But these men blaspheme whatever things they know not: and what things soever they naturally know, like dumb beasts, in these they are corrupted.
ουτοι δε οσα μεν ουκ οιδασιν βλασφημουσιν οσα δε φυσικως ως τα αλογα ζωα επιστανται εν τουτοις φθειρονται
7 Church Fathers comment on this verse
Michael, he says, did not tolerate the devil’s blasphemies against a man, that is, Moses. But these men compose blasphemous speeches against teachings they do not know. As for what they know confusedly by natural impulse, like irrational animals, they pursue it like horses.
He points to those who eat and drink and give themselves to sexual pleasures. He says that they do other things in common with animals deprived of reason.
Concerning doctrine, he says, not knowing the truth, they compose blasphemous speeches. Concerning pleasures, they behave in such a way that they differ in nothing from irrational animals.
“Like irrational animals,” and so forth: see the note on 2 Pet 2:12. “Woe to them”: they will be subjected to distress and misfortune, both in this life and in the life to come, if they do not repent. Compare Mt 23:13.
Second, the Apostle then foretells for the corrupters of Christians contemporary with him the same bitter fate as in the examples given above. He compares them in tendency and way of life with the Sodomites, with Cain, Balaam, and Korah (Jude 8-11).
“Just so it will be with these dreamers,” who invent from their fantasy various shameful false teachings.
They “defile the flesh,” by corruption like the Sodomites and Gomorrahites; cf. 1 Cor 1:9, 18; Rom 1:27. They “reject dominions and revile exalted powers,” especially rejecting the authority of spiritual powers and the hierarchy; Jude 8; cf. 2 Pet 2:10.
When and in what respect did the body of Moses become the occasion for a dispute between Archangel Michael and the devil?
When and in what respect did the body of Moses become the occasion for a dispute between Archangel Michael and the devil?
The Old Testament Scripture, and especially Deuteronomy, narrates the death of Moses on Mount Nebo. It makes a deliberate note that the place where Moses’ body was buried was unknown (Deut 34:1, 5, 6).
Yet it is completely silent about what the Apostle Jude says in his epistle.
Meanwhile, according to the testimony of the earliest Fathers and writers of the Church, in Apostolic times there was an apocryphal book, The Burial or Assumption of Moses. A fragment of it has come down to our time.
In it there is, among other things, an account of how the devil, at the place of Moses’ death, claimed rights over his body because Moses had once allegedly killed an Egyptian.
It also tells how the devil intended to arrange for Moses to be splendidly buried before everyone in a known place. Later he wished to make him an object of worship among the Jews, who were inclined to idolatry.
Archangel Michael, the protector of the Jewish people, did not permit the devil to do any of this.
Supposing that Jude’s epistle borrowed from this apocryphal book the account of Archangel Michael’s dispute with the devil, some even rejected the authenticity of the epistle itself.
They said that a divinely inspired Apostle could not have borrowed from an apocryphal book.
Meanwhile, according to scholarly investigation, the above-mentioned apocryphon about Moses appeared as a separate book only after the destruction of Jerusalem. Consequently, it appeared after Jude wrote his epistle.
Therefore the Apostle could not have borrowed anything from the apocryphon about Moses.
How then should we explain the origin of his account of Archangel Michael’s dispute with the devil?
If we take into account that some biblical events and persons did not enter the sacred Hebrew books, but were preserved by tradition in the mouth of the Jewish people, then this becomes clear.
There is evidence for this even in the sacred books themselves. For example, the names of the Egyptian magicians who disputed with Moses are not recorded in Exodus, but they appear in the Epistle of the Apostle Paul, 2 Tim 3:8.
Therefore the Holy Apostle Jude could of course have borrowed his account of Archangel Michael from popular tradition, being assured by divine inspiration of the truth of this tradition.
Archangel Michael, called the great commander in the Book of Daniel (see Dan 12:1, 10, 13), is given as an example of how even the higher persons do not slander other great powers.
They do not do so even if those powers are not good and are unjust, as the evil spirits were unjust when they demanded for their own portion the body of Moses, subject to corruption.
The fate of Moses, who died on Mount Nebo (see Deut 34:3-7), was generally the subject of many discussions among the Jews, since the place of his burial remained unknown.
They asserted that Moses had been buried by Angels. To this Jude adds, together with tradition, that there was a struggle by the Angel over the body of Moses.
In this struggle the Archistrategos of the heavenly hosts said nothing in reproach of the evil spirits, but left judgment to God.
The judgment ended in the triumph of the good Angels, for we know that Moses appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration together with Elijah, whose body did not undergo corruption.
The triumph of the Angels may also have consisted in this: the Jews could not deify Moses, as might have happened if the location of Moses’ body had been known.
Applying the example of Archistrategos Michael to the heretics, the Apostle especially indicates that Archistrategos Michael knew he was dealing with evil powers, and yet did not blaspheme them.
The heretics, however, treat with contempt and blasphemy what they do not properly understand. All Christian dogmas are inaccessible to their arrogant reason.
They do not even relate properly to what they see, that is, to their own body. They abuse its natural impulses through sins against nature.
In view of the fact that even the devil, the enemy of God and men, was not blasphemed by the Angel, everyone can understand how inexcusable the false teachers are when they dare to blaspheme earthly authority.
This authority was established to protect people from disorder and from the self-will of lawless and impious men.
Truly “they blaspheme whatever they do not see.” They are so blinded by self-love and coarse sensuality that they neither understand nor wish to understand how grave the sin of blasphemy is.
This applies not only to blasphemy against authority and dominion, but against anyone at all.
The following words, “whatever they know by nature, like irrational animals, in these things they are corrupted,” depict the coarse materialism of the false teachers denounced by the Apostle.
They do not wish to know anything beyond what is subject to sensory perception. For them only what strikes the outward senses is real.
What is above sensory perception, and what belongs to faith, they blaspheme. In this respect they resemble irrational animals, which know only what can satisfy their natural impulses and desires.
Living like animals by sensual life alone, the impious false teachers are content with knowledge only of what flatters their coarse sensuality and serves moral corruption and defilement.
The consequences are clear: “He who sows to the flesh will from the flesh reap corruption” (Gal 6:18), eternal destruction.
Passages read together with this verse.
Greek text, 18 words with lemma, transliteration and Strong’s number. Tap to expand.
THEOSIS