9 Michael and the Body of MosesMICHAEL CONTENDED WITH THE DEVIL. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: This proves that Moses was taken up into heaven. The one who fought with the devil as our guardian angel is here called Michael. ADUMBRATIONS.30

THE BURIAL OF MOSES. PETER CHRYSOLOGUS: The angels were present at the death of Moses, and God himself took care of his burial. SERMONS 83.31

ANTHONY’S VISION. ANDREAS: Here Jude shows that the Old Testament agrees with the New and that they were both given by the same God. For the devil objected, claiming that the body was his because he is the lord of matter.… But Michael would not accept this and brought on the devil a punishment worthy of his blasphemy, though he abandoned him to the discretion of his own master. For when God brought Moses to the mount of transfiguration, the devil said to Michael that God had broken his promise, because he had sworn not to do such a thing. Michael is said to have taken care of the burial of Moses, and the devil is supposed to have objected to this. God then came to the rescue and wanted to show those who at that time saw only a very little that eventually our souls would be changed and we would all ascend into heaven. But the devil and the evil spirits with him wanted to cut off the way to heaven and tried both to do their evil deeds and at the same time weaken the righteous by this angelic warfare. This is what the blessed Antony saw in his vision. CATENA.32

SEARCHING FOR JUDE’S SOURCES. BEDE: It is not easy to see what part of Scripture Jude got this tale from, though we do find something like it in Zechariah, who says: “Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him.”33 However, it is easy enough to see that in the Zechariah passage, Joshua wanted the people of Israel to be set free from their captivity in Babylon, and Satan resisted this. But when it was that Michael fought with the devil over the body of Moses is unknown. There are, however, some people who say that God’s people were called the “body of Moses,” because Moses was a part of that people, and if this is the case, it may be that in saying this Jude is referring to the whole nation. But whatever the case may be, here is what we have to learn from this incident: if the archangel Michael refrained from cursing the devil and dealt gently with him, how much more should we mere mortals avoid blaspheming, especially as we might offend the majesty of the Creator by an incautious word. ON JUDE.34

1

30 FGNK 3:84.31 FC 17:133.32 CEC 160–61.33 Zech 3:1.34 PL 93:126.1Bray, G. (2000). James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture NT 11 (252). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

MICHAEL AND THE DEVILThe source of Jude’s scene of conflict is not extant, although ancient commentators such as

Clement of Alexandria identify it as stemming from the Assumption of Moses: “Hic confirmat assumptionem Moysi. Michael autem hic dicitur, qui per propinquum nobis angelum altercabatur cum diabolo” (GCS 3.207; see Origen, De Princ. 3.2.1). The substance of Michael’s remark to the devil derives from Zech 3:2. More important, however, is the general tradition about angels and contests, which is reflected in Jude 9. Michael in particular enjoyed the role of Israel’s patron and defender (Dan 12:1; 1 QM 17:6–8; Rev 12:7); and many writings tell of a contest between God’s angels and Beliar or his angels (Zech 3:1; CD 5:17–18; T. Asher 6:4–6; 1 QS 3:18–25; Hermas, Mand. 6.2.1). Bauckham (Jude, 2 Peter, 65–76) collected a detailed list of ancient legends about Moses’ death, whereas Berger (“Der Streit,” 1–18) gathered texts illustrative of angelic judgment scenes. There is no doubt that Jude is drawing on distinctively Jewish lore at this point.

