This post expands on the following article that I wrote on this subject: Michael’s Contention With Satan.

As I showed in my previous post, what Jude says about Jesus and Michael clearly shows that they cannot be one and the same Being. Whereas Michael is depicted as a mighty spirit creature and ruling angel, Jesus, on the other hand, is described as YHWH God Almighty.

Jude sets forth the archangel Michael as an example of a being who wouldn’t dare exceed the limits of his authority by passing judgment on the devil himself. Instead, he came up against Satan by invoking the One who does have the right and power to condemn and judge, namely, the Lord God Almighty:

“In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings. But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare (etolmesen) to condemn him for slander but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’” Jude 1:8-9 New International Version (NIV)

Note some of the various renderings of the key text in question:

“But even Michael, the leader of the angels, didn’t dare to say these things. He didn’t even say these things when he argued with the devil about the body of Moses. Michael didn’t dare to judge the devil. He didn’t say the devil was guilty of saying evil things. Instead, Michael said, ‘May the Lord judge you!’” Jude 1:9 New International Reader’s Version (NIRV)

“Even Michael, the chief angel, didn’t dare to insult the devil, when the two of them were arguing about the body of Moses. All Michael said was, ‘The Lord will punish you!’” Contemporary English Version (CEV)

“Even the leader of God’s angels, Michael, did not speak bad words like that against the Devil. Long ago, Michael argued with the Devil about who should have Moses’ dead body. But even when the Devil said bad words against God, Michael himself did not speak against the Devil. He did not think that he should do that. Instead, Michael said, ‘The Lord himself will show that you are wrong.’” EasyEnglish Bible (EASY)

“But I would remind you that even the archangel Michael when he was contending with the devil in the dispute over the body of Moses did not dare to condemn him with mockery. He simply said, the Lord rebuke you!” J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS)

“The Archangel Michael, who went to the mat with the Devil as they fought over the body of Moses, wouldn’t have dared level him with a blasphemous curse, but said simply, ‘No you don’t. God will take care of you!’” The Message (MSG)

LEXICAL DEFINITION  

The word rendered as dare, etolmesen, comes from tolmao. Notice the way the Greek lexicons define the term:

Strong’s Greek 5111

5111. tolmaó 

Strong’s Concordance

tolmaó: to have courage, to be bold

Original Word: τολμάω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: tolmaó
Phonetic Spelling: (tol-mah’-o)
Definition: to have courage, to be bold
Usage: I dare, endure, am bold, have courage, make up the mind.

HELPS Word-studies

5111 tolmáō (from tolma, “bold courage”) – properly, to show daring courage necessary for a valid risk (“putting it all on the line”); courageously venture forward by putting fear behind and embracing the fruit that lies ahead for taking a necessary risk.

NAS Exhaustive Concordance

Word Origin
from tolma (boldness)
Definition
to have courage, to be bold
NASB Translation
am…bold (1), bold (2), courageous (1), dare (4), dared (1), gathered up courage (1), have courage (1), have…courage (1), presume (1), venture (2), ventured (1).

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon

STRONGS NT 5111: τολμάω

τολμάω, τολμῶ; imperfect 3 person singular ἐτόλμα, plural ἐτόλμων; future τολμήσω; 1 aorist ἐτόλησα; (τολμᾷ or τόλμῃ (`daring’; Curtius, § 236)); from Homer down; to dare;

a. not to dread or shun through fear: followed by an infinitive, Matthew 22:46; Mark 12:34; Luke 20:40; John 21:12 (Winer’s Grammar, § 65, 7b.); Acts 5:13; Acts 7:32; Romans 15:18; 2 Corinthians 10:12; Philippians 1:14; Jude 1:9; τολμήσας εἰσῆλθεν, took courage and went in, Mark 15:43 (Herodian, 8, 5, 22; Plutarch, vit. Cam. 22, 6).

b. to bear, endure; to bring oneself to; (cf. Winer’s Grammar, as above): followed by an infinitive, Romans 5:7; 1 Corinthians 6:1.

c. absolutely, to be bold; bear oneself boldly, deal boldly: 2 Corinthians 11:21; ἐπί τινα, against one, 2 Corinthians 10:2. (Compare: ἀποτολμάω.) [SYNONYMS: τολμάω, θαρρέω: θαρρέω denotes confidence in one’s own strength or capacity, θαρρέω boldness or daring in undertaking; θαρρέω has reference more to the character, τολμάω to its manifestation. Cf. Schmidt, chapter 24, 4; chapter 141. The words are found together in 2 Corinthians 10:2.]

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance

be bold, dare

From tolma (boldness; probably itself from the base of telos through the idea of extreme conduct); to venture (objectively or in act; while tharrheo is rather subjective or in feeling); by implication, to be courageous — be bold, boldly, dare, durst.

see GREEK telos

see GREEK tharrheo

Jude’s employment of etolmesen affirms the fact that Michael wouldn’t dare pass judgment in his dispute against Satan, since he knew better than to exceed the limits which God had assigned to him.

With the foregoing in perspective, how could it be conceivable for Jesus to depicted this way? How could Christ be described as not daring to bring a railing accusation or of refusing to pass judgment on Satan his adversary, especially when he is expressly said to be the One who does all the judging?

