Judas 1:16-23

Jude 1:16-23

Contents:—Further description of the persons who were the subjects of the Apostles, prophecies, Jude 1:16-19; followed by an exhortation to edification on the foundation of faith, and to proper treatment of the deceived with a view to their salvation, Jude 1:20-23

4516These are murmurers; complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration46 because of advantage.47 17But,48 beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken49before of the apostles 18of50 our Lord Jesus Christ; How51 that they told you there should52 be mockers in the last time,53 who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.54 19These be they who separated themselves, sensual,55 having not the Spirit.5620But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your57 most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, 21Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking58 for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. 22And of59 some have compassion, making a difference:60 23And others save with61 fear, pulling62 them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.63

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Jude 1:16. These are, etc.—Jude, as with uplifted finger, points once more to these ungodly men, of whom Enoch prophesied.

Murmurers.—ἅπαξ λεγόμενον from γογγύζω, to murmur or mutter, as well as μεμψίμοιροι, to which the former is nearly related. The object of their murmuring is not mentioned. Jude 1:15 seems to intimate that it was their discontent with the appointments and dispensations of Divine Providence, opposition to their superiors, especially in the Church, like the company of Korah murmured against Moses and Aaron, and like Diotrephes. 3 John 1:9.

Complainers.—[German: Discontented with God and the world. Alford following the German versions: “Dissatisfied with their lot.”—M.]. μεμψίμοιροι, properly, fault-finders with Providence, and the lot apportioned to them. From a passage in Theophrast, cited by de Wette, it would seem to be used of censoriousness and discontent in general. Bengel explains it of discontent with God. This word denotes the outward, the former the inward. [Cf. Theophrast, char. XVII. περὶ μεμψιμοιρίας and contrast this character with St. Paul’s spirit and language in Philippians 4:11-12; 1 Timothy 6:6-8; Hebrews 13:5. Wordsw., Philo, Vit. Mos., p. 109, 29, says of the Jews, καὶ πάλιν ἤρξαντο μεμψιμοιρεῖν; Lucian, Sacrif., 1., τῆς ̓ ’Αρτέμιδος μεμψιμοιρούσης ὅτι μὴ παρειλήφθη πρὸς τήν θυσίαν . Hesychius explains μεμψιμοιρός thus: μεμφόμενος τὸ , φιλαίτιος.—M.]

Walking after their own lusts.—The same expression occurs 2 Peter 3:3; cf. 2 Peter 2:10; 1 Peter 4:3. Calvin gives the right connection with the preceding thus: “Those who yield themselves to their evil lusts, are also murmuring and discontented, so that one can never do things right for them.”

And their mouth speaketh great swelling things.—Boastful, impudent words. Cf. notes on 2 Peter 2:18. The book of Enoch contains frequent references to such vaunting speeches directed against God and His appointments; it has the peculiar expression: “and these are they that control the stars and lift up their hands against the Most High.” James 3:5 : Daniel 7:8-20.

Admiring persons.—(German: “Flatterers to the face”); literally,“admiring the faces.” The former is to be taken as a parenthesis. Cf. Genesis 19:21; Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 10:17, rendered by LXX. θαυμάζειν πρόσωπον=פָנִים נָשָׂא, to favour one, to prefer, honour and highly esteem. So Stier, de Wette, Huther. The first and third parallel passages, however, are inapplicable, the reference in them being to God’s dealings with man, and the second relates to partiality, as in Sir 7:29. But as it is not said here whose person they regard, while in other places we have always some qualification, such as the person of the great or poor, it seems more fitting to emphasize πρόσωπα and to explain it with reference to sensuality, the leading characteristics of those deceivers, thus: they flatter the objects of their lust, extol their beauty and thus lure them to themselves in order to use them for their own purposes, not excluding pecuniary advantage. Cf. 2 Peter 2:14, where sensuality and covetousness are intimately connected.—ὠφελείας χάριν should be closely connected with θαυμάζοντες. [“Calvin: “Magnilo-quentiam taxat, quod se ipsos fastuose jactent: sed interea ostendit illiberali esse ingenio, quia serviliter se dimittant.”—Fronmüller’s interpretation of θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα is very far-fetched. The phrase is a Hebraism and signifies to respect the person in a good or bad sense, to be partial, as a judge unjustly partial or corrupted by bribes; cf. Hebrew and LXX. of Leviticus 19:15; Job 32:21; Job 34:19; Psalms 82:2; Proverbs 18:5; Deuteronomy 10:17; 2 Chronicles 19:7; Job 13:10; Malachi 2:9; where it is used in a had sense. There is no need for the reference to sensuality, for the meaning that they favoured the rich and influential by accommodating their teaching to their prejudices and vicious practices is in perfect keeping with the character of those false teachers in particular, and all time-servers in general.—M.]

Jude 1:17. But ye, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.—As Peter thought it necessary to remind his readers of the Apostolical word in order to protect them from deceivers, 2 Peter 3:2; 2 Peter 3:15-16 :, so Jude feels prompted to adopt the same course. Besides the second Epistle of Peter, Jude may here refer to passages like Act 20:29-30; 2 Timothy 3:1, etc. The primary reference is to their warnings, against deceivers, the secondary to their exhortations to stedfastness and perseverance in the faith.

