Jud 1:1-2. The superscription is in form similar to that of the Epistles of Paul and Peter: Ἰούδας Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος κ.τ.λ.] δοῦλος, as its position and Rom 1:1, Php 1:1, Jam 1:1 (see also Tit 1:1), show, denotes not the general service of believers to Christ (Schott), but the special service of those appointed to the gospel ministry. The more definite statement of office is here wanting; as the author is not the Apostle Jude (see Introd. sec. 1), so that his position in the Christian church is to be regarded as similar to that which a Barnabas, an Apollos, and others occupied, who, without being apostles in the narrower sense of the term, yet exercised a ministry similar to the apostolic.
With the first appellation the second ἀδελφὸς Ἰακώβου is connected by δέ (see Tit 1:1), which, although not precisely a contrast (Schott), yet marks a distinction. This appellation serves not only to indicate who this Jude is (Arnaud), but likewise to justify his writing. Jude does not call himself “the brother of the Lord,” because his bodily relation to Christ stepped behind his spiritual, perhaps also because that surname already specially belonged to James.
τοῖς ἐν Θεῷ πατρὶ ἠγαπημένοις [ἡγιασμένοις] καὶ κ.τ.λ.] According to the reading ἡγιασμένοις, ἐν expresses not the mere instrument of holiness, but holiness as consisting in fellowship with God. The participle is either substantive, co-ordinate to the following Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ τετηρημένοις κλητοῖς, or adjective, which is more probable on account of the similar participial form, τετηρημένοις.
According to the reading ἠγαπημένοις, ἐν Θεῷ πατρί may denote the sphere within which the readers are ἠγαπημένοι, namely, by the writer. Against the opinion of de Wette, “that in this objective designation the subjectivity of the author cannot be mixed,” Col 1:2 might be appealed to, where Paul names the readers of his Epistle ἀδελφοί, that is, the brethren of himself and Timotheus (see also 2Jn 1:1 and 3Jn 1:1); but in relation to what follows: καὶ Ἰησ. Χρ. τετηρημένοις, this view is correct.
In the Vulgate, τοῖς ἐν Θεῷ πατρί is taken as an idea by itself: his qui sunt in Deo Patre, etc.; and then to this idea the two attributes are added: ἠγαπημένοις and Ἰησ. Χρ. τετηρ. κλητοῖς. Apart from its harshness, not only is it opposed to this construction that by it the parallelism (incorrectly denied by Schott) of the two members of the clause-which is strongly indicated both by the form of the sentence and also by ἐν τῷ πατρί in reference to the following Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ-is destroyed, but also ἠγαπημένοις would then be without any proximate statement. The same is also the case when it is assumed, with Rampf and Schott, that the participles ἠγαπημένοις and Ἰ. Χ. τετηρημένοις are equally subordinate to ἐν Θεῷ πατρί, and explained as expressing “the living ground on which the called possess that which is expressed in the two participles” (Schott). The supplying of ὑπὸ Θεοῦ or παρὰ Θεῷ, necessary for this view, is at all events arbitrary; moreover, the juxtaposition of τοῖς ἐν Θεῷ πατρὶ Ἰησ. Χριστῷ τετηρημένοις is extremely harsh.
It is incorrect to take ἐν as equivalent to ὑπό (Hensler); ἐν is rather to be retained in its proper signification, in which it is entirely suitable to the idea ἀγαπᾶσθαι, as the love which proceeds from any person dwells in him, the κλητοί as they are loved by God so are they loved in God. Hofmann incorrectly explains it: “who have been accepted in love by God;” for ἀγαπᾷν never has this meaning, not even in the passages cited by Hofmann: 1Th 1:4; 2Th 2:13; Col 3:12.
God is called πατρί in His relation to Christ, not to men: see Php 2:11; Gal 1:1; and Meyer on the latter passage.
καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ τετηρημένοις κλητοῖς] The dative Ἰησ. Χριστῷ is not dependent on an ἐν to be supplied from ἐν Θεῷ πατρί (Luther: preserved in Jesus Christ). Hofmann indeed appeals for this supplement to Kühner, Gr. II. p. 477; but incorrectly, as this is rendered impossible by ἠγαπημένοις intervening. What Kühner says could only be the case were it written: ἐν Θεῷ πατρὶ καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ ἠγαπημένοις. Also Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ is not the causative dative with the passive, instead of ὑπό with the genitive, but the dative commodi: for Christ (Bengel, de Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, and others). The participle τετηρημένοις is used neither instead of the present participle, as Grotius thinks, nor is it here to be understood of the act completed before God (de Wette, Wiesinger); but it simply denotes that which has taken place up to the time when the Epistle was written; thus: “to the called, who have been kept for Christ;” namely, in order to belong to Him in time and in eternity (so also Schott).[7] The idea τετηρ. is completely explained from the falling away from Christ which had taken place among so many; see Jud 1:4; comp. also Joh 17:11; 1Pe 1:5.
Although ἐν Θεῷ πατρί cannot be grammatically connected with τετηρημένοις, and although it primarily belongs to ἠγαπημένοις, yet it indicates by whom the preservation has taken place; Hornejus: quos Deus Pater … Christo … donavit et asservavit huc usque, ne ab impostoribus seducerentur et perirent.
κλητοῖς] a designation in the Pauline sense of those who have not only heard the gospel, but have embraced it by faith; see Meyer on 1Co 1:24. Jud 1:2. ἔλεος κ.τ.λ.] The word ἔλεος is used in the formula of salutation only here and in the Pastoral Epistles. The addition καὶ ἀγάπη is peculiar to Jude. The relation of the three terms is thus to be understood: ἔλεος is the demeanour of God toward the κλητοί; εἰρήνη their condition founded upon it; and ἀγάπη their demeanour proceeding from it as the effect of God’s grace. Accordingly ἀγάπη is used here as in Eph 6:23 (see Meyer in loco); only here the love is to be limited neither specially to the brethren (Grotius), nor to God (Calov, Wiesinger). Still ἀγάπη may also be the love of God to the κλητοῖς; comp. Jud 1:21 and 2Co 13:13 [14] (so Hornejus, Grotius, Bengel, de Wette-Brückner, Schott, and others). No ground of decision can be derived from πληθυνθείη. With the reading ἠγαπημένοις the second explanation merits the preference, although the position of this expression after εἰρήνη is somewhat strange. On πληθυνθείη, see 1Pe 1:2; this form is apparently derived from Dan. 3:31.
[7] Arnauld incorrectly explains it: aux appelés gardés par J. Chr., c’est-à-dire: à ceux qui ont été appelés à J. Chr. par la prédication de l’Evangile et que J. Chr. garde fidèles.
Jud 1:3-4. Statement of the reason which determined Jude to write this Epistle: comp. on this 2Pe 1:12 f., 2Pe 3:1 f.
ἀγαπητοί] found at the beginning of an Epistle only here and in 3Jn 1:2.
πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμενος κ.τ.λ.] Giving all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, I felt constrained to write to you, exhorting you to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. Pricaeus, Lachmann, Buttmann put a comma after the first and after the second ὑμῖν, so that περὶ … σωτηρίας is connected with ἀνάγκην ἔσχον, and παρακαλῶν, etc., is separated from γράψαι. Most expositors, on the contrary, as Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, de Wette, Wiesinger, etc., connect περὶ σωτηρίας with the preceding γράφειν, and unite παρακαλῶν with γράψαι. Not only the position of the words, but also the train of thought decides for this latter arrangement; for since, according to Jud 1:4, the ἀνάγκη, inducing the author to write this Epistle, consisted in the appearance of wicked men, so it is evidently more suitable to connect γράψαι with παρακαλῶν ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι, having special reference to it, than with the general idea περὶ τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας, particularly as the contents of the Epistle are anything but a treatise concerning the common salvation.[8] The preceding participial clause states in what condition Jude was when the ἀνάγκην ἔχειν came upon him; the σπουδή to write already existed when the entrance of certain ungodly men constrained him not to write generally περὶ τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας, but to compose such a hortative Epistle as the present. Some expositors incorrectly think that the ἀνάγκη had its reason in the σπουδή (Erasmus: tantum mihi studium fuit, ut non potuerim non scribere vobis); others, that to the σπουδή the ἀνάγκη supervened as a new point; so Hornejus: cum summum mihi esset studium scribendi ad vos aliquid de communi nostrum omnium salute, etiam necessitas insuper scribendi imposita fuit, quae autem illa sit, statim addit (so also Calvin and others). De Wette (with whom Brückner agrees) considers that Jude by the first clause expresses that “he had been engaged on the composition of a longer and more comprehensive Epistle (the loss of which we have to lament), when he was for the time called away from that work in order to write the present Epistle;” but the expression πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμενος does not necessarily involve actual writing.[9]
σπουδὴν ποιεῖσθαι is only found here in the N. T. (2Pe 1:5 : σπουδὴν πᾶσαν παρεισφέρειν; prologue to Ecclus.: προσφέρειν τινὰ σπουδήν); the meaning is: to be eagerly solicitous about something; it may refer both to mental activity and to external action; here the former is the case. Luther’s translation: “After I purposed,” is too flat; Meyer’s is better: “since it lies pressingly upon my heart.”
πᾶσαν serves, as frequently, for the strengthening of the idea.
The participle ποιούμενος, in connection with the aorists ἔσχον γράψαι, is to be taken as the imperfect participle. Stier incorrectly translates: “when engaged in it I would take diligence.” It expresses the activity which took place, when the action expressed by the finite verb occurred and therefore must not be resolved, with Haenlein, into the perfect or pluperfect.
περὶ τῆς κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας] states on what Jude intended to write. On κοινῆς, comp. Tit 1:4; 2Pe 1:1. There is no reason to refer the idea, with Semler, to the Jews and Gentiles, as the object common to both.
σωτηρία, not the doctrine of salvation (Jachmann), but the salvation itself, acquired by Christ for the world, and applied to believers. The explanation of Beza: de iis quae ad nostram omnium salutem pertinent, deviates from strict precision, as σωτηρία itself is indicated by Jude as the object of writing. Schott incorrectly explains σωτηρία, state of salvation, possession of salvation.
ἀνάγκην ἔσχον] Comp. Luk 14:10; Luk 23:17; 1Co 7:37. The explanation of Grotius is inaccurate: nihil potius habui, quod scriberem, quam ut, etc. The translation of Luther is too flat: “I considered it necessary;” for in ἀνάγκην ἔχειν is contained the idea of an objective necessity founded on duty, circumstances, etc. (de Wette, Wiesinger, Schott). The meaning here is: the entrance of false teachers constrained me, made me to recognise it as necessary. On the one hand, Semler inserts a strange reference, paraphrasing it: accidit interea inopinato, ut statuendum mihi … esset; and, on the other hand, Schott, who, in order to emphasize the contrast between the two members of the sentence, finds in ἀνάγκ. ἔσχον the thought expressed that Jude wrote this Epistle unwillingly, contrary to his inclination.
γράψαι ὑμῖν παρακαλῶν] παρακαλῶν is closely united to γράψαι, as indicating the kind of writing to which the author felt constrained by circumstances; therefore no comma is to be put after ὑμῖν.
ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ … πίστει] ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι, a ἅπ. λεγ., as συναθλέω, Php 1:27, connected with the dative of the object which is contended for; Stier: “to fight for the faith;” comp. Sir 4:28 : ἀγωνίζειν περί.
πίστις is not = doctrina, system of doctrine; nor yet does it here denote the subjective quality of the believing disposition; but that which is believed by Christians (τοῖς ἁγίοις), the objective contents of faith. Schott is incorrect in explaining it: “the conduct arising from faith;” for the notion of conduct does not suit παραδοθείσῃ. The explanation: the way of salvation (Hofmann), is also wanting in correctness; it is not proved by Gal 3:23.
As the subject to παραδοθείσῃ, by whom the communication or transmission was effected, God (Bengel) is not here to be thought of, but the apostles, as Jud 1:17 shows; 2Pe 2:21; Luk 1:2 (comp. also 1Co 11:2; 1Co 11:23; 1Co 15:3); yet the author does not name them, because “he is not concerned here with the personal instruments, but with the mode and manner of transmission contained in ἅπαξ” (Schott). τοῖς ἁγίοις are not the apostles (Nic. de Lyra), but Christians.
ἅπαξ brings prominently forward the fact that as it once took place, so there is now an end to the παράδοσις; Bengel: nulla alia dabitur fides. Jachmann incorrectly explains it by ἤδη, olim, jam, appealing to Jud 1:5 and Heb 6:4. According to Hofmann’s view, ἅπαξ is used “with reference to the preceding intention of Jude to present to the readers a writing having the common salvation as its object;” but this reference is not indicated.[10]
[8] The translation of the Vulgate: omnem solicitudinem faciens scribendi vobis de communi vestra salute necesse habui scribere vobis depraecans supercertari, etc., may also be punctuated in both ways. Lachmann has, in his larger edition of the N. T., punctuated it as he has done in the Greek text; in other editions of the Vulgate, on the contrary, the other punctuation is found.
[9] De Wette incorrectly appeals for this supposition to Sherlock (in Wolf), who thus explains it: dilecti, animus mihi erat, scribere ad vos de communibus doctrinis et spe evangelii ad fidem vestram et Jesu Christi cognitionem amplificandam; jam vero coactum me video, ut hoc institutum deseram et ad cavendum praesens periculum, vos exhorter, ut serio teneatis eam quae vobis tradita est, doctrinam, contra falsos doctores, quos clanculum audio irrepsisse. What de Wette regards as accomplished, or in the act of being accomplished, Sherlock considers only as intended.
[10] When Hofmann maintains that ver. 4 could only have been written by an apostle, he evidently proceeds too far; for why could not also another besides an apostle have cherished the design to address a writing to Christians respecting the common faith?
Jud 1:4. Compare 2Pe 2:1-3.
παρεισέδυσαν γάρ] the reason of ἀνάγκην ἔσχον. παρεισέδυσαν marks the entrance of false teachers into the church as a secret and unauthorized creeping in of such as do not properly belong to it, but are internally foreign to it (comp. Gal 2:4 : παρείσακτοι, explained by the scholiasts by ἀλλότριοι); it is synonymous with παρεισέρχεσθαι; comp. 2Ti 3:6.
τινες ἄνθρωποι] In the same indefiniteness the false teachers are also mentioned in 1Ti 1:6. Arnaud observes: le mot τινες a quelque chose de méprisant, comme dans Gal 2:12; so also Wiesinger and Schott; this is possible; but the appeal to Gal 2:12 is unjustified. That the expression ἄνθρωποι is used in order to bring forward the fact that they “with their entrance into the church remained in their natural state” (Schott), is highly improbable. Hofmann unnecessarily separates τινες from ἄνθρωποι, taking ἄνθρωποι, οἱ κ.τ.λ., as in apposition to τινες.
οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα] By the participle with the article a peculiar circumstance worthy of remark concerning these men is brought forward (Winer, p. 127 [E. T. 167]); but not, as Schott, after Rampf, arbitrarily maintains, “a mark perfectly clear to the readers is given for the recognition of those who are meant;” the article being equivalent to isti, those notorious men.
προγεγραμμένοι] The preposition προ in this verb indicates either antea, earlier, before; thus always in the N. T.; see Gal 3:1 (comp. Meyer in loc.); Rom 15:4; Eph 3:3; or palam. If it has this last meaning, then προγράφειν signifies “to announce something publicly by writing;” thus in an entirely special sense proscribere; accordingly Wolf explains it: qui dudum sunt accusati et in hoc judicium (εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα) vocati. Yet this is inaccurate, as the peculiar idea of proscribere is not retained; for, if retained, it would not suit εἰς τ. τ. κρίμα. Yet more arbitrarily Wahl explains προγράφειν by designare. Oecumenius, Hornejus, and others have correctly taken προ here as a preposition of time. According to Isa 4:3, LXX.: οἱ γραφέντες εἰς ζωήν, the sense might be: those who are written before (as in God’s book of fate, and consequently destined) εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα (Calvin: haec metaphora inde sumpta est, quod aeternum Dei consilium, quo ordinati sunt fideles ad salutem, Liber vocatur); but the term πάλαι is unsuitable, as it is never in the N. T. used of God’s eternal counsels. προγράφειν is here rather to be understood entirely as in the adduced passages of the N. T.; and with de Wette a pregnancy of expression is to be assumed; thus: those who are already before by writing destined to this judgment. Hofmann explains προγεγραμμένοι according to Joh 1:46 compared with Joh 5:46 (γράφειν τινα = γρ. περί τινος): “those of whom it is written before;” and then εἰς τοῦτο τ. κρ. = “in reference to this judgment;” but with regard to the former it is to be remarked, that the form of expression here is different from Joh 1:46; and with regard to the latter, that by it a weakening of the preposition in its direct connection with προγεγραμμένοι takes place.[11] Oecumenius refers this to the prophecies concerning future false teachers contained in the Epistles of Paul and Peter. Grotius, Schott, Hofmann, and others point particularly to 2 Peter 2. But πάλαι combined with προγεγρ. evidently points back to an earlier period,[12] so that only older prophecies can be meant, namely, the prophecies and types of the O. T., and perhaps particularly the prophecies contained in the Book of Enoch: see Jud 1:14 (so also Wiesinger). Against Calvin and Beza, who find the idea of the decretum aeternum here expressed, Bengel remarks: non innuitur praedestinatio, sed scripturae praedictio.
εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα] Although κρίμα in itself is not equivalent to κατάκριμα, yet here a condemnatory judgment is meant; τοῦτο, namely, that which Jude has in view, and which is indicated in the following verse; Stier: “for this judgment, which I now announce to them;” Arnaud: il y a τοῦτο, parceque cette punition est l’objet qui l’occupe. It is incorrect, with Wiesinger and Hofmann, to refer τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα to παρεισέδυσαν, as something including judgment in itself; or, with Schott, to the “damnable error of those men,” specified in the words τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ κ.τ.λ.; for neither the entering in nor the error can in themselves be called a κρίμα.
ἀσεβεῖς] to be taken by itself; not to be united with οἱ προγεγραμμένοι (against Tischendorf, who has placed no comma before ἀσεβεῖς). The ungodliness of these men is further indicated, according to its nature, by the participial clauses which follow (comp. 2Pe 2:6).
τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριν κ.τ.λ.] who pervert the grace of our God into lasciviousncss. χάρις, not = doctrina gratiae (Vorstius), nor evangelium (Grotius), nor fides catholica nobis gratis data (Nicolas de Lyra); but grace itself as the proffered gift of God in the forgiveness of sin and redemption from the law; so also Wiesinger, Fronmüller, Hofmann. It is incorrect to explain the idea by “the life of grace” (de Wette-Brückner), or by “the ordinances of grace” (Schott). ἡμῶν, belonging to τοῦ Θεοῦ, is to be understood as an expression of the feeling of sonship; Bengel: nostri, non impiorum.
In μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν, ἀσέλγ. is either the purpose of the change of the grace of God, or that into which grace is changed. In the former case μετατίθημι here would in itself have a bad subsidiary meaning (de Wette: “who pervert the grace of our God for the purpose of licentiousness”); but it never elsewhere so occurs in the N. T. Accordingly, the second explanation is better (Brückner), according to which the meaning is: they have converted the χάρις, which God gave to them, into something different, namely ἀσέλγεια; inasmuch as liberty was converted by them into lasciviousness; comp. Gal 5:13; 1Pe 2:16; 2Pe 2:19.
καὶ τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰ. Χρ. ἀρνούμενοι] In 2Pe 2:1 the epithet δεσπότης is used of Christ; this favours the combination of τὸν μόνον δεσπότην as an attribute with Ἰησ. Χρ. (so de Wette, Schmidt, Rampf, Wiesinger, Schott, Fronmüller, Hofmann). But, on the one hand, in every other place this word denotes God; and, on the other hand, δεσπότης would hardly be distinguished from the word κύριος, if both were to be referred to Christ;[13] add to this that μόνος elsewhere expresses the unity of the divine nature; comp. Jud 1:25; Joh 5:44; Joh 17:3; Rom 16:27; 1Ti 1:17; 1Ti 6:15-16; Rev 15:4; against which view Schott incorrectly urges 1Co 8:6 and Eph 4:5. For these reasons, it is more probable that τὸν μόνον δεσπότην is not an appellation of Christ, but a designation of God (Brückner); comp. 1Jn 2:22 : ὁ ἀρνούμενος τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱόν (also Enoch xlviii. 10 is to be compared: “they have denied the Lord of the spirits and His Anointed”). No argument against this explanation can be drawn from the want of the article before κύριον; see author’s commentary on Tit 2:3 (Winer, p. 121 ff. [E. T. 162]),[14] which is in an unjustifiable manner denied by Hofmann. The denial may be considered as either practical (comp. Tit 1:16) or theoretical. Since throughout this Epistle the carnal and godless disposition of these men is brought forward, it is most probable that Jude at least had the first kind of denial specially in view. At all events, such explanations as those of Grotius: “abnegabant Jesum, quia eum dicebant hominem natum ex homine,” are to be rejected, as Jude never reproaches his adversaries with such a definite erroneous doctrine.
[11] Luther’s translation: “there are certain men crept in, of whom it is written before, to this punishment,” by which προγεγρ. is separated from εἰς τ. τ. κρ., is contradicted by the natural verbal connection.
[12] Schott aud Hofmann contest the fact that πάλαι points to an earlier period. πάλαι, which “generally indicates the past in contrast to the present” (Pape), may certainly be used when that past is not distant (comp. Mar 15:44); but, on the one hand, this use of the term is rare; and, on the other hand, it is not here applicable, as the reference to the past generally is already contained in the προ of the compound verb; πάλαι here can only be put to mark this past as lying in the distance.
[13] Hofmann gives the distinction of these two ideas as follows: “Christ is our δεσπότης, as we are His property bound to His service; He is our κύριος, as His will is the standard of ours.” But if this be correct, it is not in favour of Hofmann but against him, because Jude would then in an incomprehensible manner make the weaker idea to follow upon the stronger.
[14] When Wiesinger and Schott appeal for their explanation to the fact that the relation to God is already expressed in the preceding clause, and that therefore it would be unsuitable to express it here again, it is to be observed that in that clause the relation to Christ is also indicated, since the grace of God is communicated through Christ; also, there is no reason why Jude should not have indicated μετατιθέναι as a denial both of Jesus Christ and of God. Whilst Schott grants that the expression “the only master” may only refer to God, he so interprets the article τόν before μόνον δεσπ. that he explains it as equivalent to “he who is.”
Jud 1:5. From this verse to Jud 1:7 we have three examples, as representations of the judgment which threatens those mentioned in Jud 1:4. Compare with this 2Pe 2:4-6.
ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι] δέ is used metabatically (as a mere particle of transition); not in order to put ὑπομνῆσαι in contrast to παρακαλῶν (Jud 1:3), which is only to be justified by the explanation of Schott, that “Jude intends not properly to exhort the readers, but by παρακαλεῖν he means only that he will remind them.” ὑμᾶς is not the subject, but the object to ὑπομνῆσαι; comp. 2Pe 1:12 (Rom 15:15).
εἰδότας [ὑμάς] ἅπαξ πάντα] εἰδότας is either in an adversative sense = καίπερ εἰδότας (de Wette); or, which is to be preferred on account of ἅπαξ, the statement of the reason of ὑπομνῆσαι, Nicolas de Lyra: commonere autem vos volo et non docere de novo; et subditur ratio; Bengel: causa, cur admoneat duntaxat: quia jam sciant, semelque cognitum habeant; so also Wiesinger and Schott.
ἅπαξ is not to be united per hyperbaton with σώσας; also not = first, so that δεύτερον corresponding to it would be = secondly, and both referred to εἰδότας (Jachmann); but ἅπαξ belongs to εἰδότας, and τὸ δεύτερον to ἀπώλεσεν. Hornejus incorrectly explains ἅπαξ by: jampridem et ab initio (Arnaud: vous qui l’avez su une fois); it has here rather the same meaning as in Jud 1:3, rendering prominent that a new teaching is not necessary (de Wette, Stier, Wiesinger, Fronmüller, Schott, Hofmann).
