Commentari biblici

Ἰούδα ἐπιστολή

Instead of this superscription (in A C K) there is found in B only Ἰούδα

CHAPTER 1

Judges 1:1. Instead of Ἰησ. Χρ. (Rec. after A B L א, etc., several vss. etc., Lachm. Tisch. 8) Tisch. 7 had adopted Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, after K P, etc., without sufficient justification.

ἡγιασμένοις] Rec. after K L P, etc.; instead of this ἠγαπημένοις, in A B א, 5, al., Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. etc., Orig. Eph., is adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. It is true that there are exegetical difficulties connected with the latter reading, but it is too strongly defended by authorities to be on that account considered spurious. Reiche, Schott, Hofmann have declared for it, Wiesinger against it; Brückner is undecided.

Judges 1:3. τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας] Rec. after K L P, al.; Tisch. 7 has retained this reading; Lachm. and Tisch. 8, on the contrary, read κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας, for which A B C א, 5, al., Syr. Erp. Sahid. Theoph. Lucif. testify. The weight of authorities is in favour of this latter reading; it is possible that ἡμῶν was omitted, in order to give to the idea a universal character.

Judges 1:4. Instead of the usual form χάριν, Lachm. and Tisch., after A B, read χάριτα, which occurs in classical writers only among the poets (see Buttmann, Ausf. gr. Sprachl. § 44. Anm. 1) [E. T. 13].

τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰ. Χρ., with Griesbach, Scholz, Tittmann, Lachm. Tisch., after the testimonies of A B C 10, א, Lect. 1, 3, Erp. Copt. Sahid. etc., Eph. Didym. Chrys.

The Rec. has after δεσπότην the word Θεόν (in K L P, etc., Syr. utr. Thph.), which, however, is a later addition, the more definitely to distinguish δεσπότην from κύριον ἡμῶν. In later MSS. many other variations are found, namely: Θεὸν καὶ δεσπότην τὸν κύρ. ἡμ. Ἰ. Χρ., or δεσπότην καὶ Θεὸν τὸν κύρ. ἡμ. Ἰ. Χρ., or Θεὸν δεσπότην καὶ κύρ. ἡμ. Ἰ. Χρ.

Judges 1:5. After εἰδότας the Rec. has ὑμᾶς; Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted it; it is wanting in A B C** several min. etc., but is found in K L א, etc. It may have been omitted on account of the preceding ὑμᾶς.

τοῦτο (Rec. after K L, etc.) appears to be an explanatory correction instead of the original πάντα, for which A B C** א, etc., Vulg. etc., testify; also Reiche considers πάντα as the original reading. א has ἅπαξ after κύριος, so also several versions, yet after ὅτι κύριος. Two reasons co-operated for this displacement: (1) because ἅπαξ did not appear to suit εἰδότας, and (2) because the following τὸ δεύτερον appeared to require a word corresponding with σώσας. Tisch. on this observes: quae quidem lectio omnino praeferenda esset alteri, nisi incredibile esset ἅπαξ locum post εἰδότας a quopiam correctore nactum esse. Reiche remarks: loco, quem vulgo occupat, testium auctoritate servari debet.

The Rec. ὁ κύριος is found in K L, most min. some vss. and Fathers; Tisch. 7 has retained it; Tisch. 8 reads, after C* א, κύριος without the article. A B, several min. etc., have Ἰησοῦς instead of κύριος (on this Tisch. 8 remarks: articulum om. et A B et reliqui qui Ἰησοῦς praebent); Lachm. and Buttm. have adopted ὁ Ἰησοῦς; C** and Lucif. read ὁ Θεός. The reading Ἰησοῦς (instead of κύριος) is indeed very strange, but might for this reason be changed into the other readings.

Judges 1:6. Instead of τε after ἀγγέλους (Tisch.), A, some min. etc., have δέ. Lachm. has δέ in the text-edition; but, on the other hand, in the larger edition he has rightly again adopted τε.

Judges 1:7. τούτοις τρόπον] Rec. after K L, etc.; a correction instead of τρόπον τούτοις (Lachm. Tisch.) in A B C א, many min. etc.

Judges 1:9. Instead of ὁ δὲ Μιχ. ὁ ἀρχάγγελος, ὅτε, Lachm., against the testimony of A C K L א, etc., has adopted, after B, ὅτε Μιχ. ὁ ἀρχ. τότε.

Judges 1:12. A B, 13, al., m. edd. Syr. utr. (Copt.?) etc., read after οὗτοί εἰσιν the relative οἱ, which Griesbach considers as probably genuine, and Lachm. and Tisch. have rightly adopted into the text;1[5] the omission must be considered as an explanatory correction.

ἀγάπαις] instead of which A C and some min. read ἀπάταις; a correction after 2 Peter 2:13.

ὑμῶν] Lachm. has in the small edition αὐτῶν, after A, etc., but in the larger edition the Rec. ὑμῶν, which is sufficiently attested by B C K L א, etc.; the reading αὐτῶν, which Stier without reason considers as original, is explained from 1 Peter 2:13.

Instead of ὑπὸ ἀνέμων, א reads παντὶ ἀνέμω; an evident correction.

παραφερόμεναι] is already by Griesb. Scholz, etc., after almost all authorities, rightly adopted into the text instead of the Rec. ΠΕΡΙΦΕΡΌΜΕΝΑΙ.

Judges 1:13. ἌΓΡΙΑ ΚΎΜΑΤΑ is in א instead of ΚΎΜΑΤΑ ἌΓΡΙΑ, which is attested by all authorities.

Buttmann has, after B, adopted ΠΛΑΝῆΤΕς instead of ΠΛΑΝῆΤΑΙ, and ΖΌΦΟς instead of Ὁ ΖΌΦΟς; as the other authorities, so also א testifies for the reading of the Rec.

εἰς αἰῶνα] after A B C א, etc., instead of the Rec. ΕἸς ΤῸΝ ΑἸῶΝΑ.

Judges 1:14. Instead of the form ΠΡΟΕΦΉΤΕΥΣΕ, attested by almost all authorities, Tisch. has, after B*, adopted ἘΠΡΟΦΉΤΕΥΣΕ.

ἉΓΊΑΙς ΜΥΡΙΆΣΙΝ] after A B K L, etc., instead of the Rec. μυριάσιν ἁγίαις in C; in א the reading is μυριάσιν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων.

Judges 1:15. ἐλέγξαι] after A B C K L א, etc., instead of the Rec. ἘΞΕΛΈΓΞΑΙ.

After ἈΣΕΒΕῖς the Rec. has αὐτῶν, found in K L, some min. vss. and Fathers; retained by Tischendorf,[6] and defended by Reiche; on the other hand, it is wanting in A B C (Lachm.); its spuriousness is scarcely to be doubted.

ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν is wanting in א; ἀσεβείας in C; the omission is easily explained.

Tisch. 8 inserts after τῶν σκληρῶν the word λόγων, after C א, and many min.; it is wanting in most authorities (Tisch. 7); it appears to have been added from a regard to the preceding τῶν ἔργων.

Judges 1:18. After ἔλεγον ὑμῖν Tisch. 7, after A C K L, etc., has ὅτι (Rec.); Tisch. 8 has omitted it after B L* א; so also Lachm. in his larger edition, but hardly correctly.

Instead of the Rec. ἐν ἐσχάτῳ χρόνῳ (K L P, some min. and Oecumenius), which is an explanatory correction, Lachm. and Tisch. have rightly adopted ἐπʼ ἐσχάτου τοῦ χρόνου; the article τοῦ is found in A א, al., etc.; its omission is easily explained, because ἘΣΧΆΤΟΥ was taken for an adjective.

ἜΣΟΝΤΑΙ] Whilst Lachm. in his small edition instead of it reads ἘΛΕΎΣΟΝΤΑΙ, he has in the large edition rightly adopted the reading of the Rec. The reading ἐλεύσονται (in A C** etc.) is a correction after 2 Peter 3:3. א has primo manu ἜΣΟΝΤΑΙ; on the other hand corrected ἘΛΕΎΣΟΝΤΑΙ.

Judges 1:19. After ἈΠΟΔΙΟΡΊΖΟΝΤΕς the Rec. has ἑαυτοῖς (C, Vulg. Aug.); an evident correction.