By the Apostles.—The unprejudiced reader of these words can hardly resist the conviction that this Epistle is not that of an Apostle, even as the author does not call himself an Apostle in Jude 1:1. Sepp’s opinion that he distinguishes himself from the other Apostles by the designation “the Lord’s brother” is sophistical. [I fully concur with Alford that this text is not decisive as to whether St. Jude was, or was not, an Apostle. He might use the expression, being himself an Apostle, and he is certainly more likely to have used it, not being an Apostle. St. Peter, on the authority A. B. C. K. L., al., at 2 Peter 3:3 uses the same expression without the ἡμῶν—“and whichever view is taken as to the genuineness or otherwise of 2 Peter, there could be no intention by such an expression to exclude either the real or the pretended St. Peter from the number of the Apostles.”—M.].—The contrast of Peter’s language (2 Peter 3:2) is remarkable. Jude’s using in the next verse ὑμῖν and not ἡμῖν does not prove anything. [For while it is not certain that he included himself among the Apostles, it is very uncertain whether he intended to exclude himself from their number. So Alford.—M.]. The principal reason why the reference is not to the Lord’s self-own words is stated by Stier, who says that we have the account of the words and works of Jesus from the lips of the Apostles, or on the testimony confirmed by the Apostles.

Spoken before.—The term includes both the priority of their testimony and its prophetical character. [This is the reason why the rendering of E. V. is preferable to the German translation. See above in Appar. Crit. Jude 1:17. Jude 1:4.—Wordsworth: “There seems also to be reference here to the description of the last days in St. Paul’s last Epistle, 2 Timothy 3:1-6, ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις ἔσονται ἄνθρωποι φίλαυτοι κ. τ. λ. There is a special propriety in this admonitory reference in this Epistle—one of the last of the Catholic Epistles—to the last, warning in the Epistles, of the Apostles of the Circumcision and of the Gentiles, St. Peter and St. Paul. Cf. Oecumcn. on Jude 1:1. Cf. the admonition in Hebrews 13:7 : “Remember your rulers, who spoke to you the word of God,” where St. Paul appears to be exhorting the Hebrews to remember especially St. James, the Bishop of Jerusalem; and St. Jude, the brother of St. James, here appears to be exhorting his readers to remember St. Peter and St. Paul.”—M.]

Jude 1:18. In the last time there shall be scoffers, etc.—Jude here evidently has an express reference to the second Epistle of Peter: for the words which he cites, are almost literally found at 2 Peter 3:3, the only variation being, first: that Peter says,“there shall come”, while Jude has “there shall be.” [See above, Appar. Crit. V. 18, 9.—M.]. But the latter expression occurs also in 2 Peter 2:1. The second variation is Jude’s addition of τῶν , it being, as we have already seen,(Jude 1:16), his aim to give special prominence to the ungodliness of those men. This verse supplies one of the chief proofs of the priority of the second Epistle of Peter. Even de Wette has to admit that such a prophecy cannot be found any where except in 2 Peter 3:3. Huther’s statement that these words need not be considered as a literally exact quotation, but that they may be a compression of the various predictions of the Apostles concerning this subject, is an untenable make-shift. Consider, e.g., the peculiar word ἐμπαῖκται, which occurs only here and 2 Peter 3:3.

In the last time; ἐν ἐσχάτῳ. See notes on 2 Peter 3:3,[cf. Appar. Crit., Jude 1:18; Jude 1:9.—M.]

In ungodliness.—Literally: “After their lusts turned to ungodliness;” so de Wette: “Lusts of ungodliness” (Stier), because the ground of every lust is nothing but some special ungodliness, denying, mocking and rejecting the divine opposed to that lust.

Jude 1:19. These are they who separate [themselves]. Final description of these men by a third, “These are.”

Who separate [themselves].—Ἀποδιορίζειν, to set off by drawing a boundary, to separate. Lachmann and Tischendorf omit ἑαυτούς; in that case we have to translate,“who cause separations, make factions.” So de Wette, Luther.—Huther, on the other hand, justly remarks, that had Jude intended to express that idea, he would hardly have satisfied himself with this one word. He considers ἑαυτούς genuine, and expounds: “They who separate themselves from the Church.” But this hardly suits the description of those men, Jude 1:12, who boldly pressed forward to the love-feasts of the faithful. The correct explanation follows from the next verse: They tear loose from the faith of the Church, and separate themselves from the Church inwardly, although they cannot be separated outwardly by Church-discipline, and indeed all the circumstances of the case point to the impossibility of such discipline being at that time administered in those Churches. [The different readings have been considered in Appar. Crit. Jude 1:19, note 11. The interpretation of Huther is based on an argument, by no means uncommon among commentators, but most objectionable wherever and whenever advanced. I refer to the supposed intention of the sacred writers, with which these commentators seem to be fully acquainted, although I am at a loss to conjecture how or whence they get that knowledge, and suspect, that an appeal to the intention of the sacred writers is a convenient way of enforcing a peculiar view, or of evading a difficulty. Moreover, every thing depends on the fitness of things, as it appears to each particular mind. Huther and Fronmüller think that if Jude had intended to express the general idea, he would not have confined himself to the use of one word; but others, with their idea of the fitness of things, will think that he selected this one word on account of its expressiveness. The fact is, that he did use only one word, οἱ , and since the Definite Article with the Participle Present denotes a habit and state, the Noun separatists, or the verbal form “they who separate,” seem to be in exact agreement with the Greek, while the omission of ἑαυτούς, supported by high authority, leaves us free to limit the meaning of ἀποδιορίζοντες to the men themselves, to extend it to others, or to apply it to both. We incline to do the last, and are supported by Oecumen., Clement of Alexandr., Erasmus, Estius (“Potest absolute sumi, Separantes, id est, qui separationem faciunt tam in cætibus, quam in doctrina.”), Bloomf., Wordsw., Lillie and others. The ancient Catena expounds this word: “Making schisms and rending the members of the Church,” and Hooker (Serm. 5:11) specifies three kinds of separations: “Men do separate themselves either by heresy, schism, or apostasy. If they loose the bond of faith, which then they are justly supposed to do, when they frowardly expugn any principal point of Christian doctrine, this is to separate themselves by heresy. If they break the bond of unity, whereby the body of the Church is coupled and knit in one, as they do which wilfully forsake all external communion with saints in holy exercises purely and orderly established in the Church, this is to separate themselves by schism. If they willingly cast off and utterly forsake both profession of Christ and communion with Christians, taking their leave of all religion, this is to separate themselves by plain apostasy.”—M.]

