may be observed,

(a)That it is well known that there were many traditions of this nature among the Jews. See the notes at Mat 15:2.

That though many of these traditions were puerile and false, yet there is no reason to doubt that some of them might have been founded in truth. That an inspired writer might select those which were true, for the illustration of his subject, with as much propriety as he might select what was written; since if what was thus handed down by tradition was true, it was as proper to use it as to use a fact made known in any other way. That in fact such traditions were adopted by the inspired writers when they would serve to illustrate a subject which they were discussing. Thus Paul refers to the tradition about Jannes and Jambres as true history. See the notes at 2Ti 3:8. If, therefore, what is here said was true, there was no impropriety in its being referred to by Jude as an illustration of his subject.

The only material question then is, whether it is “true.” And who can prove that it is not? What evidence is there that it is not? How is it possible to demonstrate that it is not? There are many allusions in the Bible to angels; there is express mention of such an angel as Michael Dan 12:1; there is frequent mention of the devil; and there are numerous affirmations that both bad and good angels are employed in important transactions on the earth. Who can prove that such spirits never meet, never come in conflict, never encounter each other in executing their purposes? Good men meet bad men, and why is it any more absurd to suppose that good angels may encounter bad ones? It should be remembered, further, that there is no need of supposing that the subject of the dispute was about burying the body of Moses; or that Michael sought to bury it, and the devil endeavored to prevent it - the one in order that it might not be worshipped by the Israelites, and the other that it might be.

This indeed became incorporated into the tradition in the apocryphal books which were afterward written; but Jude says not one word of this, and is in no way responsible for it. All that he says is, that there was a contention or dispute (διακρινόμενος διελέγετο diakrinomenos dielegeto respecting “his body.” But when it was, or what was the occasion, or how it was conducted, he does “not” state, and we have no right to ascribe to him sentiments which he has not expressed. If ever such a controversy of any kind existed respecting that body, it is all that Jude affirms, and is all for which he should be held responsible. The sum of the matter, then, it seems to me is, that Jude has, as Paul did on another occasion, adopted a tradition which was prevalent in his time; that there is nothing necessarily absurd or impossible in the fact affirmed by the tradition, and that no one can possibly demonstrate that it is not true.

The archangel - The word “archangel” occurs only in one other place in the Scriptures. See the notes at 1Th 4:16. It means “ruling or chief” angel - the chief among the hosts of heaven. It is nowhere else applied to Michael, though his name is several times mentioned, Dan 10:13, Dan 10:21; Dan 12:1; Rev 12:7.

When contending - This word (διακρινόμενος diakrinomenos) refers here to a contention or strife with words - “a disputation.” Nothing farther is necessarily implied, for it is so used in this sense in the New Testament, Act 11:2, Act 11:12, (“Greek.”)

He disputed - διαλέγομαι dialegomai. “This” word also would denote merely a controversy or contention of words, Mar 9:34; Act 17:2, Act 17:17; Act 18:4, Act 18:19; Act 24:12.

About the body of Moses - The nature of this controversy is wholly unknown, and conjecture is useless. It is not said, however, that there was a strife which should get the body, or a contention about burying it, or any physical contention about it whatever. That there “may” have been, no one indeed can disprove; but all that the apostle says would be met by a supposition that there was any debate of any kind respecting that body, in which Michael, though provoked by the opposition of the worst being in the universe, still restrained himself from any outbreaking of passion, and used only the language of mild but firm rebuke.

Durst not - οῦκ ἐτόλμησεν ouk etolmēsen - “Did not dare.” It is not said that he did not dare to do it because he feared Satan; but all that the word implies is met by supposing that he did not dare to do it because he feared the Lord, or because in any circumstances it would be wrong.

A railing accusation - The Greek word is “blasphemy.” The meaning is, he did not indulge in the language of mere reproach: and it is implied here that such language would be wrong anywhere. If it would be right to bring a railing accusation against any one, it would be against the devil.

