_RAILING AT DIGNITIES. "THE ASSUMPTION OF MOSES."
ST. JUDE'S USE OF APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE._
"Yet in like manner these also in their dreamings defile the flesh,
and set at nought dominion, and rail at dignities. But Michael the
archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body
of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing judgment,[121] but
said, The Lord rebuke thee. But these rail at whatsoever things they
know not: and what they understand naturally, like the creatures
without reason, in these things are they destroyed. Woe unto them!
for they went in the way of Cain, and ran riotously in the error of
Balaam for hire, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah."--ST. JUDE
8-12.
St. Jude having given three terrible examples of the punishment of
gross sin in Jews, Gentiles, and angels, proceeds to apply these
instances to the libertines who in his own day, by their scandalous
conduct as Christians, were provoking God to punish them in like
manner; and the threefold description of their conduct here given
seems to refer to the three instances just given, which are now taken
in reverse order. Like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, these ungodly
libertines "defile the flesh;" like the "angels which kept not their
own principality," they "set at nought dominion;" and like the
unbelieving and rebellious Israelites in the wilderness, they "rail at
dignities." In all three particulars they show themselves as
"dreamers" (ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι). They are like men who say and do
monstrous things in their sleep. They are deadened to all sense of
decency and duty, "dreaming, lying down, loving to slumber" (Isa.
lvi. 10, where the same word that we have here is used in the LXX.).
They are sunk in the torpor of sin (Rom. xiii. 11). The Revisers have
done rightly in omitting the epithet "filthy," in adding the word
"also," and in substituting "in their dreamings" for "dreamers." The
participle represented by "in their dreamings" does not belong to
"defile the flesh" exclusively, but to the other two clauses as well;
so that "filthy" is not even correct as an interpretation: it is quite
unjustifiable as a rendering. There is no reason for suspecting that
certain Levitical pollutions are indicated. Seeing that "in their
dreamings" they "set at nought dominion, and rail at dignities,"
dreaming must not be understood of actual sleep. Moreover, St. Jude
does not say "defile _their_ flesh," but "defile the flesh" (σάρκα
μιαίνουσι), which includes more than their own bodies. He perhaps
means that they pollute human nature, or even the whole animal world.
Like the men of Sodom, these profligates "defile the flesh." Like the
angels who sold their birthright for base indulgences, they "set at
nought dominion." But it is by no means easy to determine what this
"dominion" or "lordship" (κυριότητα) signifies. Calvin and others
interpret this and "dignities" or "glories" (δόξας) of the civil
power: "There is a contrast to be noticed, when he says that they
defiled or polluted the flesh, that is, that they degraded what was
less excellent, and that yet they despised as disgraceful what is
deemed especially excellent among mankind. It appears from the second
clause that they were seditious men, who sought anarchy, that, being
loosed from the fear of the laws, they might sin more freely. But
these two things are nearly always connected, that they who abandon
themselves to iniquity do also wish to abolish all order. Though,
indeed, their chief object is to be free from every yoke, it yet
appears from the words of Jude that they were wont to speak insolently
and reproachfully of magistrates, like the fanatics of the present
day, who not only grumble because they are restrained by the authority
of magistrates, but furiously declaim against all government, and say
that the power of the sword is profane and opposed to godliness; in
short, they superciliously reject from the Church of God all kings and
all magistrates. 'Dignities,' or 'glories,' are orders or ranks
eminent in power or honour" (Calvin's _Commentaries on the Catholic
Epistles_, Eng. Tr., Edinburgh, 1855, p. 438). But if earthly rulers
of any kind are meant by "dominion" and "dignities," it is more
probable that St. Jude is thinking of ecclesiastical officers; in
which case the meaning would be that these libertines set Church
discipline at defiance, and reviled the presbyters or bishops who
rebuked them for their evil conduct.
It is, however, more probable that at least "dominion," if not
"dignities," refers to unseen and supernatural powers. We must look
backwards to ver. 4, and forwards to ver. 10, for a key to the
interpretation. These profligates "turn the grace of God into
lasciviousness," and thus "defile the flesh;" and they "deny our only
Master and Lord, Jesus Christ," and thus "set at nought lordship."