The Bible is explicitly clear that the Father has entrusted all judgment to Jesus, which is why he is the One coming to judge the living and the dead to repay every person according to what s/he has earned:

“Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him… Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man. Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his [the Son’s] voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.” John 5:22-23, 25-29  

“For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.” Matthew 16:27

“You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all… He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” Acts 10:36, 42-43

“In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” Acts 17:30-31

“This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.” Romans 2:16

“For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. It is written: ‘“As surely as I live,” says the Lord, “every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.”’ So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.” Romans 14:9-12

“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad. Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade others. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience.” 2 Corinthians 5:10-11  

“In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge… Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing… The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” 2 Timothy 4:1, 8, 18

“‘Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End… I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.’… He who testifies to these things says, ‘Yes, I am coming soon.’ Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God’s people. Amen.” Revelation 22:12-13, 16, 20-21

Moreover, this is the same Jesus that constantly rebuked the demonic realm with an absolute authority that caused the demons to tremble with dread, and who called out Satan for what he truly is:

“They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law. Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an impure spirit cried out, ‘What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!’ ‘Be quiet!’ said Jesus sternly. ‘Come out of him!’ The impure spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek. The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, ‘What is this? A new teaching—and with authority! He even gives orders to impure spirits and they obey him.’” Mark 1:21-27

“For he had healed many, so that those with diseases were pushing forward to touch him. Whenever the impure spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, ‘You are the Son of God.’ But he gave them strict orders not to tell others about him.” Mark 3:10-12

“They sailed to the region of the Gerasenes, which is across the lake from Galilee. When Jesus stepped ashore, he was met by a demon-possessed man from the town. For a long time this man had not worn clothes or lived in a house, but had lived in the tombs. When he saw Jesus, he cried out and fell at his feet, shouting at the top of his voice, ‘What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, don’t torture me!’ For Jesus had commanded the impure spirit to come out of the man. Many times it had seized him, and though he was chained hand and foot and kept under guard, he had broken his chains and had been driven by the demon into solitary places. Jesus asked him, ‘What is your name?’ ‘Legion,’ he replied, because many demons had gone into him. And they begged Jesus repeatedly not to order them to go into the Abyss.” Luke 8:26-31

“Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.’ Jesus answered, ‘It is written: “Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.”’ Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. ‘If you are the Son of God,’ he said, ‘throw yourself down. For it is written: “‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.”’ Jesus answered him, ‘It is also written: “Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”  Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. ‘All this I will give you,’ he said, ‘if you will bow down and worship me.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Away from me, Satan! For it is written: “Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.”’ Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.” Matthew 4:1-11

“You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” John 8:44

How, then, could any person imagine that Jude could possibly be identifying Christ with Michael seeing that the latter knew he didn’t possess the authority to come against the Devil to condemn him, but had to invoke the authority of the One who did?

And that someone is none other than the Lord Jesus himself!

Clearly, then, the verse from Jude proves that Jesus cannot be the archangel Michael. There’s simply no way around this inspired fact.

BIBLICAL EXPOSITORS

I conclude this post by referencing particular commentators who all concur that the essential point Jude was seeking to make is that Michael did not dare bring judgment against Satan since it wasn’t his place to do so. All emphasis will be mine.

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 Zech. 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,” &c. 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 God’s 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.)

… 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 apostle’s 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? (Joseph S. Exell, The Biblical Illustrator: Jude (London: James Nisbet & Co., n.d.), 36–37)

After each group of three Old Testament examples (verses5–8,11–13), Jude quotes an episode from the life of an Old Testament character which is not in our Bibles (verses9–10,14–16). Many Christians have found this disturbing and difficult; it was one reason for the heated discussion over the letter’s inclusion in the Bible. We will look at each example on its own terms, but by way of preparation it is worth examining how we can understand these difficult parts of the Bible.

First, there is nothing unusual in biblical writers referring to or quoting books that are not in our Bibles. In the Old Testament we find references to ‘the Book of the Wars of the Lord’, the records of Nathan the prophet and of Gad the seer, the annals of the kings of Israel and the annals of the kings of Judah. In the New Testament Luke recorded that ‘many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us’,² and Paul reminded his readers of some words of Jesus that are not recorded in the four gospels: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ More strikingly, Paul uses the non-biblical tradition to name Jannes and Jambres, and quotes the pagan Greek writers Cleanthes, Aratus and Menander.⁴ He even calls the Cretan poet Epimenides a ‘prophet’, which should alert us to the fact that the word used here and in Jude 14 is a weak one, ‘used on only one occasion in the New Testament for a citation from the Old Testament’. If that is right, Jude’s readers would not assume that he regarded this material as being on a level with Old Testament Scripture, but as a piece of well-known wisdom.

When Jude quotes books which were in common circulation among his readers at the time he wrote, then, we should not be alarmed. It is like a modern preacher quoting Bunyan or a contemporary song. Jude’s quotations mean neither that we should include his sources in our Bibles nor that we should exclude his letter from our Bibles. It is, of course, theoretically possible that Jude knew these stories either from an independent tradition or by direct revelation from God, but it is not necessary to hold either of those positions to believe in the inspiration of Scripture.

