Jude 1

Jude’s Greeting, v. 1, 2

Jude 1:1

1 Jude, Jesus Christ’s slave, on the other hand, brother of James—to the called who have been loved in God (the) Father and have been kept for Jesus Christ—may mercy to you and peace and love be multiplied!

Both Paul and Peter designate themselves “Jesus Christ’s slave,” i.e., one whose will is wholly that of his divine Lord. As such a slave Jude addresses his readers who will be glad to hear what such a man has to say. The word δοῦλος does not refer to an office. Peter can write in his second epistle “slave and apostle of Jesus Christ,” not so Jude who, like his brother James, is not an apostle.

Δέ is in no sense adversative (German aber), and yet it is not καί, “and” (our versions). It adds, but adds something that is different. Jude’s physical relation to James is different from his spiritual relation to Christ. The chiasm: “Jesus Christ’s slave—brother of James” accords with this difference. On James, a “brother of the Lord,” see the introduction to the Epistle of James.

It is sometimes said that Jude does not intend to identify himself by this reference to his brother. But he does certainly thereby identify himself; if it were not for this apposition, we could not know just which “Jude” is writing. It is all very well to say that Jude’s first readers did not need such identification, but Jude did not seem to think so. The real question is: “Did “brother, on the other hand, of James’ intend to convey more?”

The opinion that this apposition is a roundabout way of calling himself “a brother of the Lord” since James was known as such a brother (Gal. 1:19), does not commend itself in view of Acts 1:14 and 1 Cor. 9:5 where the plural is used. Such indirectness is not in place. James 1:1 is satisfied with the use of “slave.” But the idea commends itself that, when Jude wrote, his brother James was dead (had been killed in Jerusalem at Easter in 66). Jude is stepping in where his brother James might otherwise have done so.

Does this make the readers Jewish Christians? It is certain that they are the same congregation or the same congregations that are addressed by Second Peter. What Second Peter prophesies, Jude sees fulfilled (see the introduction). The two epistles contradict the opposite opinion. Then it is certain that the readers of these epistles were Gentile Christians (see the introduction to Second Peter), Christians to whom Peter and Paul were “your apostles” (2 Pet. 3:2), to whom Paul, too, had written a letter (2 Pet. 3:15), to whom both James and Jude were known. So much we can say with safety.

But here we come to a dead halt. Where to locate these Gentile congregations or this congregation so as not to conflict with these findings is utterly beyond us. We cannot accept the various conjectures which ignore or set aside any of these items and arrive at a solution in this manner.

Jude uses the ordinary letter heading: first the nominative to name the writer, next the dative to indicate the person addressed: τοῖςκλητοῖς, with two modifying perfect participles between τοῖς and κλητοῖς. It is true: “the called who have been beloved,” etc., is applicable to all Christians anywhere; yet this is not a “catholic” epistle that is addressed to the whole Una Sancta. Jude addresses only certain readers. These are most precious to God and have been kept safe but are now being assailed by ugly enemies and are in grave danger. This dative reflects the contents of the letter; the message fits the readers.

The dative is Jude’s own. Although Paul often uses κλητοι to designate Christians who have been effectually called by God through the gospel, “the called” cannot be a distinctive Pauline term; for 1 Pet. 1:15 has “he that called you,” and 2 Pet. 1:3 “he that called us.” Jude’s connotation is that God does not want to lose the people whom he has called to be his own. They are those “who have been loved in God (the) Father and have been kept for Jesus Christ.” Like the other writers, Jude loves to repeat “Jesus Christ.” They were so loved and kept in the past, and this continues to the present (perfect participles). “Having been kept for Jesus Christ,” with the dativus commodi, is plain: God has been and is still keeping them for Christ. But the passive “having been loved” with the ἐν phrase “in God (the) Father” seems strange. The agent of both passives ought to be the same, namely God; not “loved by Jude and the other Christians” and “kept by God.”

The way out of the difficulty is not, to say “loved by Christ in God” and “kept by God for Christ.” In 1 Thess. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13; as well as in Col. 3:12 ἠγαπημένοι has God as the agent, and it has it here in Jude. C.-K. 13 is not clear. The solution seems to be this: although both participles are passives and imply God as the agent, Jude omits an indication of the agent and by the forward position of “in God (the) Father” and of “for Jesus Christ” emphasizes these modifiers instead of the agent of the passives: “in God you have been and are beloved, and for Christ you have been and are being kept.” All this enduring love is yours in connection with God, and all this enduring care and keeping of you is for Christ. All this must now not be ruined by the false men who have stolen in among you.

Jude 1:2

2 Jude has the same aorist passive optative of wish that Peter uses in 1 Pet. 1:2 and 2 Pet. 1:2. It is so markedly different from all other New Testament greetings that we must say that Jude follows Peter. But whereas Peter twice has “grace to you and peace,” Jude goes his own way: “mercy to you and peace and love,” etc. It is only a supposition that Jude intends to form an extended chiasm, “mercy” matching “the called,” “peace” matching “having been guarded,” and “love” matching “having been loved.” How “mercy” and “those called” suggest each other is not apparent Ἔλεος, as distinct from χάρις, denotes the love that pities the wretched, distressed, and suffering and comes to their help. “Peace” is the condition when all is well between God and us through Jesus Christ. “Love” (ἀγάπη), that of full comprehension and corresponding purpose, is the greatest of the three terms, on which the other two rest.

The readers of Jude are suffering a terrible infliction and thus need “mercy” multiplied to them. Men are trying to destroy their relation to God in Christ, and thus they need “peace” multiplied, all that will conserve their relation to God. And thus they will need God’s all-comprehending love with all its gifts. “Multiplied to you” implies that they already have these three, but that now, in the trying situation that has developed, they more than ever need these three gifts from God. Jude prays that they may have them. We are unable to find a covert reference to the Trinity as though “mercy” is the gift of Christ, “peace” that of the Spirit, and “love” that of the Father. If anything, Christ is the Giver of “peace” (John 20:19, 21).

Jude’s Reason for Writing, v. 3, 4

Jude 1:3

3 Beloved, while exercising all diligence to write to you concerning our common salvation, I was compelled to write to you urging you to be contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.

Jude says that in the midst of his plans for writing to his readers on a larger subject he all at once found himself compelled to write this letter in which he urges them to keep on contending earnestly for the faith delivered once for all to the saints. Ἔσχον is the epistolary aorist: the necessity that Jude feels now will lie in the past when this letter is read to his readers. This does not mean that Jude waited a while and then wrote. News had unexpectedly reached Jude that heretics had crept into the congregations; he finds that he must act at once, and he does so by means of this letter.

“I had necessity” implies two things: 1) there is a personal relation between Jude and these his readers as we see also from his purpose to write them “about our common salvation”; 2) there is no one else to step in and to do what is so necessary at this moment. We should like to know all about this relation, but that page is blank. Peter and Paul were in the same relation but could not step in now. In the introduction we show that both were dead at this time, or that Peter was dead, and that Paul was far off in Spain.

“Beloved” reaches out to the readers in love. In verses 1 and 2 the divine love is mentioned twice, Jude now voices his own love. Also Peter has this form of address, but it must have been often used by preachers. “All diligence” reminds us of 2 Pet. 1:5, 10, 15.

Jude indicates only the general subject on which he was intending to write before the bad news arrived: “our common salvation,” κοινή, which is alike for all of us. All that we can say is that this subject is broad and that no special necessity is involved in its choice. Only this much is evident, that Jude is closely connected with his readers. We venture to add that he is now quite old and wants to leave these people an instructive and edifying writing for the future. The present infinitive γράφειν, “to be writing,” is correct (note the aorist that follows). We take it that Jude had not begun the actual composition but was making careful preparation; he does not say “having begun to write.” Nobody knows whether Jude finally got to write on this subject or not.

The aorist γράψαι = “actually to write” the present letter, “urging you,” etc. We inject no thought of reluctance on Jude’s part. The participle may mean “urging, exhorting, admonishing, comforting” according to the context; “urging” will do here. Jude states it in a positive form: “to keep earnestly contending (ἐπί strengthens) for the faith,” and not negatively: “against the heresies or heretics.” The negative is implied, for one contends for something when there are antagonists (verse 4). In Phil. 1:27 Paul has written: “In one spirit, with one soul jointly contending for the faith of the gospel.”

This is fides quae creditur. The statement of C.-K. 893 regarding πίστις: “To accept a significance of doctrina fidei in the sense of a fides quae creditur is everywhere superfluous,” cannot be approved. “Faith” often means fides qua creditur, the faith by which one believes, the confidence in the heart (subjective); but pistis is often undoubtedly the faith which one believes, the doctrine, teaching, creed, gospel, divine truth (objective). It is so here in Jude, also in Phil. 1:27; we need not labor the point. B.-P. 1063: das, was geglaubt wird, die Glaubenslehre; C.-K. does not cite Jude 3.

Nor can we agree with those who say that pistis is here both subjective and objective. The fear of losing the subjective idea is due to a failure to see that the infinitive “to contend for earnestly” is actually full of the subjective idea: only earnest believers contend for what they believe.