Judges 1:20. Instead of the Rec. τῇ ἁγιωτ. ὑμῶν πίστει ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτούς (K L P, al., pl. Syr. etc.), Lachm. and Tisch. read ἘΠΟΙΚΟΔΟΜΟῦΝΤΕς ἙΑΥΤ. Τῇ ἉΓ. ὙΜ. Π. (A B C א, al., several vss. etc.).

Judges 1:22-23. The readings are here very various. The Rec. has ΚΑῚ ΟὝς ΜῈΝ ἘΛΕΕῖΤΕ ΔΙΑΚΡΙΝΌΜΕΝΟΙ· ΟὝς ΔῈ ἘΝ ΦΌΒῼ ΣΏΖΕΤΕ, ἘΝ ΤΟῦ ΠΥΡῸς ἉΡΠΆΖΟΝΤΕς. This reading is found in K L P (only ΤΟῦ before ΠΥΡΌς is omitted); A reads ΚΑῚ ΟὝς ΜῈΝ ἘΛΈΓΧΕΤΕ ΔΙΑΚΡΙΝΟΜΈΝΟΥς, ΟὝς ΔῈ ΣΏΖΕΤΕ ἘΚ ΠΥΡῸς ἉΡΠΆΖΟΝΤΕς, ΟὝς ΔῈ ἘΛΕΕῖΤΕ ἘΝ ΦΌΒῼ; Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted this reading, only that instead of ἘΛΕΕῖΤΕ they read, with B: ἘΛΕᾶΤΕ.

B deviates in this, that in Judges 1:22 it reads not ἘΛΈΓΧΕΤΕ, but ἘΛΕᾶΤΕ (so also א); in Judges 1:23 it omits the first ΟὝς ΔΈ, and instead of ἘΛΕΕῖΤΕ has the form ἘΛΕᾶΤΕ; C agrees on the whole with A, yet C** has in Judges 1:22 ἘΛΕᾶΤΕ, as B, and in Judges 1:23 the words ΟὝς ΔῈ ἘΛΕΕῖΤΕ are wanting in C. The reading of A is held as the original by Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott, Reiche, because the other readings can be most easily explained from it; Hofmann, on the contrary, prefers the reading in א, which is found also in B, only with the inadvertent omission of the words ΟὝς ΔΈ after ΔΙΑΚΡΙΝΟΜΈΝΟΥς; whilst de Wette thinks that the original reading is preserved in C. The reading in B probably lies at the foundation of the reading in K L P; the twofold ἘΛΕᾶΤΕ was naturally objectionable, and therefore the words ΟὝς ΔῈ ἘΛΕᾶΤΕ were left out, ΔΙΑΚΡΙΝΟΜΈΝΟΥς changed into the nominative, and ἘΝ ΦΌΒῼ placed before ΣΏΖΕΤΕ. For further observations, see the exposition.

Judges 1:24. Instead of ὙΜᾶς (ed. Elz.; A C L א, al., perm. several vss. Theoph. etc., Lachm. Tisch. 8), Tisch. 7 had, after K P, al., etc., hardly correctly adopted ΑὐΤΟΎς; A has ἩΜᾶς.

Judges 1:25. ΜΌΝῼ ΘΕῷ is correctly adopted by Griesbach, after A B C א, 6, al., Syr., etc., instead of the Rec. ΜΌΝῼ ΣΟΦῷ ΘΕῷ; ΣΟΦῷ is evidently borrowed from Romans 16:27, and is without reason defended by Reiche.

ΔΙᾺ ἸΗΣΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ ΚΥΡΊΟΥ ἩΜῶΝ is likewise adopted by Griesbach (after A B C, etc.), whilst the words are wanting in the Rec.

The Rec. between ΔΌΞΑ and ΜΕΓΑΛΩΣΎΝΗ has ΚΑΊ after K L P, etc., which is correctly omitted by recent critics; on the other hand, the words ΠΡῸ ΠΑΝΤῸς ΤΟῦ ΑἸῶΝΟς, wanting in the Rec., are attested by almost all authorities.

The subscription of the Epistle is in B: Ἰούδα; in C: Ἰούδα ἐπιστολὴ καθολική; and in A: Ἰούδα ἐπιστολή.

[5] 1 Reiche incorrectly observes that Buttmann has not adopted οἱ, and has adduced B as a witness for the reading of the Rec. On account of the difficulty which the article presents, Reiche considers the reading of the Rec. as the original.

[6] Tisch. 8 has it likewise in the text, although he says in the notes: omisimus cum A B C א, etc.

Judges 1:1-2. The superscription is in form similar to that of the Epistles of Paul and Peter: Ἰούδας Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος κ.τ.λ.] δοῦλος, as its position and Romans 1:1, Php 1:1, Jam 1:1 (see also Titus 1:1), show, denotes not the general service of believers to Christ (Schott), but the special service of those appointed to the gospel ministry. The more definite statement of office is here wanting; as the author is not the Apostle Jude (see Introd. sec. 1), so that his position in the Christian church is to be regarded as similar to that which a Barnabas, an Apollos, and others occupied, who, without being apostles in the narrower sense of the term, yet exercised a ministry similar to the apostolic.

With the first appellation the second ἀδελφὸς Ἰακώβου is connected by δέ (see Titus 1:1), which, although not precisely a contrast (Schott), yet marks a distinction. This appellation serves not only to indicate who this Jude is (Arnaud), but likewise to justify his writing. Jude does not call himself “the brother of the Lord,” because his bodily relation to Christ stepped behind his spiritual, perhaps also because that surname already specially belonged to James.

τοῖς ἐν Θεῷ πατρὶ ἠγαπημένοις [ἡγιασμένοις] καὶ κ.τ.λ.] According to the reading ἡγιασμένοις, ἐν expresses not the mere instrument of holiness, but holiness as consisting in fellowship with God. The participle is either substantive, co-ordinate to the following Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ τετηρημένοις κλητοῖς, or adjective, which is more probable on account of the similar participial form, τετηρημένοις.

According to the reading ἠγαπημένοις, ἐν Θεῷ πατρί may denote the sphere within which the readers are ἠγαπημένοι, namely, by the writer. Against the opinion of de Wette, “that in this objective designation the subjectivity of the author cannot be mixed,” Colossians 1:2 might be appealed to, where Paul names the readers of his Epistle ἀδελφοί, that is, the brethren of himself and Timotheus (see also 2 John 1:1 and 3 John 1:1); but in relation to what follows: καὶ Ἰησ. Χρ. τετηρημένοις, this view is correct.

In the Vulgate, τοῖς ἐν Θεῷ πατρί is taken as an idea by itself: his qui sunt in Deo Patre, etc.; and then to this idea the two attributes are added: ἠγαπημένοις and Ἰησ. Χρ. τετηρ. κλητοῖς. Apart from its harshness, not only is it opposed to this construction that by it the parallelism (incorrectly denied by Schott) of the two members of the clause—which is strongly indicated both by the form of the sentence and also by ἐν τῷ πατρί in reference to the following Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ—is destroyed, but also ἠγαπημένοις would then be without any proximate statement. The same is also the case when it is assumed, with Rampf and Schott, that the participles ἠγαπημένοις and Ἰ. Χ. τετηρημένοις are equally subordinate to ἐν Θεῷ πατρί, and explained as expressing “the living ground on which the called possess that which is expressed in the two participles” (Schott). The supplying of ὑπὸ Θεοῦ or παρὰ Θεῷ, necessary for this view, is at all events arbitrary; moreover, the juxtaposition of τοῖς ἐν Θεῷ πατρὶ Ἰησ. Χριστῷ τετηρημένοις is extremely harsh.

It is incorrect to take ἐν as equivalent to ὑπό (Hensler); ἐν is rather to be retained in its proper signification, in which it is entirely suitable to the idea ἀγαπᾶσθαι, as the love which proceeds from any person dwells in him, the κλητοί as they are loved by God so are they loved in God. Hofmann incorrectly explains it: “who have been accepted in love by God;” for ἀγαπᾷν never has this meaning, not even in the passages cited by Hofmann: 1 Thessalonians 1:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; Colossians 3:12.

God is called πατρί in His relation to Christ, not to men: see Php 2:11; Galatians 1:1; and Meyer on the latter passage.

καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ τετηρημένοις κλητοῖς] The dative Ἰησ. Χριστῷ is not dependent on an ἐν to be supplied from ἐν Θεῷ πατρί (Luther: preserved in Jesus Christ). Hofmann indeed appeals for this supplement to Kühner, Gr. II. p. 477; but incorrectly, as this is rendered impossible by ἠγαπημένοις intervening. What Kühner says could only be the case were it written: ἐν Θεῷ πατρὶ καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ ἠγαπημένοις. Also Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ is not the causative dative with the passive, instead of ὑπό with the genitive, but the dative commodi: for Christ (Bengel, de Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, and others). The participle τετηρημένοις is used neither instead of the present participle, as Grotius thinks, nor is it here to be understood of the act completed before God (de Wette, Wiesinger); but it simply denotes that which has taken place up to the time when the Epistle was written; thus: “to the called, who have been kept for Christ;” namely, in order to belong to Him in time and in eternity (so also Schott).[7] The idea τετηρ. is completely explained from the falling away from Christ which had taken place among so many; see Judges 1:4; comp. also John 17:11; 1 Peter 1:5.

Although ἐν Θεῷ πατρί cannot be grammatically connected with τετηρημένοις, and although it primarily belongs to ἠγαπημένοις, yet it indicates by whom the preservation has taken place; Hornejus: quos Deus Pater … Christo … donavit et asservavit huc usque, ne ab impostoribus seducerentur et perirent.

κλητοῖς] a designation in the Pauline sense of those who have not only heard the gospel, but have embraced it by faith; see Meyer on 1 Corinthians 1:24. Judges 1:2. ἔλεος κ.τ.λ.] The word ἔλεος is used in the formula of salutation only here and in the Pastoral Epistles. The addition καὶ ἀγάπη is peculiar to Jude. The relation of the three terms is thus to be understood: ἔλεος is the demeanour of God toward the κλητοί; εἰρήνη their condition founded upon it; and ἀγάπη their demeanour proceeding from it as the effect of God’s grace. Accordingly ἀγάπη is used here as in Ephesians 6:23 (see Meyer in loco); only here the love is to be limited neither specially to the brethren (Grotius), nor to God (Calov, Wiesinger). Still ἀγάπη may also be the love of God to the κλητοῖς; comp. Judges 1:21 and 2 Corinthians 13:13 [14] (so Hornejus, Grotius, Bengel, de Wette-Brückner, Schott, and others). No ground of decision can be derived from πληθυνθείη. With the reading ἠγαπημένοις the second explanation merits the preference, although the position of this expression after εἰρήνη is somewhat strange. On πληθυνθείη, see 1 Peter 1:2; this form is apparently derived from Dan. 3:31.

[7] Arnauld incorrectly explains it: aux appelés gardés par J. Chr., c’est-à-dire: à ceux qui ont été appelés à J. Chr. par la prédication de l’Evangile et que J. Chr. garde fidèles.

Judges 1:3-4. Statement of the reason which determined Jude to write this Epistle: comp. on this 2 Peter 1:12 f., 2 Peter 3:1 f.

ἀγαπητοί] found at the beginning of an Epistle only here and in 3 John 1:2.

πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμενος κ.τ.λ.] Giving all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, I felt constrained to write to you, exhorting you to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. Pricaeus, Lachmann, Buttmann put a comma after the first and after the second ὑμῖν, so that περὶ … σωτηρίας is connected with ἀνάγκην ἔσχον, and παρακαλῶν, etc., is separated from γράψαι. Most expositors, on the contrary, as Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, de Wette, Wiesinger, etc., connect περὶ σωτηρίας with the preceding γράφειν, and unite παρακαλῶν with γράψαι. Not only the position of the words, but also the train of thought decides for this latter arrangement; for since, according to Judges 1:4, the ἀνάγκη, inducing the author to write this Epistle, consisted in the appearance of wicked men, so it is evidently more suitable to connect γράψαι with παρακαλῶν ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι, having special reference to it, than with the general idea περὶ τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας, particularly as the contents of the Epistle are anything but a treatise concerning the common salvation.[8] The preceding participial clause states in what condition Jude was when the ἀνάγκην ἔχειν came upon him; the σπουδή to write already existed when the entrance of certain ungodly men constrained him not to write generally περὶ τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας, but to compose such a hortative Epistle as the present. Some expositors incorrectly think that the ἀνάγκη had its reason in the σπουδή (Erasmus: tantum mihi studium fuit, ut non potuerim non scribere vobis); others, that to the σπουδή the ἀνάγκη supervened as a new point; so Hornejus: cum summum mihi esset studium scribendi ad vos aliquid de communi nostrum omnium salute, etiam necessitas insuper scribendi imposita fuit, quae autem illa sit, statim addit (so also Calvin and others). De Wette (with whom Brückner agrees) considers that Jude by the first clause expresses that “he had been engaged on the composition of a longer and more comprehensive Epistle (the loss of which we have to lament), when he was for the time called away from that work in order to write the present Epistle;” but the expression πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμενος does not necessarily involve actual writing.[9]

σπουδὴν ποιεῖσθαι is only found here in the N. T. (2 Peter 1:5 : σπουδὴν πᾶσαν παρεισφέρειν; prologue to Ecclus.: προσφέρειν τινὰ σπουδήν); the meaning is: to be eagerly solicitous about something; it may refer both to mental activity and to external action; here the former is the case. Luther’s translation: “After I purposed,” is too flat; Meyer’s is better: “since it lies pressingly upon my heart.”

πᾶσαν serves, as frequently, for the strengthening of the idea.

The participle ποιούμενος, in connection with the aorists ἔσχον γράψαι, is to be taken as the imperfect participle. Stier incorrectly translates: “when engaged in it I would take diligence.” It expresses the activity which took place, when the action expressed by the finite verb occurred and therefore must not be resolved, with Haenlein, into the perfect or pluperfect.

περὶ τῆς κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας] states on what Jude intended to write. On κοινῆς, comp. Titus 1:4; 2 Peter 1:1. There is no reason to refer the idea, with Semler, to the Jews and Gentiles, as the object common to both.

σωτηρία, not the doctrine of salvation (Jachmann), but the salvation itself, acquired by Christ for the world, and applied to believers. The explanation of Beza: de iis quae ad nostram omnium salutem pertinent, deviates from strict precision, as σωτηρία itself is indicated by Jude as the object of writing. Schott incorrectly explains σωτηρία, state of salvation, possession of salvation.

ἀνάγκην ἔσχον] Comp. Luke 14:10; Luke 23:17; 1 Corinthians 7:37. The explanation of Grotius is inaccurate: nihil potius habui, quod scriberem, quam ut, etc. The translation of Luther is too flat: “I considered it necessary;” for in ἀνάγκην ἔχειν is contained the idea of an objective necessity founded on duty, circumstances, etc. (de Wette, Wiesinger, Schott). The meaning here is: the entrance of false teachers constrained me, made me to recognise it as necessary. On the one hand, Semler inserts a strange reference, paraphrasing it: accidit interea inopinato, ut statuendum mihi … esset; and, on the other hand, Schott, who, in order to emphasize the contrast between the two members of the sentence, finds in ἀνάγκ. ἔσχον the thought expressed that Jude wrote this Epistle unwillingly, contrary to his inclination.

γράψαι ὑμῖν παρακαλῶν] παρακαλῶν is closely united to γράψαι, as indicating the kind of writing to which the author felt constrained by circumstances; therefore no comma is to be put after ὑμῖν.

ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ … πίστει] ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι, a ἅπ. λεγ., as συναθλέω, Php 1:27, connected with the dative of the object which is contended for; Stier: “to fight for the faith;” comp. Sir 4:28 : ἀγωνίζειν περί.

πίστις is not = doctrina, system of doctrine; nor yet does it here denote the subjective quality of the believing disposition; but that which is believed by Christians (τοῖς ἁγίοις), the objective contents of faith. Schott is incorrect in explaining it: “the conduct arising from faith;” for the notion of conduct does not suit παραδοθείσῃ. The explanation: the way of salvation (Hofmann), is also wanting in correctness; it is not proved by Galatians 3:23.

As the subject to παραδοθείσῃ, by whom the communication or transmission was effected, God (Bengel) is not here to be thought of, but the apostles, as Judges 1:17 shows; 2 Peter 2:21; Luke 1:2 (comp. also 1 Corinthians 11:2; 1 Corinthians 11:23; 1 Corinthians 15:3); yet the author does not name them, because “he is not concerned here with the personal instruments, but with the mode and manner of transmission contained in ἅπαξ” (Schott). τοῖς ἁγίοις are not the apostles (Nic. de Lyra), but Christians.