πάντα; according to Nicolas de Lyra = omnia ad salutem necessaria; better: everything which is an object of evangelical teaching, here naturally with particular reference to what directly follows, to which alone the τοῦτο of the Rec. points.[15]
ὍΤΙ Ὁ ΚΎΡΙΟς (ἸΗΣΟῦς) ΛΑῸΝ … ΣΏΣΑς] ὍΤΙ belongs not to ΕἸΔΌΤΑς ΠΆΝΤΑ, but to ὙΠΟΜΝῆΣΑΙ.
With the reading (Ὁ) ἸΗΣΟῦς (Stier calls it: “without example, and incomprehensibly strange”) Jude here would speak from the same point of view as Paul does in 1Co 10:4 (comp. also 1Pe 1:11), according to which all the acts of divine revelation are done by the instrumentality of Christ, as the eternal Son and revealer of God. The name ἸΗΣΟῦς, by which Christ is designated in His earthly and human personality, is, however, surprising; but Jude might have so used it from the consciousness that the eternal Son of God and He who was born of Mary is the same Person (comp. 1Co 8:9; Php 2:5). With the reading ΚΎΡΙΟς-certainly the more natural-which de Wette-Brückner and Hofmann prefer, whilst Wiesinger and Schott consider ἸΗΣΟῦς as the original-a designation of God is to be understood.
ΛΑΌΝ] That by this the people of Israel is meant is evident; the article is wanting, because Jude would indicate that Israel was saved as an entire people, with reference to the following ΤΟῪς ΜῊ ΠΙΣΤΕΎΣΑΝΤΑς.[16]
τὸ δεύτερον] is to be retained in its proper meaning, and to be explained neither, with Nicolas de Lyra and others, as = post (Arnaud: de nouveau, ensuite, après), nor, with Grotius and Wolf, as = ex contrario. It indicates that what was said in the preceding participial sentence, namely, the divine deliverance of the people from Egypt, is considered as a first deed, to which a second followed. The definite statement of what this second is, is usually derived from the preceding σώσας, and by it is accordingly understood a second deliverance; but there are different views as to what deliverance is meant. In this commentary the deliverance of the people from the wilderness was designated as this second deliverance, which certainly occurred to the people, yet only so that those who believed not did not attain to it, but were destroyed by God in the wilderness (so in essentials, Stier, Brückner, Wiesinger). On the other hand, Schmidt (bibl. Theologie, II.), Luthardt, Schott, Hofmann understand by it the deliverance effected by Christ; whilst they regard as the punishment falling on unbelievers, the destruction of Jerusalem, or the overthrow of the Jewish state. But both explanations are arbitrary; for, first, it is unauthorized to refer τὸ δεύτερον only to σώσας and not to ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας; and, secondly, in the principal sentence a deliverance is not at all indicated.[17] Whilst, then, Jude thinks on the deliverance from Egypt as a first deed, he does not mention a deliverance, but the destruction of those who believed not, as the second deed following the first. But this second is not indicated as a single deed, and therefore by it is to be understood generally what befell the unbelieving in the wilderness after the deliverance from Egypt; what this was is expressed in the words τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν. It is arbitrary to refer this, with Ritschl, only to the history recorded in Num 25:1-9; and still more arbitrary to refer it, with Fronmüller, to the Babylonish captivity (2Ch 36:16 ff.). Compare, moreover, with this verse, Heb 3:16-19.
ΤΟῪς ΜῊ ΠΙΣΤΕΎΣΑΝΤΑς] On ΜΉ, with participles, see Winer, p. 449 f. [E. T. 606 f.]; comp. Jud 1:6 : ΤΟῪς ΜῊ ΤΗΡΉΣΑΝΤΑς. It is to be observed that in the corresponding passage, 2 Peter 2, instead of this example, the deluge is named.
[15] Schott, indeed, explains πάντα correctly; but he erroneously thinks that ἅπαξ with εἰδότας indicates “this knowledge is meant as a knowledge effected by a definite individual act,” and that ἅπαξ is to be understood of the instruction given in Second Peter.
[16] Calvin observes: nomen populi honorifice capitur pro gente sancta et electa, ac si diceret, nihil illis profuisse, quod singulari privilegio in foedus assumpti essent; but were this correct, a αὑτοῦ would at least have been added.
[17] Against Winer’s explanation, p. 576 [E. T. 775]: “the verb connected with τὸ δεύτερον should properly have been οὐκ ἔσωσε (ἀλλά κ.τ.λ.); the Lord, after having saved, the second time (when they needed His helping grace) refused them this saving grace, and left them to destruction.” But there is nothing indicated in the context of a state of being in want of grace.
Jud 1:6. A second example taken from the angelic world. As God spared not the people rescued from bondage, so neither did He spare the angels who left their habitation. This also was an admonitory representation for Christians, who, in the face of the high dignity which they possessed by redemption, yielded themselves to a life of vice.
ἀγγέλους τε τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας κ.τ.λ.] is, according to the construction, as the τε indicates, closely connected with the preceding.
ἀγγέλους without the article considered generally; the participle connected with the article indicates the definite class of angels who are here meant.
For the understanding of this verse the following points are to be observed:-(1) By the twofold participial clause τοὺς μὴ … ἀρχήν and ἀπολιπόντας … οἰκητήριον, something sinful is attributed to the angels (2Pe 2:4 : ἁμαρτησάντων), on account of which the punishment expressed by εἰς κρίσεν … τετήρηκε was inflicted upon them; (2) The two clauses μὴ … ἀλλὰ … so correspond, that the second positive clause explains the first negative clause; and (3) what Jude says of the angels corresponds with the doctrine of the angels contained in the Book of Enoch.
τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχήν κ.τ.λ.] ἀρχή must here denote something which the angels by forsaking τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον did not preserve, but gave up or slighted. But by ἀπολ. τὸ ἴδ. οἰκητ., according to the Book of Enoch 12:4,[18] is meant their forsaking of heaven, and their descent to earth in order to go after the daughters of men (so also Hofmann); but not, as Hornejus and others think, the loss of the heavenly dwelling, which they drew upon themselves by conspiring against God; which would militate against the first observation.
By ἈΡΧΉ expositors understand either the original condition (origo: Calvin, Grotius, Hornejus,[19] and others), or the dominion which originally belonged to them (Bengel, de Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann; Brückner thinks that the meaning dominion passes over into that of origin). According to the first explanation, the term is too indefinite, both in itself and in reference to the second parallel clause. It is in favour of the second explanation, that in the N. T. angels are often designated by the name ἀρχή, ἀρχαί; as also the prevailing idea among the Jews was, that to the angels a lordship belongs over the earthly creation. By this explanation, also, the two clauses correspond; instead of administering their office as rulers, they forsook their heavenly habitation, and thus became culpable. The explanation, according to which ἀρχὴ ἑαυτῶν denotes not the dominion of the angels, but the dominion of God, to which they were subjected, is both against linguistic usage and against the context.
εἰς κρίσιν … τετήρηκεν] Statement of the punishment. This also corresponds with the expression in the Book of Enoch, where in chap. 10:12 it is said: “Bind them fast under the mountains of the earth … even to the day of judgment … until the last judgment will be held for all eternity.[20]
τετήρηκεν is in sharp contrast to μὴ τηρήσαντας: the perfect expresses an action begun in the past and continued in the present. The mode of retention is more precisely stated by δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον] By ἀϊδίοις the chains by which they are bound are designated as eternal, and incapable of being rent.
ὑπὸ ζόφον] ζόφος only here and Jud 1:13, and in the parallel passages 2Pe 2:4; 2Pe 2:17; comp. also Wis 17:2;[21] usually ΣΚΌΤΟς, the darkness of hell; ὙΠΌ is explained by conceiving the angels in the lowest depths of hell, covered with darkness.[22] In τετήρηκεν is not contained the final doom which will only take place at the general judgment; therefore: εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας] μεγ. ἡμέρα, without any further designation, used of the last judgment only here; the same adjective, as an attribute of that day, in Act 2:20; Rev 6:17; Rev 16:14.
[18] “Announce to the watchers of heaven, who forsook the high heaven and their holy eternal abodes, and have corrupted themselves with women;” xv. Jud 1:3 : “Wherefore have ye forsaken the high and holy and eternal heaven, and have slept with women?” … lxiv.: “These are the angels who have gone down from heaven to earth;” and other passages. Gen 6:2 lies at the foundation of this tradition, the explanation of which is to this day contested. Whilst Hofmann explains the expression בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים as a designation of the angels, Ferd. Philippi decidedly rejects this explanation.
[19] Hornejus, after Joh 8:44, designates as the original condition here meant, veritas i. e. innocentia et sanctitas. Stier thinks “that the original condition was at the same time the ground of their nature and condition in God, or, as it is now perhaps called, the principle of their true life. They preserved not themselves in God, whilst they surrendered and lost the proper pure ground of their glorious being.”
[20] Comp. also x. Jud 1:4 : “Bind Azâzêl, and put him in darkness,” xiv. 5, xxi. 10, etc. In the Midrasch Ruth in the Book of Zohar it is said: Postquam filii Dei filios genuerunt, sumsit eos Deus et ad montem tenebrarum perduxit, ligavitque in catenis ferreis, quae usque ad medium abyssi magnae pertingunt.
[21] Comp. also Hesiod. Theog. v. 729, where it is said:
[22] There is an apparent difference between what is here said and the representations of the N. T. elsewhere, according to which Satan and his ἄγγελοι have even now their residence in the air (Eph 2:2, or in the upper regions, ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις, Eph 6:12), and although already judged by Christ (Joh 16:11), yet as κοσμοκράτορες exercise power over unbelievers, and also lay snares for believers, in order to bring them again into subjection. Expositors, in general, have attempted to reconcile this by referring this continued activity of the devil to the special permission of God; Calvin otherwise: porro nobis fingendus non est locus, quo inclusi sint diaboli; simpliciter enim docere voluit Ap., quam misera sit eorum conditio … nam quocunque pergant, secum trahunt sua vincula et suis tenebris obvoluti manent. Dietlein remarks on 2Pe 2:4 : “Not only Tartarus, but also the chains of darkness, are to be understood in a local and corporeal sense, but not of such a locality, or of such an imprisonment in that locality, as would require an exclusion from our locality, or an incapability of movement through our locality.” But all these artificial explanations are to be rejected, inasmuch as Jude does not speak of Satan and his angels, but of a definite class of angels, to whom, in agreement with the Book of Enoch, he refers Gen 6:2. This is correctly observed by Hofmann, Wiesinger, and Schott, with whom Brückner appears to agree; on the other hand, F. Philippi (p. 140) observes: “Jude speaks here of the original fall of the angels from pride, not of their union with earthly women.”
Ἔνθα θεοὶ Τιτῆνες ὑπὸ ζόφῳ ἠρόεντα
Κεκρύφαται, βουλῆσι Διὸς νεφεληγερέταο
Χώρῳ ἐν εὐρώεντι.
Jud 1:7. Third example: the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrha and the cities about them, which, however, is not co-ordinate with the preceding two, but is closely connected with the last-mentioned, “whilst here both times a permanent condition is meant, which a similar sin has had as its consequence, whereas ἀπώλεσεν (Jud 1:5) states a judgment of God already past” (Hofmann’s Schriftb. I. p. 428).
ὡς] is not to be connected with the following ὁμοίως, Jud 1:8; nor is ὅτι, Jud 1:5, to be connected with ὑπομνῆσαι … βούλομαι (de Wette) = how instead of “that;” it refers rather to what directly precedes = like as (Semler, Arnaud, Hofmann, Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott, and others; Luther: as also), whilst Jud 1:7 confirms ἀγγέλους … τετήρηκεν by the comparison with what befell Sodom and Gomorrha: God retains the angels kept unto the day of judgment, even as Sodom and Gomorrha πρόκεινται δεῖγμα κ.τ.λ. With the connection with ὑπομν. βουλ. (Jud 1:5) a preceding καί would hardly be necessary, also the words τὸν ὅμοιον τούτοις indicate the close connection with Jud 1:6.
Σόδομα καὶ Γόμοῤῥα] frequently adduced in the O. and N. T. as examples of the divine judgment; see, for example, Rom 9:29.
καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις] according to Deu 29:23; Hos 11:8 : Admah and Zeboim.
τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις ἐκπορνεύσασαι] τούτοις may grammatically be referred to Σόδ. κ. Γόμ. (or, by synesis, to the inhabitants of these cities; so Krebs, Calvin, Hornejus, Vorstius, and others); but by this construction the sin of Sodom and Gomorrha would only be indirectly indicated. Since, also, τούτοις cannot refer to the false teachers, Jud 1:4, because, as de Wette correctly remarks, the thought of Jud 1:8 would be anticipated, it must refer to the angels who, according to the Book of Enoch, sinned in a similar way as the inhabitants of those cities (thus Herder, Schneckenburger, Jachmann, de Wette, Arnaud, Hofmann, and others).
ἐκπορνεύσασαι, the sin of the inhabitants, is designated as the action of the cities themselves. The verb (often in the LXX. the translation of זָנָה; also in the Apocrypha) is in the N. T. a ἅπ. λεγ. The preposition ἐκ serves for strengthening the idea, indicating that “one by πορνεύειν becomes unfaithful to true moral conduct” (Hofmann), but not that “he goes beyond the boundaries of nature” (Stier, Wiesinger, and similarly Schott).
καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας] The expression ἀπέρχ. ὀπίσω τινός is found in Mar 1:20 in its literal sense; here it has a figurative meaning; comp. 2Pe 2:10, πορεύεσθαι ὀπ.; Jer 2:5; Sir 46:10.
Arnaud: ces mots sont ici un euphémisme, pour exprimer l’acte de la prostitution. In ἀπο is contained the turning aside from the right way. Oecumenius thus explains the import of σὰρξ ἑτέρα: σάρκα δὲ ἑτέραν, τὴν ἄῤῥηνα φύσιν λέγει, ὡς μὴ πρὸς συνουσίαν γενέσεως συντελοῦσαν; so also Brückner and Wiesinger. Stier, Schott, Hofmann proceed further, referring to Lev 18:23-24, and accordingly explaining it: “not only have they practised shame man with man, but even man with beast” (Stier). Only this explanation corresponds to σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, and only by it do the connection of Jud 1:7 with Jud 1:6, expressed by ὡς, and the explanation: τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις, receive their true meaning. The σάρξ of men was ἑτέρα σάρξ to the angels, as that of beasts is to men. In the parallel passage, 2Pe 2:6, the sin of the cities is not stated.
πρόκεινται δεῖγμα πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην ὑπέχουσαι] πρόκεινται: they lie before the eyes as a δεῖγμα; not: “inasmuch as the example of punishment in its historical attestation is ever present” (Schott); but: inasmuch as the Dead Sea continually attests that punishment, which Jude considers as enduring. There is a certain boldness in the expression, as properly it is not the cities and their inhabitants who are πρόκεινται. The genitive πυρὸς αἰωνίου may grammatically depend both on δεῖγμα and on δίκην. Most expositors (particularly Wiesinger, Schott, Brückner) consider the second construction as the correct one; but hardly rightly; as (1) δεῖγμα would then lose its exact definition; (2) πῦρ αἰώνιον always designates hell-fire, to which the condemned are delivered up at the last judgment (see Mat 25:41); (3) the juxtaposition of this verse with Jud 1:6, where the present punitive condition of the angels is distinguished from that which will occur after the judgment, favours the idea that the cities (or rather their inhabitants) are here not designated as those who even now suffer the punishment of eternal fire.[23] But Jude could designate the cities as a δεῖγμα of eternal fire, considering the fire by which they were destroyed as a figure of eternal fire. Hofmann correctly connects πυρὸς αἰωνίου with δεῖγμα, but he incorrectly designates δεῖγμα πυρ. αἰων. as a preceding apposition to δίκην: “it may be seen in them (δεῖγμα = exhibition) what is the nature of eternal fire, inasmuch as the fire that has consumed them is enduring in its after-operations;” by this explanation πῦρ αἰώνιον is deprived of its proper meaning. With δίκην ὑπέχουσαι the fact is indicated that they have continually to suffer punishment, since the period that punishment was inflicted upon them in the time of Lot;[24] corresponding to what is said of the angels in Jud 1:6.
δεῖγμα in N. T. ἅπ. λεγ. (Jam 5:11, and frequently: ὑπόδειγμα), not = example, but proof, testimony, sign. ὑπέχειν likewise in N. T. ἅπ. λεγ.; 2Ma 4:48, ζημίαν ὑπέχειν (2Th 1:9, δίκην τίειν).
[23] Wiesinger incorrectly observes that “by this connection we must also assume that those angels also suffer the punishment of eternal fire,” since precisely the contrary is the case. Wiesinger arrives at this erroneous assumption by taking δεῖγμα as equivalent to example. It is also entirely erroneous when it is asserted that πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκη is an evident type of hell-fire, since πῦρ αἰώνιον is itself hell-fire. To be compared with this is 3Ma 2:5 : σὺ … Σοδομίτας … πυρὶ … κατέφλεξας, παράδειγμα τοῖς ἐπιγινομένοις καταστήσας; and Libanius in reference to Troy: κεῖται παράδειγμα δυστοχία; πυρὸς αἰωνίου.
[24] There is no necessity to derive this representation from Wis 10:7, and the various phenomena which lead to the supposition of a subterranean fire at the Dead Sea (see Winer’s bibl. Realw.; todtes Meer).
Jud 1:8. Description of the sins of the false teachers; comp. 2Pe 2:10.
ὁμοίως] i.e. similarly as Sodom and Gomorrha, etc.
μέντοι] expresses here no contrast (so earlier in this commentary: “notwithstanding the judgment which has come on those cities on account of such sins”), but it serves, as Hofmann correctly observes, appealing to Kühner’s Gramm. II. p. 694, “simply for the strengthening of the expression, putting the emphasis on ὁμοίως; those men, says Jude, actually do the same thing as the Sodomites.”
καὶ οὗτοι] refers back to τινες ἄνθρωποι, Jud 1:4.
ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι] only here and in Act 2:17, where it is used of prophetical dreams, according to Joe 3:1. This meaning does not here suit, for Bretschneider’s explanation: “falsis oraculis decepti vel falsa oracula edentes,” is wholly arbitrary. Most expositors unite it closely with the following σάρκα μιαίνουσι, and understand it either: de somniis, in quibus corpus polluitur (Vorstius), or of voluptuous dreams, appealing to Isa 56:10 (LXX. ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι κοίτην, an inaccurate translation of the Hebrew חֹזִים שֹׁכְבִים), or of unnatural cohabiting (Oecumenius). Jachmann (with whom Brückner agrees) understands it generally = “sunk in sleep, i.e. hurried along in the tumult of the senses,” appealing to the parallel passage, 2Pe 2:10 (ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ). Similarly Calvin: est metaphorica loquutio, qua significat, ipsos tam esse habetes, ut sine ulla verecundia ad omnem turpitudinem se prostituant. But in all these explanations the expression is only referred to the first clause of the following sentence; but this is opposed to the construction: it refers to both clauses,-else it would have been put directly with μιαίνουσι,-and denotes the condition in which and out of which they do those things which are expressed in the following clauses. It is unsatisfactory to keep in view only the negative point of ἐνυπνιάζεσθαι, the want of a clear consciousness (Hornejus: tam insipientes sunt, ut quasi lethargo sopiti non tantum impure vivant, etc.; Arnaud: qui agissent sans savoir ce qu’ils font); the positive point is chiefly to be observed, which consists in living in the arbitrary fancies of their own perverted sense, which renders them deaf to the truths and warnings of the divine word (so in essentials, Stier, Fronmüller, Wiesinger, Schott, Brückner, Hofmann[25]). The reference to Isa 29:10, LXX.: πεπότικεν ὑμᾶς κύριος κατανύξεως, is unsuitable (against Beza, Carpzov, and others), as here the discourse is not about a punitive decree of God.
σάρκα μὲν μιαίνουσι] not their flesh, but generally the flesh, both their own and that of others: the thought refers back to Jud 1:7 : ἐκπορνεύσασαι, etc.
κυριότητα δὲ ἀθετοῦσι, δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν] announces a new side of their sinful nature. As this verse is in evident connection of thought with Jud 1:10, where the words ὅσα δὲ φυσικῶς … φθείρονται refer back to σάρκα μὲν μιαίν., so κυριότης and δόξαι can only be here such things as suit the words ὅσα οὐκ οἴδασιν. It is thus incorrect to understand them of political powers (Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, Wolf, Semler, Stier, and others), or of ecclesiastical rulers (Oecumenius[26]), or of human authorities generally, the two words being either taken as designations of concrete persons, or one of them as a pure abstraction: Arnaud: par ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗΤΑ il faut entendre l’autorité en général et par ΔΌΞΑς les dignités quelconques, les hommes méritant, par leur position, le respect et la considération.
Both expressions are to be understood as a designation of supermundane powers. Almost all recent expositors agree in this, although they differ widely in the more definite statement. These different explanations are as follows:-(1) ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗς is taken as a designation of God or Christ, and ΔΌΞΑΙ as a designation of the good angels (Ritschl); (2) the good angels are understood in both expressions (Brückner); (3) ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗς is understood in the first explanation, but ΔΌΞΑΙ is explained of the evil angels (Wiesinger); (4) both expressions are understood as a designation of the evil angels (Schott). In order first correctly to determine the idea ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗς, the relation of Jud 1:8 to what goes before is to be observed. The judgments which have befallen the people (Jud 1:5), the angels (Jud 1:6), and the cities (Jud 1:7), are by Jude adduced as a testimony against the Antinomians (ΟὟΤΟΙ, Jud 1:8) mentioned in Jud 1:4, evidently because these persons are guilty of the same sins on account of which those judgments occurred. Since ΣΆΡΚΑ ΜΙΑΊΝΟΥΣΙ evidently points back to ἘΚΠΟΡΝΕΎΣΑΣΑΙ, Jud 1:7, and further to ἈΣΈΛΓΕΙΑΝ, Jud 1:4, it is most natural to refer ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗΤΑ ἈΘΕΤΟῦΣΙΝ to ΜῊ ΠΙΣΤΕΎΟΝΤΑς, Jud 1:5, and, further, to ΤῸΝ ΜΌΝΟΝ ΔΕΣΠΌΤΗΝ … ἈΡΝΟΎΜΕΝΟΙ, Jud 1:4. Consequently, by ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗς-if one takes ΤῸΝ ΜΌΝΟΝ ΔΕΣΠΌΤΗΝ as a designation of God-is to be understood the Godhead; or, if one understands τ. μ. δ. as a predicate to ἸΗΣ. ΧΡ., Christ. If, now, it is assumed that δόξαι is an idea corresponding to ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗς, and to be taken along with it, then by it the good angels are to be understood. But it must not be overlooked that the clause ΔΌΞΑς ΔῈ ΒΛΑΣΦΗΜΟῦΣΙΝ is separated from the preceding clause by ΔΈ; and that Jud 1:9 leads to a different understanding of ΔΌΞΑΙ. When in Jud 1:9 it is said of the archangel Michael that he dared not ΚΡΊΣΙΝ ἘΠΕΝΕΓΚΕῖΝ ΒΛΑΣΦΗΜΊΑς against the devil, this βλασφημίας evidently refers back to ΒΛΑΣΦΗΜΟῦΣΙΝ, Jud 1:8, consequently the two ideas ΔΌΞΑς and ΔΙΆΒΟΛΟς are brought together, so that from this the preference must be given to the explanation which understands by ΔΌΞΑς the diabolical powers, or the evil angels. That not only δόξαι, but also ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗς, is a designation of evil powers, Schott incorrectly appeals to the fact that in 2Pe 2:10, and also here, the unchaste, carnal life of the false teachers is connected with their despising or rejection of ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗς; for although it is presupposed that the recognition of the reverence for ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗς might restrain these men from the abuse of their fleshly nature, yet it does not follow from this that only evil spirits can be meant, since also the recognition of the reverence for the divine power restrains from the abuse of the corporeal senses which were created by God. To the identification of ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗς and ΔΌΞΑΙ-whether good or evil angels are to be understood-not only is the form of the expression opposed, Jude not uniting the two clauses by ΚΑΊ, but, as already remarked, separating them by ΔΈ,[27] but also the difference of the conduct of the Antinomians, whilst they despise (ἀθετοῦσιν; 2 Pet.: καταφρονοῦσιν) the κυριότης, but blaspheme the δόξαι. The clearer this separation and distinction are kept in view, the less reason is there against deriving the exact meaning of δόξαι from Jud 1:9 (2Pe 2:10 from Jud 1:11), and consequently against understanding by it evil angels (comp. Hofmann); only it must not be affirmed that Jude has used the expression δόξαι as a name for the evil angels as such, but only that, whilst so naming angels generally, he here means the evil angels, as is evident from Jud 1:9. That these may be understood by this designation cannot be denied, especially, as Wiesinger points out, as Paul in Eph 6:12 names them αἱ ἀρχαί, αἱ ἐξουσίαι, οἱ κοσμοκράτορες, and says of them that they are ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις.