The objective sense of faith is placed beyond question by the attribute modifier “once delivered to the saints,” the participle being an aorist passive: delivered to the saints by Christ. Some think that the apostles delivered the faith; but they themselves are saints and had it delivered to them. “The saints” appears in Acts 9:13 and often after that as a current designation for Christians; but we cannot agree that the term means “the members of a cultus circle” (G. K. 108). The Christians are saints because they are separated from the world, set apart for God, cleansed by the blood of Christ, and thus living a holy life. By the faith in their hearts they hold to the faith delivered to them so that their sainthood may be defined also in this way.

Jude means that the faith was delivered to all the saints, to the whole Una Sancta; his readers belong to this number. What he urges them to do agrees with what they are and possess. “Once delivered (effective aorist) means “once for all” (the classical meaning) and not merely “on one occasion.” Bengel is right: Nulla alia fides dabitur, there is no other faith. To offer doctrines that are other than this faith is to offer falsehood, poison. To subtract from or to add to this faith is to take away what Christ gave or to supply what he did not give. “Once” = for all time, “till the end of the world” (Matt. 28:20).

Jude 1:4

4 “For” explains what necessitates Jude’s writing: For there did creep in covertly some men, those who a while back have been written down in advance for this verdict, godless, changing the grace of our God into excess and denying our absolute Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

What Peter wrote in Second Peter to the very people to whom Jude now writes has come to pass. What Peter prophesied is now being fulfilled. Place 2 Pet. 2:1, etc., 3:3 beside Jude 4 and see how they match. Peter prophesies: “there shall be among you pseudo-teachers”—“there shall come mockers”; Jude: “there did creep in covertly.” Peter: “they shall bring in covertly”; Jude: “they did creep in covertly.” Peter’s future tense is a compound with παρά and εἰς; so is Jude’s aorist. Peter says: “they shall steal in heresies”; Jude: “they stole in themselves.”

More than this, decidedly more! Peter says: “denying the absolute Master”; Jude says: “denying our absolute Master”; both have τὸνδεσπότηνἀρνούμενοι. Both speak of ἀσέλγεια, Peter in 2:2, 18 in the plural, Jude in the singular. Both speak of τὸκρῖμα, Peter in verse 3, Jude in verse 4. All the rest agrees although it is couched in different words. Jude uses even some of the examples of judgment that Peter employs.

Jude’s readers still have Peter’s letter. Jude points them to Peter’s own prophecy which had been made to them a few years ago; what Peter prophesied has now come to pass. The enemy has arrived, the readers must earnestly contend.

The verb itself “there did creep in” (Liddell and Scott: “insinuate themselves”) is damning; the form is the second aorist passive which is used in the middle or intransitive sense. “Some men” = not many as yet. Jude does not wait; the advance guard of these dangerous enemies must be thwarted. Where they came from makes no difference. The substantivized perfect passive participle is an apposition: whoever they are and whatever their number, they are “the ones who a while back have been written down in advance for this verdict.” Peter made this advance record in his prophecy which is still in the hands of the readers. The perfect tense says that Peter’s advance writing still stands; Jude implies that all that the readers need to do is to read anew what Peter foretold.

The word πάλαι does not always mean “anciently,” in the distant past, and, therefore, the document or the documents here referred to are not necessarily Old Testament writings. B.-P. 1129 speaks of the book of the damned. In Mark 15:44 Pilate asks whether Jesus died πάλαι, “a while ago,” and this adverb reaches back no farther than an hour. Few will still defend the opinion that “written down in advance” means “predestinated in eternity” to be heretics.

Κρῖμα (suffix -μα, a word expressing a result, R. 151) = verdict, sentence; it is not κρίσις (suffix -ις, a word indicating an action) which = judging. Each is a vox media although the context often decides that the verdict or the act of judging is adverse. Second Peter 2:3 also has τὸκρῖμα: “they for whom the verdict (sentence) this long while is not idle, and their perdition is not nodding in sleep.”

When Jude writes: “they who a while back have been written down in advance for this verdict (sentence),” some are puzzled as to what “this verdict” means. The preceding words seem to contain no verdict, and the words that follow report the crimes of these heretics and not a verdict on them. So some think that Jude wrote in a hurry, carelessly; and Jude is not here to defend himself. Jude’s words are, however, quite plain: Peter wrote down the verdict of these men in advance, and Jude says what it is, namely this: “godless, changing the grace of our God into excess and denying our absolute Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” The supposition that a verdict names only the penalty is unwarranted. In modern courts the judge names the penalty, but the jury brings in the verdict of guilt. When there is only a judge he does both. Here the verdict states the guilt.

Peter wrote down in advance both the guilt and the penalty, the latter as “perdition” in 2:1, 3 and as “the blackness of the darkness” in 2:17. It does not seem to be correct, then, to say that Jude is more severe than Peter, for Jude stops with the guilt: Guilty as “godless, as changing God’s grace, etc., and as denying our Master, etc.!” A frightful κρῖμα this indeed! To be sure, when Jude is not thought to write to the readers of Second Peter, or when Jude is thought to write before Second Peter, difficulty arises. But Jude uses a number of terms that are taken from Peter’s much longer verdict and inserts the guilt with only three items.

“Godless!” is the first verdict. It is comprehensive, concise. Second Peter 2 furnishes the full details; Jude, too, will presently add many. What penalty goes with this is plain.

“Changing the grace of our God into excess!” is next in the verdict. Peter has ἀσέλγεια twice, even the plural in 2:2, 18. See the word in 2 Pet. 2:2; it does not mean “lasciviousness” (our versions, sexual only) but all kinds of “excess,” hence also we have Peter’s plural “excesses.” Our God’s unmerited favor toward us sinners these fellows turn into Zuegellosigkeit, into a charter that permits them to run wild in all types of moral excess. “They suppose that our God’s grace” will close an eye to everything that they please to do.

“Denying our only absolute Master and Lord, Jesus Christ,” completes the verdict—2 Pet. 2:1: “denying the absolute Master who bought them.” For “who bought them” Jude uses the soteriological equivalent “our Lord.” From Peter we learn what this denial means, and why both he and Jude use δεσπότης (on which see the remarks under 2 Pet. 2:1). These men deny Christ’s Parousia and the judgment to come. That is why both Peter and Jude cite the divine judgments which have been already executed, which stand as types of the final judgment at the Parousia of Christ, the absolute Master. They have to deny these; how can they otherwise riot in excess as they do?

Does τὸνμόνονδεσπότηνκαὶΚύριονἡμῶνἸησοῦνΧριστόν refer to one person or to two? To one. 1) In 2 Pet. 2:1 Despotes is unquestionably applied to Christ, and this usage answers the claim that it is always used only with reference to the first person and thus cannot be used with reference to the second. Jude undoubtedly quotes Peter’s “denying the Despotes.” 2) Ἡμῶν modifies both nouns as one person just as ἡμῶν modifies τοῦΘεοῦ in the preceding clause, just as “Jesus Christ” is the apposition to both. 3) The addition of μόνον does not compel us to think that Despotes refers to the first person since “only” is elsewhere used with reference to this person; for whether it is used with reference to one or to the other person, “only” does not place that person in contrast to the others but in contrast to the false masters. 4) The one article makes one person of the two titles, and the name “Jesus Christ” is an apposition.

On page 786 Robertson says that, because Κύριος is often anarthrous like a proper noun, this “slightly weakens” the conclusion that Jude has in mind only one person. How else could Jude have referred to one person save by the standard Greek way of using one article? In order to get two persons one text and one version add Θεόν to δεσπότην as though this would insure two persons. In view of 2 Pet. 1:1, 2 we should still be entitled to translate: “our only absolute Master-God and Lord, Jesus Christ”—one person.

Jude Cites Three Examples of Judgment and Applies Them, v. 5–10

Jude 1:5

5 Now to remind you is my intent, since you have come to know everything, that the Lord, after having saved a people once out of Egypt, the second time destroyed such as did not believe. This is the first judgment which Jude cites.

Second Peter 2:4–8 mentions three such judgments, Jude does likewise. Each, as it were, offers three Scripture witnesses. Peter states his three in chronological order: the fallen angels—the Flood—Sodom and Gomorrah. Jude does not state his three according to the external order of time but according to a progressive inner order: 1) Israel, once saved out of Egypt, yet after that such as did not believe destroyed; 2) angels, created good and needing no saving yet falling away and for this kept for judging; 3) Sodom and the other cities, wicked in the first place, then going to extremes, and thus made an example for all time.

While Jude has three illustrations of judgment as Peter does and has two that are used by Peter, we see at once that Jude does his own thinking and does it well. To what Peter wrote a few years ago to the same readers he adds one striking, new example and an inner connection between the ones that are selected. The commentators, as a rule, do not stress this connection and thus do not point out why Jude uses Israel and properly places this illustration first. It is all very well to credit Peter with his chronological order; but why not be fair to Jude, why not accord him due credit?

The Greek text is confused. To bring order into it is not an easy task for the text critics. The text also causes considerable trouble to the exegetes. We do the best we can and ask the student to examine the variants for himself.