Psychical (German “Seelische”); ψυχικοί, cf. 1 Corinthians 2:14-15; 1 Corinthians 15:44; 1 Corinthians 15:46. Persons in whom the earthly life of the soul rules, and the life of the Spirit with its higher powers is subjugated. Paul describes them as “fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind,” Ephesians 2:3. They either live in open sin, or content themselves with outward propriety, while inwardly they are the slaves of pride, avarice, sensuality or other vices. [Alford: “Sensual. We have no English word for ψυχικός; and our biblical psychology is, by this defect, entirely at fault. The ψυχή is the centre of the personal being, the ‘I’ of each individual. It is in each man bound to the spirit, man’s higher part, and to the body, man’s lower part; drawn upwards by the one, downwards by the other. He who gives himself up to the lower appetites, is σαρκικός: he who by communion of his πενῦμα with God’s Spirit is employed in the higher aims of his being, is πνευματικός. He who rests midway, thinking only of self and self’s interests, whether animal or intellectual, is the ψυχικός, the selfish man in whom the spirit is sunk and degraded into subordination to the subordinate ψυχή. In the lack of any adequate word, I have retained the ‘sensual’ of the E. V., though the impression which it gives is a wrong one; ‘selfish’ would be as bad, for the ψυχικός may be an amiable and generous man: ‘animal’ would be worse: ‘intellectual,’ worse still. If the word were not so ill-looking in our language, ‘psychic’ would be a, great gain.”—‘Animal’ has some merit on account of its connection with anima; see Appar. Crit., 5:19, note 11 b. I have rendered “Seelische” ψυχικοί, by “psychical,” which sounds and looks better than “psychic,” or the Saxon “soulish.”—Irenæus I., 6. 2–4, reports certain Gnostics of the sub-Apostolic age to have said,“that animal men (ψυχικοὶ) are conversant only with animal things (ψυχικὰ), and have not perfect Gnosis: and they describe us who are of the Church, as such; and they say that as we are only such, he must do good works, in order to be saved; but, they assert, that they themselves will be saved, not by practice, but because they are spiritual (πνευματικοὶ) by nature: and that as gold, though mingled with fire, does not lose its beauty, so they themselves, though wallowing in the mire of carnal works, do not lose their own spiritual essence, and therefore, though they eat things offered to idols, and are the first to resort to the banquets which the heathen celebrate in honour of their false gods, and abstain from nothing that is foul in the eyes of God or man, they say that they cannot contract any defilement from these impure abominations; and they scoff at us who fear God, as silly dotards (cf. Jude 1:10), and hugely exalt themselves, calling themselves perfect, and the elect seed; and they even make lust a virtue, and call us mere animal men (ψυχικοὺς), and say that we stand in need of temperance, in order to come to the pleroma, but that they themselves, who are spiritual and perfect, have no need thereof.”—M.]

Having no spirit.—De Wette says the reference lies to the Holy Spirit, although the Article is wanting. Huther understands the expression of higher soul-life wrought by the Spirit. But in either case we should have a most stale summing-up of the characteristics of those animal-minded men. Surely it is self-evident that persons like those here described, cannot have the Spirit of God and the new life and nature of regeneration. The negative μή, moreover, is decidedly opposed to such a supposition. Had Jude intended to convey that idea, he necessarily ought to have used οὐ; for the writers of the New Testament are more precise in this respect than is generally supposed. Winer, p. 494, sqq. μὴ means: I might say that they have no spirit at all. We might altogether deny their possessing a rational spirit. This is the meaning of πνεῦμα, which, besides body and soul, is one of the constituents of our nature. Hence we may not conclude from this passage, with Bengel, that “the spirit is no essential part of man.” On the contrary, it is that which essentially distinguishes man from an animal, a breath from (out of) God, the noblest part of our nature; but as, in the case of all natural men, it lies concealed since the fall in carnal and animal life, it may be so effectually sunk and buried under the flesh by continual sins, as if it were no longer extant. “Conscience at last becomes blunted, almost to annihilation; the mind is dried up and killed, the higher consciousness lowered to a state of mere animal dreaming, the faculty of cognition ceases to exist.” Stier. This state of induration was the condition of those animal men without spirit; they had almost reached the level of brutes, cf. Jude 1:10. [Alford: These men have not indeed ceased to have πνεῦμα, as a part of their own tripartite nature: but they have ceased to possess it in any worthy sense: it is degraded beneath and under the power of the ψυχή, the personal life, so as to have no real vitality of its own. See Delitzsch, Biblische Psychologie, § 2,“Das neue Geistesleben;” and Beck,“Umriss der biblischen Seelenlehre, p. 35, sqq.”—M.]