Secondly, Jude carefully adapts his material so that it does not go beyond the bounds of Old Testament teaching. The words in the mouth of Michael here come from a similar event in Zechariah 3, and the description in Jude 14–15 of what will happen when Jesus returns is based on a long chain of Old Testament prophecies.

Thirdly, Jude’s apocryphal examples follow three Old Testament texts, and each illustrates a point he has previously identified as significant. The references to apocryphal verses do not add anything to the argument, and we will not misunderstand the main drift of Jude’s letter if we do not know the background (the position of most of Jude’s readers throughout church history). It looks as if he is deliberately referring to material that he knew his readers read and admired, urging them to see the same lessons there as he has taught them from the Old Testament.

1. Michael, Moses and the devil (9)

The story of Michael, Moses and the devil goes back to Moses’ death, recorded inDeuteronomy 34:5–6: ‘Moses the servant of theLorddied there in Moab, as theLordhad said. He buried him in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no-one knows where his grave is.’ Over time, the moving story of God digging the grave of his servant was elaborated into a story about the rightness of Moses being allowed into heaven. According to the early Christian writer Origen, Jude is here referring to the story told in a book called the Assumption of Moses. It still exists, but unfortunately the part of the book Jude quotes is missing. A number of other early Christian works refer to it, and Richard Bauckham has attempted a reconstruction. Although the story is alien to us, it would have been very familiar to Jude’s readers.

In the story, Satan is doing the work for which he is rightly named ‘the Accuser’, for he is accusing Moses, presumably of the murder of the Egyptian and his later angry disobedience.¹¹ Moses is being accused of sin, and therefore should not (in Satan’s eyes) be allowed into God’s holy presence after his death. Michael (a glorious angel whose name means ‘who is like God?’ and who performs the highest work for God) would be expected to share Satan’s view of the impossibility of the presence of sin in heaven, although without Satan’s demonic glee. But he refuses to bring a slanderous accusation against Moses, and instead allows God to remain the lawgiver and judge. Even the condemnation of Satan is one that he could not make on his own authority. Rather, he said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’ If God’s own law finds Moses guilty, and Satan is able to quote that law against Moses in the presence of God, only God himself has the right to banish the Accuser and remove the curse of the law.

This interpretation takes all the elements of the story in the way Jude’s Old Testament reference does. In Zechariah 3:1–2, the prophet reports that an angel ‘showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. The Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?”’ The Joshua here is not the successor to Moses, but the much later high priest who assisted Zerubbabel in the attempt at reform and rebuilding of the temple after the return from exile. The parallels in Jude’s mind are clear, for here again a man is being accused by Satan of unfitness to perform God’s work (symbolized in the next verse by his wearing ‘filthy clothes’). Again, a high-ranking angel stands aside and allows God to decide who is fit to serve him, sinner or not. Only ‘the Lord’ has the right to banish Satan’s legally correct accusation.

This interpretation of the story is more appropriate to Jude’s readers than the more usual one, which asserts that it was Satan (not Moses) against whom Michael refuses to bring a slanderous accusation. That interpretation sees Jude as telling his readers to be aware of the authority of even fallen angels, and to avoid treating them jokingly or abusively. Most interpretations make that assumption, but more literal translations¹⁴ preserve the ambiguity that the niv brings out well. In Jude’s text it is not clear against whom Michael did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation, and it is easy but very confusing to think he means Satan. But the Zechariah allusion to Joshua makes it certain. Jude means that Michael refrains from accusing Moses.

The niv brings out the difficulties of Jude’s subtle word-play well. It is important to notice, though, that the phrase translated bring a slanderous accusation has nothing to do with being rude or offensive. It is a legal phrase, meaning ‘to pass a judgment or decision about slander’. Satan was apparently accusing Moses of slander. Even Michael did not dare to make a legal decision about Moses in this case, but handed the decision over to God and rebuked Satan for his presumption. Michael’s submissive attitude is quite different from the casual way in which the erring Christians follow Satan’s easy model. Like him, they think they prove their spiritual superiority by the way they ‘slander celestial beings’ (verse 8).

As we read this story through Jude’s Old Testament spectacles, it loses its obscurity and gains sharp focus. Jude’s antagonists have misunderstood the whole nature of Christian salvation by not realizing what an awesomely great act God performed when he banished the legal charges against us. Not even Michael can declare Moses innocent, and not even Michael can remove the accusations of the law; he simply did not dare. Only the sovereignly gracious God can do that, and he will do it on the day of judgment. But by trivializing what God has done, the false teachers dare to ‘change the grace of God into a licence for immorality’ (verse 4).(R. C. Lucas and Christopher Green, The Message of 2 Peter & Jude: The Promise of His Coming, The Bible Speaks Today (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 191–192)

They were defying authority (v. 8), which could be defined as a rejection of human authority. If so, it was perhaps governmental but more likely the authority of church leaders who told them they were wrong. But the word here is not the normal word for “authority” but rather kuriotēs [2963, 3262], “lordship,” and most likely refers to the authority of both God and of Christ (better than some who argue that one or the other is intended). According to Jesus’ teaching and the word of God, immoral activity is sin. By explaining away their licentious behavior, the false teachers had rejected the lordship of God and Christ.