Δέ is merely transitional: “now” (R. V.) and not “therefore” (A. V.). Jude says: “to remind you (effective aorist) is my intent.” Βούλομαι often means “I intend,” notably in 1 Tim. 2:8; 5:14; 6:9; Titus 3:8. To remind them is all that Jude needs to do since his readers “have come to know everything,” meaning all that the Old Testament histories contain. Jude’s reminder is enough; he does not need to tell the whole history of the three cases of judgment which he presents.

Our versions make the participle concessive, which may pass. It is better to make it causal. But we object when Jude is charged with “a confused reminiscence” of 2 Pet. 1:12 and is faulted for not inserting the concessive καίπερ. A participle alone might be concessive; and Jude here states a reason. Regarding Jude’s Greek R. 125 testifies: “The correctness of the Greek is quite consonant with the authorship of the brother of James, since Palestine was a bilingual country.” Moulton agrees; Deissmann considers Jude a literary epistle in popular style and cosmopolite in tone with a certain degree of artistic expression. He includes Peter’s epistles in this verdict. Light, etc., 242.

The first thing of which Jude reminds his readers is “that the Lord, after having saved a people once out of Egypt, the second time destroyed such as did not believe.” Jude should not be charged with harshness. Nor should one say that Peter thinks of the saving of Noah and of Lot, Jude only of destruction. In this verse Jude says that only those who did not believe were destroyed. He places in direct opposition the fact that the Lord first saved λαόν, “a whole people” out of Egypt—the readers know in what a wonderful way he did this; and the fact that he then destroyed, not this whole people, but only such as did not believe. Note the qualitative force of the anarthrous λαόν. Note the crime: although they were thus saved, some did not believe after this.

We shall not discuss the variants: Κύριος with or without the article—Ἰησοῦς, “Jesus” or “Joshua”—ὁΘεός. The position of ἅπαξ is textually uncertain. It does not fit “since you got to know”; it fits well “after having saved a people” and then balances with τὸδεύτερον: once the Lord saved—the second time he destroyed. If we retain τούς we have: “those who did not believe”; if we omit it we have: “such as did not believe.” The difference is immaterial.

After first saving the whole people out of Egypt the Lord destroyed those who did not believe, destroyed them by letting them perish in the desert. Joshua and Caleb believed and were not destroyed. Also the younger generation was not destroyed. Num. 14:20, etc. The claim that Jude refers to a second saving of the whole people, the one that was effected by Christ’s redemption, and a second destruction of the unbelieving in the destruction of Jerusalem, cannot be considered. The supposition that Jude wrote after the year 70 is based on this view. Whether he wrote as late as that or not makes little difference. What Jude says refers to the terrible dying in the wilderness: saved out of Egypt yet destroyed because of unbelief. When? The answer is found in Num. 14:20, etc.

Jude 1:6

6 Angels, too, those that did not keep the principality belonging to themselves but abandoned their own habitation he has kept with everlasting bonds under blackness for a great day’s judging.

To say that “angels” should be named first means not to see why they are placed second. No saving preceded their fall. When he looks at its inwardness, the case of Israel ranks first in the estimation of Jude and in view of the application which he desires to make to his readers: a whole people was saved, then so many fell into unbelief and were destroyed. So the readers were saved and were now God’s people; they must not fall into unbelief and be destroyed. The case of the angels is different. From their creation onward they had their own principality, their own glorious habitation with God. They did not keep the one, they left the other; they are doomed. Their case is apt as a second example of judgment.

Peter has the thought that, though they were angels, God “did not spare them”; next that in the Flood he “did not spare” the ancient world. Thus Peter properly places angels first, the ancient world second.

Jude says the same that Peter does in 2 Pet. 2:4; he has the same anarthrous ἄγγελοι; the same ζόφος, “blackness”; the same εἰςκρίσιν; the same verb τηρεῖν. Jude has Second Peter before him; yet Jude words his statement in his own way even as he places “angels” second.

The anarthrous and qualitative “angels” lets us feel how great they were, how high they stood. Τε = “too” and connects more closely than καί would. Israel and the angels belong together in a way that cannot include Sodom, etc. The apposition: “those that did not keep,” etc., specifies which class of angels is referred to. Peter is content to say, “angels, such as did sin”; Jude amplifies: “angels, those that did not keep the principality belonging to themselves but abandoned their own habitation,” both participles are historical aorists. We shall understand ἀρχή by examining passages such as Eph. 1:21 and noting that each angel has his ἀρχή (“rule, domain, principality”) and corresponding to it his ἐξουσία (“authority”), his δύναμις (“power”), his κυριότης (“lordship”), his ὄνομα (“name, title”).

Instead of keeping the high, glorious ἀρχή, rule and domain, assigned them by God (ἑαυτῶν, possessive genitive: “belonging to themselves”) they were dissatisfied, wanted a still higher domain that did not belong to them, and left their own οἰκητήριον, “habitation”—we may say the capital from which they were by God designed to rule—as not being grand enough for them.

The church has always understood that their sin was pride, that they became rebels, that they arrogated to themselves what God had reserved for his own. Peter sums it up in “such as did sin.” Add Gen. 3:5, Satan dangling before Eve the ambition of “being as gods”; also Matt. 4:9, demanding that Jesus worship him. Beyond this we have no light on the sin and the fall of the angels. We are not to know all about the devils and their sin but are to be on our guard against them.

How have some commentators interpreted this? We have already stated this in connection with 2 Pet. 2:4, to which add the last paragraph under 1 Pet. 3:22. We recall the Jewish fiction of the Book of Enoch, which was derived from Gen. 6:4, to the effect that these angels came to earth, married women or committed fornication with them, begot a race that was half-devil and half-man, which was so wicked that God sent the Flood lest all mankind be contaminated. This is what 2 Pet. 2:4 and Jude 6 are said to mean. These holy writers are regarded as drawing upon the Book of Enoch. See the introduction; on Gen. 6 see 2 Pet. 2:4.

In the darkest days of witchcraft the belief prevailed that a devil could act as an incubus and lie with a woman and also as a succubus and lie with a man. Some commentators state that the former happened in Gen. 6. We need not repeat what we have said regarding this in 2 Pet. 2:4.

God “has kept” the angels who fell “with everlasting bonds under blackness”—Second Peter: “with chains of blackness” “being kept.” Both Jude and Peter have εἰςκρίσιν, Jude adds the genitive “a great day’s judging,” meaning the great day of Christ’s Parousia (note 1 Cor. 6:3). Second Peter 2:9 has “for a day of judging”; 3:7, “for a day of judging.” Joel 2:31 adds “great”: “till there comes the day of the Lord, the great and shining one,” Joel’s passage was quoted by Peter on Pentecost, Acts 2:20. Rev. 6:17: “there came the day, the great one”; 16:14: “the battle of the great day.” Where did Jude get his expression? From what the Book of Enoch says about its fictional angel Azazel, or from some other place in this book?

Those who trace Jude and Peter back to the Book of Enoch do not trace back this book; it is a first and original source to them. We ask: “What is the source of this patchwork, the Book of Enoch?” This book is an accretion, and nobody is sure of the dates of its various parts or of the identity of any of the contributors, including the very first one; nobody can be sure that some of its expressions were not, perhaps, taken from Jude himself.

Paul has ἀΐδιος in Rom. 1:20; it is one of Philo’s favorite words. We have translated δεσμά (δεσμοί) “bonds” but are not sure that this is correct. As far as we have followed this word, since the neuter and the masculine plural are alike in meaning, it appears to mean “confinement,” it is often equal to “imprisonment” or even “prison” and not “chains” (2 Pet. 2:4 has a different word) save as they may be a part of the confinement. Study the word yourself.

Jude 1:7

7 Continuing the same construction, Jude names the third illustration: To remind you I intend … how Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them, in similar manner to these (angels and destroyed Israelites), because they committed exceeding fornication and went away after other flesh lie before (the eyes) as an indication of eternal fire in undergoing justice.

Ὡς is not comparative: “even as” (our versions), but simply “how,” it is like an indirect question (R. 1032). This is in place here instead of the ὅτι used in v. 5 and 6 because the cities referred to in v. 7 and what happened to them lie before the eyes of the readers even now. We should observe the tenses: in v. 5 an aorist, “the Lord destroyed,” a simple past fact, those unbelieving Israelites are dead and gone; in v. 6 a perfect tense, “the Lord has kept” the fallen angels, is now keeping them under blackness. Neither of these two do we see. But Sodom, etc.: See “how” these πρόκεινται, “lie before” our very eyes in the region of the Dead Sea. At one time they were rich, verdant, a garden spot, now they are salt, blasted forever, a terrible place.

Lot chose Sodom because it was “as the garden of the Lord (like a paradise), like the land of Egypt (so rich and fertile), well watered everywhere before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah,” Gen. 13:10. But see how this region lies now! The writer was there in 1925. Not a thing grows; not a creature lives in the waters. They are so impregnated that the hand feels the clinging salt and the other chemicals; the body of a swimmer floats. It seems almost incredible that Gen. 13:10 could at one time have been true of this blasted land.

Two other cities besides Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, Admah and Zeboim (Deut. 29:23; Hos. 11:8). The fifth city, Zoar, was spared, but “all the plain” was destroyed (Gen. 19:21–25). Wisdom 10:6 speaks of “Pentapolis,” the five-city region. Jude does not mention the other cities because he is “harsher than Peter” but because, when one looks at what lies before the eyes, “all the plain” and the Dead Sea (Gen. 19:25) are there and not only the place where Sodom and Gomorrah once stood. Jude is exact.