Again, "what they understand naturally, like the creatures without
reason, in these things are they destroyed," _i.e._ they ruin
themselves, body and soul, by their carnal indulgences; while "they
rail at whatsoever things they know not," _i.e._ they speak with
flippant irreverence respecting the invisible world, reviling angels,
and perhaps mocking at Satan. We may, therefore, with some hesitation,
but with a fair amount of reason, interpret "dominion," or "lordship,"
of Christ or of God, and "dignities," or "glories," of angels,
remembering that either or both of these may include Christ's
ministers and messengers on earth. One of the ways in which these
ungodly men denied Christ in their lives was by their contemptuous
disregard of the teaching of His Apostles.[122]
It is quite possible that in this particular also St. Jude is under
the influence of the _Book of Enoch_. In it we read, "Ye fulfil not
the commandments of the Lord; but ye transgress and _calumniate
greatness_" (vi. 4); and again, "All who _utter with their mouths
unbecoming language against God_, and _speak harsh things of His
glory_, here they shall be collected" (xxvi. 2); and again, "My eyes
beheld all the sinners, who _denied the Lord of glory_" (xli. 1). And
with this last expression should be compared, "_The splendour of the
Godhead_ shall illuminate them" (i. 8). But of course it does not
follow that because St. Jude partly reproduces the language of this
writer, therefore he uses it with precisely the same meaning.
"But Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed
about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing
judgment, but said, The Lord rebuke thee." The meaning of this
illustration is obvious. The profane libertines allow themselves to
speak of "dignities" in a way which even an archangel did not venture
to adopt in rebuking Satan. It is a very strong argument _à fortiori_.
Consequently, the fact that it was an evil angel against whom Michael
did not dare to rail by no means proves that it was evil angels
against which the libertines did dare to rail. Rather the contrary may
be inferred. They use language of good angels which Michael would not
use of a bad one. That "dignities," or "glories," may include the
fallen angels or evil spirits is perhaps possible; that it refers to
them exclusively is very improbable. The word itself is against this;
for "glories" is certainly a strange name to give to devils.
But a more interesting question lies before us as to the source from
which St. Jude derived the story about Michael the archangel
contending with the devil about the body of Moses. It is as
unreasonable to suppose that he received a special revelation on the
subject as to suppose that St. Paul received a special revelation
respecting the names of the Egyptian magicians (see on 2 Tim. iii. 8
in this series, _Pastoral Epistles_, pp. 379-83). St. Jude refers to
the incident as something quite familiar to his readers; and this
could hardly have been the case if it had been specially revealed to
himself. Lardner supposes that the reference is to Zech. ii. 1, 2.
But, excepting that the words, "The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan," occur
there, the difference between the two incidents is immense. Neither
Michael nor the body of Moses is mentioned in Zechariah. The cause of
Satan's hostility is the consecration of Joshua the high priest. And
it is the Lord, and not the angel, who rebukes the evil one. These
differences are conclusive; they leave just the features which need
explanation still unexplained. We may safely decide that St. Jude is
not alluding to anything contained in the Bible. More probably he is
referring to some well-known Jewish story respecting the death and
burial of Moses--in other words, to apocryphal literature.
"So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab,
according to the word of the Lord. And He buried him in the valley in
the land of Moab over against Beth-peor: but no man knoweth of his
sepulchre unto this day" (Deut. xxxiv. 5, 6). These words excited the
curiosity of the Jews; and as history told them nothing beyond the
statement in Deuteronomy, they fell back upon imagination as a
substitute, and the mysterious words of Scripture became a centre
round which a series of legends in process of time clustered. The
_Targum of Jonathan_ on the passage says that the grave of Moses was
entrusted to the care of Michael the archangel. The _Midrash_ on the
same states that Sammael, chief of the evil spirits, was impatient for
the death of Moses. "And he said, When will the longed-for moment come
when Michael shall weep and I shall laugh? And at last the time came
when Michael came to Sammael and said: Ah! cursed one! shall I weep
while thou laughest? and he made answer in the words of Micah
(vii. 8), Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy: when I fall, I shall
arise; when I sit in darkness, the Lord shall be a light unto me." The
_Midrash_ also contains another legend, in which the sin of the impure
angels is mentioned in connexion with the death of Moses. The soul of
Moses prays that it may not be taken from the body: "Lord of the
world, the angels Asa and Asael lusted after daughters of men; but
Moses, from the day that Thou appearedst unto him in the bush, led a
life of perpetual continence;" the plea being that from so pure a body
the soul need not depart. Both Gabriel and Michael shrink from
bringing the soul, and Sammael failed to obtain it. "And Moses prayed,
Lord of the world, give not my soul over to the angel of death. And
there came a voice from heaven, Fear not, Moses; I will provide for
thy burial. And Moses stood up and sanctified himself as do the
Seraphim, and the Most High came down from heaven, and the three chief
angels with Him. Michael prepared the bier, and Gabriel spread out the
winding-sheet.... And the Most High kissed him, and through that kiss
took his soul to Himself" (Plumptre _in loco_).