Finally, they were “scoff[ing] at supernatural beings,” literally, “slandering (blasphēmeō [987, 1059]) the glorious ones” (see also vv. 10, 18; 2 Pet 2:2, 10–12). The “glories” were celestial beings or angels, called “glorious ones” on occasion (2 Enoch 22:7; Ascension of Isaiah 9:32; 1QH 10:8) because they dwell in heaven and serve the glorious God. Jude does not tell us exactly how they “blasphemed” these beings. Still, we can surmise a likely understanding (see note on v. 8). I think these are probably evil angels (on the basis of v. 9; Peter follows this in 2 Pet 2:10–11). The difficulty is why Jude would call fallen angels “glorious ones,” but they were still celestial beings and cosmic powers, so the title is apt. The heretics were probably making fun of the fallen angels as powerless to act against them or to influence their behavior (since they taught that God had inspired their immorality through visions). Their twisted views left no place for the reality of sin or of judgment in their lives.

In contrast to the foolish bravado of the false teachers in dishonoring the evil powers, Jude rehearsed the encounter Michael had with Satan (v. 9). This is a difficult verse, because the story does not appear in the Old Testament. The closest parallel is Zechariah 3:1–2 in which an “angel of the Lord” “rebukes” Satan when the latter tried to bring accusations against Joshua the high priest. The death and burial of Moses are recounted in Deuteronomy 34:1–12, in which Moses goes up Mount Nebo in Moab, is shown the Promised Land by God, then dies and is buried there. The story behind Jude’s statements (apparently from The Testament of Moses; see note on v. 9) is summed up by Davids (2006:60):

After the death of Moses Michael came to bury his body. The devil (Samma’el, one of a variety of Jewish names for the devil) came and argued that the body should be given to him, for Moses had been a murderer (i.e., he had murdered the Egyptian, Exod 2:12–14) and thus did not deserve an honorable burial. When Michael appealed to the judgment of God with “The Lord rebuke you!” the devil withdrew, knowing that God would decide in Moses’ honor and against his slander.

Michael is mentioned three times in the Old Testament (Dan 10:13, 21; 12:1) as a “chief prince” and protector of Israel, and he is mentioned in Revelation 12:7 as the leader of heaven’s army that casts Satan and his followers out of heaven. In Jude he is an “archangel” (NLT, “one of the mightiest of the angels”), one of four (1 Enoch 40:1–4) or seven (1 Enoch 20:1–7) chief angels that seem to preside over the heavenly council and are often called “the angels of the Presence.” In Jewish literature, Michael seems to be the leader of this group. His presence here in a dispute over Moses’s body makes sense in light of the fact that he is the guardian over Israel (Dan 12:1). The language is that of a legal dispute, with the devil trying to prove Moses guilty and therefore unworthy of an honorable burial so that Satan could claim the body (so Bauckham, Davids, Schreiner).

Michael’s response showed the kind of proper respect for the cosmic powers that the false teachers did not. He “did not dare [or presume to] accuse the devil of blasphemy” (v. 9), contra the false presumptions of superiority shown by the heretics. As G. Green (2008:83) explains, the language here also refers to legal charges, so it “is not that Michael did not dare to bring a ‘slanderous accusation’ (NIV) but that he did not bring the verdict or the judgment itself.” The false teachers had made the slanderous remarks; Michael accepted his proper place and refused to become judge in the matter. He left that to God and simply pronounced, “The Lord rebuke you,” the very thing said by the angel of the Lord in Zechariah 3:2. According to Zechariah 3, Satan had brought accusations to discredit Joshua the high priest; but God responded with forgiveness, the very response God made to Moses. This is the point of the story. Michael left the judgment up to God; it was the divine rebuke, not Michael’s, that mattered. The sin was the presumption of Satan and the false teachers to take God’s authority upon themselves. Only God can forgive, and only God can pronounce judgment. (Grant R. Osborne, “Jude,” in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: James, 1–2 Peter, Jude, Revelation, ed. Philip W. Comfort, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2011), 375–376)

9. Their presumption towards the angels stands in stark contrast to the archangel Michael. He did not presume to condemn the devil for slander, when he was disputing with him over the body of Moses. In what follows, Jude appears to be drawing illustrative material from the apocryphal Assumption of Moses. So we are assured by Clement, Origen and Didymus, though the details here given do not figure in what survives of the Assumption. It is a story which obviously had great currency in oral tradition, and derives from speculation about what happened to the body of Moses. Jude is using it as an effective ad hominem argument to men who were steeped in apocryphal literature. A scholiast on Jude gives the details.³² When Moses died, the archangel Michael was sent by God to bury him. But the devil disputed his right to do so, for Moses had been a murderer (Exod. 2:12), and therefore his body belonged, so to speak, to the devil. Furthermore, the devil claimed to have authority over all matter, and Moses’ body, of course, fell under this category. But even under such provocation, the story goes, Michael was not disrespectful to the devil. He did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him. He simply left the matter with God, saying, ‘The Lord rebuke you.’ The point of the story lies just here. If an angel was so careful in what he said, how much more should mortal men watch their words.³⁵

Such is the normal explanation of this remarkable apocryphal story. But Bauckham has made a particular study of Jude 9 and the Testament of Moses and maintains that the contrast Jude draws is not between Michael’s restrained speech, even to the devil, and the blasphemies of the errorists against the angels. No, the point is much sharper. The errorists wanted to be autonomous, to please their licentious selves and to have no truck with the Law and its angelic guardians. The story of Michael shows that even an archangel is not autonomous. The devil was certainly bringing a slanderous and malicious accusation against Moses, but the archangel did not take it on himself to repudiate it. Moses was indeed a murderer, so Michael did not attempt to dismiss his charge as unjustified on his own authority. He could only appeal to the Lord for judgment and say The Lord rebuke you (words drawn from Zech. 3:2). What a contrast to Jude’s opponents who set themselves up over against the Law, and against God who gave it.

