Judas 1:9

9. Michael Whence Jude quotes this instance is not clearly known. Origen says, it is a passage quoted from the book entitled “Ascension of Moses;” but the passage as specified by him is not the same with this of Jude. The old Greek commentator OEcumenius says, “It is said that Michael, the archangel, heaped on dust at his burial, but the devil, not agreeing to it, brought a charge against him of the killing of the Egyptian, and as on that account not worthy an honourable burial.” This the commentator derived from a source not at present known. Alford quotes a Greek passage from the Catena to the following effect: “When Michael brought Moses into the mount where our Lord was transfigured, then the devil said that God had perjured himself, in bringing him where he had sworn he should never come,” namely, into the Land of Promise. Dr. Gardiner has a plausible conjecture, which is in some degree sustained by this reference to the transfiguration. In that scene Moses appears in his resurrection body, and according to Deuteronomy 34:5-6, the place of his tomb was never known. Moses, then, like the transfigured Elijah, was really not buried, but corporeally translated; and the real contest which took place between Michael and Satan was whether Moses was worthy, instead of a burial, of a translation. It may then have been a judicial contest, as in a case of canonization; in which Satan was the prosecutor, and Michael the advocate, of Moses; and the issue was, whether Moses should have a grave or an ascension. The transfiguration, where Moses appears with glorified body, shows that Michael was victorious.

Michael is a name which does not appear in Scripture until after the captivity, namely, in Daniel 12:1, where he stands as the champion and guardian-angel of Israel See note, Matthew 1:20. The word archangel appears but once elsewhere in Scripture, 1 Thessalonians 4:16, “The Lord himself shall descend… with the voice of the (rather, an) archangel.” The pre-eminence of certain angels is implied in the apocryphal book of Tobit, where Raphael specifies himself as “one of the seven holy angels which present the prayers of the saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One.” As champion of the Church Michael is here, as in the Apocalypse, at issue with Satan, the “archangel ruined,” who is mentioned by Jesus as “the devil” with “his angels.”

Durst not Had not the daring. Huther says, “From reverence for the original glory of the devil;” Fronmuller retorts, “Better, from profound dread of the majesty of God.” Both seem to be correct; for it was probably a judicial scene before God. As in Job, Satan appears in his official state as prosecutor, and a forensic courtesy before that tribunal of God himself is due even to that bad dignity, as well as to the divine Judge.

A railing accusation An “ abusing of the plaintiff’s attorney” is said to be the final resort of the other party’s pettifogger when the facts are hard upon his client. It was not Satan who was on trial, but Moses; and, therefore, Michael need not make irrelevant allusion to the opposing counsels unfortunate antecedents.

Rebuke thee As he did Satan in the previous case of Job, acquitting the accused and non-suiting the accuser. Similar are the words of the angel to Satan in Zechariah 3:1-3, where the arch accuser is prosecuting God’s high-priest. Whether the document which Jude quotes was history or prose-poem, the archangel’s language repeated the words of Zechariah’s angel. Nor does the historical character of the document make important difference, for the modern pulpit could as properly elucidate a moral principle from Milton as from Macaulay. When it is said that “Jude quoted an apochryphal document,” it must be remembered that apochryphal means here simply the uninspired literature of the Hebrew Church. And if the book quoted was an imaginative production, its author wrote more wisely and more worthily of quotation than Milton, who makes even the angels retort “scorn for scorn.” Whether we hold the Satanic scene in Job to be history or poetry, it is equally suitable for instruction.

But are we to treat Satan with courtesy? We reply, that there is a deep moral wisdom in the maxim, “Give even the devil his due.” Respect is due to dignity, to position, to any excellence even in the worst character. And courtesy is due to the worst who is in the performance of a dignified office. And this, nevertheless, does not silence the voice of moral rebuke. When the dignitary puts off his dignity and becomes a buffoon, a criminal, a culprit, there is a suitable treatment for him as a buffoon, a criminal, a culprit. Dignified courts know how to treat a criminal with due respect and self-respect. When moral severity arraigns the guilty, in the true spirit either of reforming or of condemning for the warning of others, or for the public good, the plainest words of human language may be sometimes justifiably used. Of this truth, this very fragment of Jude’s is a rare example. And when Jesus arraigned Satan, (John 8:44,) truth and righteousness took precedence of courtesy. Preachers of the present day need not be afraid of this passage. It is a noble text in behalf of courtesy and moral rectitude in our forensic and judicial chambers, in our legislative and congressional halls, in our editorial columns. While just arraignments of official corruption are all-important and must never be effeminated, our courts are at the present day degraded by discourtesy, our senators bandy epithets suggestive of “honourable satisfaction,” and our newspapers run riot in partisan detraction. Said the Irish orator, Grattan, “The gentleman cannot be severe without being unparliamentary; I will show him how to be severe and parliamentary too.” At the present day a great public problem is how to state unflinching truth without extenuating, or setting down aught in malice.