As contrasted with those men who had wandered so far from the true faith, Jude now exhorts the readers of his Epistle to give the more heed to building themselves up upon their most holy faith (Jude 1:20). The principal exhortation, contained in Jude 1:21,“Keep yourselves in the love of God,” is surrounded by three participial sentences, two of which at all events are coördinated, viz.,ἐποικοδομοῦντες and προσδεχόμενοι. They indicate the manner how that keeping is to take place. The central Participle προσευχόμενοι may either be joined to the preceding ἐν πνεύματιἁγίῳ and subordinated to ἐποικοδομοῦντες, or be connected with the sequel. Against the former connection de Wette advances three reasons with which we agree: a. The propriety of the thought per se; b. The antithesis to the separatistic lusts of those men abandoned by the Holy Spirit (and their own rational spirit); c. The trinitarian arrangement of the language: to which we add, d. The infrequency of the expression “to pray in the Holy Spirit,” which Huther explains as a praying in which the Holy Spirit is the moving and leading power, and in support of which Bengel cites Ephesians 6:18; Zechariah 12:10; John 4:24. Should it be thought that this construction lessens the force of προσευχόμενοι, its central position admits of its being joined not only to the sequel, but also to the preceding words, provided it be not connected with ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ which would be something different than praying in the Spirit.

Jude 1:20. Building up yourselves, etc.—(German: “Continue to build up yourselves with prayer on your most holy faith.”)

πίστις here, as in Jude 1:3 and 2 Peter 1:1, denotes objective faith, the truths of faith considered as a whole. This follows from the predicate and the verb, by which faith is qualified. The primary reference in most holy faith is antithetical to those unholy scoffers and deceivers, the secondary reference is general, and points to its origin, object and end. “Jude thus addresses the saints just because it is a faith of the sanctified in the thrice Holy One, in whom they are and become holy.” Stier.

ἐποικοδομοῦντες, to build upon it, and to build again, cf. οἰκοδομή, 1 Corinthians 3:9. Faith in God and Christ is the foundation on which we must build ourselves up, ever more firmly in all directions, and into which we must ever root ourselves deeper and deeper. The term implies both strengthening and growth, cf. Hebrews 12:28; Colossians 2:6-7; 2Pe 1:5; 2 Peter 3:18; 1 Peter 2:5.

ἑαυτούς not=ἀλλήλους, although that is not excluded. Bengel:—“Who first defends himself, may also save others.”

In the Holy Spirit.—In His communion and power, not in reliance on their own wisdom and strength. [We can hardly agree with the construction advocated in the text, and see really no valid objection to προσευχόμενοι being joined with ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ.—Fronmüller’s artificial arrangement strikes us as unnecessary and a distinction without a difference. “To pray in the Holy Spirit” is a clear idea, fully borne out by Bengel’s references, and in perfect keeping with the rest of the sentence. The three participles seem to be coördinated, building, praying and waiting being necessary to keeping ourselves in, the love of God; the parallelism, moreover, is perfect, 1, τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ πίστει ἐποικοδομοῦντες, 2, ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ προσευχόμενοι, 3, προσδεχόμενοι τὸ ἔλεος κ. τ. λ. In this trinitarian arrangement, moreover, we have an express reference to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and faith, love and hope grouped round “prayer in the Holy Spirit.”—M.]

Jude 1:21. Waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.—The positive expression of the concluding caution of the second Epistle of Peter,“Beware lest ye fall from your own stedfastness.” Compare here the repeated exhortations of our Lord to abiding in His love, John 15:4; John 15:9. While it is true that nothing but the power of God can preserve us unto salvation, cf. 1 Peter 1:5; 2 Thessalonians 3:3; John 17:5, it is equally true that we must do our part in this great work of God, and make faithful and good use of our gifts and graces for our sanctification. Hence John says (1 John 5:18),“He that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.” “Man also, by exercising himself in the word of God, may strengthen his love to God, and thereby more richly enjoy the love which God has to us.” John 14:21. Rieger.

In the love of God.—This is the genitivus subjecti, in the love which God has to us, in which we are through faith. This explanation agrees best with the verb “keep,” and the reference to the mercy of Christ which follows it. Our love to God is kindled by His love to us. Rieger and Richter connect the two ideas.

For the mercy of our Lord.—Cf. Titus 2:13. Since προσδεχόμενοι points to the future, the allusion is to the mercy by which Christ will glorify Himself in His saints in His great day, Cf. 2 Peter 3:12-15; Hebrews 9:28; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; James 2:13. Its opposite is the fire (Jude 1:23), into which we belong according to our natural state. Even the most advanced Christians confess: “We ask for time and for eternity nothing but mercy.”

