ยูดา 1:9 วิจารณ์

We have here, I. An account of the penman of this epistle, a character of the church, the blessings and privileges of that happy society (Jde 1:1, Jde 1:2). II. The occasion of writing this epistle (Jde 1:3). III. A character of evil and perverse men, who had already sprung up in that infant state of the church, and would be succeeded by others of the like evil spirit and temper in after-times (Jde 1:4). IV. A caution against hearkening to and following after such, from the severity of God towards the unbelieving murmuring Israelites at their coming out of Egypt, the angels that fell, the sin and punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah (Jde 1:5-7). V. To these the apostle likens the seducers against whom he was warning them, and describes them at large, (Jde 1:8-10, inclusive). VI. Then (as specially suitable to his argument) he cites an ancient prophecy of Enoch foretelling and describing the future judgment (Jde 1:14, Jde 1:15). VII. He enlarges on the seducers' character, and guards against the offence which honest minds might be apt to take at the so early permission of such things, by showing that it was foretold long before that so it must be (Jde 1:16-19). VIII. Exhorts them to perseverance in the faith, fervency in prayer, watchfulness against falling from the love of God, and a lively hope of eternal life (Jde 1:20, Jde 1:21). IX. Directs them how to act towards the erroneous and scandalous (Jde 1:22, Jde 1:23). And, X. Closes with an admirable doxology in the last two verses.

The writer of this epistle describes himself by his name, Jude; by his spiritual condition, "a servant of Christ"; and by his natural relation, "a brother of James"; and inscribes it to persons chosen of God, secured in Christ, and called by grace, Jde 1:1, whom he salutes, and wishes a multiplication of mercy, peace, and love unto, Jde 1:2, and then points at the subject matter of his epistle, "the common salvation"; and his view in writing it, which was to exhort them to contend earnestly for, the Gospel; which exhortation was necessary, since some reprobate and wicked men, abusers of the grace of God, and blasphemers of the person of Christ, had got in among them, Jde 1:3, and in order to deter them from following their pernicious ways, he lays before them various instances of divine vengeance on sinners; as the Israelites, whom God delivered out of Egypt, and yet destroyed them for their unbelief; the angels, who not content with their first estate, forsook their habitation, and are reserved in chains of darkness to the day of judgment; and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrha, and the adjacent cities, who for their uncleanness suffer the vengeance of eternal fire, as an example to others, Jde 1:5, in like manner, the apostle observes, these false teachers, who were filthy dreamers, defiled themselves with such sins, and also despised and spoke evil of civil magistrates, Jde 1:8, which sin of theirs is aggravated by Michael the archangel not railing at the devil, in a contention with him about the body of Moses, but gently reproving him; by speaking evil of what they were ignorant of, and by their brutish sensuality, in corrupting: themselves in things they had natural knowledge of, Jde 1:9, and both their sin and punishment are exemplified in the cases of Cain, Balaam, and Korah; being guilty of hatred of the brethren, of covetousness, and of contradiction, Jde 1:11, and by various metaphors are set forth their intemperance, hypocrisy, instability, unfruitfulness, pride, wrath, and lust, for whom the blackest darkness is reserved for ever, Jde 1:12, the certainty of which is proved from an ancient prophecy of Enoch, concerning the coming of Christ to judgment, when vengeance will be taken on those men for their ungodly deeds and hard speeches, Jde 1:14, who are further described by their murmurs and complaints; by their pride, respect of persons, and covetousness; by their scoffs, and walking after their own lusts, as had been foretold by the apostles of Christ; by separating themselves from the saints, and by their sensuality, and not having the Spirit of God, Jde 1:17, and the apostle having thus at large described these false teachers, by reason of whom the saints were in danger, directs them to the use of means by which they might be secured from them; such as building themselves up in their most holy faith, praying in the holy Ghost, keeping themselves in the love of God, and looking for the mercy of Christ unto eternal life, Jde 1:20, and he teaches them not only to be concerned for themselves, but for others also, who were in danger from these deceivers; to deal with some in a tender and compassionate way, with others more roughly, expressing an hatred to a filthy conversation, Jde 1:22, and then the epistle is concluded with a doxology, or an ascription of glory to the only wise God our Saviour, who is able to keep his people from falling into such pernicious principles and practices, and to present them faultless before his glorious presence with exceeding joy, Jde 1:24