ἀθετοῦσιν … βλασφημοῦσιν] The first expression is negative, the second positive; the Antinomians manifested the despising of κυριότης by the carnal licentiousness of their lives, whilst they fancied themselves exempt by χάρις (Jud 1:4) from the duty of obedience to the will of God (or Christ) as the κύριος requiring a holy life; but their blasphemy of the δόξαι consisted in this, that on the reproach of having in their immorality fallen under diabolical powers, they mocked at them as entirely impotent beings.
[25] “Those here spoken of are wakeful dreamers, so that they, when they should perceive with their wakeful senses, have only dreams, and what they dream they esteem as the perception of the wakeful spirit.”
[26] Oecumenius, however, wavers, thinking that by κυριότης may also be understood ἡ τοῦ κατὰ Χριστὸν μυστηρίου τελετή, and by δόξαι also ἡ παλαία διαθήκη καὶ ἡ νέα; on 2Pe 2:10 he observes: δόξας, ἤτοι τὰς θείας φησὶ δυνάμεις, ἢ καὶ τὰς ἐκκλησιαστικὰς ἀρχάς.
[27] Also in 2Pe 2:10, δόξας οὐ τρέμουσιν βλασφημοῦντες is separated from κυριότητος καταφρονοῦντας by the intervening τολμηταὶ αὐθάδεις.
REMARK.
According to Ritschl’s opinion, the actions which Jude here asserts of the Antinomians represent directly only the guilt of their forerunners (namely, the Israelites, Jud 1:5; the angels, Jud 1:6; and the Sodomites, Jud 1:7), and his expressions can therefore only be understood in an indirect and metaphorical sense. To this conclusion Ritschl arrives (1) by explaining the second clause of Jud 1:10, that the Antinomians understood relations to be understood spiritually φυσικῶς ὡς τὰ ἄλογα ζῶα, i.e. that they considered the blessings promised in the kingdom of heaven as the blessings of sensual enjoyment; (2) by so understanding the relation of Jud 1:8 to the preceding, that δόξας βλασφ. is to be referred back to Jud 1:7, κυριότ. ἀθετ. to Jud 1:6, and σαρκὰ μιαίν. to Jud 1:5. According to his view, Jude finds the guilt of the Sodomites (Jud 1:7) to consist in this, that by the design of practising their lust on the angels, they blasphemed them; the guilt of the angels (Jud 1:6) in this, that they undervalued their own dominion; and the guilt of the Israelites (Jud 1:5) in this, that they had criminal intercourse with the impure daughters of Moab. Over against this, the guilt of the Antinomians consisted in this-(1) that they regarded immorality as a privilege of the kingdom of God, which they have in common with the angels; (2) that by referring their immoral practice to the kingdom of God, they showed a depreciation of the dominion which belongs to Christ, or to which they themselves are called; and (3) that by their ἀσέλγεια they were guilty of the defilement of those connected with them in the Christian church. But both the explanation of the second clause of Jud 1:10, where there is no mention of the blessings of the kingdom of heaven, and the statement of the relation of Jud 1:8 to what goes before, is incorrect, since in Jud 1:7 the Sodomites and the other cities are reproached, not with an evil intention, but with an actual doing; in Jud 1:6 the not preserving their ἀρχή and the forsaking of their οἰκητήριον are indeed reckoned as a crime to the angels, but specially on this account, because they did it-as τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις, Jud 1:7, shows-for the sake of ἐκπορνεύειν; and lastly, in Jud 1:5 the criminal intercourse with the daughters of Moab is not indicated as the reason of their ἀπώλεια, but their unbelief (μὴ πιστεύοντας). For these reasons Wiesinger has correctly rejected the explanation of Ritschl as mistaken.
The view of Steinfass, expressed on 2Pe 2:10, that the blasphemy of the δόξαι by the Antinomians consisted in their wishing to constrain the angels by charms to love-intrigues, is, apart from all other considerations, contradicted by the fact that neither in 2 Peter nor in Jude is there any reference to charms and love-intrigues with the angels.
Jud 1:9 places in a strong light the wickedness of this blasphemy (comp. 2Pe 2:11). They do something against the δόξαι, which even Michael the archangel did not venture to do against the devil.
ὁ δὲ Μιχαὴλ ὁ ἀρχάγγελος] Michael, in the doctrine of the angels, as it was developed during and after the captivity by the Jews, belonged to the seven highest angels, and was regarded as the guardian of the nation of Israel: Dan 12:1, הַשַּׂר הַגָּדוֹל הָעֹמֵד עַל־בְּנֵי עַמֶּךָ; comp. Dan 10:13; Dan 10:21; in the N. T. he is only mentioned in Rev 12:7. In the Book of Enoch, chap. 20:5, he is described as “one of the holy angels set over the best part of the human race, over the people.”
ἀρχάγγελος only here and in 1Th 4:16 (Dan 12:1, LXX., ὁ ἄρχων ὁ μέγας); see Winer’s bibl. Reallex.: Angel, Michael.
ὅτε τῷ διαβόλῳ κ.τ.λ.] This legend is found neither in the O. T. nor in the Rabbinical writings, nor in the Book of Enoch; Jude, however, supposes it well known. Oecumenius thus explains the circumstance: λέγεται τὸν Μιχαὴλ … τῇ τοῦ Μωσέως ταφῇ δεδιηκονηκέναι· τοῦ γὰρ διαβόλου τοῦτο μὴ καταδεχομένου, ἀλλʼ ἐπιφέροντος ἔγκλημα διὰ τὸν τοῦ Αἰγυπτίου φονον, ὡς αὐτοῦ ὄντος τοῦ Μωσέως, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μὴ συγχωρεῖσθαι αὐτῷ τυχεῖν τῆς ἐντίμου ταφῆς. According to Jonathan on Deu 34:6, the grave of Moses was given to the special custody of Michael. This legend, with reference to the manslaughter committed by Moses, might easily have been formed, as Oecumenius states it, “out of Jewish tradition, extant in writing alongside of the Scriptures” (Stier).[28] According to Origen (περὶ ἀρχῶν, iii. 2), Jude derived his account from a writing known in his age: ἈΝΆΒΑΣΙς ΤΟῦ ΜΩΣΈΩς.[29] Calvin and others regard oral tradition as the source; Nicolas de Lyra and others, a special revelation of the Holy Ghost; and F. Philippi, a direct instruction of the disciples by Christ, occasioned by the appearance of Moses on the mount of transfiguration. De Wette has correctly observed that the explanation is neither to be derived from the Zendavesta (Herder), nor is the contest to be interpreted allegorically (σῶμα Μωσέως = the people of Israel, or the Mosaic law).
ΔΙΑΚΡΙΝΌΜΕΝΟς ΔΙΕΛΈΓΕΤΟ] The juxtaposition of these synonymous words serves for the strengthening of the idea; by ΔΙΕΛΈΓΕΤΟ the conflict is indicated as a verbal altercation.
ΟὐΚ ἘΤΌΛΜΗΣΕ] he ventured not.
κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν βλασφημίας] Calovius incorrectly explains it by: ultionem de blasphemia sumere; the words refer not to a blasphemy uttered by the devil, but to a blasphemy against the devil, from which Michael restrained himself.
ΚΡΊΣΙΝ ἘΠΙΦΈΡΕΙΝ] denotes a judgment pronounced against any one (comp. Act 25:18 : ΑἸΤΊΑΝ ἘΠΙΦΈΡΕΙΝ).
ΚΡΊΣΙΝ ΒΛΑΣΦΗΜΊΑς] is a judgment containing in itself a blasphemy. By ΒΛΑΣΦ. that saying-namely, an invective-is to be understood by which the dignity belonging to another is injured. Michael restrained himself from such an invective against the devil, because he feared to injure his original dignity; instead of pronouncing a judgment himself, he left this to God. Herder: “And Michael dared not to pronounce an abusive sentence.”
ἈΛΛʼ ΕἾΠΕΝ· ἘΠΙΤΙΜΉΣΑΙ ΣΟΙ ΚΎΡΙΟς] the Lord rebuke thee: comp. Mat 17:18; Mat 19:13, etc. According to Zec 3:1-3, the angel of the Lord spoke the same words to the devil, who in the vision of Zechariah stood at his right hand as an adversary of the high priest Joshua (LXX.: ἐπιτιμήσαι κύριος ἐν σοὶ διάβολε).
[28] Schmid (bibl. Theol. II. p. 149), Luthardt, Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, I. p. 340), Schott, Wiesinger (less definitely) think that the conflict consisted in Michael not permitting the devil to exercise his power over the dead body of Moses, but withdrawing it from corruption; for which an appeal is made to the fact that “God had honoured Moses to see in the body a vision of His entire nature” (Hofmann), and also that “Moses was to be a type of the Mediator conquering death” (Schott), and that Moses appeared with Christ on the mount of transfiguration. In his explanation of this Epistle, Hofmann expresses himself to this effect, that Satan wished to prevent “Moses, who shared in the impurity of death, and who had been a sinful man, from being miraculously buried by the holy hand of God (through Michael).”
[29] See on this apocryphal writing, F. Philippi (das Buch Henoch, p. 166-191), who ascribes the composition of it to a Christian in the second century, and assumes that he was induced to it by this 9th verse in the Epistle of Jude; this at all events is highly improbable.
Jud 1:10. Description of the false teachers with reference to Jud 1:8 in contrast to Jud 1:9; comp. 2Pe 2:12.
They blaspheme, ὅσα μὲν οὐκ οἴδασι, what they know not: the supermundane, to which the δόξαι, Jud 1:8, belong, is meant. Hofmann: “they know about it, otherwise they could not blaspheme it; but they have no acquaintance with it, and yet in their ignorance judge of it, and that in a blasphemous manner” (comp. Col 2:18 according to the usual reading). Those expositors who understand κυριότητα and δόξας of human authorities, are at a loss for an explanation of the thoughts here expressed; thus Arnaud: il est assez difficile de préciser, quelles étaient ces choses qu’ignoraient ces impies.
ὅσα δὲ φυσικῶς ἐπίστανται] a contrast to what goes before; corresponding to σάρκα μιαίνουσι, Jud 1:8, only here the idea is carried farther. Jachmann explains it: “the passions inherent in every one;” but this does not suit ἐπίστανται. De Wette correctly: the objects of sensual enjoyment; to which the σάρξ (Jud 1:8) especially belongs. By φυσικῶς (ἅπ. λεγ. = of nature) ὡς τὰ ἄλογα ζῶα is prominently brought forward the fact that their understanding is not raised above that of the irrational animals, that to them only the sensual is something known. There is no distinction between εἰδέναι and ἐπίστασθαι, as Schott thinks, that the former denotes a comprehensive knowledge, and the latter a mere external knowing (“they understand, namely, in respect of the external and sensual side of things, practically applied”); but these two verbs obtain this distinctive meaning here only through the context in which they are employed by Jude (comp. Hofmann).
ἐν τούτοις φθείρονται] ἐν, more significant than διά, designates their entire surrender to these things.
φθείρονται; Luther, they corrupt themselves; better: they destroy themselves; namely, by their immoderate indulgences. In Luther’s translation the words ὡς τὰ ἄλογα ζῶα are incorrectly attached to this verb.
Jud 1:11. The author interrupts his description of these ungodly men by a denunciation on them, which he grounds by characterizing them after the example of the ungodly in the O. T. (comp. 2Pe 2:15 ff.).
οὐαὶ αὐτοῖς] The same denunciation frequently occurs in the discourses of Jesus: “at once a threatening and a strong disapproval” (de Wette). With this οὐαί Jude indicates the judgment into which the Antinomians have fallen; it refers back to Jud 1:5-7; Wiesinger incorrectly understands it only as a mere “exclamation of pain and abhorrence.”[30] This denunciation of woe does not occur with an apostle; frequently in the O. T.
ὅτι τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ Κάϊν ἐπορεύθησαν] On the phrase: τῇ ὁδῷ τινος πορεύεσθαι, comp. Act 14:16. (Act 9:31 : πορ. τῷ φόβῳ τ. κυρίου.) τῇ ὁδῷ is to be understood locally (see Meyer on the above passages), not “instrumentally” (Schott), which does not suit ἐπορεύθησαν.
ἐπορεύθησαν; preterite (Luther and others translate it as the present), because Jude represents the judgment threatened in οὐαὶ αὐτοῖς as fulfilled (de Wette-Brückner). Schott incorrectly explains it: “they have set out, set forth.” Many expositors find the similarity with Cain to consist in this, that whereas he murdered his brother, these by seduction of the brethren are guilty of spiritual murder; so Oecumenius, Estius, Grotius (Cain fratri vitam caducam ademit; illi fratribus adimunt aeternam), Calovius, Hornejus, Schott, and others. But this conversion into the spiritual is arbitrary, especially as the desire of seduction in these men is not specially brought forward by Jude. Other expositors, adhering to the murder committed by Cain, think on the persecuting zeal of these false teachers against believers; so Nicolas de Lyra: sequuntur mores et studia latronis ex invidia et avaritia persequentes sincerioris theologiae studiosos. As the later Jews regarded Cain as a symbol of moral scepticism, so Schneckenburger supposes that Jude would here reproach his opponents with this scepticism; but there is also no indication of this in the context. De Wette stops at the idea that Cain is named as “the archetype of all wicked men;” so also Arnaud[31] and Hofmann; but this is too general. Brückner finds the point of resemblance in this, that as Cain out of envy, on account of the favour shown to Abel, resisting the commandment and warning of God, slew his brother, so these false teachers resisted God, and that from envy of the favour shown to believers. But in the context there is no indication of the definite statement “from envy.” It is more in correspondence with the context to find the tertium compar. in this, that Cain in spite of the warning of God followed his own wicked lusts; Fronmüller: “The point of comparison is acting on the selfish impulses of nature, in contempt of the warnings of God.”
καὶ τῇ πλάνῃ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ μισθοῦ ἐξεχύθησαν] πλάνη, as a sinful moral error, denotes generally a vicious life averted from the truth; comp. Jam 5:20; 2Pe 2:18 (Eze 33:16, LXX. translation of פֶּשַׁע). ἐκχεῖσθαι in the middle, literally, to issue forth out of something, construed with εἴς τι; figuratively, to rush into something, to give oneself up with all his might to something (Clemens Alexandrinus, p. 491, 3; ΕἸς ἩΔΟΝῊΝ ἘΚΧΥΘΈΝΤΕς; several proof passages in Wahl, Elsner, Wetstein); it is less suitable to explain the verb according to Psa 73:2, where the LXX. have ἘΞΕΧΎΘΗ as a translation of שֻׁפְּכוּ = to slip (Grotius: errare). The dative τῇ πλάνῃ is = εἰς τὴν πλάνην; Schott incorrectly explains it as dativus instrumentalis, since ἐξεχύθησαν requires a statement for the completion of the idea. The genitive μισθοῦ is, with Winer, p. 194 [E. T. 258], to be translated: for reward (see Grotius in loco); so that the meaning is: “they gave themselves up for a reward (i.e. for the sake of earthly advantage, thus from covetousness; Luther: ‘for the sake of enjoyment’) to the sin of Balaam;” thus most interpreters, also Brückner, Wiesinger, Hofmann. De Wette, on the contrary, after the example of Erasmus, Vatablus, and others, explains ΒΑΛΑΆΜ as a genitive dependent on ΤΟῦ ΜΙΣΘΟῦ; the dative Τῇ ΠΛΆΝῌ, as = by means of the error; and ἘΞΕΧΎΘΗΣΑΝ as an intransitive verb = “to commit excesses, to give vent to.” Accordingly, he translates the passage as follows: “By (by means of) the error (seduction) of the reward of Balaam, they have poured themselves out (in vice).” So also Hornejus: deceptione mercedis, qua deceptus fuit Balaam, effusi sunt.[32] But this construction is extremely harsh, the ideas πλάνη and ἘΞΕΧΎΘΗΣΑΝ are arbitrarily interpreted, and the whole sentence, so interpreted, would be withdrawn from the analogy of the other two with which it is co-ordinate.[33] Schott construes the genitive with ΠΛΆΝῌ, whilst he designates it “as an additional, and, as it were, a parenthetically added genitive for the sake of precision,” and for this he supplies a ΠΛΆΝῌ: “the error of Balaam, which was an error determined by gain.” This construction, it is true, affords a suitable sense, but it is not linguistically justified: it is entirely erroneous to take ΜΙΣΘΟῦ as in apposition to ΒΑΛΑΆΜ = Ὃς ΜΙΣΘῸΝ ἨΓΆΠΗΣΕΝ, 2Pe 2:15 (Fronmüller, Steinfass).
De Wette, chiefly from Rev 2:14, finds the point of resemblance in this, that “Balaam as a false prophet and a seducer to unchastity and idolatry, and contrary to the will of God, went to Balak, and that he is also particularly considered as covetous and mercenary.” But there is no indication that the men of whom Jude speaks enticed others to idolatry. Hofmann observes that this clause calls the sin of those described as “a devilish conduct against the people of God, the prospect of a rich reward being too alluring to Balaam to prevent him entering into the desires of Balak to destroy the people of God;” but in this explanation also a reference is introduced not indicated by the context. That Jude had primarily in view the covetousness of Balaam, ΜΙΣΘΟῦ shows; blinded by covetousness, Balaam resisted the will of God; his resistance was his ΠΛΆΝΗ, in which, and in the motive to it, the Antinomians resembled him (Brückner, Wiesinger); whether Jude had also in view the seduction to unchastity (comp. Num 31:16; Fronmüller), is at least doubtful; and it is still more doubtful to find the point of resemblance in this, that the Antinomians “had in view a material gain to be obtained by the ruin of the church of God” (Schott).
καὶ τῇ ἀντιλογίᾳ τοῦ Κορὲ ἀπώλοντο] ἈΝΤΙΛΟΓΊΑ, contradiction; here, seditious resistance. ἀπώλοντο does not mean that “they lost themselves in the ἈΝΤΙΛ. of Korah,” but “that they perished;” accordingly, Τῇ ἈΝΤΙΛΟΓΊᾼ is the instrumental dative. The point of resemblance is not, with Nicolas de Lyra, to be sought in this, that the opponents of Jude formed propter ambitionem honoris et gloriae sectas erroneas; or, with Hornejus, that they assumed the munus Apostolorum ecclesiae doctorum; or, with Hofmann, that they, as Korah (“whose resistance consisted in his unwillingness to recognise as valid the law of the priesthood of Aaron, on which the whole religious constitution of Israel rested”), “desired to assert a liberty not restricted;” but it consists in the proud resistance to God and His ordinances, which the Antinomians despise. By Schott’s explanation: “that they opposed to the true holiness a holiness of their own invention, namely, the holiness alleged to be obtained by disorderly excess,” a foreign reference is introduced.[34] The gradation of the ideas ὁδός, πλάνη, ἀντιλογία, in respect of definiteness, is not to be denied; but there is also a gradation of thought, for although the point about which Cain, Balaam, and Korah are named is one and the same, namely, resistance to God, yet this appears in the most distinct manner in the case of Korah.
[30] Hofmann correctly observes: “οὐαί has evil in view, whether it be in the tone of compassion which bewails it (Mat 23:15), or of indignation which imprecates it (Mat 11:21).” As not the first but the second is the case here, Hofmann should not have rejected the explanation of de Wette.
[31] Arnaud: J. compare seulement, d’une manière très générale, ses adversaires à Cain, sous le rapport de la méchanceté.
[32] Calvin: dixit (Ap.), instar Bileam mercede fuisse deceptos, quia pietatis doctrinam turpis lucri gratia adulterant; sed metaphora, qua utitur, aliquanto plus exprimit; dixit enim effusos esse, quia scilicet instar aquae diffluentis projecta sit eorum intemperies.
[33] “The parallelism of the three clauses requires that τῇ πλάνῃ ἐξεχύθησυν should remain together, accordingly the genitive is equivalent to ἀντὶ μισθοῦ” (Stier).
[34] Ritschl finds the point of resemblance between the Antinomians and the three named in this, “that they, as these, undertook to worship God in a manner rejected by Him.” But it is erroneous that “the Korahites exhibited their assumption of the priesthood by the presentation of an offering rejected by God;” it is incorrect that by ὁδός is indicated “the religious conduct” of Cain; and it is incorrect that the utterance of the curse willed by Balaam is to be considered as a religious transaction. Moreover, in the description of the Antinomians there is no trace indicating that their view was directed to a particular kind of worship.
Jud 1:12. A further description of these false teachers; comp. 2Pe 2:13; 2Pe 2:17.
οὗτοί εἰσιν [οἱ] ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν σπιλάδες] In the reading οἱ, ὄντες is either, with de Wette, to be supplied; thus: “these are they who are σπιλάδες in your ἀγάπαις;” or οἱ is to be joined to συνευωχούμενοι (comp. Jud 1:16; Jud 1:19; so Hofmann). That by ἀγάπαις the love-feasts are to be understood, is not to be doubted. Erasmus incorrectly takes it as = charitas, and Luther as a designation of alms.
The word σπιλάδες is usually explained = cliffs (so also formerly in this commentary). If this is correct, the opponents of Jude are so called, inasmuch as the love-feasts were wrecked on them (de Wette-Brückner, Wiesinger), i.e. by their conduct these feasts ceased to be what they ought to be; or inasmuch as they prepared destruction for others, who partook of the love-feasts (Schott and this commentary). It is, however, against this interpretation that σπιλάς does not specially indicate cliffs, but has the more general meaning rocks (Hofmann: “projecting interruptions of the plain”), and the reference to being wrecked is not in the slightest degree indicated.[35]
Stier and Fronmüller take ΣΠΙΛΆΔΕς as = ΣΠῖΛΟΙ, 2Pe 2:13; this is not unwarranted, as ΣΠΙΛΆς, which is properly an adjective (comp. ΣΠΟΡΆς, ΦΥΓΆς, ΛΟΓΆς), may be derived as well from ΣΠῖΛΟς = filth (comp. Γῆ ΣΠΙΛΆς = clayey soil; so Sophocles, Trach. 672, without γῆ), as from ΣΠΊΛΟς = a rock (comp. ΠΟΛΥΣΠΙΛΆς). In this case ΣΠΙΛΆΔΕς may either be taken as a substantive = what is filthy, spots (these are spots in your agapé; so Stier and Fronmüller), or as an adjective, which, used adverbially (see Winer, p. 433), denotes the mode and manner of συνευωχεῖσθαι (so Hofmann). The former construction merits the preference as the simpler.
Apart from other considerations, ΣΠῖΛΟΙ ΚΑῚ ΜῶΜΟΙ in 2 Peter are in favour of taking ΣΠΙΛΆΔΕς here in the sense of ΣΠῖΛΟΙ.
ΣΥΝΕΥΩΧΟΎΜΕΝΟΙ] The verb ΕὐΩΧΕῖΣΘΑΙ[36] has not indeed by itself a bad meaning, signifying to eat well, to feast well, but it obtains such a meaning here by the reference to the agapé. The συν placed before it may either refer to those addressed, with you, see 2Pe 2:13, where ὑμῖν is added to the verb (Wiesinger, Schott, Fronmüller, Hofmann); or to those here described by Jude, feasting together, i.e. with one another. Against the first explanation is the objection, that according to it the εὐωχεῖσθαι in their agapé would render those addressed also guilty (so formerly in this commentary); but against the second is the fact that the Libertines held no special love-feasts with one another, but participated in those of the church. The passage, 2Pe 2:13, is decisive in favour of the first explanation.
