The Epistle of Jude 8-10

Welcome back to my study/review of The Epistle of Jude. If you missed the previous parts of this study, you can find them HERE.

Jude 8-10

⁸ Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. ⁹ But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” ¹⁰ But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively.

________________________

After describing the sexual sin of Genesis 6 and Genesis 19 (Sodom) Jude says “these people” – the antagonists about whom the Epistle is being written – are comparable. Who are the “these people” of Jude? By way of reminder, he describes them in verse 4:

⁴ For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Jude’s “these people” are infiltrators who are advocating for the type of sin that Jude just described in the previous verses. Before jumping into the Commentaries, I want to point out a few things:

1. The sin of Genesis 6 is between angels (or, more specifically the ‘ben Elohim’) and the daughters of mankind. In other texts, you’ll see these beings described as “the Watchers.” Their offspring with humans were the Nephilim. This sin immediately preceded the Great Flood.
2. The Genesis 19 episode is somewhat more complex, but there are also similarities with the sin from Genesis 6. The outcry against Sodom that led to its judgment concerns sin between and among human beings. However, from the perspective of the reader, the sin we read about in the text is an attempt to rape angels.

Thus the thing both stories have in common is sexual sin between beings of different stations. Jude seems to be concerned with the infiltrators’ advocacy for sexual sin and for their blaspheming angels. Jude writes with a lot of brevity, so it is not entirely clear as to specifics.

So what is going on with the people Jude is addressing? There are a few possibilities for what might be meant here. Jude could be rebuking a group of people who separately promote the idea that sexual immorality is allowed due to grace, with that group also being known for their blaspheming of angels. Jude might also be addressing the advocacy of sexual sin between humans and (fallen) angels. We will cover that in a lot of detail later. There is another possibility, though.

1 Cor. 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own.

Romans 8 ¹² So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. ¹³ For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. ¹⁴ For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. ¹⁵ For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” ¹⁶ The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, ¹⁷ and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

In the Church, as we see in Paul’s writings, Christians become sons of God through adoption, with Christian bodies becoming sacred spaces – temples of the Holy Spirit. Thus, sinning sexually is not only a sin, in the way that we might naturally think of it, but it’s also a potentially sin against station.

Keep this in mind as something Jude might be concerned about, as we go forward in the text, looking at the commentaries. From The Pulpit Commentaries:

Jude 1:8

Having set in the forefront of his warnings these terrible instances of gross sin and overwhelming penalty, the writer proceeds to deal with the real character of the insidious troublers and corrupters of the Churches of his time. He describes them as filthy dreamers; or better, as the Revised Version puts it, men in their dreamings—an expression pointing to the foul and perverted fancies in the service of which they lived. He charges them with the particular sins of defiling the flesh, despising dominion, and railing at dignities. He further declares of them that, in practicing such sins, they run a course like that of the cities of the plain, and run it in defiance, too, of the warning held forth to them by the case of Sodom and Gomorrah. For such seems the point of the terms connecting this paragraph with the preceding, which are best rendered “nevertheless in like manner,” or “yet in like manner” (Revised Version). The difficulty lies, however, in the description of their offences. What is intended by the charge that they defile the flesh is obvious. But what is referred to in the other clauses, and set at naught dominion (or, lordship), and rail at dignities (or, glories), is far from clear. It has been supposed that a lawlessness is meant which expressed itself in contempt for all earthly authority, whether political or ecclesiastical. The whole scope of the passage, however, and the analogy of 2 Peter 2:10, etc., seem to point so decidedly to higher dignities than the earthly institutions of Church and State, that most interpreters now think that celestial lordship of some kind is in view. But of what kind? That of God and that of good angels, say some. That of Christ and that of angels, say others. Both clauses, say a third class of interpreters, refer to angels, both to good angels and to evil, or to good angels alone, or to evil angels alone, as the allusions are variously understood. Pointing to the particular word which is used here for “dominion” or “lordship,” some contend that there is a definite reference to the dominion of Christ, the Lord distinctively so called. But the same word is used elsewhere (cf. Ephesians 1:21; Colossians 1:16) of angels, while the term translated “dignities,” or “glories,” occurs again only in 2 Peter 2:10. If, therefore, any single kind of lordship is in view, we should conclude in favour of angelic dignities, and the authority of good angels in particular. But it may be that Jude uses the terms here in a general sense to cover all kinds of authority, especially celestial authority. This is favoured by the undefined expressions which meet us in the Petrine parallel (2 Peter 2:10, etc.). It is supported, too, by the consideration that in leveling three separate charges against the men, Jude has probably in view the three separate cases which he has just cited in Jude 1:5-7. In which case the parallel between these latter and the men now described can naturally be only of a general kind. It is remarked by Professor Plumptre that the passage in 2 Peter 2:10, etc. (see his Commentary), taken in connection with this one in Jude, suggests that “the undue worshipping of angels in the Judaizing Gnosticism which had developed out of the teaching of the Essenes (Colossians 2:18), had been met by its most extreme opponents with coarse and railing mockery as to all angels, whether good or evil, and that the apostle felt it necessary to rebuke this license of speech as well as that which paid no respect to human authority.”

