[ Jud 1:1-2].—Salutation. Jude a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, to those who have received the divine calling, beloved of the Father, kept safe in Jesus Christ. May mercy, peace and love be richly poured out upon you!
1. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος. The same phrase is used by St. James in the Inscription to his epistle, also by St. Paul in Rom. and Phil. In 1 Pet. the phrase used is ἀπόστολος Ἰ. Χ., in 2 Pet. δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος. It is, I think, a mistake to translate δοῦλος by the word “slave,” the modern connotation of which is so different from that of the Greek word (cf. [ 2Co 4:5]). There is no opposition between δουλεία and ἐλευθερία in the Christian’s willing service. It only becomes a δουλεία in the opposed sense, when he ceases to love what is commanded and feels it as an external yoke.
ἀδελφὸς δὲ Ἰακώβου. Cf. [ Tit 1:1] δοῦλος Θεοῦ, ἀπόστολος δὲ Ἰ. Χ. See Introduction on the Author.
τοῖς ἐν Θεῷ πατρὶ ἠγαπημένοις καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ τετηρημένοις κλητοῖς. On the readings see Introduction on the text. The easier reading of some MSS., ἡγιασμένοις for ἠγαπημένοις, is probably derived from [ 1Co 1:2], ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χ. Ἰ. There is no precise parallel either for ἐν Θεῷ ἠγ. or for Χριστῷ τετ. The preposition ἐν is constantly used to express the relation in which believers stand to Christ: they are incorporated in Him as the branches in the vine, as the living stones in the spiritual temple, as the members in the body of which He is the head. So here, “beloved as members of Christ, reflecting back his glorious image “would be a natural und easy conception. Lightfoot, commenting on [ Col 3:12], ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἅγιοι καὶ ἠγαπημένοι, says that in the N.T. the last word “seems to be used always of the objects of God’s love,” but it is difficult to see the propriety of the phrase, ‘Brethren beloved by God in God”. Ἠγαπημένοι is used of the objects of man’s love in Clem. Hom. ix. 5, τῶν αὐτοῖς ἠγαπημένων τοὺς τάφους ναοῖς τιμῶσιν, and the cognate ἀγαπητοί is constantly used in the same sense (as below [ Jud 1:3]), as well as in the sense of “beloved of God”. If, therefore, we are to retain the reading, I am disposed to interpret it as equivalent to ἀδελφοί, “beloved by us in the Father,” i.e., “beloved with φιλαδελφία. as children of God,” but I think that Hort is right in considering that ἐν has shifted its place in the text. See his Select Readings, p. 106, where it is suggested that ἐν should be omitted before Θεῷ and inserted before Ἰησοῦ, giving the sense “to those who have been beloved by the Father, and who have been kept safe in Jesus from the temptations to which others have succumbed,” ἠγαπημένοις being followed by a dative of the agent, as in [ Neh 13:26], ἀγαπώμενος τῷ Θεῷ ἦν.
κλητοῖς is here the substantive of which ἠγαπημένοις and τετηρημένοις are predicated. We find the same use in [ Rev 17:14] (νικήσουσιν) οἱ μετʼ αὐτοῦ κλητοὶ κ. ἐκλεκτοὶ κ. πιστοί, in St. Paul’s epistles, as in [ Rom 1:6], ἐν οἶς ἐστε καὶ ὑμεῖς, κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, [ 1Co 1:24], κηρύσσομεν Χριστὸν ἐσταυρωμένον, Ἰουδαίοις μὲν σκάνδαλον … αὐτοῖς δὲ τοῖς κλητοῖς Χριστὸν Θεοῦ δύναμιν. We have many examples of the Divine calling in the Gospels, as in the case of the Apostles ([ Mat 4:21], [ Mar 1:20]) and in the parables of the Great Supper and the Labourers in the Vineyard. This idea of calling or election is derived from the O.T. See Hort’s n. on [ 1Pe 1:1] Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκλεκτοῖς: “Two great forms of election are spoken of in the O.T., the choosing of Israel, and the choosing of single Israelites, or bodies of Israelites, to perform certain functions for Israel.… The calling and the choosing imply each other, the calling being the outward expression of the antecedent choosing, the act by which it begins to take effect. Both words emphatically mark the present state of the persons addressed as being due to the free agency of God.… In Deuteronomy ([ Deu 4:37]) the choosing, by God is ascribed to His own love of Israel: the ground of it lay in Himself, not in Israel.… As is the election of the ruler or priest within Israel for the sake of Israel, such is the election of Israel for the sake of the whole human race. Such also, still more clearly and emphatically, is the election of the new Israel.” For a similar use of the word “call” in Isaiah, cf. ch. [ Isa 48:12], [ Isa 43:1]; [ Isa 43:7]. The chief distinction between the the “calling” of the old and of the new dispensation is that the former is rather expressive of dignity (“called by the name of God”), the latter of invitation; but the former appears also in the N.T. in such phrases as [ Jas 2:7], τὸ καλὸν ὄνομα τὸ ἐπικληθὲν ἐφʼ ὑμᾶς and [ 1Pe 2:9], ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα … λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν. The reason for St. Jude’s here characterising the called as beloved and kept, is because he has in his mind others who had been called, but had gone astray and incurred the wrath of God.
[ Jud 1:2]. For the Salutation see my note on χαίρειν, [ Jas 1:1], and Hort’s excellent note on [ 1Pe 1:2], χάρις … πληθυνθείη. We find ἔλεος and εἰρήνη joined in [ Gal 6:16], and with the addition of χάρις in [ 1Ti 1:2], [ 2Ti 1:2], [ 2Jn 1:3]. The mercy of God is the ground of peace, which is perfected in the feeling of God’s love towards them. The verb πληθυνθείη occurs in the Salutation both of 1 Peter and 2 Peter and in [ Dan 6:25] (in the letter of Darius), εἰρήνη ὑμῖν πληθυνθείη, cf. [ 1Th 3:12], ὑμᾶς δὲ ὁ κύριος πλεονάσαι καὶ περισσεύσαι τῇ ἀγάπῃ εἰς ἀλλήλους. Ἀγάπη (= the love of God) occurs also in the final salutation of 2 Cor. ἡ χάρις τ. κυρίου Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ, and in Eph. εἰρήνη τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς καὶ ἀγάπη μετὰ πίστεως ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Κυρίου Ἰ. Χ. Cf. [ 1Jn 3:1].), ἰδετε ποταπὴν ἀγάπην δέδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ πατὴρ ἵνα τέκνα Θεοῦ κληθῶμεν, where Westcott’s n. is “The Divine love is infused into them, so that it is their own, and becomes in them the source of a divine life ([ Rom 13:10]). In virtue of this gift they are inspired with a love which is like the love of God, and by this they truly claim the title of children of God as partakers in His nature, [ 1Jn 4:7]; [ 1Jn 4:19].” The same salutation is used in the letter of the Smyrnaeans (c. 156 A.D.) giving an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp, ἔλεος καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη Θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰ. Χ. πληθυνθείη. The thought of ἔλεος and άγάπη recurs again in [ Jud 1:21].
[ Jud 1:3-4].—Reasons for Writing. He had been intending to write to them on that which is the common interest of all Christians, salvation through Christ, but was compelled to abandon his intention by news which had reached him of a special danger*[783] threatening the Gospel once for all delivered to the Church. His duty now was to stir up the faithful to defend their faith against insidious assaults, long ago foretold in ancient prophecy, of impious men who should change the doctrine of God’s free grace into an excuse for licentiousness, and deny the only Master and our Lord Jesus Christ.
[783]* For this see the Introduction on Early Heresies.
[ Jud 1:4]. Nature of the Threatened Danger. It is stealthy; it is serious enough to have been predicted long ago; its characteristic is impiety, showing itself in the antinomian misuse of the Gospel of God’s free grace, and in the denial of God and Christ.
[ Jud 1:5-13]. Illustrations of Sin and Judgment Derived from History and from Nature. The judgment impending Over these men is borne witness to by well-known facts of the past, and may be illustrated from the phenomena of nature. God showed His mercy in delivering the Israelites from Egypt, but that was no guarantee against their destruction in the wilderness when they again sinned by unbelief. The angels were blessed beyond all other creatures, but when they proved unfaithful to their trust they were imprisoned in darkness, awaiting there the judgment of the great day. The men of Sodom (lived in a land of great fertility, they had received some knowledge of God through the presence and teaching of Lot, they had been lately rescued from captivity by Abraham, yet they) followed the sinful example of the angels, and their land is still a prey to the fire, bearing witness to the eternal punishment of sin. In spite of these warnings the heretics, who are now finding their way into the Church, persist in their wild hallucinations, giving themselves up to the lusts of the flesh, despising authority, and railing at angelic dignities. They might have been taught better by the example of the archangel Michael, of whom we are told that, when disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, he uttered no word of railing, but made his appeal to God. These men however rail at that which is beyond their knowledge, while they surrender themselves like brute beasts to the guidance of their appetites, and thus bring about their own destruction, following in the wake of impious Cain, of covetous Balaam, and rebellious Korah. When they take part in your love-feasts they cause the shipwreck of the weak by their wantonness and irreverence. In greatness of profession and smallness of performance they resemble clouds driven by the wind which give no rain; or trees in autumn on which one looks in vain for fruit, and which are only useful for fuel. By their confident speaking and brazen assurance they seem to carry all before the; yet like the waves bursting on the shore, the deposit they leave is only their own shame. Or we might compare them to meteors which shine for a moment and are then extinguished for ever.
[ Jud 1:6]. ἀγγέλους τε τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἐαυτῶν ἀρχὴν … εἰς κρίσιν … τετήρηκεν.] Cf. Clem. Al. Adumbr. “Angelos qui non servaverunt proprium principatum, scilicet quem acceperunt secundum profectum.” This of course supplies an even more striking instance of the possibility of falling away from grace, cf. Bede, “Qui angelis peccantibus non pepercit, nee hominibus parcet super-bientibus, sed et hos quoque cum suum principatum non servaverint, quo per gratiam adoptionis filii Dei effecti sunt, sed reliquerint suum domicilium, id est, Ecclesiae unitatem … damnabit”. On the Fall of the Angels see Introduction and the parallel passages in [ 2Pe 2:4], and in Enoch, chapters 6–10.
ἀρχήν.] Used of office and dignity, as in [ Gen 40:21] of the chief butler: here perhaps of the office of Watcher, though Spitta takes it more generally of the sovereignty belonging to their abode in heaven = τὸν ἄνω κλῆρον in Clem. Al. 650 P. The term ἀρχή is used of the evil angels themselves in [ Eph 6:12]. Cf. Enoch xii. 4, of the Watchers (angels) who have abandoned the high heaven and the holy eternal place and defiled themselves with women, ib. xv. 3. Philo says of the fallen angels (M. i. p. 268), καλὸν μὴ λιποτακτῆσαι μὲν τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ τάξεως, ἐν ᾗ τοὺς τεταγμένους πάντας ἀριστεύειν ἀνάγκη, αὐτομολῆσαι δὲ πρὸς τὴν ἄνανδρον ἡδονήν. So Just. M[788] Apol. ii. 5, οἱ δʼ ἄγγελοι παραβάντες τήνδε τὴν τάξιν γυναικῶν μίξεσιν ἡττήθησαν with Otto’s n.
[788]. Codex Ruber (sæc. ix.), at the British Museum; it derives its name from the colour of the ink.
ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον. Cf. [ 2Co 5:2], τὸ οἰκ. τὸ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, and the quotation from Enoch in the last n. [For οἰκητήριον, cf. Enoch xv. 7 (the message of Enoch to the Watchers) “the spiritual have their dwelling in heaven” … ἡ κατοίκησις αὐτῶν ἔσται ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Chase.]
εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφου τετήρηκεν. Cf. [ 2Pe 2:4] σειροῖς ζόφου ταρταρώσας, [ 2Pe 2:9], ἀδίκους εἰς ἡμέραν κρίσεως κολαζομένους τηρεῖν, [ 2Pe 3:7], τηρούμενοι εἰς ἡμέραν κρίσεως … τῶν ἀσεβῶν ἀνθρώπων, [ Joe 2:31], ὁ ἥλιος μεταστραφήσεται εἰς σκότος … πρὶν ἐλθεῖν τὴν ἡμέραν Κυρίου τὴν μεγάλην καὶ ἐπιφανῆ [ Rev 6:17], ἦλθεν ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ μεγάλη τῆς ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ, [ Rev 16:14], συναγαγεῖν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν πόλεμον τῆς μεγάλης ἡμέρας τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ παντοκράτορος. Enoch 10:5, ἐπικάλυψον αὐτῷ (Azazel) σκότος, καὶ οἰκησάτω ἐκεῖ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, Enoch 10:12, δῆσον αὐτοὺς … μέχρι ἡμέρας κρίσεως αὐτῶν, Enoch 12:11 (Gr. in Charles’ App. [789]) μέχρι τῆς μεγάλης ἡμέρας τῆς κρίσεως, ib. liv. 6, note on xlv. 1. So ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου [ 1Co 1:8], [ 2Pe 3:10] al., ἐκείνη ἡ ἡμέρα [ 2Th 1:10]. On δεσμοῖς see En. liv. 3–5, “I saw how they made iron chains of immeasurable weight, and I asked for whom they were prepared, and he said unto me ‘These are prepared far the hosts of Azazel’.” cf. δέσμιοι σκότους ([Wis 17:2]) of the plague of darkness.
[789] Codex Ephraemi (sæc. v.), the Paris palimpsest, edited by Tischendorf in 1843.
ἀϊδίοις. The chains are called “everlasting,” but they are only used for a temporary purpose, to keep them for the final judgment. It seems to be here synonymous with αἰώνιος in [ Jud 1:7]. So too in the only other passages in which it occurs in the Bible, [Wis 7:26], ἀπαύγασμά ἐστι φωτὸς ἀϊδίου, and [ Rom 1:20], ἡ ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ θειότης.
[ Jud 1:7]. ὡς Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις. The 3rd example of Divine judgment differs from the two others, as it tells only of the punishment, not of the fall from grace. Hence the difference of connexion ἀγγέλους τε.… ὡς Σόδομα. Cf. [ 2Pe 2:6], πόλεις Σοδόμων καὶ Γομόρρας καταστροφῇ κατέκρινεν. The destruction was not limited to these two cities, but extended to all the neighbouring country ([ Gen 19:25], called Πεντάπολις in [Wis 10:6]), including the towns of Admah and Zeboim ([ Deu 29:23], [ Hos 11:8]). Zoar was spared at the request of Lot.
τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις ἑκπορνεύσασαι. For the adverbial acc., cf. [ Mat 23:37], ὃν τρόπον ἐπισυνάγει ὄρνις τὰ νοσσία, [2Ma 15:39], ὃν τρόπον οἶνος … ἀποτελεῖ, οὕτω καὶ, Luc. Catapl. 6 τεθνᾶσι τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον. “Like them.” i.e. the fallen angels. The two judgments are similarly joined in Test. Nepht. 3, μὴ γένησθε ὡς Σόδομα ἥτις ἐνήλλαξε τάξιν φύσεως αὐτῆς. Ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ οἱ Ἐγρήγορες ἐνήλλαξαν τάξιν φύσεως αὐτῶν, οὕς κατηράσατο Κύριος. Others understand τούτοις of the libertines who are subsequently referred to as οὖτοι ([ Jud 1:8]; [ Jud 1:10]; [ Jud 1:12]; [ Jud 1:16]; [ Jud 1:19]); but the beginning of [ Jud 1:8] (μέντοι καὶ οὗτοι) seems to distinguish between them and the preceding. The verb ἐκπ. occurs in [ Gen 38:24] of Tamar, [ Exo 34:15-16], (μή ποτε) ἐκπορνεύσωσιν ὀπίσω τῶν θεῶν αὐτῶν, [ Lev 17:7], [ Hos 4:12], [ Eze 16:26]; [ Eze 16:28]; [ Eze 16:33].
ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας. In the case of the angels the forbidden flesh (lit. “other than that appointed by God”) refers to the intercourse with women; in the case of Sodom to the departure from the natural use ([ Rom 1:27]), what Philo calls ἀνόμους καὶ ἑκθέσμους μίξεις (de Gig. M i. p. 267), cf. [ Exo 30:9]. οὐκ ἀνοίσεις θυμίαμα ἕτερον. For the post-classical phrase cf. [ 2Pe 2:10], τοὺς ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασμοῦ πορευομένους, [ Deu 4:3], ἐπορεύθη ὀπίσω Βεελφεγώρ [ Jer 2:2-3].
πρόκεινται δεῖγμα πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην ὑπέχουσαι. Cf. Enoch lxvii. 12, “this judgment wherewith the angels are judged is a testimony for the kings and the mighty,” [ 2Pe 2:6], ὑπόδειγμα μελλόντων ἀσεβέσιν τεθεικώς, [ 1Co 10:6]; [ 1Co 10:11] τύποι ἐγένοντο, [ Heb 4:11] ἵνα μὴ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ τις ὑποδείγματι πέσῃ τῆς ἀπειθείας. The present aspect of the Lacus Asphaltites was a conspicuous image of the lake of fire and brimstone prepared for Satan and his followers, [ Rev 19:20]; [ Rev 20:10]; [ Rev 21:8]. It is questioned whether πυρός is governed by δεῖγμα or δίκην. If by δίκην, then the burning of Sodom is itself spoken of as still going on (eternal), and this is in accordance with Jewish belief as recorded in [Wis 10:7] (πῦρ Πενταπόλεως) ἦς ἔτι μαρτύριον τῆς πονηρίας καπνιζομένη καθέστηκε χέρσος, Philo (De Abr. M. ii. xxi.), μέχρι νῦν καίεται. τὸ γὰρ κεραύνιον πῦρ ἥκιστα σβεννύμενον ἢ νέμεται ἢ ἐντύφεται. πίστις δὲ σαφεστάτη τὰ δρώμενα, τοῦ γὰρ συμβεβηκότος πάθους σημεῖόν ἐστιν ὅ τε ἀναδιδόμενος ἀεὶ καπνὸς καὶ ὃ μεταλλεύουσι θεῖον, ib. V. Moys. M. ii. p. 143. Some disallow this sense of αἰώνιος and think that it can only be used of hell-fire, as in [4Ma 12:12] (the words of the martyr contrasting the fires of present torture with the eternal flames awaiting the persecutor), ταμιεύεταί σε ἡ θεία δίκη πυκνοτέρῳ καὶ αἰωνίῳ πυρί, καὶ βάσανοι εἰς ὅλον τὸν αἰῶνα οὐκ ἀνήσουσί σε. For an examination of the word see Jukes, Restitution of all Things, p. 67 n. and cf. [ Jer 23:39-40], [ Eze 16:53]; [ Eze 16:55] (on the restoration of Sodom), [ Eze 47:1-12] (a prophecy of the removal of the curse of the Dead Sea and its borders), Enoch, x. 5 and 12, where the εἰς αἰῶνα of the former verse is equivalent to seventy generations in the latter, also [ Eze 47:10] where ζωὴ αἰώνιος is reckoned at 500 years. As the meaning of δεῖγμα is made clear by the following participial clause, it seems unnecessary to take it with πυρός in the sense of “an example or type of eternal fire,” which would escape the difficulty connected with αἰωνίου, but leaves δίκην ὑπέχουσαι (for which cf. Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 8, [2Ma 4:48]) a somewhat otiose appendage. In the book of Enoch (lxvii. 4 foll.) the angels who sinned are said to be imprisoned in a burning valley (Hinnom, ch. 27) in which there was a great swelling of waters, accompanied by a smell of sulphur; and “that valley of the angels burned continually under the earth”. Charles notes on this that “the Gehenna valley here includes the adjacent country down to the Dead Sea. A subterranean fire was believed to exist under the Gehenna valley.”
[ Jud 1:8]. ὁμοίως μέντοι καὶ οὗτοι. Notwithstanding these warnings the libertines go on in similar courses.
ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι σάρκα μιαίνουσιν Compare [ Act 2:17] (a quotation from [ Joe 2:28]), οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ὑμῶν ἐνυπνίοις ἐνυπνιασθήσονται, of those that see visions: and so Spitta (holding that Jude copied from 2 Peter), would render it here, prefixing the article to make it correspond with the ψευδοπροφῆται and ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι of [ 2Pe 2:1]. Those who take the opposite view (viz. that 2 Peter was copied from Jude) will see nothing to justify the article. The word is used by [ Isa 56:10] in connexion with the words οὐκ ἔγνωσαν, οὐκ εἰδότες (see [ Jud 1:10] below), ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι κοίτην φιλοῦντες νυστάξαι, which Delitsch explains “instead of watching and praying to see divine revelations for the benefit of the people, they are lovers of ease talkers in their sleep.
Bengel explains “Hominum mere naturalium indoles graphice admodum descripta est. Somnians multa videre, audire, etc. sibi videtur.” And so Chase “they live in an unreal world of their own inflated imaginations,” comparing the conjectural reading of [ Col 2:18], ἀέρα κενεμβατεύων. This accords with [ Jud 1:10]: in their delusion and their blindness they take the real for the unreal, and the unreal for the real. The verb is used both in the active and middle by Aristotle, Somm. i. 1, πότερον συμβαίνει ἀεὶ τοῖς καθεύδουσιν ἐνυπνιάζειν, ἀλλ οὐ μνημονεύουσιν; Probl. 30, 14, 2, οἱ ἐν τῷ καθεύδειν ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι ἱσταμένης τῆς διανοίας, καὶ καθʼ ὅσον ἠρεμεῖ, ὀνειρώττουσιν, cf. Artem. Oneir, i. 1. Some interpret of polluting dreams (cf. Leviticus 15); but the word ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι is evidently intended to have a larger scope, covering not merely μιαίνουσιν but ἀθετοῦσιν and βλασφημοῦσιν. We must also interpret μιαίνω here by the ἀσέλγειαν of [ Jud 1:4], the ἐκπορνεύσασαι and σαρκὸς ἑτέρας of [ Jud 1:7]. This wide sense appears in [ Tit 1:15], τοῖς μεμιασμένοις οὐδὲν καθαρόν, ἀλλὰ μεμίανται αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ νοῦς καὶ ἡ συνείδησις.
κυριότητα δὲ ἀθετοῦσιν, δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν. On first reading one is inclined to take the words κυριότης and δόξαι simply as abstractions. The result of indulgence in degrading lusts is the loss of reverence, the inability to recognise true greatness and due degrees of honour. This would agree with the description of the libertines as sharing in the ἀντιλογία of Korah, as κύματα ἄγρια θαλάσσης, as γογγυσταί uttering hard speeches against God. When we examine however the use of the word κυριότης and the patristic comments, and when we consider the reference to the archangel’s behaviour towards Satan, and the further explanation in [ Jud 1:10], where the σάρκα of [ Jud 1:8] is represented by ὅσα φυσικῶς ἐπίστανται, and the phrase κυριότητα ἀθετοῦσιν, δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν by ὅσα οὐκ οἴδασιν βλασφημοῦσιν, we seem to require a more pointed and definite meaning, not simply “majesty,” but “the divine majesty,” not simply “dignities,” but “the angelic orders”. Cf. [ 2Pe 2:10], [ Eph 1:21] (having raised him from the dead and set him on his right hand) ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ κυριότητος, [ Col 1:16], ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι, where Lightfoot considers that the words are intended to be taken in their widest sense, including bad and good angels, as well as earthly dignities. In our text, however, it would seem that the word should be understood as expressing the attribute of the true κύριος, cf. Didache, iv. 1 (honour him who speaks the word of God), ὡς κύριον, ὅθεν γὰρ ἡ κυριότης λαλεῖται, ἐκεῖ κύριός ἐστιν, Herm. Sim, [ Jud 1:6]; [ Jud 1:1], εἰς δούλου τρόπον οὐ κεῖται ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλʼ εἰς ἐξουσίαν μεγάλην κεῖται καὶ κυριότητα. The verb ἀθετέω has God or Christ for its object in [ Luk 10:16], [ Joh 12:48], [ 1Th 4:8], etc. We have then to consider how it can be said that the libertines (οὗτοι) “despise authority” in like manner to the above-mentioned offenders. For the former we may refer to [ Jud 1:4], τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ἀρνούμενοι, for the latter to the contempt shown by the Israelites towards the commandments of God. So the desertion of their appointed station and abode by the angels showed their disregard for the divine ordinance, and the behaviour of the men of Sodom combined with the vilest lusts an impious irreverence towards God’s representatives, the angels ([ Gen 19:5]). Cf. Joseph. Ant. i. 11. 2, εἰς ἀνθρώπους ἦσαν ὑβρισταὶ καὶ πρὸς τὸ θεῖον ἀσεβεῖς, and Test. Aser. 7, where the sin of Sodom is expressly stated to have been their behaviour towards the angels, μὴ γίνεσθε ὡς Σόδομα ἥτις ἠγνόησε τοὺς ἀγγέλους Κυρίου καὶ ἀπώλετο ἕως αἰῶνος.
δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν. Cf. [ 2Pe 2:10], τολμηταὶ αὐθάδεις δόξας οὐ τρέμουσιν βλασφημοῦντες. The only other passage in the N.T. in which the plural occurs is [ 1Pe 1:11], where the sense is different. Dr. Bigg compares [ Exo 15:11], τίς ὅμοιός σοι ἐν θεοῖς, Κύριε; τίς ὁμοιός σοι; δεδοξασμένος ἐν ἁγίοις, θαυμαστὸς ἐν δόξαις. Clement’s interpretation of this and the preceding clause is as follows: (Adumbr. 1008) “dominationem spernunt, hoc est solum dominum qui vere dominus noster est, Jesus Christus … majestatem blasphemant, hoc est angelos”. The word δόξα in the singular is used for the Shekinah, see my note on [ Jas 2:1]. This suggests that Clement may be right in supposing the plural to be used for the angels, who are, as it were, separate rays of that glory. Compare Philo’s use of the name λόγοι for the angels as contrasted with the divine Λόγος. In Philo, Monarch, ii. p. 18 the divine δόξα, is said to consist of the host of angels, δόξαν δὲ σὴν εἶναι νομίζω τάς σε δορυφορούσας δυνάμεις. See Test. [ Jud 1:25], Κύριος εὐλόγησε τὸν Λευί, ὁ ἄγγελος τοῦ προσώπου ἐμέ, αἱ δυνάμεις τῆς δοξης τὸν Συμεών, also [ Luk 9:26], where it is said that “the Son of Man will come in His own glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels”.[790] Ewald, Hist. Isr. tr. vol. viii. p. 142, explains ἡ κυριότης of the true Deity, whom they practically deny by their dual God; αἱ δόξαι as the angels, whom they blaspheme by supposing that they had created the world in opposition to the will of the true God, whereas Michael himself submitted everything to Him. This last clause would then be an appendage to the preceding, with special reference to the case of the Sodomites (cf. [ Joh 13:20]). There may also be some allusion to the teaching or practice of the libertines. If we compare the mysterious reference in [ 1Co 11:10], διὰ τοῦτο ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους, which is explained by Tertullian (De Virg. Vel. 7) as spoken of the fallen angels mentioned by Jude, “propter angelos, scilicet quos legimus a Deo et caelo excidisse ob concupiscentiam feminarum,” we might suppose the βλασφημία, of which the libertines were guilty, to consist in a denial or non-recognition of the presence of good angels in their worship, or of the possibility of their own becoming κοινωνοὶ δαιμονίων; or they may have scoffed at the warnings against the assaults of the devil, or even at the very idea of “spiritual wickedness in high places”. So understood, it prepares us for the strange story of the next verse.
[790] There is much said of the glory of the angels in Asc. Isaiae, pp. 47, 49 f ad. Charles.
[ Jud 1:9]. ὁ δὲ Μιχαὴλ ὁ ἀρχάγγελος. The term ἀρχ. occurs in the N.T. only here and in [ 1Th 4:16]. The names of seven archangels are given in Enoch. The story here narrated is taken from the apocryphal Assumptio Mosis, as we learn from Clem. Adumbr. in Ep. Judae, and Orig. De Princ. iii. 2, 1. Didymus (In Epist. Judae Enarratio) says that some doubted the canonicity of the Epistle because of this quotation from an apocryphal book. In Cramer’s Catena on this passage (p. 163) we read τελευτήσαντος ἐν τῷ ὄρει Μωυσέως, ὁ Μιχαὴλ ἀποστέλλεται μεταθήσων τὸ σῶμα, εἶτα τοῦ διαβόλου κατὰ τοῦ Μωυσέως βλασφημοῦντος καὶ φονέα ἀναγορεύοντος διὰ τὸ πατάξαι τὸν Αἰγύπτιον, οὐκ ἐνεγκὼν τὴν κατʼ αὐτοῦ βλασφημίαν ὁ ἄγγελος, Ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι ὁ Θεὸς, πρὸς τὸν διάβολον ἔφη. Charles in his edition of the Assumption thus summarises the fragments dealing with the funeral of Moses: (1) Michael is commissioned to bury Moses, (2) Satan opposes his burial on two grounds: (a) he claims to be the lord of matter (hence the body should be handed over to him). To this claim Michael rejoins, “The Lord rebuke thee, for it was God’s spirit which created the world and all mankind”. (b) He brings the charge of murder against Moses (the answer to this is wanting). The story is based upon [ Deu 34:6] (R.V.), “he buried him (mg. he was buried) in the valley … but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day”. Compare the vain search for Elijah ([ 2Ki 2:16-17]). Further details in Josephus (Ant. 4:8, 48), νέφους αἰφνίδιον ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ στάντος ἀφανίζεται κατά τινος φάραγγος. γέγραφε δὲ αὐτὸν ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς βίβλοις τεθνεῶτα, δείσας μὴ διʼ ὑπερβολὴν τῆς περὶ αὐτὸν ἀρετῆς πρὸς τὸ θεῖον αὐτὸν ἀναχωρῆσαι τολμήσωσιν εἰπεῖν, Philo i. p. 165, and Clem. Al. (Str. vi. § 132, p. 807) where it is said that Caleb and Joshua witnessed the assumption of Moses to heaven, while his body was buried in the clefts of the mountain. See comment in the larger edition, pp. 74–76.
διακρινόμενος. Here used in the sense of “disputing,” as in [ Jer 15:10], ἄνδρα διακρινόμενον πάσῃ τῇ γῇ, [ Joe 3:2], [ Act 11:2]. See my note on [ Jas 1:6] and below [ Jud 1:22].
διελέγετο. Cf. [ Mar 9:34], πρὸς ἀλλήλους διελέχθησαν, τίς μείζων.
οὐκ ἐτόλμησεν κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν βλασφημίας. I take βλασφημίας to be gen. qualitatis, expressed by the adjective βλάσφημον in 2 Peter: see below on [ Jud 1:18], [ Jas 1:25], ἀκροατὴς ἐπιλησμονῆς, [ 2Pe 2:4] κριταὶ διαλογισμῶν πονηρῶν, [ 2Pe 3:6], ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας, also [ 2Pe 2:1], αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας, [ 2Pe 2:10], ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασμοῦ. For ἐπενεγκεῖν see Plat. Legg. ix. 856 προδόσεως αἰτίαν ἐπιφέρων, ib. 943, τιμωρίαν ἐπιφ. The word occurs elsewhere in N.T. only in [ Rom 3:5]. Field (On Translation of N.T. p. 244) compares [ Act 25:18] οἱ κατήγοροι οὐδεμίαν αἰτίαν ἔφερον ὧν ἐγὼ ὑπενόουν, Diod. xvi. 29, δίκην ἐπήνεγκαν κατὰ τῶν Σπαρτιατῶν, ib. xx. 10, κρίσεις ἀδίκους ἐπιφέροντες, xx. 62, φοβηθεὶς τὰς ἐπιφερομένας κρίσεις, tom. x. p. 171 ed. Bip. ἐπήνεγκαν κρίσιν περὶ ὕβρεως, and translates “durst not bring against him an accusation of blasphemy”; but surely that is just what he does in appealing to God. Besides such a statement would be altogether beside the point. The verse is introduced to show the guilt attached to speaking evil of dignities, i.e. of angels. If Michael abstained from speaking evil even of a fallen angel, this is appropriate; not so, if he simply abstained from charging the devil with speaking evil of Moses.
κρίσις, like κρίνω, has the two meanings of judgment and of accusation, cf. Lycurg. 31 where οἱ συκοφαντοῦντες are distinguished from τῶν δικαίως τὰς κρίσεις ἐνισταμένων.
ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι Κύριος. These words occur in the vision of Zechariah ([ 2Pe 3:1-10]) where the angel of the Lord replies to the charges of Satan against the high priest Joshua with the words ἐπιτιμήσαι Κύριος ἐν σοὶ, διάβολε, καὶ ἐπιτιμήσαι Κύριος ἐν σοί, ὁ ἐκλεξάμενος τὴν Ἱερουσαλήμ. They were no doubt inserted as appropriate by the author of the Ass. Mos. in his account of the controversy at the grave of Moses. We may compare [ Mat 17:18], ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς.
[ Jud 1:10]. οὗτοι δὲ ὅσα μὲν οὐκ οἴδασιν βλασφημοῦσιν. The libertines do the contrary of what we are told of the respect shown by the angel even towards Satan: they speak evil of that spiritual world, those spiritual beings, of which they know nothing, cf. [ 2Pe 2:12]. The common verb βλασφ. shows that the δόξαι of [ Jud 1:8] are identical with ὅσα οὐκ οἴδασιν here. For the blindness of the carnal mind to all higher wisdom cf. [ 1Co 2:7-16], a passage linked with our epistle by the distinction between the ψυχικοί and πνευματικοί and by the words λαλοῦμεν Θεοῦ σοφίαν, ἣν οὐδεὶς τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἔγνωκεν· εἰ γὰρ ἔγνωσαν οὐκ ἂν τὸν κύριον τῆς δόξης ἐσταύρωσαν. See too [ Joh 8:19], [ 1Ti 6:4], τετύφωται μηδὲν ἐπιστάμενος. For the form οἴδασιν see my ed. of St. James, p. 183.
ὅσα δὲ φυσικῶς ὡς τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα ἐπίστανται. This stands for σάρκα in [ Jud 1:8] and is explained by ἀσέλγειαν in [ Jud 1:4], ἐκπορνεύσασαι in [ Jud 1:7], μιαίνουσιν in [ Jud 1:8], κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῶν πορευόμενοι in [ Jud 1:16].
φυσικῶς, “by instinct,” so Dion. L. x. 137, φυσικῶς καὶ χωρὶς λόγου. Alford cites Xen. Cyrop. ii. 3, 9, μάχην ὁρῶ πάντας ἀνθρώπους φύσει ἐπισταμένους, ὥσπερ γε καὶ τἄλλα ζῷα ἐπίσταταί τινα μάχην ἕκαστα οὐδὲ παρʼ ἑνὸς ἄλλου μαθόντα ἢ παρὰ τῆς φύσεως.
ἐν τούτοις φθείρονται. The natural antithesis here would have been “these things they admire and delight in”. For this Jude substitutes by a stern irony “these things are their ruin”. Cf. [ Php 3:19], where speaking of the enemies of the Cross the apostle says: ὧν τὸ τέλος ἀπώλεια, ὧν ὁ θεὸς ἡ κοιλία, καὶ ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ αἰσχύνῃ αὐτῶν, [ Eph 4:22], ἀποθέσθαι … τὸν παλαιὸν ἄθρωπον τὸν φθειρόμενον κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας.
[ Jud 1:11]. οὐαὶ αὐτοῖς, ὅτι τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ Καὶν ἐπορεύθησαν. For the use of the aorist see note on [ Jud 1:4]. παρεισεδύησαν: for the phrase cf. Blass, Gr. p. 119, and [ 2Pe 2:15], ἐξακολουθήσαντες τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ Βαλαάμ. The phrase οὐαί, so common in Enoch, especially in cc. 94 to 100, and in the Gospels and Apocalypse, occurs in the epistles only here and in [ 1Co 9:16]. The woe is grounded on the fate which awaits those who walk in the steps of Cain, Balaam and Korah. In 2 Peter Balaam is the only one referred to of the three leaders of wickedness here named by Jude. Cain, with Philo, is the type of selfishness ([791]. 1 p. 206), πᾶς φίλαυτος ἐπίκλησιν Καὶν εὕρηκεν (quoted by Schneckenb. p. 221); he is named as a type of jealous hate in [ 1Jn 3:2]; [ 1Jn 3:12]. ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους. οὐ καθὼς Καὶν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν καὶ ἔσφαξεν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ· καὶ χάριν τίνος ἔσφαξεν αὐτὸν; ὅτι τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ πονηρὰ ἦν, τὰ δὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ δίκαια, of unbelief in [ Heb 11:4], πίστει πλείονα θυσίαν Ἄβελ παρὰ Καὶν προσήνεγκεν τῷ Θεῷ, cf. Philo, De Agric. 1 M. 300 f., and Targ. Jer. on [ Gen 4:7], cited by Schneckenburger, in which Cain is represented as saying “non est judicium, nec judex, nec est aliud saeculum, nee dabitur merces bona justis, nec ultio sumetur de improbis,” etc. There seems no reason why we should not regard Cain here as symbolising the absence both of faith and of love, cf. [ 1Jn 3:23]. Euthym. Zig. gives an allegorical explanation, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἀδελφοκτόνοι εἰσί, διʼ ὧν διδάσκουσι τὰς τῶν ἀπατωμένων ψυχὰς ἀποκτείνοντες. Cain and Korah are said to have been objects of special reverence with a section of the Ophite heresy, which appears to have been a development of the Nicolaitans (Epiphan. Pan. i. 3, 37, 1, οἱ Ὀφῖται τὰς προφάσεις εἰλήφασιν ἀπὸ τῆς Νικολάου καὶ Γνωστικῶν καὶ τῶν πρὸ τούτων αἱρέσεων). They held that the Creator was evil, that the serpent represented the divine Wisdom, that Cain and his successors were champions of right (Epiphan. ib. 38, 1, οἱ Καιανοί φασι τὸν Καὶν ἐκ τῆς ἰσχυροτέρας Δυνάμεως ὑπάρχειν καὶ τῆς ἄνωθεν αὐθεντίας, and boast themselves to be of kin to Cain, καὶ τῶν Σοδομιτῶν καὶ Ἠσαῦ καὶ Κορέ, see too Iren. i. 51, Clem. Str. vii. § 108.)