But said, The Lord rebuke thee - The word here used (ἐπιτιμάω epitimaō) means, properly, to put honor upon; and then to adjudge or confirm. Then it came to be used in the sense of commanding or “restraining” - as, e. g., the winds and waves, Mat 8:26; Mar 4:39. Then it is used in the sense of “admonishing strongly;” of enjoining upon one, “with the idea of censure,” Mat 18:18; Mar 1:25; Luk 4:35, Luk 4:41. This is the idea here - the expression of a wish that “the Lord” would take the matter of the dispute to himself, and that he would properly restrain and control Satan, with the implied idea that his conduct was wrong. The language is the same as that recorded in Zec 3:2, as used by “the angel” respecting Satan. But, as before observed, there is no reason to suppose that the apostle referred to that. The fact, however, that the angel is said to have used the language on that occasion may be allowed to give confirmation to what is said here, since it shows that it is the language which angelic beings naturally employ.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

When Michael, &c. We do not find this in any other canonical Scripture, so that St. Jude must either have had it from some tradition among the Jews, or from some writing which he, by the Spirit of God, knew to be true. It is not expressed on what account this dispute or strife was, betwixt St. Michael and the devil, about the body of Moses. The common interpretation is, that St. Michael conveyed the body of Moses out of the way, and from the knowledge of the Israelites, lest they should pay to it some idolatrous worship; whereas the devil, for that end, would have it buried, so that the people might know the place and adore it. See Deuteronomy xxxiv. 6. where it is said, "and no man hath known of his sepulchre until this present day." (Witham) --- Contended about the body, &c. This contention, which is no where else mentioned in holy writ, was originally known by revelation, and transmitted by tradition. It is thought the occasion of it was, that the devil would have had the body buried in such a place and manner, as to be worshipped by the Jews with divine honours. --- Command thee, or, rebuke thee. (Challoner)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Michael the archangel: either this is understood of Christ the Prince of angels, who is often in Scripture called an Angel, or of a created angel; and that either:

1. One of the archangels: Dan 10:13, Michael is called one of the chief princes, which though the word archangel be not found in the plural number in Scripture, may well imply a plurality of them; for what is one of the chief princes among the angels, but an archangel? Or:

2. A principal angel, or one that is chief among others.

When contending with the devil; it may be meant either of Christ contending with the devil, as Mat 4:1-25, in his temptation, and Zec 3:1,2, and Rev 12:7; or rather, of Michael, a created angel.

He disputed about the body of Moses:

1. If Michael the archangel be meant of Christ, then the body of Moses may be taken figuratively, for that body whereof the Mosaical ceremonies were shadows, Col 2:17, i.e. the truth and accomplishment of the law given by Moses; that accomplishment was to be in Christ, who is represented by Joshua, Zec 3:1-10; him Satan resists in the execution of his office, and by him strikes at Christ, whose type he was, and whom he afterward opposeth in the execution of his office, when he was come in the flesh. Or:

2. If we take Michael for a created angel, which agrees best with the parallel place in Peter, then the body of Moses must be taken properly, (as most take it), and the dispute seems to be: Whether Moses’s body should be so buried as to be concealed from the Israelites? Deu 34:6, it is said God buried him, ( which might be by the ministry of Michael the archangel), and that no man knoweth of his sepulchre. The devil opposeth the angel, desiring to have the place of his burial known, that in after-times it might be a snare to that people, and a means to bring them to idolatry. And this seems very probable, if we consider what work the devil hath made in the world with the bodies of saints and martyrs, and how much idolatry he hath brought in thereby. This passage Jude, most probably, had (as was observed in the argument) from some known tradition among the Jews, the truth of which we are now sure of, because certified here concerning it.

Durst not bring against him; or, could not endure, (as the Greek word is often taken among profane writers), or find in his heart, not from fear of punishment, but by reason of the holiness of his own nature, and to give an example to us. And this sense agrees to the scope of the place, whether we understand it of Christ, or of a created angel, Heb 12:3; 1Pe 2:23.