ἅπαξ brings prominently forward the fact that as it once took place, so there is now an end to the παράδοσις; Bengel: nulla alia dabitur fides. Jachmann incorrectly explains it by ἤδη, olim, jam, appealing to Judges 1:5 and Hebrews 6:4. According to Hofmann’s view, ἅπαξ is used “with reference to the preceding intention of Jude to present to the readers a writing having the common salvation as its object;” but this reference is not indicated.[10]

[8] The translation of the Vulgate: omnem solicitudinem faciens scribendi vobis de communi vestra salute necesse habui scribere vobis depraecans supercertari, etc., may also be punctuated in both ways. Lachmann has, in his larger edition of the N. T., punctuated it as he has done in the Greek text; in other editions of the Vulgate, on the contrary, the other punctuation is found.

[9] De Wette incorrectly appeals for this supposition to Sherlock (in Wolf), who thus explains it: dilecti, animus mihi erat, scribere ad vos de communibus doctrinis et spe evangelii ad fidem vestram et Jesu Christi cognitionem amplificandam; jam vero coactum me video, ut hoc institutum deseram et ad cavendum praesens periculum, vos exhorter, ut serio teneatis eam quae vobis tradita est, doctrinam, contra falsos doctores, quos clanculum audio irrepsisse. What de Wette regards as accomplished, or in the act of being accomplished, Sherlock considers only as intended.

[10] When Hofmann maintains that ver. 4 could only have been written by an apostle, he evidently proceeds too far; for why could not also another besides an apostle have cherished the design to address a writing to Christians respecting the common faith?

Judges 1:4. Compare 2 Peter 2:1-3.

παρεισέδυσαν γάρ] the reason of ἀνάγκην ἔσχον. παρεισέδυσαν marks the entrance of false teachers into the church as a secret and unauthorized creeping in of such as do not properly belong to it, but are internally foreign to it (comp. Galatians 2:4 : παρείσακτοι, explained by the scholiasts by ἀλλότριοι); it is synonymous with παρεισέρχεσθαι; comp. 2 Timothy 3:6.

τινες ἄνθρωποι] In the same indefiniteness the false teachers are also mentioned in 1 Timothy 1:6. Arnaud observes: le mot τινες a quelque chose de méprisant, comme dans Galatians 2:12; so also Wiesinger and Schott; this is possible; but the appeal to Galatians 2:12 is unjustified. That the expression ἄνθρωποι is used in order to bring forward the fact that they “with their entrance into the church remained in their natural state” (Schott), is highly improbable. Hofmann unnecessarily separates τινες from ἄνθρωποι, taking ἄνθρωποι, οἱ κ.τ.λ., as in apposition to τινες.

οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα] By the participle with the article a peculiar circumstance worthy of remark concerning these men is brought forward (Winer, p. 127 [E. T. 167]); but not, as Schott, after Rampf, arbitrarily maintains, “a mark perfectly clear to the readers is given for the recognition of those who are meant;” the article being equivalent to isti, those notorious men.

προγεγραμμένοι] The preposition προ in this verb indicates either antea, earlier, before; thus always in the N. T.; see Galatians 3:1 (comp. Meyer in loc.); Romans 15:4; Ephesians 3:3; or palam. If it has this last meaning, then προγράφειν signifies “to announce something publicly by writing;” thus in an entirely special sense proscribere; accordingly Wolf explains it: qui dudum sunt accusati et in hoc judicium (εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα) vocati. Yet this is inaccurate, as the peculiar idea of proscribere is not retained; for, if retained, it would not suit εἰς τ. τ. κρίμα. Yet more arbitrarily Wahl explains προγράφειν by designare. Oecumenius, Hornejus, and others have correctly taken προ here as a preposition of time. According to Isaiah 4:3, LXX.: οἱ γραφέντες εἰς ζωήν, the sense might be: those who are written before (as in God’s book of fate, and consequently destined) εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα (Calvin: haec metaphora inde sumpta est, quod aeternum Dei consilium, quo ordinati sunt fideles ad salutem, Liber vocatur); but the term πάλαι is unsuitable, as it is never in the N. T. used of God’s eternal counsels. προγράφειν is here rather to be understood entirely as in the adduced passages of the N. T.; and with de Wette a pregnancy of expression is to be assumed; thus: those who are already before by writing destined to this judgment. Hofmann explains προγεγραμμένοι according to John 1:46 compared with John 5:46 (γράφειν τινα = γρ. περί τινος): “those of whom it is written before;” and then εἰς τοῦτο τ. κρ. = “in reference to this judgment;” but with regard to the former it is to be remarked, that the form of expression here is different from John 1:46; and with regard to the latter, that by it a weakening of the preposition in its direct connection with προγεγραμμένοι takes place.[11] Oecumenius refers this to the prophecies concerning future false teachers contained in the Epistles of Paul and Peter. Grotius, Schott, Hofmann, and others point particularly to 2 Peter 2. But πάλαι combined with προγεγρ. evidently points back to an earlier period,[12] so that only older prophecies can be meant, namely, the prophecies and types of the O. T., and perhaps particularly the prophecies contained in the Book of Enoch: see Judges 1:14 (so also Wiesinger). Against Calvin and Beza, who find the idea of the decretum aeternum here expressed, Bengel remarks: non innuitur praedestinatio, sed scripturae praedictio.

εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα] Although κρίμα in itself is not equivalent to κατάκριμα, yet here a condemnatory judgment is meant; τοῦτο, namely, that which Jude has in view, and which is indicated in the following verse; Stier: “for this judgment, which I now announce to them;” Arnaud: il y a τοῦτο, parceque cette punition est l’objet qui l’occupe. It is incorrect, with Wiesinger and Hofmann, to refer τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα to παρεισέδυσαν, as something including judgment in itself; or, with Schott, to the “damnable error of those men,” specified in the words τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ κ.τ.λ.; for neither the entering in nor the error can in themselves be called a κρίμα.

ἀσεβεῖς] to be taken by itself; not to be united with οἱ προγεγραμμένοι (against Tischendorf, who has placed no comma before ἀσεβεῖς). The ungodliness of these men is further indicated, according to its nature, by the participial clauses which follow (comp. 2 Peter 2:6).

τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριν κ.τ.λ.] who pervert the grace of our God into lasciviousncss. χάρις, not = doctrina gratiae (Vorstius), nor evangelium (Grotius), nor fides catholica nobis gratis data (Nicolas de Lyra); but grace itself as the proffered gift of God in the forgiveness of sin and redemption from the law; so also Wiesinger, Fronmüller, Hofmann. It is incorrect to explain the idea by “the life of grace” (de Wette-Brückner), or by “the ordinances of grace” (Schott). ἡμῶν, belonging to τοῦ Θεοῦ, is to be understood as an expression of the feeling of sonship; Bengel: nostri, non impiorum.

In μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν, ἀσέλγ. is either the purpose of the change of the grace of God, or that into which grace is changed. In the former case μετατίθημι here would in itself have a bad subsidiary meaning (de Wette: “who pervert the grace of our God for the purpose of licentiousness”); but it never elsewhere so occurs in the N. T. Accordingly, the second explanation is better (Brückner), according to which the meaning is: they have converted the χάρις, which God gave to them, into something different, namely ἀσέλγεια; inasmuch as liberty was converted by them into lasciviousness; comp. Galatians 5:13; 1 Peter 2:16; 2 Peter 2:19.

καὶ τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰ. Χρ. ἀρνούμενοι] In 2 Peter 2:1 the epithet δεσπότης is used of Christ; this favours the combination of τὸν μόνον δεσπότην as an attribute with Ἰησ. Χρ. (so de Wette, Schmidt, Rampf, Wiesinger, Schott, Fronmüller, Hofmann). But, on the one hand, in every other place this word denotes God; and, on the other hand, δεσπότης would hardly be distinguished from the word κύριος, if both were to be referred to Christ;[13] add to this that μόνος elsewhere expresses the unity of the divine nature; comp. Judges 1:25; John 5:44; John 17:3; Romans 16:27; 1 Timothy 1:17; 1 Timothy 6:15-16; Revelation 15:4; against which view Schott incorrectly urges 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Ephesians 4:5. For these reasons, it is more probable that τὸν μόνον δεσπότην is not an appellation of Christ, but a designation of God (Brückner); comp. 1 John 2:22 : ὁ ἀρνούμενος τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱόν (also Enoch xlviii. 10 is to be compared: “they have denied the Lord of the spirits and His Anointed”). No argument against this explanation can be drawn from the want of the article before κύριον; see author’s commentary on Titus 2:3 (Winer, p. 121 ff. [E. T. 162]),[14] which is in an unjustifiable manner denied by Hofmann. The denial may be considered as either practical (comp. Titus 1:16) or theoretical. Since throughout this Epistle the carnal and godless disposition of these men is brought forward, it is most probable that Jude at least had the first kind of denial specially in view. At all events, such explanations as those of Grotius: “abnegabant Jesum, quia eum dicebant hominem natum ex homine,” are to be rejected, as Jude never reproaches his adversaries with such a definite erroneous doctrine.