[791] Codex Ruber (sæc. ix.), at the British Museum; it derives its name from the colour of the ink.
τῇ πλάνῃ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ μισθοῦ ἐξεχύθησαν. Every word in this clause is open to question. The passive of ἐκχέω, to “pour out,” is used to express either the onward sweeping movement of a great crowd, or the surrender to an overpowering motive on the part of an individual = effusi sunt,[792] as in [Sir 37:29], μὴ ἐκχυθῇς ἐπʼ ἐδεσμάτων, Test. Reub. 1, πορνεία ἐν ᾖ ἐξεχύθην, Clem. Al. Str. ii. p. 491, εἰς ἡδονήν, τράγων δικήν, ἐκχυθέντες καθηδυπαθοῦσιν, Plut. V. Ant. 21, εἰς τὸν ἡδυπαθῆ καὶ ἀκόλαστον βίον ἐκκεχυμένος. Such an interpretation seems not quite consistent with μισθοῦ, which implies cool self-interest. That covetousness, αἰσχροκέρδεια, was a common motive with false teachers is often implied or asserted by St. Paul and St. Peter in the passages quoted below: and this, we know, was the case with Balaam; but would it be correct to say either of him or of his followers, here condemned by St. Jude, that they ran greedily into (or “in”) error for reward? Perhaps we should understand it rather of a headstrong will breaking down all obstacles, refusing to listen to reason or expostulation, as Balaam holds to his purpose in spite of the divine opposition manifested in such diverse ways. Then comes the difficulty, how are we to understand the dative πλάνῃ, and what is the reference in the word? Should we take πλάνῃ as equivalent to εἰς πλάνην (Winer, p. 268)? This is the interpretation given by Lucifer p. 219, “vae illis quoniam in seductionem B. mercede effusi sunt,” but it is a rare use of the dative, and it seems more natural to explain πλάνῃ by the preceding ὁδῷ (dative of the means or manner), which is used in the same collocation in [ 2Pe 2:15]. What then are we to understand by “they were hurried along on the line of Balaam’s error”? What was his error? From [ Num 22:1-41]; [ Num 25:1-3]; [ Num 31:16], [ Neh 13:2], Μωαβῖται ἐμισθώσαντο ἐπʼ αὐτὸν τὸν Βαλαὰμ καταράσασθαι, Jos. Ant. iv. 6, 6, we learn that B[793] was induced by Balak’s bribe to act against his own convictions and eventually to tempt Israel to fornication. This then is the error or seduction by which he leads them astray.[794] In rabbinical literature Balaam is a sort of type of false teachers (Pirke Aboth, [ Jud 1:19], with Taylor’s n.). Some suppose the name Nicolaitan ([ Rev 2:6]) to be formed from the Greek equivalent to Balaam = “corrupter of the people”; see however the passages quoted from Clem. Al. in the Introduction on Early Heresies. In [ Rev 2:14] we read of some in Pergamum that held the teaching of Balaam, ὃς ἐδίδασκεν τῷ Βαλὰκ βαλεῖν σκάνδαλον ἐνώπιον τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, φαγεῖν εἰδωλόθυτα καὶ πορνεῦσαι. There is no hint to suggest that the innovators, of whom Jude speaks, favoured idolatry, but they may have prided themselves on their enlightenment in disregarding the rule of the Apostolic Council as to the use of meats offered to idols (cf. 1 Corinthians 8), and perhaps in burning incense in honour of the Emperor, see Ramsay, Expositor for 1904, p. 409, and July, pp. 43–60. On the other hand, Jude continually charges them with moral laxity, and we may suppose that this was combined with claims to prophetic power, and with the covetousness which is often ascribed to the false teachers of the early Church, as in [ 1Th 2:3] f., where Paul asserts of his own ministry that it was οὐκ ἐκ πλάνης οὐδὲ ἐξ ἀκαθαρσίας οὐδὲ ἐν δόλῳ … οὔτε γὰρ ἐν λόγῳ κολακείας ἐγενήθημεν, οὔτε ἐν προφάσει πλεονεξίας, οὔτε ζητοῦντες ἐξ ἀνθρώπων δόξαν, [ 1Ti 3:8-9]. διακόνους μὴ διλόγους, μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ προσέχοντας, μὴ αἰσχροκερδεῖς, ἔχοντας τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει, [ Tit 1:7]; [ Tit 1:11] διδάσκοντες ἃ μὴ δεῖ κέρδους χάριν, [ 1Pe 5:2]. For the gen. μισθοῦ cf. Winer, p. 258, Plat. Rep. ix. 575 B, μισθοῦ ἐπικουροῦσιν, [ 1Co 7:23], τιμὴς ἠγοράσθητε.
[792] I do not think the marginal reading in the R.V., “cast themselves away,” is tenable.
[793]. Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[794] Zahn understand πλάνη in an active, not a passive sense, as the ruling principle of the πλάνος Balaam, not as the error into which others fell through his seductions. I do not think Jude discriminated between these meanings: πλάνη covers both.
On the whole I understand the passage thus: Balaam went wrong because he allowed himself to hanker after gain and so lost his communion with God. He not only went wrong himself, but he abused his great influence and his reputation as a prophet, to lead astray the Israelites by drawing them away from the holy worship of Jehovah to the impure worship of Baal Peor. So these false teachers use their prophetical gifts for purposes of self-aggrandisement, and endeavour to make their services attractive by excluding from religion all that is strenuous and difficult, and opening the door to every kind of indulgence. See the notes and comments on the parallel passages of 2 Peter in my edition of that Epistle.
τῇ ἀντιλογίᾳ τοῦ Κορὲ ἀπώλοντο. For Rorah’s sin see [ Num 16:1] f. and compare, for the same rebellious spirit in the Christian Church, [ 3Jn 1:9-10] (of Diotrephes), [ Tit 1:10-11]. εἰσὶ πολλοὶ ἀνυπότακτοι … οὓς δεῖ ἐπιστομίζειν, [ Tit 1:16]; [ Tit 3:10-11], [ 1Ti 1:20] (among those who have made shipwreck of the faith mention is made of Hymenaeus and Alexander) οὓς παρέδωκα τῷ Σατανᾷ ἵνα παιδευθῶσιν μὴ βλασφημεῖν, [ 1Ti 6:3-6]; [ 2Ti 2:16-18], ὁ λόγος αὐτῶν ὡς γάγγραινα νομὴν ἕξει, ὧν ἐστιν Ὑμέναιος καὶ φίλητος, οἵτινες περὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἠστόχησαν, [ 2Ti 2:25]; [ 2Ti 4:14], where the opposition of Alexander the coppersmith is noted; but especially [ 2Ti 3:1-9], which presents a close parallel to our passage, referring to a similar resistance to Moses in the case of the apocryphal Jannes and Jambres. For ἀντιλογία see [ Heb 12:3], ἀναλογίσασθε τὸν τοιαύτην ὑπομεμενηκότα ὑπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἀντιλογίαν It is used as a translation of Meribah in [ Num 20:13] al. and (in relation to Korah) in Protev. Jac. 9. μνήσθητι ὅσα ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τοῖς Δαθάν, Κωρέ, καὶ Ἀβειράμ, πῶς ἐδιχάσθη ἡ γῆ καὶ κατέπιεν αὐτοὺς διὰ τὴν ἀντιλογίαν αὐτῶν.
Rampf draws attention to the climax contained in these examples. The sin of Cain is marked by the words ἐπορεύθησαν ὁδῷ, that of Balaam the gentile prophet by ἐξεχύθησαν πλάνῃ, that of the Levite Korah by ἀπώλοντο ἀντιλογίᾳ.
[ Jud 1:12]. οὖτοί εἰσιν [οἱ] ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν σπιλάδες συνευωχούμενοι. Dr. Chase quotes [ Zec 1:10] f., [ Rev 7:14], Enoch xlvi. 3, Secrets of Enoch, vii. 3 xviii. 3, xix. 3, etc., for the phrase οὗτοί εἰσιν, adding that it was probably adopted by St. Jude from apocalyptic writings, for which he clearly had a special liking. On the early history of the Agape, see my Appendix C to Clem. Al. Strom. vii. The parallel passage in 2 Peter (on which see n.) has two remarkable divergencies from the text here, reading ἀπάταις for ἀγάπαις and σπῖλοι for σπιλάδες. There has been much discussion as to the meaning of the latter word. It is agreed that it is generally used of a rock in or by the sea, and many of the lexicographers understand it of a hidden rock, ὕφαλος πέτρα, see Thomas Mag., σπιλάς, Ἀττικῶς· ὕφαλος πέτρα, Ἕλληνες, Etymol. [795]., σπιλάδες … αἱ ὑπὸ θάλασσαν κεκρυμμέναι πέτραι, ὅθεν καὶ ὕφαλος ἄνθρωπος λέγεται ὁ κεκρυμμένος καὶ πανοῦργος, ib. κατασπιλάζοντες, κατακρύπτοντες, ἀπὸ μεταφορᾶς τῶν ὑφάλων πετρῶν, αἵτινες ὑπὸ ὕδατος καλυπτόμεναι τοῖς ἀπρούπτως προσπελάζουσι κίνδυνον ἐπιφέρουσι (both cited by Wetst.). The same explanation is given by the scholiast on Hom. Od. ver 401–405, καὶ δὴ δοῦπον ἄκουσε ποτὶ σπιλάδεσσι θαλάσσης … ἀλλʼ ἀκταὶ προβλῆτες ἔσαν σπιλάδες τε πάγοι τε. See Plut. Mor. 101 B, εὐδία σπιλάδος, which Wytt. translates “tranquillitas maris caecam rupem tegentis,” ib. 476 A, Oecumenius on this passage, αἱ σπιλάδες τοῖς πλέουσιν ὀλέθριοι, ἀπροσδοκήτως ἐπιγενόμεναι (? -νοις), and ἐξαίφνης, ὥσπερ σπιλάδες, ἐπάγοντες αὐτοῖς τὸν ὄλεθρον τῶν ψυχῶν. Wetst. also quotes Heliod. ver 31, θαλάσσῃ προσείκασας ἂν τοὺς ἄνδρας αἰφνιδίῳ σπιλάδι κατασεισθέντας. The compound κατασπιλάζω joined with the parallel case of ὕφαλος justifies, I think, this sense of σπιλάς, which is rejected by most of the later commentators.[796] Cf. also the use of ναυαγέω in [ 1Ti 1:19]. Scopulus is used in a similar metaphoric sense, see Cic. in Pis. 41 where Piso and Gabinius are called “geminae voragines scopulique reipublicae”. Others take σπιλάδες in the very rare sense of “spots,” or “stains,” like σπίλοι in 2 Peter. The only example of this sense seems to be in Orph. Lith. 614, but Hesych. gives the interpretation σπιλάς, μεμιασμένοι. I agree with Bp. Wordsworth and Dr. Chase in thinking that the metaphor of the sunken rocks is more in harmony with the context.
[795] Codex Ruber (sæc. ix.), at the British Museum; it derives its name from the colour of the ink.