Michael appears only here and in Revelation 12:7 in the New Testament. The concept of archangels (only here and in 1 Thess. 4:16) came late into Judaism. In Daniel 12:1 Michael is named as guardian of Israel (cf. Dan. 10:13, 21). 1 Enoch has a developed hierarchy of seven archangels. (Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 18, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 196–197)

Now as strange as it may sound to our ears, this slandering of angels and their authority was a major item for Jude. In verse 9 he therefore elaborates on the last allegation by drawing again on tradition—this time it is the story of the Archangel Michael’s dispute with the devil—before concluding with an application to the false teachers (v. 10).

Michael is known to us from Daniel 10:13 and 12:1, where he is called “chief prince” and “great prince.” According to the tradition of 1 Enoch, which Jude knew, he was one of four (or seven) angels who bore this rank, and sometimes was depicted as their leader (20:7; see Ascension of Isaiah 3:16). The Greek term for “archangel” (archangelos) defines this superior role (see also 1 Thess 4:16), and he clearly emerged in Christian tradition in this status (Rev 12:7), opposing the devil on behalf of the Lord.

The story Jude draws on, however, is for modern readers something of a puzzle both because (again) it comes from a deuterocanonical source and because of its application to the false teachers. The background and source of the episode that Jude recounts is held by most scholars to be the Testament of Moses, whose ending is lost to us and reconstructed in several other later writings. In the story the devil is portrayed, in a way similar to the Job story (chaps. 1–2), as an accuser in a legal scene. He argued that since Moses had broken the law by committing murder (of the Egyptian), he therefore was not entitled to a respectable burial, and he (the devil) could claim Moses’ body. The language Jude uses (when he was disputing with the devil) recreates the legal scene. In the tradition this story of the contest for Moses’ body was intended to emphasize his heroic place of respect in the sacred story of Israel’s formation and salvation. But Jude in alluding to the episode is not interested in this grander scope.

What Jude draws attention to is Michael’s demeanor and his method in the confrontation with the devil. Supplying the devil’s insulting accusation against Moses from the tradition, it can be seen that here Jude means that Michael either resisted making a slanderous accusation against the devil (niv; see also rsv), or instead that he resisted condemning the devil for slander or blasphemy (nrsv; see also nlt). In the first case, the translation has Jude more generally commending Michael for his self-control in addressing the devil. In the second case, the translation stresses that Michael resisted accusing the devil specifically of blaspheming God. The latter probably fits the traditional context (the story of the dispute in Testament of Moses) better. But in either case Michael is exemplified for referring the matter of accusation and condemnation to the authority of the Lord: Michael said, the Lord rebuke you.

More than simply a matter of protocol or deference, the choice by Michael to leave this rebuke to God underscores the gravity of the real battle that was thought to be playing out. The background to the language is Zechariah 3:2: “The Lord said to Satan, ‘The Lord rebuke you, Satan!’” The numerous encounters of Jesus with the demonic also come to mind (for example, Mt 17:18; Mk 1:25). In each case, the rebuke is a profoundly eschatological pronouncement of God’s supremacy and victory over the demonic realm (Kee 1968:238–39; Bauckham 1983:62). It is therefore for him to take the lead in this matter of judging.

But what is the application of this story to the false teachers troubling Jude’s audience? The intention to make a connection between the story, and the current problem is clear from the conjunction linking verses 9 and 10 (yet, niv; “but,” nrsv). Yet the answer to the question of application must lie in the scenario of visions and blasphemy of angels alluded to in verse 8. Perhaps, again, with the issue of the angelic oversight of the law as the crux, Jude is getting at the pompous disregard for angelic authority shown by these troublemakers. This had led them to reject the moral demands of the law, and Jude describes them here as being without understanding: Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand (v. 10). The reference, as in verse 8, is to slanderous (or blasphemous) speech. So, to make the connections from verse 8, moving through the allusion to the tradition, to verse 10, Jude accuses them (1) of behavior that not even Michael the archangel dared to engage in, and (2) of doing so in utter ignorance of theological realities. Bauckham suggests that the main point is a broadside attack on the false claims to spiritual/theological knowledge through visions (1983:63). In one sense, then, the very audacity of these opponents in making rash claims and judgments against angels belies their claims to better knowledge (see 1 Tim 1:7 for a similar challenge). (Robert Harvey and Philip H. Towner, 2 Peter & Jude, ed. Grant R. Osborne, vol. 18, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL; Nottingham, England: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 198–200)

9 The example Jude gives is not that of an OT story, but of an intertestamental expansion upon such a story. The biblical story of the death and burial of Moses in Deut 34:1–12 is known, if not exactly familiar. The essential information is in the first six verses of the chapter, specifically in vv. 1 and 4–6:

Then Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, which is opposite Jericho, and the Lord showed him the whole land: Gilead as far as Dan, … ⁴ The Lord said to him, “This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, ‘I will give it to your descendants’; I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not cross over there.” ⁵ Then Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there in the land of Moab, at the Lord’s command. ⁶ He was buried in a valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth-peor, but no one knows his burial place to this day.