The connection of ἀφόβως is doubtful; de Wette-Brückner, Arnaud, Schott, Fronmüller unite it with συνευωχούμενοι; Erasmus, Beza, Wiesinger, Hofmann, with ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες. In this commentary the first connection was preferred, “because the idea συνευωχ. would otherwise be too bare.” This, however, is not the case, because if the verse is construed, as it is by Hofmann, it has its statement in what goes before; but if σπιλάδες is taken as a substantive, as it is by Stier and Fronmüller, then συνευωχ. is more precisely determined by the following ἀφόβως … ποιμαίνοντες, whilst it is said that they so participate in the agapé that their feasting was a ἀφόβως ποιμαίνειν ἑαυτούς. Erasmus takes the latter words in a too general sense: suo ductu et arbitrio viventes; Grotius, Bengel, and others give a false reference to them after Eze 34:2, understanding “that these feed themselves and not the church” (comp. 1Pe 5:2), and accordingly Schneckenburger thinks specially on the instructions which they engage to give; but this reference is entirely foreign to the context. According to de Wette, it is a contrast to “whilst they suffer the poor to want” (1Co 11:21); yet there is also here no indication of this reference.
νεφέλαι ἄνυδροι] is to be understood no more of the agapé (de Wette, Schott), but generally. νεφ. ἄνυδρ. are light clouds without water, which therefore, as the addition ὑπὸ ἀνέμων παραφερόμεναι makes prominent, are driven past by the wind without giving out rain; comp. Pro 25:14. This figure describes the internal emptiness of these men, who for this reason can effect nothing that is good; but it seems also to intimate their deceptive ostentation[37]; the addition serves for the colouring of the figure, not for adducing a special characteristic of false teachers; Nicolas de Lyra incorrectly: quae a ventis circumferuntur i. e. superbiae motibus et vanitatibus.
In the parallel passage, 2Pe 2:17, two images are united: πηγαὶ ἄνυδροι καὶ ὁμίχλαι ὑπὸ λαίλαπος ἐλαυνόμεναι.
According to the reading περιφερόμεναι, the translation would be: “driven hither and thither;” παραφερόμεναι denotes, on the other hand, driven past. A second figure is added to this first, by which the unfruitfulness (in good works) and the complete deadness of these men are described; in the adjectives the gradation is obvious.
δένδρα φθινοπωρινά] are not a particular kind of trees, such as only bare fruit in autumn, but trees as they are in autumn, namely, destitute of fruit (de Wette-Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott, etc.). It is arbitrary to desert the proper meaning of the word, and to explain φθινοπωρινά according to the etymology of φθίνειν by arbores quarum fructus perit illico = frugiperdae (Grotius; so also Erasmus, Beza, Carpzov, Stier. “which have cast off their fruit in an unripe state”).
ἄκαρπα] not: “whose fruit has been taken off” (de Wette), but “which are without fruit” (Brückner). Whether they have had fruit at an earlier period, and are now destitute of it, is not said. “The impassioned discourse proceeds from marks of unfruitfulness to that of absolute nothingness” (de Wette). δὶς ἀποθανόντα] Beza, Rosenmüller, and others arbitrarily explain δίς by plane, prorsus. Most expositors retain the usual meaning; yet they explain the idea twice in different ways; either that those trees are not only destitute of fruit, but also of leaves (so Oecumenius, Hornejus, and others); or that they bear no fruit, and are accordingly rooted out; or still better, δίς is to be referred to the fact that they are not only fruitless, but actually dead and dried up.[38] That Jude has this in his view, the following ἐκριζωθέντα shows. Several expositors have incorrectly deserted the figure here, and explained this word either of twofold spiritual death (Beza, Estius, Bengel, Schneckenburger, Jachmann, Wiesinger, Schott), or of death here and hereafter (so Grotius: neque hic bonum habebunt exitum, neque in seculo altero), or of one’s own want of spiritual life and the destruction of life in others. All these explanations are without justification. ἐκριζωθέντα is in close connection with δὶς ἀποθανόντα; thus, trees which, because they are dead, are dug up and rooted out;[39] thus incapable of recovery and of producing new fruit (Erasmus: quibus jam nulla spes est revirescendi). This figure, taken from trees, denotes that those described are not only at present destitute of good works, but are incapable of producing them in the future, and are “on this account rooted out of the soil of grace” (Hofmann). It is incorrect when Hofmann[40] in the application refers δὶς ἀποθανόντα to the fact that those men were not only in their early heathenism, but also in their Christianity, without spiritual life. There is no indication in the context of the distinction between heathenism and Christianity. Arnaud observes not incorrectly, but too generally: tous ces mots sont des métaphores énergiques pour montrer le néant de ces impies, la légèreté de leur conduite, la stérilité de leur foi et l’absence de leurs bonnes oeuvres.
[35] The explanation of Arnaud: les rochers continuellement battus par les flots de la mer et souillés par son écume (after Steph.: σπιλάς), is unsuitable; since, when the Libertines are called cliffs, this happens not because they are bespattered and defiled by others, but because others are wrecked on them.
[36] An explanation of this word is found in Xenophon, Memorabilia, lib. iii.: ἔλεγε (namely, Socrates) δὲ καὶ ὡς τὸ εὐωχεῖσθαι ἐν τῇ Ἀθηναίων γλώττῃ ἐσθίειν κάλοιτο. Τὸ δὲ εὐ προσκεῖθαι, ἔφη ἐπὶ τῷ ταῦτα ἐσθίειν, ἅτινα μήτε τὴν ψυχὴν, μήτε τὸ σῶμα λυποίη, μήτε δυσεύρετα εἴη; ὥστε καὶ τὸ εὐωχεῖσθαι τοῖς κοσμίως διαιτμωένοις ἀνετίθει. However, εὐωχεῖσθαι sometimes occurs in classical Greek in a bad sense.
[37] Calvin: vanam ostentationem taxat, quia nebulones isti, quum multa promittunt, intus tamen aridi sunt. Bullingcr: habent enim speciem doctorum veritatis, pollicentur daturos se doctrinam salvificam, sed veritate destituuntur et quovis circumaguntur doctrinae vento.
[38] Fromnüller, incorrectly: “trees which have at different times suffered fatal injury by frosts or from insects.”
[39] Fronmüller, linguistically incorrect: “trees which still remain in the earth, but which are shaken loose by their roots.”
[40] “If, when they became Christians, a fresh sap from the roots, by which they were rooted in the soil of divine grace, appeared to establish them in a new life out of their heathen death in sin, yet this new life was to them only a transition into a second and now hopeless death.”
Jud 1:13. Continuation of the figurative description of those false teachers. The two images here employed characterize them in their erring and disordered nature.
κύματα ἄγρια θαλάσσης κ.τ.λ.] Already Carpzov has correctly referred for the explanation of these words to Isa 57:20; the first words correspond to the Hebrew כַּיָּם נִגְרָשׁ; the following words: ἐπαφρίζοντα τὰς ἑαυτῶν αἰσχύνας, to the Hebrew יִגְרְשׁוּ מֵימָיו רֶפֶשׁ וָטִיט, only Jude uses the literal word where Isaiah has the figurative expression.
ἐπαφρίζειν] properly: to foam oJude Jud 1:1 :Luther well translates it: which foam out their own shame.
αἰσχύνας, not properly vices (de Wette); the plural does not necessitate this explanation, but their disgraceful nature, namely, the shameful ἐπιθυμίαι which they manifest in their wild lawless life; not “their self-devised wisdom” (Schott).
From the fact that the Hebrews sometimes compared their teachers to the sea (see Moses, theol. Samar., ed. Gesenius, p. 26), it is not to be inferred, with Schneckenburger and Jachmann, that there is here a reference to the office of teachers; this is the more unsuitable as the opponents of Jude hardly possessed that office.
ἀστέρες πλανῆται] These two words are to be taken together, wandering stars; that is, stars which have no fixed position, but roam about. The analogy with the preceding metaphors requires us to think on actual stars, with which Jude compares his opponents; thus on comets (Bretschneider, Arnaud, Stier, de Wette, Hofmann) or on planets (so most of the early commentators, also Wiesinger). The latter opinion is less probable, because the πλανᾶσθαι of the planets is less striking to the eye than that of the comets. It is incorrect “in the explanation entirely to disregard the fact whether there are such ἀστέρες πλανῆται in heaven or not” (so earlier in this commentary, after the example of Schott), and to assume that Jude, on account of their ostentation (Wiesinger, Schott), designates these men as stars, and by πλανῆται indicates their unsteady nature. De Wette incorrectly assumes this in essentials as equivalent with πλανῶντες καὶ πλανώμενοι, 2Ti 3:13. Bengel thinks that we are in this figure chiefly to think on the opaqueness of the planets; but such an astronomical reference is far-fetched. Jachmann arbitrarily explains ἀστέρες = φωστῆρες, Php 2:15, as a designation of Christians. Several expositors also refer this figure to the teaching of those men, appealing to Php 2:15 and Dan 12:3; so already Oecumenius: δοκοῦντες εἰς ἄγγελον φωτὸς μετασχηματίζεσθαι … ἀπεναντίας μόνον τοῦ κυρίου φέρονται δογμάτων (Hornejus, and others); but the context gives no warrant for this.
οἷς ὁ ζόφος τοῦ σκότους εἰς αἰῶνα τετήρηται] This addition may grammatically be referred either to what immediately precedes, thus to the ἀστέρες πλανῆται, or to the men who have been described by the figures used by Jude. It is in favour of the first reference (Hofmann: “Jude names them stars passing into eternal darkness, comets destined only to vanish”) that a more precise statement is also added to the preceding figure; thus the addition ὑπὸ ἀνέμων παραφερόμεναι to νεφέλαι ἄνυδροι κ.τ.λ. But it is against it that the expression chosen by Jude is evidently too strong to designate only the disappearance of comets, therefore the second reference is to be preferred (Wiesinger; comp. Jud 1:6), which also the parallel passage in 2Pe 2:17 favours. The addition of the genitive τοῦ σκότους to ὁ ζόφος serves to strengthen this idea.
Jud 1:14-15. The threatening contained in the preceding verses is confirmed by a saying of Enoch.
ἐπροφήτευσε δὲ καὶ τούτοις] καί refers either to τούτοις: “of these as well as of others;” according to Hofmann, of those who perished in the deluge; or it is designed to render prominent ἐπροφ. τούτοις in reference to what has been before said: “yea, Enoch also has prophesied of them.” Hofmann, in an entirely unwarrantable manner, maintains that there can be no question that καί puts its emphasis on the word before which it stands.
προφητεύειν generally with περί here construed with the dative, as in Luk 18:31, in reference to these.
ἕβδομος ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ Ἐνώχ] ἕβδομος has hardly here the mystical meaning which Stier gives it: “The seventh from Adam is personally a type of the sanctified of the seventh age of the world, of the seventh millennium, of the great earth Sabbath.” Also in the Book of Enoch, he is several times expressly designated as “the seventh from Adam” (60:8, 93:3); not in order to characterize him as the oldest prophet (Calvin, de Wette, and others), but to mark his importance by the coincidence of the sacred number seven (Wiesinger, Schott). The saying of Enoch here quoted is found, partly verbally, at the beginning of the Book of Enoch (Jud 1:9): “And behold He comes with myriads of saints to execute judgment on them, and He will destroy the ungodly and judge all flesh concerning all things which the sinners and ungodly have committed and done against Him.”[41] These words are taken from a speech in which an angel interprets a vision which Enoch has seen, and in which he announces to him the future judgment of God.
[41] The passage thus stands in de Sacy’s version: et venit cum myriadibus sanctorum, ut faciat judicium super eos et perdat impios et litigat cum omnibus carnalibus pro omnibus quae fecerunt et operati sunt contra eum peccatores et impii.
The question, from what source Jude has drawn these words, is very differently answered by expositors. It is most natural to conceive that he has taken them from the Book of Enoch; but then this presupposes that this book, although only according to its groundwork, is of pre-Christian Jewish, and not of Jewish Christian origin, which is also the prevailing opinion of recent critics. Hofmann, who denies the pre-Christian composition of the book, says: “Jude has derived it, in a similar manner as the incident between Michael and Satan, from a circle of myths, which has attached itself to Scripture, amplifying its words.” Yet, on the other hand, it is to be observed that it is difficult to conceive that oral tradition should preserve such an entire prophetic saying. F. Philippi thinks that Enoch in Gen 5:22 is characterized as a prophet of God, and as such prophesied of the impending deluge; and that Jude, by reason of a deeper understanding of Genesis 5, could add the exposition already become traditionary, and speak of a prophecy of Enoch, the reality of which was confirmed to him by the testimony of the Holy Ghost; or that this prophecy of Enoch was imparted to the disciples by Christ Himself, when the already extant tradition concerning Enoch might have afforded them occasion to ask the Lord about Enoch, perhaps when he was engaged in delivering His eschatological discourses. But both opinions of Philippi evidently rest on suppositions which are by no means probable. As an example of the method by which the older expositors sought to rescue the authenticity of the prophecy, let the exposition of Hornejus suffice: haec quae Judas citat, ab Enocho ita divinitus prophetata esse, dubium non est; sive prophetiam illam ipse alicubi scripsit et scriptura ilia vel per Noam ejus pronepotem in arca, vel in columna aliqua tempore diluvii conservata fuit sive memoria ejus traditione ad posteros propagata, quam postea apocrypho et fabulosa illi libro autor ejus inseruerit, ut totum Enochus scripsisse videretur.
ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν] comp. Zec 14:5; Deu 33:2; Heb 12:22; (μυριάσιν ἀγγέλων) Rev 5:11.
Jud 1:15. ποιῆσαι κρίσιν] see Gen 18:25; Joh 5:27.
τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς] The pronoun αὐτῶν, according to the Rec., would refer to the people of Israel.
ὧν ἠσέβησαν] the same verb in Zep 3:11; 2Pe 2:6; here used as transitive; comp. Winer, p. 209 [E. T. 279]. The frequent repetition of the same idea is to be observed: ἀσεβεῖς, ἀσεβείας, ἠσέβησαν, and finally again ἀσεβεῖς; a strong intensification of ungodliness.
τῶν σκληρῶν] σκληρός, literally, dry, hard, rough; here in an ethical sense, ungodly, not equivalent to surly (Hofmann); in a somewhat different sense, but likewise of sayings, the word is used in Joh 6:60.
κατʼ αὐτοῦ] is by Hofmann in an unnecessary manner attached not only to ἐλάλησαν, but also to ἠσέβησαν, in spite of Zep 3:11, where it is directly connected with ἠσέβησαν, which is not here the case. The sentence emphatically closes with ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς, which is not, with Hofmann, to be attracted to what follows.
Jud 1:16. A further description of the false teachers attached to the concluding words of the prophetic saying: τῶν σκληρῶν ὧν ἐλάλησαν κατʼ αὐτοῦ; comp. 2Pe 2:18-19.
οὗτοί εἰσι] as in Jud 1:10; Jud 1:19 with special emphasis.
γογγυσταί] ἅπ. λεγ. in N. T.; the verb is of frequent occurrence; Oecumenius interprets it: οἱ ὑπʼ ὀδόντα καὶ ἀπαῤῥησιάστως τῷ δυσαρεστουμένῳ ἐπιμεμφόμενοι. Jude does not say against whom they murmur; it is therefore arbitrary to think on it as united to a definite special object as rulers (de Wette), or, still more definitely, ecclesiastical rulers (Estius, Jachmann). Brückner correctly observes that “the idea is not to be precisely limited.” Everything which was not according to their mind excited them to murmuring. The epithet μεμψίμοιροι (ἅπ. λεγ.), dissatisfied with their lot, gives a more precise statement; denoting that they in their pretensions considered themselves entitled to a better lot than that which was accorded to them. The participial clause, κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῶν πορευόμενοι, is added to the substantive, which, whilst it unfolds the reason of their dissatisfaction and murmuring, at the same time expresses a kind of contrast: they were dissatisfied with everything but themselves. Calvin: qui sibi in pravis cupiditatibus indulgent, simul difficiles sunt ac morosi, ut illis nunquam satisfiat. The view of Grotius is entirely mistaken, that Jude has here in view the dissatisfaction of the Jews of that period with their political condition.
καὶ τὸ στόμα αὐτῶν λαλεῖ ὑπέρογκα] ὑπέρογκα only here and in the parallel passage, 2Pe 2:18. Luther: “proud words” (verba tumentia, in Jerom. contra Jovian, Jud 1:24); comp. Dan 11:36, LXX.: καὶ λαλήσει ὑπέρογκα; such words are meant which proceed from pride, in which man exalts himself, in contrast to the humility of the Christians submitting themselves to God. To this the parallel passage (2Pe 2:18) also points, where the expression ὑπέρογκα refers to boasting of ἐλευθερία. A participial clause is again added to this assertion, as in the former clause, likewise expressing a kind of contrast: θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα ὠφελείας χάριν. The expression θαυμάζειν πρόσωπα is in the N. T. ἅπ. λεγ.; in the O. T. comp. Gen 19:21, LXX.: ἐθαύμασά σου τὸ πρόσωπον; Heb. נָשָׂא פְנֵי; in other passages the LXX. have λαμβάνειν τὸ πρ. In Lev 19:15 the LXX. translate נָשָׂא פְנֵי by λαμβ. τὸ πρ.; on the other hand, הָדַר פְּנֵי by θαυμάζειν τὸ πρόσωπον. Whilst in the first passage the friendly attitude of God toward Abraham is expressed, in the second passage it has the bad meaning of partiality. It has also this meaning here: it is to be translated to render admiration to persons (Herder: to esteem; Arnaud: “admirer, honorer”). In this sense θαυμάζειν occurs in Sir 7:29 (comp. Lysias, Orat. 31, where it is said of death: οὔτε γὰρ τοὺς πονηροὺς ὑπερορᾷ, οὔτε τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς θαυμάζει, ἀλλʼ ἶσον ἑαυτὸν παρέχει πᾶσιν). This partial treatment of persons consisted in the flattering homage of those who hoped for some advantage from them, as ὠφελείας χάριν shows. It is unwarranted, with Hofmann, to interpret θαυμάζειν πρόσωπα: “to gratify and to please a person.” Proud boasting and cringing flattery form indeed a contrast, but yet are united together. Calvin: magniloquentiam taxat, quod se ipsos fastuose jactent: sed interea ostendit liberali esse ingenio, quia serviliter se dimittant.
θαυμάζοντες is not parallel with πορευόμενοι, but refers in a loose construction to αὐτῶν; by this construction the thought gains more independence than if θαυμαζόντων were written.
ὠφελείας χάριν] belongs not to the finite verb, but to the participle.
Jud 1:17-18. Jude now turns to his readers, comforting[42] and exhorting them in reference to the ungodly above described; see 2Pe 3:2-3.
ὑμεῖς δέ] an emphatic contrast to those above mentioned.
μνήσθητε] presupposes the words meant by Jude known to the readers, as learned from the apostles.
τῶν ῥημάτων τῶν προειρημένων] ῥῆμα; the word as an expression of thought. The προ in προειρημένων designates these words not as those which predict something future, but which were already spoken before (so also Hofmann).
ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων κ.τ.λ.] Jude would hardly have so expressed himself were he himself an apostle, which several expositors certainly do not grant, explaining this mode of expression partly from Jude’s modesty and partly from the circumstance that, except himself and John, the other apostles were already dead.
Jud 1:18. ὅτι ἔλεγον ὑμῖν] ὑμῖν here renders it probable that Jude means such sayings as the readers had heard from the mouth of the apostles themselves; yet the words which follow are not necessarily to be considered as a literally exact quotation, but may be a compression of the various predictions of the apostles concerning this subject.[43]
ἐπʼ ἐσχάτου [τοῦ] χρόνου] a designation of the time directly preceding the advent of Christ. In the reading ΤΟῦ ΧΡΌΝΟΥ, ἘΣΧΆΤΟΥ is the genitive neuter, as in Heb 1:1.
ἜΣΟΝΤΑΙ ἘΜΠΑῖΚΤΑΙ] only here and in 2Pe 3:3, a word occurring only in later Greek; the LXX. have translated תַּעֲלוּלִים by ἘΜΠ., as they render הִתְעַלֵּל by ἘΜΠΑΊΖΕΙΝ. Mockers, that is, men to whom the holy (not merely the resurrection, Grotius) serves for mockery. ΛΑΛΕῖΝ ὙΠΈΡΟΓΚΑ is a ἘΜΠΑΊΖΕΙΝ of the holy (which Hofmann without reason denies); this is naturally united with a surrender to their own lusts; therefore ΚΑΤᾺ ΤᾺς ἙΑΥΤῶΝ ἘΠΙΘΥΜΊΑς ΠΟΡΕΥΌΜΕΝΟΙ ΤῶΝ ἈΣΕΒΕΙῶΝ] ΤῶΝ ἈΣΕΒΕΙῶΝ, an echo of the saying of Enoch, is placed emphatically at the close, in order to render prominent the character and aim of ἘΠΙΘΥΜΊΑΙ.
That the apostles in their writings frequently prophesied of the entrance of heretical and ungodly men into the church, is well known; comp. Act 20:29; 1Ti 4:1; 2Ti 3:2 ff.; yet ἘΜΠΑΊΖΕΙΝ is not elsewhere stated as a characteristic mark of these men; this is only the case in 2Pe 3:3, where, however, the mockery is referred only to the denial of the advent of Christ.
[42] Why Jude should not have intended to comfort his readers by reminding them of what the apostles had, at an earlier period, said of the appearance of these men, as he here describes them, cannot be perceived (against Hofmann).
[43] Entirely without reason, Schott maintains that the intervening words: ὅτι ἔλεγον ὑμῖν, prove that Jude will here give a verbal quotation, and that this must be a writing earlier directed to the readers. ὅτι ἐλ. ὑμ. simply introduces the statement of the contents of the ῥήματα, which were earlier spoken by ths apostles. The plural is not to be referred to one apostle, and the verb does not in the least degree indicate that this word was written.
Jud 1:19. Final description of the false teachers, not specially, but according to their general nature.
οὗτοί εἰσιν] parallel with Jud 1:16.
οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες] the article marks the idea as definite: “these are they who,” etc.
ἀποδιορίζειν, a word which occurs only in Aristotle’s Polit. iv. 8. 9, is here very differently explained; with the reading ἑαυτούς it would most naturally be taken as equivalent to separate; thus, “who separate themselves from the church, whether internally or externally” (Wahl); without ἑαυτούς it is explained either as = to secede (Fronmüller), or = to cause separations and divisions, namely, in the church (Luther: “who make factions;” de Wette-Brückner, Wiesinger; so also in this commentary). Neither explanation is, however, justified from the use of the word διορίζειν. It is still more arbitrary, with Schott, to explain it: “who make a distinction, namely, between the pneumatical (Pneumatikern), as what they consider themselves, and the psychical (Psychikern), as what true Christians regard them;” for there is no indication of such a distinction made by them. If we base the explanation on the significance of διορίζειν, the word may be understood as = to make definitions. But in this case what follows must be closely connected with it, by which the mode and manner of their doing so is stated, namely, that they do so as psychical men, who are without the πνεῦμα. Hofmann gives to the verb the meaning: “to determine (define) something exactly in detail,” and then assumes that the preceding genitive τῶν ἀσεβειῶν depends on οἱ ἀποδιοριζόμενοι, which may well be the case, because a participle standing for a substantive may as well as a substantive govern the genitive. According to this explanation, Jude intends to describe those men as persons “who make impieties the object of an exercise of thought exactly defining everything, and so are the philosophers of impieties.” This explanation is condemned by the harsh and artificial construction which it requires.[44]
ψυχικοὶ, πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες] πνεῦμα is not man’s natural spirit,[45] for Jude could not deny this to his opponents; and to explain μὴ ἔχοντες in the sense: “I might say that they have no spirit at all” (Fronmüller), is completely arbitrary. It is rather to be understood of the Holy Spirit (de Wette-Brückner, Wiesinger, Hofmann); the want of the article and of an epithet, such as ἁγίου or Θεοῦ, is no objection against this interpretation, since the simple word πνεῦμα is often used in the N. T. as a designation for the objective Holy Spirit. It is erroneous to affirm that by this interpretation the conclusion of the description is too flat, for nothing worse can be said of a man who desires to be esteemed a Christian than that he wants the Holy Spirit. Moreover, only so understood does πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες correspond to the preceding ψυχικοί, to which it is added as an explanation; ψυχικοί they are, inasmuch as their natural spiritual life left to itself is under the unbroken power of the σάρξ; see 1Co 2:14-15; Jam 3:15.
