9. Yet Michael the archangel,
&c. 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: (1.) 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 in his second epistle, chap. 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. iv. p. 312, seq.; Hug, Intro. § 183;
Benson, in loc.; Rosenmüller’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, chap. 3:1, seq. ‘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,’ &c. The
opinion that Jude refers to this passage was held by Lardner. But the
objections to this are very obvious: (1.) 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 Zech. 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
ver. 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. Intro. § 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, (2 Pet. 3:16,) and there
were no surer means of influencing them than those writings which they
themselves valued as the sources of their peculiar 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 to 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,) 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 משה—‘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, Intro.
iv. p. 381, seq. 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 afterwards, 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 Notes, Matt. 15:2. (b) 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. (c) 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. (d) 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 Notes, 2 Tim. 3:8. (e)
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 endeavoured 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
afterwards 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) 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
Notes, 1 Thess. 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, 21; 12:1; Rev. 12:7.
When contending. This word (διακρινόμενος) 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, Acts 11:2, 12, (Greek.)
He disputed. διελέγετο. This word also would
denote merely a controversy or contention of words, Mark 9:34; Acts 17:2, 17;
18:4, 19; 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 ἐτόλμησε—‘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) means,
properly, to put honour 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, Matt. 8:26; Mark 4:39. Then it is used in the sense
of admonishing strongly; of enjoining
upon one, with the idea of censure,
Matt. 18:18; Mark 1:25; Luke 4:35, 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
Zech. 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 New Testament: James to Jude [London: Blackie & Son, 1884-1885),
393-96)
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 Rev. 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, 21; 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, Zech. 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 ver. 1, 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 Rom. 7:24, σωμα της ἁμαρτιας, 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 Samacl, 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; Psa. 85:9.” Shemoth Rabba, sec. xviii., fol. 117, 3.
(Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible
with a Commentary and Critical Notes, 6 vols. [Bellingham, Wash.: Faithlife
Corporation, 2014], 6:952-53)