If you read the note, you might pick up on a translation issue. The ESV translates “glorious ones” in verse 8. The note above pulls from the KJV.

⁸ Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

As both the commentary note above, and this Jude study introduction mentioned, there are a lot of textual parallels between Jude and 2 Peter. The author points out that 2 Peter uses the same language.

2 Peter 2:¹⁰ and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.

Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones,

There are a few translation questions in this verse. We’ll focus on a couple of them.

blaspheme / revile = βλασφημέω blasphēméō, blas-fay-meh’-o; from G989; to vilify; specially, to speak impiously:—(speak) blaspheme(-er, -mously, -my), defame, rail on, revile, speak evil.

The more recent translations generally favor “glorious ones” or “angelic majesties” from the underlying Greek:

glorious ones / dignities / angelic majesties = δόξα dóxa, dox’-ah; from the base of G1380; glory (as very apparent), in a wide application (literal or figurative, objective or subjective):—dignity, glory(-ious), honour, praise, worship.

The use of this word in the Greek, to refer to angels, is more obvious from the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. For example, Isaiah 10:33 in the Septuagint is as follows:

33Behold, the Lord, the Lord of hosts, will mightily confound the glorious ones; and the haughty in pride shall be crushed, and the lofty shall be brought low:

When we keep in mind the text’s context, with Jude’s Old Testament examples both referring to sin, or the desire to sin, between mankind and angels, the glorious ones = angels / ben Elohim interpretation seems to make the most sense.

The Pulpit Commentary note mentions that the early Church dealt with the heresy of angel worship, and suggests that the opponents to that heresy took to the opposite extreme in regard to angels. That would also meet the criteria for “blaspheming” angels, either way.

Colossians 2: ¹⁸ Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 

Moving on to verse 9, in The Pulpit Commentaries:

Jude 1:9

The irreverent and unbridled speech of these “filthy dreamers” is now contrasted with the self-restraint of one of the “dignities” of the angelic world. The point of the contrast is sufficiently clear. The incident itself is obscure. But Michael the archangel. With the exception of Revelation 12:7, where he is described as warring with the dragon, this is the only mention which the New Testament makes of Michael. It is entirely in harmony, however, with the Old Testament representation. It is only in the Book of Daniel that he is named there, but he appears as the champion and protector of Israel against the world-powers of heathenism. He is “one of the chief princes” (Daniel 10:13), “your prince” (Daniel 10:21), “the great prince” (Daniel 12:1), who gives help against Persia, and stands for the chosen people. He is also introduced in the Book of Enoch, and the view given of him there is like that in Jude. He is “the merciful, the patient, the holy Michael” (40:8). He belongs to that developed form which the doctrine of angels took towards the close of Old Testament revelation, when the ideas of distinction in dignity and office were added to the simpler conception of earlier times. In the apocryphal books we find a hierarchy with seven archangels, including Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel. When contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. These last words occur in Zechariah 3:2, where they are addressed by the Lord to Satan. The term used for “disputed” points to a contention in words. The phrase rendered “railing accusation” by the English Version, and “invective” by others, means rather a judgment or “sentence savouring of evil-speaking,” as Alford puts it. Following the Rhemish Version, therefore, the Revised Version renders it a “railing judgment.” What is meant, then, is that Michael restrained himself, leaving all judgment and vengeance even in this case to God. But what is the case referred to? The Targum of Jonathan, on Deuteronomy 34:6, speaks of Michael as having charge of the grave of Moses, and there may be something to the same effect in other ancient Jewish legends (see Wetstein). But with this partial exception, there seems to be nothing resembling Jude’s statement either in apocryphal books like that of Enoch or in the rabbinical literature, not to speak of the canonical Scriptures. Neither is the object of the contention quite apparent—whether it is meant that the devil attempted to deprive Moses of the honour of burial by impeaching him of the murder of the Egyptian, or that he sought to preserve the body for idolatrous uses such as the brazen serpent lent itself to, or what else. The matter, nevertheless, is introduced by Jude as one with which his readers would be familiar. Whence, then, comes the story? Some have solved the difficulty by the desperate expedient of allegory, as if the body of Moses were a figure of the Israelite Law, polity, or people; and as if the sentence referred to the giving of the Law at Sinai, the siege under Hezekiah, or the rebuilding under Zerubbabel. Others seek its source in a special revelation, or in some unrecorded instructions given by Christ in explanation of the Transfiguration scene. Herder would travel all the way to the Zend-Avesta for it. Calvin referred it to oral Jewish tradition. Another view of it appears, however, in so early a writer as Origen, viz. that it is a quotation from an old apocryphal writing on the Ascent or Assumption of Moses, the date of which is much disputed, but is taken by some of the best authorities (Ewald, Wieseler, Dillmann, Drummond) to be the first decade after the death of Herod. This is the most probable explanation; and Jude’s use of this story, therefore, carries no more serious consequences with it than the use he afterwards makes of the Book of Enoch. Beyond what could be gathered from a few scattered references and quotations in the Fathers and some later writings, the book in question remained unknown for many centuries. But in the year 1861 a considerable part of it, which had been discovered in the Ambrosian Library of Milan, was given to the public by Ceriani, in an Old Latin version, and since that time various editions of it have been published. Ewald observes that the quotation “shows how early the attempt was made to describe exactly the final moment of the life of Moses, and to weave into this description a complete answer to the questions which arose concerning his highest glory, and his guilt or innocence”. Some who are not prepared to accept the theory that the passage is a quotation from this ancient book, understand Jude to refer to a traditional expansion of Scripture, based partly on the narrative of the death of Moses in Deuteronomy, and partly on the scene between Joshua and Satan in Zechariah 3:1-10. So, for example, Professor Lumby, who is of opinion that the mention of Jannes and Jambres in 2 Timothy 3:8, and certain passages in Stephen’s speech as reported in Acts 7:1-60, show that there were current among the Jews “traditional explanations of the earlier history, which had grown round the Old Testament narrative.” (On the Assumption of Moses, and the spread of legend on the subject of the death of Moses, see Schurer’s ‘The Jewish People in the Time of Christ,’ volume 3, div. 2. pages 80-83, Clark’s translation.)