Yet Michael the archangel,.... By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ; as appears from his name Michael, which signifies, "who is as God": and who is as God, or like unto him, but the Son of God, who is equal with God? and from his character as the archangel, or Prince of angels, for Christ is the head of all principality and power; and from what is elsewhere said of Michael, as that he is the great Prince, and on the side of the people of God, and to have angels under him, and at his command, Dan 10:21. So Philo the Jew (o) calls the most ancient Word, firstborn of God, the archangel; Uriel is called the archangel in this passage from the Apocrypha: "And unto these things Uriel the archangel gave them answer, and said, Even when the number of seeds is filled in you: for he hath weighed the world in the balance.'' (2 Esdras 4:36) when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses; which some understand literally of the fleshly and natural body of Moses, buried by the Lord himself, partly out of respect to him; and partly, as some think, lest the Israelites should be tempted to an idolatrous worship of him; but rather it was to show that the law of Moses was to be abolished and buried by Christ, never to rise more: and they think that this dispute was either about the burying of his body, or the taking of it up again; Satan on the one hand insisting upon the taking of it up, in order to induce the Israelites to worship him, and Michael, on the other hand, opposing it, to prevent this idolatry; but then the difficulty is, where Jude should have this account, since the Scriptures are silent about it. Some have thought that he took it out of an apocryphal book, called "the Ascension of Moses", as Origen (p), which is not likely; others, that he had it by tradition, by which means the Apostle Paul came by the names of the Egyptian magicians Jannes and Jambres; and some passages are referred to in some of their writings (q), as having some traces of this dispute; but in them the discourse is not concerning the body, but the soul of Moses; not concerning burying or taking up of his body, when buried, but concerning the taking away of his soul, when he was alive; which none of the angels caring to undertake, at length Samael, the chief of devils, did, but without success, wherefore God took it away with a kiss himself: besides, the apostle produces this history as a thing well known; nor is it reasonable to suppose that such an altercation should be between Michael, and the devil, on such an account; or that it was in order to draw Israel into idolatry on the one hand, and on the other hand to prevent it; since never was the custom of the Israelites to worship their progenitors or heroes; nor did they seem so well disposed to Moses in his lifetime; nor was there any necessity of taking up his body, were they inclined to give him honour and worship; yea, the sight of his dead body would rather have prevented than have encouraged it: but this is to be understood figuratively; and reference is had to the history in Zac 3:1; as appears from the latter part of this verse: some think the priesthood of Christ is intended, which was the end, the sum and substance, of the law of Moses; and seeing that Joshua, the high priest, was a type of Christ, and the angel of the Lord contended with Satan about him, he might be said to dispute with him about the body of Moses; but this sense makes a type of a type, and Christ to contend about himself; besides, this should rather be called the body of Christ than of Moses, others think that the temple of the Jews is meant about the rebuilding of which the contention is thought to be; and which may be called the body of Moses, as the church is called the body of Christ; though it should be observed, that the temple is never so called, and that not the place where the church meets, but the church itself, is called the body of Christ: but it is best of all to understand it of the law of Moses, which is sometimes called Moses himself, Joh 5:45; and so the body of Moses, or the body of his laws, the system of them; just as we call a system of laws, and of divinity, such an one's body of laws, and such an one's body of divinity: and this agrees with the language of the Jews, who say (r), of statutes, service, purification, &c. that they are , "the bodies of the law"; and so of Misnic treatises, as those which concern the offerings of turtle doves, and the purification of menstruous women, that they are "the bodies" of the traditions (s), that is, the sum and substance of them: so the decalogue is said (t) to be "the body of the Shema", or "Hear, O Israel", Deu 6:4, so Clemens of Alexandria (u) says, that there are some who consider the body of the Scriptures, the words and names, as if they were, , "the body of Moses" (w). Now the law of Moses was restored in the time of Joshua the high priest, by Ezra and Nehemiah. Joshua breaks some of these laws, and is charged by Satan as guilty, who contended and insisted upon it that he should suffer for it; so that this dispute or contention might be said to be about the body of Moses, that is, the body of Moses's law, which Joshua had broken; in which dispute Michael, or the angel of the Lord, even the Lord Jesus Christ himself, durst not bring against him a railing accusation; that is, not that he was afraid of the devil, but though he could have given harder words, or severer language, and which the other deserved, yet he chose not to do it, he would not do it; in which sense the word "durst", or "dare", is used in Rom 5:7, but said, the Lord rebuke thee; for thy malice and insolence; see Zac 3:2; and this mild and gentle way of using even the devil himself agrees with Christ's conduct towards him, when tempted by him in the wilderness, and when in his agony with him in the garden, and amidst all his reproaches and sufferings on the cross. And now the argument is from the greater to the lesser, that if Christ, the Prince of angels, did not choose to give a railing word to the devil, who is so much inferior to him, and when there was so much reason and occasion for it; then how great is the insolence of these men, that speak evil of civil and ecclesiastical rulers, without any just cause at all? (o) De Confus. Ling. p. 341. & quis. rer. divin. Haeres. p. 509. (p) , l. 3. c. 2. (q) Debarim Rabba, fol. 245. 3, 4. Abot R. Nathan, c. 12. fol. 4. 2, 3. Petirath Mosis, fol. 57. 1. &. c. (r) Misn. Chagiga, c. 1. sect. 8. (s) Pirke Abot, c. 3. sect. 18. (t) T. Hieros. Beracot, fol. 6. 2. (u) Stromat, l. 6. p. 680. (w) Vid. Chion. Disput. Theolog. par. 1. & 2. De Corpore Mosis, sub Praesidio Trigland. Lugd. Batav. 1697.