A railing accusation: see 2Pe 2:11.

But said, The Lord rebuke thee; i.e. put thee to silence, restrain thy insolence, hinder thy design, &c.: hereby the angel refers the cause to God.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

9. Michael—Whence Jude quotes this instance is not clearly known. Origen says, it is a passage quoted from the book entitled “Ascension of Moses;” but the passage as specified by him is not the same with this of Jude. The old Greek commentator OEcumenius says, “It is said that Michael, the archangel, heaped on dust at his burial, but the devil, not agreeing to it, brought a charge against him of the killing of the Egyptian, and as on that account not worthy an honourable burial.” This the commentator derived from a source not at present known. Alford quotes a Greek passage from the Catena to the following effect: “When Michael brought Moses into the mount where our Lord was transfigured, then the devil said that God had perjured himself, in bringing him where he had sworn he should never come,” namely, into the Land of Promise. Dr. Gardiner has a plausible conjecture, which is in some degree sustained by this reference to the transfiguration. In that scene Moses appears in his resurrection body, and according to Deu_34:5-6, the place of his tomb was never known. Moses, then, like the transfigured Elijah, was really not buried, but corporeally translated; and the real contest which took place between Michael and Satan was whether Moses was worthy, instead of a burial, of a translation. It may then have been a judicial contest, as in a case of canonization; in which Satan was the prosecutor, and Michael the advocate, of Moses; and the issue was, whether Moses should have a grave or an ascension. The transfiguration, where Moses appears with glorified body, shows that Michael was victorious.

Michael is a name which does not appear in Scripture until after the captivity, namely, in Dan_12:1, where he stands as the champion and guardian-angel of Israel See note, Mat_1:20. The word archangel appears but once elsewhere in Scripture, 1Th_4:16, “The Lord himself shall descend… with the voice of the (rather, an) archangel.” The pre-eminence of certain angels is implied in the apocryphal book of Tobit, where Raphael specifies himself as “one of the seven holy angels which present the prayers of the saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One.” As champion of the Church Michael is here, as in the Apocalypse, at issue with Satan, the “archangel ruined,” who is mentioned by Jesus as “the devil” with “his angels.”

Durst not—Had not the daring. Huther says, “From reverence for the original glory of the devil;” Fronmuller retorts, “Better, from profound dread of the majesty of God.” Both seem to be correct; for it was probably a judicial scene before God. As in Job, Satan appears in his official state as prosecutor, and a forensic courtesy before that tribunal of God himself is due even to that bad dignity, as well as to the divine Judge.

A railing accusation—An “abusing of the plaintiff’s attorney” is said to be the final resort of the other party’s pettifogger when the facts are hard upon his client. It was not Satan who was on trial, but Moses; and, therefore, Michael need not make irrelevant allusion to the opposing counsels unfortunate antecedents.

Rebuke thee—As he did Satan in the previous case of Job, acquitting the accused and non-suiting the accuser. Similar are the words of the angel to Satan in Zec_3:1-3, where the arch accuser is prosecuting God’s high-priest. Whether the document which Jude quotes was history or prose-poem, the archangel’s language repeated the words of Zechariah’s angel. Nor does the historical character of the document make important difference, for the modern pulpit could as properly elucidate a moral principle from Milton as from Macaulay. When it is said that “Jude quoted an apochryphal document,” it must be remembered that apochryphal means here simply the uninspired literature of the Hebrew Church. And if the book quoted was an imaginative production, its author wrote more wisely and more worthily of quotation than Milton, who makes even the angels retort “scorn for scorn.” Whether we hold the Satanic scene in Job to be history or poetry, it is equally suitable for instruction.