Ancient lists of noncanonical books often contain reference to both a Testament of Moses and an Assumption of Moses (J. Priest, OTP 2.924–25), presumably two different documents. R. H. Charles argued that the two works were conflated and the whole came to be known as the Assumption of Moses (The Assumption of Moses, xlv–1; APOT 2.407–8). In a recent study, Bauckham (Jude and the Relatives of Jesus, 238–70) analyzed a host of fragments and excerpts from catenae which seem to deal with the battle over Moses’ body. He posits two distinct traditions which are embodied in two distinct works, the Testament of Moses and the Assumption of Moses. In the former, Samma’el contends that Moses’ body should not receive an honorable burial because Moses committed murder (Exod 2:12–14). In the latter work, the devil, as a type of Demiurge, demands Moses’ material body. Bauckham maintains that both works contain Michael’s response to the devil, “The Lord will rebuke you.” According to his reconstruction, Jude 9 would appear to derive from the Testament of Moses primarily because of the remark about the devil’s slander (blasphēmias). Bauckham has offered a plausible way to distinguish and separate the conflated traditions of Moses’ death, which offers a reasonable historical answer to the source of Jude 9. Yet because our extant texts of this ancient work are all fragmentary, no conclusive judgment can be made at this time about the precise contents of either the Testament of Moses or the Assumption of Moses.

The context into which Jude inserts this scene has much to say about how Jude understood and used it. If Jude 8 contains a slate of crimes, v 9 records their eventual punishment; or if v 8 is the challenge to the Lord’s orderly system, Jude 9 is the formal riposte. Indeed there are many links between vv 8 and 9 that help us discern the author’s point: (1) although the “glorious ones” are insulted (v 8), the archangel Michael acts out his role in v 9; (2) although “authority” is flouted in v 8, the Kyrios exercises it in v 9; (3) “insults” (blasphēmousin, v 8) are eventually avenged (krisin blasphēmias, v 9). Hence, Jude seems uninterested in the state of Moses’ soul at death, but rather focuses both on Michael’s “not daring” and especially on the Lord’s eventual judgment.

Although in some cases “daring” reflects the classical virtue of courage, we can best understand it here in cultural terms. From the perspective of honor and shame, those who challenge Jesus “dare” to do so; and when Jesus has given adequate riposte, they “do not dare” to challenge him anymore (Matt 22:46; Mark 12:34; Acts 5:13; 7:32). Those who “dare” are perceived as stepping beyond group norms and so making honor claims or challenges (1 Cor 6:1;

GCS Griechische christliche SchriftstellerOTP James H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament PseudepigraphaAPOT R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament

2 Cor 10:12; 11:21). From the perspective of purity systems, Michael “does not dare” to overstep the role and authority ascribed to him, in contrast to other angels who did not keep to their place (v 6). Michael, then, serves as a foil to Jude’s opponents: they challenge the honor of the Lord and his agents and they step “out of place” by virtue of their claim to role and status.

If Michael’s role does not consist in judgment, that role belongs to the Lord. Hence, the heavenly agent defers to his Master’s honor when he proclaims, “The Lord will rebuke you,” the same Lord who was “denied” according to v 4. Honor challenged requires a defense. The judgment predicted in v 9 probably echoes the “proscribed” judgment announced in v 4, for Michael’s words derive from Zech 3:2.

Since dualistic contrasts constitute much of Jude’s perception, Michael versus the devil might well serve as a cipher for Jude himself versus his opponents. Hence, he would be implying their association with the devil and accusing them of sorcery (B. J. Malina and J. H. Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names [Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1988], 3–4); such accusations, whether implied or expressed, are important weapons of social control in situations of intense rivalry.

If there is any substance to my arguments that Jude perceives a general attack on authority (and judgment) by his opponents, the choice of this specific legend serves an apologetic purpose. We suggested that Jude’s understanding of the insulting of “the glorious ones” had to do with challenging their role in the Lord’s judgment, either as recorders of good and bad deeds, gatherers of the flock for judgment, weighers of souls, or so forth. Berger’s collection of materials on the role of angels concerning the souls of the dead confirms this. The scenario in Jude 9 affirms some specific role of both Michael and the devil over the dead Moses in regard to judgment; that role is not the judgment itself, which is reserved for “the Lord.” Hence, Michael’s remark serves to confirm the traditional roles which Jude perceives as threatened, either those of the Lord, the angels, or Jude himself.2

2Neyrey, J. H. (2008). 2 Peter, Jude: A new translation with introduction and commentary (65). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

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 2 Pet. 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. 16.3

3Bigg, C. (1901). A critical and exegetical commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude (330). Edinburgh: T&T Clark International.