Verse 6 is closely connected with v. 5 by τε although the sin of the angels is very different from the sin of the unbelieving Israelites. In Jude’s estimation the point to be noted is not similarity of sin but irrevocable and terrible judgment. So Jude connects v. 7 with v. 5 and v. 6 (not with v. 6 alone). This connection does not lie in ὡς; it lies in τὸνὅμοιοντρόποντούτοις, the adverbial accusative: “in similar manner to these,” and “these” is masculine and refers to “angels, that kept not,” etc., (v. 6) and to “those that did not believe” (Israelites, verse 5). The reference must be to both because τε connects these so closely. With this adverbial accusative Jude says that this third case is similar to both the other cases.

The translation “like” for ὅμοιον is inexact (our versions). The similarity does not lie in the sins, for that of the Israelites is unbelief, that of the angels is not unbelief, nor is that of Sodom, etc. The similarity lies in the fact that all these sinners, unbelieving Israelites, rebel angels, fornicating Sodomites, received a final, eternal penalty.

Τούτοις does not refer to καὶοὗτοι in verse 8, in fact, it cannot do so, for “also these” in verse 8 are the blasphemers who have appeared among Jude’s readers. So also τούτοις does not refer to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah (people because the pronoun is masculine) as though Jude intends to say that the people of Admah and Zeboim were fornicators who were similar to those of Sodom and Gomorrah. Nor can the adverbial accusative be connected with the following participle, which is the construction of our versions and of some commentators. We place the adverbial between commas; the similarity is found in the fate of these cities and that of the “these,” namely of the unbelievers mentioned in verse 5 and of the rebels referred to in verse 6.

The two participles are causal and are to be construed with “Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near (περί is used in this sense) them”: “because they committed exceeding fornication and went away after other flesh,” both verbs are historical aorists. The sins differ: unbelief (v. 5); ambitious, dissatisfied rebellion (v. 6); frightful fornication (v. 7). The sinners differ: Israelites who had the Lord’s promises; angels who had their glorious domain; pagans who had their lovely land. The three suffered similar, irrevocable punishment.

Ἐκ in the first participle intensifies: “committed exceeding fornication” that cried unto heaven. The second participle: “and went off after other flesh,” is added for the sake of intensification. The idea is that expressed by the LXX’s translation of Exod. 15:16: “went a whoring after other flesh,” ἐκπορνεύσωσινὀπίσω; Lev. 17:7. Jude’s wording is Scriptural; so Isaiah 2 Pet. 2:10: “those trailing along behind (ὀπίσω) flesh in lust for defilement.” The most that can be placed into the ἐκ of the first participle and into ἕτερος is the thought that these fornicators were not satisfied with their own people and ran after every stranger that came within their reach. A sample is given in Gen. 19:4, etc.

We cannot accept the idea that Jude refers to intercourse with animals (Lev. 18:23). In all of the Biblical references to Sodom there is no hint to this effect. The same is true with respect to pederasty (Rom. 1:27).

C.-K. 983 is careful in regard to “after other flesh” and says only: Objekt der Wollust. Thayer, 569, etc., is sensible and correct: “used of those who are on the search for persons with whom they can gratify their lust.” But B.-P. 1193 translates hinter andersgeartetem Fleisch. This suggests the view of those commentators who refer to Gen. 6:4 and to the fiction of the Book of Enoch that angels cohabited with human women and thus went after flesh that was of a different kind from their own. These commentators infer that the Sodomites did the same. But angels have no flesh of any kind. We have said enough about the angels in the preceding notes. But these human fornicators—what flesh of a different kind, nonhuman, did they go away after?

An appeal to Gen. 19:4, etc., will not answer this question, for this occurred when the cup of fornications was already full, when Jude’s two aorist participles had already become facts, on the day before God’s doom descended; nor did the Sodomites know that the two angels that came to Lot were not men.

These cities lie before (the eyes) as a δεῖγμα, “indication or sign” (not “example,” our versions), that points like a finger to “eternal fire.” The participle states how they lie before men’s eyes to this day, namely “in undergoing justice” (δίκη). Our versions and others combine in the wrong way. The Cities of the Plain are not “suffering the punishment of eternal fire.” What lies before us at the Dead Sea is “a sign of eternal fire.” Fire and brimstone made the place what it is, a sign, indeed, of the eternal fire of hell, a warning for all time. So writes Jude.

Jude 1:8

8 Yet in similar manner these, too, dreaming, for one thing, defile flesh; for the other, set at nought lordship; for still another, blaspheme glories.

In spite of all these outstanding judgments of the Lord “these, too,” namely the men mentioned in verse 4 who stole in among Jude’s readers, “in a similar way” do the things for which fearful justice overtook those others. We have seen how Jude connects the three judgments in verses 5–7; we should, therefore, not think that with ὁμοίως and μέντοι he refers only to the Sodomites and leaves out the unbelieving Israelites and the rebel angels. Only this is true, that the three items now adduced do not parallel the three types of sins mentioned in v. 5–7; they are of a similar order and thus call down a similar justice.

Μέν is followed by two δέ, the three particles balance the three criminal acts by holding each item up beside the others. We cannot reproduce such neatness of expression in the English. The participle “dreaming” is predicatively attached to the subject and thereby pertains to all three verbs. In all that they do these libertinistic heretics act like dreamers, unreal images and pictures fill their minds. We speak in the same way when we tell a man who thinks that what is not true is nevertheless true: “You are dreaming!” There is no need to think that these men pretended to have received revelations in dreams, B.-P. 419 thinks that they had ecstatic dreams. Second Peter 2:1 foretold that they would be “false teachers” and not “false prophets.”

Jude says, for one thing, they defile flesh. This is what Peter prophesied with his word “excesses” (2:2, 18); with his description: “those trailing along behind flesh in lust for defilement” (2:10); “irrational animals” (verse 12); “defilements of the world” (2:20); and other expressions. Jude says: “for another thing, they set at nought lordship.” This is the fulfillment of Peter’s prophecy “despising lordship” (2:10). Both refer to the lordship of Christ of whom Jude 4 says that they deny “our only absolute Master and Lord, Jesus Christ”; his lordship means nothing to them.

Jude says: “for still another thing, they blaspheme glories.” This is the fulfillment of Peter’s prophecy “they do not tremble when blaspheming glories” (2:10), “as irrational animals … blaspheming in connection with things they are ignorant of” (2:12), namely of these glories. We refer the reader to 2 Pet. 2:10 for the exposition of δόξαι, “glories,” and remark only that these are Christ’s glories, and that we are surprised when some commentators tell us that Peter and Jude have in mind devils when they use the word “glories,” or devils and good angels.

Jude 1:9

9 But Michael, the archangel, when he, contending with the devil, was exchanging words about the body of Moses did not venture to bring against him a judging of blasphemy but said: May the Lord rebuke thee!

Second Peter 2:11: “where angels, being greater in strength and power, do not bring against them (i.e., against these heretics who blaspheme Christ’s glories) blasphemous judging before the Lord.” What Peter says regarding angels in general, regarding their not hurling the blasphemies of heretical mockers back upon their heads, Jude makes specific and refers to the great archangel Michael and his dealing with the devil at the time of the burial of Moses’ body.

The Greek purposely places “the archangel” and “the devil” side by side: the archangel—the archfiend! If ever an enemy of Christ deserved “a judging of blasphemy” (Peter has “a blasphemous judging”), the devil did on the occasion of Moses’ burial. Yet Michael’s answer to him was not such a “judging” (κρίσις, a word expressing an action). The genitive “of blasphemy” is undoubtedly qualitative and is equal to Peter’s adjective. No angel, who was under provocation because of blaspheming men, yea, not even Michael, who was under provocation because of the devil himself and whom we should think to be fully justified in doing so, used blasphemous judging. How could their judging be “blasphemous” or “of blasphemy”?

If one who is only an angel and a creature should arrogate to himself any of the glories, i.e., the attributes, that belong only to God and to Christ; if he should speak as though he, an angel, a creature, could damn with omnipotence, with justice, with omniscience. Not even faintly did Michael so express himself when the devil himself claimed the body of no less a person than Moses.

But these vile heretics among Jude’s readers, as Peter said they would, blaspheme the glories of Christ in the most direct way, i.e., mock at his divine attributes, especially those that will shine forth in Christ’s Parousia (of which Second Peter says so much). They must do this because, if Christ has these glories, what about these vile mockers and about all the shameful lusts in which they indulge? They must also deny Christ’s Parousia and laugh at the idea of such a thing, for what will happen to them if Christ ever does return and judge the universe?

The logic is strong. Mockers, mere men, sinners—mighty angels, holy, heavenly, yea, Michael, the archangel. No provocation but only the mockers’ own arrogant unbelief—the greatest provocation even by the devil himself. Outright, direct, wilful, insulting blasphemy of Christ’s own glories—not even a word too much against even the devil.

When some commentators tell us that the devil is here called a δόξα, and that Michael respected him as “a glory” (we are sorry to note that our versions use the word “dignity”), they surprise us. In the Scriptures not even the good angels are called δόξαι (see 2 Pet. 2:10).