But are we to treat Satan with courtesy? We reply, that there is a deep moral wisdom in the maxim, “Give even the devil his due.” Respect is due to dignity, to position, to any excellence even in the worst character. And courtesy is due to the worst who is in the performance of a dignified office. And this, nevertheless, does not silence the voice of moral rebuke. When the dignitary puts off his dignity and becomes a buffoon, a criminal, a culprit, there is a suitable treatment for him as a buffoon, a criminal, a culprit. Dignified courts know how to treat a criminal with due respect and self-respect. When moral severity arraigns the guilty, in the true spirit either of reforming or of condemning for the warning of others, or for the public good, the plainest words of human language may be sometimes justifiably used. Of this truth, this very fragment of Jude’s is a rare example. And when Jesus arraigned Satan, (Joh_8:44,) truth and righteousness took precedence of courtesy. Preachers of the present day need not be afraid of this passage. It is a noble text in behalf of courtesy and moral rectitude in our forensic and judicial chambers, in our legislative and congressional halls, in our editorial columns. While just arraignments of official corruption are all-important and must never be effeminated, our courts are at the present day degraded by discourtesy, our senators bandy epithets suggestive of “honourable satisfaction,” and our newspapers run riot in partisan detraction. Said the Irish orator, Grattan, “The gentleman cannot be severe without being unparliamentary; I will show him how to be severe and parliamentary too.” At the present day a great public problem is how to state unflinching truth without extenuating, or setting down aught in malice.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The irreverent and unbridled speech of these "filthy dreamers" is now contrasted with the self-restraint of one of the "dignities" of the angelic world. The point of the contrast is sufficiently clear. The incident itself is obscure. But Michael the archangel. With the exception of Rev_12:7, where he is described as warring with the dragon, this is the only mention which the New Testament makes of Michael. It is entirely in harmony, however, with the Old Testament representation. It is only in the Book of Daniel that he is named there, but he appears as the champion and protector of Israel against the world-powers of heathenism. He is "one of the chief princes", (Dan_10:13) "your prince", (Dan_10:21) "the great prince", (Dan_12:1) who gives help against Persia, and stands for the chosen people. He is also introduced in the Book of Enoch, and the view given of him there is like that in Jude. He is "the merciful, the patient, the holy Michael" (Enoch 40:8). He belongs to that developed form which the doctrine of angels took towards the close of Old Testament revelation, when the ideas of distinction in dignity and office were added to the simpler conception of earlier times. In the apocryphal books we find a hierarchy with seven archangels, including Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel. When contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. These last words occur in Zec_3:2, where they are addressed by the Lord to Satan. The term used for "disputed" points to a contention in words. The phrase rendered "railing accusation" by the English Version, and "invective" by others, means rather a judgment or "sentence savouring of evil-speaking," as Alford puts it. Following the Rhemish Version, therefore, the Revised Version renders it a "railing judgment." What is meant, then, is that Michael restrained himself, leaving all judgment and vengeance even in this case to God. But what is the case referred to? The Targum of Jonathan, on Deu_34:6, speaks of Michael as having charge of the grave of Moses, and there may be something to the same effect in other ancient Jewish legends (see Wetstein). But with this partial exception, there seems to be nothing resembling Jude"s statement either in apocryphal books like that of Enoch or in the rabbinical literature, not to speak of the canonical Scriptures. Neither is the object of the contention quite apparent whether it is meant that the devil attempted to deprive Moses of the honour of burial by impeaching him of the murder of the Egyptian, or that he sought to preserve the body for idolatrous uses such as the brazen serpent lent itself to, or what else. The matter, nevertheless, is introduced by Jude as one with which his readers would be familiar. Whence, then, comes the story? Some have solved the difficulty by the desperate expedient of allegory, as if the body of Moses were a figure of the Israelite Law, polity, or people; and as if the sentence referred to the giving of the Law at Sinai, the siege under Hezekiah, or the rebuilding under Zerubbabel. Others seek its source in a special revelation, or in some unrecorded instructions given by Christ in explanation of the Transfiguration scene. Herder would travel all the way to the Zend-Avesta for it. Calvin referred it to oral Jewish tradition. Another view of it appears, however, in so early a writer as Origen, viz. that it is a quotation from an old apocryphal writing on the Ascent or Assumption of Moses, the date of which is much disputed, but is taken by some of the best authorities (Ewald, Wieseler, Dillmann, Drummond) to be the first decade after the death of Herod. This is the most probable explanation; and Jude"s use of this story, therefore, carries no more serious consequences with it than the use he afterwards makes of the Book of Enoch. Beyond what could be gathered from a few scattered references and quotations in the Fathers and some later writings, the book in question remained unknown for many centuries. But in the year 1861 a considerable part of it, which had been discovered in the Ambrosian Library of Milan, was given to the public by Ceriani, in an Old Latin version, and since that time various editions of it have been published. Ewald observes that the quotation "shows how early the attempt was made to describe exactly the final moment of the life of Moses, and to weave into this description a complete answer to the questions which arose concerning his highest glory, and his guilt or innocence" ("History of Israel," 2, page 226, Eng. trans.). Some who are not prepared to accept the theory that the passage is a quotation from this ancient book, understand Jude to refer to a traditional expansion of Scripture, based partly on the narrative of the death of Moses in Deuteronomy, and partly on the scene between Joshua and Satan in Zec 3. So, for example, Professor Lumby, who is of opinion that the mention of Jannes and Jambres in 2Ti_3:8, and certain passages in Stephen"s speech as reported in Ac 7, show that there were current among the Jews "traditional explanations of the earlier history, which had grown round the Old Testament narrative." (On the Assumption of Moses, and the spread of legend on the subject of the death of Moses, see Schurer"s "The Jewish People in the Time of Christ," volume 3, div. 2. pages 80-83, Clark"s translation.)