Unto eternal life.—This may be connected with ἔλεος, the saving mercy of Christ conducing to eternal life (de Wette), but the connection with “keep yourselves” seems more natural (Huther). [Hardly as natural as the connection with προσδεχόμενοι (Bengel).—M.]—The prominence given here to the Trinity,“Holy Spirit, God, Jesus Christ,” should not be overlooked.

Jude 1:22. And on some, indeed, have compassion, etc.—Now follows a direction for the proper treatment of the weak and deceived among the body of believers. The textual criticism of this passage is difficult [see above Appar. Crit., v. 22:16.—M.]. Adhering to the common reading, the first question relates to the meaning of διακρινόμενοι, which signifies in the Middle, to contend or dispute with one, Acts 11:2; Jude 1:9, but also to be at variance with oneself, Matthew 21:21; Romans 4:20; Romans 14:23; James 1:6; in Active sometimes to prefer, distinguish, 1 Corinthians 4:7; then to cause to differ, to discern, Act 15:9; 1 Corinthians 11:29; and lastly, to judge, 1 Corinthians 11:31. The passage under notice admits only the sense to distinguish, discern, or separate, which it also bears in classical Greek. The meaning would then be clear, as given in the translation,“Separating them from others,” i.e., if you find in some only a spark of the love of Christ, have compassion on them and separate them in your judgment and conduct from others. Stier: “On some have compassion, making a difference, i.e., treating some mildly, others severely.”—ὅς μὲν and ὅς δὲ are often used for ὁ μὲν and ὁ δὲ. Winer, p. 117. If we adopt, however, the more authentic reading: οὕς μὲν ἐλεγχετε διακρινομένους διακρίνεσθαι cannot be taken in the sense of the Vulgate, but either in that of separation (Oecumenius), or better in that of contention. Oecumenius paraphrases: “If they separate themselves from you, before all things reveal their ungodliness.” But it is more correct to render: “when they contend with you, convict them, hold up to them their wrong and perverseness.” De Wette and Bengel make διακρινομένους=to doubt, to hesitate between fidelity to ecclesiastical order and apostasy, and explain the word of the deceived, not the deceivers. Although this distinction is not indicated here, it is evident that the reference cannot be to false teachers, who were described as incorrigible in Jude 1:12, but to weak, contentious and deceived members of the body of believers. Jude from Jude 1:20 onwards, ceases to deal with the false teachers, and refers only to believers. [The New Testament use of the word διακρίνομαι in Middle seems to preponderate in favour of “to doubt,” Acts 10:20; Acts 11:12; Romans 14:23; James 1:6; the note of Bengel on Jude 1:22-23 is as follows: “Tria genera enumerat apostolus eorum, quorum saluti consulere sancti debeant, ac primun quidem genus intellectu laborat; secundum affectuf, vehementer; tertiam affectu, minus vehementer. Itaque I. elenchus sive demonstrate boni et mali debet iis, qui eum dubitationibus conflictantur, et in medio antipitique hærent. II. Quos ignis jam prope corripuit, ii rapida vi, quacumque parte prehensi, servari debent. III. Misericorditer et leniter tractandi sunt ii, que metu solo, et benigna periculi demonstratione, in viam reduci possunt.”—M.]

Jude 1:23. But others save in fear, etc.—ἐν φόβῳ is opposed to ἐλεεῖν; attack them strongly, influence them by motives of fear and terror; delineate heaven and hell to them. Huther thinks of the fear of the persons engaged in saving them: take heed, lest in the attempt to convert them, ye be drawn over to their side, and fall a prey to their ruin. This yields a good sense, but the former explanation is preferable, the same precaution being necessary in the case of the first class of the deceived. [Doubtful whether the explanation commended by Fronmüller is tenable; the word fear seems hardly to describe the disposition of bold assailants, courage would be more apposite. Then the appeal to the fears of the deceived would require διά rather than ἐν; we prefer, therefore, the interpretation of de Wette: “with conscientious solicitude for the Church’s salvation and your own,” and Lillie’s briefer rendering: “In a spirit of fear.” Pricæus in Crit. Sacri: “Festinantes et trepidanles: eorum ritu qui aliquid ex flamma rapiunt, salvate eos: θᾶττον, ut loquitur Artemidorus.”—M.]

Plucking them out of the fire.—Huther understands πῦρ of the ruin in which they already find themselves. But this use of fire is not scriptural. Jude had spoken of eternal fire, Jude 1:7, as had Peter in 2 Peter 3:7. To that he refers back. Cf. Isaiah 1:11. “Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire and in the sparks that ye have kindled.” ἁρπάζειν denotes, as Huther rightly observes, hasty, almost violent snatching away, and indicates that they were already in extreme peril of perdition. So Joshua, the high-priest, is called “a brand plucked out of the fire.” Zechariah 3:2. Cf. Amos 4:11 : “Ye were as a firebrand, plucked out of the burning.” Stier refers to wavering Lot, when the angels took him by the hand, and led him away, half by force, from the burning. [Terence, Andr. 1. 1. “Quæ sese in ignem projicere voluit, prohibui, servavi.”—M.].—The other reading is: ἐλεᾶτε (for ἐλεεῖτε, see Winer, p. 97) ἐν φόβῳ μισοῦντες, where ἐλεᾶτε is to be joined to ἐν φόβῳ, and the latter to be understood of the caution to be exerted by those engaged in saving. Bengel distinguishes the three classes as given above under Jude 1:22, although, as Stier remarks, they cannot be well distinguished.

Hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.—Their compassion and saving activity must go hand in hand with sincere hatred of evil and every thing that is even outwardly connected with it. “Let not the saving love to the sinner do detriment to the hatred of sin.” Stier. Isaiah 52:11.

καί, here in the sense of even. Hence v. Meyer: “Hate, flee even every outward moral impurity and its infection, not only the inward, the flesh itself, but also the seemingly innocent trace of sin.” Bengel: “Hate the contamination which may pass from the flesh of those unclean persons to your outward and consequently also to your inward conversation.”

[Oecumenius: τῷ ἐλέῳ τῷ πρὸς αὐτοὺς συνεπέσθω τὸ μῖσος τὸ πρὸς τὰ μιαρὰ αὐτῶν ἔργα, μισούντων ὑμῶν καὶ βδελλυσσομένων, καὶ τὸν , ἤτοι μεμιασμένον αὐτῶν χιτῶνα ὡς, τῇ πρὸς τὴν αὐτῶν σάρκα προσψαύσει, καὶ αὐτοῦ βδελυροῦ χρηματίζοντος.—M.]

Χιτών, the tunic or inner robe, worn next to the skin; sometimes, however, it denotes also the outer garb. Here the figure of whatever belongs to the outward appearance of men, their mode of life, habits and manner of speech. [But the inner robe, nearest to the person is soiled by the stains of the flesh, that, therefore, ye must hate (Wordsw.). “Animæ videlicet tunica maculata est spiritus concupiscentiis pollutus carnalibus.” Clem. Alex. The expression of Jude is rather hyperbolical than proverbial. Pricaeus: “Ita Apuleius, Formidans, ac procul perhorrescens etiam ipsam domum ejus: ac si diceret, non tantum abhorrens convivium ad quod vocabatur, sed et aedes ipsas in quibus, illud convivium faciendum erat.”—M.]

σπιλόω; cf. James 3:6.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

[1. Flattery, pride and partiality mark the hireling; sincerity, humility and impartiality the true pastor (Jude 1:16, cf. John 10:1-17.) “Omnis qui adulatur, aut propter avaritiam vel gloriam adulatur.”

2. The cure of souls, like the practice of medicine, requires a skilful diagnosis of every spiritual disease and judicious treatment. Medicine must be given with reference to the nature of the disease and the constitution of the patient, but the means used must in every case be adjusted to the end, viz.: the salvation of the patient. Seneca: “Aliter cum alio agendum est.” Cassiodorus: “Aegris non una causa salutis est: alter cibis reficitur, alter per abstinentia beneficia tenuatur; hic lavacra mollia, ille ferrum quærit ad vulnera.”—M.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The knowledge “that thus it must be” (Matthew 26:54; John 16:1) is an admirable support of faith in affliction.—The spirit of scoffing is here represented as rooted not in the understanding, but in the heart sold to sin. The increase of scoffers belongs to the forerunners of the anti-christian time.—“By scoffing men completely break off the sting from God’s truth, which may interfere with their life according to their own lusts.” Rieger:—“It is only by standing fast in the faith resting on Apostolical testimony that we are secure against the stormy flood of the unbelief, scoffing and ungodliness of the last times. The hard struggles of Christians at the close of the Apostolical age with the fearful power of unbelief and scoffing are typical of similar conflicts in the last days before the judgment.—Edifying oneself and others is one of the chief duties of Christianity; complaining and disclosing hurts a poor art.—[“Qui sibi jam consuluit, consulat aliis.” Bengel.—M.].—The way of separation is displeasing to God, Proverbs 18:1.—One of the seals of the truth of our religion is its insisting everywhere on holiness. The evangelical Church is built upon the immovable foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, and not on the quicksand of human tradition.—The edifice of Christianity must not only have a firm foundation, but ever be raised higher and firmer.—The only true progress—going to meet eternal life.—Those who want first to do good works and conduct themselves well, and afterwards to believe in God and put their trust in Him, turn the house upsido down and put the roof on the floor.—If our building is to prosper, it must not be done in our own spirit and strength, but in the Holy Spirit with unceasing prayer.—Prayer the surest and most necessary means for the building of Christianity.—If we have had any experience of the sweetness of the love of God, the monition “Keep yourselves in the love of God” is addressed to us. This is done by opening our hearts to God, by musing on His great Love to us unworthy men, by carefully noting every thing that may hinder or further us in love, and by waiting for the mercy of Christ.—The beginning and the end of evangelical Christianity are alike; every thing from first to last is the result of mercy and grace.—Christianity is an unfathomable sea of the mercies of Jesus Christ. Those who trust themselves to it in penitence and faith will surely reach the haven of eternity.—Suffer yourselves not to be deprived of your part in this life, but wait for eternal life where the treasures of the mercy of God will be fully opened to you.—If we have found salvation in Christ, we are also seized by the desire of saving others; but we should take hold of every man according to his own peculiar wants.—Take heed lest in saving others thou burn thyself!—[“But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a cast-away.” 1 Corinthians 9:27.—M.].—Divide the word rightly, classify your hearers, although some may not like it.—Our life should be nothing but a constant waiting for and desire of the life to come.