[796] Dr. Bigg denies this meaning on the strength mainly of two quotations, Hom. Od. iii. 298, ἀτὰρ νῆάς γε ποτὶ σπιλάδεσσιν ἔαξαν κύματα, where, he says, the σπιλάδες are identical with λισσὴ αἰπεῖά τε εἰς ἅλα πέτρη of 293; and Anthol. xi. 390, φασὶ δὲ καὶ νήεσσιν ἁλιπλανέεσσι χερείους τὰς ὑφάλους πέτρας τῶν φανερῶν σπιλάδων. In both of these I think the word refers to the breakers at the bottom of the cliffs: in the latter it is said that hidden rocks are more dangerous than visible reefs. Compare Diod. iii. 43, ὄρος δὲ ταύτῃ παράκειται κατὰ μὲν τὴν κορυφὴν πέτρας ἀποτομάδας ἔχον καὶ τοῖς ὕψεσι καταπληκτικάς, ὑπὸ δὲ τὰς ῥίζας σπιλάδας ὀξείας καὶ πυκνὰς ἐνθαλάττους.
How are we to account for the gender in οἱ … σπιλάδες συνευωχούμενοι? Are we to suppose the gender of σπιλάς was changed or forgotten in late Greek (cf. Winer, pp. 25, 38, 73, 76)? If so, the forgetfulness seems to have been confined to this author. Or is this a coustructio ad sensum, the feminine being changed to masculine because it is metaphorically used of men (Winer, pp. 171, 648, 660, 672), cf. [ Rev 11:4], οὗτοί εἰσιν αἱ δύο λυχνίαι αἱ ἐνώπιον τοῦ κυρίου ἑστῶτες and B’s reading παραφερόμενοι below? Or may we take σπιλάδες as expressing a complementary notion in apposition to συνευωχούμενοι? The last seems the best explanation though I cannot recall any exact parallel. An easier remedy would be to omit the article (with [797] and many versions), as suggested by Dr. Chase in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, ii. p. 799b, translating: “these are sunken rocks in your love-feasts while they feast with you”.
[797] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.
συνευωχούμενοι. Is used in the parallel passage of 2 Peter with a dat. as in Luc. Philops 4, Jos. Ant. iv. 8, 7.
ἀφόβως ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες. If we take σπιλάδες as complementary to συνευωχούμενοι, it is better to take ἀφόβως with ποιμ.: if we omit the article and take σπιλάδες to be the predicate, συνευωχούμενοι will be an epexegetic participle, which will require strengthening by ἀφόβως. Generally ἀφ. is used in a good sense, but we find it used, as here, of the want of a right fear in [ Pro 19:23], φόβος Κυρίου εἰς ζωὴν ἀνδρί, ὁ δὲ ἄφοβος κ.τ.λ., [ Pro 15:16], κρεῖσσον μικρὰ μερὶς μετὰ φόβου Κυρίου ἢ θησαυροὶ μεγάλοι μετὰ ἀφοβίας, [Sir 5:5], περὶ ἐξιλασμοῦ μὴ ἄφοβος γίνου, προσθεῖναι ἁμαρτίαν ἐφʼ ἁμαρτίαις. The phrase ἑαυτοὺς ποιμ. recalls [ Eze 34:8], ἑβόσκησαν οἱ ποιμένες ἑαυτοὺς, τὰ δὲ πρόβατά μου οὐκ ἐβόσκησαν, but there does not seem to be any reference to spiritual pastors in Jude; and ποιμαίνω has probably here the sense “to fatten, indulge,” as in [ Pro 28:7], ὃς δὲ ποιμαίνει ἀσωτίαν, ἀτιμάζει πατέρα, [ Pro 29:3], ὃς δὲ ποιμαίνει πόρνας, ἀπολεῖ πλοῦτον, Plut. Mor. 792 B, Ἄτταλον ὑπʼ ἀργίας μακρᾶς ἐκλυθέντα κομιδῇ φιλοποίμην ἐποίμαινεν ἀτεχνῶς πιαινόμενον. We may compare [ 1Co 11:27] f., [ Jas 5:5], [ 1Ti 5:6].
νεφέλαι ἄνυδροι ὑπὸ ἀνέμων παραφερόμεναι. The character of the innovators is illustrated by figures drawn from the four elements, air, earth, sea, heaven (αἰθήρ). Spitta points out the resemblance to a passage in Enoch (chapters ii.–v.), which follows immediately on the words quoted below, [ Jud 1:14-15]. The regular order of nature is there contrasted with the disorder and lawlessness of sinners. “I observed everything that took place in the heaven, how the luminaries … do not deviate from their orbits, how they all rise and set in order, each in its season, and transgress not against their appointed order.… I observed and saw how in winter all the trees seem as though they were withered and shed all their leaves.… And again I observed the days of summer … how the trees cover themselves with green leaves and bear fruit.… And behold how the seas and the rivers accomplish their task. But as for you, ye have not continued steadfast; and the law of the Lord ye have not fulfilled … and have slanderously spoken proud and hard words (below [ Jud 1:15], περὶ πάντων τῶν σκληρῶν ὦν ἐλάλησαν κατʼ αὐτοῦ) with your impure mouths against his greatness.“For the metaphor cf. [ Eph 4:14]. In the parallel passage of 2 Peter the first figure is broken into two, πηγαὶ ἄνυδροι, ὁμίχλαι ὑπὸ λαίλαπος ἐλαυνόμεναι. Perhaps the writer may have thought that there was an undue multiplication of causes; if the clouds were waterless, it was needless to add that they were driven past by the wind. We find the same comparison in [ Pro 25:14]: “As clouds and wind without rain, so is he that boasteth himself of his gifts falsely”. [The LXX is less like our text, suggesting that Jude was acquainted with the original Hebrew. C[798]] For the use of ὑπό with ἀνέμων see my note on [ Jas 3:4].
[798]. Codex Ephraemi (sæc. v.), the Paris palimpsest, edited by Tischendorf in 1843.
δένδρα φθινοπωρινὰ ἄκαρπα. φθινοπωρινός is an adjective derived from τὸ φθινόπωρον, which is itself, I think, best explained as a compound of φθίνουσα ὀπώρα (cf. φθίνοντος μηνός), meaning the concluding portion of the ὀπώρα. This latter word is, according to Curtius, compounded of ὀπ-, connected with ὀπίσω, ὄπισθεν, and ὥρα = “the later prime”. We find ὥρα used by itself both for the spring with its flowers and, more rarely, for the summer with its fruits, as in Thuc. ii. 52, ὥρα ἔτους. Perhaps from this double use of the word may have come the ambiguity in the application of ὀπώρα, of which Ideler says that “it originally indicated, not a season separate from and following after the summer, but the hottest part of the summer itself, so that Sirius, whose heliacal rising took place (in the age of Homer) about the middle of July, is described as ἀστὴρ ὀπωρινός Il. [ Jud 1:5]). In early times it would seem that the Greeks, like the Germans (Tac. Germ. 26), recognised only three seasons—winter, spring, summer, and that the last was indifferently named θέρος or ὀπώρα: compare Arist. Aves 709, πρῶτα μὲν ὥρας φαίνομεν ἡμεῖς ἦρος, χειμῶνος, ὀπώρας, with Aesch. Prom. 453, ἦν δʼ οὐδὲν αὐτοῖς οὔτε χείματος τέκμαρ οὔτʼ ἀνθεμώδους ἦρος οὔτε χείματος τέκμαρ οὔτʼ ἀνθεμώδους ἦρος οὔτε καρπίμου θέρους βέβαιον. But though ὀπώρα was thus used strictly for the dog-days, when the fruit ripened, it was also vaguely used for the unnamed period which ensued up to the commencement of winter. Thus Hesiod (Op. 674) μηδὲ μένειν οἷνόν τε νέον καὶ ὀπωρινὸν ὄμεβρον καὶ χειμῶνʼ ἐπιόντα: and ὀπώρα appears as a definite season by the side of the others in a line ot Euripides, qnoted by Plutarch (Mor. 1028 F), from which it appears that he assigned four months each to summer and winter, and two to spring and ὀπώρα:—
φίλης τʼ ὀπώρας διπτύχους ἦρος τʼ ἴσους
(where the epithet φίλης deserves notice). It is said that the author of the treatise De Diaeta (c. 420 B.C.), which goes under the name of Hippocrates, was the first to introduce a definite term (φθινόπωρον or μετόπωρον) for the new season, the word ὀπώρα being reserved for the late summer, according to the definition of Eustath. on Il. [ Jud 1:5], ὀπώρα ὥρα μεταξὺ κειμένη θέρους καὶ τοῦ μετʼ αὑτὴν μετοπώρου. And so we find it used by Aristotle (Meteor. ii. 5), αἱ χάλαζαι γίνονται ἔαρος μὲν καὶ μετοπώρου μάλιστα, εἶτα τῆς ὀπώρας χειμῶνος δὲ ὀλιγάκις, and by Theophrastus (περὶ Σημείων, 44), ἐὰν τὸ ἔαρ καὶ τὸ θέρος ψυχρὰ γίνηται, ἡ ὀπώρα γίνεται καὶ τὸ μετόπωρον πνιγηρόν.
There is a good deal of inconsistency about the exact limits of the seasons, as is natural enough when we remember that they were first distinguished for purposes of agriculture and navigation, as we see in Hesiod’s Works and Days. Each season brings its own proper work, and the farmer or merchant is reminded of the return of the season by various signs, the rising and setting of stars, especially of the Pleiades and Arcturus, the sun’s passage through the signs of the zodiac, the reappearance of the birds, etc. A more strictly accurate division was made by the astronomers, who distinguished between the various kinds of rising and setting of the stars, and divided the year into four equal parts by the solstices and equinoxes. In the year 46 B.C. Julius Caesar introduced his revised calendar, which assigned definite dates to the different seasons. Thus spring begins a.d. vii. id. Feb. (Feb. 7), summer a.d. vii. id. Mai. (May 9), autumn a.d. iii. id. Sext. (Aug. 11), winter a.d. iv. id. Nov. (Nov. 10).
To turn now to the commentators, I may take Trench as representing their view in his Authorised Version, p. 186, ed. 2, where he says, “The φθινόπωρον is the late autumn … which succeeds the ὀπώρα (or the autumn contemplated as the time of the ripened fruits of the earth) and which has its name παρὰ τὸ φθίνεσθαι τὴν ὀπώραν, from the waning away of the autumn and the autumn fruits.… The deceivers of whom St. Jude speaks are likened to trees as they show in late autumn, when foliage and fruit alike are gone.”
I have stated above what I hold to be the origin of the word φθινόπωρον. Trench’s explanation is ambiguous and unsuited to the facts of the case, as will be seen from the criticisms in Lightfoot’s Fresh Revision, p. 135: “In the phrase ‘autumn-trees without fruit’ there appears to be a reference to the parable of the fig-tree.… At all events the mention of the season when fruit might be expected is significant.” He adds in a note, “Strange to say, the earliest versions all rendered φθινοπωρινά correctly.[799] Tyndale’s instinct led him to give what I cannot but think the right turn to the expression, ‘Trees with out frute at gadringe (gathering) time,’ i.e. at the season when fruit was looked for. I cannot agree with Archbishop Trench, who maintains that ‘Tyndale was feeling after, though he has not grasped, the right translation,’ and himself explains φθινοπωρινὰ ἄκαρπα as ‘mutually completing one another, without leaves, without fruit’. Tyndale was followed by Coverdale and the Great Bible. Similarly Wycliffe has ‘hervest trees without fruyt,’ and the Rheims version ‘trees of autumne unfruiteful’. The earliest offender is the Geneva Testament, which gives ‘corrupt trees and without frute’.… The Bishops’ Bible strangely combines both renderings, ‘trees withered (φθίνειν) at fruite gathering (ὀπώρα) and without fruite,’ which is explained in the margin, ‘Trees withered in autumne when the fruite harvest is, and so the Greke woord importeth’.”
[799] This agreement is probably owing to their dependence on the Vulgate “arbores auctumnales infructuosae”.
The correctness of the interpretation, given by Lightfoot alone among modern commentators, is confirmed by a consideration of the context. The writer has just been comparing the innovators, who have crept into other Churches, to waterless clouds driven past by the wind. Just as these disappoint the hope of the husbandman, so do fruitless trees in the proper season of fruit. If φθινοπωρινά were equivalent to χειμερινά, denoting the season when the trees are necessarily bare both of leaves and fruit, how could a tree be blamed for being ἄκαρπον? It is because it might have been, and ought to have been a fruit-bearing tree, that it is rooted up.
δὶς ἀποθανόντα ἐκριζωθεντα. Schneckenburger explains, “He who is not born again is dead in his sins ([ Col 2:13]), he who has apostatised is twice dead,” cf. [ Rev 21:8], [ Heb 6:4-8], [ 2Pe 2:20-22]. So the trees may be called doubly dead, when they are not only sapless, but are torn up by the root, which would have caused the death even of a living tree.