An angelic example for human imitation.

Jude then refers to an extraordinary incident not recorded in Scripture, but evidently contained in the old Jewish traditions respecting a contest of Michael the archangel with the devil.

I THE ARCHANGEL MICHAEL WHO WAS HE?

1. He appears as "one of the chief princes who stood up for God"s people against the Persians. (Dan_10:13)

2. He appears as fighting. "Michael and his angels" against the devil and his angels. (Rev_12:7)

3. He is probably the archangel whose voice is to be heard at the period of our Lord"s descent to judgment. (1Th_4:16)

4. He is probably at the head of the good angels, as the devil is represented as at the head of the evil angels.

5. High as he is in rank, he is most active in dutiful service to God.

II THE STRIFE BETWEEN MICHAEL AND THE DEVIL. "But Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing judgment.

1. The incident here referred to occurred necessarily after Moses" death.

2. The dispute did not arise, as some think, from the effort of type devil to prevent the concealment of the body of Moses, whom God buried that no man might know the place of his sepulture. The reason usually assigned for the secrecy of the burial is that the Israelites might have worshipped the body of their great lawgiver. But there is no evidence that the Israelites ever at any time showed a disposition to worship dead men"s bones. Their inclination was rather to worship the powers of nature.

3. An ingenious and plausible explanation has been given of this strife in this wise.

(1) We know that Moses and Elias appeared together at the Transfiguration. (Luk_9:29-33) They are called "two men." Elias was certainly in the body a glorified body, no doubt. Does not the similarity of statement imply that Moses was likewise in the body?

(2) This would imply that Moses was raised up after his burial, but before he saw corruption, and was taken to heaven like Elijah and Enoch. God buried him, and the archangel watched over him that he should not see corruption. But why should the devil interfere with the archangel"s watch? Is it that the devil has "the power of death"? (Heb_2:14) Is it that he has an interest in the corruption of our bodies, as the completion of that physical death which enters into the wages of sin? The contest may have arisen from the effort of Michael, on the one side, to secure the body of Moses from corruption till the moment when he, with his angels, would carry it into heaven, and from the effort of the devil, on the other side, to inflict the last stigma of death upon the great Israelite. This explanation seems more plausible than any other that has been suggested of this mysterious conflict between the heads of the principalities of the spirit-world. The conflict suggests that:

(a) Sin and holiness must necessarily come into conflict wherever they encounter each other.