Starke:—O, the miserableness of the walk after one’s own lusts! and yet many, alas!—perhaps thyself also, reader—walk after their own lusts, 1 Timothy 6:9.—A teacher should deal with his hearers fairly, and, as far as possible, in love, for love often achieves more than the greatest punishment. But if the rod gentleness cannot effect any thing, then it is lawful to use the rod woe, Zechariah 11:7; 1Co 4:21; 2 Timothy 2:24; 2 Timothy 4:2. Scoffing is a most fearful sin, for it makes of God and His word pastime and mockery; it will rarely be seen that such scoffers attain to conversion, but in most instances they will be seen to come to a fearful end.—Would that there were not so many, even of the clergy, of whom we are constrained to say that they are carnal and have no spirit, and cannot please God, Romans 8:8-9.—[A sad reflection on the status of the German clergy in Starke’s time; thank God, things look much better there now, and it is one of the greatest blessings of this country that its clergy are conspicuous for godliness of living.—M.].—Living stones must move of their own accord to the building, 1 Peter 2:5. Their architect is God, their level His word, their task-master the Holy Ghost, who dwelleth in them. Fair building, proof against fire and war! Romans 14:19.

Hedinger:—Where faith is the foundation of the Christian edifice, prayer as the fruit of hope, raises it to heaven, and love is its pinnacle and perfection, 1 Corinthians 13:13.—If the offering of incense is to waft a sweet and grateful odour to God, it must be kindled by heaven-descended fire, Acts 2:2; Acts 2:4; Leviticus 9:24; 2 Chronicles 7:1.—Time and people must be distinguished.—The same medicine, be it never so good, does not suit every disease. Would that all sick Christian souls were treated according to their several wants! Let every one in his vocation of love do what he is able to God’s eternal praise and glory, 2 Timothy 2:15.—In the conversion of the ungodly and erring we require special wisdom, that different minds may be treated according to their kind, 1 Corinthians 3:1.—Fire must be removed by fire; although man with all his denunciations is not likely to accomplish much unless God clothe His word with power to strike men with fear and terror, Jeremiah 23:29.—Sparing and waiting will not do; he that saves a soul is like an angel that plucks it from the hell-fire of Sodom, James 5:20.—Those who would convert others should hate and shun sin. Therefore always begin at home in thy efforts to reprove and improve others, 1 Corinthians 9:27.—How few are ashamed to walk in the eyes of God and His saints in the garb of the old Adam and of sin! Shame! Lord Jesus, clothe Thou me with the robe of Thy innocence and righteousness.

[Hooker:

Jude 1:20. As in a chain, which is made of many links, if you pull the first, you draw the rest; and as in a ladder of many staves, if you take away the lowest, all hope of ascending to the highest will be removed; so because all the precepts and promises in the law and the Gospel do hang upon this, Believe; and because the last of the graces of God doth not follow the first, that He glorifieth none but whom He hath justified, nor justifieth any but whom He hath called to a true, effectual and lively faith in Christ Jesus, therefore St. Jude exhorting us to build ourselves, mentioneth here expressly only faith, as the thing wherein we must be edified; for that faith is the ground and the glory of all the welfare of this building.—The strength of every building which is of God, standeth not in any man’s arms or legs; it is only in our faith, as the valour of Samson lay only in his hair. This is the reason why we are so earnestly called upon to edify ourselves in faith. Not as if this bare action of our minds, whereby we believe the Gospel of Christ, were able in itself, as of itself, to make us unconquerable and invincible, like stones, which abide in the building forever, and fall not out. No, it is not the worthiness of our believing, it is the virtue of Him in whom we believe, by which “we stand sure, as houses that are built upon a rock. He is a wise man which hath builded his house upon a rock; for he hath chosen a good foundation, and no doubt his house will stand. But how will it stand? Verily, by the strength of the rock which beareth it, and by nothing else.—M.]

Sermon Themes:—

Jude 1:17-18. Reason, not raillery, the proper test of religion. (Shorey).—The extreme folly and impiety of mocking at religion. (Warren).

Jude 1:20-21. The spiritual building. (J. Taylor).—The principles and prospects of a servant of Christ. (A. Fuller).

Jude 1:20-23. Religious errors arising from the abuse of ordinances. (John Miller).

Jude 1:22-23. Growth in sin, or the several states and degrees of sinners, with the manner how they are to be treated. (Jeremy Taylor).

Very valuable are R. Hooker’s two sermons upon part of St. Jude’s Epistle, Jude 1:17-21, an analysis of which may prove suggestive to the reader. He treats of the following subjects: Imperfection of Human Language; Respect of God’s Word, the Test of Love to Him; Neutrality in Religion Intolerable; Ridicule of Holy things a Token of Unbelief; Three Ways by which Men separate from Christ; Our Conduct shows whether we are of the Body; The Papists Charge us with Apostasy; Comparison of Popery with the System of Jeroboam; How the Gospel Spiritualizes our Natural Instincts; Extravagant Building; Edification must begin from Faith; Case of Israel a Warning to the Gentiles; Foolishness of the Roman Doctrine of Merit; Edification depends much on Good Pastors; etc., etc—M.]