[44] Certainly the dependent genitive may precede the governing substantive; but this union is here rendered impossible by the intervening οὗτοι. A participle also, taken as a substantive, may sometimes govern a genitive; but this is only found with the neuter, and then only rarely. Add to this that οὗτοί εἰσιν here corresponds to the οὗτοί εἰσιν in vv. 16 and 12, and accordingly must stand at the beginning of the sentence.
[45] Schott explains πνεῦμα “spiritual life in the distinctive character of its being, that it is self-controlled in personal self-consciousness and self-determination,” and so equivalent to “free personality of the spirit”(!); but this free personality, Schott further observes, is not denied to them in the sense as “if they were actually deprived of it,” but only that it “does not attain permanence and reality in actual performance.” This distorted interpretation is contradicted by the fact that Jude simply denies to them πνεῦμα ἔχειν.
REMARK.
Schott attempts to prove that the three verses, 12, 16, and 19, beginning with οὗτοι, refer to the threefold expression contained in Jud 1:11, namely, in this manner: that the Antinomians, in showing themselves to be σπιλάδες in their agapé (Jud 1:12), resembled Cain; that in being γογγυσταὶ μεμψίμοιροι, and out of greed for material gain indulging in mercenary flattery (Jud 1:16), they resembled Balaam; and that in establishing a self-invented ungodly sanctity in opposition to the divinely appointed and divinely effective Christian sanctity (Jud 1:19), they resembled Korah. This juxtaposition, however, is anything but appropriate, resting, on the one hand, on incorrect explanations; and, on the other hand, on the arbitrary selection of separate points. It is incorrect to affirm that the similarity of the Antinomians with Cain consisted in this, that what he did corporally they did spiritually; there is contained in this rather a distinction than a similarity. It is arbitrary to bring forward only the last clause of Jud 1:16, which reproaches the Antinomians with flattery, and which may also be found in Balaam; whereas the other expressions in the verse do not suit in the least degree. And lastly, it is erroneous so to interpret Jud 1:19 that the Antinomians were accused of the setting up of a false sanctity; even were this correct, yet the sanctity claimed by them is of a totally different nature from that to which Korah and his company laid claim.
Jud 1:20-21. Exhortation to the readers respecting themselves.
ὑμεῖς δὲ, ἀγαπητοί] as in Jud 1:17, in contrast to the persons and conduct of those mentioned in the last verse.
ἐποικοδομοῦντες κ.τ.λ.] The chief thought is contained in the exhortation ἑαυτοὺς ἐν ἀγάπῃ Θεοῦ τηρήσατε, to which the preceding ἐποικοδομοῦντες … προσευχόμενοι is subordinate, specifying by what the fulfilment of that exhortation is conditioned. Yet it is asked, whether προσευχόμενοι is connected with ἐποικοδομοῦντες, or is annexed as an independent sentence to the following imperative; and whether ἐν πν. ἁγίῳ is to be united with ἐποικοδ. or with προσευχόμενοι. These questions are difficult to decide with perfect certainty. Wiesinger and Schott apparently correctly unite ἐν πν. ἁγ. with προσευχόμενοι, and these taken together with what follows. Hofmann, on the other hand, unites ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ with what goes before, and προσευχόμενοι with what follows. In this construction, however, the structure of the participial clause becomes too clumsy; also ἐν πν. ἁγ. becomes superfluous, as ἐποκοδομεῖν ἑαυτούς cannot take place otherwise than ἐν πνεύματι ἁγ. It is true, Hofmann observes that ἐν πν. ἁγ. is superfluous with προσευχόμενοι, and that Jude could not intend to say how they should pray, but that they should pray. But this is erroneous, for τηρεῖν ἑαυτούς here mentioned depends not only on this, that one should pray, but that one should pray rightly, that is, ἐν πν. ἁγ. Wiesinger correctly observes, that the first clause gives the general presupposition; the second, on the other hand, the more precise statement how τηρήσατε has to be brought about.
τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ ὑμῶν πίστει] Both the adjective and the verb show that πίστις is here meant not in a subjective (the demeanour of faith, Schott), but in an objective sense (Wiesinger: “appropriated by them indeed as their personal possession, yet according to its contents as παραδοθεῖσα;” so similarly Hofmann).
ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτούς] When verbs compounded with ἐπί are joined with the dative, as here, this for the most part is used for ἐπί τι, more rarely for ἐπί τινι (see Winer, p. 400 f. [E. T. 535]). If the first is here the case, then ἐποικοδομεῖν τῇ πίστει is to be interpreted, with Wiesinger: “building on πίστις, so that πίστις is the foundation which supports their whole personal life, the soul of all their thinking, willing, and doing” (so also hitherto in this commentary);[46] comp. 1Co 3:12 : ἐποικοδομεῖν ἐπὶ τὸν θεμέλιον τοῦτον. If, on the other hand, the second is here the case, then it is to he explained, with Hofmann, “their faith is the foundation which supports their life; and accordingly, in the further development of their life it should ever be their care that their life rests upon this foundation;” comp. Eph 2:20 : ἐποικοδομηθέντες ἐπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ τῶν ἀποστόλων. The first is, however, to be preferred, because, as already remarked, with these verbs the dative mostly stands for ἐπί τι. Both explanations come essentially to the same thing.
ἑαυτούς is not here = ἀλλήλους; the discourse is indeed of a general, but not precisely of a mutual activity; ἑαυτούς with the second person creates no difficulty; comp. Php 2:12.
ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ προσευχόμενοι] The expression προσευχ. ἐν πν. ἁγ., it is true, does not elsewhere occur, but similar combinations are not rare (λαλεῖν ἐν πν. ἁγ., 1Co 12:3; see Meyer in loc.); it means so to pray that the Holy Spirit is the moving and guiding power (Jachmann, unsatisfactorily: “praying in consciousness of the Holy Ghost”); comp. Rom 8:26.
ἑαυτοὺς ἐν ἀγάπῃ Θεοῦ τηρήσατε] Θεοῦ may either be the objective genitive (Vorstius: charitas Dei passiva i. e. qua nos Deum diligimus; so also Jachmann, Arnaud, Hofmann, and others), or the subjective genitive, “the love of God to us” (so de Wette, Schott, Wiesinger, Fronmüller); in the latter case the thought is the same as in Joh 15:9-10; this agreement is in favour of that interpretation, nor is the want of the article opposed to it (against Hofmann). This keeping themselves in the love of God is combined with the hope of the future mercy of Christ, which has its ground, not in our love to God, but in God’s love to us; comp. Rom 5:8 ff.
προσδεχόμενοι τὸ ἔλεος τοῦ κυρίου κ.τ.λ.] On προσδεχ., Tit 2:15.
τὸ ἔλεος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν is the mercy which Christ will show to His own at His coming. Usually the idea ἔλεος is predicated not of the dealings of Christ, but of God; in the superscriptions of the Pastoral Epistles and of the Second Epistle of John, it is referred to God and Christ.
εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον] may be joined either with ἔλεος (de Wette), or with προσδεχόμενοι (Schott), or with τηρήσατε (Stier, Hofmann); since the imperative clause forms the main point, the last-mentioned combination deserves the preference, especially as both in προσδέχεσθαι and in ἔλεος Ἰησ. Χρ. the reference to ζωὴ αἰώνιος is already contained. The prominence here given to the Trinity, πνεῦμα ἅγιον, Θεός, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, as frequently in the N. T., is to be observed. With the exhortation contained in Jud 1:20-21, Jude has accomplished what he in Jud 1:3 stated to be the object of his writing.
[46] πίστις is the foundation, the θεμέλιος on which Christians should build themselves (more and more), by which the representation at the bottom is that they are not yet on all sides of their life on this foundation.
Jud 1:22-23. The exhortations contained in these verses refer to the conduct of believers toward those who are exposed to seduction by the ἀσεβεῖς (Jud 1:4) (de Wette); not toward the false teachers themselves (Reiche), for these are of such a kind (Jud 1:12) that the church should have nothing to do with them. The best attested text is that which codex A affords: καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένους· οὓς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, οὓς δὲ ἐλεεῖτε (Lachmann and Tischendorf, ἐλεᾶτε) ἐν φόβῳ; see critical remarks.
οὓς μὲν … οὓς δέ instead of τοὺς μὲν … τοὺς δέ, see Winer, p. 100. According to this reading, three classes of the seduced are distinguished, and toward each a special conduct is prescribed. It is, however, asked whether, as Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott, Reiche, and others assume, there is a gradation from the curable to the incurable (a dubitantibus minusque depravatis ad … insanabiles, quibus opem ferre pro tempore ab ipsorum contumacia prohibemur: Reiche); or conversely from the incurable to the curable. In reference to the first class it is said: οὓς μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένους] The verb ἐλέγχειν denotes to rebuke some one’s sins by punishing him. The object for which this is done is not indicated in the word itself; it may be to lead the sinner to the acknowledgment of his sins, and thus to repentance, comp. 1Co 14:24; 2Ti 4:2; Tit 1:13; or it may also be condemnation, comp. particularly Jude Jud 1:15 (Joh 16:8; Tit 1:9). The explanation of Oecumenius is incorrect: φανεροῦτε τοῖς πᾶσιν τὴν ἀσέβειαν αὐτῶν. Those who are to be punished are denoted διακρινομένους. Both the translation of the Vulgate: judicatos, and the interpretation of Oecumenius: κακείνους εἰ μὲν ἀποδιΐστανται ὑμῶν ἐλέγχετε, are incorrect. διακρίνεσθαι signifies in the N. T. either to contend, which is here unsuitable, or to doubt, and is opposed to πιστεύειν; comp. Mat 21:21; Mar 11:23; Rom 4:20; especially Jam 1:6. This last passage shows that, although not equivalent to ἀπιστεῖν, it denotes the condition in which ἀπιστία has the preponderance over πίστις, the latter being a vanishing point.[47] It is evident that Jude does not consider the ΔΙΑΚΡΙΝΌΜΕΝΟΙ as weak believers (Schott), because, with reference to them, he will employ no other method than ἐλέγχειν (not ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛΕῖΝ, or something similar); those seduced are in his view such as (punishment apart) are to be left to themselves.[48] In reference to the second class it is said: οὓς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες] Their condition is not stated, but it is to be inferred from the conduct to be observed towards them. Toward those belonging to this class a σώζειν is to be employed, but of such a nature as is more precisely stated by ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες. ἐκ πυρός is not from the fire of future judgment (Oecumenius, Fronmüller), but πῦρ is the present destruction, in which they already are (Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott); ἁρπάζειν denotes hasty, almost violent, snatching out, and indicates that those are already in extreme danger of perdition; comp. Amo 4:11; Zec 3:2. Distinguished from the διακρινομένοις, the second class are to be considered as those who have not yet lost the faith, but have, through fellowship with the Antinomians, been enticed to their licentious life; these are to be rescued. σώζετε is evidently in contrast to ἐλέγχετε, and denotes them to be such as one may certainly hope to rescue, provided one snatches them with violence, and tears them out of this fellowship. In reference to the third class, Jude prescribes ἐλεεῖν (on the form ἐλεᾶτε, see Winer, p. 32 [E. T. 104]). This verb in the N. T. never means only “to have compassion” (Schott), but always to compassionate one with helpful love, as also ἔλεος is always used only of active compassion; so that with ἐλεεῖτε the exact contrary is said to what Luther finds expressed, when he explains it: “let them go, avoid them, and have nothing to do with them.” By this is denoted rather the helpful and saving benevolence by which the erring are again to be brought back to the right way. As this ἐλεεῖν makes a fellowship necessary with those upon whom it is exercised, Jude defines the same more precisely by ἐν φόβῳ; accordingly, they must not be wanting in foresight, lest they suffer injury themselves,[49] and he adds the participial sentence as an explanation of this ἘΝ ΦΌΒῼ: ΜΙΣΟῦΝΤΕς ΚΑῚ Κ.Τ.Λ.[50] This exhortation shows that Jude considers the third class as those who are indeed already involved, but who, by active compassion, may again be re-established; it is not so bad with them as with those toward whom only ἐλέγχειν is to be employed; but also it is not yet so bad as with those who can only be rescued by hastily snatching them.
[47] When Hofmann says, “that διακρίνεσθαι cannot have this meaning requires no proof,” he makes an entirely groundless assumption.
[48] In the reading of the Rec.: οὓς μὲν ἐλεεῖτε διακρινόμενοι, we are obliged to explain διακρίνεσθαι as = distinguished. Luther: “and make this distinction, that ye compassionate some;” or, more exactly, “compassionate the one, making a distinction,” namely, from others. But διακρινόμενοι must be passive, since not διακρίνεσθαι, but only διακρίνειν, has the meaning to distinguish.
[49] Schott is entirely mistaken when he says that ἐλεεῖν denotes here “a compassion which has, and may have, its definite peculiarity no longer in an impulse to help, hut only in a fear of acting wrongly, and in consequence of receiving injury;” in other words, a compassion which is no compassion.
[50] According to the reading of the Rec. ἐν φόβῳ belongs to σώζετε. Some expositors (Grotius, Stier, and others) incorrectly explain it of the fear of the persons to he rescued; correctly Arnaud: c’est à dire, prenant garde que, tout en cherchant à les convertir, ils ne vous séduisent pas vous-memes. Reiche incorrectly, with the reading A, separates ἐν φόβῳ from ἐλεᾶτε, and joins it with μιτοῦντες, whilst it would attract to it a very superfluous addition.
Hofmann considers the reading of א: καὶ οὕς μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινομένους οὕς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ, as the correct one. In his explanation of this reading he distinguishes not three, but only two classes, assuming that only the first, but not the second οὓς δέ stands opposed to οὓς μέν; and that this latter οὓς δέ is to be considered rather as a resumption of the object mentioned in οὓς μέν. This opinion is, however, erroneous, since, according to it, the third οὕς is understood differently from the first and second οὕς, namely, as a pure relative pronoun; and since, in a highly arbitrary manner, “ἐν φόβῳ is explained as a consequence, united with an imperative ἐλεᾶτε to be taken from οὓς ἐλεᾶτε:” “whom ye compassionate, them compassionate with fear.” Also the explanation of the first member of the sentence: “the readers are to compassionate the one with distinction,” is to be rejected, since it has against it N. T. usage, according to which διακρίνεσθαι is never used as the passive of διακρίνειν in the sense of “to distinguish.”
ΚΑΊ, even, gives greater emphasis to the thought. The expression τὸν χιτῶνα is to be understood in a literal, and not in a figurative sense (Bullinger: exuvias veteris Adami, concupiscentias et opera carnis). ΧΙΤῶΝ is the under garment worn next the skin, and which, by means of its direct contact with the flesh unclean by unchastity, etc., is itself soiled (ΣΠΙΛΌΩ only here and in Jam 3:6); comp. Rev 3:4.
This garment is to the author the symbol of whatever, by means of external contact, shares in the moral destruction of those men. Calvin: vult fideles non tantum cavere a vitiorum contactu, sed ne qua ad eos contagio pertingat, quicquid affine est ac vicinum, fugiendum esse admonet.
[51] Both in the reading of the Rec. and in the reading of C this addition is surprising; one may regard it, with Jachmann, as the adversative reason of σώζετε (though ye hate); or, with de Wette, as the real reason (since ye hate, for which de Wette appeals to 1Co 5:6!).
Jud 1:24-25. CONCLUSION OF THE EPISTLE BY A DOXOLOGY.
Τῷ ΔῈ ΔΥΝΑΜΈΝῼ] THE SAME COMMENCEMENT OF THE DOXOLOGY IN Rom 16:27.
ὙΜᾶς] WERE ΑὐΤΟΎς THE CORRECT READING, WE COULD HARDLY DO OTHERWISE THAN REFER IT TO THE LAST-MENTIONED ΟὛς ΔΈ, TO WHICH IT IS UNSUITABLE, AS THEY ARE NOT ἌΠΤΑΙΣΤΟΙ, WHO, AS SUCH, REQUIRE ONLY ΦΥΛΆΣΣΕΙΝ. THAT JUDE ACTUALLY WROTE ΑὐΤΟΎς: “IN THE FLIGHT OF DEVOTION MAY HAVE TURNED FROM HIS READERS, AND SPOKE OF THEM IN THE THIRD PERSON” (DE WETTE), IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE.
ἈΠΤΑΊΣΤΟΥς] ἍΠ. ΛΕΓ., LITERALLY, WHO STRIKES NOT AGAINST; THEN FIGURATIVELY, WHO STUMBLES NOT, DOES NOT OFFEND; HERE IN THE MORAL SENSE AS ΠΤΑΊΩ, Jam 2:10; Jam 3:2; VULGATE: SINE PECCATO.
ΚΑῚ ΣΤῆΣΑΙ ΚΑΤΕΝΏΠΙΟΝ Τῆς ΔΌΞΗς ΑὙΤΟῦ ἈΜῶΜΟΥς] SCHOTT CORRECTLY REMARKS ON ΚΑΊ: THE SECOND EFFECT IS THE ULTIMATE RESULT OF THE FIRST, SO THAT ΚΑΊ MIGHT BE RENDERED BY AND SO, AND ACCORDINGLY. ΔΌΞΑ IS HERE THE GLORY OF GOD, AS IT WILL BE MANIFESTED AT THE DAY OF JUDGMENT. ON ΣΤῆΣΑΙ ἈΜΏΜΟΥς, COMP. 1Co 1:8; Col 1:22; 1Th 3:13. THE MEANING IS: “WHO CAN EFFECT IT THAT YE MAY APPEAR AS ἌΜΩΜΟΙ BEFORE HIS JUDGMENT-SEAT.”
ἘΝ ἈΓΑΛΛΙΆΣΕΙ] MENTIONS THE CONDITION IN WHICH CHRISTIANS WILL THEN BE FOUND; COMP. 1Pe 4:13.
Jud 1:25. ΜΌΝῼ ΘΕῷ] SEE Jud 1:4; Joh 5:44; Rom 16:27; 1Ti 1:17.
ΣΩΤῆΡΙ ἩΜῶΝ] MARKS, IN CONNECTION WITH ΔΙᾺ ἸΗΣΟῦ ΧΡ., THE ESSENTIAL CHRISTIAN ELEMENT IN THE IDEA OF GOD; ON ΣΩΤΉΡ AS A DESIGNATION OF GOD, COMP. 1Ti 1:1. SCHOTT INCORRECTLY JOINS ΜΌΝῼ ΘΕῷ WITH ΣΩΤῆΡΙ ἩΜῶΝ, AS IF IT MEANT: “TO HIM WHO ALONE IS GOD, IN SUCH A MANNER THAT HE IS OUR SAVIOUR;” AND THE REASON WHICH HE ASSIGNS: “BECAUSE ΜΌΝΟς ΘΕΌς IS NEVER USED BY ITSELF, BUT ALWAYS OCCURS AS A DESIGNATION OF GOD RELATIVE TO OTHER ATTRIBUTES,” IS CONTRADICTED BY Joh 5:44; ALSO BY 1Ti 1:17 AND JUDE Jud 1:4.
ΔΙᾺ ἸΗΣ. ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ] BELONGS TO ΣΩΤῆΡΙ ἩΜῶΝ (SCHOTT), NOT TO ΔΌΞΑ Κ.Τ.Λ. (WIESINGER); IN THIS LATTER CASE IT WOULD BE PUT AFTER ἘΞΟΥΣΊΑ.
ΔΌΞΑ, ΜΕΓΑΛΩΣΎΝΗ Κ.Τ.Λ.] ΔΌΞΑ AND ΚΡΆΤΟς OCCUR FREQUENTLY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT DOXOLOGIES (SEE 1Pe 4:11); ΜΕΓΑΛΩΣΎΝΗ AND ἘΞΟΥΣΊΑ ONLY HERE; ΜΕΓΑΛΩΣΎΝΗ CORRESPONDS TO THE HEBREW גֹּדֶל, COMP. Deu 32:3, LXX.: ΔΌΤΕ ΜΕΓΑΛΩΣΎΝΗΝ Τῷ ΘΕῷ ἩΜῶΝ.
ΠΡῸ ΠΑΝΤῸς ΤΟῦ ΑἸῶΝΟς] BY THESE WORDS, WANTING IN THE REC., THE IDEA OF ETERNITY IS EXPRESSED IN THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE MANNER. NOT ἜΣΤΩ, BUT ἘΣΤΊ (DE WETTE, SCHOTT), IS TO BE SUPPLIED; COMP. 1Pe 4:11.
ἈΜΉΝ] THE USUAL CONCLUSION OF DOXOLOGIES, AS IN Rom 1:15; 1Pe 4:11, ETC.; IT STANDS IN THE EPISTLES TO THE GALATIANS AND HEBREWS, PROBABLY ALSO IN 2 PETER, AS HERE, AT THE END OF THE EPISTLE.
1. Jude the servant of Jesus Christ. He calls himself the servant of Christ, not as the name applies to all the godly, but with respect to his apostleship; for they were deemed peculiarly the servants of Christ, who had some public office committed to them. And we know why the apostles were wont to give themselves this honorable name. Whosoever is not called, arrogates to himself presumptuously the right and authority of teaching. Then their calling was an evidence to the apostles, that they did not thrust themselves into their office through their own will. It was not, however, of itself sufficient to be appointed to their office, except they faithfully discharged it. And, no doubt, he who declares himself to be the servant of God, includes both these things, that is, that God is the bestower of the office which he exercises, and that he faithfully performs what has been committed to him. Many act falsely, and falsely boast to be what they are very far from being: we ought always to examine whether the reality corresponds with the profession.
And brother of James. He mentions a name more celebrated than his own, and more known to the churches. For though faithfulness of doctrine and authority do not depend on the names of mortal men, yet it is a confirmation to the faith, when the integrity of the man who undertakes the office of a teacher is made certain to us. Besides, the authority of James is not here brought forward as that of a private individual, but because he was counted by all the Church as one of the chief apostles of Christ. He was the son of Alpheus, as I have said elsewhere. Nay, this very passage is a sufficient proof to me against Eusebius and others, who say, that he was a disciple, named Oblias, [James,] mentioned by Luke, in Act 15:13; Act 21:18, who was more eminent than the apostles in the Church. (187) But there is no doubt but that Jude mentions here his own brother, because he was eminent among the apostles. It is, then, probable, that he was the person to whom the chief honor was conceded by the rest, according to what Luke relates.
To them that are sanctified by God the Father, or, to the called who are sanctified, etc. (188) By this expression, “the called,” he denotes all the faithful, because the Lord has separated them for himself. But as calling is nothing else but the effect of eternal election, it is sometimes taken for it. In this place it makes but little difference in which way you take it; for he, no doubt, commends the grace of God, by which he has been pleased to choose them as his peculiar treasure. And he intimates that men do not anticipate God, and that they never come to him until he draws them.
Of the same he says that they were sanctified in God the Father, which may be rendered, “by God the Father.” I have, however, retained the very form of the expression, that readers may exercise their own judgment. For it may be, that this is the sense, — that being profane in themselves, they had their holiness in God. But the way in which God sanctifies is, by regenerating us by his Spirit.
Another reading, which the Vulgate has followed, is somewhat harsh, “To the beloved (ἠγαπημένοις) in God the Father.” I therefore regard it as corrupt; and it is, indeed, found but in a few copies.
He further adds, that they were preserved in Jesus Christ. For we should be always in danger of death through Satan, and he might take us at any moment as an easy prey, were we not safe under the protection of Christ, whom the Father has given to be our guardian, so that none of those whom he has received under his care and shelter should perish.
Jude then mentions here a threefold blessing, or favor of God, with regard to all the godly, — that he has made them by his calling partakers of the gospel; that he has regenerated them, by his Spirit, unto newness of life; and that he has preserved them by the hand of Christ, so that they might not fall away from salvation.