(b) Michael overcomes the devil. "He that is for us is far greater than all they that be against us.

III THE DEPORTMENT OF MICHAEL IN THIS STRIFE WITH THE DEVIL. "He durst not bring against him a railing judgment, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

1. It would have been inconsistent with angelical perfection to rail against the devil.

2. There is no cowardice in Michael not daring to sin.

3. What is wrong for angels cannot be right for men to do.

4. Michael left the decision of the strife absolutely in God"s hands.

5. God"s power restrains that of the devil.

6. The thought that we have a God into whose hands we may commit our cause ought to make us patient, forbearing, and forgiving. T.C.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Yet Michael - It does not appear whether St. Jude learned this by any Revelation or from ancient tradition. It suffices, that these things were not only true, but acknowledged as such by them to whom he wrote. The archangel - This word occurs but once more in the sacred writings, 1 Thess. iv, 16. So that whether there be one archangel only, or more, it is not possible for us to determine. When he disputed with the devil - At what time we know not. Concerning the body of Moses - Possibly the devil would have discovered the place where it was buried, which God for wise reasons had concealed. Durst not bring even against him a railing accusation - Though so far beneath him in every respect. But simply said, (so great was his modesty!) The Lord rebuke thee - I leave thee to the Judge of all.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Our apostle in the preceding verse having charged seducers with contemptuous speaking against governors and government, in this verse he aggravates the impudence and impiety of it, by the carriage of Michael the archangel towards the devil.

The argument is taken from the greater to the less, and lies thus: if Michael, an archangel, so excellent in nature, so high in office, contending with Satan, an impure spirit, yet used great modesty, without the least indecency of expression towards him; who and what are those that despise dominions, and dare speak evil of dignities?"

Hence observe, That it is our duty to learn the angelic lesson; namely, not to give railing or reviling language to the worst adversary in the best cause, because it proceeds from pride or passion, and because so contrary to the temper and design of Christianity; much more is it our duty to watch against the sins of the tongue, with respect to our governors and superiors, remembering it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the rulers of thy people.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9. This isolated and mysterious historic allusion to the terrible hand-to- hand battle of the Archangel Michael and the devil over the body of Moses admits of but one solution, i.e., the transfiguration of that body. If Satan had not conquered our race in Eden, none of our bodies would undergo disintegration. The presence of Moses with his transfigured body on the mount with Jesus and Elijah confirms the fact that the devil did not keep his body in the grave. Hence we must conclude that Moses having died on Pisgah was raised and transfigured when Michael came to take him up to heaven, Satan fighting over him with desperation, or we must conclude that he was translated from Pisgah. In either case Satan lost the body when it was transfigured. Michael coming after him encountered the devil in a hand-to-hand combat, dared not bring against him a judgment of blasphemy, but said, “The Lord rebuke thee.” Here we see that in Michael’s terrible conflict with the devil over the body of Moses, he did not usurp the divine prerogative, issuing his verdict against him. God alone is the judge of all men and devils, while, like Michael, we are to be valiant for truth, fighting the devil and sin under the black flag, yet we must remember that the judicial prerogative belongs to God alone. Prejudice is from the Latin pre, beforehand, judicium, judgment. Hence prejudice means a judgment given before the testimony is heard. That is the trouble with holiness this day, and always has been. God’s religion is a secret revealed only by the Holy Ghost to the penitent believer. God in the judgment day will give the devil, all demons and men, a fair trial. The Holy Ghost is the only Arbiter of religion and the Church.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9. Yet Michael the archangel. Michael is brought forward as a contrast with those who speak evil of dignities. He is called by Daniel “the Great Prince,” and here the archangel, or head angel. Yet in addressing the devil, a fallen angel, he did not rail at him, but only said, “The Lord rebuke thee.” The reference is not to a statement of the Bible, but to a Jewish tradition which held that the burial place of Moses was placed under the charge of Michael.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

General Information:

Balaam was a prophet who refused to curse Israel for an enemy but then taught that enemy to get the people to marry unbelievers and become idol worshipers.

