Jude 9 reads, “(CSB): Yet when Michael the archangel was disputing with the devil in an argument about Moses’s body, he did not dare utter a slanderous condemnation against him but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”
In this section (v9) Jude rebukes a group of people (v8, false teachers) who are guilty of “relying on dreams” and in doing so
Defile the flesh
Reject authority
Slander Glorious ones
One NT Scholar shows a progressive offense of their behavior through these three categories.
He says, “In essence, Jude describes the self-absorbed Zealots [false teachers] as religiously contaminated (Jude 8a), insubordinate (Jude 8b), and slanderous people (Jude 8c).”1
Developing on the concepts of contamination of religion, insubordination of authority, and slander of the “glorious ones” Jude refers to a situation where Michael was in dispute over the body of Moses. In this situation, not even Michael hurled personal accusations or slander against the devil but referred to God’s rebuke of the enemy.
So, things are odd here. We need to consider a couple of questions as we try to make sense of this supernatural dispute over the body of Moses. First, why does Jude choose this cosmic example as a connection to earthly false teachers? Further, why pick an example with no explicit Old Testament background? Finally, is there anything important we need to consider with Jude's language of “glorious ones” and the reference to dreams associated with the false teaches as the source of their three-pronged sinful action?
Why this example and how do we make sense of it in light of the Old Testament?
Jude is showing us once again that the supernatural and natural are not disconnected. They are intertwined and related. The accusation against the false teachers in verse 8 has both an Old Testament mirror and is the source of their own influence. Long before these false teachers went into rebellion against God through contamination of true religion, insubordination of God’s authority, and slander against “celestial beings” there were supernatural beings that did the very same thing.
Contamination of true religion via the flesh - The sin of the watchers in Genesis 6 is a prime example of the contamination of the flesh as the Sons of God had intimate relations with the daughters of man.2 In so doing the result was a corruption of the flesh as the Nephilim appeared on the earth.
Insubordination of God’s authority - Genesis 6 fits here as well. In addition, Psalm 82 points to this as the “Sons of God” are indicted for their insubordination and corruption.
Slander against God - While God is not like any other celestial being, God categorically is “species unique”3 and Spirit. Therefore when the Nachash/serpent tempts Eve and Adam he slanders or “blasphemes” against God.
The story of the Watchers in Genesis 6 and the development of the story in 1 Enoch lays the background to “dreams” as a source of corrupt supernatural inspiration.4 But more importantly than 2nd Temple literature is the evidence in the Old Testament of dreams being a type of counterfeit inspiration. But more on that in the next section.
Why the Phrase “Dreamers” Connects Us to an Old Testament Context
I’ve come to the conclusion that the reference to “dreaming” in verse 8 is a connecting “hinge” to verse 9 that sets the background of cosmic warfare that Jude is keying us into. Scholars debate the grammatical focus/meaning of the Greek verb enupniazomenoi. Some translators view it, “adverbially: “as a result of their dreams” (net), “by their dreaming” (nasb), “relying on their dreams” (esv), or simply “their dreamings” (asv, cf. web).”5 Others view it as a modifier, where the translation is more metaphorical and deals with individuals as, “these dreamers.” Think of the English phrase we use of people that are a bit out of touch and delusional. We may refer to them as “dreamers” in a world of their own. I am unconvinced by the second interpretation for a variety of reasons. Grammatically, the nupniazomenoi is the subject of the three verbs “pollute, reject, and slander.” Conceptually it’s unconvincing because “daydreamers” doesn’t have a strong (if any that I am aware of) connection to an Old Testament background.
Maybe you could argue that Joseph was a daydreamer but the context of that story doesn't fit the type of cosmic warfare Jude is getting at. Additionally, Cicero who wrote over 100 years before Jude referred to types of divination that were dependent on dreams,, astrology, oracles, and other experiences.6 This fits contextually much better with how we should understand dreams. A better understanding in my opinion is to view these dreams as literal dreams that are connected to hallucinative experiences which Cicero points to.
