Doubt or dispute (Jude 9 and 22-23) 221 letter and, thereafter, amidst concluding communal exhortations, Jude conveys a powerful message to his audience. In the same manner that Michael disputed with Satan, believers are to “fiercely struggle” with infiltrators who divide the community for the sake of faith (epagwnizesqai th/' pivstei; v. 3) (56). They are to fight as Michael fought j v but not become entangled in dispute (per Korah’s example). Further, by profferring the model of the archangel, Jude subtly invites the faithful to imitate more than one feature of Michael’s example. The faithful are to understand that if Michael acknowledges the hierarchy of powers by not pronouncing a judgment against Satan because judgment belongs solely in God’s domain, the faithful are likewise to recognize that their position in the hierarchy of heavenly and earthly powers requires them to contest the separatists/disputers — but not condemn them (57). If an archangel respects the hierarchy, why would believers disregard it as do the “separatists” who imitate fallen angels (v. 6) and, thus, blaspheme the “glories” (v. 8) (58)? When the eschatological struggle is over, Jude’s community of the faithful will be able to stand and face God’s “glory” (sth'sai katenwvpion th'" dovch" aujtou', v. 24)(59). Jude shares traditions of past divine judgments with his audience to underscore God’s sovereign power and remind them that God will act in the future according to the pattern God has established in the past. The faithful are to put all aspects of Michael’s example into practice by showing mercy to divisive disputers among them and letting God take care of all aspects of judgment (vv. 14-15) (60). (56) Translation by CHARLES, Source Material, 140. (57) In addition, if the term “glories” (v. 8) actually means “glorious ones” (angels), then, as Harrington surmises (Jude and 2 Peter, 207), the intruders likely blaspheme glorious beings by regarding “themselves as somehow superior to the angels”. The response of the faithful is to be the opposite. (58) In contrast, Harrington, (Jude and 2 Peter, 209-210) believes Jude applies the example of Michael solely to the infiltrators, which means the example’s function is not to discourage his readers from judging the infiltrators “since Jude himself does not hesitate to issues harsh judgments against them”. However, I see a major difference, both in genre and content, between identifying the intruders’ influence on the community via a polemic (which is what I think Jude does) and suggesting that the intruders be judged by the faithful (which Jude himself avoids). Jude defers the intruders’ fate to God’s sovereign judgment, which he invokes with examples and prophecies from examples of God’s dealings with rebellious beings among both humans and angels. In direct address to the recipients, the faithful are never exhorted to judge (vv. 3, 5, 17, 20, 21, 22). (59) Cf. CHARLES, Source Material, 140, n. 146. (60) D.F. Watson’s (Invention, Arrangement, and Style. Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter [SBLDS 104; Atlanta 1988] 79) observation that Jude’s letter