General Information:

Korah was a man of Israel who rebelled against Moses' leadership and Aaron's priesthood.

did not dare to bring

"controlled himself. He did not bring" or "was not willing to bring"

a slanderous judgment

"an evil-speaking judgment" or "an evil judgment"

these people

the ungodly people

bring a slanderous judgment against

"say evil, untrue things about"

whatever they do not understand

"anything of which they do not know the meaning." Possible meanings are 1) "everything good that they do not understand" or 2) "the glorious ones, which they do not understand" (Jude 1:8).

walked in the way of Cain

"Walked in the way" here is a metaphor for "lived in the same way as." AT: "lived the same way Cain lived"

translationWords

angel

Satan

Moses

rebuke

woe

walk

Cain

Balaam

perish

rebel

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

9. For the matter see Introd. p. xli.

κρίσιν βλασφημίας = βλάσφημον κρίσιν 2Pe 2:11 (cf. Jas 1:25 ἀκροατὴς ἐπιλησμονῆς) not “an accusation of blasphemy,” but cf. Field ad loc.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9.] But Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed concerning the body of Moses, dared not (by the context, from reverence for Satan’s former glory) bring against him a judgment of evil speaking (i. e. as E. V., a railing accusation: a sentence savouring of, belonging to, βλασφημία; not as Calov., “ultionem de blasphemia sumere:” the blasphemy is not one spoken by, but against, the devil), but said, The Lord rebuke thee (the source of the tradition to which St. Jude here refers as familiar to his readers, is not known with any certainty, Origen, περὶ ἀρχῶν, iii. 2. 1, vol. i. p. 138, says, “primo quidem in Genesi serpens Evam seduxisse describitur: de quo in Adscensione Mosis, cujus libelli, meminit in Epistola sua Apostolus Judas, Michael archangelus cum diabolo disputans de corpora Mosis, ait …” Œc. h. l. says, λέγεται τὸν Μιχαὴλ τὸν ἀρχάγγελον τῇ τοῦ Μωϋσέως ταφῇ δεδιηκονηκέναι, τοῦ διαβόλου τοῦτο μὴ καταδεχομένου, ἀλλʼ ἐπιφέροντος ἔγκλημα αὐτῷ τοῦ Αἰγυπτίου φόνου, ὡς αὐτοῦ ὄντος τοῦ Μωϋσέως, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μὴ συγχωρεῖσθαι αὐτὸν τυχεῖν ἐντίμου ταφῆς. No such tradition is found in any apocryphal or rabbinical book now extant. In the targum of Jonathan in Deu 34:6, it is stated that the grave of Moses was given into the special custody of Michael. See also several Rabbinical legends having more or less reference to the point in Wetstein. Some, mentioned as early as Severus in the Catena, have given an allegorical interpretation, understanding by τὸ σῶμα Μωϋσέως the law, or Jewish polity, or even people: and, thus interpreting, fix the occasion very variously: at the giving of the law (τινές in Severus): at the siege under Hezekiah, or the rebuilding under Zerubbabel (Starck, in Wolf). All such explanations are of course out of the question: and the literal matter of fact alone to be held fast. It is, however, remarkable, that the same words, ἐπιτιμήσαι (ἐν) σοι κύριος, are spoken by the angel (κύριος, LXX) to the devil in Zec 3:1-3. This has led some, e. g. Bede, to imagine, that this was the occasion referred to, when Joshua and Satan stood as adversaries concerning the deliverance of Israel from captivity. Another and more curious explanation is given in the Catena: ὅτε ἤγαγεν (ὁ Μιχαὴλ) Μωϋσῆν ἐν τῷ ὄρει ἔνθα μετεμορφώθη ὁ κύριος, τότε ἔλεγεν ὁ διάβολος τῷ Μιχαήλ, ἐψεύσατο ὁ θεὸς εἰσαγαγὼν τὸν Μωϋσῆν, ἔνθα ὤμοσε μὴ εἰσελθεῖν αὐτόν. The whole matter is thoroughly discussed, and every source of illustration exhausted, in Rampf, Der Brief Judæ u. s. w. pp. 201-253. His conclusion, in which I entirely agree, is that St. Jude took the incident from primitive tradition, which tradition slightly modified, is also given by the prophet Zechariah. That the incident is related as matter of fact, and not as an “argumentum ad hominem,” is evident by the very form of it. That, being thus related as matter of fact, it is matter of fact, is a conclusion which will or will not be made, according as we are or are not persuaded of the authenticity of our Epistle as a part of canonical Scripture: and according as we esteem that canonical Scripture itself).

