Albert Barnes Commentary Jude 1:9

"But Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing judgment, but said, The Lord rebuke thee." — Jude 1:9 (ASV)

Yet Michael the archangel, etc. This verse has caused more puzzlement to expositors than any other part of the epistle. Indeed, the difficulties regarding it have been so great that some have been led to consider the epistle spurious. The difficulty has arisen from these two circumstances:

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

2. The improbability of the story itself, which seems like a mere Jewish fable.

In his second epistle, 2 Peter 2:2, Peter 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 for reconciling the passage with proper ideas of inspiration have been various, though perhaps no single one 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. 312 and following; Hug, Introduction, section 183; Benson, on this passage; Rosenmuller's Morgenland, iii. pp. 196, 197; and Wetstein, on this passage. The principal methods of relieving the difficulty have been the following:

1. Some have supposed that the reference is to the passage in Zechariah 3:1 and 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:

   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 merely a 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 for the resistance Satan offered to the angel in the vision seen by Zechariah is stated. It concerned the consecration of Joshua to the office of high priest, implying a return of prosperity to Jerusalem and the restoration of God's pure worship there . Satan was, of course, opposed to this, and the vision represents him as resisting the angel in his purpose to set Joshua apart for 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.

2. Hug supposes that the reference here, as well as that in Jude 1:14 to the prophecy of Enoch, is derived from some apocryphal books existing in Jude's time. He suggests that although those books contained mere fables, the apostle appealed to them, not as conceding their truth, but to refute and rebuke those against whom he wrote, using books they admitted to be authoritative.

   Hug (Introduction, section 183) says that arguments and refutations drawn from the sacred Scriptures would have been of no avail in reasoning with them, for these they evaded (2 Peter 3:16). 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 use 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 he would have spoken of the death of Moses, his smiting the rock, his leading the children of Israel across the Red Sea, or any other historical fact.

   If he regarded it as a mere fable, although 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, 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 this way—but was making statements to others about them, showing that they manifested a spirit entirely different from that which the angels displayed even when contending in a just cause against the prince of all evil.

3. It has been supposed that the apostle quotes an apocryphal book existing in his time which contained this account, and that he means to admit the account is true. Origen mentions such a book, called "the Assumption of Moses" (analhqiv tou mwsewv), as existing in his time, containing this very account of the contest between Michael and the devil about Moses' body. That was a Jewish Greek book, and Origen supposed this was the source of the account here. That book is now lost.

   There is still existing a book in Hebrew called "the Death of Moses," which some have supposed to be the book Origen referred to. 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, vol. iv. p. 381 and following. There is no reason to suppose this is the same book Origen referred to as "the Assumption of Moses;" and there is a moral certainty that an inspired writer could not have quoted it as authoritative.

   Furthermore, while there can be no reasonable doubt that such a book as Origen refers to, titled "the Assumption of Moses," was existing in his time, this does not by any means prove it was existing in Jude's time, or that Jude quoted it. Indeed, there is no positive proof that it was not existing in Jude's time, but there is also no proof that it was. All the facts in the case are met by the supposition that it was written later and that the tradition on this subject, referred to by Jude, was incorporated into it.

4. 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 relevant to the subject under discussion. In support of this, it may be observed:

   1. It is well known that there were many traditions of this nature among the Jews (see Barnes on Matthew 15:2).

   2. Although many of these traditions were childish and false, there is no reason to doubt that some might have been founded in truth.

   3. An inspired writer might select those which were true to illustrate 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.

   4. In fact, such traditions were adopted by the inspired writers when they would serve to illustrate a subject they were discussing. For example, Paul refers to the tradition about Jannes and Jambres as true history (see Barnes on 2 Timothy 3:8).

   5. Therefore, if what is said here was true, there was no impropriety in Jude referring to it 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 an angel such as Michael (Daniel 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 earth. Who can prove that such spirits never meet, never come into conflict, never encounter each other in executing their purposes? Good men meet bad men; why is it any more absurd to suppose that good angels may encounter bad ones?

   It should be remembered, furthermore, that there is no need to suppose the dispute was about burying Moses' body, or that Michael sought to bury it and the devil tried to prevent it—one so it might not be worshipped by the Israelites, and the other so it might be. This indeed became incorporated into the tradition in the apocryphal books written later, but Jude says nothing of this and is in no way responsible for it. All he says is that there was a contention or dispute (diakrinomenov dielegeto) respecting his body. But when it was, what the occasion was, or how it was conducted, he does not state, and we have no right to ascribe to him sentiments he has not expressed. If such a controversy of any kind ever existed respecting that body, that is all Jude affirms and all for which he should be held responsible.

   The sum of the matter, then, it seems to me, is that Jude, as Paul did on another occasion, adopted a tradition prevalent in his time. There is nothing necessarily absurd or impossible in the fact affirmed by the tradition, and no one can possibly demonstrate that it is not true.

The archangel. The word archangel occurs in only one other place in the Scriptures (see Barnes on 1 Thessalonians 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 mentioned several times (Daniel 10:13, 21; Daniel 12:1; Revelation 12:7).

When contending. This word (diakrinomenov) refers here to a contention or strife with words—a disputation. Nothing further is necessarily implied, for it is used in this sense in the New Testament (Acts 11:2, 12, Greek).

He disputed. dielegeto. This word also would denote merely a controversy or contention of words (Mark 9:34; Acts 17:2, 17; Acts 18:4, 19; Acts 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 over who 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 outburst of passion and used only the language of mild but firm rebuke.

Dared not. (ouk etolmhse – "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 anyone, it would be against the devil.

But said, The Lord rebuke thee. The word used here (epitimaw) properly means to put honor upon, and then to adjudge or confirm. Then it came to be used in the sense of commanding or restraining—as, for example, the winds and waves (Matthew 8:26; Mark 4:39). Then it is used in the sense of admonishing strongly, of enjoining upon one, with the idea of censure (Matthew 18:18; Mark 1:25; Luke 23:35, 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 Satan's conduct was wrong. The language is the same as that recorded in Zechariah 3:2, as used by "the angel" respecting Satan. But, as observed before, there is no reason to suppose that the apostle referred to that passage.

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.