Bible Commentaries

Introduction to Jude

Section 1. The Author of this Epistle

Little is known of the author of this brief Epistle. He styles himself Jde 1:1 "the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James;" but there has been some difference of opinion as to what "James" is meant. He does not call himself an "apostle," but supposes that the terms which he uses would sufficiently identify him, and would be a sufficient reason for his addressing his brethren in the manner in which he does in this Epistle. There were two of the name of "James" among the apostles Luk 6:14-15; and it has been made a question of which of them he was the brother. There were also two of the name of Judas, or Jude; but there is no difficulty in determining which of them was the author of this Epistle, for the other had the surname of Iscariot, and was the traitor. In the catalog of the apostles given by Matthew Mat 10:3, the tenth place is given to an apostle who is there called "Lebbaeus," whose surname was "Thaddeus;" and as this name does not occur in the list given by Luke Luk 6:15, and as the 10th place in the catalog is occupied by "Simon, called Zelotes," and as he afterwards mentions "Judas the brother of James," it is supposed that Lebbaeus and Judas were the same persons. It was not uncommon for persons to have two or more names. Compare Robinson's Harmony of the Gospels, Section 40; Bacon's Lives of Apostles, p. 447; and Michaelis, iv., 365.

The title which he assumes, "brother of James," was evidently chosen because the James referred to was well-known, and because the fact that he was his brother would be a sufficient designation of himself, and of his right to address Christians in this manner. The name of the elder James, who was slain by Herod Acts 12:2, can hardly be supposed to be referred to, as he had been dead some time when this Epistle is supposed to have been written; and as that James was the brother of John, who was then living, it would have been much more natural for him to have mentioned that he was the brother of that beloved disciple. The other James - "James the Less," or "James the Just" - was still living; was a prominent man in Jerusalem; and was, besides, known as "the brother of the Lord Jesus;" and the fact of relationship to that James would sufficiently designate the writer. There can be little doubt, therefore, that this is the James here intended. In regard to his character and influence, see the introduction to the Epistle of James, Section 1. If the author of this Epistle was the brother of that James, it was sufficient to refer to that fact, without mentioning that he was an apostle, in order to give to his Epistle authority, and to settle its canonical character.

Of Jude little is known. His name is found in the list of the apostles, but, besides that, it is but once mentioned in the Gospels. The only thing that is preserved of him in the Evangelists, is a question which he put to the Saviour, on the eve of his crucifixion. The Saviour had said, in his parting address to his disciples, "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me; and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father; and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him." In regard to the meaning of this remark, Judas is said to have asked the following question: "Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?" John 14:21-22. To this question the Saviour gave him a kind and satisfactory answer, and that is the last that is said of him in the Gospels.

Of his subsequent life we know little. In Acts 15:22, he is mentioned as surnamed "Barsabas," and as being sent with Paul and Barnabas and Silas to Antioch. Paulinus says that he preached in Lybia, and that his body remained there. Jerome affirms, that after the ascension he was sent to Edessa, to king Abgarus; and the modern Greeks say that he preached in that city, and throughout Mesopotamia, and in Judea, Samaria, Idumea, Syria, and principally in Armenia and Persia - Calmet's Dictionary. Nothing certainly can be known in reference to the field of his labors, or to the place and circumstances of his death. On the question whether the Thaddeus who first preached the gospel in Syria was the same person as Jude, see Michaelis, Introduction iv., 367-371.

Section 2. The Authenticity of the Epistle

If this Epistle was written by the apostle Jude, the brother of James and of our Lord, there can be no doubt of its canonical authority, and its claim to a place in the New Testament. It is true that he does not call himself an apostle, but simply mentions himself as "a servant of Jesus Christ, and a brother of James." By this appellation, however, he has practically made it known that he was one of the apostles, for all who had a catalogue of the apostles would know "that Judas, the brother of James," was one of them. At the same time, as the relation of James to our Lord was well understood Galatians 1:19, his authority would be recognized as soon as he was known to be the author of the Epistle. It may be asked, indeed, if he was an apostle, why he did not call himself such; and why he did not seek to give authority and currency to his Epistle, by adverting to the fact that he was the "Lord's brother."

To the first of these questions, it may be replied, that to have called himself "Judas, the apostle," would not have designated him so certainly, as to call himself "the brother of James;" and besides, the naked title, "Judas, the apostle," was one which he might not choose to see applied to himself. After the act of the traitor, and the reproach which he had brought upon that name, it is probable that he would prefer to designate himself by some other appellation than one which had such associations connected with it. It may be added, also, that in several of his epistles Paul himself does not make use of the name of the apostle, Philippians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1; Plm 1:1. To the second question, it may be replied, that "modesty" may have kept him from applying to himself the title, the "Lord's brother." Even James never uses it of himself; and we only know that he sustained this relation from an incidental remark of the apostle Paul, Galatians 1:19. Great honor would be attached to that relationship, and it is possible that the reason why it was not referred to by James and Jude was an apprehension that it might produce jealousy, as if they claimed some special pre-eminence over their brethren.