(187) Some have held, that James, mentioned in the forecited places in Acts, was not James the apostle, but another James, a disciple, and one of the seventy, who was also called Oblias: but this is not correct. — Ed.
(188) So Beza renders the words, “To the called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved by Jesus Christ:” that is, to the effectually called, (as the word commonly means,) set apart and separated by God from the ungodly world, and kept by Christ, having been committed to his care and protection. — Ed.
2. Mercy to you. Mercy means nearly the same as grace in the salutations of Paul. Were any one to wish for a refined distinction, it may be said that grace is properly the effect of mercy; for there is no other reason why God has embraced us in love, but that he pitied our miseries. Love may be understood as that of God towards men, as well as that of men towards one another. (189) If it be referred to God, the meaning is, that it might increase towards them, and that the assurance of divine love might be daily more confirmed in their hearts. The other meaning is, however, not unsuitable, that God would kindle and confirm in them mutual love.
(189) As mercy is that of God, so it is more consistent to consider “peace” and “love’’ to be those of God: “may the mercy” of God, “and the peace” of God, “and the love” of God, “be increased (or multiplied) to you” — Ed.
3. When I gave diligence. I have rendered the words σπουδὴν ποιούμενος, “Applying care:” literally they are, “Making diligence.” But many interpreters explain the sentence in this sense, that a strong desire constrained Jude to write, as we usually say of those under the influence of some strong feeling, that they cannot govern or restrain themselves. Then, according to these expounders, Jude was under a sort of necessity, because a desire to write suffered him not to rest. But I rather think that the two clauses are separate, that though he was inclined and solicitous to write, yet a necessity compelled him. He then intimates, that he was indeed glad and anxious to write to them, but yet necessity urged him to do so, even because they were assailed (according to what follows) by the ungodly, and stood in need of being prepared to fight with them. (190)
Then, in the first place, Jude testifies that he felt so much concern for their salvation, that he wished himself, and was indeed anxious to write to them; and, secondly, in order to rouse their attention, he says that the state of things required him to do so. For necessity adds strong stimulants. Had they not been forewarned how necessary his exhortation was, they might have been slothful and negligent; but when he makes this preface, that he wrote on account of the necessity of their case, it was the same as though he had blown a trumpet to awake them from their torpor.
Of the common salvation. Some copies add “your,” but without reason, as I think; for he makes salvation common to them and to himself. And it adds not a little weight to the doctrine that is announced, when any one speaks according to his own feelings and experience; for vain is what we say, if we speak of salvation to others, when we ourselves have no real knowledge of it. Then, Jude professed himself to be (so to speak) an experimental teacher, when he associated himself with the godly in the participation of the same salvation.
And exhort you. Literally, “exhorting you;” but as he points out the end of his counsel, the sentence ought to be thus expressed. What I have rendered, “to help the faith by contending,” means the same as to strive in retaining the faith, and courageously to sustain the contrary assaults of Satan. (191) For he reminds them that in order to persevere in the faith, various contests must be encountered and continual warfare maintained. He says that faith had been once delivered, that they might know that they had obtained it for this end, that they might never fail or fall away.
(190) Then the rendering would be, “Beloved, when I was applying all care to write to you of the common salvation, I deemed (or found) it necessary to write to you, in order to exhort you to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.” Macknight and some others give another meaning to the first clause, and one more literal: “Beloved, making all haste to write to you, concerning the common salvation, I have thought it necessary,” etc. For this haste the Apostle gives a reason in the following verse, “For some men have stealthily crept in,” etc. This is the most obvious meaning of the passage. — Ed.
(191) The meaning of the verb is, to combat for, to strive, fight or contend for. It is a word derived from the games, and expresses a strenuous effort. Our version conveys well its meaning, “earnestly contend for the faith;” or, the words may be rendered, “strenuously combat for the faith;” not with the sword, says Beza, but with sound doctrine and the example of a holy life. — Ed
4. For there are certain men crept in unawares. Though Satan is ever an enemy to the godly, and never ceases to harass them, yet Jude reminds those to whom he was writing of the state of things at that time. Satan now, he says, attacks and harasses you in a peculiar manner; it is therefore necessary to take up arms to resist him. We hence learn that a good and faithful pastor ought wisely to consider what the present state of the Church requires, so as to accommodate his doctrine to its wants.
The word παρεισέδυσαν, which he uses, denotes an indirect and stealthy insinuation, by which the ministers of Satan deceive the unwary; for Satan sows his tares in the night, and while husbandmen are asleep, in order that he may corrupt the seed of God. And at the same time he teaches us that it is an intestine evil; for Satan in this respect also is crafty, as he raises up those who are of the flock to do mischief, in order that they may more easily creep in.
Before of old ordained. He calls that judgment, or condemnation, or a reprobate mind, by which they were led astray to pervert the doctrine of godliness; for no one can do such a thing except to his own ruin. But the metaphor is taken from this circumstance, because the eternal counsel of God, by which the faithful are ordained unto salvation, is called a book: and when the faithful heard that these were given up to eternal death, it behooved them to take heed lest they should involve themselves in the same destruction. It was at the same time the object of Jude to obviate danger, lest the novelty of the thing should disturb and distress any of them; for if these were already long ago ordained, it follows that the Church is not tried or exercised but according to the infallible counsel of God. (192)
The grace of our God. He now expresses more clearly what the evil was; for he says that they abused the grace of God, so as to lead themselves and others to take an impure and profane liberty in sinning. But the grace of God has appeared for a far different purpose, even that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we may live soberly, righteously, and godly in this world. Let us, then, know that nothing is more pestilential than men of this kind, who from the grace of Christ take a cloak to indulge in lasciviousness. (193)
Because we teach that salvation is obtained through God’s mercy alone, the Papists accuse us of this crime. But why should we use words to refute their effrontery, since we everywhere urge repentance, the fear of God, and newness of life, and since they themselves not only corrupt the whole world with the worst examples, but also by their ungodly teaching take away from the world true holiness and the pure worship of God? Though I rather think, that those of whom Jude speaks, were like the libertines of our time, as it will be more evident from what follows.
The only Lord God, or, God who alone is Lord. Some old copies have, “Christ, who alone is God and Lord.” And, indeed, in the Second Epistle of Peter, Christ alone is mentioned, and there he is called Lord. (194) But He means that Christ is denied, when they who had been redeemed by his blood, become again the vassals of the Devil, and thus render void as far as they can that incomparable price. That Christ, then, may retain us as his peculiar treasure, we must remember that he died and rose again for us, that he might have dominion over our life and death.
(192) The words literally are, “Who have been long ago (or, some time past) forewritten of for (or, as to) this judgment.” The reference is to prophecy; such creepers in for the purpose of corrupting the truth had been foretold; and this creeping in for such a purpose was a judgment for yielding up themselves to the delusions of Satan. The word πάλαι refers indefinitely to what is past, either long ago, or some time past. See Mat 11:21, and Mar 15:44. The reference may be to ancient prophecies, or to those of our Savior and his Apostles. — Ed
(193) “The grace of God” here is evidently the gospel. They transformed, says Grotius, the gospel to a libidinous doctrine. — Ed.
(194) Griesbach excludes Θεὸν, “God,” from the text: then the passage would correspond in sense, with 2. e 2:1; literally, “denying the only sovereign and Lord of us, Jesus Christ.” The word δεσπότην, sovereign, or master, is used by Jude as well as by Peter. It was not the grace, but the ruling power of Christ that was denied; they boasted of his grace, but did not submit to him as a king. Hence the word δεσπότης is used — one exercising absolute power. We may render the words, “denying our only sovereign and Lord, Jesus Christ.” — Ed
5. I will therefore put you in remembrance, or, remind you. He either modestly excuses himself, lest he should seem to teach as it were the ignorant things unknown to them; or, indeed, he openly declares in an emphatical manner, (which I approve more of,) that he adduced nothing new or unheard of before, in order that what he was going to say might gain more credit and authority. I only recall, he says, to your mind what you have already learnt. As he ascribes knowledge to them, so he says that they stood in need of warnings, lest they should think that the labor he undertook towards them was superfluous; for the use of God’s word is not only to teach what we could not have otherwise known, but also to rouse us to a serious meditation of those things which we already understand, and not to suffer us to grow torpid in a cold knowledge.
Now, the meaning is, that after having been called by God, we ought not to glory carelessly in his grace, but on the contrary, to walk watchfully in his fear; for if any trifles thus with God, the contempt of his grace will not be unpunished. And this he proves by three examples. He first refers to the vengeance which God executed on those unbelievers, whom he had chosen as his people, and delivered by his power. Nearly the same reference is made by Paul in 1. o 10:1. The import of what he says is, that those whom God had honored with the greatest blessings, whom he had extolled to the same degree of honor as we enjoy at this day, he afterwards severely punished. Then in vain were all they proud of God’s grace, who did not live in a manner suitable to their calling.
The word people is by way of honor taken for the holy and chosen nation, as though he had said that it availed them nothing, that they by a singular favor had been taken into covenant. By calling them unbelieving, he denotes the fountain of all evils; for all their sins, mentioned by Moses, were owing to this, because they refused to be ruled by God’s word. For where there is the subjection of faith, there obedience towards God necessarily appears in all the duties of life.
6. And the angels. This is an argument from the greater to the less; for the state of angels is higher than ours; and yet God punished their defection in a dreadful manner. He will not then forgive our perfidy, if we depart from the grace unto which he has called us. This punishment, inflicted on the inhabitants of heaven, and on such superior ministers of God, ought surely to be constantly before our eyes, so that we may at no time be led to despise God’s grace, and thus rush headlong into destruction.
The word ἀρχὴ in this place, may be aptly taken for beginning as well as for principality or dominion. For Jude intimates that they suffered punishment, because they had despised the goodness of God and deserted their first vocation. And there follows immediately an explanation, for he says that they had left their own habitation; for, like military deserters, they left the station in which they had been placed.
We must also notice the atrocity of the punishment which the Apostle mentions. They are not only free spirits but celestial powers; they are now held bound by perpetual chains. They not only enjoyed the glorious light of God, but his brightness shone forth in them, so that from them, as by rays, it spread over all parts of the universe; now they are sunk in darkness. But we are not to imagine a certain place in which the devils are shut up, for the Apostle simply intended to teach us how miserable their condition is, since the time they apostatized and lost their dignity. For wherever they go, they drag with them their own chains, and remain involved in darkness. Their extreme punishment is in the meantime, deferred until the great day comes.
7. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha. This example is more general, for he testifies that God, excepting none of mankind, punishes without any difference all the ungodly. And Jude also mentions in what follows, that the fire through which the five cities perished was a type of the eternal fire. Then God at that time exhibited a remarkable example, in order to keep men in fear till the end of the world. Hence it is that it is so often mentioned in Scripture; nay, whenever the prophets wished to designate some memorable and dreadful judgment of God, they painted it under the figure of sulfurous fire, and alluded to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha. It is not, therefore, without reason that Jude strikes all ages with terror, by exhibiting the same view.
When he says, the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, I do not apply these words to the Israelites and the angels, but to Sodom and Gomorrha. It is no objection that the pronoun τούτοις is masculine, for Jude refers to the inhabitants and not to the places. To go after strange flesh, is the same as to be given up to monstrous lusts; for we know that the Sodomites, not content with the common manner of committing fornication, polluted themselves in a way the most filthy and detestable. We ought to observe, that he devotes them to eternal fire; for we hence learn, that the dreadful spectacle which Moses describes, was only an image of a much heavier punishment.
8. Likewise also these. This comparison is not to be pressed too strictly, as though he compared these whom he mentions in all things to be Sodomites, or to the fallen angels, or to the unbelieving people. He only shews that they were vessels of wrath appointed to destruction, and that they could not escape the hand of God, but that he would some time or another make them examples of his vengeance. For his design was to terrify the godly to whom he was writing, lest they should entangle themselves in their society.
But he begins here more clearly to describe these impostors. And he says first, that they polluted their flesh as it were by dreaming, by which words he denotes their stupid effrontery, as though he had said that they abandoned themselves to all kinds of filth, which the most wicked abhor, except sleep took away shame and also consciousness. It is then a metaphorical mode of speaking, by which he intimates that they were so dull and stupid as to give up themselves without any shame to every kind of baseness. (195)
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 honor.
(195) The “dreaming” is connected with the three things which follow, defiling the flesh, despising government and slandering dignities. Hence the idea conveyed by our version, in which filthy is introduced, is by no means correct. Allusion seems to be made to the pretensions of false prophets in former times. See Jer 23:25. The false prophets taught what they pretended to see in dreams, as dreams as well as visions were vouchsafed to true prophets. See Joe 2:28. It is not improbable that those referred to here pretended that they had received what they taught., by supernatural dreams; for how otherwise could they deceive others, especially respecting errors so gross and palpable as are here mentioned? The eighth verse is, as to its construction, connected with the seventh. The ὡς and the ὁμοίως are corresponding terms; “as Sodom and Gomorrha, etc., are set forth for an example, in like manner also these would be.” This is the drift of the passage; —
8.“In like manner, indeed, shall also these dreamers be that is,
an example of divine vengeance,
who defile the flesh, despise dominion, and revile dignities.”
Peter threatened them with “swift destruction,” 2. e 2:1. There are here three things mentioned which apply to the three instances previously adduced: like the Sodomites they defiled the flesh; like the fallen angels they despised dominion; and like the Israelites in the wilderness, they reviled dignities; for it was especially by opposing the power given to Moses that the Israelites manifested their unbelief. — Ed.
9. Yet Michael the archangel. Peter gives this argument shorter, and states generally, that angels, far more excellent than men, dare not bring forward a railing judgment. [2. e 2:11.]
But as this history is thought to have been taken from an apocryphal book, it has hence happened that less weight has been attached to this Epistle. But since the Jews at that time had many things from the traditions of the fathers, I see nothing unreasonable in saying that Jude referred to what had already been handed down for many ages. I know indeed that many puerilities had obtained the name of tradition, as at this day the Papists relate as traditions many of the silly dotages of the monks; but this is no reason why they should not have had some historical facts not committed to writing.
It is beyond controversy that Moses was buried by the Lord, that is, that his grave was concealed according to the known purpose of God. And the reason for concealing his grave is evident to all, that is, that the Jews might not bring forth his body to promote superstition. What wonder then is it, when the body of the prophet was hidden by God, Satan should attempt to make it known; and that angels, who are ever ready to serve God, should on the other hand resist him? And doubtless we see that Satan almost in all ages has been endeavoring to make the bodies of God’s saints idols to foolish men. Therefore this Epistle ought not to be suspected on account of this testimony, though it is not found in Scripture.
That Michael is introduced alone as disputing against Satan is not new. We know that myriads of angels are ever ready to render service to God; but he chooses this or that to do his business as he pleases. What Jude relates as having been said by Michael, is found also in the book of Zechariah,
“Let God chide (or check) thee, Satan.”
(Zec 3:2.)
And it is a comparison, as they say, between the greater and the less. Michael dared not to speak more severely against Satan (though a reprobate and condemned) than to deliver him to God to be restrained; but those men hesitated not to load with extreme reproaches the powers which God had adorned with peculiar honors.
10. But these speak evil of those things which they know not. He means that they had no taste for anything but what was gross, and as it were beastly, and therefore did not perceive what was worthy of honor; and that yet they added audacity to madness, so that they feared not to condemn things above their comprehension; and that they also labored under another evil — for when like beasts they were carried away to those things which gratified the senses of the body, they observed no moderation, but gorged themselves excessively like the swine which roll themselves in stinking mud. The adverb naturally is set in opposition to reason and judgment for the instinct of nature alone rules in brute animals; but reason ought to govern men and to bridle their appetites.
11. Woe unto them. It is a wonder that he inveighs against them so severely, when he had just said that it was not permitted to an angel to bring a railing accusation against Satan. But it was not his purpose to lay down a general rule. He only shewed briefly, by the example of Michael, how intolerable was their madness when they insolently reproached what God honored. It was certainly lawful for Michael to fulminate against Satan his final curse; and we see how vehemently the prophets threatened the ungodly; but when Michael forbore extreme severity (otherwise lawful), what madness was it to observe no moderation towards those excelling in glory? But when he pronounced woe on them, he did not so much imprecate evil on them, but rather reminded them what sort of end awaited them; and he did so, lest they should carry others with them to perdition.
He says that they were the imitators of Cain, who being ungrateful to God and perverting his worship through an ungodly and wicked heart, forfeited his birthright. He says that they were deceived like Balaam by a reward, because they adulterated the doctrine of true religion for the sake of filthy lucre. But the metaphor he uses, expresses something more; for he says that they overflowed, even because their excess was like overflowing water. He says in the third place, that they imitated the contradiction of Core, because they disturbed the order and quietness of the church.
12. These are spots in your feasts of charity. They who read, “among your charities,” do not, as I think, sufficiently explain the true meaning. For he calls those feasts charities, (ἀγάπαις,) which the faithful had among themselves for the sake of testifying their brotherly unity. Such feasts, he says, were disgraced by impure men, who afterwards fed themselves to an excess; for in these there was the greatest frugality and moderation. It was then not right that these gorgers should be admitted, who afterwards indulged themselves to an excess elsewhere.
Some copies have, “Feasting with you,” which reading, if approved, has this meaning, that they were not only a disgrace, but that they were also troublesome and expensive, as they crammed themselves without fear, at the public expense of the church. Peter speaks somewhat different, [2. e 2:13,] who says that they took delight in errors, and feasted together with the faithful, as though he had said that they acted inconsiderately who cherished such noxious serpents, and that they were very foolish who encouraged their excessive luxury. And at this day I wish there were more judgment in some good men, who, by seeking to be extremely kind to wicked men, bring great damage to the whole church.
Clouds they are without water. The two similitudes found in Peter are here given in one, but to the same purpose, for both condemn vain ostentation: these unprincipled men, though promising much, were yet barren within and empty, like clouds driven by stormy winds, which give hope of rain, but soon vanish into nothing. Peter adds the similitude of a dry and empty fountain; but Jude employs other metaphors for the same end, that they were trees fading, as the vigor of trees in autumn disappears. He then calls them trees unfruitful, rooted up, and twice dead; (196) as though he had said, that there was no sap within, though leaves might appear.
(196) “Twice dead” is deemed by some a proverbial expression to signify what is altogether dead; or, as by Macknight, it means that they were dead when professing Judaism, and dead after having made a profession of the gospel. — Ed.
13. Raging waves of the sea. Why this was added, we may learn more fully from the words of Peter: [2. e 2:17 ] it was to shew, that being inflated with pride, they breathed out, or rather cast out the scum of high-flown stuff of words in grandiloquent style. At the same time they brought forth nothing spiritual, their object being on the contrary to make men as stupid as brute animals. Such, as it has been before stated, are the fanatics of our day, who call themselves Libertines. You may justly say that they make only rumbling sounds; for, despising common language, they form for themselves an exotic idiom, I know not what. They seem at one time to carry their disciples above heaven, then they suddenly fall down to beastly errors, for they imagine a state of innocency in which there is no difference between baseness and honesty; they imagine a spiritual life, when fear is extinguished, and when every one heedlessly indulges himself; they imagine that we become gods, because God absorbs the spirits when they quit their bodies. With the more care and reverence ought the simplicity of Scripture to be studied, lest, by reasoning more refinedly than is right, we should not draw men to heaven, but on the contrary be involved in manifold labyrinths. He therefore calls them wandering stars, because they dazzled the eyes by a sort of evanescent light.
14. And Enoch also. I rather think that this prophecy was unwritten, than that it was taken from an apocryphal book; for it may have been delivered down by memory to posterity by the ancients. (197) Were any one to ask, that since similar sentences occur in many parts of Scripture, why did he not quote a testimony written by one of the prophets? the answer is obvious, that he wished to repeat from the oldest antiquity what the Spirit had pronounced respecting them: and this is what the words intimate; for he says expressly that he was the seventh from Adam, in order to commend the antiquity of the prophecy, because it existed in the world before the flood.
But I have said that this prophecy was known to the Jews by being reported; but if any one thinks otherwise, I will not contend with him, nor, indeed, respecting the epistle itself, whether it be that of Jude or of some other. In things doubtful, I only follow what seems probable.
Behold, the Lord cometh, or came. The past tense, after the manner of the prophets, is used for the future. He says, that the Lord would come with ten thousand of his saints; (198) and by saints he means the faithful as well as angels; for both will adorn the tribunal of Christ, when he shall descend to judge the world. He says, ten thousand, as Daniel also mentions myriads of angels, (Dan 7:10;) in order that, the multitude of the ungodly may not, like a violent sea, overwhelm the children of God; but that they may think of this, that the Lord will sometime collect his own people, a part of whom are dwelling in heaven, unseen by us, and a part are hid under a great mass of chaff.
(197) This is the most common opinion. There is no evidence of such a book being known for some time after this epistle was written; and the book so called was probably a forgery, occasioned by this reference to Enoch’s prophecy. See Macknight ’s Preface to this Epistle. Until of late, it was supposed to be lost; but in 1821, the late Archbishop Laurence, having found an Ethiopia version of it, published it with a translation. — Ed.
(198) Literally, “with his holy myriads.” — Ed
But the vengeance suspended over the wicked ought to keep the elect in fear and watchfulness. He speaks of deeds and words, Because their corrupters did much evil, not only by their wicked life, but also by their impure and false speech. And their words were hard, on account of the refractory audacity, by which, being elated, they acted insolently. (199)
(199) There seems to be a want of due order in the 15th verse; the execution of judgment is mentioned first, and then the conviction of the ungodly; but it is an order which exactly corresponds with numberless passages in Scripture: the final action first, and then that which lends to it. — Ed.
16. These are murmurers. They who indulge their depraved lusts, are hard to please, and morose, so that they are never satisfied. Hence it is, that they always murmur and complain, however kindly good men may treat them. (200) He condemns their proud language, because they haughtily made a boast of themselves; but at the same time he shews that they were mean in their disposition, for they were servilely submissive for the sake of gain. And, commonly, this sort of inconsistency is seen in unprincipled men of this kind. When there is no one to check their insolence, or when there is nothing that stands in their way, their pride is intolerable, so that they imperiously arrogate everything to themselves; but they meanly flatter those whom they fear, and from whom they expect some advantage. He takes persons as signifying eternal greatness and power.
(200) We may render the words “Grumblers and fault-finders,” that is, as the word means, with their own lot: they grumbled or murmured against others, and were discontented with their own condition; and yet walked in such a way (that is, in indulging their lusts,) as made their lot worse and occasioned still more grumbling. — Ed.
17. But, beloved. To a most ancient prophecy he now adds the admonitions of the apostles, the memory of whom was recent. As to the verb μνήσθητε, it makes no great difference, whether you read it as declarative or as an exhortation; for the meaning remains the same, that being fortified by the prediction he quotes, they ought to be terrified.
By the last time he means that in which the renewed condition of the Church received a fixed form till the end of the world; and it began at the first coming of Christ.
After the usual manner of Scripture, he calls them scoffers who, being inebriated with a profane and impious contempt of God, rush headlong into a brutal contempt of the Divine Being, so that no fear nor reverence keeps them any longer within the limits of duty: as no dread of a future judgment exists in their hearts, so no hope of eternal life. So at this day the world is full of Epicurean despisers of God, who having cast off every fear, madly scoff at the whole doctrine of true religion, regarding it as fabulous.
19. These be they who separate themselves. Some Greek copies have the participle by itself, other copies add ἑαυτοὺς, “themselves;” but the meaning is nearly the same. He means that they separated from the Church, because they would not bear the yoke of discipline, as they who indulge the flesh dislike spiritual life. (201) The word sensual, or animal, stands opposed to spiritual, or to the renovation of grace; and hence it means the vicious or corrupt, such as men are when not regenerated. For in that degenerated nature which we derive from Adam, there is nothing but what is gross and earthly; so that no part of us aspires to God, until we are renewed by his Spirit.