The middle διακρινόμενος is used in the sense of contending, it is here joined to διελέγετο (descriptive imperfect); the two διά in the compounds=“between” and denote a contending with words back and forth between Michael and Satan. In that altercation Michael said: “May the Lord rebuke thee!” the optative of wish (not the infinitive), R. 232. Michael honored the glories or attributes of the Lord by this word. Michael arrogated nothing to himself, archangel though he was, but turned the devil over to the Lord’s judging. Woe to him whom the Lord rebukes in his infinite glories (omnipotence, justice, etc.)!

Whence did Jude (and we may include Peter with his generalizing statement in 2:11) obtain this information regarding Michael’s contention with Satan about the body of Moses? This is generally regarded as the main question, but it is of only minor importance; the main question must be: “Is what Jude says true?”

Quite a number answers: Jude obtained it from the Assumptio Mosis; and some say that Jude “quotes” it. The fragment of the Assumptio that is extant breaks off in the middle of the sentence before Moses’ death is reached. The ancients, who had the document intact, do not say that Jude quotes it; Clement: hic confirmat assumptionem Moysi; Origen: cuijus libelli meminit in epistola sua apostolus Judas; Didymus says far less, namely that objection is raised to Jude’s epistle and to the Assumptio propter eum locum, ubi significatur verbum archangeli de corpore Moyseos ad diabolum factum.

These three church fathers are usually offered as proof that Jude quotes the Assumption. But one of them says that Jude confirms it as an independent witness confirms; the other that Jude reminds one of the little book; the third only that the archangel’s word is found in both Jude and in the Assumption. We draw attention to this fact because even a good man like Plummer, on the strength of the statements made by Clement, Origen, and Didymus, says “that this (Assumptio) is the source of the illustration used by Jude.” Not even one of these three says that. They do not say where Jude got the account. They leave the impression that he did not get it from the Assumptio. Didymus says only that both Jude and the little book contained the archangel’s word to the devil.

Let us add that, when two ancient writings contain something that is similar or even identical, this does not prove that one writer drew from the other or quotes the other. In the present case the date of the Assumptio is still debated; no one can be sure that Jude ever saw the Assumptio. Scholars have drawn more than one hasty conclusion of this kind. Where did Paul obtain the names of the Egyptian sorcerers, Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim. 3:8)?

The view that such information that is not recorded in the Old Testament was obtained by direct revelation, is not the correct answer. On the other hand, the view that such information is legendary, is equally incorrect. Legends are not facts. We do not believe them.

It is not always a safe procedure to point to another document and to be satisfied with that as the source. It may be the source for that second writer; Jude had Peter’s prophecy about the libertinistic mockers. In all historical matters the real question is where and how the first writer obtained his information. In a large number of cases we must confess that we do not know, for the writer does not tell us. Prophecy is given by direct revelation, much else also (Gal. 1:12); we do not know its extent and its boundary. The question about the original source is raised every now and then, but it becomes acute in cases like the present one where there were no human witnesses.

This case of Michael and the devil is not by any means the only case. The honest answer is: “We do not know.” We are compelled to give this answer in regard to the original source of even other and simpler things.

This is, however, not the whole answer. The holy writers were inspired. Jesus says that they would be “guided into all truth,” kept in what is true, preserved from error, falsehood, legend, and the like. It is not the function of inspiration to supply facts; that is the function of revelation. Inspiration prevents error, assures us that what is written is true. No matter whence or how an inspired writer obtained his information, the Holy Spirit enabled him to sift out and adequately to present only what is genuine, true. That is the real point here.

Apply this as a test. Crude, wrong notions about natural phenomena prevailed, but not one of them got into the Old or the New Testament although we do not hesitate to say that the writers held such strange notions in their own minds. Ancient histories, documents, traditions contained some true things that were more or less admixed with fiction, legend, fancies. Take this Assumption of Moses or the Book of Enoch or ancient pagan histories. We always see that the inspired writer is protected, none of them adopts a single fiction.

So we say: “If Jude has recorded a legend and not a fact, his letter is not inspired, does not belong in the canon.” The position that inspiration does not include discrimination between legend and fact; that Jude could know that what is said about Moses’ body was a myth and yet use it; that if an inspired writer wrote today he might well use Dante’s Purgatory, Shakespeare’s King Lear; that inspiration did not preserve from “imperfections which have nothing to do with the truth that saves souls”: this position makes the Bible only partially inspired. Who, then, knows what part is not inspired? Pursue the conclusions yourself. But do not fail to face “one jot or tittle” in Matt. 5:18—“all truth,” John 16:13—“Thy Word is truth,” John 17:17—these from Jesus and many another certification to the same effect. To face these words and then to say, by an extension of the argument, that the Holy Spirit did not keep his writers from “imperfect grammar” is inconsistent. The grammar is adequate, is often wonderful in conveying the thought. This plea is like saying: “If the Spirit had put the diamonds of truth into a golden box, they would all be diamonds; if he used a wooden box, some are just paste diamonds!”

What happened to the body of Moses we know only from Deut. 34:6 and Jude 9. The Lord buried the body. The fact that he did this by the hand of angels, and that Michael was one of these, is not even strange. The fact that Satan interfered is not strange. Nor is Michael’s rebuff strange. It was repeated on another occasion when Satan interfered (Zech. 3:2). On the latter passage Keil says: “May the Lord rebuke thee!” is a standing formula which points to God’s judgment. On Deut. 34:6 he remarks that it may well be possible that Satan claimed the body of Moses for corruption and decay, and that the Lord’s burying it by his own angels seemed to indicate that Moses’ body was to be preserved from decay. It may be—who can say?

A few regard βλασφημίας as an objective genitive: Michael did not bring a judging “for blasphemy,” i.e., for the blasphemy the devil uttered. This is untenable in view of 2 Pet. 2:10: “blasphemous judging”; untenable also because it breaks off the whole point of the statement in which Michael (not Satan) is compared with the mockers.

Jude 1:10

10 But these blaspheme what all, on the one hand, they do not know, what all, on the other hand, physically, as the irrational animals, they do understand—in connection with these things they perish.

Jude repeats 2 Pet. 2:12. Peter stresses φθορά in his prophecy, but the fact that Jude does not do the same is not a reason for saying that his sentence is much smoother, or that it is weaker. The turn at the end, “in these things they perish,” comes with the same impact as that achieved by Peter.

We do not weaken the force of the word by translating verses 8–10 “rail,” “railing.” These men blaspheme—no less—not only “glories,” Christ’s own attributes, but these together with “what all they do not know,” what remains beyond their intelligence (1 Cor. 2:14). They are without spiritual sense, and so spiritual things are beyond them, and when these are brought to them they are treated with scoffing and mocking, which is certainly blasphemy. Matt. 7:6. The same thing is done to this day. The devil rides many of these mockers ever to hurl their blasphemous words about the holy things of God into our faces. Μέν and δέ balance.

“What things, on the other hand, physically, as the irrational animals (they are), they do understand” are, of course, not spiritual things, those referred to in the first clause, but what these unspiritual fellows can grasp “physically,” with their animal senses as the irrational animals that they are. These they do understand (ἐπίσταμαι), for it takes only natural and not spiritual ability to do that. These things they likewise blaspheme. Their profanity is so senseless. Jude makes a striking turn that is similar to that made by Peter: “in connection with these things they perish,” i.e., go to ruin like the unbelieving Israelites, like the rebel angels, like Sodom, etc.

Jude’s Woe on the Heretics, v. 11–13

Jude 1:11

11 Woe to them! Οὑαί, like μακάριος, is an exclamation that arises from a strong emotion at the sight of what stirs the soul. “Woe” is not a wish, not a curse that calls down calamity, but a verdict that repeats Christ’s own judgment; see the “woes” pronounced by Jesus in Matt. 23:13, etc., the most terrible statements he ever uttered.

Like the woes of Jesus, the judgment of Jude’s woe is supported by the fearful evidence: because they went on the way of Cain, and they poured themselves out for the error of Balaam at wages, and perished with the contradiction of Korah.

We may note that Jude loves threes whereas Peter loves to repeat important words. The beauty of this statement lies in the three articulated datives, each introducing a clause; yet each dative is construed in its own way. Cain (mentioned also in Heb. 11:4; 1 John 3:11, 12) took the way of unrighteousness. Peter says “the way of Balaam.” Some would find more in the case of Cain by adopting the statement of the Jerusalem Targum on Gen. 4:7 which makes Cain the first skeptic and sophist; some think of Cain as the first murderer and speak of the heretics murdering souls. It is enough to think of the way of Cain as being the way of wickedness. Jude’s readers had no Targum, no Philo.

On the sin of Balaam see the exposition of 2 Pet. 2:15, 16. The passive is to be understood in the sense of the middle: “they poured themselves out,” i.e., devoted themselves to. We construe as a dativus commodi “for the error of Balaam,” for his love of gain. The added genitive μισθοῦ denotes price: “at wages” or “for pay”—Peter: “who loved wages.” These heretics tried to get all that there was in it for themselves.