For the evidence of the canonical authority of this Epistle, the reader is referred to Lardner, vol. vi., pp. 304-313, and to Michaelis, Introduction vol. iv., p. 374, following Michaelis, chiefly on the internal evidence, supposes that it is not an inspired production. There were indeed, at first, doubts about its being inspired, as there were respecting the Epistle of James, and the Second Epistle of Peter, but those doubts were ultimately removed, and it was received as a canonical epistle. Clemens of Alexandria cites the Epistle under Jude's name, as the production of a prophetic mind. Origen calls it a production full of heavenly grace. Eusebius says that his predecessors were divided in opinion respecting it, and that it was not ranked among the universally acknowledged writings. It was not universally received among the Syrians, and is not found in the Peschito, the oldest Syriac version of the Scriptures. In the time of Jerome, however, it came to be ranked among the other sacred Scriptures as of Divine authority - Hug, Introduction, Section 180.

The principal ground of doubt in regard to the canonical authority of the Epistle, arose from the supposed fact that the author has quoted two apocryphal writings, Jde 1:9, Jde 1:14. The consideration of this objection will be more appropriate in the notes at those verses, for it obviously depends much on the true interpretation of these passages. I shall, therefore, reserve what I have to say on that point to the exposition of those verses. Those who are disposed to examine it at length, may consult Hug, Introduction, Section 183; Lardner, 6:309-314, and Michaelis, Introduction, iv., 378ff.

Section 3. The Question when the Epistle was Written, to Whom, and its Design

Nothing can be determined with entire certainty in regard to the persons to whom this Epistle was written. Witsius supposed that it was addressed to Christians everywhere; Hammond, that it was addressed to Jewish Christians alone, who were scattered abroad, and that its design was to secure them against the errors of the Gnostics; Benson, that it was directed to Jewish believers, especially to those of the western dispersion; Lardner, that it was written to all, without distinction, who had embraced the gospel. The principal argument for supposing that it was addressed to Jewish converts is, that the apostle refers mainly for proof to Hebrew writings, but this might be sufficiently accounted for by the fact that the writer himself was of Jewish origin.

The only way of determining anything on this point is from the Epistle itself. The inscription is, "To them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called," Jde 1:1. From this it would appear evident that he had no particular classes of Christians in his eye, whether of Jewish or Gentile origin, but that he designed the Epistle for the general use of all who had embraced the Christian religion. The errors which he combats in the Epistle were evidently wide-spread, and were of such a nature that it was proper to warn all Christians against them. They might, it is true, be more prevalent in some quarters than in others, but still they were so common that Christians everywhere should be put on their guard against them.

The "design" for which Jude wrote the Epistle he has himself stated, Jde 1:3. It was with reference to the "common salvation" - the doctrines pertaining to salvation which were held by "all" Christians, and to show them the reasons for "contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." That faith was assailed. There were teachers of error abroad. They were insinuating and artful men - men who had crept in unawares, and who, while they professed to hold the Christian doctrine, were really undermining its faith, and spreading corruption through the church. The purpose, therefore, of the Epistle is to put these to whom it was written on their guard against the corrupt teachings of these men, and to encourage them to stand up manfully for the great principle, of Christian truth.

Who these errorists were, it is not easy now to determine. The leading charge against them, both by Jude and Peter 2 Peter 2:1, is, that they denied our Lord Jde 1:4; and yet it is said that they were numbered among Christians, and were found in their assemblies, 2 Peter 2:13; Jde 1:12. By this denial, however, we are not to suppose that they literally and professedly denied that Jesus was the Christ, but that they held "doctrines" which amounted to a denial of him in fact. Compare the notes at 2 Peter 2:1. For the general characteristics of these teachers, see Introduction to 2 Peter, Section 4.

At this distance of time, and with our imperfect knowledge of the characteristics of the early erroneous sects in the church, it is difficult to determine precisely who they were. It has been a common opinion, that reference is had by Peter and Jude to the sect of the Nicolaitanes; and this opinion, Hug remarks, is "neither improbable nor incompatible with the expressions of the two apostles, so far as we have any certain knowledge concerning this sect." "The statements of the ancients, in regard to their profligacy and their detestable course of life, are so consonant with each other and with the charges of the apostles, that the two epistles may be pertinently considered as referring to them." - Introduction, Section 182.