[ Jud 1:13]. κύματα ἄγρια θαλάσσης ἐπαφρίζοντα τὰς ἑαυτῶν αἰσχύνας. Cf. Cic. Ad Hercnn. iv. 55, spumans ex ore scelus. The two former illustrations, the reefs and the clouds, refer to the specious professions of the libertines and the mischief they caused; the third, the dead trees, brings out also their own miserable condition; the fourth and fifth give a very fine description of their lawlessness and shamelessness, and their eventual fate. The phrase ἄγρια κύματα is found in [Wis 14:1]. The rare word ἐπαφρίζω is used of the sea in Moschus [ Jud 1:5]. It refers to the seaweed and other refuse borne on the crest of the waves and thrown up on the beach, to which are compared the overflowings of ungodliness ([ Psa 17:4]), the ῥυπαρία καὶ περισσεία κακίας condemned by [ Jas 1:21], where see my note. The libertines foam out their own shames by their swelling words ([ Jud 1:16]), while they turn the grace of God into a cloak for their licentiousness ([ Jud 1:4]). We may compare [ Php 3:19], ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ αἰσχύνῃ αὐτῶν.
ἀστέρες πλανῆται. This is borrowed from Enoch (chapters xliii., xliv.) where it is said that some of the stars become lightnings and cannot part with their new form, ib. lxxx, “In the days of the sinners, many chiefs of the stars will err, and will alter their orbits and tasks, ib. lxxxvi, where the fall of the angels is described as the falling of stars, ib. lxxxviii, “he seized the first star which had fallen from heaven and bound it in an abyss; now that abyss was narrow and deep and horrible and dark … and they took all the great stars and bound them hand and foot, and laid them in an abyss,” ib. xc. 24, “and judgment was held first upon the stars, and they were judged and found guilty and were cast into an abyss of fire”; also xviii. 14 f.
It would seem from these passages, which Jude certainly had before him, that πλανῆται cannot here have its usual application, the propriety of which was repudiated by all the ancient astronomers from Plato downwards. Cf. Cic. N. D. ii. 51, “maxime sunt admirabiles motus earum quinque stellarum quae falso vo—cantur errantes. Nihil enim errat quod in omni aeternitate conservat motus constantes et ratos,” with the passages quoted in my notes on that book.
Some commentators take it as applying to comets; perhaps the quotations from Enoch xliv and lxxx fit better with shooting-stars, ἀστέρες διᾴττοντες (Arist. Meteor. i. 4, 7) which seem to rush from their sphere into darkness; compare Hermes Trismegistus ap. Stob. Ecl. 1. 478, κάτωθεν τῆς σελήνης εἰσὶν ἕτεροι ἀστέρες φθαρτοὶ ἀργοὶ … οὓς καὶ ἡμεῖς ὁρῶμεν διαλυομένους, τὴν φύσιν ὁμοίαν ἔχοντες τοῖς ἀχρήστοις τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ζῴων, ἐπὶ ἕτερον δὲ οὐδὲν γίγνεται ἢ ἵνα μόνον φθαρῇ. For the close relationship supposed by the Jews to exist between the stars and the angels, see my note on [ Jas 1:17], φώτων. In this passage, however, the subject of the comparison is men, who profess to give light and guidance, as the pole-star does to mariners (ὡς φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ, [ Php 2:15]), but who are only blind leaders of the blind, centres and propagators of πλάνη ([ Jud 1:11]), destined to be swallowed up in everlasting darkness. Cf. [ Rev 6:13]; [ Rev 8:10]; [ Rev 8:12]; [ Rev 9:1]; [ Rev 12:4].
οἷς ὁ ζόφος τοῦ σκότους εἰς αἰῶνα τετήρηται. See the parallel in [ 2Pe 2:17], and above [ Jud 1:6].
[ Jud 1:14-16].—The Prophecy of Enoch. The ancient prophecy, to which reference has been already made, was intended for these men as well as for the prophet’s own contemporaries, where he says “The Lord appeared, encompassed by myriads of his holy ones, to execute justice upon all and to convict all the ungodly concerning all their ungodly works, and concerning all the hard things spoken against Him by ungodly sinners”. (Like them) these men are murmurers, complaining of their lot, slaves to their own carnal lusts, while they utter presumptuous words against God, and seek to ingratiate themselves with men for the sake of gain.
[ Jud 1:15]. ποιῆσαι κρίσιν κατὰ πάντων. Follows exactly the Greek translation of Enoch given above, cf. Ael. V. H. ii. 6, Κρίτων ἔπειθεν αὐτὸν ἀποδρᾶναι καὶ τὴν κατʼ αὐτοῦ κρίσιν διαφθεῖραι. On the distinction between the active ποιεῖν κρίσιν “to execute judgment” (as in [ Joh 5:27]) and the periphrastic middle = κρίνειν (as in Isocr.48 D) see my notes on αἰτεῖν and αἰτεῖσθαι, ἴδε and ἰδού ([ Jas 4:3]; [ Jas 3:3]).
ἐλέγξαι πάντας τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς περὶ πάντων τῶν ἔργων ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν ὧν ἠσέβησαν. Shortened from the Greek Enoch quoted above.
ἀσεβεῖς. Cf. [ Jud 1:4]; [ Jud 1:18]. The word thrice repeated in this verse runs through the epistle as a sort of refrain.
περὶ πάντων τῶν σκληρῶν ὧν ἐλάλησαν. This is taken from Enoch xxvii. 2. Charles, p. 366 (To Gehenna shall come), πάντες οἵτινες ἐροῦσιν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν κατὰ Κυρίου φωνὴν ἀπρεπῆ καὶ περὶ τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ σκληρὰ λαλήσουσιν, cf. ib. [ Jud 1:4], “The law of the Lord ye have not fulfilled, but … have slanderously spoken proud and hard words with your impure mouths against His greatness,” ib. ci. 3, al., [ Gen 42:7], ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς σκληρά, [ 1Ki 12:13], ἀπεκρίθη πρὸς τὸν λαὸν σκληρά, [ Mal 3:13-15].
[ Jud 1:16]. οὖτοί εἰσιν γογγυσταί, μεμψίμοιροι. Charles thinks that we have here another case of borrowing from the Assumption of Moses, see his Introd. on Apocryphal Quotations. The word γογγυστής is used in the LXX, [ Exo 16:8], [ Num 11:1]; [ Num 11:14-27]; [ Num 11:29]. The verb γογγύζω is found in [ Joh 7:32] of the whispering of the multitude in favour of Jesus, but is generally used of smouldering discontent which people are afraid to speak out, as in [ 1Co 10:10], of the murmurings of the Israelites in the wilderness; [ Mat 20:11] (where see Wetst.) of the grumbling of the labourers who saw others receiving a day’s pay for an hour’s labour; [ Joh 6:41-43] of the Jews who took offence at the preaching of the Bread of Life. It is found in Epict. and M. Aur. but not in classical authors. γογγυσμός is used in [ 1Pe 4:9]. See further in Phrynichus, p. 358 Lob. For the word μεμψίμοιρος see Lucian, Cynic. 17, ὑμεῖς δὲ διὰ τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν οὐδενὶ τῶν γιγνομένων ἀρέσκεσθε, καὶ παντὶ μέμφεσθε, καὶ τὰ μὲν παρόντα φέρειν οὐκ ἐθέλετε, τῶν δὲ ἀπόντων ἐφίεσθε, χειμῶνος μὲν θέρος εὐχόμενοι, θέρους δὲ χειμῶνα … καθάπερ οἱ νοσοῦντες, δυσάρεστοι καὶ μεμψίμοιροι ὄντες, and Theophr. Char. 17. It is used of the murmuring of the Israelites by Philo, Vit. Mos. 1. 109 M. See other examples in Wetst. The same spirit is condemned in [ Jas 1:13].
κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῶν πορευόμενοι. cf. [ 2Pe 3:3]; [ 2Pe 2:10], below [ Jud 1:18], and see my notes on [ Jas 4:1-2]. Plumptre notes “The temper of self-indulgence recognising not God’s will, but man’s desires, as the law of action, is precisely that which issues in weariness and despair … cf. [ Ecc 2:1-20]”.
τὸ στόμα αὐτῶν λαλεῖ ὑπέρογκα. See Enoch [ Jud 1:4], quoted on [ Jud 1:15], also Enoch ci. 3, “ye have spoken insolent words against His righteousness,” [ Psa 12:4], [ Psa 73:8], [ Dan 7:8], στόμα λαλοῦν μεγάλα and [ Jud 1:20] of the little horn; compare above [ Jud 1:4]; [ Jud 1:8]; [ Jud 1:11], and [ Jas 3:5] foll. In classical writers ὑπέρογκα is generally used of great or even excessive size, in later writers it is also used of “big” words, arrogant speech and demeanour, see Alford’s note on [ 2Pe 2:18] and Plut. Mor. 1119 B (Socrates), τὴν ἐμβροντησίαν ἐκ τοῦ βίου καὶ τὸν τῦφον ἐξήλαυνε καὶ τὰς ἐπαχθεῖς καὶ ὑπερόγκους κατοιήσεις καὶ μεγαλαυχίας, [ 2Pe 2:7] A, where ἡ θεατρικὴ καὶ παρατράγῳδος λέξις is styled ὑέρογκος in contrast with ἰσχνὴ λέξις, Plut. Vitae 505 B, τοῦ βασιλέως τὸ φρόνημα τραγικὸν καὶ ὑπέρογκον ἐν ταῖς μεγάλαις εὐτυχίαις ἐγεγόνει. It is found in [ 2Pe 2:18] and in [ Dan 11:36], ὁ βασιλεὺς ὑψωθήσεται καὶ μεγαλυνθήσεται ἐπὶ πάντα θεόν, καὶ λαλήσει ὑπέρογκα.
θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα ὠφελίας χάριν.The phrase occurs with the same force in [ Lev 19:15], οὐ μὴ θαυμάσῃς πρόσωπον, [ Job 13:10], see my note on [ Jas 2:1], μὴ ἐν προσωπολημψίαις ἔχετε τὴν πίστιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰ. Χ., and cf. [ 1Ti 3:8], quoted above on [ Jud 1:11]. As the fear of God drives out the fear of man, so defiance of God tends to put man in His place, as the chief source of good or evil to his fellows. For the anacoluthon (τὸ στόμα αὐτῶν λαλεῖ—θαυμάζοντες) compare [ Col 2:2], ἵνα παρακληθῶσιν αἱ καρδίαι ὑμῶν συμβιβασθέντες ἐν εἰρήνῃ, where a similar periphrasis (αἱ καρδίαι ὑμῶν = ὑμεῖς) is followed by a constructio ad sensum, also Winer, p. 716. Perhaps the intrusion of the finite clause into a participial series may be accounted for by a reminiscence of [ Psa 17:10], τὸ στόμα αὐτῶν ἐλάλησεν ὑπερηφανίαν, or [ Psa 144:8]; [ Psa 144:11], where a similar phrase occurs.
[ Jud 1:17-19].—The Faithful are bidden to call to mind the warnings of the Apostles. The Apostles warned you repeatedly that in the last time there would arise mockers led away by their own carnal lusts. It is these that are now breaking up the unity of the Church by their invidious distinctions, men of unsanctified minds, who have not the Spirit of God. See Introduction on the Early Heresies in the larger edition.
[ Jud 1:18]. ἐπʼ ἐσχάτου χρόνου ἔσονται ἐμπαῖκται. The parallel in [ 2Pe 3:3] is ἐλεύσονται ἐπʼ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐν ἐμπαιγμονῇ ἐμπαῖκται, where see note on the use of the article with ἔσχατος, etc. For ἐπί, cf. Arist. Pol. iv. 3, ἐπὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων χρόνων.
