• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Read Ebook {PDF EPUB} Body of Law by Amanda Lance Why were Michael and Satan disputing over the body of Moses (Jude 9)? Jude verse 9 refers to an event which is found nowhere else in Scripture. Michael had to struggle or dispute with Satan about the body of Moses, but what that entailed is not described. Another angelic struggle is related by Daniel, who describes an angel coming to him in a vision. This angel, named Gabriel in Daniel 8:16 and 9:21, tells Daniel that he was “resisted” by a demon called “the prince of Persia” until the archangel Michael came to his assistance (Daniel 10:13). So we learn from Daniel that angels and demons fight spiritual battles over the souls of men and nations, and that the demons resist angels and try to prevent them from doing God’s bidding. Jude tells us that Michael was sent by God to deal in some way with the body of Moses, which God Himself had buried after Moses’ death (Deuteronomy 34:5-6). Various theories have been put forth as to what this struggle over Moses’ body was about. One is that Satan, ever the accuser of God’s people (Revelation 12:10), may have resisted the raising of Moses to eternal life on the grounds of Moses’ sin at Meribah (Deuteronomy 32:51) and his murder of the Egyptian (Exodus 2:12). Some have supposed that the reference in Jude is the same as the passage in Zechariah 3:1-2, “Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the LORD said to Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke you, O Satan!’” But the objections to this being the same incident are obvious: (1) The only similarity between the two passages is the expression, “the Lord rebuke you.” (2) The name “Michael” does not occur at all in the passage in Zechariah. (3) There is no mention made of the “body of Moses” in Zechariah, and no allusion to it whatever. It has also been supposed that Jude is quoting an apocryphal book that contained this account, and that Jude means to confirm that the account is true. Origen (c. 185–254), an early Christian scholar and theologian, mentions the book “The Assumption of Moses” as extant in his time, containing this very account of the contest between Michael and the devil about the body of Moses. That book, now lost, was a Jewish Greek book, and Origen supposed that this was the source of the account in Jude. The only material question, then, is whether the story is “true.” Whatever the origin of the account, Jude does in fact seem to refer to the contest between Michael and the devil as true. He speaks of it in the same way in which he would have done if he had spoken of the death of Moses or of his smiting the rock. And who can prove that it is not true? What evidence is there that it is not? There are many allusions in the Bible to angels. We know that the archangel Michael is real; there is frequent mention of the devil; and there are numerous affirmations that both bad and good angels are employed in important transactions on the earth. As the nature of this particular dispute over Moses’ body is wholly unknown, conjecture is useless. We do not know whether there was an argument over possession of the body, burial of the body, or anything else. These two things we do know, however: first, Scripture is inerrant. The inerrancy of Scripture is one of the pillars of the Christian faith. As Christians, our goal is to approach Scripture reverently and prayerfully, and when we find something we do not understand, we pray harder, study more, and—if the answer still eludes us—humbly acknowledge our own limitations in the face of the perfect Word of God. Second, Jude 9 is the supreme illustration of how Christians are to deal with Satan and demons. The example of Michael refusing to pronounce a curse upon Satan should be a lesson to Christians in how to relate to demonic forces. Believers are not to address them, but rather to seek the Lord’s intervening power against them. If as powerful a being as Michael deferred to the Lord in dealing with Satan, who are we to attempt to reproach, cast out, or command demons? Why did police fatally shoot Andrew Brown Jr.? Family seeks answers as Sheriff asks for patience. Andrew Brown Jr. lost both his parents and had his own troubles with the law. But his aunt says he was the light of his family, and they will fight to find out why a sheriff’s deputy felt the need to shoot and kill him. (April 22) AP Domestic. More than three days after Andrew Brown, Jr. was fatally shot by Pasquotank County Sheriff's deputies in North Carolina, his family says they know little about why police killed him. In dueling statements Saturday, the Sheriff's department and lawyers for Brown's family painted conflicting pictures of the state of the investigation. Brown, a 42-year-old Black man and father of 7, was shot and killed on Wednesday while deputies were attempting to arrest him. The family's lawyers in interviews with USA TODAY emphasized the family had not yet seen body camera footage of the fatal encounter, even though they were entitled to under North Carolina law. The family is also seeking the public release of the footage, although such a process is more complicated under state law. "The family has requested the footage and has not been able to obtain it," said Harry Daniels, an Atlanta attorney who is representing the Brown family. "The sheriff is blaming the D.A. and the D.A. is blaming the sheriff." "Certainly, this was misconduct, and people will know that once the video has been released," he said. "We even think there may have been criminal conduct." Daniels said Brown was shot in the back by the deputies as he was attempting to run away. Meanwhile, Sheriff Tommy Wooten said the department hopes to ask a judge to make the footage public on Monday, with the sign-off of a state agency investigating the incident. The Pasquotank County Sheriff's Department has repeatedly promised transparency in public statements in recent days. "We want the body camera footage made public," Wooten said. "Some people have falsely claimed that my office has the power to do so. That is not true. Only a judge can release the video." North Carolina's statute governing the release of body camera footage is overly complicated, burdensome and costly to victims and their families, said C. Amanda Martin, a Raleigh, NC attorney who specializes in communications. The statute is quite clear that family members and attorneys of people shown in the video should be allowed to at least view the footage, Martin said. While there are some caveats, it's highly unusual for a police department to deny access to viewing body camera footage, she said. But when it comes to releasing that footage, the law is more complicated. Requests for copies of body camera video, even from a victim's family members or their attorney, must be made in writing and must be made to a Superior Court judge. A coalition of news outlets including Gannett, the parent company of USA TODAY, is drafting a petition to ask a local judge to release the footage. "It would actually be illegal for a law enforcement agency to release it without a judge’s order," Martin said. "The biggest complaint about this law is that it’s time consuming and expensive." Demonstrators gather outside a government building during an emergency city council meeting April 23. (Photo: Sean Rayford, Getty Images) There are a patchwork of local laws across the nation governing how police body camera footage can be made public, and it is not unusual for there to be a delay between the date of the shooting and the release of the footage. In a recent high-profile case in Chicago, authorities made footage of the March 29 fatal shooting of 13-year-old Adam Toledo public on April 15. Civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who represented the family of George Floyd, who was murdered by Minnesota Police Officer Derek Chauvin last year, announced he was joining the legal team for Brown's family in a press release Saturday. "This family and the Elizabeth City community deserve answers now," the press release quotes Crump as saying. "While there may be a light at the end of the tunnel with one pandemic, another one continues to rage within the borders of our country — police excessive force against marginalized minorities. In an interview with USA TODAY, Crump said he is traveling to North Carolina on Sunday to attempt to get the footage released as soon as possible. "We’re going to get this video released," Crump said. "We’re going to demand it not only in the court of law but also in the court of public opinion. The public pays all this money for body camera video for the single purpose of transparency." The Associated Press reported that seven deputies at the Pasquotank County Sheriff's Department have been put on paid administrative leave since the shooting. "We know people want answers, we know you're angry," Wooten said in a Saturday Facebook video. "We ask for your patience and support as we work to do the right thing." Protests in Elizabeth City have largely been calm so far and at a press conference Saturday morning, officials from the small coastal town thanked protesters for remaining peaceful and lamented the delay in releasing the body camera footage.

Load more

  6

Copy Link