Clearly that story mentions neither “the archangel Michael” (found in the OT only in Dan 10:13, 21; 12:1) nor the devil (which is a Greek term appearing twenty-two times in the Greek OT, but only in translating postexilic books, i.e., Esther, Job, Zechariah, and once each in 1 Chronicles, Psalms [108:6], 1 Maccabees, and Wisdom of Solomon; when it translates a specific Hebrew term it is usually translating “Satan”). According to the church fathers, starting with Clement of Alexandria (Fragments on the Epistle of Jude), the reason for this is that Jude is citing, not the OT, but the Assumption of Moses. (Clement wrote, “’When Michael, the archangel, disputing with the devil, debated about the body of Moses.’” Here he confirms the Assumption of Moses. He is here called Michael, who through an angel near to us debated with the devil.”) Thus there is universal agreement that Jude is citing an apocryphal work.

The problem arises in finding the work and thus the context to which Jude is referring. While no extant writing contains the story to which Jude refers, the so-called Milan manuscript contains the bulk of a first-century work called The Testament of Moses, and it is the lost ending to this book that Bauckham argues forms the basis for Jude’s story. From other references to this work the lost ending can be reconstructed: After the death of Moses Michael came to bury his body. The devil (Samma’el, one of a variety of Jewish names for the devil) came and argued that the body should be given to him, for Moses had been a murderer (i.e., he had murdered the Egyptian, Exod 2:12–14) and thus did not deserve an honorable burial. When Michael appealed to the judgment of God with “The Lord rebuke you!” the devil withdrew, knowing that God would decide in favor of Moses’ honor and against his slander.

Given this background, we can now explore what Jude is trying to communicate. First, starting in the OT Michael is cited as an angelic being (called a “prince” in Daniel) who is the protector of Israel (Rev 12:7; 1 QM 17; cf. b. Hagigah 12b; b. Menahot 110a for rabbinic references to Michael). He is identified as one of the four or seven chief angels (e.g., 1 Enoch 20:5; 40:9), and often as the head of the group. The term “archangel” appears in the NT only here and in 1 Thess 4:16; the term appears otherwise only in pseudepigraphical works (thirty-eight times), such as the Greek text of 1 Enoch 20:7; Jub. 10:7; Life of Adam and Eve 1; 22:1; 37:4; Test. Abr. 1:4, 6; 10:1. It also appears in later Christian writings. “Archangel” indicates a chief angel, and thus is the equivalent of Daniel’s “chief prince” or the rabbinic “angels of the presence.” Thus Michael is presented as a figure known to Jude’s readers who is one of the chief angels of God.

Second, in our story Michael is involved in a dispute with the devil. There is a long tradition of disputes between the devil and angels, starting with the “angel of the Lord” in Zech 3:2 and stretching on through the Dead Sea Scrolls (CD 5:17–18; 1QS 3:18–25), pseudepigrapha (T. Ash. 6:4–6), and early Christian works (Hermas, Man. 6:2:1). This particular dispute involves the body of Moses. Thus Moses is already dead, and at issue is the disposition of his body. While Deut. 34:6 says that God buried him, by the time of the Greek translation of this text it was interpreted as “they buried him,” probably indicating angels acting on God’s command. Thus it would not surprise a reader of the Greek OT to discover the presence of Michael in this scene. What might surprise them a little would be the presence of the devil. The exact issue between Michael and the devil is not stated; we may presume that Jude expected his readers to be familiar with the story. Furthermore, the issue itself does not play a role in Jude, so it does not need to be mentioned explicitly.

Third, the point of the citation is the response of Michael. There are two parts to this response. The first is what he did not do, while the second is what, in contrast, he did do. What he did not do is “dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him.” This is an extremely difficult phrase, which needs to be unpacked. The verb “to dare” appears sixteen times in the NT. It indicates taking a risk, and in particular a risk in terms of honor or shame. Thus in Matt 22:46 (par. Mark 12:34; Luke 20:40) people no longer dared to asked Jesus questions (which challenged his honor), for they saw what had happened in the previous instance. In Mark 15:43 Joseph risks his honor by going in and requesting Jesus’ body from Pilate, as do the Philippians in preaching the gospel in Phil 1:14. In each of these cases people risked shame by stepping beyond the bounds of social propriety, but received honor from the writers of the respective books. In Acts 7:32 Moses does not dare, which indicates that he kept his proper place in relationship to God. Likewise Paul keeps his proper place in Rom 15:18; cf. 2 Cor 10:2, 12; 11:21. Thus Michael is pictured here as keeping his proper place, which contrasts with the angels of v. 6, who failed to remain in their proper place.