(201) This is the common interpretation, and yet it seems inconsistent with what is previously said of these men, that they crept in stealthily, and “feasted” with the members of the Church. The ἑαυτοὺς, though retained by Griesbach, is excluded by Wetstein and others, being absent from most of the MSS. The verb ἀποδιορίζω, means to separate by a boundary two portions from one another, and hence metaphorically to separate or cause divisions: “These be they who cause divisions.” They were doing the same thing as those mentioned by Paul in Rom 16:17. They were producing discordsin the Church, and not separationsfrom it; and by continuing in it, they became “spots and stains” to its members. — Ed
20. But ye, beloved. He shews the manner in which they could overcome all the devices of Satan, that is, by having love connected with faith, and by standing on their guard as it were in their watch-tower, until the coming of Christ. But as he uses often and thickly his metaphors, so he has here a way of speaking peculiar to himself, which must be briefly noticed.
He bids them first to build themselves on faith; by which he means, that the foundation of faith ought to be retained, but that the first instruction is not sufficient, except they who have been already grounded on true faith, went on continually towards perfection. He calls their faith most holy, in order that they might wholly rely on it, and that, leaning on its firmness, they might never vacillate.
But since the whole perfection of man consists in faith, it may seem strange that he bids them to build upon it another building, as though faith were only a commencement to man. This difficulty is removed by the Apostle in the words which follow, when he adds, that men build on faith when love is added; except, perhaps, some one may prefer to take this meaning, that men build on faith, as far as they make proficiency in it, and doubtless the daily progress of faith is such, that itself rises up as a building. (202) Thus the Apostle teaches us, that in order to increase in faith, we must be instant in prayer and maintain our calling by love.
Praying in the Holy Ghost. The way of persevering is, when we are endued with the power of God. Hence whenever the question is respecting the constancy of faith, we must flee to prayer. And as we commonly pray in a formal manner, he adds, In the Spirit; as though he had said, that such is our sloth, and that such is the coldness of our flesh, that no one can pray aright except he be roused by the Spirit of God; and that we are also so inclined to diffidence and trembling, that no one dares to call God his Father, except through the teaching of the same Spirit; for from him is solicitude, from him is ardor and vehemence, from him is alacrity, from him is confidence in obtaining what we ask; in short, from him are those unutterable groanings mentioned by Paul (Rom 8:26.) It is not, then, without reason that Jude teaches us, that no one can pray as he ought without having the Spirit as his guide.
(202) It is better to take “faith” here metonymically for the word or doctrine of faith, the gospel; and the sense would be more evident, were we to render ἑαυτοὺς, “one another,” as it means in 1. h 5:13
20.“But ye, beloved, building one another on your most holy faith,
(on the most holy doctrine which you believe,) praying by the
21. Holy Spirit, keep one another in love to God,
waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life.
And on some, indeed, have compassion, making a difference;
but others save with fear,” etc.
The whole passage would read thus better, when their duty towards one another is specifically pointed out. — Ed.
21. Keep yourselves in the love of God. He has made love as it were the guardian and the ruler of our life; not that he might set it in opposition to the grace of God, but that it is the right course of our calling, when we make progress in love. But as many things entice us to apostasy, so that it is difficult to keep us faithful to God to the end, he calls the attention of the faithful to the last day. For the hope of that alone ought to sustain us, so that we may at no time despond; otherwise we must necessarily fail every moment.
But it ought to be noticed that he would not have us to hope for eternal life, except through the mercy of Christ: for he will in such a manner be our judge, as to have no other rule in judging us than that gratuitous benefit of redemption obtained by himself.
22. And of some have compassion. He adds another exhortation, shewing how the faithful ought to act in reproving their brethren, in order to restore them to the Lord. He reminds them that such ought to be treated in different ways, every one according to his disposition: for to the meek and teachable we ought to use kindness; but others, who are hard and perverse, must be subdued by terror. (203) This is the difference which he mentions.
The participle διακρινόμενοι, I know not why this is rendered in a passive sense by Erasmus. It may, indeed, be rendered in either way, but its active meaning is more suitable to the context. The meaning then is, that if we wish to consult the well-being of such as go astray, we must consider the character and disposition of every one; so that they who are meek and tractable may in a kind manner be restored to the right way, as being objects of pity; but if any be perverse, he is to be corrected with more severity. And as asperity is almost hateful, he excuses it on the ground of necessity; for otherwise, they who do not willingly follow good counsels, cannot he saved.
Moreover, he employs a striking metaphor. When there is a danger of fire, we hesitate not to snatch away violently whom we desire to save; for it would not be enough to beckon with the finger, or kindly to stretch forth the hand. So also the salvation of some ought to be cared for, because they will not come to God, except when rudely drawn. Very different is the old translation, which reading is however found in many of the Greek copies; the Vulgate is, “Rebuke the judged,” (Arguite dijudicatos .) But the first meaning is more suitable, and is, I think, according to the old and genuine reading. The word to save, is transferred to men, not that they are the authors, but the ministers of salvation.
(203) Though most agree that by “fear” here is meant terror, that is, that the persons referred to are to be terrified by the judgment which awaited them; yet what follows seems favorable to another view, that fear means the care and caution with which they were to be treated; for the act of saving them is compared to that of a man snatching anything from the fire, in doing which he must be careful lest he himself should be burnt; and then the other comparison, that of a man shunning an infected garment lest he should catch the contagion, favors the same view. Hence our version seems right — “with fear.” — Ed.
23. Hating even the garment. This passage, which otherwise would appear obscure, will have no difficulty in it, when the metaphor is rightly explained. He would have the faithful not only to beware of contact with vices, but that no contagion might reach them, he reminds them that everything that borders on vices and is near to them ought to be avoided: as, when we speak of lasciviousness, we say that all excitements to lusts ought to be removed. The passage will also become clearer, when the whole sentence is filled up, that is, that we should hate not only the flesh, but also the garment, which, by a contact with it, is infected. The particle καὶ even serves to give greater emphasis. He, then, does not allow evil be cherished by indulgence, so that he bids all preparations and all accessories, as they say, to be cut off.
24Now unto him that is able to keep you. He closes the Epistle with praise to God; by which he shews that our exhortations and labors can do nothing except through the power of God accompanying them. (204)
Some copies have “them” instead of “you.” If we receive this reading, the sense will be, “It is, indeed, your duty to endeavor to save them; but it is God alone who can do this” However, the other reading is what I prefer; in which there is an allusion to the preceding verse; for after having exhorted the faithful to save what was perishing, that they might understand that all their efforts would be vain except God worked with them, he testifies that they could not be otherwise saved than through the power of God. In the latter clause there is indeed a different verb, φυλάξαι, which means to guard; so the allusion is to a remoter clause, when he said, Keep yourselves
END OF THE EPISTLE OF JUDE
(204) The doxology is as follows, —
“To the only wise God (or, to the wise God alone) our Savior, be glory and greatness, might and dominion, both now and through all ages.”
“Dominion” (ἐξουσία) is the right to govern, imperial authority or power; “might” (κράτος) is strength to effect his purpose, omnipotence; “greatness” (μεγαλωσύνη) comprises knowledge, wisdom, holiness, and everything that constitutes what is really great and magnificent; and (δόξα) is the result of all these things which belong to God; all terminate in his glory. The ultimate issue is first mentioned, then the things which lead to it. It is by acknowledging his sovereign power, his capacity to exercise that power — his omnipotence, and his greatness in everything that constitutes greatness, that we give him the glory, the honor, and the praise due to his name. — Ed.
Jud 1:1. And brother of James,- He might also have called himself the brother of our Lord, for he was nearly related to the Lord Jesus Christ, according to the flesh; but though the evangelists have given them that title, yet neither Jude, nor his brother James, have ever taken it to themselves: perhaps they avoided it out of their great humility, or to intimate that, though they had known Christ after the flesh, or valued themselves for being related to him, yet now henceforth they knew him so no more, nor valued themselves so much upon that account, as in their being his faithful servants. Preserved in Jesus Christ, means, "preserved in that hour of temptation, when so many false teachers had corrupted the gospel, and such numbers of Christians had fallen from the purity of it." As they retained their integrity, they would be preserved from the judgments which were coming upon those who had fallen away; and they might depend upon it, that, if faithful unto death, they should in due time receive their reward.
Jud 1:3. Beloved, when I gave all diligence, &c.- This verse, about the sense of which commentators have strangely disagreed, maybe thus paraphrased: "Beloved, when I was studiously thoughtful about, and earnestly applied to the work of sending an epistle to you, concerning that spiritual salvation, which is common to you and me, and all true believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, and is proposed and recommended in the gospel to the acceptance of all sinners, to whom it is preached with this assurance, that whoever cometh to Christ, he will in no wise cast him out, (Joh 6:37.)-I saw this to be a point of such vast importance, and so vehemently struck at in this day of sad defection and of intriguing, as well as of violent methods to overthrow it, that I thought it necessary, under divine suggestion, to write to you about it, and stir you up by every consideration relating to your own safety and comfort and the glory of Christ and of God in him, to exert yourselves, in a humble dependance on divine grace, with the utmost vigour, even, as it were, to an agony of labour and concern (επαγωνιζεσθαι ), in maintaining, defending, and practising the pure and uncorrupted doctrine of faith in its full extent, with respect to the person, offices, grace, and government of the Lord Christ, which was once delivered by him to his holyapostles, and, by them to the church, consisting of believers that are holy in heart and life; and which was committed as a trust and treasure to them, that they might keep it faithfully, and transmit it to posterity, and not suffer it to be altered, or wrested out of their hands, by any means whatever. I say there is great need that I should write to you about this."
Jud 1:4. For there are certain men crept in, &c.- The creeping in unawares, in St. Jude, has a plain resemblance and reference to the privily bringing in mentioned by St. Peter, 2Pe 2:1. Both the words in the original are formed upon the same sentiment, and are meant to describe the craft and subtle insinuation of the new false teachers. The turning the grace of God into lasciviousness in St. Jude, answers to the damnable heretics in St. Peter. Instead of ordained, the word,
προγεγραμμενοι rather signifies described, or set forth of old. Doddridge observes well upon this verse, that προγεγραμμενοι may well signifydescribed, or put upon record; that is, "whose character and condemnation may be considered as described in the punishment of other notorious sinners, who were a kind of representatives of them:" which interpretation, says he, I prefer to any other, as it tends to clear God of that heavy imputation which it must bring upon his moral attributes, to suppose that he appoints men to sin against him, and then condemns them for doing what they could not but do, and what they were, independent on their own freedom of choice, fated to: a doctrine so pregnant with gloom, and, as I should fear, with fatal consequences, that I think it part of the duty I owe to the word of God, to rescue it from the imputation of containing such a tenet. Dr. Benson very justly observes, that the word κριμα does not denote their sin, but the condemnation of them because of their sin; and that παλαι, of old, does not signify "from all eternity," but "from a former time, or a time long since past:" and I would propose it as a query, says he, whether they have not, in later ages, turned the grace of God into licentiousness, who have held that men are decreed unto salvation, absolutely and unconditionally, or without any regard to their virtue and piety; that God sees no sin in believers; that good works are in no sense necessary to salvation; that God loves men never the better because of their holiness, nor ever the worse because of their unholiness. I do not suppose that all who have professed these, and the like opinions, have held the consequences, or even perceived them; but the query is, Whether the opinions do not tend to licentiousness? The last clause of this verse affords a strong proof of the Divinity of our Saviour.
Jud 1:5. Though ye once knew this,- Though ye fully, or perfectly. See Jud 1:3. The Christians to whom St. Jude writes, had formerly been of the Jewish religion, and were therefore well acquainted with the Old Testament, from their hearing it read in the synagogue every Sabbath-day. It is intimated in the latter clause, that the grand corrupters of the gospel referred to, were guilty of unbelief or disobedience to God; in which if they persisted, all their Christian privileges would not prevent their destruction.
Jud 1:6. And the angels which kept not, &c.- St. Peter, 2nd Epistle, 2Pe 2:4 speaks of the angels that sinned; St. Jude gives it as an account of their sin, that they kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation. This account of the angels' sin is recorded only in this passage of sacred writ. The very same difference may be observed in setting forth the example of Sodom and Gomorrha; which is common to both epistles. St. Peter speaks only of their judgment, and of their being made an example to sinners: St. Jude adds an account of their crime, and, though the images and ideas are the same, yet the turn of expression is very different. Instead of their first estate (αρχην ), Dr. Heylin, after Cudworth, renders it their principality. Instead of their own habitation, some would understand the word οικητηριον in the same sense wherein it is used 2Co 5:2 for the vestment of glory wherewith the saints are clothed in the future state. Hence it was, very probably, that Dr. Cudworth was led to interpret it of the celestial body of the angels, which they changed when they fell, for an airy and obscure one. However, be this as it may, St. Jude might design to intimate, either that they left the peculiar Presence, which was their proper habitation; orthat they lost their glory with their innocence, as all of them did. OEcumenius says, "They left the honour of the angelic dignity." By this instance St. Jude designed to condemn the pride and apostacy of those false teachers and corrupt Christians.
Jud 1:7. And the cities about them in like manner, &c.- That is, "In like manner with their neighbours in Sodom and Gomorrha." Dr. Heylin gives the passage a very just turn: and the adjacent cities who were guilty of the same prostitution, in following unnatural lusts. The whole verse may be thus paraphrased: "Utter destruction shall certainly and suddenly come from the Lord upon all such: even as it did on the infamously wicked people of Sodom and Gomorrah, and of the neighbouring cities of Adma and Zeboim, in storms of fire and brimstone, rained down from heaven upon them for the flagitious crimes which they greedily committed. The perpetual desolation of that wicked people, and of their cities, the evident marks of which remain to this day, is exhibited in the sacred history, and in providence, to open view, as an example of God's tremendous vengeance, which carries a lively emblem of the everlasting destruction of all the wicked and ungodly in hell-fire."
Jud 1:8. Likewise also- Nevertheless these dreamers also, &c.] The connection is, "Though there are so many examples upon record of God's just displeasure against the wicked; nevertheless, these dreamers also, in like manner with the ancient inhabitants of Sodom, defile the flesh with their lewd practices, despise government, and rail against the persons who are exalted to power and dignity." Vicious persons are represented in scripture as being asleep, Rom 13:11. 1Co 15:34. 1Th 5:6 and here, as dreaming idle dreams; turning the grace of God into licentiousness, and promising themselves and their disciples security and lasting happiness in those courses which the gospel condemned. St. Jude had given three instances of God's inflicting punishment upon his rational creatures for their sin; namely, those of the Israelites, wicked angels, and Sodomites: the crimes were different; ingratitude and reproachful complaints against their supreme Governor, in the Israelites; pride in the fallen angels; and sensuality in the Sodomites. Here he seems to charge all those crimes upon these corrupt Christians; first, sensuality, then pride, and lastly, reproachful insults and reflections upon the higher powers. Instead of these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, Heylin has it, These men, indulging their filthy imaginations, pollute themselves.
Jud 1:9. Michael the archangel,- St. Peter, 2 Eph 2:11 in reproof of the presumptuous and self-willed, who speak evil of dignities, says, that angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord; but here St. Jude has given us the history to which this belongs. See on Jud 1:6. What the ground of the controversy between the devil and Michael was, may, in the opinion of Archbishop Tillotson and others, be explained by Deu 34:6 where it is said that God took particular care concerning the burying of Moses in a certain valley; and it is added, But no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. Had the devil been able to discover to the Jews the place where Moses was interred, they would afterwards most probably have paid an idolatrous honour to his remains; and it would have gratified his malice to have made him an occasion of idolatry after his death, who had been so great an enemy to it during his life. To prevent this, Michael buried his body secretly; and this was the thing about which he contended with the devil. Some have supposed that the contention was not about the body of Moses after his death, but when it was exposed upon the water. Instead of durst not bring against him, the Greek might be rendered, did not allow himself to bring against him. There is no reason to think that Michael was afraid of the devil, when he himself was so much superior in power and dignity. "But his duty restrained himfromit,(saysArchbishopTillotson,)and probably his discretion too. As he would not offend God, in doing a thing so much beneath the dignity and perfection of his nature; so he could not but think that the devil would be too hard for him at railing; a thing, to which as the angels have no disposition, so I believe they have no talent, no faculty at it; the cool consideration whereof should make all men, especially those who call themselves divines, and more particularly in controversies about religion, ashamed and afraid of this manner of disputing."
Jud 1:10. But these speak evil, &c.- Whereas these men rail against things which they do not indeed understand; but what things they understand naturally, like animals destitute of reason, in these things they are corrupted. See 2Pe 2:11-12; 2Pe 2:22.
Jud 1:11. And ran greedily after the error- And have been poured out in the error; εξεχυθησαν : which seems to have much the same sense as the Latin word palari, to ramble, or keep no certain path; as liquor when poured out of a vessel, spreads itself, and keeps no direct course. And the proper sense of πλανη, error, is a wandering out of the right way. St. Jude speaks of their havingalready perished, which affords us a genuine trait of the prophetic spirit, speaking of things certainly future, as if they were past. There is a manifest gradation in the three members of this verse: first, the crime, and then the punishment. See Psa 22:14. Instead of gainsaying, Doddridge reads contradiction; and others opposition.
Jud 1:12. These are spots in your feasts of charity,- The first writer who describes these love-feasts is Tertullian, in his Apologies, ch. 39. Having given an account of the public worship and discipline of the Christians, their great charity and holy lives, and having taken notice of some luxurious suppers among the Heathens, he adds, "The nature of our supper may be known by its name; it is called by a Greek word which signifies love; whatever we spend therein, we look upon it as so much gain, seeing we thereby refresh all our poor: nothing vile or immodest isthere admitted; we do not sit down before we have prayed to God; every one eats what is sufficient, and drinks with sobriety, as remembering that in the night he must engage in the adoration of God. They converse together, as they who know that the Lord heareth them. After washing their hands, and lighting candles, they sing divine songs, either taken out of the scriptures, or of their own composing, as every one is able. The feast is concluded with prayer." The reader will find more on this subject in Cave's or Fleury's account of the primitive Christians, or in Hallett's Notes, vol. 3: p. 235. Respecting the word σπιλαδες, spots, see Parkhurst and Wetstein. The meaning of the next clause, Feeding themselves without fear, which Heylin renders well, indulging their appetites without restraint, seems to be, that they fed themselves in a voluptuous manner, without the fear of God, or of any scandal or disgrace which they might bring upon the Christian name. In St. Peter it is εντρυφωντες, they lived luxuriously, 2 Eph 2:13. They indulged to excess both in eating and drinking, and so were spots and blemishes, or a scandal to the Christian name. Instead of whose fruit withereth, some render the Greek word by in the decline of autumn: the word φθινοπωρινον properly signifies, "the latter end of autumn," when it verges towards the winter. St. Jude therefore says, that those corrupt Christians were like trees in the decline of autumn, when they have shed their leaves, and are in a withering condition. Dr. Heylin renders it withered trees. Some fig-trees had fruits upon them when they had no leaves: but to shew that these differed from good trees, St. Jude adds, without fruit. Here is a remarkable gradation; first, they are trees in the decline of autumn, stripped of their leaves and withering; secondly, they are without fruit, as well as without leaves; successive summers and winters have passed over them, and they have been continually, growing more and more fit for fuel: thirdly, they are twice dead, or, they are spiritually dead a second time by making shipwreck of their faith: therefore, fourthly, they are plucked up by the roots, as hopeless and irrecoverable. See Parkhurst on the word φθινοπωρινος .
Jud 1:13. Raging waves of the sea,- The word Αγρια, raging or wild, is applied to such herbs or trees as grow up of themselves in the desarts or mountains, by way of opposition to those which are in gardens, or cultivated by the care and industry of man. So several animals are called αγρια, wild, to distinguish them from those which are tame, or manageable by man: and because wild fruits are more bitter and less mild; and wild animals commonly less gentle than others, hence the word, by a metaphor, is used for any thing that is intractable, fierce or raging; accordingly here, and Wis 14:1 the word is used for the intractable and enraged waves of a stormy sea; and the corrupt Christians are compared to those troubled unmanageable waves, to intimate their restless, turbulent temper and behaviour among their brethren. See Eph 4:14.-foaming out their own shame, that is, "as the raging waves of a tempestuous sea cast out foam, and mire, and dirt; so they, out of their wicked hearts, cast forth wicked words and actions, proclaiming aloud their vices, and glorying in those filthy deeds of darkness, of which they ought to have been ashamed." The apostle seems to have had his eye upon the words of Isa 57:20. See also Rom 6:21. Php 3:19. He adds, Stars that are planets, or that wander. The Jews used to call those who took upon them to be teachers, by the name of stars; and the same word is applied to teachers in the Christian church, Rev 1:20. But those false teachers were only planets or wandering stars. There are several interpretations of this phrase: some, by wandering stars, understand those vapours which run along the surface of the earth, called ignes fatui, or false and delusive lights: this would have well suited the delusive light of those false teachers, as it is described by Milton, in his Paradise Lost, b. 9: 50: 634, &c. But the grand objection to this interpretation is, that those delusive vapours are never called stars. Some understand by wandering stars, the comets; which may be so called, though that is not the most usual sense of the phrase; for by αστερες πλανηται, stars that are planets, the Greeks most commonly meant those five wandering stars which we call planets, (they knew of no more,) all which are dark bodies in themselves, and are perpetually in motion from place to place; in both which things they probably differ from the fixed stars: and the false teachers might be compared to them as they were dark in themselves, and as unsteady and wandering from truth and holiness. "As the planets (says Doddridge,) seem to have a very irregular motion, being sometimes stationary, and sometimes retrograde, they are proper emblems of persons so unsettled in their principles, and so irregular in their behaviour as these men were." See Cic. De Nat. Deor. lib. 2: 100: 20 and Parkhurst on the word Πλανητης .
Jud 1:14. And Enoch-the seventh from Adam, &c.- Enoch is called the seventh from Adam, to distinguish him from another of the same name, who was the son of Cain, Gen 4:17. A remarkable fragment of antediluvian history is here preserved to us. Our translation has it, Enoch-prophesied of these. In the old English version it is, Enoch-prophesied before of such. Blackwell takes notice that the words may be translated, He prophesied against them; but the word προφετευω, with a dative case after it, signifies to prophesy to: so that the Syriac and others have well translated the words, but Enoch prophesied also unto these men. He prophesied immediately unto the men of his own age, who were abandoned to violence and lust; and foretold, that if they did not repent, God would bring on the flood, and overtake them with his righteous judgments, both temporal and eternal. But there was no occasion for confining the benefit of his prophesy to his own age. The και, even or also, here, is emphatical; he prophesied ALSO unto these Christians, so called, or said what they might improve to their own advantage, if they pleased. See Rom 15:4. Here we may see in what sense they were said to have been described beforehand, Jud 1:4 as persons who would fall under condemnation; for in the punishment of sinners of former times, they might have read their own doom.
Jud 1:15. To execute judgment, &c.- God will come to execute judgment upon all men, but he will punish none but the ungodly; and then every mouth shall be stopped, not by might, but by evidence and conviction. Enoch prophesied that God would come, and, with a flood, punish that impious race among whom he lived, as well as punish the impenitent with everlasting destruction. By a parity of reason, St. Jude intimates, that the wicked of his and of all ages may also expect to meet with the due reward of their deeds. This prophesy of Enoch is a remarkable testimony to a future state, given previous to the Mosaic oeconomy.
Jud 1:16. These are murmurers, complainers, &c.- Having in the former verse finished the prophesy of Enoch, St. Jude now goes on in other phrases to describe those corrupt Christians. Some think that the two words, murmurers and complainers are synonymous terms, to express the same thought with more strength and vehemence. If there be any differencein their signification, the former may imply theirmurmuring in general, the other the subject of their murmuring; they complained of their lot and condition in the world, and of the course of Providence. St. Jude, in writing to such Christians as had been Jews, seems to have had his eye upon the murmurings and complainings of that nation in former ages, which were highly displeasing to God. See 1Co 10:10. The complaining temper of the Jews about this time, appears abundantly from Josephus; and the Judaizing Christians very much resembled them. A sufficient reason for their murmuring is added in the next clause; since it is no wonder that they should murmur and complain, who walked after their own lusts; for the plan of divine government is in favour of holiness and virtue; and vice cannot always prosper, or even hope to end well, in such a constitution of things. But further, they were not content to be wicked themselves, they were zealous and active in making proselytes: one of the arts which they made use of for this purpose, was speaking in magnificent phrases, υπερογκα, which had no good meaning, if any meaning at all: however, it served to amuse unthinking people, and make them imagine, that those false teachers were let into the mysteries of the gospel, and were acquainted with the deep things of God. See 2Pe 2:18. Further, they had persons in admiration, through the hope of gain: they soothed rich men in their prejudices, and flattered them in their vices, that they might make a prey of them; for they sought not them but theirs. See 2Pe 3:14. 1Ti 6:5. Instead of swelling words, Dr. Doddridge reads extravagant things.