[11] Luther’s translation: “there are certain men crept in, of whom it is written before, to this punishment,” by which προγεγρ. is separated from εἰς τ. τ. κρ., is contradicted by the natural verbal connection.

[12] Schott aud Hofmann contest the fact that πάλαι points to an earlier period. πάλαι, which “generally indicates the past in contrast to the present” (Pape), may certainly be used when that past is not distant (comp. Mark 15:44); but, on the one hand, this use of the term is rare; and, on the other hand, it is not here applicable, as the reference to the past generally is already contained in the προ of the compound verb; πάλαι here can only be put to mark this past as lying in the distance.

[13] Hofmann gives the distinction of these two ideas as follows: “Christ is our δεσπότης, as we are His property bound to His service; He is our κύριος, as His will is the standard of ours.” But if this be correct, it is not in favour of Hofmann but against him, because Jude would then in an incomprehensible manner make the weaker idea to follow upon the stronger.

[14] When Wiesinger and Schott appeal for their explanation to the fact that the relation to God is already expressed in the preceding clause, and that therefore it would be unsuitable to express it here again, it is to be observed that in that clause the relation to Christ is also indicated, since the grace of God is communicated through Christ; also, there is no reason why Jude should not have indicated μετατιθέναι as a denial both of Jesus Christ and of God. Whilst Schott grants that the expression “the only master” may only refer to God, he so interprets the article τόν before μόνον δεσπ. that he explains it as equivalent to “he who is.”

Judges 1:5. From this verse to Judges 1:7 we have three examples, as representations of the judgment which threatens those mentioned in Judges 1:4. Compare with this 2 Peter 2:4-6.

ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι] δέ is used metabatically (as a mere particle of transition); not in order to put ὑπομνῆσαι in contrast to παρακαλῶν (Judges 1:3), which is only to be justified by the explanation of Schott, that “Jude intends not properly to exhort the readers, but by παρακαλεῖν he means only that he will remind them.” ὑμᾶς is not the subject, but the object to ὑπομνῆσαι; comp. 2 Peter 1:12 (Romans 15:15).

εἰδότας [ὑμάς] ἅπαξ πάντα] εἰδότας is either in an adversative sense = καίπερ εἰδότας (de Wette); or, which is to be preferred on account of ἅπαξ, the statement of the reason of ὑπομνῆσαι, Nicolas de Lyra: commonere autem vos volo et non docere de novo; et subditur ratio; Bengel: causa, cur admoneat duntaxat: quia jam sciant, semelque cognitum habeant; so also Wiesinger and Schott.

ἅπαξ is not to be united per hyperbaton with σώσας; also not = first, so that δεύτερον corresponding to it would be = secondly, and both referred to εἰδότας (Jachmann); but ἅπαξ belongs to εἰδότας, and τὸ δεύτερον to ἀπώλεσεν. Hornejus incorrectly explains ἅπαξ by: jampridem et ab initio (Arnaud: vous qui l’avez su une fois); it has here rather the same meaning as in Judges 1:3, rendering prominent that a new teaching is not necessary (de Wette, Stier, Wiesinger, Fronmüller, Schott, Hofmann).

πάντα; according to Nicolas de Lyra = omnia ad salutem necessaria; better: everything which is an object of evangelical teaching, here naturally with particular reference to what directly follows, to which alone the τοῦτο of the Rec. points.[15]

ὍΤΙ Ὁ ΚΎΡΙΟς (ἸΗΣΟῦς) ΛΑῸΝ … ΣΏΣΑς] ὍΤΙ belongs not to ΕἸΔΌΤΑς ΠΆΝΤΑ, but to ὙΠΟΜΝῆΣΑΙ.

With the reading (Ὁ) ἸΗΣΟῦς (Stier calls it: “without example, and incomprehensibly strange”) Jude here would speak from the same point of view as Paul does in 1 Corinthians 10:4 (comp. also 1 Peter 1:11), according to which all the acts of divine revelation are done by the instrumentality of Christ, as the eternal Son and revealer of God. The name ἸΗΣΟῦς, by which Christ is designated in His earthly and human personality, is, however, surprising; but Jude might have so used it from the consciousness that the eternal Son of God and He who was born of Mary is the same Person (comp. 1 Corinthians 8:9; Php 2:5). With the reading ΚΎΡΙΟς—certainly the more natural—which de Wette-Brückner and Hofmann prefer, whilst Wiesinger and Schott consider ἸΗΣΟῦς as the original—a designation of God is to be understood.

ΛΑΌΝ] That by this the people of Israel is meant is evident; the article is wanting, because Jude would indicate that Israel was saved as an entire people, with reference to the following ΤΟῪς ΜῊ ΠΙΣΤΕΎΣΑΝΤΑς.[16]

τὸ δεύτερον] is to be retained in its proper meaning, and to be explained neither, with Nicolas de Lyra and others, as = post (Arnaud: de nouveau, ensuite, après), nor, with Grotius and Wolf, as = ex contrario. It indicates that what was said in the preceding participial sentence, namely, the divine deliverance of the people from Egypt, is considered as a first deed, to which a second followed. The definite statement of what this second is, is usually derived from the preceding σώσας, and by it is accordingly understood a second deliverance; but there are different views as to what deliverance is meant. In this commentary the deliverance of the people from the wilderness was designated as this second deliverance, which certainly occurred to the people, yet only so that those who believed not did not attain to it, but were destroyed by God in the wilderness (so in essentials, Stier, Brückner, Wiesinger). On the other hand, Schmidt (bibl. Theologie, II.), Luthardt, Schott, Hofmann understand by it the deliverance effected by Christ; whilst they regard as the punishment falling on unbelievers, the destruction of Jerusalem, or the overthrow of the Jewish state. But both explanations are arbitrary; for, first, it is unauthorized to refer τὸ δεύτερον only to σώσας and not to ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας; and, secondly, in the principal sentence a deliverance is not at all indicated.[17] Whilst, then, Jude thinks on the deliverance from Egypt as a first deed, he does not mention a deliverance, but the destruction of those who believed not, as the second deed following the first. But this second is not indicated as a single deed, and therefore by it is to be understood generally what befell the unbelieving in the wilderness after the deliverance from Egypt; what this was is expressed in the words τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν. It is arbitrary to refer this, with Ritschl, only to the history recorded in Numbers 25:1-9; and still more arbitrary to refer it, with Fronmüller, to the Babylonish captivity (2 Chronicles 36:16 ff.). Compare, moreover, with this verse, Hebrews 3:16-19.

ΤΟῪς ΜῊ ΠΙΣΤΕΎΣΑΝΤΑς] On ΜΉ, with participles, see Winer, p. 449 f. [E. T. 606 f.]; comp. Judges 1:6 : ΤΟῪς ΜῊ ΤΗΡΉΣΑΝΤΑς. It is to be observed that in the corresponding passage, 2 Peter 2, instead of this example, the deluge is named.

[15] Schott, indeed, explains πάντα correctly; but he erroneously thinks that ἅπαξ with εἰδότας indicates “this knowledge is meant as a knowledge effected by a definite individual act,” and that ἅπαξ is to be understood of the instruction given in Second Peter.

[16] Calvin observes: nomen populi honorifice capitur pro gente sancta et electa, ac si diceret, nihil illis profuisse, quod singulari privilegio in foedus assumpti essent; but were this correct, a αὑτοῦ would at least have been added.

[17] Against Winer’s explanation, p. 576 [E. T. 775]: “the verb connected with τὸ δεύτερον should properly have been οὐκ ἔσωσε (ἀλλά κ.τ.λ.); the Lord, after having saved, the second time (when they needed His helping grace) refused them this saving grace, and left them to destruction.” But there is nothing indicated in the context of a state of being in want of grace.