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9. ὁ δὲ Μιχαήλ. “But Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a sentence of blasphemy, but said, May the Lord rebuke thee.” That is to say, “may the Lord rebuke thee for thy blasphemy.” Peter says that the angels will not bring against dignities “a railing accusation” (βλάσφημον κρίσιν), which is quite a different thing. See Introduction to 2 Peter, p. 217. Διακρίνεσθαι is used here in its proper sense, “to get a dispute decided,” “contend with an adversary in a court of law.” The dative διαβόλῳ is governed by διελέγετο. For κρίσις see 2Pe 2:11. Ἐπιτιμήσαι is, of course, optative.

The incident is taken by St. Jude from the Assumption of Moses, as we are informed by Clement of Alexandria (Adumb. in Ep. Judae), Origen (de Princ. iii. 2. 1), and Didymus. The passage as given, perhaps loosely, by a Scholiast on Jude (text in Hilgenfeld, Nouum Testamentum extra Canonem receptum, i. p. 128) runs thus: τελευτήσαντος ἐν τῷ ὄρει Μωυσέως ὁ ἀρχάγγελος Μιχαὴλ ἀποστέλλεται μεταθήσων τὸ σῶμα. ὁ μὲν οὖν διάβολος ἀντεῖχε θέλων ἀπατῆσαι, λέγων ὅτι ἐμοὶ τὸ σῶμα ὡς τῆς ὕλης δεσπόζοντι, ἤτοι διὰ τὸ πατάξαι τὸν Αἰγύπτιον βλασφημοῦντος κατὰ τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ φονέα ἀναγορεύσαντος· μὴ ἐνεγκὼν τὴν κατὰ τοῦ ἁγίου βλασφημίαν ὁ ἄγγελοσἙπιτιμησαι σοι ὁ Θεός, πρὸς τὸν διάβολον ἔφη. Here we see from ἀποστέλλεται that the dispute did not occur in the presence of the Lord; hence Jude omits St. Peter’s παρὰ Κυρίῳ : again the meaning of βλασφημίας κρίσις comes out very clearly. Satan blasphemed Moses, claiming his body as that of a murderer. Michael would not tolerate his sin of blasphemy against the saint, yet abstains from openly charging him with blasphemy. The date of the Assumption is variously given; but as it was probably used by St. Paul in Gal 3:19, where Moses is called the μεσίτης of the law (the phrase in the Assumption as quoted by Gelasius Cyz. Acta Syn. Nicaen. ii. 18, p. 28, is τῆς διαθήκης μεσίτην : in the existing Latin version arbiter testamenti), it is also probably considerably older than that Epistle. Hilgenfeld thinks that it was written after 44 a.d.; others place it as early as 2 b.c. It is possible that Jude refers to the Assumption again in ver. 16.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.