Jude 1.9.To prove his case against these godless people, Jude cites the example of the archangel Michael, who in confrontation with the Devil did not pronounce a severe judgment on him, but simply said “The Lord rebuke you.” The logic seems to be as follows: Michael, who is the chief angel, did not claim for himself the right to pronounce judgment on the Devil, who is the chief of all evil forces, but left the whole matter up to God; therefore there is no justification at all for ordinary human beings to treat the angels in such an insulting way.The title archangel means “chief angel” or “ruling angel.” In some literature written during the period between the Old Testament and the New Testament, there is a great deal of reference to angels and how these are classified into grades in a descending scale, with archangels at the top. There is also mention of seven archangels, and six of them are named in 1 Enoch 20.2-8: Raphael, Raquel, Michael, Saraqael, Gabriel, and Ramiel. To each of these archangels God assigned a province. Archangel can also be translated as “the chief of God’s messengers.” The phrase when the archangel Michael may be rendered in some languages as “when Michael, who is one of the angels that is greater than the others....” Michael is mentioned in Dan 12.1 as the guardian of Israel. He was thought of primarily as the angel who protected the people of Israel from the power of Satan or the Devil. In Rev 12.7 Michael is the church’s protector against the dragon.This is the first time in the letter that Jude refers to the Devil. References to the Devil are rare in the Old Testament; they are found in later compositions, as for example in Zech 3.1 and 1 Chr 21.1. During the period leading up to the New Testament, the idea developed that the Devil is the prince of evil, and New Testament usage echoes this understanding. In fact New Testament teaching about the future asserts that, immediately before the final days of this age, the Devil will display his power in order to lead astray even those who already trust in Christ (see for example Matt 24.4–18; 2 Thes 2.3–12; 2 Tim 3.1–9; Rev 20.7–8). By the time of the writing of Jude’s letter, the devil has already become a technical name for the prince of evil, and that is the reason why TEV capitalizes the word.The story about Michael and the Devil fighting over the body of Moses is not found in the Old Testament, which simply states that the burial place of Moses is not known by anyone (Deut 34.6). However, in a composition called “The Assumption of Moses” (written about the first century a.d.), it is related that, when Moses died, Michael was given the task of burying the body. The Devil, however, claimed power over the body, since he was lord of the material order. When Michael refused to hand the body over, the Devil threatened to accuse Moses of being a murderer for having killed the Egyptian (as recorded in Exo 2.12). Michael, however, did not respond by rebuking the Devil, but simply proceeded to bury Moses with his own hands.The fact that Jude makes reference to this story without any background material for his readers indicates that he assumes his readers are familiar with the story; this need not be because they know of “The Assumption of Moses” but because this story was probably widely known among the Jews at that time.The words contending and disputed refer generally to a discussion or argument, but they are also used in relation to a legal dispute. In this story it is the Devil who brings a legal case against Moses, accusing him of murder, and therefore of not being worthy of a decent and honorable burial. So the word contending does not really have the sense of “quarrel” as in TEV, which refers to a violent argument, but suggests that Michael “challenged the Devil’s right” to take Moses’ body. Another translation model, then, is as follows: “When he disputed with the Devil,