Judges 1:6. A second example taken from the angelic world. As God spared not the people rescued from bondage, so neither did He spare the angels who left their habitation. This also was an admonitory representation for Christians, who, in the face of the high dignity which they possessed by redemption, yielded themselves to a life of vice.

ἀγγέλους τε τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας κ.τ.λ.] is, according to the construction, as the τε indicates, closely connected with the preceding.

ἀγγέλους without the article considered generally; the participle connected with the article indicates the definite class of angels who are here meant.

For the understanding of this verse the following points are to be observed:—(1) By the twofold participial clause τοὺς μὴ … ἀρχήν and ἀπολιπόντας … οἰκητήριον, something sinful is attributed to the angels (2 Peter 2:4 : ἁμαρτησάντων), on account of which the punishment expressed by εἰς κρίσεν … τετήρηκε was inflicted upon them; (2) The two clauses μὴ … ἀλλὰ … so correspond, that the second positive clause explains the first negative clause; and (3) what Jude says of the angels corresponds with the doctrine of the angels contained in the Book of Enoch.

τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχήν κ.τ.λ.] ἀρχή must here denote something which the angels by forsaking τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον did not preserve, but gave up or slighted. But by ἀπολ. τὸ ἴδ. οἰκητ., according to the Book of Enoch 12:4,[18] is meant their forsaking of heaven, and their descent to earth in order to go after the daughters of men (so also Hofmann); but not, as Hornejus and others think, the loss of the heavenly dwelling, which they drew upon themselves by conspiring against God; which would militate against the first observation.

By ἈΡΧΉ expositors understand either the original condition (origo: Calvin, Grotius, Hornejus,[19] and others), or the dominion which originally belonged to them (Bengel, de Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann; Brückner thinks that the meaning dominion passes over into that of origin). According to the first explanation, the term is too indefinite, both in itself and in reference to the second parallel clause. It is in favour of the second explanation, that in the N. T. angels are often designated by the name ἀρχή, ἀρχαί; as also the prevailing idea among the Jews was, that to the angels a lordship belongs over the earthly creation. By this explanation, also, the two clauses correspond; instead of administering their office as rulers, they forsook their heavenly habitation, and thus became culpable. The explanation, according to which ἀρχὴ ἑαυτῶν denotes not the dominion of the angels, but the dominion of God, to which they were subjected, is both against linguistic usage and against the context.

εἰς κρίσιν … τετήρηκεν] Statement of the punishment. This also corresponds with the expression in the Book of Enoch, where in chap. 10:12 it is said: “Bind them fast under the mountains of the earth … even to the day of judgment … until the last judgment will be held for all eternity.[20]

τετήρηκεν is in sharp contrast to μὴ τηρήσαντας: the perfect expresses an action begun in the past and continued in the present. The mode of retention is more precisely stated by δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον] By ἀϊδίοις the chains by which they are bound are designated as eternal, and incapable of being rent.

ὑπὸ ζόφον] ζόφος only here and Judges 1:13, and in the parallel passages 2 Peter 2:4; 2 Peter 2:17; comp. also Wis 17:2;[21] usually ΣΚΌΤΟς, the darkness of hell; ὙΠΌ is explained by conceiving the angels in the lowest depths of hell, covered with darkness.[22] In τετήρηκεν is not contained the final doom which will only take place at the general judgment; therefore: εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας] μεγ. ἡμέρα, without any further designation, used of the last judgment only here; the same adjective, as an attribute of that day, in Acts 2:20; Revelation 6:17; Revelation 16:14.

[18] “Announce to the watchers of heaven, who forsook the high heaven and their holy eternal abodes, and have corrupted themselves with women;” xv. Judges 1:3 : “Wherefore have ye forsaken the high and holy and eternal heaven, and have slept with women?” … lxiv.: “These are the angels who have gone down from heaven to earth;” and other passages. Genesis 6:2 lies at the foundation of this tradition, the explanation of which is to this day contested. Whilst Hofmann explains the expression בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים as a designation of the angels, Ferd. Philippi decidedly rejects this explanation.

[19] Hornejus, after John 8:44, designates as the original condition here meant, veritas i. e. innocentia et sanctitas. Stier thinks “that the original condition was at the same time the ground of their nature and condition in God, or, as it is now perhaps called, the principle of their true life. They preserved not themselves in God, whilst they surrendered and lost the proper pure ground of their glorious being.”

[20] Comp. also x. Judges 1:4 : “Bind Azâzêl, and put him in darkness,” xiv. 5, xxi. 10, etc. In the Midrasch Ruth in the Book of Zohar it is said: Postquam filii Dei filios genuerunt, sumsit eos Deus et ad montem tenebrarum perduxit, ligavitque in catenis ferreis, quae usque ad medium abyssi magnae pertingunt.

[21] Comp. also Hesiod. Theog. v. 729, where it is said:

[22] There is an apparent difference between what is here said and the representations of the N. T. elsewhere, according to which Satan and his ἄγγελοι have even now their residence in the air (Ephesians 2:2, or in the upper regions, ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις, Ephesians 6:12), and although already judged by Christ (John 16:11), yet as κοσμοκράτορες exercise power over unbelievers, and also lay snares for believers, in order to bring them again into subjection. Expositors, in general, have attempted to reconcile this by referring this continued activity of the devil to the special permission of God; Calvin otherwise: porro nobis fingendus non est locus, quo inclusi sint diaboli; simpliciter enim docere voluit Ap., quam misera sit eorum conditio … nam quocunque pergant, secum trahunt sua vincula et suis tenebris obvoluti manent. Dietlein remarks on 2 Peter 2:4 : “Not only Tartarus, but also the chains of darkness, are to be understood in a local and corporeal sense, but not of such a locality, or of such an imprisonment in that locality, as would require an exclusion from our locality, or an incapability of movement through our locality.” But all these artificial explanations are to be rejected, inasmuch as Jude does not speak of Satan and his angels, but of a definite class of angels, to whom, in agreement with the Book of Enoch, he refers Genesis 6:2. This is correctly observed by Hofmann, Wiesinger, and Schott, with whom Brückner appears to agree; on the other hand, F. Philippi (p. 140) observes: “Jude speaks here of the original fall of the angels from pride, not of their union with earthly women.”

Ἔνθα θεοὶ Τιτῆνες ὑπὸ ζόφῳ ἠρόεντα

Κεκρύφαται, βουλῆσι Διὸς νεφεληγερέταο

Χώρῳ ἐν εὐρώεντι.

Judges 1:7. Third example: the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrha and the cities about them, which, however, is not co-ordinate with the preceding two, but is closely connected with the last-mentioned, “whilst here both times a permanent condition is meant, which a similar sin has had as its consequence, whereas ἀπώλεσεν (Judges 1:5) states a judgment of God already past” (Hofmann’s Schriftb. I. p. 428).

ὡς] is not to be connected with the following ὁμοίως, Judges 1:8; nor is ὅτι, Judges 1:5, to be connected with ὑπομνῆσαι … βούλομαι (de Wette) = how instead of “that;” it refers rather to what directly precedes = like as (Semler, Arnaud, Hofmann, Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott, and others; Luther: as also), whilst Judges 1:7 confirms ἀγγέλους … τετήρηκεν by the comparison with what befell Sodom and Gomorrha: God retains the angels kept unto the day of judgment, even as Sodom and Gomorrha πρόκεινται δεῖγμα κ.τ.λ. With the connection with ὑπομν. βουλ. (Judges 1:5) a preceding καί would hardly be necessary, also the words τὸν ὅμοιον τούτοις indicate the close connection with Judges 1:6.

Σόδομα καὶ Γόμοῤῥα] frequently adduced in the O. and N. T. as examples of the divine judgment; see, for example, Romans 9:29.

καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις] according to Deuteronomy 29:23; Hosea 11:8 : Admah and Zeboim.

τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις ἐκπορνεύσασαι] τούτοις may grammatically be referred to Σόδ. κ. Γόμ. (or, by synesis, to the inhabitants of these cities; so Krebs, Calvin, Hornejus, Vorstius, and others); but by this construction the sin of Sodom and Gomorrha would only be indirectly indicated. Since, also, τούτοις cannot refer to the false teachers, Judges 1:4, because, as de Wette correctly remarks, the thought of Judges 1:8 would be anticipated, it must refer to the angels who, according to the Book of Enoch, sinned in a similar way as the inhabitants of those cities (thus Herder, Schneckenburger, Jachmann, de Wette, Arnaud, Hofmann, and others).