The prophecy of this mocking, as a mark of the future trials of the Church, has not come down to us. An example of it in the very beginning of the Church is given in [ Act 2:13], ἕτεροι χλευάζοντες ἔλεγον ὅτι γλεύκους μεμεστωμένοι εἰσί. In the O.T. we have such examples as [ 2Ch 36:16] (the summing up of the attitude of the Jews towards the prophets) ἦσαν μυκτηρίζοντες τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐξουθενοῦντες τοὺς λόγους αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐμπαίζοντες ἐν τοῖς προφήταις αὐτοῦ, [ Jer 20:8], ἐγενήθη λόγος Κυρίου εἰς ὀνειδισμὸν ἐμοὶ καὶ εἰς χλευασμὸν πᾶσαν ἡμέραν. Cf. also the mockery at the crucifixion, and the declaration in [ Mat 10:25] f., εἰ τὸν οἰκοδεσπότην Βεεζέβοὺλ ἐπεκάλεσαν, πόσῳ μᾶλλον κ.τ.λ. In 2 Peter the purport of this mockery is explained to be the unfulfilled promise of the Parusia. Here we must gather its meaning from the account already given of the libertines. If they turned the grace of God into licentiousness, they would naturally mock at the narrowness and want of enlightenment of those who took a strict and literal view of the divine commandments: if they made light of authority and treated spiritual things with irreverence, if they foamed out their own shame and uttered proud and impious words, if they denied God and Christ, they would naturally laugh at the idea of a judgment to come. On the form ἐμπαίκτης and its cognates, see note on 2 Peter.
τῶν ἀσεβειῶν. I am rather disposed to take τῶν ἀσεβειῶν here as a subjective genitive, “lusts belonging to, or arising from their impieties,” cf. [ Rom 1:28], καθὼς οὐκ ἐδοκίμασαν τὸν Θεὸν ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει, παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ Θεὸς εἰς ἀδόκιμον νοῦν. The position of the genitive is peculiar, and probably intended to give additional stress. We may compare it with [ Jas 2:1], μὴ ἐν προσωπολημψίαις ἔχετε τὴν πίστιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τῆς δόξης, where some connect τῆς δόξης with κυρίου in a qualitative sense.
[ Jud 1:19]. οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες. “These are they that make invidious distinctions.” See Introduction on the Text. The rare word ἀποδιορίζοντες is used of logical distinctions in Aristotle, Pol. iv. 43, ὥσπερ οὖν εἰ ζῴου προῃρούμεθα λαβεῖν εἴδη, πρῶτον ἂν ἀποδιωρίζομεν ὅπερ ἀναγκαῖον πᾶν ἔχειν ζῷον (“as, if we wished to make a classification of animals, we should have begun by setting aside that which all animals have in common”) and, I believe, in every other passage in which it is known to occur: see Maximus Confessor, ii. p. 103 D, τὸ μὲν φυσικὸν ὥρισεν ἐπʼ αὐτοῦ, τὸ δὲγνωμικὸν ἀποδιώρισε, translated “naturali in eo (Christo) constituta voluntate, arbitrariam dispunxit,” ib. p. 131 C, ὡς ὁ λόγος ἦν αὐτοῦ, μόνον τὸ ἐμπαθές, ἀλλʼ οὐ τὸ φυσικὸν ἀποδιορίσασθαι θέλημα, “quod dixerat hoc solum spectare ut libidinosam, non ut naturalem voluntatem a Salvatore eliminaret,” Severus de Clyst. xxxii., xxv., ὅταν ταῦτα τὰ συμπτώματα ὄψῃ παρόντα, ἀποδιόριζε τὴν ὀργανικὴν νόσον ἐκ τῆς ὁμοιομεροῦς. The simple διορίζω is found in [ Lev 20:24], διώρισα ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν “I separated you from the nations,” [ Job 35:11]; so ἀφορίζω [ Mat 25:32], ἀφορίζει τὰ πρόβατα ἀπὸ τῶν ἐρίφων, [ Act 19:9] (Paul left the synagogue) καἰ ἀφώρισεν τοὺς μαθητάς, [ 2Co 6:17], ἐξέλθατε ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν καὶ ἀφορίσθητε, [ Luk 6:22] (of excommunication) ὅταν ἀφορίσωσιν ὑμᾶς, [ Gal 2:12] (of Peter’s withdrawal from the Gentiles) ὑπέστελλεν καὶ ἀφώριζεν ἐαυτόν.
ψυχικοί. Used of worldly wisdom in [ Jas 3:15], where see note, distinguished from πνευματικός in [ 1Co 2:13-15]; [ 1Co 15:44], cf. the teaching of the Naassenes (ap. Hippol. p. 164) εἰς τὸν οἶκον θεοῦ οὐκ εἰσελεύσεται ἀκάθαρτος οὐδείς, οὐ ψυχικός, οὐ σαρκικός, ἀλλὰ τηρεῖται πνευματικοῖς.
πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες. The subjective negative may be explained as describing a class (such as have not) rather than as stating a fact in regard to particular persons; but the use of μή is much more widely extended in late than in classical Greek, cf. such phrases as ἐπεὶ μή, ὅτι μή. It is simplest to understand πνεῦμα here of the Holy Spirit, cf. [ Rom 8:9], ὑμεῖς οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐν σαρκὶ ἀλλʼ ἐν πνεύματι, εἴπερ πνεῦμα Θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν, [ 1Co 2:13]; [ 1Co 7:40], [ 1Jn 3:24]; [ 1Jn 4:13], and the contrast in [ Jud 1:20], ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ προσευχόμενοι. Others, e.g. Plumptre, prefer the explanation that “the false teachers were so absorbed in their lower sensuous nature that they no longer possessed, in any real sense of the word. that element in man’s compound being, which is itself spiritual, and capable therefore of communion with the Divine Spirit”.
[ Jud 1:20-23]. The Final Charge to the Faithful.—Use all diligence to escape this danger. Make the most of the privileges vouchsafed to you. Build yourselves up on the foundation of your most holy faith by prayer in the Spirit. Do not rest satisfied with the belief that God loves you, but keep yourselves in His love, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ which leads us to eternal life. And do your best to help those who are in danger of falling away by pointing out their errors and giving the reasons of your own belief; and by snatching from the fire of temptation those who are in imminent jeopardy. Even where there is most to fear, let your compassion and your prayers go forth toward the sinner, while you shrink from the pollution of his sin.
[ Jud 1:21]. ἑαυτοὺς ἐν ἀγάπῃ Θεοῦ τηρήσατε. In [ Jud 1:1] the passive is used: those who are addressed are described as kept and beloved (cf. [ Jud 1:24], τῷ δυναμένῳ φυλάξαι): here the active is used and emphasised by the unusual order of words; each is to keep himself in the love of God, cf. [ Jas 1:27], ἄσπιλον ἑαυτὸν τηρεῖν, [ Php 2:12], τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν κατεργάζεσθαι· Θεὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν. Again in [ Jud 1:2] the writer invokes the divine love and mercy on those to whom he writes: here they are bidden to take steps to secure these. Compare [ Rom 5:5], ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκκέχυται ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου τοῦ δοθέντος ἡμῖν, ib. [ Rom 8:39], πέπεισμαι ὄτι οὔτε θάνατος οὔτε ζωὴ … οὔτε τις κτίσις ἑτέρα δυνήσεται ἡμᾶς χωρίσαι ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ Θεοῦ, [ Joh 15:9]. καθὼς ἠγάπησέν με ὁ πατὴρ κἀγὼ ὑμᾶς ἠγάπησα, μείνατε ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ τῆ ἐμῇ. ἐὰν τὰς ἐντολάς μου τηρήσητε, μενεῖτε ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ μου. The aor. imper. is expressive ot urgency, see note on ἡγήσασθε, in [ Jas 1:2].
προσδεχόμενοι τὸ ἔλεος. Cf. [ Tit 2:13], προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰ. Χ., and [ 2Pe 3:12-14]. The same word is used of the Jews who were looking for the promised Messiah at the time of His first coming, [ Mar 15:43], [ Luk 2:25]; [ Luk 2:38].
εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. Some connect this closely with the imperative τηρήσατε, but it seems to me to follow more naturally on the nearer phrase, πρ. τὸ ἔλεος: cf. 1 Pet. 1:37, εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεὸς … ὁ κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς εἰς κληρονομίαν ἄφθαρτον … τετηρημένην ἐν οὐρανοῖς εἰς ὑμᾶς τοὺς … φρουρουμένους … εἰς σωτηρίαν ἑτοίμην ἀποκαλυφθῆναι ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ.
[ Jud 1:22]. οὓς μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένους. On the reading see the Introduction. For the form ὃς μέν instead of ὁ μέν, cf. [ Mat 13:8]; [ Mat 22:5], [ Luk 23:33], [ Act 27:44], [ Rom 14:5], [ 1Co 7:7]; [ 1Co 11:21], [ 2Co 2:16], [ 2Ti 2:20], not used in Hebrews , 1 and 2 Pet., James or John. The doubled ὃς δέ is found in [ Mat 21:35], ὃν μὲν ἔδειραν, ὃν δὲ ἀπέκτειναν, ὃ δὲ ἐλιθοβόλησαν. [ Mat 25:15], ᾧ μὲν ἔδωκεν πέντε τάλαντα, ᾧ δὲ δύο, ᾧ δὲ ἕν. The use is condemned as a solecism by Thomas Magister and by Lucian, Soloec. 1, but is common in late Greek from the time of Aristotle, cf. Sturz. Dial. Maced. pp. 105 f. On the word ἐλέγχω (here wrongly translated “strafen,” in the sense of excommunication, by Rampf), see Const. Apost. vii. 5, 3, ἐλεγμῷ ἐλέγξεις τὸν ἀδελφόν σου, and Hare’s excellent note [800] in his Mission of the Comforter, where he argues that the conviction wrought by the Spirit is a conviction unto salvation, rather than unto condemnation; and quotes Luecke as saying that “ἐλέγχειν always implies the refutation, the overcoming of an error, a wrong, by the truth and right. When this is brought before our conscience through the ἔλεγχος there arises a feeling of sin, which is always painful: thus every ἔλεγχος is a chastening, a punishment.” Compare Grote’s life-like account of the Socratic Elenchus in his Hist. of Greece.
[800] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
This verse seems to be referred to in Can. Apost. vi. 4, οὐ μισήσεις πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλʼ οὓς μὲν ἐλέγξεις, οὓς δὲ ἐλεήσεις, περὶ ὧν δὲ προσεύξῃ, οὓς δὲ ἀγαπήσεις ὑπὲρ τὴν ψυχήν σου, which is also found in the Didache ii. 7, with the omission of οὓς δὲ ἐλεήσεις. Cf. [ Joh 16:8], ἐκεῖνος ἐλέγξει τὸν κόσμον περὶ ἁμαρτίας καὶ περὶ δικαιοσύνης καὶ περὶ κρίσεως, [ 1Co 14:24], ἐλεγχεται ὑπὸ πάντων (the effect of the prophets’ teaching on an unbeliever), [ Tit 1:13], ἔλεγχε αὐτοὺς ἀποτόμως ἵνα ὑγιαίνωσιν ἐν τῇ πίστει. [ Tit 1:9], τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας ἐλέγχειν [ 2Ti 4:2] (the charge to Timothy) ἔλεγξον, παρακάλεσον ἐι πάσῃ μακροθυμίᾳ, [ Rev 3:19], ὅσους ἐὰν φιλῶ ἐλέγχω καὶ παιδεύω, [ Eph 5:13], τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐλεγχόμενα ὑπὸ τοῦ φωτὸς φανεροῦται. There is a tone of greater severity in the ποιῆσαι κρίσιν καὶ ἐλέγξαι of the 15th verse, but even there we need not suppose that the preacher is hopeless of good being effected. The point is of importance in deciding the mutual relations of the three cases here considered.
διακρινομένους. We should have expected a nominative here to correspond with ἁρπάζοντες and μισοῦντες in the following clauses, and so the text. rec. has διακρινόμενοι, wrongly translated in A.V., as if it were the active διακρίνοντες, “making a difference”. This gives such a good sense that some commentators (e.g. Stier) have been willing to condone the bad Greek. It would have been better to alter the reading at once. Keeping the reading of the best MSS. we may either take the accusative as complementary to ἐλέγχετε (as we find in Plato, Theaet. 171 D, ἐμὲ ἐλέγξας ληροῦντα, Xen. Mem. 1, 7, 2, ἐλεγχθήσεται γελοῖος ὤν, Jelf. § 681), or simply as descriptive of the condition of the persons referred to. There is also a question as to the meaning we should assign to διακρ. Is it to be understood in the same sense as in [ Jas 1:6]; [ Jas 2:4]? In that case we might translate “convict them of their want of faith,” taking the participle as complementary to the verb; or “reprove them because of their doubts”. It seems more probable, however, that the meaning here is “convince them when they dispute with you,” which we may compare with [ 1Pe 3:15], ἕτοιμοι ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον … ἀλλὰ μετὰ πραΰτητος καὶ φόβου (cf. ἐν φόβῳ below). So taken, this first clause would refer to intellectual difficulties to be met by quiet reasoning; the force of διακρινόμενος being the same as that in [ Jud 1:9], τῷ διαβόλῳ διακρ., and in Socr. E.H. [ Jud 1:5], ὅ λαὸς εἶχεν ὁμόνοιαν καὶ οὐκέτι πρὸς ἀλλήλους διεκρίνοντο.
