Exposition of Jude 2, Biblical exegesis · Verse 9
VER. 9.
Yet Michael the Archangel, when contending with the Divel, he diſputed about the body of Moſes, durſt not bring againſt him a railing accuſation, but ſaid, The Lord rebuke thee.
THeſe words contain an aggravation of that hainous ſin wherewith our Apoſtle had charged theſe Seducers in the foregoing verſe; their Crime was, their ſpeaking evil, or blaſpheming of Dignities: the greatneſs of this ſin, the Apoſtle evidenceth and evinceth, by comparing of it with the contrary meek and humble carriage of the Archangel, even towards the worſt of creatures, the Divel himſelf.
This compariſon the Apoſtle firſt, Propounds, ver. 9 wherein he deſcribes the meek and humble carriage of the Archangel towards the Divel in his contending with him.
2 He accommodates and applies it to theſe Seducers, ver. 10.
1 In the compariſon propounded in ver. 9 there is intimated a threefold amplification of the ſin of theſe Seducers, by comparing it with the deportment of the Archangel.
1 In reſpect of the perſons compared; and this branch of the Compariſon is double. 1 Between a chief Angel and vile men. 2 Between Magiſtrates and the Divel. 1 If Michael an Angel, an Archangel, durſt not rail; how impudent and proud are men, duſt and aſhes, to adventure to do ſo? 2 If he did forbear to revile the Divel himſelf, the enemy of God and his Church, the worſt of evil ones, and one who was his inferior, how great was their ſin, who would ſpeak evil of Magiſtrates, called Gods, and ſet up by him, as thoſe to whom they ought to be in ſubjection?
2 The ſecond branch of the Compariſon, whereby their ſin is amplified, was from the different cauſe about which the Angels and theſe Seducers were employed. The cauſe for which the Archangel contended was good, clear, and righteous; namely, the burial of the body of Moſes; a work very good, whether we conſider the Authority of him who enjoined it, God himſelf; or the end of the injunction, the preſervation of the people from Id…latry: but the cauſe which theſe Seducers had undertaken was wicked and ſinful, conſidering that it was the blaſpheming of that Order which was inſtituted and ordained by God himſelf, Tit. 3.1. Rom. 13.1. 1 Pet. 2.18.and by his ſpecial command to be highly honoured and eſteemed.
The third branch of the compariſon, whereby the Apoſtle heightens their ſin, was the different carriage and deportment of the Archangel towards the Divel, from that of theſe Seducers toward Magiſtrates. 1 The Archangel reaſoneth humbly, and diſputes; the Seducers peremptorily determine the queſtion, paſs ſentence and give judgment: The Angel commits his cauſe to God, and appeals to him for redreſs and relief; the Seducers are Judges in their own cauſe, break their bounds, detract from Gods Authority, and uſurp his Throne. The Angel in the fervor of contention, when moſt highly provoked, was patient and humble; theſe provoked by none rage and revile. Theſe are the particular branches of the compariſon, ſet down this verſe.
If it were needful, before I come to the handling of theſe ſeveral parts of the verſe, to premiſe any thing by way of vindication of it, and the whole Epiſtle from the Exception of thoſe who alledg that the Epiſtle is not Canonical, becauſe the contention about the body of Moſes is not mentioned in Scripture, but was only a tradition. I might anſwer
1 With Learned Junius, the ſubſtance of this Hiſtory is mentioned in Scripture; Deut. 34 6.therein we finding that the Lord buried Moſes, and that none knoweth of his Sepulcher unto this day; ſo that it is plain the body of dead Moſes was buried by God, i.e. either by his own immediate power, or by the inſtumrental power of an Angel, (as ſeems from this place moſt probable) and alſo that the particular place of his burial was altogether unknown to men and divels. 'Tis true, the Scripture mentious not circumſtances, either a contention of Michael with the Divel, or the carriage and expreſſions of either party in that contention. But therefore
2 Though theſe paſſages here ſet down by Jude be not expreſſed in the Sacred Story, yet 'tis ſufficient for us, that they are now by the Apoſtle, who was led by the Spirit of God, inſerted into holy Writ. Poſſibly (as Rivet notes) this ſtory was not delivered to the Apoſtle by tradition, but revealed to him by the Holy Ghoſt. Some indeed ſay, foreign, l 3. c. 2.it was taken out of a certain (uncertain) book, called the Aſcenſion of Moſes, and mentioned by Origen. Others, that it was handed by tradition from generation to generation. But granting either of the two laſt. Is the Divine authority, either of this paſſage, or of the Epiſtle, therefore to be doubted of? by the ſame reaſon ſundry other places of Scripture muſt be queſtioned: frequently doth the Spirit of God in the Scripture, 2 Tim. 3.8.ſet down that as done in former ſtories, which was not at all there mentioned, as Jannes and Jambres their withſtanding of Moſes; Heb. 11.21.Jacobs worſhipping on the top of his ſtaffe; Moſes his ſaying that the ſight upon the Mount was ſo terrible, Heb. 11.21. Pſal. 105.18.that I exceedingly fear and tremble; that Joſephs feet were hurt with fetters, and that hee was laid in Irons, &c. Yea how ordinary is it for the Penmen of Scripture to make uſe of ſentences taken out of Heathen Poets? as that of Menander, 1 Cor. 15 33. Evil communication corrupts good manners. Of Epimenides, Tit. 1.12. The Cretians are always lyars, evill beaſts, ſlow bellies. Of Aratus, Acts 17.28. In him we live, and move, and have our being. The Spirit of God which could ſanctifie paſſages taken out of Heathens, and make them Canonical, might do the like by this relation or tradition (if it were ſo) of the Archangels contention with the Devil, and by putting of the Apoſtle upon the inſerting of it, give it the ſtamp of divine authority, and ſo render it to us moſt certain and infallible; and by this we at once anſwer both thoſe who reject this Epiſtle, becauſe Jude brings an example from tradition, no where recorded in Scripture; as likewiſe the Papiſts, who offend in the other extream of exceſs, from hence pleading for a liberty in the Church to joyn traditions with the Holy Scripture; whereas they can neither prove that the Apoſtle had this ſtory by tradition, (for why might not the Spirit of God reveal to the Apoſtles what had been done before in ages paſt, as it did to the Prophets what ſhould be done afterwards in ages to come?) nor that it is lawful for us to do all that the Apoſtles might, who (as Rivet well notes) did many things by a ſingular and peculiar right, Rivet. in Iſai. p. 474. Apoſtoli multis ſingulari jure uſurparunt in quibus nemo debet aut etiam poteſt eos imitari.wherein none either ought or is able to imitate them. This premiſed briefly, I come to the words of the Verſe, wherein we have three parts conſiderable.
1. The Combatants: Michael the Archangel, and the Devil.
2. The Strife and Contention it ſelf; ſet down,
1. More generally; ſo its ſaid, they contended.
2. More particularly; and ſo it was a diſputation about the body of Moſes.
3. The Carriage of the Archangel in this Contention, which was twofold:
1. Inward, in reſpect of his diſpoſition, ſet down Negatively; he durſt not bring a railing accuſation.
2. Outward, in reſpect of his expreſſion, ſet down Affirmatively; He ſaid, the Lord rebuke thee.
1. Firſt, Of the parties contending, Michael the Archangel, and the Devil.