ἐκπορνεύσασαι, the sin of the inhabitants, is designated as the action of the cities themselves. The verb (often in the LXX. the translation of זָנָה; also in the Apocrypha) is in the N. T. a ἅπ. λεγ. The preposition ἐκ serves for strengthening the idea, indicating that “one by πορνεύειν becomes unfaithful to true moral conduct” (Hofmann), but not that “he goes beyond the boundaries of nature” (Stier, Wiesinger, and similarly Schott).

καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας] The expression ἀπέρχ. ὀπίσω τινός is found in Mark 1:20 in its literal sense; here it has a figurative meaning; comp. 2 Peter 2:10, πορεύεσθαι ὀπ.; Jeremiah 2:5; Sir 46:10.

Arnaud: ces mots sont ici un euphémisme, pour exprimer l’acte de la prostitution. In ἀπο is contained the turning aside from the right way. Oecumenius thus explains the import of σὰρξ ἑτέρα: σάρκα δὲ ἑτέραν, τὴν ἄῤῥηνα φύσιν λέγει, ὡς μὴ πρὸς συνουσίαν γενέσεως συντελοῦσαν; so also Brückner and Wiesinger. Stier, Schott, Hofmann proceed further, referring to Leviticus 18:23-24, and accordingly explaining it: “not only have they practised shame man with man, but even man with beast” (Stier). Only this explanation corresponds to σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, and only by it do the connection of Judges 1:7 with Judges 1:6, expressed by ὡς, and the explanation: τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις, receive their true meaning. The σάρξ of men was ἑτέρα σάρξ to the angels, as that of beasts is to men. In the parallel passage, 2 Peter 2:6, the sin of the cities is not stated.

πρόκεινται δεῖγμα πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην ὑπέχουσαι] πρόκεινται: they lie before the eyes as a δεῖγμα; not: “inasmuch as the example of punishment in its historical attestation is ever present” (Schott); but: inasmuch as the Dead Sea continually attests that punishment, which Jude considers as enduring. There is a certain boldness in the expression, as properly it is not the cities and their inhabitants who are πρόκεινται. The genitive πυρὸς αἰωνίου may grammatically depend both on δεῖγμα and on δίκην. Most expositors (particularly Wiesinger, Schott, Brückner) consider the second construction as the correct one; but hardly rightly; as (1) δεῖγμα would then lose its exact definition; (2) πῦρ αἰώνιον always designates hell-fire, to which the condemned are delivered up at the last judgment (see Matthew 25:41); (3) the juxtaposition of this verse with Judges 1:6, where the present punitive condition of the angels is distinguished from that which will occur after the judgment, favours the idea that the cities (or rather their inhabitants) are here not designated as those who even now suffer the punishment of eternal fire.[23] But Jude could designate the cities as a δεῖγμα of eternal fire, considering the fire by which they were destroyed as a figure of eternal fire. Hofmann correctly connects πυρὸς αἰωνίου with δεῖγμα, but he incorrectly designates δεῖγμα πυρ. αἰων. as a preceding apposition to δίκην: “it may be seen in them (δεῖγμα = exhibition) what is the nature of eternal fire, inasmuch as the fire that has consumed them is enduring in its after-operations;” by this explanation πῦρ αἰώνιον is deprived of its proper meaning. With δίκην ὑπέχουσαι the fact is indicated that they have continually to suffer punishment, since the period that punishment was inflicted upon them in the time of Lot;[24] corresponding to what is said of the angels in Judges 1:6.

δεῖγμα in N. T. ἅπ. λεγ. (Jam 5:11, and frequently: ὑπόδειγμα), not = example, but proof, testimony, sign. ὑπέχειν likewise in N. T. ἅπ. λεγ.; 2Ma 4:48, ζημίαν ὑπέχειν (2 Thessalonians 1:9, δίκην τίειν).

[23] Wiesinger incorrectly observes that “by this connection we must also assume that those angels also suffer the punishment of eternal fire,” since precisely the contrary is the case. Wiesinger arrives at this erroneous assumption by taking δεῖγμα as equivalent to example. It is also entirely erroneous when it is asserted that πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκη is an evident type of hell-fire, since πῦρ αἰώνιον is itself hell-fire. To be compared with this is 3Ma 2:5 : σὺ … Σοδομίτας … πυρὶ … κατέφλεξας, παράδειγμα τοῖς ἐπιγινομένοις καταστήσας; and Libanius in reference to Troy: κεῖται παράδειγμα δυστοχία; πυρὸς αἰωνίου.

[24] There is no necessity to derive this representation from Wis 10:7, and the various phenomena which lead to the supposition of a subterranean fire at the Dead Sea (see Winer’s bibl. Realw.; todtes Meer).

Judges 1:8. Description of the sins of the false teachers; comp. 2 Peter 2:10.

ὁμοίως] i.e. similarly as Sodom and Gomorrha, etc.

μέντοι] expresses here no contrast (so earlier in this commentary: “notwithstanding the judgment which has come on those cities on account of such sins”), but it serves, as Hofmann correctly observes, appealing to Kühner’s Gramm. II. p. 694, “simply for the strengthening of the expression, putting the emphasis on ὁμοίως; those men, says Jude, actually do the same thing as the Sodomites.”

καὶ οὗτοι] refers back to τινες ἄνθρωποι, Judges 1:4.

ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι] only here and in Acts 2:17, where it is used of prophetical dreams, according to Joel 3:1. This meaning does not here suit, for Bretschneider’s explanation: “falsis oraculis decepti vel falsa oracula edentes,” is wholly arbitrary. Most expositors unite it closely with the following σάρκα μιαίνουσι, and understand it either: de somniis, in quibus corpus polluitur (Vorstius), or of voluptuous dreams, appealing to Isaiah 56:10 (LXX. ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι κοίτην, an inaccurate translation of the Hebrew חֹזִים שֹׁכְבִים), or of unnatural cohabiting (Oecumenius). Jachmann (with whom Brückner agrees) understands it generally = “sunk in sleep, i.e. hurried along in the tumult of the senses,” appealing to the parallel passage, 2 Peter 2:10 (ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ). Similarly Calvin: est metaphorica loquutio, qua significat, ipsos tam esse habetes, ut sine ulla verecundia ad omnem turpitudinem se prostituant. But in all these explanations the expression is only referred to the first clause of the following sentence; but this is opposed to the construction: it refers to both clauses,—else it would have been put directly with μιαίνουσι,—and denotes the condition in which and out of which they do those things which are expressed in the following clauses. It is unsatisfactory to keep in view only the negative point of ἐνυπνιάζεσθαι, the want of a clear consciousness (Hornejus: tam insipientes sunt, ut quasi lethargo sopiti non tantum impure vivant, etc.; Arnaud: qui agissent sans savoir ce qu’ils font); the positive point is chiefly to be observed, which consists in living in the arbitrary fancies of their own perverted sense, which renders them deaf to the truths and warnings of the divine word (so in essentials, Stier, Fronmüller, Wiesinger, Schott, Brückner, Hofmann[25]). The reference to Isaiah 29:10, LXX.: πεπότικεν ὑμᾶς κύριος κατανύξεως, is unsuitable (against Beza, Carpzov, and others), as here the discourse is not about a punitive decree of God.

σάρκα μὲν μιαίνουσι] not their flesh, but generally the flesh, both their own and that of others: the thought refers back to Judges 1:7 : ἐκπορνεύσασαι, etc.

κυριότητα δὲ ἀθετοῦσι, δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν] announces a new side of their sinful nature. As this verse is in evident connection of thought with Judges 1:10, where the words ὅσα δὲ φυσικῶς … φθείρονται refer back to σάρκα μὲν μιαίν., so κυριότης and δόξαι can only be here such things as suit the words ὅσα οὐκ οἴδασιν. It is thus incorrect to understand them of political powers (Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, Wolf, Semler, Stier, and others), or of ecclesiastical rulers (Oecumenius[26]), or of human authorities generally, the two words being either taken as designations of concrete persons, or one of them as a pure abstraction: Arnaud: par ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗΤΑ il faut entendre l’autorité en général et par ΔΌΞΑς les dignités quelconques, les hommes méritant, par leur position, le respect et la considération.