TEV Today’s English Version

and argued with him as to who ....” Did not presume should not be translated as “was not brave enough to,” as the rendering “did not dare” (TEV and NRSV) may suggest; rather it means that Michael “did not take it upon himself” or “did not feel that it was his prerogative (that he had the authority).”The word translated reviling is the same word used for “revile” in verse 8, which again is a play on words similar to that on the word “keep” in verse 6. Taken with judgment, some meanings suggested are “he did not pronounce a sentence on blasphemies spoken by the Devil,” “in condemning the Devil, he did not indulge in the language of mere reproach,” “in challenging the Devil, he did not revile in turn,” “he did not condemn him with insulting words,” or “he did not use bad words to reprove the Devil.” This contrasts Michael’s action with that of the godless people: they insult angels, whereas Michael, the chief angel, refrains from insulting the Devil himself; they show no respect for supernatural beings, whereas Michael respected even the Devil.The expression “The Lord rebuke you” is quoted from Zech 3.2, where the Lord speaks these words to Satan in reply to Satan’s accusations against the high priest (Joshua see Zech 3.1–10). Rebuke can mean “reprove,” “censure,” or “reprimand,” but perhaps here it has the stronger meaning of “punish” or “condemn.” The whole expression “The Lord rebuke you” is in the Greek optative mood, expressing a wish or a hope, similar in form to that of blessing or benediction formulas, but used in this context in a negative sense.An alternative translation model for this verse is:Not even Michael, who is one of God’s chief angels (messengers), resorted to insult (saying bad things against). For when he disputed with the Devil and challenged his right to take the body of Moses, Michael did not feel that he had the authority to condemn the Devil with bad words; instead he said, “May the Lord speak severely to (reprimand) you.4

NRSV New Revised Standard Version4Arichea, D. C., & Hatton, H. (1993). A handbook on the letter from Jude and the second letter from Peter. UBS handbook series; Helps for translators (31). New York: United Bible Societies.

9 / The opening words, But even (de) the archangel Michael, imply a close link with what has gone before. All three accusations in verse 8 concern the rejection of the moral order, so the “slander” probably relates to the angels’ function as mediators of the law of Moses (Acts 7:38, 53; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2; Jubilees 1:27–29; Josephus, Ant. 15.136) and as guardians of creation (1 Cor. 11:10; Shepherd of Hermas, Similitudes 8.3.3), a responsibility which some angels had abdicated (Jude 6).

The OT makes no reference to Michael disputing with the devil and simply states that God buried his servant Moses “in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is” (Deut. 34:6), a secret no doubt designed to prevent the Israelites from turning the spot into an idolatrous sanctuary.

The dispute referred to by Jude was recorded in the now lost ending of an apocryphal Jewish work called the Assumption of Moses. But the tradition can be reconstructed from references to that account in a number of early Christian writings (see Bauckham, pp. 65–76). Satan laid claim to the corpse of Moses for his kingdom of darkness because Moses had killed an Egyptian (Exod. 2:12). He was therefore a murderer, however virtuous his subsequent achievements, and so was unworthy of honorable burial. Satan, in his ancient role of accuser of God’s people (Rev. 12:10), was seeking to prove Moses’ guilt.

In response to the charge, Michael did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against Satan. Barclay (DSB, p. 188) expresses the opinion of most commentators that Jude means: “If the greatest of the good angels refused to speak evil of the greatest of the evil angels, even in circumstances like that, surely no human being may speak evil of any angel.” This interpretation takes accusation (blasphēmias) as a genitive of quality (Moule, Idiom-Book, p. 175), and as such it suits the context both in Jude and in the parallel passage in 2 Peter 2:11 (blasphēmon krisin, “slanderous accusations”). The terms used in this passage are forensic, the language of the courtroom. Bauckham (p. 43) considers that Jude’s meaning must be determined by his source, the Assumption of Moses, and according to that it was Satan who had “slandered” (eblasphēmsei kata) Moses by accusing him of murder. Michael, in his capacity as a legal advocate, refuted the slander (blasphēmia) and appealed to God for judgment against Satan: “The Lord rebuke thee!” Michael refused to take it upon himself to pronounce judgment, for that was God’s prerogative.5

Barclay W. Barclay, The New Testament: A New Translation, 2 vols., London: Collins, 1969.DSB Daily Study Bible5Hillyer, N. (1992). New International Biblical Commentary: 1 and 2 Peter, Jude (248). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.