It is not possible to ascertain with certainty the time when the Epistle was written. There are no marks of time in it by which that can be known, nor is there any account among the early Christian writers which determines this. Benson supposes that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, a few weeks or months after the Second Epistle of Peter; Mill, that it was written about 90 a.d.; Dodwell and Cave, that it was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, in the year 71 or 72 a.d.; L'Enfant and Beausobre, that it was between the year 70 and 75 a.d.; Witsius and Estius, that it was in the apostle's old age; Lardner, that it was about the year 65 or 66 a.d.; Michaelis, that it was before the destruction of Jerusalem; and Macknight, that it was in the latter part of the apostolic age, and not long before the death of Jude. All this, it is manifest, is mostly conjecture. There are only "two" things, it seems to me, in the Epistle, which can be regarded as "any" indication of the time. One is the striking resemblance to the Second Epistle of Peter, referring clearly to the same kind of errors, and warning those whom he addressed against the arts of the same kind of teachers, thus showing that it was written at about the same time as that Epistle; and the other is, that it seems to have been written "before" the destruction of Jerusalem, for, as Michaelis has well remarked, 'As the author has mentioned Jde 1:5-8 several well-known instances of Divine justice in punishing sinners, he would probably if Jerusalem had been already destroyed, not have neglected to add to his other examples this most remarkable instance of Divine vengeance, especially as Christ had himself foretold it." - Introduction iv. 372. As there is reason to suppose that the Second Epistle of Peter was written about 64 or 65 a.d., we shall not probably, err in supposing that this was written not far from that time.

Section IV. The Resemblance between this Epistle and the Second Chapter of the Second Epistle of Peter

One of the most remarkable things respecting this Epistle, is its resemblance to the second chapter of the Second Epistle of Peter - a similarity so striking as to make it quite certain that one of these writers had seen the Epistle of the other, and copied from it; or rather, perhaps, adopted the language of the other as expressing his own views. It is evident, that substantially the same class of teachers is referred to by both; that they held the same errors, and were guilty of the same corrupt and dangerous practices; and that the two apostles, in describing them, made use of the same expressions, and employed the same arguments against them. They refer to the same facts in history, and to the same arguments from tradition; and if either of them quoted an apocryphal book, both have done it. On the resemblance, compare the following places: - Jde 1:8, with 2 Peter 2:10; Jde 1:10, with 2 Peter 2:12; Jde 1:16, with 2 Peter 2:18; Jde 1:4, with 2 Peter 1:2-3; Jde 1:7, with 2 Peter 2:6; Jde 1:9, with 2 Peter 2:11. The similarity between the two is so striking, both in the general structure of the argument and in the particular expressions, that it cannot have been accidental. It is not such a resemblance as would be likely to occur in two authors, if they had been writing in a wholly independent manner. In regard to this resemblance, there is but one of three ways in which it can be accounted for: either that the Holy Spirit inspired both of them to say the same thing, without the one having any knowledge of what the other said; or that they both copied from a common document, which is now lost; or that one copied from the other.

As to the first of these solutions, that the Holy Spirit inspired them both to say the same thing, it may be observed that no one can deny that this is "possible," but is by no means probable. No other instance of the kind occurs in the Bible, and the supposition would not be in accordance with what seems to have been a law in inspiration, that the sacred writers were allowed to express themselves according to the bent of their own genius. See the notes, 1 Corinthians 14:32.

As to the second of these suppositions, that they both copied from a common document, which is now lost, it may be observed, that this is wholly without evidence. That such a thing was "possible," there can be no doubt, but the supposition should not be adopted without necessity. If there had been such an original inspired document, it would probably have been preserved; or there would have been, in one or both of those who copied from it, some such allusion to it that it would have been possible to verify the supposition.

The remaining way of accounting for the resemblance, therefore, is to suppose that one of them had seen the Epistle of the other, and adopted the same line of argument, and many of the same expressions. This will account for all the facts in the case, and can be supposed to be true without doing violence to any just view of their inspiration. A question still arises, however, whether Peter or Jude is the original writer from which the other has copied. This question it is impossible to determine with certainty, and it is of little importance. If the common opinion which is stated above be correct, that Peter wrote his Epistle "first," of course that determines the matter. But that is not absolutely certain, nor is there any method by which it can be determined. Hug adopts the other opinion, and supposes that Jude was the original writer. His reasons for this opinion are substantially these:

(1) That there is little probability that Jude, in so brief an epistle as his, consisting of only 25 verses, would have made use of foreign aid.

(2) that the style and phraseology of Jude is simple, unlabored, and without ornament; while that of Peter is artificial, and wears the appearance of embellishment and amplification; that the simple language of Jude seems to have been moulded by Peter into a more elegant form, and is embellished with participles, and even with rhetorical flourishes.

(3) that there is allusion in both Epistles 2 Peter 2:11; Jde 1:9 to a controversy between angels and fallen spirits; but that it is so alluded to by Peter, that it would not be understood without the more full statement of Jude; and that Peter evidently supposed that the letter of Jude was in the hands of those to whom he wrote, and that thus the allusion would be at once understood.