Both expressions are to be understood as a designation of supermundane powers. Almost all recent expositors agree in this, although they differ widely in the more definite statement. These different explanations are as follows:—(1) ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗς is taken as a designation of God or Christ, and ΔΌΞΑΙ as a designation of the good angels (Ritschl); (2) the good angels are understood in both expressions (Brückner); (3) ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗς is understood in the first explanation, but ΔΌΞΑΙ is explained of the evil angels (Wiesinger); (4) both expressions are understood as a designation of the evil angels (Schott). In order first correctly to determine the idea ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗς, the relation of Judges 1:8 to what goes before is to be observed. The judgments which have befallen the people (Judges 1:5), the angels (Judges 1:6), and the cities (Judges 1:7), are by Jude adduced as a testimony against the Antinomians (ΟὟΤΟΙ, Judges 1:8) mentioned in Judges 1:4, evidently because these persons are guilty of the same sins on account of which those judgments occurred. Since ΣΆΡΚΑ ΜΙΑΊΝΟΥΣΙ evidently points back to ἘΚΠΟΡΝΕΎΣΑΣΑΙ, Judges 1:7, and further to ἈΣΈΛΓΕΙΑΝ, Judges 1:4, it is most natural to refer ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗΤΑ ἈΘΕΤΟῦΣΙΝ to ΜῊ ΠΙΣΤΕΎΟΝΤΑς, Judges 1:5, and, further, to ΤῸΝ ΜΌΝΟΝ ΔΕΣΠΌΤΗΝ … ἈΡΝΟΎΜΕΝΟΙ, Judges 1:4. Consequently, by ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗς—if one takes ΤῸΝ ΜΌΝΟΝ ΔΕΣΠΌΤΗΝ as a designation of God—is to be understood the Godhead; or, if one understands τ. μ. δ. as a predicate to ἸΗΣ. ΧΡ., Christ. If, now, it is assumed that δόξαι is an idea corresponding to ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗς, and to be taken along with it, then by it the good angels are to be understood. But it must not be overlooked that the clause ΔΌΞΑς ΔῈ ΒΛΑΣΦΗΜΟῦΣΙΝ is separated from the preceding clause by ΔΈ; and that Judges 1:9 leads to a different understanding of ΔΌΞΑΙ. When in Judges 1:9 it is said of the archangel Michael that he dared not ΚΡΊΣΙΝ ἘΠΕΝΕΓΚΕῖΝ ΒΛΑΣΦΗΜΊΑς against the devil, this βλασφημίας evidently refers back to ΒΛΑΣΦΗΜΟῦΣΙΝ, Judges 1:8, consequently the two ideas ΔΌΞΑς and ΔΙΆΒΟΛΟς are brought together, so that from this the preference must be given to the explanation which understands by ΔΌΞΑς the diabolical powers, or the evil angels. That not only δόξαι, but also ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗς, is a designation of evil powers, Schott incorrectly appeals to the fact that in 2 Peter 2:10, and also here, the unchaste, carnal life of the false teachers is connected with their despising or rejection of ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗς; for although it is presupposed that the recognition of the reverence for ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗς might restrain these men from the abuse of their fleshly nature, yet it does not follow from this that only evil spirits can be meant, since also the recognition of the reverence for the divine power restrains from the abuse of the corporeal senses which were created by God. To the identification of ΚΥΡΙΌΤΗς and ΔΌΞΑΙ—whether good or evil angels are to be understood—not only is the form of the expression opposed, Jude not uniting the two clauses by ΚΑΊ, but, as already remarked, separating them by ΔΈ,[27] but also the difference of the conduct of the Antinomians, whilst they despise (ἀθετοῦσιν; 2 Pet.: καταφρονοῦσιν) the κυριότης, but blaspheme the δόξαι. The clearer this separation and distinction are kept in view, the less reason is there against deriving the exact meaning of δόξαι from Judges 1:9 (2 Peter 2:10 from Judges 1:11), and consequently against understanding by it evil angels (comp. Hofmann); only it must not be affirmed that Jude has used the expression δόξαι as a name for the evil angels as such, but only that, whilst so naming angels generally, he here means the evil angels, as is evident from Judges 1:9. That these may be understood by this designation cannot be denied, especially, as Wiesinger points out, as Paul in Ephesians 6:12 names them αἱ ἀρχαί, αἱ ἐξουσίαι, οἱ κοσμοκράτορες, and says of them that they are ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις.

ἀθετοῦσιν … βλασφημοῦσιν] The first expression is negative, the second positive; the Antinomians manifested the despising of κυριότης by the carnal licentiousness of their lives, whilst they fancied themselves exempt by χάρις (Judges 1:4) from the duty of obedience to the will of God (or Christ) as the κύριος requiring a holy life; but their blasphemy of the δόξαι consisted in this, that on the reproach of having in their immorality fallen under diabolical powers, they mocked at them as entirely impotent beings.

[25] “Those here spoken of are wakeful dreamers, so that they, when they should perceive with their wakeful senses, have only dreams, and what they dream they esteem as the perception of the wakeful spirit.”

[26] Oecumenius, however, wavers, thinking that by κυριότης may also be understood ἡ τοῦ κατὰ Χριστὸν μυστηρίου τελετή, and by δόξαι also ἡ παλαία διαθήκη καὶ ἡ νέα; on 2 Peter 2:10 he observes: δόξας, ἤτοι τὰς θείας φησὶ δυνάμεις, ἢ καὶ τὰς ἐκκλησιαστικὰς ἀρχάς.

[27] Also in 2 Peter 2:10, δόξας οὐ τρέμουσιν βλασφημοῦντες is separated from κυριότητος καταφρονοῦντας by the intervening τολμηταὶ αὐθάδεις.

REMARK.

According to Ritschl’s opinion, the actions which Jude here asserts of the Antinomians represent directly only the guilt of their forerunners (namely, the Israelites, Judges 1:5; the angels, Judges 1:6; and the Sodomites, Judges 1:7), and his expressions can therefore only be understood in an indirect and metaphorical sense. To this conclusion Ritschl arrives (1) by explaining the second clause of Judges 1:10, that the Antinomians understood relations to be understood spiritually φυσικῶς ὡς τὰ ἄλογα ζῶα, i.e. that they considered the blessings promised in the kingdom of heaven as the blessings of sensual enjoyment; (2) by so understanding the relation of Judges 1:8 to the preceding, that δόξας βλασφ. is to be referred back to Judges 1:7, κυριότ. ἀθετ. to Judges 1:6, and σαρκὰ μιαίν. to Judges 1:5. According to his view, Jude finds the guilt of the Sodomites (Judges 1:7) to consist in this, that by the design of practising their lust on the angels, they blasphemed them; the guilt of the angels (Judges 1:6) in this, that they undervalued their own dominion; and the guilt of the Israelites (Judges 1:5) in this, that they had criminal intercourse with the impure daughters of Moab. Over against this, the guilt of the Antinomians consisted in this—(1) that they regarded immorality as a privilege of the kingdom of God, which they have in common with the angels; (2) that by referring their immoral practice to the kingdom of God, they showed a depreciation of the dominion which belongs to Christ, or to which they themselves are called; and (3) that by their ἀσέλγεια they were guilty of the defilement of those connected with them in the Christian church. But both the explanation of the second clause of Judges 1:10, where there is no mention of the blessings of the kingdom of heaven, and the statement of the relation of Judges 1:8 to what goes before, is incorrect, since in Judges 1:7 the Sodomites and the other cities are reproached, not with an evil intention, but with an actual doing; in Judges 1:6 the not preserving their ἀρχή and the forsaking of their οἰκητήριον are indeed reckoned as a crime to the angels, but specially on this account, because they did it—as τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις, Judges 1:7, shows—for the sake of ἐκπορνεύειν; and lastly, in Judges 1:5 the criminal intercourse with the daughters of Moab is not indicated as the reason of their ἀπώλεια, but their unbelief (μὴ πιστεύοντας). For these reasons Wiesinger has correctly rejected the explanation of Ritschl as mistaken.

The view of Steinfass, expressed on 2 Peter 2:10, that the blasphemy of the δόξαι by the Antinomians consisted in their wishing to constrain the angels by charms to love-intrigues, is, apart from all other considerations, contradicted by the fact that neither in 2 Peter nor in Jude is there any reference to charms and love-intrigues with the angels.