"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.

For he does not say to blaspheme no man: but absolutely no one: not an angel, nor any creature of God. Because everything that was made by God is very good. For when Michael the Archangel disputed with the devil over the body of Moses, he did not dare to bring a judgment of blasphemy, but said, "May God rebuke you” (Jud. 9). If Michael therefore did not have the audacity to bring judgement upon the devil, certainly deserving of a curse, for blasphemy: how much more should we be pure from every curse? The devil deserved a curse: but it should not have come out through the mouth of an archangel.

You can search them out for yourself from sacred Scripture without my help. And it will become clearly evident to you that this likely is the age of which it was said, “Believe not in friends and trust not in princes,” and that the prophecy is now being fulfilled: “The leaders of my people have not known me; they are foolish and senseless children. They are wise to do evils, but to do good they have no knowledge.” We should rather pity such people than hate them and should rather pray for them than revile them. For we were created to bless and not to revile. Thus also Michael, when he was arguing with the devil over the body of Moses, did not dare to bring an accusation of blasphemy against him even for such a serious offense but said, “May the Lord rebuke you.” Even in Zechariah, we read something similar to this. “The Lord rebuke you, O Satan, and the Lord that chose Jerusalem rebuke you.” And so we also pray that those who refuse to be rebuked by their friends with humility may be rebuked by the Lord.

The angels were present at the death of Moses, and God himself took care of his burial.

Yet Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the Devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not think to pronounce a condemning judgment against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" But these people blaspheme what they do not understand, and they are destroyed by those things that they, like irrational animals, understand instinctively. Since he remembers the blasphemy, he restrains not only them alone, but also all men, so that they may have pure tongues from such evil, and do not use it against those who are worthy of blasphemy, saying: "Michael the archangel," etc. But what does this mean? That these indeed rashly and intemperately use blasphemies against all. However, this should not happen, since it is not even fair to attack those who are worthy of blasphemy with curses, as is evident from the archangel Michael. For when there was a dispute between him and the Devil about the body of Moses, an opportunity was given to him to attack him with a blasphemy because of his boldness, But the archangel did not dare to bring a railing accusation against the Devil, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" How do these men dare to blaspheme the glorious beings? It is written in another way: If the archangel was in this condition, we should not heap up blasphemies and curses against the brother of a man of the same condition as us. And indeed, these things have been said about them. Furthermore, this is the judgment concerning the body of Moses. It is said that Michael the archangel provided ministry in burying Moses: the Devil could not bear this but brought an accusation because of the killing of the Egyptian (Ex. 2), as if it were Moses' own, and therefore did not allow him to obtain an honorable burial. But also wishing to signify through this, the Apostle presents in the open that the law is prescribed to all men after their departure from the body, and that the same God is of the Old and New Testament. For when God wished to reveal the hidden things to men who were then more grossly affected, namely that the Devil, with his wicked demons, rises against our souls after they have been freed from here, wanting to hinder their journey to the heavens (and indeed he resists, but the good angels of God are there to assist them: as blessed Anthony also saw): He permitted these things to happen at that time. Nevertheless, Michael then dared to repel the Devil, not with the authority to rebuke, but he granted judgment to the Lord of all, and said: "May God rebuke you, O Devil." But these do not know what they speak. Michael indeed acted so, nor did he bring any accusation against a man or Moses: but these compose slanderous speeches about doctrines they do not understand; those who, by natural motion or judgment, as beings experienced in reason, pursue these things like maddened horses towards mares, or like swine.

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.