The third dative indicates means: “with the contradiction of Korah (Num. 16:1, etc.) they perished.” Korah and his following rose up in contradiction of the office and the authority which God had invested in Moses and in Aaron, and the earth swallowed them up.

Jude has a climax: taking a bad way—devoting oneself to error for pay—contradicting God’s Word and order. The aorists are good Greek to indicate what has recently occurred whereas in the English we use the perfect: have gone, have poured out, have perished (R. 842, etc.). All of these actions have started recently. Those who think that in verse 8 δόξαι means “dignities” feel that they have support here where Korah contradicts the dignitaries Moses and Aaron. But the “glories” mentioned in verse 8 refer to devils in their perversion.

Jude 1:12

12 Jude is still substantiating his woe: These are the ones feasting along with you as filth-spots in your agapes, without fear shepherding themselves; clouds waterless, carried aside by winds; trees autumnal, fruitless, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; wild sea waves foaming out their own shames; stars wandering—they for whom the blackness of the darkness forever has been kept.

Jude has five specifications. Οἱ substantivizes συνευωχούμενοι; σπιλάδες is predicative and is either a feminine noun or a feminine adjective used as a noun: “These are the ones feasting along with you as filth-spots in your agapes.” Wohlenberg criticizes the dictionaries of Grimm and of Preuschen for not saying a word on this meaning of σπιλάδες; the latter has been corrected in B.-P. 1223. The R. V. translates “hidden rocks,” i.e., in the sea, on which mariners are wrecked. This word never means “hidden rocks.” Those who use it to designate “rocks” in the sea add other words; σπιλάς is a rock that is found anywhere. M.-M cites the adjective σπιλάς in the sense of “dirty, foul,” thus, “a dirty, foul wind,” but adds that this wind produces a troubled and stormy effect on the water and then refers to Isa. 57:20. In this roundabout way he leads us to think of the sea and the hidden rocks that are not seen amid the tossing waves. Isa. 57:20 fits only verse 13: “wild sea waves foaming out their own shames.”

Jude’s σπιλάδες = “filth-spots” = Peter’s σπίλοι, “spots” (2:13) and has as much right to be feminine as does νεφέλαι in this same verse. These fellows are a disgrace, actual eyesores at the agapes of Jude’s readers. The agapes were congregational joint meals that ended with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. In 1 Cor. 11:20–34 Paul had to oppose grave abuses that occurred at these agapes. They were eventually dropped and were never revived; the Lord’s Supper was celebrated at the public Sunday services without a meal preceding it. Jude indicates in what way these fellows acted as “filth-spots”: all they want to do is to feast, “without fear shepherding themselves”; they are the only sheep that are provided for by themselves as the shepherds.

They saw to it that they got the best with which to gorge themselves. Such action clashed with the very idea of the agape, a frugal joint meal in which love should see to it that all received alike, the poor slave who could bring nothing as well as the rich man who could bring plenty, the whole meal being a fit prelude to the holy Sacrament.

Jude puts “filth-spots in your agapes” first because the whole congregation could see at the very agapes what disgraceful fellows these were. The variant ἀπάταις was introduced from 2 Pet. 2:13 just as the ἀγάπαις used in Jude 12 was interpolated into 2 Pet. 2:13. The A. V.’s translation is correct in both passages; the R. V. thinks that Jude and Peter ought to use the same word. Jude does follow Peter in many points but constantly shows his independence, notably also in these verses.

The first point is that these fellows are disgracefully out for themselves only. The second is that they profit no one in any way. For this idea Jude has employed two figures: 1) “clouds waterless,” that keep all the rain to themselves, “carried aside by winds,” blown away, not shedding a drop. Second Peter 2:17 has “waterless springs, mists driven by whirlwind.”

Our versions mistranslate the παρά of the participle, which means neither “carried about” (A. V.) nor “along” (R. V.) but “carried aside,” leaving the expectant earth dry as far as they are concerned. 2) “Trees, autumnal,” when they ought to be loaded with fruit and are “fruitless”; worse that that: “twice dead,” once dead in themselves and thus fruitless, next “plucked up by the roots,” literally, “having been uprooted,” and thus without the possibility of yielding fruit for anyone. They are without the least spiritual life, the evidence being that they show not the least spiritual fruit to benefit anybody. “Autumnal” means that they have had the full season for producing fruit. Uprooted means that they are not in the Word of God. A dead tree, to say nothing of an uprooted one, cannot bring fruit in a thousand seasons.

Jude 1:13

13 The next figure presents what these men do produce: “wild sea waves foaming out their own shames,” rolling upon the shore in surges and casting up on the land all manner of stuff that has to be cleaned away. Here belongs Isa. 57:20. Jude does not follow Peter here.

Next is divine judgment: “stars wandering—they for whom the blackness of the darkness forever has been kept.” Clouds—trees—wild sea waves—and now stars. All alike are figures that have been taken from nature. These “stars” should not be separated from “clouds,” etc., and made the angels mentioned in the Book of Enoch, whose erring was the fact that they cohabited with women according to the interpretation of Gen. 6:4. But the word πλανήτης does not occur in the Book of Enoch. Like σπιλάδες, πλανῆται may be either a noun or an adjective; it is immaterial.

Jude’s relative clause: “for whom the blackness of the darkness forever has been kept,” is identical with Peter’s clause which he wrote in 2:17, save that Jude adds εἰςαἰῶνα, “forever.” In neither Peter nor in Jude does this clause modify the preceding figure, “mists” in Peter, “stars” in Jude; in both οἶς refers back to the persons, οὗτοι, the subjects described by the intervening figures: for these persons the blackness has been reserved, and that because “these persons” are what the figures record of them. It is thus incorrect to attach the relative to “stars” and to figure out how God has been keeping “the blackness of the darkness for stars.” To speak of comets or of meteors is misleading. Ὁζόφοςτοῦσκότους doubles the idea of darkness by adding blackness and = τὸσκότοςτὸἐξώτερον (Jesus in Matt. 8:12; 22:13), “the darkness, the outer one,” outside of this world, in hell.

Thus Jude’s “stars, wanderers or wandering,” is purely figurative like clouds, trees, waves, and what is said of them. Unlike the north or polestar, planets have no fixed place in the sky, by which a mariner may constantly steer his course at night. Christ is the only guide (Heb. 13:8); errorists, libertinists are not; they constantly shift their positions. Πλανῆται is commonly used as a designation for “planets.” “The blackness of the darkness forever” has been reserved for these men. We construe the phrase with the nouns and not with the verb: the eternal blackness of the darkness; the A. V.’s translation is correct.

Jude Cites Enoch’s Prophecy, v. 14–16

Jude 1:14

14 Jude cites the prophecy of Enoch regarding this judgment: Moreover, there did prophesy also for these, as seventh from Adam, Enoch, saying: Lo, there came the Lord in connection with his holy myriads to execute judging down on all and to convict all the ungodly concerning all their works of ungodliness, which they ungodlywise did, and concerning all the hard things they said against him as ungodly sinners.

This is added testimony (δέ) regarding the judgment that will be visited upon these godless men among Jude’s readers. Καί is to be construed with τούτοις: “also for these” as for the wicked generation of Enoch’s own time, which perished in the Flood. Enoch “prophesied,” foretold the final judgment, and did so in no uncertain terms. “Seventh from Adam” counts Adam as the first. Gen. 5:4–20: Adam—Seth—Enos—Cainan—Mahalaleel—Jared—Enoch. This apposition identifies Enoch, and it does not sound as though all of Jude’s readers had the Book of Enoch as they had the LXX.

We confess that we do not understand how the statement that Enoch was the seventh from Adam conveys any special sacredness to him, or how it conveys the thought that he was a type for the seventh world period and therefore prophesied for this period. If Enoch was to be exalted, it would seem that a reference to his translation to heaven would have been in place (Gen. 5:24). Seventh from Adam identifies Enoch, and that is all.

Enoch’s prophecy is not recorded in the Old Testament because he was the seventh from Adam and thus lived long before the time when Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Jude aims to say that his readers need not look in the Old Testament for Enoch’s words. We also note that Jude omits mention of the Flood in verses 5–7 while 2 Pet. 2:5 mentions it together with Noah. Jude thus amplifies Peter’s statement by introducing Enoch who made this prophecy to the wicked generation that lived at the time of the Flood. They had Noah as a herald of righteousness (2 Pet. 2:5), and, as Jude wants his readers to note, before Noah they had Enoch, the prophet. Thus, too, Jude properly places Enoch here and not with verses 5–7 and notes that Enoch’s prophecy was intended “also for these.” For Enoch prophesied the final judgment.

Enoch’s “holy myriads,” ten thousands of angels, are found throughout Scripture: Deut. 33:2; Dan. 7:10; Matt. 25:31; 2 Thess. 1:7.

Jude 1:15

15 The rest is so Biblical that comment is scarcely needed. The judging will include all men; the conviction will strike “all the ungodly” for “all their works of ungodliness which (the genitive is attracted from the accusative) they ungodlywise did” (ἀσεβεῖν is transitive) and for “all the hard things they said against him as ungodly sinners.” Peter and Jude characterize the libertinistic heretics as blasphemous mockers; Peter (3:4) states that they mocked at the Parousia of the great Judge and derided the very idea of his coming. Enoch’s prophecy is tremendously to the point. The aorist ἦλθε, “the Lord came,” is prophetic.