These legends bring us a little nearer to the illustration used by
St. Jude, for they bring Michael and the evil spirit into connexion
with what is related respecting the death and burial of Moses. But the
contest between Michael and Satan respecting the body is not there.
Origen tells us that this comes from an apocryphal book called _The
Assumption_ or _The Ascension_ (ἀνάληψις or ἀνάβασις) _of Moses_:
"In Genesis the serpent is described as having seduced Eve, regarding
whom, in _The Assumption of Moses_ (a little treatise of which the
Apostle Jude makes mention in his Epistle), the archangel Michael,
when disputing with the devil regarding the body of Moses, says that
the serpent, being inspired by the devil, was the cause of the
transgression of Adam and Eve" (_De Princip._ III. ii. _sub init._).
The book was fairly well known in the early Church. Clement of
Alexandria quotes it (_Strom._ VI. xv. _sub fin._); and in the Latin
translation of the _Hypotyposeis_ his note on Jude 9 is "_Hic
confirmat Assumptionem Moysis_." Didymus of Alexandria says the same
as Origen about St. Jude's use of it, and censures those who made this
an objection to the Epistle of Jude (_In Epist. Judæ enarratio in
Gallandi Biblioth. Patr._ VI. 307). Evodius, Bishop of Uzala, one of
Augustine's early friends (_Confess._ IX. viii. 17; xii. 31), in
writing to him, speaks of it as the _Mysteries (Secreta) of Moses_,
and calls it a writing devoid of authority (Aug. _Ep._ clviii. 6). It
was known in the second half of the fifth century to Gelasius of
Cyzicus, and in the second half of the eighth to Nicephorus of
Constantinople, who, in his _Stichometria Sacrorum Librorum_, tells us
that it was about as long as the Apocalypse of St. John. But from that
time we hear no more of it until 1861, when Ceriani published about a
third of it from a palimpsest in the Ambrosian Library at Milan
(_Monumenta Sacra et Prof._ I. i., p. 55). This fragment contains the
passage quoted by Gelasius, but most tantalizingly comes to an end
before the death of Moses, so that we are still without the passage
about the contest between Michael and the devil respecting his body.
Nevertheless, we have no reason for doubting the statements of Origen
and of Didymus that the book contained this incident, and that this is
the source of the illustration used by St. Jude. Such evidence as we
have confirms the statements, and there is no evidence on the other
side. We know that there were legends connecting Michael and the evil
one with the death of Moses. We know that _The Assumption of Moses_
contained similar material. Above all, we know that the incident
mentioned by St. Jude is not in the canonical Scriptures, and
therefore must have come from some apocryphal source, and that
elsewhere in his Epistle St. Jude makes use of apocryphal literature.
We are not, therefore, creating a difficulty by adopting the all but
certain conclusion that this apocryphal work is the source from which
St. Jude draws. Even if we reject this highly probable conclusion, the
difficulty, such as it is, will still remain.