When Michael the archangel was disputing with the devil, etc. From which Scriptures Jude took this testimony is not easily clear. But it should be known that we find something similar to these things in the prophet Zechariah. For he says: Because the Lord showed me Jesus the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan stood at his right hand to oppose him. And the Lord said to Satan: The Lord rebuke you, Satan, and the Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you (Zech. III). But it is very easy to understand in this place that Jesus the high priest desired the people of Israel to be freed from Babylonian captivity and to return to their homeland. But Satan opposed him, not wanting the people of God to be liberated, but rather to be made slaves to enemies and nations; and therefore the angel who was the helper of the people rebuked him and removed him from the injury against that same people. But when Michael contended with the devil about the body of Moses, we have no certainty. However, there are those who say that the same people of God were called the body of Moses, because Moses himself was part of that people; and so Jude, having read what was done about the people, could rightly say it was done about the body of Moses. But wherever and whenever this dispute between the angel and the devil took place, it should be diligently considered, because if Michael the archangel did not wish to say a blasphemy to the devil opposing him, but restrained him with modest speech, how much more should all blasphemy be avoided by men, and especially lest they offend the majesty of the Creator with undisciplined words.

Since the apostle mentioned evil speaking, he reproves not only the blasphemers, but also persuades all people not to defile their tongues with such evil, not to employ it even against those who deserve it, and says: "Michael the Archangel," and so on. He speaks as if to say: they hastily and uncontrollably speak evil of everyone, but this ought not to be so. For it is unjust to speak evil even of those who deserve evil speaking, as is evident from the conduct of the Archangel Michael. Contending with the devil about the body of Moses, he could have reproached the devil for his shamelessness, yet he did not do so, but only said to him: The Lord rebuke you, devil! In another sense: if the Archangel acted this way, then we too, in a dispute with a man, our brother and kinsman, ought not to employ evil speaking. The dispute about the body of Moses was as follows. In the apocryphal writings it is said: the Archangel Michael ministered at the burial of the body of Moses; the devil would not allow this, but charged Moses with the guilt of killing the Egyptian, and on account of such guilt declared Moses unworthy of burial. The Apostle Jude recalls this in order not only to teach us not to be quick to speak evil, but also to show us that all people, upon departing from the body, must give an account of everything; that the God of the Old and New Testaments is one and the same; that upon our passage from this world, the devil together with his evil demons rises up against our souls, wishing to cut short their blessed journey: he opposes them, while the good angels fight on their behalf, as the holy Anthony saw. So it could have happened then as well. Only Michael repelled the devil at that time by rebuking him, not by his own authority, but by committing the judgment to the Lord of all, saying: The Lord rebuke you, devil!

The address and apostolical benediction, Jde 1:1, Jde 1:2. The reasons which induced Jude to write this epistle, to excite the Christians to contend for the true faith, and to beware of false teachers, lest, falling from their steadfastness, they should be destroyed after the example of backsliding Israel, the apostate angels, and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrha, Jde 1:3-7. Of the false teachers, Jde 1:8. Of Michael disputing about the body of Moses, Jde 1:9. The false teachers particularly described: they are like brute beasts, going the way of Cain, run after the error of Balaam, and shall perish, as did Korah in his gainsaying, Jde 1:10, Jde 1:11. Are impure, unsteady, fierce, shameless, etc., 12, 13. How Enoch prophesied of such, Jde 1:14, Jde 1:15. They are farther described as murmurers and complainers, Jde 1:16. We should remember the cautions given unto us by the apostles who foretold of these men, Jde 1:17-19. We should build up ourselves on our most holy faith, Jde 1:20, Jde 1:21. How the Church of Christ should treat such, Jde 1:22, Jde 1:23. The apostle's farewell, and his doxology to God, Jde 1:24, Jde 1:25.

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, etc." 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 endeavored to carry off the ram, that Isaac might be slain." The contention mentioned by Jude is not about the sacrifice of Isaac, nor the soul of Moses, but about the Body of Moses; but why or wherefore we know not. Some think the devil wished to show the Israelites where Moses was buried, knowing that they would then adore his body; and that Michael was sent to resist this discovery. Durst not bring against him a railing accusation - It was a Jewish maxim, as may be seen in Synopsis Sohar, page 92, note 6: "It is not lawful for man to prefer ignominious reproaches, even against wicked spirits." See Schoettgen. Dr. Macknight says: "In Dan 10:13, Dan 10:21; Dan 12:1, Michael is spoken of as one of the chief angels who took care of the Israelites as a nation; he may therefore have been the angel of the Lord before whom Joshua the high priest is said, Zac 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 Zac 3:1, Zac 3:2, said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan! even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem, rebuke thee!" This is the most likely interpretation which I have seen; and it will appear the more probable when it is considered that, among the Hebrews, גוף guph, Body, is often used for a thing itself. So, in 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, etc. It may be added, that the Jews consider Michael and Samael, one as the friend, the other as the enemy, of Israel. Samael is their accuser, Michael their advocate. "Michael and Samael stand before the Lord; Satan accuses, but Michael shows the merits of Israel. Satan endeavors 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 85:8." Shemoth Rabba, sec. xviii. fol. 117, 3.