New Testament Scholar David Desilva says it this way:
The intruders base their authority on their paranormal experiences, and they place greater stock in what is revealed to them during ecstatic experiences than in more traditional sources for theology and ethics. Jude, however, describes their activity using terminology found in Deuteronomy (13:1, 3, 5 [13:2, 4, 6 LXX]), where it describes the false prophet who leads the people astray to rebel against God: prophētēs ē enypniazomenos enypnion (“a prophet or anyone dreaming a dream”).7
What’s important here is the Old Testament connection to “dreaming” coming from a corrupt and counterfeit experience. In Deuteronomy 13:5 Moses (ironic, the author of the Pentateuch whom the dispute over the body is over!) says that a false teacher (prophet or dreamer) should be put to death if he/she leads God’s people into idolatry. This isn’t the only time “false dreams” are referenced in the Old Testament. Look at Isaiah 56:10; Jeremiah 23:25; Jeremiah 36:8 or Zechariah 10:2. This is probably why the New Testament elsewhere is so specific to not take dreams and prophecies at face value but should be considered and evaluated against the Word of God (1 Cor 14:29; 1 Thess 5:19-22, 1 John 4:1-3).8
The Reference to the “Celestial Beings” and “Blasphēmousin/Slander” As a Divine Council Scene
With all of this information, we are starting to build a clearer picture of what Jude is pointing us to. Maybe the last puzzle piece we need to place before we move to the issue of the body of Moses and the dispute of Michael and Satan is the context and nature of this dispute. First, some may wonder why these false teachers are “slandering” celestial beings. According to Jewish tradition, the law of Moses was “mediated” by angels.9 Deuteronomy 32:8-9 presents God as giving delegated authority to the “Sons of God” to lead them according to the law of God. We know these angelic beings rebelled against God but the point here is that prior to the rebellion they had a type of stewardship responsibility. So here, we find these false teachers having the audacity to slander and blaspheme those angelic beings that are still faithful and part of God’s divine council. Some may question how we even have a divine council scene in these verses. Let me give two reasons from the text.
Verses 8 and 9 of Jude are tied together conceptually (by thought) as well as through language (lexically). The repetition of the Greek word βλασφημέω (blasphēmeō) provides a single unit of thought.10 The word slander has legal and courtroom connotations. It is personal yes, but must be mediated and judged ideally in a courtroom.
The Greek phrase, “did not act rashly to bring” (ἐτόλμησεν ἐπενεγκεῖν, etolmēsen epenenkein), “may mean boldness to act as in bringing a legal charge to a Gentile court system (1 Cor 6:1)”.11 Additionally κρίσις (krisis) in 2nd Temple literature often refers to a type of Judgement that God executes and has in mind a heavenly courtroom scene.
With this information, we find evidence of a divine council scene. Michael is in a sharp dispute with the adversary, Satan. Yet, in this sharp and even aggressive (the Greek word had a range of meanings from simple disagreement to being on the verge of blows) Michael refrains from crossing the line and “slandering” or “blaspheming” against Satan. Instead, he only quotes or recalls what the righteous Judge, the King of the Cosmos says.
Herbert W. Bateman IV, Jude: Evangelical Exegetical Commentary, ed. H. Wayne House, W. Hall Harris III, and Andrew W. Pitts, Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 197. This framework follows the Greek clauses with miainousin/defile, athetousin/rebel, and blasphēmousin/slander.
In fact, this is an example of all three categories and includes rebellion against God’s authority and is evidence of slander through actions against God.
Quote from Dr. Michael Heiser from Unseen Realm
See Enoch 6:7-8.
Herbert W. Bateman IV, Jude: Evangelical Exegetical Commentary, ed. H. Wayne House, W. Hall Harris III, and Andrew W. Pitts, Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 197–198.
See Div. 1.6.12; 1.18.34
David A. Desilva, “Jude,” in James and Jude, ed. Mikeal C. Parsons and Charles H. Talbert, Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 204.
Gene L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 75.
See Jub. 1:27–29; Josephus, Ant. 15.136; Acts 7:38, 53; Heb 2:2
Herbert W. Bateman IV, Jude: Evangelical Exegetical Commentary, ed. H. Wayne House, W. Hall Harris III, and Andrew W. Pitts, Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 210.
Herbert W. Bateman IV, Jude: Evangelical Exegetical Commentary, ed. H. Wayne House, W. Hall Harris III, and Andrew W. Pitts, Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 222.