It could not be supposed that every reader would be acquainted with the fact alluded to by Peter; it was not stated in the sacred books of the Jews, and it seems probable that there must have been some book to which they had access, where the information was more full. Jude, however, as the original writer, stated it more at length, and having done this, a bare allusion to it by Peter was all that was necessary. Jude states the matter definitely, and expressly mentions the dispute of Michael with the devil about the body of Moses. But the language of Peter is so general and indefinite, that we could not know what he meant unless we had Jude in our possession. See Hug's Introduction, Section 176. It must be admitted that these considerations have much weight, though they are not absolutely conclusive. It should be added, that whichever supposition is adopted, the fact that one has expressed substantially the same sentiments as the other, and in nearly the same language, is no reason for rejecting either, any more than the coincidence between the Gospels is a reason for concluding that only one of them can be an inspired document. There might have been good reasons why the same warnings and counsels should have proceeded from two inspired men.

(1) The inscription and salutation, Jde 1:1-2.

(2) a statement of the reasons why the Epistle was written, Jde 1:3-4. The author felt it to be necessary to write to them, because certain plausible errorists had crept in among them, and there was danger that their faith would be subverted.

(3) a reference to past facts, showing that men who embraced error, and who followed corrupt and licentious practices, would be punished, Jde 1:5-7. He refers particularly to the unbelieving Hebrews whom God had delivered out of Egypt; to the apostate angels; and to the corrupt inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. The object in this is to warn them from following the examples of those who would certainly lead them to destruction.

(4) he describes particularly the characteristics of these persons, agreeing substantially in the description with the statement of Peter, Jde 1:8-16. For these characteristics, compare Introduction to 2 Peter, Section 4. In general, they were corrupt, sensual, lewd, proud, arrogant, disorganizing, covetous, murmurers, complainers, wordy, windy, spots in their feasts of love. They had been and were professors of religion; they were professed reformers; they made great pretensions to uncommon knowledge of religious things. In the course of this description, the apostle contrasts their spirit with that of the archangel Michael Jde 1:9, and declares that it was with reference to such a class of men that Enoch long ago uttered a solemn prophecy, Jde 1:14-15.

(5) he calls to their remembrance the fact that it had been predicted that there would be such mockers in the last periods of the world; and the faith of true Christians, therefore, was not to be shaken, but rather confirmed by the fact of their appearance, Jde 1:17-19.

(6) in view of these facts and dangers, the apostle addresses to them two exhortations:

(a) to adhere steadfastly to the truths which they had embraced, Jde 1:20-21; and,

(b) to endeavor to recall and save those who were led astray - carefully guarding themselves from the same contamination while they sought to save others, Jde 1:22-23.

(7) the Epistle closes with an appropriate ascription of praise to him who was able to keep them from falling, and to present them faultless before his throne, Jde 1:24-25.

Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ - If the view taken in the Introduction to the Epistle is correct, Jude sustained a near relation to the Lord Jesus, being, as James was, "the Lord's brother," Galatians 1:19. The reasons why he did not advert to this fact here, as an appellation which would serve to designate him, and as showing his authority to address others in the manner in which he proposed to do in this Epistle, probably were,

(1) that the right to do this did not rest on his mere "relationship" to the Lord Jesus, but on the fact that he had called certain persons to be his apostles, and had authorized them to do it; and,

(2) that a reference to this relationship, as a ground of authority, might have created jealousies among the apostles themselves. We may learn from the fact that Jude merely calls himself "the servant of the Lord Jesus," that is, a Christian,

(a) that this is a distinction more to be desired than, would be a mere natural relationship to the Saviour, and consequently.

(b) that it is a higher honor than any distinction arising from birth or family. Compare Matthew 12:46-50.

And brother of James - See the introduction, Section 1.

To them that are sanctified by God the Father - To those who are "holy," or who are "saints." Compare the Romans 1:7 note; Philippians 1:1 note. Though this title is general, it can hardly be doubted that he had some particular saints in his view, to wit, those who were exposed to the dangers to which he refers in the Epistle. See Introduction, Section 3. As the Epistle was probably "sent" to Christians residing in a certain place, it was not necessary to designate them more particularly, though it was often done. The Syriac version adds here: "To the Gentiles who are called, beloved of God the Father," etc.

And preserved in Jesus Christ - See the notes, 1 Peter 1:5. The meaning is, that they owed their preservation wholly to him; and if they were brought to everlasting life, it would be only by him. What the apostle here says of those to whom he wrote, is true of all Christians. They would all fall away and perish if it were not for the grace of God keeping them.

And called - Called to be saints. See Romans 1:7 note; Ephesians 4:1 note.

Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied - This is not quite the form of salutation used by the other apostles, but it is one equally expressive of an earnest desire for their welfare. These things are mentioned as the choicest blessings which could be conferred on them: "mercy" - in the pardon of all their sins and acceptance with God; "peace" - with God, with their fellow-men, in their own consciences, and in the prospect of death; and "love" - to God, to the brethren, to all the world. What blessings are there which these do not include?