The phrase “to bring a judgment of slander” (to translate it literally) occurs in the NT only in here and in 2 Pet 2:11, which we believe is dependent upon this passage. The closest that the LXX comes is in Isa 42:3, but that passage does not include the critical term “slander” (blasphēmia). Thus it is unlikely that Jude is depending upon a text that we know. Two interpretations of our passage in Jude are currently argued. The first, argued by Kelly, is that of the NIV, “he did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation” against the devil. This fits into the context in that it would contrast with the actions of the false teachers who “slander (blasphēmou sin) celestial beings.” The problem with this is that (1) it is difficult to see how one could slander the devil, and especially in a situation in which he was opposing the command of God, and (2) it is not characteristic of Scripture to be considerate of the devil’s reputation (cf. John 8:44; Acts 13:10; 1 John 3:8; Rev 12:9, all of which speak negatively of the devil).

The other interpretation, argued by Bauckham and Neyrey, is that of the NRSV, “to bring a condemnation of slander against him.” This would be parallel to Acts 19:40, where the charge of rioting is mentioned. While this interpretation does not fit the charges against the interlopers in the previous verses as well, which would mean that the verses are linked by a catchword connection, it does fit the flow of the argument. The false teachers slander angels, probably accusing them of foisting the law with its moral requirements upon Moses. By way of contrast, Michael, whose position was indisputable, when disputing with the devil in a narrative in which the devil was slandering the character of Moses, would not accuse this fallen angel, whom all agree is evil, of slander. In doing this Michael refused to overstep his proper boundaries and take the place of God in judging evil.

It is this latter position that appears to have the most evidence to commend it. First, it avoids the problem of having to figure out how one could slander the devil. Second, it provides a cogent reason for Jude’s citing the particular incident that he does, namely, an incident in which the devil is slandering Moses. Third, it provides a counterexample to the false teachers in that Michael does not overstep his bounds on a topic on which his accusation would be justified, while they do overstep theirs in an area in which their accusations are not justified.

Jude’s negative statement leads to a description of what Michael did do; he said, “The Lord rebuke you!” This phrase is itself a quotation of Zech 3:2. There in another judgment scene the Satan (the article indicates that in Zechariah Satan is the name of an office and not yet a personal name) stands ready to fulfill his function of accusing Joshua, who is present there in filthy clothing, indicating at least cultic impurity and possibly moral guilt. “The angel of the Lord” is also present, and he utters the phrase “the Lord rebuke you” and then informs Joshua that his guilt has been removed. This phrase, then, is an appeal to the judgment of God. Rather than assert his own authority over Satan, Michael calls upon God to render the appropriate judgment. One cannot be further from the arrogance of the false teachers in their taking the place of God in their slanderous accusations against his angels. Clearly, Jude, like James (4:11–12; 5:9), believes that judging others is totally inappropriate behavior for a follower of Jesus. They are to be like Michael, who refrains from such behavior.

10 In contrast to Michael, who would not bring a justified judgment of slander against Satan, these (the emphatic “these” picks up from Jude 8 and is repeated in 12, 16, and 19 as Jude catalogues his accusations against the false teachers) teachers slander “whatever they do not understand,” meaning the angels. Most likely they justified their behavior on the basis of some type of “higher” knowledge of the structure of the spiritual world (this reference to not understanding is probably not specific enough to refer back to the Sodomite ignorance of the angels who visited Sodom, as in T. Ash. 7:1). Far from displaying higher knowledge, Jude argues, they slander angels in their ignorance. (Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2006), 59–63)

9 Verse 9 is a difficult verse, and so at the outset we should state its main point. The opponents insulted glorious angels who were demons, but Michael was so humble that he did not presume to condemn the devil but asked the Lord to rebuke him. The term “archangel” designates Michael’s authority and prominence. In Dan 10:13, 21 he is designated as a “prince” (archōn)—as “the great prince” (ho archōn ho megas, Theodotion) in Dan 12:1. In Revelation he leads the battle against the dragon and the evil angels (Rev 12:7). His prominence continues in other Jewish literature (1QM 9:16; 1 Enoch 9:1; 10:11; 20:5; 24:6).

Even though the Old Testament says the Lord buried Moses (Deut 34:6), speculation arose over his burial since no human being observed the burial place. The puzzling element in Jude is the reference to the argument over the body of Moses between Michael and the devil. The terms used suggest a legal dispute over Moses’ body. By establishing Moses’ guilt, the devil would deprive him of the right of an honorable burial and presumably claim ownership over his body. Michael had every right, it would seem, to criticize the devil since the devil was wicked and his motives were evil, but Michael did not presume to criticize the devil and utter a “reviling judgment” (krisin blasphēmias) against him.

The words Michael pronounced, “The Lord rebuke you!” allude to Zech 3:2. The Old Testament context in Zechariah is significant, for the account in Zechariah represents another incident in which Satan attempted to establish the guilt of one of Yahweh’s servants. Joshua, the high priest, was in the Lord’s presence, but Satan accused him before the Lord (Zech 3:1). We might think that Satan rightly accused Joshua since his “filthy clothes” represented his sin (Zech 3:3–4). But Yahweh pronounced a judgment against Satan in saying “The Lord rebuke you” (Zech 3:2). God’s word brings forgiveness, illustrated by the clean garments with which Joshua was clothed. As Kee has shown, the Lord was not merely reprimanding Satan so that the story merely concludes with a verbal rebuke. Rather, the Lord’s verdict was effective, sealing Satan’s defeat in the courtroom and declaring Joshua’s vindication. Those whom the Lord has chosen are vindicated in his sight (Zech 3:2, 4–5).