The Ethiopic version of the Book of Enoch has this prophecy in two sections: “And, lo, he comes with ten thousand of his holy ones to execute judgment upon them, and he will destroy the ungodly, and will convict all flesh of all that the sinners and ungodly have wrought and ungodlywise committed against him” (1:9); then in 5:4: “Ye have slanderously spoken proud and hard words with your impure mouths against his greatness.” Translation by Charles.

Wohlenberg and Zahn (Introduction, II, 286) present the Greek fragment which has but one section: ὅτιἔρχεταισὺνταῖςμυριάσιναὑτοῦκαὶτοῖςἁγίοιςαὑτοῦποιῆσαικρίσινκατὰπάντωνκαὶἀπόλεσειπάνταςτοὺςἀσεβεῖςκαὶἐλέγξειπᾶσανσάρκαπερὶπάντωνἔργωντῆςἀσεβείαςαὑτῶνὧνἠσέβησανκαὶσκληρῶνὧνἐλάλησανλόγωνκαὶπερὶπάντωνὧνκατελάλησανκαταὑτοῦἁμαρτωλοὶἀσεβεῖς. There is also a late Latin version which is of little moment.

Students of the Book of Enoch agree that the original of at least the basic part of the Book of Enoch, to which other men later made additions, was written in Hebrew or in Aramaic, and that the Ethiopic, the Greek, and the Latin are translations. All dates given for all parts of the Book of Enoch are problematical; opinions vary.

The question is not whether Jude had the Book of Enoch or some part of it in the original or in some version and quoted it, say from memory, but where the writer of the Book of Enoch obtained Enoch’s words. This writer did not invent a prophecy of Enoch’s. If he obtained it somewhere, how can anyone claim that the same source was not open also to Jude, that Jude had only the Book of Enoch as his source? Why grant the writer of the Book of Enoch an ancient source and deny it to Jude? Consider the case of “Jannes and Jambres” (2 Tim. 3:8), where we cannot point to a source that was similar to the Book of Enoch; yet even if we could, that would not prove that Paul obtained the names from such a book, for again we ask: “Where did such a book obtain them?” So much for the source.

This brings us to the question that is supreme for us today, the reliability of the source. In connection with verse 9 we pointed out that this is the supreme question in that verse. Did Enoch prophesy in this manner? We may puzzle our heads to discover how things that are not recorded in the Old Testament were correctly handed down to later times. They evidently were. Stephen refers to a number of them in Acts 7. We even have the question as to where Moses and other prophets got this and that.

The how is of minor importance. We may or may not be able to establish that at this late date. The truthfulness, the trustworthiness, the reliability are the supreme points. Those who feel that Jude had only the Book of Enoch and say “apocryphal source,” “legend,” etc., at least imply: “Not trustworthy!” We who believe that Jude was inspired, that Paul was inspired, etc., know that the Holy Spirit guarded them against stating anything of any kind that was not true, not reliable.

See what Peter says regarding “sophisticated myths” (2 Pet. 1:16); likewise Paul in 1 Tim. 1:4; 4:7; 2 Tim. 4:4; Titus 1:14. Look at the myths found in the Book of Enoch. What kept the Scriptures free from such things? There is only one answer: John 16:13. Reject that answer, and God alone knows what consequences will crowd themselves in.

Some of the early church fathers drew the extravagant conclusion that because, as they thought, Jude endorsed the Book of Enoch, it, too, must be regarded as being inspired; those of a later time drew the opposite conclusion: because Jude has what is found in the Book of Enoch, therefore Jude could not be inspired. Both of these mistakes, as well as the modern ascription of “apocryphal and legendary” sources to Jude, are avoided by a correct understanding of what inspiration did for the holy writers.

Jude quotes Enoch and not some book. How well or ill or in what manner the Book of Enoch reproduces Enoch’s prophecy is a minor matter and does not affect Jude. Jude quotes directly; whether the Book of Enoch quotes directly or indirectly—what difference does it make? Jude and the Book of Enoch say about the same thing; but that lends nothing to Jude, nor does it detract from him. Both Jude and the Book of Enoch have the marked repetitions of the word “ungodly” (noun, verb). Few will be bold enough to make the claim that Enoch did not utter this prophecy, that it is only a late invention, an invention by the first writer of the Book of Enoch.

Jude 1:16

16 These are murmurers, complainers, proceeding according to their lusts, and their mouth speaks grandiose things, flattering for the sake of profit.

Second Peter 3:3 (see also 2:10) has: “proceeding according to their own lusts”; 2:18: “speaking grandiose things of vainness.” Jude evidently repeats Peter’s prophecy as one that has been fulfilled; in both note the exceptional word ὑπέρογκα. Jude rounds out the thought with “ungodly sinners” in verse 15. “Murmurers, complainers” are to be understood in the widest sense; with the “proceeding according to their lusts” Jude has in mind men who cannot get enough to satisfy their lusts and thus complain.

With this goes grandiose talk (Peter puts this “in connection with lusts”) to impress and entice people and at the same time the “flattering for the sake of profit.” The expression θαυμάζωπρόσωπον is Sometimes used in the good sense, but here it means admiring a person, flattering him to his face with the object of wheedling something out of him; χάριν a preposition which is usually placed after its object.

The items are not contrasted but paint a portrait. Nor have we an anacoluthon (R. 439); the closing participle continues the predication, and the finite “their mouth speaks” is finite only in order to lift this point above the participles.

Jude Admonishes His Readers, v. 17–23

Jude 1:17

17 But you on your part, beloved, remember the words that have been spoken in advance by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, how they were telling you: At the end of time there shall be mockers proceeding according to their own lusts for ungodliness.

Once more (verse 3) we have the loving address with emphatic “you on your part” in contrast to “these” (v. 10, 16; compare v. 19) and with the effective aorist imperative “remember.” The perfect “having been spoken in advance” means that the words are still valid. In the weightiest way Jude calls the authors of them “the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.” “How they were telling you” with its imperfect bids the readers dwell on what the apostles kept telling them.

Jude practically quotes 2 Pet. 3:3. We summarize what we say in the introductions to Jude and to Second Peter. Jude must step in. The apostles to whom he refers are Peter who is now dead, whose words Jude repeats, and Paul who is either dead or far away in Spain and entirely out of reach. Paul, too, had written these renders a letter (2 Pet. 3:15). Peter’s letter (3:2) calls on the readers “to remember the words spoken in advance by the holy prophets.” Jude uses an identical wording save that he substitutes “apostles” for “holy prophets.”

There is no need to generalize and to speak about all the apostles and all that they said orally and in writing. Jude uses Peter’s prophecy; Paul’s agreed with this according to Jude. The conception that Jude’s epistle was written prior to Second Peter, and that Peter and Jude did not write to the same people, are views that we at least cannot square with what these epistles themselves say. If both wrote to the same people, Jude a few years after Peter, then every item is in line.

Jude 1:18

18 The verbal difference between this prophecy and 2 Pet. 3:3 is small. Like Peter, Jude does not copy another writer verbatim. Yet ἔσονται is used in 2 Pet. 2:1 so that Jude combines this and 3:3, both future tenses prophesy. “At the end of time” = Peter’s “at the days’ ends.” Mockers proceeding according to their own lusts” is identical save for the possessive. Peter states the actual words of mockery; Jude does not reproduce them. The readers have Peter’s letter, and Jude has mentioned the blaspheming of the mockers. See the exposition in 2 Pet. 3:3, 4. Jude adds as his own the genitive τῶνἀσεβειῶν, which is either qualitative (our versions), subjective, or a genitive of source: produced by different kinds of ungodliness or, as we prefer, objective: their own lusts for different manifestations of ungodliness.

The opinion that Jude might consider himself as one of the apostles is answered already in verse 1.

Jude 1:19

19 The word “mockers” leads to the further characterization: These are the ones making divisions, physical, not having spirit. Their mocking remarks and sneers make an impression on some; 2 Pet. 2:2 foretold that many would follow the pseudo-teachers. Jude says that this is happening. The rare double compound is explained well by C.-K. 821, etc.: after listening to the mockers, some agree with them, and inner divisions are made in the congregations, the inner unity is destroyed. Luther’s Rotten machen is quite correct. The few texts which add ἑαυτούς mistake the thought: these mockers do not divide “themselves” but the Christian membership, and thus these Christians no longer contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints (verse 3).

Ψυχικοί adds to the thought. We have no good English equivalent for this Greek word. Our versions use “sensual.” These men are governed only by the ψυχή which animates their bodies. In 1 Cor. 2:14; 15:44, 46 our versions use “natural” as a translation for ψυχικός. The opposite is being “spiritual” just as Jude also says, “not having spirit.” In their divisive mockeries these men follow their natural, physical instincts, their lower nature, for they have no spiritual nature. We need not regard πνεῦμα as “the Holy Spirit” (our versions and others).

Those who are devoid of “spirit” are so because the Holy Spirit does not dwell in them, has not regenerated them. To be sure, they have “spirit” as all human beings have, but, as is the case in all unregenerate men, the spirit is out of control, enslaved by sin, not released and enthroned as ruler by God’s Spirit.