Beloved - An expression of strong affection used by the apostles when addressing their brethren, Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 4:14; 1 Corinthians 10:14; 1 Corinthians 15:58; 2 Corinthians 7:1; 2 Corinthians 12:19; Philippians 2:12; Philippians 4:1; and often elsewhere.

When I gave all diligence - When I applied my mind earnestly; implying that he had reflected on the subject, and thought particularly what it would be desirable to write to them. The state of mind referred to is that of one who was purposing to write a letter, and who thought over carefully what it would be proper to say. The mental process which led to writing the Epistle seems to have been this:

(a) For some reasons - mainly from his strong affection for them - he purposed to write to them.

(b) The general subject on which he designed to write was, of course, something pertaining to the common salvation - for he and they were Christians.

(c) On reflecting what particular thing pertaining to this common salvation it was best for him to write on, he felt that, in view of their peculiar dangers, it ought to be an exhortation to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to them. Macknight renders this less correctly, "Making all haste to write to you," etc. But the idea is rather that he set himself diligently and earnestly to write to them of the great matter in which they had a common interest.

To write unto you of the common salvation - The salvation common to Jews and Gentiles, and to all who bore the Christian name. The meaning is, that he did not think of writing on any subject pertaining to a particular class or party, but on some subject in which all who were Christians had a common interest. There are great matters of religion held in common by all Christians, and it is important for religious teachers to address their fellow Christians on those common topics. After all, they are more important than the things which we may hold as peculiar to our own party or sect, and should be more frequently dwelt upon.

It was needful for me to write to you - "I reflected on the general subject, prompted by my affectionate regard to write to you of things pertaining to religion in general, and, on looking at the matter, I found there was a particular topic or aspect of the subject on which it was necessary to address you. I saw the danger in which you were from false teachers, and felt it not only necessary that I should write to you, but that I should make this the particular subject of my counsels."

And exhort you - "That I should make my letter in fact an exhortation on a particular topic."

That ye should earnestly contend - Compare Galatians 2:5. The word here rendered "earnestly contend" - ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι epagōnizesthai - is one of those words used by the sacred writers which have allusion to the Grecian games. Compare the notes, 1 Corinthians 9:24, following. This word does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament. It means "to contend upon" - i. e., "for or about" anything; and would be applicable to the earnest effort put forth in those games to obtain the prize. The reference here, of course, is only to contention by argument, by reasoning, by holding fast the principles of religion, and maintaining them against all opposers. It would not justify "contention" by arms, by violence, or by persecution; because:

(a) that is contrary to the spirit of true religion, and to the requirements of the gospel elsewhere revealed;

(b) it is not demanded by the proper meaning of the word, all that that fairly implies being the effort to maintain truth by argument and by a steady life;

(c) it is not the most effectual way to keep up truth in the world to attempt to do it by force and arms.

For the faith - The system of religion revealed in the gospel. It is called "faith," because that is the cardinal virtue in the system, and because all depends on that. The rule here will require that we should contend in this manner for all "truth."

Once delivered unto the saints - The word here used (ἅπαξ hapax) may mean either "once for all," in the sense that it was then complete, and would not be repeated; or "formerly," to wit, by the author of the system. Doddridge, Estius, and Beza, understand it in the former way; Macknight and others in the latter; Benson improperly supposes that it means "fully or perfectly." Perhaps the more usual sense of the word would be, that it was done once in the sense that it is not to be done again, and, therefore, in the sense that it was then complete, and that nothing was to be added to it. There is indeed the idea that it was formerly done, but with this additional thought, that it was then complete. Compare, for this use of the Greek word rendered "once," Hebrews 9:26-28; Hebrews 10:2; 1 Peter 3:18. The "delivering" of this faith to the saints here referred to is evidently that made by revelation, or the system of truth which God has made known in his word. Everything which He has revealed, we are to defend as true. We are to surrender no part of it whatever, for every part of that system "is" of value to mankind. By a careful study of the Bible we are to ascertain what that system is, and then in all places, at all times, in all circumstances, and at every sacrifice, we are to maintain it.

For there are certain men crept in unawares - The apostle now gives "reason" for thus defending the truth, to wit, that there were artful and wicked men who had crept into the church, pretending to be religious teachers, but whose doctrines tended to sap the very foundations of truth. The apostle Peter, describing these same persons, says, "who privily shall bring in damnable heresies." See the notes, 2 Peter 2:1. Substantially the same idea is expressed here by saying that they "had crept in unawares;" that is, they had come in "by stealth;" they had not come by a bold and open avowal of their real sentiments. They professed to teach the Christian religion, when in fact they denied some of its fundamental doctrines; they professed to be holy, when in fact they were living most scandalous lives. In all ages there have been men who were willing to do this for base purposes.