Jud 1:17. The words which were spoken before of the apostles, &c.- Many eminent writers believe that the apostles hada meeting upon the great case of the new false teachers, and that they gave jointly, by common consent and deliberation, precepts proper to the occasion, to be communicated to all churches. No single apostle would or could, in this case, call the common injunction his commandment; but would certainly call it, in the language of St. Peter, the commandment of the apostles of our Lord. St. Paul was an apostle, yet was it no disparagement to him to carry the decree of the council of Jerusalem to the churches of his plantation; and, in writing or speaking, he could not but have called it the decree of the apostles. The case might be the same here. We have some evidence to shew that this was the case. That there was a tradition at least in the church, is evident from the Apostolical Constitutions; in which there is mention made of a meeting of the apostles upon the very account of these false teachers, so particularly described by St. Peter and St. Jude. In Book 6: ch. 13 these false teachers are described to be such as fight against Christ and Moses, pretending at the same time to value both: and thus the false teachers, as described both in St. Peter's and St. Jude's Epistles, communicated with the church, while they corrupted its faith. They were spots in the church's feasts, Jud 1:12. They are ordered to be expelled in the Apostolical Constitutions, that the lambs might be preserved sound and without spot. They are represented in the Apostolical Constitutions as the false Christians, and false prophets foretold in the gospel, blaspheming God, and trampling his Son under foot; which agrees exactly with St. Jude's account, that they had been foretold of by the apostles,-that they denied the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ, Jud 1:4 and 2Pe 2:1. At this meeting, it is said, instructions were given, to be communicated to all churches by their respective apostles and bishops. There were probably then many circular letters sent upon this occasion: the second Epistle of St. Peter, and St. Jude's Epistle, may have been of this sort; and being drawn up on the same occasion, and upon the same instructions, it is no wonder that they are so similar in their expressions. There are in the epistles themselves some marks which seem to confirm the foregoing account. The veryword commandment used by St. Peter, when he makes mention of the apostles' authority, points out some particular and distinguished precept: for he does not seem to refer to the general preaching or doctrines of the apostles; but to some special command, or form of doctrine, relating to the false teachers. But to come nearer our point, the agreement of the two epistles in the description of the false teachers,-it is to be observed, that both St. Peter and St. Jude profess to write as reminding their churches of things with which they had before been acquainted (Jud 1:5 and 2Pe 3:2.). St. Jude says expressly, that the very subject of this letter had once already been known unto them; "I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this," &c. The Greek word used here, is the same we met with before, "the faith once delivered;" and the words, "though ye once knew this," are relative to the same matter; and it appears that the warning against the false teachers, and the prophetic description of them, were sent to the churches, together with the commandment. It appears likewise, that both St. Peter and St. Jude wrote their epistles after this commandment had been delivered to the several churches; for they write to them reminding them of what they had before received. This being the case, it is most probable that both St. Jude and St.Peter wrote from the common plan communicated to the churches, anddrew their description of the false teachers from the same source, but still under the infallible direction of the Holy Spirit of God.
Jud 1:18. After their own ungodly lusts.- Ungodly lusts may denote such a life of sensuality, as argues that a man has not the fear of God.
Jud 1:19. These be they who separate themselves, &c.- "These are the very men, of whom our blessed Lord and his apostles warned you; men that make factions and divisions in the church, alienating themselves from the true apostles, servants, disciples, and doctrines of Christ, and forming separate parties of their own sortment; whilethey are mere sensualists, governed by animal appetites, lusts, and passions, and are entirely destitute of the enlightening, purifying, and sanctifying gifts of the Holy Spirit."
Jud 1:20. But ye, beloved, &c.- The false teachers corrupted the faith, turned the grace of God into lasciviousness, and would have made parties, tearing in pieces the church of God. The Christians, therefore, both here and Jud 1:3; Jud 1:17 are exhorted to preserve one another through divine grace in that true, pure, unmixed faith, as it was taught them by the apostles of our Lord. Their faith was called most holy, as it did not lead to licentiousness, like the corrupt doctrine of the false teachers, but promoted the most holy tempers and conversation. See 2Pe 2:21. The Christian faith, which makes Christ the All in All, is here considered as the foundation of a building, and they were to build up each other on that foundation, the architect style is often made use of in the New Testament. They were to pray in the Holy Ghost, and, by his influences vouchsafed in answer to their prayers, were to make swifter advances in the divine life. The false teachers were sensual, and had not the Spirit: most probably they had once had the Spirit, but by departing from the true faith, and falling into vice, they had quenched the Spirit, and it was withdrawn from them. But the true Christians, building up one another upon their most holy faith; that is, not having quenched the Spirit by departing from the truth, or falling into vice, were to assemble together frequently, and make use of their spiritual gifts.
Jud 1:21. Keep yourselves in the love of God,- The word 'Εαυτους is put for αλληλου, one another, both here and in Jud 1:20. See 1Th 5:11; 1Th 5:13. The meaningand connection is, that bybuilding up one another upon their most holy faith, and praying by the aid or inspiration of the Spirit, they should preserve one another in a sincere love to God and goodness, and in that way they might expect the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
Jud 1:22. And of some have compassion, &c.- "Moreover, you are not to deal alike with all who are seduced by the false teachers; for some are weak, and easily imposed upon. Towards them you are to shew great lenity and tenderness; making a difference between them and others." There were two sorts of Christians led aside by the false teachers: the one through mere weakness and imprudence: they being meek and tractable, might easily be reclaimed; they therefore were to be treated with mildness and tenderness, and a difference was to be made between them, and the more vicious and stubborn, mentioned in the next verse; which see.
Jud 1:23. And others save with fear,- Those who were more deeply immersed in the errors of the false teachers, and more corrupted with their vices, were to be saved, or reformed by fear; especially if they were also stubborn and intractable. The Christians were to set before them the terrors of the Lord: to denounce against them the judgments of God, which were over their heads, just ready to fall upon them if they did not repent, and that speedily. They were to make this difference between them and the meek and tractable. Pulling, or snatching them out of the fire, is a proverbial expression made use of, Amo 4:11. Zec 3:2 and alluded to 1Co 3:15. Just as one would hastily take a brand out of the burning, or snatch one's most valuable treasure or dearest friend out of a house on fire; in like manner must notorious sinners be treated to prevent their perishing. Not that men are to punish the incorrigible by legal penalties, unless they disturb the peace of civil society; but they are to be threatened with the divine displeasure. This method of saving men denotes, first, That they were to be speedy in attempting to reform them, for fear of losing the opportunity. Secondly, They were to use some more rough and disagreeable methods, rather than suffer them to perish. Fear may be of service to deter men from vice, and make them look for pardon, and attend to holiness and piety. But, when the love of God is shed abroad in men's hearts by the Holy Ghost given unto them, they will act from the nobler principle of love to God and goodness. Some have taken pains to shew, that by the word garment, in the next clause, we are to understand the human body; which is often called a garment, or compared to a garment: others have given different interpretations of this passage; but whoever reads Leviticus, Leviticus 13-15; Isa 30:22; Isa 64:6 and considers that they were Jewish Christians to whom St. Jude primarily wrote, will easily discern, that this is a fine allusion to the garments which were polluted by touching the body of a person who is unclean. The meaning is, that the Jews of old were carefully to avoid every legal pollution, or ceremonial impurity, which rendered them odious to, and avoided by their neighbours; so Christians were most carefully to avoid every moral impurity (1Th 5:22. Rev 3:4.). While they endeavoured under grace to save some by gentle methods, and others by fear, they were to take care, lest they themselves should be polluted by their bad example, or infected by coming near them. Heb 12:15. Jam 1:27. A physician who attempts to cure the plague, should take care, lest he himself be infected by the persons whom he endeavours to cure.
Jud 1:24-25. Now unto him, &c.- "Now, to conclude with a solemn doxology, which belongs, as to all the Persons in the adorable Godhead, so particularly to our Lord Jesus Christ, whom we have been speaking of under such characters as are peculiarly suitable to your encouragement and relief under all your present troubles (Jud 1:14-15; Jud 1:21); I would express it in the following lofty and endearing strain:-To Him who has almighty power originally in himself as God, and all office authority and qualifications as Mediator; and, having graciously undertaken, is as willing as he is able,to preserve all that perseveringly trust in him from apostacy, from stumbling, and from falling into and by the errors of the wicked; and, after their state of warfare is accomplished, to present them to himself, and to his Father, a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish (Eph 5:27.), and should stand with complete acceptance in his immediate presence, when he shall appear in all his glory, and they shall appear with him in glory (Col 3:4.), and with triumphant and extatic joy; and all the glorified saints and holy angels shall exceedingly rejoice to all eternity.-To this God our Saviour, who, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is infinitely, originally, essentially and communicatively the only wise God: to him, as well as to those other adorable Persons, be ascribed, as is equally due, all the glory of his divine nature and attributes as God, and of all his love and grace, designs, undertakings, and performances, as likewise all the grandeur of heavenly Majesty as God-man Mediator, together with universal rule and government, might and authority, over all persons and things, in the kingdom of providence and of grace, now, henceforth, and for evermore. In this ascription of glory, may we and all the saints and angels join, as with one heart and voice! Amen." It seems to me, that the divine Person here most immediately intended, is our Lord Jesus Christ, who is principally spoken of all along in the preceding context, and is often styled, by way of eminence, The Saviour, and God our Saviour, as in Eph 5:23. Php 3:20. Tit 2:13. 2Pe 1:1; 2Pe 1:21 and is here called the only wise God (Jud 1:25.), not to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit, but only of all idols. And as his presenting his saints faultless before the presence of his glory, manifestly relates to the time of his glorious appearing to judgment, for executinga dreadful sentence on the ungodly, and shewing mercy to his faithful saints unto eternal life; so this exactly agrees with the work which is peculiarly ascribed to him, as the Saviour of the body and Head of the church (Eph 5:23-27.). But I do not find that the presentation of the church at the last day is ever ascribed to God the Father. Mr. Jones, in his "Catholic Doctrine of a Trinity," chap. 1: art. 41 reasons on this text as follows: "That is, the only wise God who is able to present us before the presence of his glory; but Christ is to present us, as members of the church in glory, to himself (Eph 5:27.); therefore He is the only wise God, to whom also appertains the presence of glory; for that is no other than his own presence; himself. This is another express instance, that μονος Θεος, the only God, is not 'God in one person,' but the Unity of the Trinity: for, if you confine this phrase (with the Arians) to the single person of the Father, then of course you exclude the person of Christ; and then, it is manifest, you contradict the scripture: for, though it be affirmed in this place, that the only wise God is to present us before his own presence, yet the same is elsewhere expressed by Christ's presenting us to himself; which is no way to be accounted for, unless you believe Christ to be a partaker in the being, attributes, and offices of the one, undivided, only wise God, our Saviour:-and then there is no further difficulty."
Inferences.-Let those, who have the honour of being numbered among the disciples of Christ, stand at the remotest distance from the evils with which the unhappy creatures described in this epistle are branded by the apostle. And may divine grace preserve all his churches from such spots in their feasts of charity! May our horizon be secured from those dark and gloomy clouds without water; the plantations of God among us be free from the incumbrance and disgrace of those withered and fruitless trees, twice dead, and plucked up by the roots! How illustrious was the prophesy, with which Enoch, the seventh from Adam, was inspired; and how precious is that fragment of antediluvian history, which is here preserved, and which shall surely be accomplished in its season! The day is now much nearer, when the Lord will come with ten thousands of his saints: may the ungodly remember it, and suppress in time the speeches which will then assuredly be reproved, and repent of the deeds, which, if unrepented of, however forgotten now, will be brought into open view, and draw down upon their heads the destruction which at present seems to linger. That we may have confidence before him at his coming, let us remember the words of the apostle, and implore the influences of the divine Spirit, which sensualists, who walk after their own lusts, quench and stifle, and which they mock and deride. Let us, however, be concerned to edify ourselves in our most holy faith, and to pray in the Holy Ghost, under his influence, direction, and assistance. The security of the heart amid so many temptations, and its richest cordial in all its afflictions, is the love of God: but how soon does the celestial flame languish and die, if it be not constantly fed with new fuel! Let it then be our care in humble dependance upon divine grace, to keep ourselves in the love of God; which will be cherished in proportion to that degree of faith and hope, with which we look for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life: for what can so powerfully excite our love to God as such a consideration?
If we do expect it, let us express our regard to the salvation of others, as well as to our own; and apply ourselves to those who seem to be in danger, with such different addresses of awe or tenderness, as their different circumstances and tempers may require. But some way or another let us exert ourselves to pluck them out of the fire, who are in danger of falling into it, and perishing for ever.
A care to preserve our own characters and conscience unspotted, will be necessary to our courage, and hope of success, in such efforts as these. Let us therefore be more frequently looking up to him who is able to keep us from falling, and to improve, as well as maintain, the work he has wrought in us, till we shall be presented blameless before the presence of his glory. Then shall our hearts know a joy beyond what earth can afford, beyond what heaven itself shall have given us in the separate state: then shall God also rejoice over us, and the joy of our compassionate Saviour be completed in the seeing the full accomplishment of the travail of his soul. To him who has so wisely formed the scheme, and will faithfully and perfectly accomplish it for every faithful soul, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and for ever. Amen.
REFLECTIONS.-1st, The apostle opens with,
1. An account of the sacred penman. Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, whose highest honour is to minister in the gospel; and brother of James, the son of Alpheus.
2. The persons to whom it is addressed. To them that are sanctified by God the Father, entirely devoted to his service through the influence of his grace; and preserved in Jesus Christ, brought into the fellowship of his religion, and guarded by his grace in the midst of a thousand snares; and called to the participation of those gospel privileges which Jesus hath purchased, and God the Father promised to bestow on the faithful followers of his Son. Note; Hope towards God, without holiness, is but delusion.
3. The apostolical benediction. Mercy unto you from a pardoning God, and peace flowing from a sense of his reconciliation, and love both to him and towards each other, be multiplied.
4. He exhorts them to hold fast the truth which they had received both in doctrine and practice. Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, which all believers enjoy through our adored Redeemer and Saviour; it was become needful for me to write unto you, because of the multitude of deceivers, and exhort you, that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints, firmly holding fast the unadulterated doctrines of truth, and zealously maintaining them against all heretical opposers. Note; (1.) The salvation of the gospel is a common salvation for Jews and Gentiles, and sinners of every kind without exception. (2.) They who have received the truth, in the light and love of it, need be exhorted still to stand fast against all the wiles of deceivers. (3.) That faith which God, by his inspired servants, once delivered to his saints, for the use of his church to the latest ages, we must contend for, not with anger, or carnal weapons, but with holy zeal, tempered with meekness, and arguments drawn from the sacred treasury of the scriptures.
5. He describes the false teachers against whom they need be on their guard. For there are certain men crept in unawares, by craft and subtilty into the church and the ministry, who were before of old ordained or registered to this condemnation, by God's righteous sentence denounced against crimes like theirs, long before they appeared in the world; (see the Annotations;) ungodly men, whose spirit, temper, and conduct, are directly opposite to the divine will and word; turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, perverting the richest doctrines of grace to the vilest purposes of impurity, and abusing them to encourage men in all immorality with the hopes of impunity; denying the only Lord God, in works, if not in words; practical, if not speculative atheists; and rejecting also the gospel testimony concerning the person, character, and offices of our Lord Jesus Christ. Note; (1.) Deceivers were rife in every age; we need not wonder therefore if such ungodly men are found in our own, perverting the glorious grace of the gospel. (2.) They who are vile upon principle, and plead God's word to countenance their impurities, are of all men most desperately wicked. (3.) When ungodly men meet their appointed condemnation, they receive but the just reward of their deeds.
2nd, The apostle, to enforce his warnings, reminds them of the judgment which God formerly executed on such ungodly men. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, the perpetual memory of which needs to be preserved; and it is good to be often reminded of these things, that they may be present before our minds, and the impression of them more deep and lively.
Three awful instances of divine vengeance are enumerated, to warn and deter others from the like crimes. Remember,
1. How that the Lord having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed them that believed not, though he had done great things for them; and if he spared not these, let not the perverters of the gospel, whose crime is so much more aggravated, expect a less fearful doom. And remember also,
2. That the angels (though creatures of such superior excellence and dignity, according to original creation,) which kept not their first estate, who were not content with the station allotted them, but left their own habitation, affecting to be as the Most High, and were therefore hurled from those bright regions which were before their blest abode;-these he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness, like criminals fast bound in prison, and kept in custody, in spiritual darkness, misery, and black despair, unto the judgment of the great day, when sentence will finally be executed upon them, and their torment be as complete as eternal. And if God thus punished rebel angels, what severity shall not they meet with, who fight against the word of his truth, and the honour of his Son! Apostates in heaven or earth must perish together.
3. Another instance of God's wrath is produced. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, Admah and Zeboim, in like manner abandoned to impurity, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, guilty of the most shocking acts of uncleanness, and the most unnatural crimes, are set forth for an example of God's tremendous wrath, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire; the liveliest image of what the damned must endure in the lake which burneth with tire and brimstone for ever and ever. Woe to those who are partakers of their sins! the same fearful vengeance awaits them.
3rdly, The apostle describes these seducers as guilty of the same crimes which had brought down wrath both on sinning angels and ungodly men.
1. Their impurities were great. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh; sleeping and waking, their minds are ever running after impure objects, dishonouring their bodies by their lewd practices, and drawing in others to gratify their lawless appetites.
2. They cast off all respect for lawful authority. They despise dominion, treating the civil government with insolence and contempt; and speak evil of dignities, reviling the persons of magistrates, and those who are high in office. Yet even Michael the archangel, eminent as his rank and station is, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, wicked as he was, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. And therefore if the devil himself, wicked as he is, was not rebuked with railing, much less ought any magistrates or rulers whom God hath ordained, to be treated with insolence and indignity. But these seducers speak evil of those things which they know not, ignorant of the excellence and importance of religion and of the scriptures, and of the usefulness of that ministry and magistracy against which they rail: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, governed merely by their sensitive appetites,-in those things they corrupt themselves, giving a loose to all their brutish passions, without fear or shame, till they bring upon themselves swift destruction. Note; When men live like beasts, they must expect to perish like devils.
3. They copied the vilest examples. Wo unto them! the most fearful vengeance hangs over them; for they have gone in the way of Cain, filled with his malignant spirit and envy, hatred, and murder toward the righteous, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, ambitious, proud, covetous, and, like that wicked prophet, insatiate after gain; and they have perished in the gainsaying of Core, like those rebels who rose up against Moses and Aaron, and ready with them to be swallowed up in the yawning pit of hell. Note; Companions with sinners must expect to share their plagues.
4. He describes these deluders under a variety of images. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear; whether in a way of civil intercourse, or religious communion, they let loose their luxurious appetites, without any fear of that judgment which awaits them: clouds they are without water, that seem to promise rain, but prove like noxious vapours, or noisome fogs, carried about with winds, variable, and tossed about with every blast of error; trees whose fruit withereth, deceiving our expectations and bringing nothing to maturity; without fruit, their specious appearances, like blasted fruit, drop off, and the hypocrite and apostate are detected; twice dead, by nature and grace, plucked up by the roots, and thus irrecoverably ruined; all hope respecting them is become desperate, and they are now only fit fuel for the flames; raging waves of the sea, turbulent, ungovernable, foaming out their own shame, belching forth their blasphemies against Christ, or their reproaches against his cause and people; wandering stars, resembling fiery meteors that kindle in the atmosphere, and, after a momentary blaze, are extinguished; or, like the comets, wandering wide from the system of truth and holiness; or, like opaque planets, being spiritually dark, possessing no real light in themselves; to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever, in that place where total despair completes the misery of the damned, whose worm dieth not, and their fire is not quenched.
4thly, We have,
1. A prophesy of Enoch's, recorded, concerning these men. And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, in the line of descent, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints, in glorious majesty, swift to avenge the wrongs of his people, and the blasphemies against himself; to execute judgment upon all, who must stand at his bar, and receive from his lips their decisive sentence; and to convince all that are ungodly among them, by the vengeance he will inflict, of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, in defiance of his authority; and of all their hard speeches, which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. Note; (1.) There is a dreadful day of judgment at hand, when vengeance shall overtake the ungodly. (2.) However impious and stout-hearted sinners may now be, every impenitent heart in that day will tremble, and every hardened face gather blackness. (3.) Though mockers now make light of ridiculing the word, and the ways, and people of God, they will find a fearful reckoning for their hard speeches in the day of recompence.
2. A farther description of these wicked men. These are murmurers, against God and his providences; complainers, discontented with their condition in life; finding fault with the doctrines and dispensations of the Lord; walking after their own lusts, gratifying every vile and sensual appetite without restraint: and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, making a pretended ostentation of their knowledge and piety, while they are in the very depth of error, and in the gall of bitterness; having men's persons in admiration because of advantage; caressing and flattering those, however vile, who are rich, in order to make gain of them. Note; (1.) Discontent with our lot is, in God's sight, rebellion against his providence. (2.) Men-pleasers, and smooth-tongued flatterers of the great, have the sure brand upon them of ministers of Satan.
5thly, The apostle concludes,
1. With his kind admonitions. But, beloved, be deaf to the arts of these seducers, and remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, which now have received their fulfilment, and should confirm the doctrines which they taught: how that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts; scoffing at the genuine religion of Jesus, that without restraint they may give a loose to every lawless passion. And these be they, of whom the apostle spake, who separate themselves; fomenting factions, and, from base and interested motives, forming new sects and parties, while they are utterly sensual, and slaves of worldly-mindedness and fleshly lusts; having not the Spirit, and strangers to his grace and influence. Note; (1.) The only way to be preserved from the wiles of deceivers, is to cleave to our Bibles. (2.) We must not be ashamed of mocking; remember who will mock last. See Pro 1:26.
2. With warm exhortations. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, on the glorious foundation of it, Jesus Christ, continue steadfast in your holy profession, seeking to establish each other in the truth: and, praying in the Holy Ghost, under his gracious teaching and influences, who helpeth our infirmities, keep yourselves in the love of God; use all appointed means to preserve and increase the heavenly fire, and to approve yourselves in all holy obedience and humble resignation; looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life, and that complete felicity, both in body and soul, for which, if you obtain it, you must own yourselves wholly indebted to the riches of his grace. And of some have compassion, making a difference between those who err wilfully, and those who are misled through weakness and the wiles of deceivers, whom with all kindness and tenderness labour to recover from the snare: and others save with fear; using that sharpness, severity, and terror with them, which their more dangerous case requires; pulling them, if possible, out of the fire, which is ready to consume them; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh; detesting all impure conversation, and testifying an unremitting displeasure against sin, and whatever would lead thereto; as the Jews were under the law obliged to shun every touch that communicated defilement, and to burn the garment that had the spot of leprosy, Note; (1.) Faith in lively exercise, is the great preservative from all delusion. (2.) Prayer must be our daily employment,-spiritual prayer, not the mere task of the lip and the knee, but the warm effusions of the heart, where the Holy Ghost abides. (3.) They who would keep themselves in the love of God, must carefully shun whatever they know must offend him. (4.) We should shew a holy jealousy over our brethren, tenderly desirous to snatch them from the dangers to which they are exposed; kindly warning them; and, where sharpness is needful, faithfully declaring those terrors of the Lord, which may rouse the lethargic conscience.
3. He closes with a solemn doxology. Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, that blessed Jesus who alone can preserve you from all evil and apostacy through faith in him; and to present you faultless, perfect and without blame before the presence of his glory, in the great day of his appearing, with exceeding joy, when every tear shall be wiped from the eyes of his faithful people, and eternal triumphs fill their happy souls; to the only wise God our Saviour, in whom dwell all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. Note; The service of eternity will begin even here below; and every faithful soul will delight to proclaim the Saviour's praise.
*.* The Reader is referred to the different Authors mentioned often already.