Jude is said to be Pauline in the use of these terms; but this use is apostolic psychology, yea, Biblical psychology, and it is not to be restricted to Paul although psychikos and pneumatikos do not occur in Peter’s or in John’s writings.

Jude 1:20

20 But you on your part, beloved (compare verse 17), by building up yourselves by means of your most holy faith in connection with the Holy Spirit, while praying, keep yourselves in God’s love, expecting the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ for life eternal!

The first participle and its modifiers state how the readers are to do this essential thing, to keep themselves in God’s love, namely “by building up yourselves,” etc. Our versions and others understand the dative as meaning “on your most holy faith” although we do not have ἐπί. This “faith” is objective as it was in verse 3 (which see), the truth or doctrine, quae creditur. We regard the dative as a dative of means and not as denoting a foundation: “by means of your most holy faith,” by means of the most holy gospel doctrine. The superlative is not merely elative: “very holy,” but a true superlative (R. 670). The fact that the use of true superlatives has decreased in the Koine is not reason for eliminating the ones that are still used.

Unlike our versions and others, we construe “building up yourselves by means of your most holy faith in connection with the Holy Spirit,” without whom no one can use this faith or doctrine to build himself up. If Jude means “praying in connection with the Holy Spirit,” this phrase should follow the participle. The participle “praying” needs no modifier; it always refers to true prayer or worship. Here it is a third modifier of “building up yourselves.” It states in what manner and spirit the divine faith or truth is to be used so as truly to build up the readers. Your most holy faith is to be the one means; the Holy Spirit is to be the great helper; praying is to be the devout attitude and frame of mind and heart.

Jude 1:21

21 Thus, Jude’s readers are told, “keep yourselves in God’s love,” effective aorist which is used in all such hortations. This is the love of God for the readers and not their love for God. To keep oneself in God’s love is to stay where God can love us as his children and can shower upon us all the gifts of love that he has for those who are his children. God, indeed, loves all men; but men are not urged “to keep themselves” in this universal love since it already extends to all of them without exception. God’s love cannot bestow the saving gifts upon those who spurn his love; he can and does bestow them upon true believers who as his children hunger for these gifts, pray for them, use his Word and truth, let the Holy Spirit lead and guide them in its proper use.

The final participle states what is to accompany this keeping of themselves in God’s love: “expecting the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ for life eternal,” expecting it in unwavering hope. It is the mercy that Christ will grant us at the last day, in the final judgment. It makes little difference whether we construe “for life eternal” with “keep yourself in God’s love” or with the participle; but since it is placed where it is, this phrase is to be construed with the latter. “Life eternal” = eternal blessedness. Jude properly says “mercy”; this word fits what Jesus will say to the blessed of his Father on judgment day, Matt. 25:34–40; compare Matt. 5:7. “God’s love” and Christ’s “mercy” resume these two terms from verse 2.

Jude 1:22

22 Jude tells his readers what to do about themselves over against the mockers (v. 20, 21); he now adds what they are to do in regard to any who are injured by the mockers. Note that he says nothing in regard to the mockers. He has in unmistakable terms described them as outcasts, and he does not need to say that the readers are to treat them as such.

The student must himself examine the textual variations; the expert text critics are themselves not certain. The main point is whether Jude names two classes or three; we think he lists three classes. Then the remaining textual variations scarcely affect the substance of the thought.

And some rebuke, such as dispute; some save by snatching them out of fire; some pity in fear, hating even the tunic that has become spotted from the flesh.

Οὓςμέν—οὓςδέ = “some—some” or “some—others.” We accept the reading ἐλέγχετε and the accusative participle: “some rebuke, such as dispute.” Being affected by the mockers, some Christians may start to dispute and to support claims put forth by the mockers. Such fellow members, Jude says, “refute,” “convict,” show and try to convince them that they are wrong. The present imperative means: at any time when such cases develop. In verse 9 Jude uses this participle in the sense of “disputing”; elsewhere it also has the meaning “doubting.” The difference is immaterial since doubters dispute because of their doubts, and disputing is due to doubting.

The A. V. has followed a very inferior reading, the nominative participle διακρινόμενοι, and has this mean “making a difference.” The difference is then found in the next two clauses: some save—some pity.

Jude 1:23

23 Doubting disputers are in danger, they need to be corrected and convinced. Another class is close to the fire: “some save (the same iterative present imperative) by snatching them out of the fire,” by taking heroic measures as when one is snatched out of a burning house or, quoting Amos 4:11: “as a firebrand plucked out of the burning”; Zech. 3:2: “a brand plucked out of the burning.” There is no need to say how this is to be done; we have such cases when erring Christians are saved from the very brink of hell by heroic measures. The A. V. follows the reading that makes only two groups, but this reading is now generally discarded.

Some get beyond help in spite of all effort. Jude says: “some pity in fear, hating even the tunic that has become spotted from the flesh.” Nothing is left but to pity these. The verb ἐλεάω does not mean “to have mercy” in the sense of extending merciful help; it means only to pity. We take this group to be those that are beyond help and think that to pity them “in fear” is expounded by “hating even the tunic,” etc., lest by our pity for them we ourselves become spotted. Others think that Jude refers to erring members who are received back into fellowship, and that the mercifully receiving them is to be done “in fear” by hating even their still spotted and stained tunic. This view understands the verb in the sense of actually bestowing mercy; but, surely, those that are still spotted with filth cannot be received back to be handled with fear, gingerly, at arm’s length, lest we get this filth also on ourselves.

The participle is the perfect tense, which means that the spots and the stains of the past are still present. People of this kind, who are wearing such a tunic, surely cannot be taken back; they must first be thoroughly cleaned by repentance and amendment. Jude says χιτών, “tunic,” a garment that is worn next to the skin by men and by women alike; not ἱμάτιον, the long, loose outer “robe” that was worn over the tunic. Tunic is the proper word when one is speaking of becoming spotted “from the flesh.” The figure is expressive. Jude’s readers are to avoid those that are so spotted. They may only pity them, yet even do this in fear, as hating the filthy tunic of their personal life, spotted and stained as it has become and still is.

Jude concludes his admonition: effective remembering (verse 17)—effective keeping in God’s love—iterative convicting, saving, pitying for those caught in the danger.

Jude’s Closing Doxology, v. 24, 25

Jude 1:24

24 Plummer prints as follows:

Now to the One able to guard you as non-stumbling,

And to place (you) in the presence of his glory as blemishless in exultation,

To (the) only God, our Savior

Through Jesus Christ, our Lord:

Glory, majesty, might, and authority

Before all the eon, and now, and for all the eons. Amen.

This arrangement brings out the beauty of the phrasing. Jude’s doxology is decidedly his own. Very little of it appears in other doxologies. Jude’s doxology fits his epistle as do the other doxologies that appear at the end of other epistles. It voices his own adoration, and all his readers are to second it with the same fervor.

“To the One able” to guard and place you does not mean that he will do this by means of his omnipotence but by means of his grace, mercy, Word, Spirit. He is able to guard you in this life despite all dangers, despite the mockers, “as non-stumbling,” as not stumbling to a fatal fall. There is no lack in God; only by wilfully turning from his enabling grace can anyone be lost.

“And to place you in the presence of his glory as blemishless in exultation” means at the last great day when “the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father” (Matt. 16:27). In Matt. 25:34, etc., Jesus describes how God will so place us. All blemishes are removed by justification. How we shall then jubilate! We do so already now (1 Pet. 1:6, 8). The apposition names “the One able” to do all this: “the only God, our Savior.” In verse 4 Jude has “only” with reference to Christ. In the absolute sense there is and can be no other. “Savior” is applied equally to the Father and to the Son. On the basis of little authority the A. V. inserts “wise,” which some scribe inserted from Rom. 16:27.

Jude 1:25

25 “Through Jesus Christ, our Lord,” is purposely placed next to God, our Savior, in order to have these two united. We construe “our Savior through Jesus Christ,” etc. While one might say “through Jesus Christ glory,” etc., to God, this does not seem to fit well with “before all the eon.”

Jude has four terms: “glory,” the sum of all the divine attributes in their radiant shining forth; “majesty” (Heb. 1:3; 8:1; ascribed to Christ in 2 Pet. 1:16) as King, Δεσπότης, absolute Ruler; “might” as in action; “authority,” the right and the power to rule (these four items indicate a complete enumeration). We supply neither εἴη nor ἐστί; this is an exclamation, a grand exclamatory acknowledgment and confession (it should not be called a prayer). All true believers will join in it.

Jude alone has “before all the eon, and now, and for all the eons.” “Before all the eon” means in all eternity, before the whole world eon of time began; “for all the eons” means for all eternity (which is conceived as eons upon eons). Between them is “now,” time as it is now rolling on. This is poor human language which sectionalizes eternity, which is the opposite of time and cannot be divided even in thought. Scripture condescends to our mental limitation. “Amen,” see Rom. 1:25.

Soli Deo Gloria

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschem Handwoerterbuch, etc.

G. Theologisches Woerterbuch zum Neuen Testament, herausgegeben von Gerhard Kittel.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

M.-M The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Nonliterary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.