Michael’s words in Jude, similarly, do not merely indicate a desire for the Lord to reprimand Satan verbally for bringing an accusation against Moses, as if Satan would receive only a verbal “dressing down.” The Lord’s rebuke would function as an effective response to Satan’s accusation so that Moses would be vindicated, and his vindication would secure his proper burial. The devil probably claimed authority over Moses’ body because of Moses’ sin in killing the Egyptian. Michael did not deny that Moses sinned or defend his behavior. He appealed to the Lord’s rebuke with the confidence that Moses would receive forgiveness by God’s word, with the result that God would remove his defilement (cf. Zech 3:3–5).

Where did Jude derive this story? Unfortunately, the account is not extant in any writing that has been preserved. Traditions of the account have come down to us, and these traditions are carefully sifted by Bauckham in an excursus. The story is reputed to come from a book titled Assumption of Moses. The relationship between Assumption of Moses and Testament of Moses is keenly debated. In his thorough study Bauckham thinks there are two separate traditions in these two different works. The issue need not be resolved by this commentary since we no longer possess the original version of the story. What we do learn from the traditions compiled by Bauckham is that the devil contested Moses’ “right to an honorable burial,” charging him with the murder of the Egyptian.⁵⁷ Michael asked the Lord to rebuke the devil, and the devil fled so that Michael could complete the burial.

My interpretation differs in one significant respect from Bauckham’s. Bauckham rejects the common view that Michael refused to slander the devil. In his careful and fascinating study of the traditions of the account, he maintains that the story Jude drew on taught that the devil slandered Moses because Moses murdered the Egyptian. The key to grasping what Jude meant, suggests Bauckham, comes from a knowledge of the tradition he appropriated. Hence, the point of the story, according to Bauckham, is not that Michael refused to slander the devil. Michael, according to Bauckham, did not presume to respond to the devil’s accusation against Moses, appealing to the Lord’s judgment, not his own authority as the leader of angels, to counter Satan. Bauckham’s suggestion is intriguing, but I do not believe it is the most natural way to understand the verse.⁶¹ In saying that Michael did not presume to bring “a reviling judgment,” it seems most likely that this is a judgment against the devil, in the sense that Michael did not presume, though he seemed to have every right to do so, to speak against the devil. Although Bauckham’s interpretation is ingenious, the words “did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation” are most naturally understood to say that Michael refused to utter a word of judgment against the devil. The verse, then, has a simple contrast. Michael did not dare to pronounce a condemning judgment upon the devil. He left the judgment of Satan in God’s hands, asking God to finally judge him. Such a reading of the verse fits as well with our understanding of 2 Pet 2:10–11.

Jude’s reference to a noncanonical book is puzzling for many Christians today. Did he believe the account was historically accurate, or did he cite it to make a point? It is difficult to be certain, but it seems likely that Jude believed the story was rooted in history. He gave no indication elsewhere that the traditions cited were unhistorical. But does that lead to the conclusion that the canon of Scripture should be expanded, or did Jude think Assumption of Moses was inspired? These are vexing questions, but we should not draw the conclusion that the citation from a book means that the entire book is inspired. Paul cited Greek poets and sayings without suggesting that the entire work was authoritative Scripture (Acts 17:28; 1 Cor 15:33; Titus 1:12). Jude did not intend to put a canonical stamp on Assumption of Moses simply because he cited it. He viewed this story as true or helpful, or he believed it was an illustration of the truth he desired to teach.

10 Michael fully understood the devil’s wickedness and yet he did not presume to utter judgment against him, asking the Lord to judge him. Yet these men spoke abusively against “whatever they do not understand.” The word blasphēmousin (v. 10, translated “speak abusively against” by the NIV but by “slander” and “slanderous accusation” in vv. 8–9) links the three verses together: note blasphēmousin in v. 8 and blasphēmias in v. 9. When Jude said that these people slandered what they did not comprehend, he again had in mind the glorious angels of v. 8. The intruders believed they understood heavenly things, but they were far out of their depth. The one thing they did understand, however, was the power of physical appetites. Their physical desires urged them on daily, and like irrational animals they were driven by sexual instinct rather than reason. Jude’s language is highly ironic here, for presumably the intruders claimed a knowledge of heavenly matters, but their comprehension of truth did not exceed that of animals. Indeed by following their instincts they will be destroyed (phtheirontai). The destruction envisioned is not temporal (cf. 1 Cor 3:13; 2 Pet 2:12). Jude thought of their eternal judgment, when they will pay the consequences for being enslaved to their sinful desires, the only thing these people understood well. (Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 458–461)

Unless stated otherwise, scriptural references taken from the New International Version (NIV).

FURTHER READING

JUDE TESTIFIES THAT JESUS IS YHWH ALMIGHTY!

JESUS: THE ONE AND ONLY ADONAY YHWH

The Quran Confirms that Jude Identifies Jesus Christ as God in the Flesh!

• Uncategorized