Footnotes:

Jude 1:16; Jude 1:16. [German:—“These are they, murmurers, discontented with God and the world.” The italicized words are paraphrase and comment, rather than translation. γογγυσταί, murmurers, describes their views of God, μεμψίμοιροι, complainers, denotes their discontent with their lot.—M.]

Jude 1:16; Jude 1:16. German:—“Flatterers to the face” is too free, better, “admiring persons,” which adheres more closely to the Greek θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα.—M.]

Jude 1:16; Jude 1:16. [German:—“For profit’s sake.”—M.]

Jude 1:17; Jude 1:17. [ὑμεῖς δὲ, but ye. So German, all the old English and foreign versions, except the Dutch.—M.]

Jude 1:17; Jude 1:17. [German:—“the words which were foretold you by the Apostles;” too free, better retain the rendering of E. V.: “which were spoken before,” but substituting “by,” ὑπὸ, for “of.”—M.]

Jude 1:17; Jude 1:17. [German:—“the words which were foretold you by the Apostles;” too free, better retain the rendering of E. V.: “which were spoken before,” but substituting “by,” ὑπὸ, for “of.”—M.]

Jude 1:17; Jude 1:17. [The German omits “how,” which is superfluous; render, “that they told you, etc.”—M.]

Jude 1:17; Jude 1:17. [ἔσονται, shall be; so German, Vulgate, Reims, al.—M.]

Jude 1:17; Jude 1:17. Lachm. and Tischend. read ἐπ’ ἐσχατόυ τοῦ χρ. ἐλεύσονται. Stier considers this reading an imitation of 2 Peter 3:3. [It is the reading of A. B. C. and Sin.; but B. C. omit τοῦ before χρόνου, so Meyer and Huther. ἐλεύσονται is marked * * in Cod. Sin. by Tischendorf.—M.]

Jude 1:17; Jude 1:17. German:—“who walk after their own lusts in ungodlinesses.” While it is better to retain the participial construction, with Vulg., Syr., it is also better to bring out the grammatical relation of ἐπιθυμίας and ἀσεβειῶν, and to translate the whole verse: “that they told you that in the last time there shall be scoffers, walking according to their own lusts in ungodliness.”—M.

[55] Jude 1:19. [a. ἐαυτούς, B. C., Vulg., Griesb., al.; A., Sin., Tischend., Lachm., al. omit it. Lillie suggests “separate” without the Pronoun; the sense is hardly affected by the omission, for ἀποδιορίζοντες may be taken with the reflexive force which transitive verbs sometimes do bear (Winer, p. 266), and signifies “separatists,” both in doctrine and Church fellowship.—M.]

[b. ψυχικοί, German:—“Seelische;” the English “animal” on account of its connection with the Latin anima, the French âme, respectively answering to the Greek ψυχή. has something to recommend it, but is not as expressive and correct as “psychical” or “soulish.”—M.]

Jude 1:19; Jude 1:19. [πνεῦμαμὴ ἔχοντες. German: “That have no spirit,” or retaining the Participal construction: “having no spirit.”—M.]

[57] Jude 1:20. C. reads ἡμῶν for ὑμῶν. [Sin. observes the following order: ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ ῦμῶν πίστει.—M.]

[German: “ …. build yourselves further up on your most holy faith in the Holy Ghost with prayer,” better render with closer adherence to the Greek: “building up yourselves on your most holy faith praying in the Holy Ghost.”—M.]

Jude 1:21; Jude 1:21. [προσδεχόμενοι, “waiting for” (German) better than “looking for”.—M.]

Jude 1:22; Jude 1:22. [“οὓςμέν et οὓςδε rite sibi invicem opponuntur.” Laurmann. The opposition should be marked, and I adopt accordingly Lillie’s rendering: “On some, indeed, have compassion”—M.]

[60] Jude 1:22. C. reads; οὓς μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένου0ς; οὓς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες ἐν φόβῳ. A. B., followed by Lachmann and Tischendorf, have three members. 1. ἐλέγχετε (B. ἐλεᾶτε); 2. σώζετε. … ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες; 3. ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ μισοῦντες. De Wette ascribes the last ἐλεᾶτε to a gloss, or the mistake of a transcriber. Vulgate: “hos quidem arguite judicatos.”

[Sin., ἐλεᾶτε διακρινομένους. On the different interpretations of this difficult verse see below in Exegetical and Critical, where the whole subject is discussed.—M.]

Jude 1:23; Jude 1:23. [ἐνφόβῳ, “in fear”, not “with fear” as E. V.—Sin. reads: “ … σώζετεἐκ—πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ.” See more below in Exegetical and Critical.—M.]

Jude 1:23; Jude 1:23. [“Snatch” or “pluck” better than “pull.”—M.]

Jude 1:23; Jude 1:23. [The whole verse according to the Sinaitic reading would run thus: “But others save, plucking them out of the fire; and on others have compassion in fear.” So substantially Lachmann, Tischendorf, Wordsworth, Alford.—M.]