servant of Jesus Christ--as His minister and apostle. brother of James--who was more widely known as bishop of Jerusalem and "brother of the Lord" (that is, either cousin, or stepbrother, being son of Joseph by a former marriage; for ancient traditions universally agree that Mary, Jesus' mother, continued perpetually a virgin). Jude therefore calls himself modestly "brother of James." See my Introduction. to them . . . sanctified by God the Father--The oldest manuscripts and versions, ORIGEN, LUCIFER, and others read, "beloved" for sanctified. If English Version be read, compare Col 1:12; Pe1 1:2. The Greek is not "by," but "in." God the Father's love is the element IN which they are "beloved." Thus the conclusion, Jde 1:21, corresponds, "Keep yourselves in the love of God." Compare "beloved of the Lord" Th2 2:13. preserved in Jesus Christ--"kept." Translate not "in," but as Greek, "FOR Jesus Christ." "Kept continually (so the Greek perfect participle means) by God the Father for Jesus Christ," against the day of His coming. Jude, beforehand, mentions the source and guarantee for the final accomplishment of believers' salvation; lest they should be disheartened by the dreadful evils which he proceeds to announce [BENGEL]. and called--predicated of "them that are beloved in God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ: who are called." God's effectual calling in the exercise of His divine prerogative, guarantees their eternal safety.

Michael, the archangel--Nowhere in Scripture is the plural used, "archangels"; but only ONE, "archangel." The only other passage in the New Testament where it occurs, is Th1 4:16, where Christ is distinguished from the archangel, with whose voice He shall descend to raise the dead; they therefore err who confound Christ with Michael. The name means, Who is like God? In Dan 10:13 he is called "One ('the first,' Margin) of the chief princes." He is the champion angel of Israel. In Rev 12:7 the conflict between Michael and Satan is again alluded to. about the body of Moses--his literal body. Satan, as having the power of death, opposed the raising of it again, on the ground of Moses' sin at Meribah, and his murder of the Egyptian. That Moses' body was raised, appears from his presence with Elijah and Jesus (who were in the body) at the Transfiguration: the sample and earnest of the coming resurrection kingdom, to be ushered in by Michael's standing up for God's people. Thus in each dispensation a sample and pledge of the future resurrection was given: Enoch in the patriarchal dispensation, Moses in the Levitical, Elijah in the prophetical. It is noteworthy that the same rebuke is recorded here as was used by the Angel of the Lord, or Jehovah the Second Person, in pleading for Joshua, the representative of the Jewish Church, against Satan, in Zac 3:2; whence some have thought that also here "the body of Moses" means the Jewish Church accused by Satan, before God, for its filthiness, on which ground he demands that divine justice should take its course against Israel, but is rebuked by the Lord who has "chosen Jerusalem": thus, as "the body of Christ" is the Christian Church, so "the body of Moses" is the Jewish Church. But the literal body is evidently here meant (though, secondarily, the Jewish Church is typified by Moses' body, as it was there represented by Joshua the high priest); and Michael, whose connection seems to be so close with Jehovah-Messiah on the one hand, and with Israel on the other, naturally uses the same language as his Lord. As Satan (adversary in court) or the devil (accuser) accuses alike the Church collectively and "the brethren" individually, so Christ pleads for us as our Advocate. Israel's, and all believers' full justification, and the accuser's being rebuked finally, is yet future. JOSEPHUS [Antiquities,4.8], states that God hid Moses' body, lest, if it had been exposed to view, it would have been made an idol of. Jude, in this account, either adopts it from the apocryphal "assumption of Moses" (as ORIGEN [Concerning Principalities, 3.2] thinks), or else from the ancient tradition on which that work was founded. Jude, as inspired, could distinguish how much of the tradition was true, how much false. We have no such means of distinguishing, and therefore can be sure of no tradition, save that which is in the written word. durst not--from reverence for Satan's former dignity (Jde 1:8). railing accusation--Greek, "judgment of blasphemy," or evil-speaking. Peter said, Angels do not, in order to avenge themselves, rail at dignities, though ungodly, when they have to contend with them: Jude says that the archangel Michael himself did not rail even at the time when he fought with the devil, the prince of evil spirits--not from fear of him, but from reverence of God, whose delegated power in this world Satan once had, and even in some degree still has. From the word "disputed," or debated in controversy, it is plain it was a judicial contest.