Who were before of old ordained to this condemnation - That is, to the condemnation (κρίμα krima) which he proceeds to specify. The statements in the subsequent part of the Epistle show that by the word used here he refers to the wrath that shall come upon the ungodly in the future world. See Jde 1:5-7, Jde 1:15. The meaning clearly is, that the punishment which befell the unbelieving Israelites Jde 1:5; the rebel angels Jde 1:6; the inhabitants of Sodom Jde 1:7; and of which Enoch prophesied Jde 1:15, awaited those persons. The phrase "of old" - πάλαι palai - means "long ago," implying that a considerable time had elapsed, though without determining how much. It is used in the New Testament only in the following places: Matthew 11:21, "they would have repented long ago;" Mark 15:44, "whether he had been any while dead;" Luke 10:13, "they had a great while ago repented;" Hebrews 1:1, "spake in time past unto the fathers;" 2 Peter 1:9, "purged from his old sins;" and in the passage before us.

So far as this word is concerned, the reference here may have been to any former remote period, whether in the time of the prophets, of Enoch, or in eternity. It does not "necessarily" imply that it was "eternal," though it "might" apply to that, if the thing referred to was, from other sources, certainly known to have been from eternity. It may be doubted, however, whether, if the thing referred to had occurred from eternity, this would have been the word used to express it, (compare Ephesians 1:4); and it is certain that it cannot be proveD from the use of this word (πάλαι palai) that the "ordination to condemnation" was eternal. Whatever may be referred to by that "ordaining to condemnation," this word will not prove that it was an eternal ordination. All that is fairly implied in it will be met by the supposition that it occurred in any remote period, say in the time of the prophets.

The word here rendered "before ordained' - προγεγραμμένοι progegrammenoi, from προγράφω prographō - occurs in the New Testament only here and in the following places: Romans 15:4, twice, "Whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written for our learning;" Galatians 3:1, "Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth;" and Ephesians 3:3. "As I wrote afore in few words." Compare the notes, Galatians 3:1. In these places there is evidently no idea implied of "ordaining, or pre-ordaining," in the sense in which those words are now commonly understood. To that word there is usually attached the idea of designating or appointing as by an arbitrary decree; but no such meaning enters into the word here used. The Greek word properly means, "to write before;" then "to have written before;" and then, with reference to time future, "to post up beforehand in writing; to announce by posting up on a written tablet," as of some ordinance, law, or requirement; as descriptive of what will be, or what should be.

Compare Robinson, Lexicon. Burder (in Rosenmuller's Morgenland, in loc.) remarks that "the names of those who were to be tried were usually posted up in a public place, as was also their sentence after their condemnation, and that this was denoted by the same Greek word which the apostle uses here. Elsner," says he, "remarks that the Greek authors use the word as applicable to to those who, among the Romans, were said to be "proscribed;" that is, those whose names were posted up in a public place, whereby they were appointed to death, and in reference to whom a reward was offered to any one who would kill them." The idea here clearly is that of some such designation beforehand as would occur if the persons had been publicly posted as appointed to death. Their names, indeed, were not mentioned, but there was such a description of them, or of their character, that it was clear who were meant.

In regard to the question what the apostle "means" by such a designation or appointment beforehand, it is clear that he does not refer in this place to any arbitrary or eternal decree, but to such a designation as was made by the facts to which he immediately refers - that is, to the Divine prediction that there would be such persons Jde 1:14-15, Jde 1:18; and to the consideration that in the case of the unbelieving Israelites, the rebel angels, and the inhabitants of Sodom, there was as clear a proof that such persons would be punished as if their names had been posted up. All these instances bore on just such cases as these, and in these facts they might read their sentence as clearly as if their names had been written on the face of the sky. This interpretation seems to me to embrace all that the words fairly imply, and all that the exigence of the case demands; and if this be correct, then two things follow logically:

(1) that this passage should not be adduced to prove that God has from all eternity, by an arbitrary decree, ordained a certain portion of the race to destruction, whatever may be true on that point; and,

(2) that all abandoned sinners now may see, in the facts which have occurred in the treatment of the wicked in past times, just as certain evidence of their destruction, if they do not repent, as if their names were written in letters of light, and if it were announced to the universe that they would be damned.

Ungodly men - Men without piety or true religion, whatever may be their pretensions.

Turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness - Abusing the doctrines of grace so as to give indulgence to corrupt and carnal propensities. That is, probably, they gave this form to their teaching, as Antinomians have often done, that by the gospel they were released from the obligations of the law, and might give indulgence to their sinful passions in order that grace might abound. Antinomianism began early in the world, and has always had a wide prevalence. The liability of the doctrines of grace to be thus abused was foreseen by Paul, and against such abuse he earnestly sought to guard the Christians of his time, Romans 6:1, following.