The widely held view today is that Jude quotes from The Assumption of Moses in verse 9. As the note describes, the canonical text provides the backdrop for this dispute between Michael and Satan, however, the actual dispute is not recorded within canon. This is not the last time this Epistle will challenge its readers with quotes from non-canon sources. Jude later quotes from 1 Enoch.

These out-of-canon quotes have caused some to push back against Jude’s own canonicity. Alternatively, it has led others to argue that 1 Enoch and other pseudepigraphy should be included in the Bible, too. Addressing the latter point first, this is not a strong argument. Paul quotes Menander in his letters. No one would seriously argue that Menander’s writings should be in the Canon. The test for canonicity is higher than merely being quoted. But what do we do with a book like 1 Enoch, The Assumption of Moses, The Gospel of Thomas, or several others, which appear to carry the weight of being read and studied historically? What if some o these books appear to say things that are true, such that Jude would quote them?

Saying some true things is not sufficient to past the test to be in the canon. The book needs to have a tradition of being passed down by Christ, or the Apostles, as canon.

That does not mean though that non-canonical books should be ignored, or that they should go unstudied. A well-educated student of the New Testament should know and read the books that informed the authors of the Bible. However, those other books should be read in their proper historical context – including therein how they were viewed at the time.

That still leaves us with another question to ask. Why did Michael and Satan have a dispute over the body of Moses? The answer to this is probably it’s own post, so I’ll provide another video below that addresses that question and provides a good summary answer:

As to the subject matter of verse 9, Jude writes that Michael refused to blaspheme Satan when contending for the body of Moses. We can infer then that Satan qualifies as one of Jude’s “glorious ones” due to this comparison. Jude’s point is that even Michael would not do what these Church infiltrators are doing. He refused to blaspheme Satan, despite being on a confrontation with him. Contextually, it makes the sin of those about whom Jude is addressing seem all the worse, because undoubtedly those to whom he is referring have much less reason to blaspheme the “glorious ones” than Michael did with Satan.

Jude contrasts Michael and his opponents overtly in verse 10. Continuing in The Pulpit Commentaries:

Jude 1:10

The description of the men dealt with in Jude 1:8 is resumed, their impious irreverence and self-indulgence being set over against Michael’s bearing. The corresponding passage in 2 Peter 2:12 is less definite. Here we have two pointed statements, one referring to the railers at dignities, the other to the defilers of the flesh in 2 Peter 2:8. But these rail at whatsoever things they know not: and what they understand naturally, like the creatures without reason, in those things are they destroyed. So the Revised Version renders it, with much more precision than the Authorized Version, and preserving the distinction which appears in the original between two verbs,” knowing” and “understanding,” applied to two different classes of objects. The idea is that high and holy objects are beyond their knowledge, and their understanding is limited to the senses, the physical wants and appetites which they have in common with the brutes. In the case of the former they are rash and profane of speech where they should be silent and restrained; in the case of the latter they use them only to their own undoing. The turn of the phrase, “in these they are destroyed” (or, “destroy themselves”), indicates, perhaps, how absolutely they are lost in the service of the physical appetites. The words which Milton makes the tempter use of himself have been cited as a parallel to this verse—

“I was at first as other beasts that graze

The trodden herb, of abject thoughts and low,

As was my food; nor aught but food discerned

Or sex, and apprehended nothing high.”
(‘Paradise Lost,’ 9:571-574.)

It is clear at this point that the people being addressed by Jude are being rebuked in the harshest possible terms. He has compared their sin with the sin of Genesis 6 and Genesis 19 – both of which were punished severely. Jude also rebukes their blaspheming of “the glorious ones” by pointing out that Michael – with arguably far, far better cause – refused to do what they are doing.

Jude continues laying the hammer of rebuke down in the verses that follow.