[ Jud 1:23]. σώζετε. Here again a word which is strictly applicable to God is transferred to him whom God uses as His instrument, cf. [ 1Pe 4:11] and notes on τηρήσατε, ἐλέγχετε above, especially [ Jas 5:20], ὁ ἐπιστρέψας ἁμαρτωλὸν ἐκ πλάνης ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ σώσει ψυχὴν ἐκ θανάτου.
ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες. The expression is borrowed from [Amo 4:11], κατέστρεψα ὑμᾶς καθὼς κατέστρεψεν ὁ Θεὸς Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα, καὶ ἐγένεσθε ὡς δαλὸς ἐξεσπασμένος ἐκ πυρός, καὶ οὐδʼ ὣς ἐπεσπρέψατε πρός με, λέγει Κύριος, and [ Zec 3:3], οὐκ ἰδοὺ οὗτος δαλὸς ἐξεσπασμένος ἐκ πυρός; Both passages have further connexions with our epistle, the former from the reference to Sodom (see above [ Jud 1:7]), the latter as following immediately on the words, ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι Κύριος quoted in [ Jud 1:9], and preceding a reference to filthy garments (see note below). In it the High Priest Joshua is a representative of Israel, saved like a brand from the captivity, which was the punishment of national sin. The image of fire is naturally suggested by the allusion to the punishment of Sodom in the passage of Amos, and of Korah (see above [ Jud 1:7]) described in [ Num 16:35], [ Psa 106:18], ἐξεκαύθη πῦρ ἐν τῇ συνα γωγῇ αὐτῶν καὶ φλὸξ κατέφλξεν ἁμαρτωλούς. The writer may also have had in mind St. Paul’s description of the building erected on the One Foundation (see above [ Jud 1:20]), which, he says, will be tried by fire, [ 1Co 3:13-15], ἑκάστου τὸ ἔργον ὁ ποῖόν ἐστιν, τὸ πῦρ αὐτὸ δοκιμάσει … εἴ τινος τὸ ἔργον κατακαήσεται, ζημιωθήσεται, αὐτὸς δὲ σωθήσεται, οὕτως δὲ ὡς διὰ πυρός. Such an one may be spoken of as “a brand snatched from the fire,” not however as here, saved from the fire of temptation, but as saved through the agency of God’s purgatorial fire, whether in this or in a future life.
ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ. The faithful are urged to show all possible tenderness for the fallen, but at the same time to have a fear lest they themselves or others whom they influence should be led to think too lightly of the sin whose ravages they are endeavouring to repair. Cf. [ 2Co 7:1], καθαρίσωμεν ἑαυτοὺς ἀπὸ παντὸς μολυσμοῦ σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος ἐπιτελοῦντες ἁγιωσύνην ἐν φόβῳ Θεοῦ, [ Php 2:12], [ 1Pe 1:17]; [ 1Pe 3:15]. For the confusion of the contracted verbs in -έω and -άω in late Greek see Jannaris, § 850. § 854 f., Winer p. 104. The best MSS. read ἐλεᾷ in [ Pro 21:26], and ἐλεῶντος [ Rom 9:16], but ἐλεεῖ in [ Rom 9:18].
μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα. While it is the duty of the Christian to pity and pray for the sinner, he must view with loathing all that bears traces of the sin. The form of expression seems borrowed from such passages as [ Isa 30:22], [ Lev 15:17], perhaps too from [ Zec 3:4], Ἰησοῦς ἦν ἐνδεδυμένος ἱμάτια ῥυπαρά. Cf. [ Rev 3:4], οὐκ ἐμόλυναν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν, and Apocal. Pauli quoted by Spitta, ὁ χιτών μου οὐκ ἐρυπώθη. The derivatives of σπίλος are peculiar to late Greek: the only other examples of σπιλόω in Biblical Greek are [ Jas 3:6], ἡ γλῶσσα … ἡ σπιλοῦσα ὅλον τὸ σῶμα and [Wis 15:4], εἶδος σπιλωθὶν χρώμασι διηλλαγμένοις. Compare for the treatment of the erring [ 2Ti 2:25-26], ἐν πραΰτητι παιδεύοντα τοὺς ἀντιδιατιθεμένους, μήποτε δῷη αὐτοῖς ὁ Θεὸς μετάνοιαν εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας, καὶ ἀνανήψωσιν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ διαβόλου παγίδος.
[ Jud 1:24-25]. Final Benediction and Ascription. I have bidden you to keep yourselves in the love of God; I have warned you against all impiety and impurity. But do not think that you can attain to the one, or guard yourselves from the other, in your own strength. You must receive power from above; and that it may be so, I offer up my prayer to Him, who alone is able to keep you from stumbling, and to present you before the throne of His glory, pure and spotless in exceeding joy. To Him, the only God and Saviour, belong glory, greatness, might, and authority throughout all ages.
[ Jud 1:25]. μόνῳ Θεῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν. See above on [ Jud 1:4], τὸν μόνον δεσπότην. God is called σωτήρ in [ Isa 45:15], σὺ γὰρ εἶ Θεὸς … ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ Ἰσραῆλ σωτήρ, [ Isa 45:21], [Sir 51:1], αἰνέσω σε Θεὸν τὸν σωτῆρά μου, Philo, Confus. Ling. §20, 1. p. 418 fin., τίς δʼ οὐκ ἂν … πρὸς τὸν μόνον σωτῆρα Θεὸν ἐκβοήσῃ (? -σαι); cf. [ Luk 1:47], ἠγαλλίασεν τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐπὶ τῷ Θεῷ τῷ σωτῆρί μου, elsewhere in N.T. only in [ Tit 1:3]; [ Tit 2:10]; [ Tit 3:4], ὅτε ἡ χρηστότης … ἐπεφάνη τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Θεοῦ … κατὰ τὸ αὐτοῦ ἔλωος ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς διὰ … πνεύματος ἁγίου οὗ ἐξέχεεν ἐφʼ ἡμᾶς πλουσίως διὰ Ἰ. Χ. τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, [ 1Ti 1:1], Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Ἰ. Χ. κατʼ ἐπιταγὴν Θωοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν καὶ Χ. Ἰ. [ 1Ti 2:3]; [ 1Ti 4:10]. The later writers of the N.T. seem to have felt it needful to insist upon the unity of God, and the saving will of the Father, in opposition to antinomian attacks on the Law.
διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. It seems best to take διά with δόξα and the following words. The glory of God is manifested through the Word, cf. [ 1Pe 4:11], ἵνα ἐν πᾶσιν δοξάζηται ὁ Θεὸς διὰ Ἰ. Χ. ᾦ ἐστιν ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
δόξα. The verb is often omitted in these ascriptions, cf. 2 Pet. αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα, [ Rom 11:36]; [ Rom 16:27], [ Gal 1:5], [ Luk 2:16], δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις Θεῷ. In [ 1Pe 4:11] it is inserted, ᾧ ἐστιν ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος, and, as we find no case in which ἔστω is inserted, and the indicative is more subject to ellipse than the imperative, it might seem that we should supply “is” here; but the R. V. gives “be,’ and there are similar phrases expressive of a wish or prayer, as the very common χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρός, where we must supply ἐστω or γένοιτο. De Wette maintained that the following words πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος, referring to already existing fact, were incompatible with a prayer; but it is sufficient that the prayer has regard mainly to the present and future; the past only comes in to give it a fuller, more joyful tone, reminding us of the eternity of God, as in the psalmist’s words, “I said it is my own infirmity, but I will remember the years of the right hand of the Most High,” and the close of our own doxology “as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be”. I do not see, however, that we need exclude either interpretation. The writer may exult in that which he believes to be already fact in the eternal world, and yet pray for its more perfect realisation in time, as in the Lord’s Prayer, γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς. The omission of the verb allows of either or both views in varying proportion. δόξα by itself is the commonest of all ascriptions. It is joined with τιμή in [ 1Ti 1:17] and elsewhere, as here with μεγαλωσύνη. It is joined with κράτος in [ 1Pe 4:11]; [ 1Pe 5:11], [ Rev 1:6]. Fuller ascriptions are found in [ Rev 4:11], ἄξιος εἶ, ὁ κύριος … λαβεῖν τὴν δόξαν καὶ τὴν τιμὴν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν, [ Rev 5:13], τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ … ἡ εὐλογία καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, [ Rev 7:12], ἡ εὐλογία καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ ἡ σοφία καὶ ἡ εὐχαριστία καἰ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ ἰσχὺς τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν. Just before ([ Jud 1:10]) we have the remarkable ascription ἡ σωτηρία τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν. Compare with this the ascription of David ([ 1Ch 29:11]), σοἰ Κύριε ἡ μεγαλωσύνη καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ τὸ καύχημα καὶ ἡ νίκη καὶ ἡ ἰσχύς, ὅτι σὺ παντων τῶν ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς δεσπόζεις. For a similar expression in regard to the future blessedness of man, see [ Rom 2:10], δόξα δὲ καὶ τιμὴ καὶ εἰρήνη παντὶ τῷ ἐργαζομένῳ τὸ ἀγαθόν.[804] An unusual form of ascription occurs in Clem. Rom. 59:2, ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μεθʼ ὑμῶν καὶ μετὰ πάντων πανταχῆ τῶν κεκλημένων ὑπό τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ διʼ αὐτοῦ· διʼ οὗ αὐτῷ δόξα, τιμή, κράτος καὶ μεγαλωσύνη, θρόνος αἰώνιος ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων.
[804] For a full account of the early doxologies, see Chase on the Lord’s Prayer (Texts and Studies, i. 3, p. 68 foll.). He states that the common doxology at the end of the Lord’s Prayer (σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας “appears to be a conflation of two distinct forms,” and “was added to the Prayer in the ‘Syrian’ text of St. Matthew’s Gospel”.
μεγαλωσύνη. Only found elsewhere in N.T. in [ Heb 1:3], ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς, repeated in [ Heb 8:1]. Dr. Chase notes that it occurs in Enoch [ Jud 1:4], κατελαλήσατε μεγάλους καὶ σκληροὺς λόγους ἐν στόματι ἀκαθαρσίας ὑμῶν κατὰ τῆς μεγαλοσύνης αὐτοῦ, xii. 3, τῷ κυρίῳ τῆς μεγαλοσύνης xiv. 16 (a house excelling) ἐν δόξῃ καὶ ἐν τιμῇ καὶ ἑν μεγαλοσύνῃ. It is coupled with δόξα, of which it may be regarded as an extension, in the doxology used by Clem. Rom. 20, 61. I am not aware of any other example of ἐξουσία in a doxology: compare, however, [ Mat 28:18], ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς.
πρὸ παντὀς τοῦ αἰῶνος. cf. [ 1Co 2:7] (τὴν σοφίαν) ἣν προώρισεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς δόξαν ἡμῶν, [ Pro 8:23], πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐθεμελίωσέ με (i.e. σοφίαν), ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸ τοῦ τὴν γῆν ποιῆσαι. An equivalent expression is πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου found in [ Joh 17:24], ἠγάπησάς με π. κ. κ. also [ Eph 1:4], ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς ἐν αὐτῷ π. κ. κ. and [ 1Pe 1:20] (Χριστοῦ) προεγνωσμένου μὲν π. κ. κ., φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπʼ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων. St. Jude speaks of one past age and of several ages to come. On the other hand St. Paul speaks of many ages in the past ([ 1Co 2:7]), and St. John of only one age in the future.
εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας. This precise phrase is unique in the Bible, but εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας is common enough, as in [ Luk 1:33], [ Rom 1:25]; [ Rom 5:5]; [ Rom 11:36]; [ Rom 16:27], [ 2Co 11:31], etc., so in LXX, [ Dan 2:4]; [ Dan 2:44]; [ Dan 6:6]; [ Dan 6:26]. The stronger phrase εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων occurs in [ Gal 1:5], [ Php 4:20], [ 1Ti 1:17], [ 2Ti 4:18], [ Heb 13:21], [ 1Pe 4:11]; [ 1Pe 5:11], [ Rev 1:6], etc. John uses only εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα apparently with the same meaning. Other variations are found in [ Eph 3:21], αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ ἐν Χ. Ἰ. εἰς πάσας τὰς γενεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων, [ 2Pe 3:18], αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς ἡμέραν αἰῶνος.