And denying the only Lord God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ - See the notes, 2 Peter 2:1. That is, the doctrines which they held were in fact a denial of the only true God, and of the Redeemer of men. It cannot be supposed that they openly and formally did this, for then they could have made no pretensions to the name Christian, or even to religion of any kind; but the meaning must be, that "in fact" the doctrines which they held amounted to a denial of the true God, and of the Saviour in his proper nature and work. Some have proposed to read this, "denying the only Lord God, even (καὶ kai) our Lord Jesus Christ;" but the Greek does not demand this construction even if it would admit it, and it is most in accordance with Scripture usage to retain the common translation. It may be added, also, that the common translation expresses all that the exigence of the passage requires.

Their doctrines and practice tended as really to the denial of the true God as they did to the denial of the Lord Jesus. Peter, in 2 Peter 2:1, has adverted only to one aspect of their doctrine - that it denied the Saviour; Jude adds, if the common reading be correct, that it tended also to a denial of the true God. The word God (Θεὸν Theon) is missing in many manuscripts, and in the Vulgate and Coptic versions, and Mill, Hammond, and Bengel suppose it should be omitted. It is also wanting in the editions of Tittman, Griesbach, and Hahn. The amount of authority seems to be against it. The word rendered "Lord," in the phrase "Lord God," is (Δεσπότης Despotēs,) and means here "Sovereign, or Ruler," but it is a word which may be appropriately applied to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the same word which is used in the parallel passage in 2 Peter 2:1. See it explained in the notes at that verse. If the word "God" is to be omitted in this place, the passage would be wholly applicable, beyond question, to the Lord Jesus, and would mean, "denying our only Sovereign and Lord, Jesus Christ." It is perhaps impossible now to determine with certainty the true reading of the text; nor is it "very" material. Whichever of the readings is correct; whether the word (Θεὸν Theon,) "God," is to be retained or not, the sentiment expressed would be true, that their doctrines amounted to a practical denial of the only true God; and equally so that they were a denial of the only Sovereign and Lord of the true Christian.

I will therefore put you in remembrance - "To show you what must be the doom of such men, I will call certain facts to your recollection, with which you are familiar, respecting the Divine treatment of the wicked in times past."

Though ye once knew this - That is, you were formerly made acquainted with these things, though they may not be now fresh in your recollection. On the different significations affixed to the word "once" in this place, see Bloomfield, "Crit. Digest, in loc." The thing which seems to have been in the mind of the apostle was an intention to call to their recollection, as bearing on the case before him, facts with which they had formerly been familiar, and about which there was no doubt. It was the thing which we often endeavor to do in argument - to remind a person of some fact which he once knew very well, and which bears directly on the case.

How that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt - Compare the notes, 1 Corinthians 10:5-12. The bearing of this fact on the case, before the mind of Jude, seems to have been this - that, as those who had been delivered from Egypt were afterward destroyed for their unbelief, or as the mere fact of their being rescued did not prevent destruction from coming on them, so the fact that these persons seemed to be delivered from sin, and had become professed followers of God would not prevent their being destroyed if they led wicked lives. It might rather be inferred from the example of the Israelites that they would be.

Afterward - τὸ δεύτερον to deuteron - "the second;" that is, the second thing in order, or again. The expression is unusual in this sense, but the apostle seems to have fixed his mind on this event as a "second" great and important fact in regard to them. The "first" was that they were delivered; the second, that they were destroyed.

Destroyed them that believed not - That is, "on account" of their unbelief. They were not permitted to enter the promised land, but were cut off in the wilderness. See the notes at Hebrews 3:16-19.

And the angels which kept not their first estate - A second case denoting that the wicked would be punished. Compare the notes, 2 Peter 2:4. The word rendered "estate" (ἀρχὴν archēn) is, in the margin, "principality." The word properly means, "beginning, commencement;" and then that which surpasses others, which is "first," etc., in point of rank and honor; or pre-eminence, priority, precedence, princedom. Here it refers to the rank and dignity which the angels had in heaven. That rank or pre-eminence they did not keep, but fell from it. On the word used here, compare Ephesians 1:2; Ephesians 3:10; Colossians 2:10, as applied to angels; 1 Corinthians 15:24; Ephesians 6:12; Colossians 2:15, as applied to demons.

But left their own habitation - To wit, according to the common interpretation, in heaven. The word rendered "habitation" (οἰκητήριον oikētērion) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means here that heaven was their native abode or dwelling-place. They left it by sin; but the expression here would seem possibly to mean that they became "dissatisfied" with their abode, and voluntarily preferred to change it for another. If they did become thus dissatisfied, the cause is wholly unknown, and conjecture is useless. Some of the later Jews supposed that they relinquished heaven out of love for the daughters of men - "Robinson."