That _The Assumption of Moses_ was written before our Epistle is
almost universally admitted. Philippi is almost alone in thinking that
its author was a Christian, and that he borrowed from St. Jude. Ewald,
Dillmann, Drummond, Schürer, and Wiesler place it between B.C. 4 (the
year of the war of Quintilius Varus, to which it almost certainly
refers) and A.D. 6. Hilgenfeld, Merx, Fritzsche, and Lucius place it
at different points between A.D. 44 and 70. But the earlier date is
the more probable. The large fragment in Latin which we now possess
was evidently made from a Greek document, and Hilgenfeld has attempted
to restore the Greek from the Latin. But this Greek document may
itself have been a translation from the Aramaic. In either case
St. Jude would be able to read it.[123]
That any true tradition on the subject should have been handed down
orally through fifteen centuries, "_without leaving the slightest
trace in a single passage in the Old Testament_," is utterly
improbable. This hypothesis, and the still more violent supposition of
a special revelation made to St. Jude, are devices prompted by a
reverent spirit, but thoroughly uncritical and untenable, to avoid the
unwelcome conclusion that an inspired writer has quoted legendary
material. Have we any right to assume that inspiration raises a writer
to the intellectual position of a critical historian, with power to
discriminate between legend and fact? St. Jude probably believed the
story about the dispute between Michael and Satan to be true; but even
if he knew it to be a myth, he might nevertheless readily use it as an
illustrative argument, seeing that it was so familiar to his readers.
If an inspired writer were living now, would it be quite incredible
that he should make use of Dante's _Purgatory_, or Shakespeare's _King
Lear_? Inspiration certainly does not preserve those who possess it
from imperfect grammar, and we cannot be certain that it preserves
them from other imperfections which have nothing to do with the truth
that saves souls. Besides which, it may be merely our prejudices which
lead us to regard the use of legendary material as an imperfection.
Let us reverently examine the features which inspired writings
actually present to us, not hastily determine beforehand what
properties they _ought_ to possess. We not unnaturally fancy that when
the Holy Spirit inspires a person to write for the spiritual
instruction of men throughout all ages, He also preserves him from
making mistakes as to the authenticity of writings of which he makes
use, or at least would preserve him from misleading others on such
points; but it does not follow that this natural expectation of ours
corresponds with the actual manner of the Spirit's working. "We follow
a very unsafe method if we begin by deciding in what way it seems to
us most fitting that God should guide His Church, and then try to
wrest facts into conformity with our preconceptions."[124]
[121] Dr. Field, in his most valuable _Otium Novicense_ (iii., pp.
154, 155), argues strongly in favour of translating κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν
βλασφημίας, "bring against him an accusation of blasphemy;" and he
quotes various passages to show that κρίσιν ἐπιφέρειν may mean "to
bring an accusation against." But none of them have a genitive after
the κρίσιν, and the question still remains whether the genitive is
descriptive and may be treated as an adjective, or expresses the
subject-matter of the κρίσις. That the former is right seems to be
shown by the context (βλασφημῦσιν in vv. 8 and 10); the libertines do
to higher beings what an archangel did not dare to do to Satan; and
also by the parallel in 2 Peter ii. 11 (βλασφημον κρίσιν). And on what
grounds would Michael not dare to charge Satan with blasphemy? That he
did not dare to rail at him is intelligible.
[122] The variety of interpretation as regards these two expressions
is remarkable. Some, as Beza, Calvin, Erasmus, and Grotius, interpret
both "dominion" and "dignities" of civil magistrates; others, as
Hammond, include ecclesiastical rulers; others, as Lumby, interpret
both of Apostles and elders, and through them Christ; others, as
Ritsch, apply "dominion" to God or Christ, and "dignities" to good
angels. Wiesinger and Huther apply "dominion" to God or Christ, and
"dignities" to bad angels. Alford, Bengel, Brückner, and De Wette
explain both of good angels; while Schott apparently explains both of
bad angels. Œcumenius is not quite alone in suggesting that
"dignities" may mean the Old and New Testament; Plumptre would make
the word include both good and bad angels.
[123] The Latin fragment has been several times published since
Ceriani made it known in 1861; by Hilgenfeld in 1866 and 1876; by
Volkmar in 1867; Schmidt and Merx in 1868; and by Fritzsche in 1871. A
very full summary of literature on the subject is given in Schürer,
_The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ_ (T. and T. Clark,
1886), Div. II., vol. iii., pp. 80-83. See also Herzog, Plitt, and
Hauck (_Real-Encykl._, vol. xii. pp. 352, 353).
[124] Salmon, _Introduction to the N.T._, 4th ed., Murray (1889), p. 528.