He hath reserved in everlasting chains - See the notes, 2 Peter 2:4. Peter says, "chains of darkness;" that is, the darkness encompasses them "as" chains. Jude says that those chains are "everlasting," (δεσμοῖς ἀΐ́δίοις desmois aidios. Compare Romans 1:20, "his eternal power and Godhead." The word does not elsewhere occur. It is an appropriate word to denote that which is eternal; and no one can doubt that if a Greek wished to express that idea, this would be a proper word to use. The sense is, that that deep darkness always endures; there is no intermission; no light; it will exist forever. This passage in itself does not prove that the punishment of the rebel angels will be eternal, but merely that they are kept in a dark prison in which there is no light, and which is to exist for ever, with reference to the final trial. The punishment of the rebel angels after the judgment is represented as an everlasting fire, which has been prepared for them and their followers, Matthew 25:41.

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha - Notes, 2 Peter 2:6.

And the cities about them - Admah and Zeboim, Genesis 14:2; Deuteronomy 29:23; Hosea 11:8. There may have been other towns, also, that perished at the same time, but these are particularly mentioned. They seem to have partaken of the same general characteristics, as neighboring towns and cities generally do.

In like manner - "In a manner like to these," (τὸν ὅμοιον τούτοις τρόπον ton homoion toutois tropon.) The Greek word "these," is in the plural number. There has been much diversity in interpreting this clause. Some refer it to the angels, as if it meant that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah committed sin in a way similar to the angels; some suppose that it refers to the wicked teachers about whom Jude was discoursing, meaning that Sodom and Gomorrah committed the same kind of sins which they did; some that the meaning is, that "the cities round about Sodom and Gomorrah" sinned in the same way as those cities; and some that they were punished in the same manner, and were set forth like them as an example. I see no evidence that it refers to the angels, and if it did, it would not prove, as some have supposed, that their sin was of the same kind as that of Sodom, since there might have been a resemblance in some respects, though not in all. I see no reason to believe, as Macknight holds, that it refers to "false teachers," since that would be to suppose that the inhabitants of Sodom copied their example long "before" the example was set. It seems to me, therefore, that the reference is to the cities round about Sodom; and that the sense is, that they committed iniquity in the same manner as the inhabitants of Sodom did, and were set forth in the same way as an example.

Going after strange flesh - Margin: "other." The reference seems to be to the unusual sin which, from the name Sodom, has been called "sodomy." Compare Romans 1:27. The meaning of the phrase "going after" is, that they were greatly addicted to this vice. The word "strange, or other," refers to that which is contrary to nature. Doddridge, however, explains it, "going after strange and detestable gratifications of their pampered and indulged flesh."

Are set forth for an example - They furnish a warning against all such conduct, and a demonstration that punishment shall come upon the ungodly. The condemnation of any sinner, or of any class of sinners, always furnishes such a warning. See the notes, 2 Peter 2:6.

Suffering the vengeance of eternal fire - The word rendered "suffering" (ὑπέχουσαι hupechousai) means, properly, "holding under" - as, for example, the hand; then to hold toward any one, as the ear - to give attention; then it is used as denoting to hold a discourse toward or with any one, or to hold satisfaction to any one, to make atonement; and then as "undergoing, paying, or suffering punishment," when united, as it is here, with the word δίκην dikēn (punishment, or vengeance). See "Rob. Lex." Here it expresses the idea of undergoing punishment. The word properly agrees in the construction with "cities," (πόλεις poleis,) referring to Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them; but the things affirmed relate to the "inhabitants" of those cities. The word "vengeance" means punishment; that is, such vengeance as the Lord takes on the guilty; not vengeance for the gratification of private and personal feeling, but like that which a magistrate appoints for the maintenance of the laws; such as justice demands. The phrase "eternal fire" is one that is often used to denote future punishment - as expressing the severity and intensity of the suffering. See the notes, Matthew 25:41. As here used, it cannot mean that the fires which consumed Sodom and Gomorrah were literally eternal, or were kept always burning, for that was not true. The expression seems to denote, in this connection, two things:

(1) That the destruction of the cities of the plain, with their inhabitants, was as entire and perpetual as if the fires had been always burning - the consumption was absolute and enduring - the sinners were wholly cut off, and the cities forever rendered desolate; and,

(2) that, in its nature and duration, this was a striking emblem of the destruction which will come upon the ungodly. I do not see that the apostle here means to affirm that those particular sinners who dwelt in Sodom would be punished forever, for his expressions do not directly affirm that, and his argument does not demand it; but still the "image" in his mind, in the destruction of those cities, was clearly that of the utter desolation and ruin of which this was the emblem; of the perpetual destruction of the wicked, like that of the cities of the plain. If this had not been the case, there was no reason why he should have used the word "eternal" - meaning here "perpetual" - since, if in his mind there was no image of future punishment, all that the argument would have demanded was the simple statement that they were cut off by fire.

The passage, then, cannot be used to prove that the particular dwellers in Sodom will be punished forever - whatever may be the truth on that point; but that there is a place of eternal punishment, of which that was a striking emblem. The meaning is, that the case was one which furnished a demonstration of the fact that God will punish sin; that this was an example of the punishment which God sometimes inflicts on sinners in this world, and a type of that eternal punishment which will be inflicted in the next.